Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

Asked for new material, Clayton Moore decides to post smelly fish with a deceptive label: http://www.debatingtheholocaust.com/chapter_1
-or to give credit where it is due - identified in 2009 as:
Old Herrings in a New Can: Thomas Dalton’s Debating the Holocaust (1).

And he wonders why Nick Terry, someone who's undoubtedly written many times more words rubbishing crap like this than Clayton Moore has even read about the topic, might not respond to such recyclings. LOL. Clayton is not big on evidence or argument. He has learned to Google and copy/paste, however. Good for him.

What arrogance and self-delusion we have on parade here . . . even bunny is cringing. LOL.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
In other words, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

It is perfectly obvious that if you cannot even name the 5 figure massacres then you do not know whether there were any excavations or not.

Wow. You certainly made yourself scarce whilst your cornered mates were twisting helpless in the wind.

Will I see you at the wedding on TV?

Instead of flitting around congratulating yourself, why don't you discuss the whereabouts of Europe's Jews, as Bluespaceoddity asked.

 

[TSR]

...which to my opinion IS the gun the man has in his hands.

.
... and your opinion is informed by what expertise, exactly?

All you have offered is one long argument from incredulity.

No, strike that, one *way too long* argument from incredulity.

Got anything more than your say so that any "fraud" exists in the normative understanding of the Holocaust?
.

 

[VonKleist]

Next is: Jews captured and forcibly pulled out from dugouts by the Germans ....... Take the high resolution, look at the man with the gun. Although in the beginning of the some Germans had "Schmeisser MP 18/1" submachine guns, which were everything but common, but looked similar to the gun of the man, in 1944 the standard of the Germans was the "P 38" or "P 40", which looks completely different. The Schmeisser MP 18/1 came out in 1917 and was a weapon of WWI, which was produced in 10.000 pieces at the start of WW II. British parachute toops in 1944 had the "STEN Mark II", which to my opinion IS the gun the man has in his hands.

So, do you think the firearm in this picture is a Sten then? Sure looks like a Bergmann to me.

 

[Wroclaw]

That's my fav response so far. Less than a 1000 Jewish men were Jewish police and Judenräten in ghettos, kapos in camps, and SKs manning gas chambers.

SKs manning gas chambers where, Holocaust scholars demand under penalty of LAW in much of Europe, 3 million Jewish people were killed.

Just how much power do you think is required to kill unarmed people? How many Europeans were sent to conquer Africa in the 19th century? Subdue a whole continent?

Oh, I'm sorry: You don't like to answer questions. Still haven't answered the Rwanda question.

You're a poor specimen.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The Latest Book Lie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Avey

'Denis Avey (born 1919) fought in the desert during the Second World War and was captured and held as a prisoner of war for two years near Auschwitz III, a concentration camp. During his imprisonment, he says that he exchanged uniforms with a Jewish prisoner and smuggled himself into Auschwitz to witness conditions first hand. In 2010 he received a British Hero of the Holocaust award, and he has written of his accounts, with Rob Broomby, in his book, The Man who Broke into Auschwitz, published in 2011.

 

[MaxMurx]

Killing one person is murder and deserves hard punishment. The standard perpetrator will not agree to be responsible unless somebody proves it. "Denial" is therefore very common in our civilisation and a basic rigt of the defendant. Unfortunately torture occured in connection with the Nuremberg trials rendering confessions useless. Although the McCarthy commission reported no extreme physical torture except mock trials, bogus executions, broken jaws and 90% of the defendants with irreversibly destroyed testicles. The problem about torture: It is known that every individual has a certain limit of pain which can be inflicted on him/her. Torture on the other hand can administer nearly unlimited levels of pain, the threshold at which the victim's endurance is at end can be reached in nearly anyone. Soldiers, spys and members of resistance groups therefore are adviced to cooperate and not to play a game they cannot win. One report is from Francis G. Powers, the U2 pilot who was shot down on a high altitude mission above Russian territory in 1960. Being threatened with torture by the KGB he kept to his guidelines and confessed to be a spy and many absurdities. That confession under the threat of torture is worthless as if it would be obtained under torture itself. All expertises about the Abu Ghraib incident and certain Guantanamo complaints conclude that torture only increases the pool of bogus confessions. The torture reference of Nuremberg is the SS Judge Konrad Morgen who had put on trial and later executed the Buchenwald commander Koch (the husband of Ilse Koch, alleged collector of human lampshades), also executed by the SS were 2 more camp commanders (cruelty towards prisoners, one concentration camp commander executed on charges of murdering one (!) prisoner) and against 6 others the SS court martials were scheduled (out of 12 KZ commanders 9 were on trial for different charges). In parallel Morgen had initiated 800 more investigations against members of concentration camp staff. Morgen also had reached a death sentence against Amon Goeth, the camp commander known from the "Schindler's list" movie. The verdict later was altered into "serving at the eastern front", where Goeth was shot. One more person having been shot by SS firing squads on initiative of Konrad Morgen was Sigmund Rascher, the notorious Dachau physician who conducted the high altitude and low temperature experiments). Morgen was imprisoned in Dachau by the US Army and tortured to confirm that Ilse Koch, the wife of the Buchenwald commander had collected tatoos and lampshades from human skin. That charge had been investigated by the SS in 1943 during the 6 month investigation against her husband and had come out to be rumour. Morgen was the only one refusing to confess against own better knowledge, even under threat of torture. One question about Nuremberg and the validity of confessions: If the evidence is so crushing, why does a court or an attorney risk all professional reputation torturing defendants into confessions. Why didn't they simply collect and present the evidence?

I've moved posts (again) to this thread from an old thread that you bumped yesterday and then again tonight. Please read the info-box in the opening post of this thread and use this thread for Holocaust denial discussion rather than bumping old threads.

Posted By: LashL

 

[aggle-rithm]

Killing one person is murder and deserves hard punishment. The standard perpetrator will not agree to be responsible unless somebody proves it. "Denial" is therefore very common in our civilisation and a basic rigt of the defendant. Unfortunately torture occured in connection with the Nuremberg trials rendering confessions useless. Although the McCarthy commission reported no extreme physical torture except mock trials, bogus executions, broken jaws and 90% of the defendants with irreversibly destroyed testicles. The problem about torture: It is known that every individual has a certain limit of pain which can be inflicted on him/her. Torture on the other hand can administer nearly unlimited levels of pain, the threshold at which the victim's endurance is at end can be reached in nearly anyone. Soldiers, spys and members of resistance groups therefore are adviced to cooperate and not to play a game they cannot win. One report is from Francis G. Powers, the U2 pilot who was shot down on a high altitude mission above Russian territory in 1960. Being threatened with torture by the KGB he kept to his guidelines and confessed to be a spy and many absurdities. That confession under the threat of torture is worthless as if it would be obtained under torture itself. All expertises about the Abu Ghraib incident and certain Guantanamo complaints conclude that torture only increases the pool of bogus confessions. The torture reference of Nuremberg is the SS Judge Konrad Morgen who had put on trial and later executed the Buchenwald commander Koch (the husband of Ilse Koch, alleged collector of human lampshades), also executed by the SS were 2 more camp commanders (cruelty towards prisoners, one concentration camp commander executed on charges of murdering one (!) prisoner) and against 6 others the SS court martials were scheduled (out of 12 KZ commanders 9 were on trial for different charges). In parallel Morgen had initiated 800 more investigations against members of concentration camp staff. Morgen also had reached a death sentence against Amon Goeth, the camp commander known from the "Schindler's list" movie. The verdict later was altered into "serving at the eastern front", where Goeth was shot. One more person having been shot by SS firing squads on initiative of Konrad Morgen was Sigmund Rascher, the notorious Dachau physician who conducted the high altitude and low temperature experiments). Morgen was imprisoned in Dachau by the US Army and tortured to confirm that Ilse Koch, the wife of the Buchenwald commander had collected tatoos and lampshades from human skin. That charge had been investigated by the SS in 1943 during the 6 month investigation against her husband and had come out to be rumour. Morgen was the only one refusing to confess against own better knowledge, even under threat of torture. One question about Nuremberg and the validity of confessions: If the evidence is so crushing, why does a court or an attorney risk all professional reputation torturing defendants into confessions. Why didn't they simply collect and present the evidence?

So you claim that confessions at Nuremburg were obtained through torture, and to support this claim you cite McCarthy, the U2 incident, Abu Graihb, Gitmo, and Schindler's List.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Killing one person is murder and deserves hard punishment. The standard perpetrator will not agree to be responsible unless somebody proves it. "Denial" is therefore very common in our civilisation and a basic rigt of the defendant. Unfortunately torture occured in connection with the Nuremberg trials rendering confessions useless. Although the McCarthy commission reported no extreme physical torture except mock trials, bogus executions, broken jaws and 90% of the defendants with irreversibly destroyed testicles. The problem about torture: It is known that every individual has a certain limit of pain which can be inflicted on him/her. Torture on the other hand can administer nearly unlimited levels of pain, the threshold at which the victim's endurance is at end can be reached in nearly anyone. Soldiers, spys and members of resistance groups therefore are adviced to cooperate and not to play a game they cannot win. One report is from Francis G. Powers, the U2 pilot who was shot down on a high altitude mission above Russian territory in 1960. Being threatened with torture by the KGB he kept to his guidelines and confessed to be a spy and many absurdities. That confession under the threat of torture is worthless as if it would be obtained under torture itself. All expertises about the Abu Ghraib incident and certain Guantanamo complaints conclude that torture only increases the pool of bogus confessions. The torture reference of Nuremberg is the SS Judge Konrad Morgen who had put on trial and later executed the Buchenwald commander Koch (the husband of Ilse Koch, alleged collector of human lampshades), also executed by the SS were 2 more camp commanders (cruelty towards prisoners, one concentration camp commander executed on charges of murdering one (!) prisoner) and against 6 others the SS court martials were scheduled (out of 12 KZ commanders 9 were on trial for different charges). In parallel Morgen had initiated 800 more investigations against members of concentration camp staff. Morgen also had reached a death sentence against Amon Goeth, the camp commander known from the "Schindler's list" movie. The verdict later was altered into "serving at the eastern front", where Goeth was shot. One more person having been shot by SS firing squads on initiative of Konrad Morgen was Sigmund Rascher, the notorious Dachau physician who conducted the high altitude and low temperature experiments). Morgen was imprisoned in Dachau by the US Army and tortured to confirm that Ilse Koch, the wife of the Buchenwald commander had collected tatoos and lampshades from human skin. That charge had been investigated by the SS in 1943 during the 6 month investigation against her husband and had come out to be rumour. Morgen was the only one refusing to confess against own better knowledge, even under threat of torture. One question about Nuremberg and the validity of confessions: If the evidence is so crushing, why does a court or an attorney risk all professional reputation torturing defendants into confessions. Why didn't they simply collect and present the evidence?

This is an astonishingly vapid post. As aggle-rithm explains, you wander very far afield before settling on one witness, Konrad Morgen. For starters, since you seem to wave away Nuremberg as a whole on account of confessions by way of torture, let's focus on a trial instead of a single individual, say, the Einsatzgruppen Trial, NMT trial 9 and all its defendants, their treatment, the evidence against them, the place of confessions in the proceedings, the documentary evidence. Now, thinking about that trial, its witnesses, who were almost exclusively the defendants, and the gamut of the evidence, please describe extent of torture, the nature of the torture, and its role in shaping the final record of those proceedings as well as in the convictions of the defendants. And then connect the confessions of defendants extracted by torture to the historical research that has been done since, explaining the role of forced confessions of EG defendants in the scholarship on the open-air shootings in the East as compared to, say, official documents, field and other reports, unforced confessions, eyewitness testimonies, etc.

 

[beachnut]

The rest:

Define "Holocaust-Denier". ...

Taking people and starving them, forcing them into conditions of disease, and killing them; it is all murder.

 

[Dogzilla]

No labor was needed on any regular basis for burning pits, but thanks for demonstrating your low reading comprehension.

You need to dig a pit. You need to fill the pit with fuel and dead bodies. You need to bring more fuel to keep the fire burning until the bodies are consumed. (no, bodies do not burn on their own). You need to stoke the fire and the burning bodies. You need to bring more bodies to put on the fire as the earlier bodies are consumed. Eventually you need to clean out the pit and start over or cover up the pit and dig a new one. How do burning pits work on your planet so as to not require any regular labor force?

The people being shot. This happens so often around the world and through recent history, i.e., mass shooting victims being made to dig their own graves, that it is practically common knowledge.

This is the way it's always done in the movies or on TV. In real life, forcing your victim to dig his own grave is going to be far too time consuming to be practical.

 

[Dogzilla]

If what you say were true, where did they go?

The went to the same place the three million martyred souls went when the Auschwitz museum lowered the death toll from four million to one million.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

One Dozen, a monkey's cousin

(12)

 

[Clayton Moore]

This is an astonishingly vapid post. As aggle-rithm explains, you wander very far afield before settling on one witness, Konrad Morgen. For starters, since you seem to wave away Nuremberg as a whole on account of confessions by way of torture, let's focus on a trial instead of a single individual, say, the Einsatzgruppen Trial, NMT trial 9 and all its defendants, their treatment, the evidence against them, the place of confessions in the proceedings, the documentary evidence. Now, thinking about that trial, its witnesses, who were almost exclusively the defendants, and the gamut of the evidence, please describe extent of torture, the nature of the torture, and its role in shaping the final record of those proceedings as well as in the convictions of the defendants. And then connect the confessions of defendants extracted by torture to the historical research that has been done since, explaining the role of forced confessions of EG defendants in the scholarship on the open-air shootings in the East as compared to, say, official documents, field and other reports, unforced confessions, eyewitness testimonies, etc.

Talk about vapid. You take the cake.

Curious that these people assailed the Nuremberg Trials as fraud since the Allies have done or are doing some of the very things the Germans are being prosecuted for.
Did the US have gas chambers? Would esteemed judges ignore or not know of gas chambers in Poland?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Legitimacy

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "(Chief U.S. prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."[58]

Jackson, in a letter discussing the weaknesses of the trial, in October 1945 told U.S. President Harry S. Truman that the Allies themselves "have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it. We say aggressive war is a crime and one of our allies asserts sovereignty over the Baltic States based on no title except conquest."[59][60]

Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."[61]

U.S. Deputy Chief Counsel Abraham Pomerantz resigned in protest at the low caliber of the judges assigned to try the industrial war criminals such as those at I.G. Farben.[62]

The validity of the court has been questioned for a variety of reasons:

 

[TheRedWorm]

What does that have to do with nazi guilt?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Talk about vapid. You take the cake.

Curious that these people assailed the Nuremberg Trials as fraud since the Allies have done or are doing some of the very things the Germans are being prosecuted for.
Did the US have gas chambers? Would esteemed judges ignore or not know of gas chambers in Poland?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials#Legitimacy

Well, Clayton, you may have noticed that what I wrote to MM had two parts. First, I asked MM to explain the role of confessions extracted by torture across a group of defendants, those in NMT trial 9, and how these were used to convict the defendants in that trial. Second, I asked him to explain then the role of such confessions in the work produced by historians on the genocide in the East since the trials.

What I did not ask him to do was to, first, restate his opinion, without substantiation, on the fairness of the trials, or, second, copy/paste some recycled opinions of others about the conduct of the trials.

You, of course, unable to read, think, or provide support for your bletherings, hopped in and ignored the two questions I asked so you could recycle well-known and often-quoted views on the Nuremberg proceedings. Good for you, Clayton. But we are still left wondering what your lot thinks torture and confessions had to do with the convictions in the Einsatzgruppen trials, for example, and how historians later used such confessions obtained by torture in explaining the genocide.

Perhaps one of you clowns can begin by telling us which side, prosecution or defense, called the defendants to testify in NMT trial 9. And then you can explain what was the evidence which the prosecution used and relied on to present its case against the defendants in NMT trial 9.

 

[Nick Terry]

The went to the same place the three million martyred souls went when the Auschwitz museum lowered the death toll from four million to one million.

You wheeled this one out before, and were called on it before. It is a deeply illogical argument.

The 4 million figure was based on a calculation of cremation/killing capacity and not on any evidence of deportation. Thus the 3 million difference never existed. By contrast, the 3 million Jewish deportees most certainly did exist.

Thus your answer is a non-answer. Try again.

 

[Saggy]

You wheeled this one out before, and were called on it before. It is a deeply illogical argument.

The 4 million figure was based on a calculation of cremation/killing capacity and not on any evidence of deportation. Thus the 3 million difference never existed. By contrast, the 3 million Jewish deportees most certainly did exist.

Thus your answer is a non-answer. Try again.

The 4 million figure, like all the others, was not based on a calculation of cremation/killing capacity, it was pure fantasy, straight from the Jewish World Congress.

And, it was being used in the late 70s by Yehuda Bauer, the director of Yad Vashem, who quoted it in his preface to the holohoax classic "Three Years in a Gas Chambers, And All I Got Was this Lousy T Shirt" by Filip Meuller.

Note 1: Bauer changed his preface in the book, so later editions, from the late 80s on, use a lower number.

Note 2: Anyone who has the least bit of curiosity about the holohoax should get Meuler's book. It is degenerate phantasmagoria that is instantly recognizable. You don't need to study history to understand the hoax, you just need to read some of the source documents, like this book. The hoax is preposterous from the get go.

 

[Nick Terry]

The 4 million figure, like all the others, was not based on a calculation of cremation/killing capacity, it was pure fantasy, straight from the Jewish World Congress.

This is flatly wrong. The Soviet commission investigating Auschwitz proceeded on the basis of theoretical ceremation capacities which were massively overestimated. It arrived at a figure of 5 million, deducted 20% for downtime and repairs, and came up with 4 million. This then became the canonical figure in the East Bloc.

The WJC had absolutely nothing to do with the figure of 4 million, and you have no evidence to say otherwise. In fact, you're flat-out lying as usual.

 

[Nick Terry]

BTW Saggy, any luck finding out about those five-figure massacre sites? Are we going to see you tackle the evidence for them any time soon?