Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Nick Terry]

I would expect *some* stories about the persecution of the Jews just as I would expect *some* stories about the persecution of the Poles, the Russian POWs, and every other group that was persecuted by the Nazis during the holocaust. How much press did all the other persecuted minorities receive during the war? (Because the holocaust isn't just about the Jews.)

Since the Inter-Allied Information Committee put out 7 pamphlets describing conditions in the occupied territories in general but only 1 pamphlet regarding the "persecution" of the Jews (actually published at a time when most observers were now speaking of extermination), then I'd say that it's quite possible the proportion could have been 7:1, which given the eventual death tolls is a significant underrepresentation of the Holocaust in the wartime press.

Conditions in Occupied Territories
A Series of Statements prepared by representatives of the Allied Governments in London. Nos. 1 to 7 were issued by the Inter-Allied Information Committee, No. 8 by its successor, the United Nations Information Organisation.
1. The Axis System of Hostages. (March 19, 1942).
2. Rationing under Axis Rule. (May 4, 1942).
3. Religious Persecution. (August 12, 1942).
4. Axis Opression of Education. (October 1, 1942).
5. The Penetration of German Capital into Europe. (October 12, 1942) Price 3d. (4d).
6. Persecution of the Jews. (December 18, 1942) Price ed. (4d).
7. Women under Axis Rule. (November 30, 1943) Price 3d. (4d).
8. Slave Labour and Deportation. (August 23, 1944) Price ed. (4d).

The NYT ran 323 stories about 'hostages' in 1942, but only about 118 mentioning the word 'extermination', and only 48 of those contained the additional word 'Jews'.

Pick pretty much any country in Nazi-occupied Europe that you like, and stories about reprisal executions significantly outnumber stories about the persecution or murder of Jews in the relevant country.

THis was, by and large, deliberate policy, and can be documented as such in the US and British cases. The US Office of War Information put out a lot of press releases and prepared a lot of material about Lidice. Propaganda, yes, but the Nazis had announced that one so they only have themselves to blame for shooting themselves in the foot in PR terms.

 

[Nick Terry]

Saggy expressed an assumption that the euthanasia program was documented with the usual German thoroughness and asked where the documents could be found. WalterEgo offered up this one document that he said was written on Hitler's personal stationary and was signed by Hitler himself which he called the "euthanasia decree" Not "a euthanasia decree." Not "one of the euthanasia decrees."He called it "the euthanasia decree."

Do you think WalterEgo was saying "I couldn't find any official laws or regulations related to the euthanasia program but I have here a copy of the unofficial euthanasia decree that Hitler wrote on his personal stationary and signed that will suffice"?

Do we not have any "official" documents related to the euthanasia program?

Did it occur to you to look up a single book on the subject? Or even to google the Wikipedia page and look at websites?

There's a nasty strawman emerging here about what constitutes official documentation. The euthanasia program was not carried out using properly promulgated official legislation published in the Reichsgesetzblatt. It was carried out under the auspices of a Fuehrer order, which was unpublished. Most Hitler orders during WWII were, for what ought to be really obvious frakking reasons, unpublished and not included in the Reichsgesetzblatt.

Once ordered, then the euthanasia program certainly did generate a volume of documentation, produced either by the central organisers or local authorities, as well as some materials surviving from the killing centres themselves. Some of the documents were included at the main Nuremberg trial and at the successor Doctors' Trial, some was found later on in the normal process of historical research. This documentation unsurprisingly forms one of the major source bases for all the books written on the euthanasia program.

After the collapse of the GDR, researchers then found the medical files of 10s of 1000s of T4 victims, buried away in East Germany. The collection is not complete (these things rarely are), but the total volume of documentation is quite enough to keep a good couple of dozen German historians busy writing local, regional and other studies of the program.

Oh, and btw there are actually a number of contemporary Nazi documents which explicitly link gassing to the euthanasia program. So that's denial frakked yet again.

 

[MG1962]

So, it is perfectly natural that you do not want to discuss the ACTUAL TESTIMONY of degenerates like Elie Weisel and Yankel Weirnik, but you can't dissuade me from repeating it VERBATIM by calling me names, or even by offering sincere 'advice', LOL.

I have tried to have this discussion with you for three days - All I get is vitriol and nothing discussing the facts you can show as being errors

 

[Wroclaw]

OK, do you believe that any part of this story is true?

Yes, there are parts that are true.

That there were flaming pits filled with bodies is probably something you believe is true.

Indeed, I do, although only for limited periods of time in '44 when the capacity of the Krema system was overloaded by the Hungarian transports.

Do you believe there was a flaming pit that contained only babies? Do you believe that a lorry brought loads of babies into Auschwitz? Do you believe the lorry dumped the babies directly into the flaming pits?

No, no, and maybe. I do not believe they would burn infants or babies alone, nor do I believe that trucks would have brought "shipments" simply of babies. However, I certainly believe that trucks brought bodies and that, at times, these bodies dumped bodies into burning pits.

Which part of Elie Wiesel's story to do you believe is true and which part is false?

I think I just answered that question. However, my question remains unanswered, i.e., what does it matter? Wiesel is one guy whose memory may not be great or who may, in fact, be making stuff up. It makes no difference to me; it doesn't persuade me one way or the other that things are true or false.

Nor, even more so, does it persuade me that the whole Holocaust did or didn't happen. And it's that variety of denial that I most object to, i.e., someone said ridiculous things, so it must be all lies.

 

[Wroclaw]

I have tried to have this discussion with you for three days - All I get is vitriol and nothing discussing the facts you can show as being errors

What about Wiernik's testimony is, in the main, so outlandish?

 

[Wroclaw]

Frankly, I think debating the issue of T4 with someone who has not at least read Lifton is a freaking waste of time. Lifton's work is available for free online, and I already provided a link, as did Lemmy. Ergo, read it, you idiots, and then get back to us.

 

[Nick Terry]

no research is needed to know that the holohoax is a collection of degenerate lies

And there you have it. Saggy admits that his denial of the Holocaust is purely a matter of faith.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Do you think WalterEgo was saying "I couldn't find any official laws or regulations related to the euthanasia program but I have here a copy of the unofficial euthanasia decree that Hitler wrote on his personal stationary and signed that will suffice"?

Do we not have any "official" documents related to the euthanasia program?

Jesus. What I think is that Saggy stupidly lamented the lack of any documents on T4, Walter Ego produced a not-so-random document (the cover note from Hitler for the program), Little Grey Rabbit chimed in mechanically implying that the document is problematic because it was not in the form he expects an official law or regulation to be, I replied about and Nick expounded on the nature of Hitler's postdated cover document, and finally SpitfireIX recalled very aptly the abandonment of black letter by the National Socialists. Through it all you made a number of dim statements. Now, what Nick wrote--that if Saggy wants to see copious documentation--all he needs to do is crack open something on the postwar trials or a scholarly work--like Ulf Schmidt's book on Brandt, Henry Friedlander's on the euthanasia, or Michael Burleigh's account of the euthanasia program.

Try again.

 

[Nick Terry]

Nor, even more so, does it persuade me that the whole Holocaust did or didn't happen. And it's that variety of denial that I most object to, i.e., someone said ridiculous things, so it must be all lies.

This.

Dogzilla and Saggy will no doubt be shocked to hear that I have never read Elie Wiesel's Night. I have, however, read more than 100 other published memoirs of Auschwitz and more than 2,000 unpublished testimonies, the latter mostly from 1945-46 immediately after the war.

Wiesel never appeared in any of the court proceedings relating to Auschwitz, either at Frankfurt or in the 1940s. The world clearly accepted Auschwitz as a fact long before Wiesel published his novelistic memoir in 1958 and long before it became a bestseller (some time in the 1970s).

There isn't a single rational argument that can be advanced for staking the truth or falsity of the entire Holocaust, or even just Auschwitz (which is relevant for less than 20% of the genocide of the Jews) on whether one believes or disbelieves Elie Wiesel.

 

[Saggy]

What about Wiernik's testimony is, in the main, so outlandish?

Why don't you read it, Shylock, it's only five 2-inch volumes of very small print. Then maybe you'll be qualified to ask a question or two, and maybe I'll condescend to comment.

Well, that was my best impression of Nick Terry.

But, that ain't my style. Just like his usual name calling, which he has admirably restrained in this thread, that also ain't my style.

Instead, a straightforward question gets a straightforward answer. That is, since you asked a perfectly good question I will assume that you want a matter of fact answer. So...

Wiernik's book 'A Year in Treblinka' is on one hand one contains key testimony documenting the holohoax, and at the same time is obvious degenerate phantasmagoria of the vilest sort. Fortunately all you have to do is read it to see what I mean, so I'll supply a few quotes ...

pg. 14
"One of them, Ivan, was tall, had and gentle eyes, but was, nevertheless, a sadist. He often attacked us while we worked and nailed our ears to the wall."

Ouch ! The Jews actually put John Demjanuk on trial for being this fantasy character, and convicted him with positive identification from five 'eyewitnesses'. It's like being convicted of being Yosemite Sam, except it was for real and he was sentenced to be hanged.

pg 16
"We worked under the supervision of a Hauptman... He whipped us and yelled at us. When I looked at him questioningly, he stopped beating me for a moment and said "If you weren't the carpenter you'd be killed". I looked around and saw that almost all the workers were sharing my fate. A pack of dogs, as well as Germans and Ukrainians, were attacking us. Almost a fourth of the workers were killed and the rest of us heaved the corpses into the graves without any further ado."

That's some discipline !

pg 17
"I learned to look at each live person as a prospective corpse in the nearest future. I appraised him with my eyes and thought of his weight. Who was going to carry him to his grave."

One can imagine his chagrin at seeing a fat Jew !

pg 17
"Would you believe that a human being, living under such conditions, could at times smile and jest? One can get used to anything."

That is if you were lucky enough to survive the day.

OK, you should be getting the idea. The book is hard to find, I checked it out of a university library.

Just a few more ....

pg21
"The number of transports grew daily, and there were times when as many as 20,000 people were gassed in in one day."

Gassed and buried, with a staff of about 20 Nazis and 100 Ukrainians ! Talk about a hard day's work !

pg. 19
"A German named Zopf was a vile a savage beast, who took special delight in abusing children. When he pushed women around and they begged him to desist because of the children, he frequently snatched a child out of a woman's arms and tore it in half."

Those Germans were as mean as they could be.

pg 29
"The Germans stood around with satanic smiles on their faces, radiating satisfaction over their foul deeds. They drank toasts with choice liquors, ate, caroused, and enjoyed themselves around the warm fire. Thus, even after death the Jew was of some use ... the heat came from the burning bodies of Jews. The German fiends stood warming themselves, drinking, eating and singing."

But they knew how to party !

OK, 3 more and I'm outta here ....

pg 32
"Time and time again children were dragged out of their mother's arms and tossed into the flames alive, while their tormentors laughed."

The Nazis laughed at the weirdest things !

pg 32
"About that time I caught a cold and fell ill with pneumonia... Accordingly they gave me what medical care and attention was feasible. A Jewish physician attended me, examined me every day, administered medications, and consoled me. My German superior, Lefler, brought me food: white bread, butter, cream."

This should have been edited out, I think.


pg 34
"However 'freedom or death' was our motto. In the meantime I completed the construction of the blockhouse. To celebrate the occasion, the 'Hauptsturmfuehrer' treated us to rum and sausage."

My favorite ! Freedom or death ...... or rum and sausage !

 

[LemmyCaution]

Butz referred to the Hitler decree, which I noted in my first post on the subject. What I was thinking about were the routine records at the hospital, like the Auschwitz death records, the names/dates/etc., not 'decrees'.

I suggest that this one make the effort, if he wants to blather on about this topic, of picking up Friedlander's book and at least acquainting himself with the contents and sourcing for his chapters on the killing centers, the victims, and the personnel involved in the murders.

 

[Saggy]

This.

Dogzilla and Saggy will no doubt be shocked to hear that I have never read Elie Wiesel's Night.

I'm not even surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if you told me you flew around your room, literally, at night and out the window to hunt for moths ! Your psychology is a complete mystery to me.

 

[MG1962]

pg. 14
"One of them, Ivan, was tall, had and gentle eyes, but was, nevertheless, a sadist. He often attacked us while we worked and nailed our ears to the wall."

Ouch ! The Jews actually put John Demjanuk on trial for being this fantasy character, and convicted him with positive identification from five 'eyewitnesses'. It's like being convicted of being Yosemite Sam, except it was for real and he was sentenced to be hanged.!

Strange you dont mention that the ruling was overturned by a Jewish court and Demjanuk is still alive today

 

[LemmyCaution]

The post of Saggy's consists of quotations from a not-that-hard-to-find book and blurts of his incredulity and little droppings of sarcasm meaningful to only those sharing his incredulity. He is almost careful not to offer any argument about why he considers the quoted material false, let alone a proof of its falsehood.

And this gem shows only that Saggy doesn't even know, or is playing stupid about, the basic account of how Jews were "welcomed," processed in, gassed, killed, and disposed of at Treblinka:

pg21
"The number of transports grew daily, and there were times when as many as 20,000 people were gassed in in one day."

Gassed and buried, with a staff of about 20 Nazis and 100 Ukrainians ! Talk about a hard day's work !

 

[LemmyCaution]

I'm not even surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if you told me you flew around your room, literally, at night and out the window to hunt for moths ! Your psychology is a complete mystery to me.

As is Nick Terry's point about how history is done. Hint: It is not done by fixating on random points, an individual or two or three, a handful of exaggerations or mistakes or even falsehoods. Has this one read anything on the Holocaust and National Socialist crimes other than what he can find online at denier Websites? It doesn't appear he has.

 

[Nick Terry]

I'm not even surprised. I wouldn't be surprised if you told me you flew around your room, literally, at night and out the window to hunt for moths ! Your psychology is a complete mystery to me.

My psychology ought to be very simple to grasp. It is the same underlying psychology as drives anyone who is interested in learning about something.

Once someone has learned something and put in a bit of effort, it is thereafter no longer possible for them to pretend that they haven't or to pretend that you can get by with a sample of one.

In this particular case, I have read as I said more than 100 Auschwitz memoirs, plus countless unpublished testimonies. Leaving aside the unpublished testimonies for the sake of argument, there is a very clear 100:1 ratio here. On the one hand, Wiesel. On the other hand, 100 other memoirists.

I'll admit that reading 100 Auschwitz memoirs puts me way ahead of pretty much everyone on the planet. It certainly puts me ahead of every single revisionist, ever.

So this means that not only is your ranting about Wiesel meaningless because I haven't even read Wiesel, it's also meaningless because you haven't said anything at all about the 100 memoirs I have read.

But worst of all for you, saying that all 100 memoirists are liars is a lot more implausible than saying one memoirist is a liar. Especially when you haven't read 100 Auschwitz memoirs. To say they're all liars, you need to have read them, otherwise you're making up stuff about things you haven't read. That's the trap you're in.

Incidentally, there are probably over 1,000 published Auschwitz memoirs and easily more than 10,000 unpublished testimonies.

Simple scholarly procedures would demand that whatever generalisation is made about such sources, that the generalisation be made on the basis of a representative sample. And the bigger the sample, the more reliable the generalisation. This is absolutely indisputable, it's how every branch of knowledge works.

You, however, waltz along and fixate on just one example out of more than 10,000, and think that's enough. Unfortunately, it's patently not enough.

Pretty much everyone other than you and Dogzilla see this problem straight away, as the principles, and the psychology, are instinctively obvious to sane people. And that's why everyone laughs at you.

Sad, really.

 

[LemmyCaution]

My psychology ought to be very simple to grasp. It is the same underlying psychology as drives anyone who is interested in learning about something.

Once someone has learned something and put in a bit of effort, it is thereafter no longer possible for them to pretend that they haven't or to pretend that you can get by with a sample of one.

In this particular case, I have read as I said more than 100 Auschwitz memoirs, plus countless unpublished testimonies. Leaving aside the unpublished testimonies for the sake of argument, there is a very clear 100:1 ratio here. On the one hand, Wiesel. On the other hand, 100 other memoirists.

I'll admit that reading 100 Auschwitz memoirs puts me way ahead of pretty much everyone on the planet. It certainly puts me ahead of every single revisionist, ever.

So this means that not only is your ranting about Wiesel meaningless because I haven't even read Wiesel, it's also meaningless because you haven't said anything at all about the 100 memoirs I have read.

But worst of all for you, saying that all 100 memoirists are liars is a lot more implausible than saying one memoirist is a liar. Especially when you haven't read 100 Auschwitz memoirs. To say they're all liars, you need to have read them, otherwise you're making up stuff about things you haven't read. That's the trap you're in.

Incidentally, there are probably over 1,000 published Auschwitz memoirs and easily more than 10,000 unpublished testimonies.

Simple scholarly procedures would demand that whatever generalisation is made about such sources, that the generalisation be made on the basis of a representative sample. And the bigger the sample, the more reliable the generalisation. This is absolutely indisputable, it's how every branch of knowledge works.

You, however, waltz along and fixate on just one example out of more than 10,000, and think that's enough. Unfortunately, it's patently not enough.

Pretty much everyone other than you and Dogzilla see this problem straight away, as the principles, and the psychology, are instinctively obvious to sane people. And that's why everyone laughs at you.

Sad, really.

The mysterious psychology is that of an individual who offers opinions and snide commentary on events which even he admits he hasn't studied and for which he says research isn't necessary, as though his prejudices and a few Internet nutters echoing them constitute a case to be taken seriously. Why, if this one wants to offer thoughts on T4, for example, doesn't he spend his time first studying T4? And, if Birkenau interests him, there are the 1000 memoirs which Nick Terry mentioned--or even larger numbers of studies, essays, papers. Wiernik is just one source for Treblinka, despite what this one has said about Hilberg, to take another example. And so on. It is a mysterious psychology which denies and revises something with which the revisionist betrays not even passing familiarity. The kind of "familiarity" which imagines that someone thinks that the camp guards at Treblinka themselves did the unloading of victims, processing of their belongings, clearing of their bodies from the gas chambers, and finally disposal of the corpses. And yet, ignorant as he is, he is certainly full of opinion and sarcasm and vitriol. Based on little enough to count as nothing. Which is a very strange and not at all appealing psychology.

 

[Wroclaw]

Can I assume from the briefly posted bits that Saggy posted from Wiernik?

 

[Dogzilla]

Thank you, Lemmy. I never presented the document as a official law or regulation signed by LGR's hero. I said it was a backdated memo signed by Hitler giving an authorization for the "euthanasia" program.

You said it was the euthanasia decree.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Holocaust requires pro-god arguments

How many have noticed folks cannot establish their holocaustic beliefs are factual without resorting to the same kinds of arguments used by god believers to promote their beliefs?

How many have noticed they favor criminalizing disbelief, their own form of Inquisition?

How many have noticed they do not understand that common words like martyr by definition require it be voluntary?

How many have noticed there is no definitive work on what is and is not part of their holocaust beliefs? But rather that anyone can say any ridiculous thing and their fellow believers can't notice the nonsense or that different beliefs are mutually exclusive?