Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Clayton Moore]

Elie Wiesel is neither a scholar of the Holocaust nor a source for scholarship. Is Clayton Moore going to reply to my earlier request that he show where Wiesel has been used as a source for scholarly accounts of Birkenau, let alone a key source?

And Wikipedia is not a scholarly source either. In this case, however, Clayton Moore's basic powers of comprehension fail him: in a condensed summary of the SK, the Wikipedia article says that the "primary" task of the SK was corpse disposal, implying of course, to those who can read, that other tasks befell the members of the SK. I've given Clayton Moore a condensed statement from a person who has studied this question in detail, about which Clayton Moore remains silent favoring instead his misreading of Wikipedia so he can distort what recent scholarship maintains.

To be clear, I didn't ask Clayton Moore what popular glosses on the scholarship say: I asked him contend with the scholarship. Those who do this work, scholars of the Third Reich , the war, and the Holocaust, are not self proclaimed; they are trained historians, political scientists, etc. who work must succeed through peer review and academic discourse and give and take.

Throughout this thread, Clayton Moore refused to do anything with this body of work except handwave it away or ignore it. Perhaps the research on the Holocaust and major works derived from it is fatal to his case. No wonder he sticks to Wikipedia and Elie Wiesel, neither of which are germane to the case for the genocide.

As should be clear, the peril for deniers of this stance is that by taking it they ensure that no one takes them seriously.

Why would I care if people, who hold the liar Elie Wiesel as the Icon of the Holocaust, take me seriously.

On this thread alone I've read that ALL JEWS and OTHERS unable to work were separated before they were registered
and taken immediately to "Gas Chambers" and killed.

A lie. Will someone explain why that lie is repeated over and over and over, becoming the fabric that swaddles the Holocaust myth?

 

[Ignorantbystander]

Why would I care if people, who hold the liar Elie Wiesel as the Icon of the Holocaust, take me seriously.

On this thread alone I've read that ALL JEWS and OTHERS unable to work were separated before they were registered
and taken immediately to "Gas Chambers" and killed.

A lie. Will someone explain why that lie is repeated over and over and over, becoming the fabric that swaddles the Holocaust myth?

Maybe you should take a break from googling on the holocaust and try "autism"

 

[Wroclaw]

I'll stick with the 27 million jewish survivors in 1945.

I will also keep in mind the holocaustic position that children and even infants were not killed if they could not work.

Oh, goody. Matt Giwer's back to say interesting things, refuse to back them up with sources, tell us we're all too stupid to understand his complex argumentation, and then disappear when proved wrong.

What fun!

 

[Wroclaw]

The Germans never denied the existence of V/2 rockets and their usage.
That´s all the evidence you can expect on this planet.

They also never denied the Holocaust. Individual people denied knowledge of it, but no one denied that it had happened.

 

[dafydd]

Oh, goody. Matt Giwer's back to say interesting things, refuse to back them up with sources, tell us we're all too stupid to understand his complex argumentation, and then disappear when proved wrong.

What fun!

One does find his misplaced confidence in his own intelligence most amusing.

 

[kageki]

They also never denied the Holocaust. Individual people denied knowledge of it, but no one denied that it had happened.

Well Nick Terry said even if a Nazi denied it that it would basically be a lie so you can't seem to win either way.

I mean you can't believe a "Nazi" like Thies Christophersen right?

 

[Wroclaw]

Well Nick Terry said even if a Nazi denied it that it would basically be a lie so you can't seem to win either way.

I mean you can't believe a "Nazi" like Thies Christophersen right?

There's simply nothing about Christophersen's background that would have given him the ability to know what went on at Birkenau. He was not stationed there, and although he was in the SS, there's also no reason to believe that soldiers or members of the SS outside of those working on the Final Solution directly would have been told about it. It would have compromised secrecy too much.

 

[Ignorantbystander]

there's also no reason to believe that soldiers or members of the SS outside of those working on the Final Solution directly would have been told about it. It would have compromised secrecy too much.

I'm sorry but I disagree here. It would very much surprise me if any SS man, especially one that was stationed in the proximity of one of the main extermination centers wouldn't have known about what was going on there.

 

[Nick Terry]

Well Nick Terry said even if a Nazi denied it that it would basically be a lie so you can't seem to win either way.

Can you provide a link to where I said this? You guys are pretty good at quotemining and abysmal at reading in context...

 

[LemmyCaution]

Why would I care if people, who hold the liar Elie Wiesel as the Icon of the Holocaust, take me seriously.

Sadly enough, these are the sorts you will have to be able to convince or at least seed doubt among--& many of them, too, as your "side" is minuscule in number and in impact--in order for you to escape relegation to the "comic value" level.

That said, among scholars, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, I doubt you find many who hold Elie Wiesel to be icon for anything. Instead of repeating blanket condemnation that all these people are liars, you would be better served by showing us the lies in Hilberg, Greif, Langbein, Dwork/Van Pelt, or some other work offering more substance than Wikipedia or whatever your Google brings you to.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Indeed.

Bunny's drivel on Dziennik Polski ignores the fact that the facsimile in Walendy's screed is very clearly manipulated and the underlying original text is obscured deliberately by his hero. The Dziennik Polski article reports on a very well known press conference of the Polish government in exile which was widely reported elsewhere, with literally no other paper mentioning extermination at Treblinka. Nor do any of the historians who have examined the impact of the Bund report, which was the source that provided the information used in the press conference.

Ahhhh, I think I am beginning to understand why Dr Terry might believe it is a forgery......and why he is afraid to say why.

This is because there is a JTA report of this press conference that says "The suffocation of 26 000 Polish Jews took place in the two "Jewish" concentration camps which the Nazis have established at Belzec and Trawniki"

Obviously there was no gas chamber at Trawniki and Dr Terry does not want to draw attention to this fact - stuck between the rock of a false report of a gas chamber and the hard place of a mention of Treblinka too early?

I guess I have got to the point where I too want confirmation of the original. I could see a scenario where an English speaking correspondent misheard or mistranscribed (Treblinka being an absolute nowhere of a place). Whereas the Polish paper being closer to the Government Exile is more likely to be accurate.

What makes this scenario highly plausible is that Jewish circles were preparing reports of a death camp at Treblinka in late May and publishing articles on them in early June - so nothing would be less surprising than it to turn up a month later in London. Whereas I am aware of no other reports of Trawniki as a gassing location during the war.
Additionally the first detailed reports of Treblinka in late 1942 specified a commencement date of March 1942, which would fit this scenario.

In the end, should the polish newspaper be confirmed as mentioning Tremblinka, the only way to definitively settle what was said would be to investigate the records of the Government in Exile - to see what they were basing their claims of either Trawniki or Tremblinka on.

Unfortunately I believe the archives of the Government in Exile were first curated and catalogued by none other than Jan Karski and I have no doubt that he went through with a fine comb to remove anything vaguely incriminating. He certainly removed any reports that he made about the Jewish situation in Poland during the war, as none can be found in that archive today.

 

[kageki]

Can you provide a link to where I said this? You guys are pretty good at quotemining and abysmal at reading in context...

http://www.codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5998

"Rosenberg and other leading Nazis certainly denied extermination, but as they were on trial for their lives, the weight one can give such denials is not that great. "

"To answer that question: a hell of a lot of Nazis denied knowledge of extermination. Given their jobs that was to be expected."

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Wroclaw View Post

there's also no reason to believe that soldiers or members of the SS outside of those working on the Final Solution directly would have been told about it. It would have compromised secrecy too much.

I'm sorry but I disagree here. It would very much surprise me if any SS man, especially one that was stationed in the proximity of one of the main extermination centers wouldn't have known about what was going on there.

This is the kind of dialogue that becomes a win win for the Holocaust mythologists.

How could all the Germans and Poles allow that to happen?

"Well, they didn't know, it was kept a secret."


How could all the Germans and Poles allow that to happen?

"Well, they didn't care, they all hated Jewish people."

 

[LemmyCaution]

Kershaw it isn't, a common strawman it is.

 

[Ignorantbystander]

Originally Posted by Wroclaw View Post





This is the kind of dialogue that becomes a win win for the Holocaust mythologists.

How could all the Germans and Poles allow that to happen?

"Well, they didn't know, it was kept a secret."


How could all the Germans and Poles allow that to happen?

"Well, they didn't care, they all hated Jewish people."

First of all, we're not talking about 'all Germans' , but about members of the SS. second, the Poles?! you think they were asked about their opinion or they had any means to stop it?

And yes, they probably didn't care, many Germans indeed hated the Jews, and many Poles too, and they had their own problems to attend to. And those who did care, what could they do?

About the level of secrecy, it would probably have been sufficient to keep the number of people with first-hand knowledge limited to later (in a post-war era) reduce the fact to rumor or Allied/Jewish propaganda.

But of course this is becoming too difficult for you to grasp.
Since most autists have difficulty with in between values
For you it can of course only be all or none, knew or didn't know and cared or didn't care at all about something that has to be either top secret or public knowledge.

Question: what about 'the Dutch'? Did they know? Did they care?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Elie Wiesel is neither a scholar of the Holocaust nor a source for scholarship. Is Clayton Moore going to reply to my earlier request that he show where Wiesel has been used as a source for scholarly accounts of Birkenau, let alone a key source?

And Wikipedia is not a scholarly source either. In this case, however, Clayton Moore's basic powers of comprehension fail him: in a condensed summary of the SK, the Wikipedia article says that the "primary" task of the SK was corpse disposal, implying of course, to those who can read, that other tasks befell the members of the SK. I've given Clayton Moore a condensed statement from a person who has studied this question in detail, about which Clayton Moore remains silent favoring instead his misreading of Wikipedia so he can distort what recent scholarship maintains.

To be clear, I didn't ask Clayton Moore what popular glosses on the scholarship say: I asked him contend with the scholarship. Those who do this work, scholars of the Third Reich , the war, and the Holocaust, are not self proclaimed; they are trained historians, political scientists, etc. who work must succeed through peer review and academic discourse and give and take.

Throughout this thread, Clayton Moore refused to do anything with this body of work except handwave it away or ignore it. Perhaps the research on the Holocaust and major works derived from it is fatal to his case. No wonder he sticks to Wikipedia and Elie Wiesel, neither of which are germane to the case for the genocide.

As should be clear, the peril for deniers of this stance is that by taking it they ensure that no one takes them seriously.

If that wasn't the classic "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" nothing is.


As should be clear, the peril for deniers of this stance is that by taking it they ensure that no one takes them seriously.

Remember playing Hot & Cold as a child? When looking for the object, the person who knew the location of the object would say "You’re getting warmer" as you closed in on the object, or "You're on hot!" when very close to the object.

This is how the Terrys, the LemmyCautions, and the Wroclaws react when the truth becomes apparent.

Or they announce that the view of so and so is so something or whatever that ignore must be invoked.

That's what people do when they're beat. If you're gonna make me look bad with the truth I'm gonna leave because I'm above all this(the truth) and only debate on my terms.

 

[Nick Terry]

http://www.codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5998

Thank you. The post is on page 2 for those that want to confirm that the quotes are indeed taken out of context and misunderstood by kageki, as they were at the time on CODOH.

Nowhere did I say anything like

even if a Nazi denied it

because I specified what sorts of Nazis I was talking about in both cases, and elaborated further in the rest of the post.

 

[LemmyCaution]

If that wasn't the classic "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" nothing is.


As should be clear, the peril for deniers of this stance is that by taking it they ensure that no one takes them seriously.

Remember playing Hot & Cold as a child? When looking for the object, the person who knew the location of the object would say "You’re getting warmer" as you closed in on the object, or "You're on hot!" when very close to the object.

This is how the Terrys, the LemmyCautions, and the Wroclaws react when the truth becomes apparent.

Or they announce that the view of so and so is so something or whatever that ignore must be invoked.

That's what people do when they're beat. If you're gonna make me look bad with the truth I'm gonna leave because I'm above all this(the truth) and only debate on my terms.

Yes, I understand. No one in this forum, to my knowledge, is using Wiesel as a source or Wikipedia as a key artifact of the research and writing about the Holocaust. Rather, we tell you the works and sources which we are using, which you cannot deal with, so you keep running back to what you consider useful to you. That's fine. Again, it may convince you, but it will not disturb the public discourse on these matters one iota. So, that's fine. Keep ignoring the challenging stuff and stick with your strawmen. It just adds to the humor of it all.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Yes, I understand. No one in this forum, to my knowledge, is using Wiesel as a source or Wikipedia as a key artifact of the research and writing about the Holocaust. Rather, we tell you the works and sources which we are using, which you cannot deal with, so you keep running back to what you consider useful to you. That's fine. Again, it may convince you, but it will not disturb the public discourse on these matters one iota. So, that's fine. Keep ignoring the challenging stuff and stick with your strawmen. It just adds to the humor of it all.

Strawman a strawman's butt. The top Holocaust spokesperson is a liar and has been at least since WW2 ended. Yet none of your worshiped Holocaust scholars called him on it. Why is that? That means to me that anything those Holocaust scholars say is likely a lie as in BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER.

So why do you make light of his lies? Why do and your Holocaust scholars lie by omission?

Maybe you could ask your buddy in hiding, Terry, why he also lies by omission.

 

[MG1962]

Strawman a strawman's butt. The top Holocaust spokesperson is a liar and has been at least since WW2 ended. Yet none of your worshiped Holocaust scholars called him on it. Why is that? That means to me that anything those Holocaust scholars say is likely a lie as in BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER.

So why do you make light of his lies? Why do and your Holocaust scholars lie by omission?

Maybe you could ask your buddy in hiding, Terry, why he also lies by omission.

Wow getting desperate or what