• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Corsair 115 said:
I have to wonder: if the Holocaust was a fraud as Clayton and his ilk suggest, then of all places which should be raising a huge fuss about it, it should be Germany. Wouldn't the nation like to clear its name of a crime it didn't actually commit?

And yet Germany as a nation is strangely silent about the Holocaust being false. Indeed, it goes the other way and acknowledges the Holocaust as a real event and its role in that event.

What is the explanation for this? Clayton? Dogzilla?
Click to expand...

Because there are serious consequences for just discussing the Holocaust. Is there another subject, historical or otherwise, no matter how disgusting, that cannot be discussed?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Because there are serious consequences for just discussing the Holocaust. Is there another subject, historical or otherwise, no matter how disgusting, that cannot be discussed?
Click to expand...

But according to the geniuses that inhabit this thread the holocaust was only invented in the 60s, 70's or 80's depending who you listen too. So what were the Germans doing from the mid 40's till the Jews invented the holocaust
 
Clayton Moore said:
Because there are serious consequences for just discussing the Holocaust.
Click to expand...
.
Yes, a deeper, more accurate understanding of these events is very serious. Which is why discussions between the intentionalists and the functionalists, and the continued evaluation of new evidence as it becomes available (just to take a couple of random examples) are so important.


But that's not what you meant, is it? Can you name a single person who has suffered seriously bad consequences for simply discussing as opposed to flat out denying the Holocaust? And by the way, as a percentage, how many countries in the world outlaw the latter?
.
 
Last edited:
TSR said:
.
Yes, a deeper, more accurate understanding of these events is very serious. Which is why discussions between the intentionalists and the functionalists, and the continued evaluation of new evidence as it becomes available is so important.


But that's not what you meant, is it? Can you name a single person who has suffered seriously bad consequences for simply discussing as opposed to flat out denying the Holocaust? And by the way, as a percentage, how many countries in the world outlaw the latter?
.
Click to expand...
I do not think that Clayton Moore has read many of the works "discussing" the Holocaust by German historians. He has shown not a single sign of familiarity with this body of work, and he no doubt means by discuss "dismiss" or "deny."

Nor do I think he has much insight into the motivations behind section 130 and how contemporary Germans apparently take their history and its "serious consequences."
 
I recently read that reperations were up to 64 billion dollars.

For the past few days the "confessions" and the punishments of the SS have been discussed.

It seems odd that so few were actually punished for their role in the killing, some say up to 12 million, of noncombatants in the camps.

Certainly the victors and the victims would have not been inclined towards tolerating leniency. The lack of severity of the sentences in a then no nonsense world makes little sense. That said it's obvious that the NEW Holocaust is not the actual Holocaust.
 
Per the bunny's request, I'm posting the full list of SS witnesses to gas chambers. I'll be back in a few days to begin debating them. I believe we agreed we'd start w/Baer.

Also, I apologize, but yes — Aumeier is on the list. My mistake.


1. Aumeier
2. Baer
3. Baretzki
4. Bednarek
5. Böck
6. Boger
7. Bogusch
8. Brandl
9. Breitweiser
10. Broad
11. Bülow
12. Buntrock
13. Capesius
14. Danz
15. Dejaco
16. Dinges
17. Dylewski
18. Frank
19. Gehring
20. Götze
21. Grabner
22. Handl
23. Hess
24. Hiblinger
25. Höcker
26. Hoffman
27. Hofmann
28. Jeschke
29. Josten
30. Kaduk
31. Kirschner
32. Klehr
33. Koch
34. Kollmer
35. Kraus
36. Kremer
37. Lächert
38. Lätsch
39. Lechner
40. Liebehenschel
41. Lorenz
42. Lucas
43. Ludwig
44. Mandl
45. Medefind
46. Möckel
47. Morgen
48. Muhsfeldt
49. Mulka
50. Müller
51. Münch
52. Nebbe
53. Neubert
54. Nierzwicki
55. Orlowski
56. Plagge
57. Romeikat
58. Schatz
59. Scherpe
60. Schlage
61. Schobert
62. Schröder
63. Schumacher
64. Seufert
65. Stark
66. Storch
67. Szczurek
68. Weber
69. Wiebeck
 
LemmyCaution said:
I do not think that Clayton Moore has read many of the works "discussing" the Holocaust by German historians. He has shown not a single sign of familiarity with this body of work, and he no doubt means by discuss "dismiss" or "deny."

Nor do I think he has much insight into the motivations behind section 130 and how contemporary Germans apparently take their history and its "serious consequences."
Click to expand...

And every one of those German historians would lose their position if they deviated from Holocaust party line. Let alone having criminal charges brought against them and a kangaroo court trial.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Because there are serious consequences for just discussing the Holocaust.
Click to expand...


What kind of consequences? Consequences imposed by who? By what mechanism?

This is Germany itself we are talking about. How could that nation possibly not fight to clear its name if the proof of Holocaust fakery is as certain and clear as you claim it to be? What kind of consequences could be imposed upon you which would keep you admitting to a heinous crime you never committed? What kind of consequences would keep you from fighting to prove your innocence?


Clayton Moore said:
Is there another subject, historical or otherwise, no matter how disgusting, that cannot be discussed?
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? This entire thread is discussing the subject.

The problem you and your ilk are having is making a claim that flies in the face of mountains of evidence. You've abjectly failed to demonstrate that (a) the existing evidence documenting the Holocaust is all false; and (b) provided any verifiable evidence of your own to support your counter claims of what really happened.

Perhaps you think folks should just swoon at what you have to say, but we are made of sterner stuff since it is you who have the mountain to climb. And we're still waiting for you to begin your ascent. You've been dawdling at base camp for some time now.
 
Clayton Moore said:
And every one of those German historians would lose their position if they deviated from Holocaust party line.
Click to expand...
.
And what, pray tell, is this "party line"?
.
Clayton Moore said:
Let alone having criminal charges brought against them and a kangaroo court trial.
Click to expand...
.
In what way does, say the EG trial you refer to later in this thread qualify as a "kangaroo court"?

Meanwhile, one notes that you once again run from the questions you slihgtly more clever betters in denialism have not spoonfed you the answers to -- who has ever suffered bad consequences solely for discussing the Holocaust? Did the Battle of the Bulge occur? And what happened to Guta and Abus Strawczynski?
.
 
Last edited:
LemmyCaution said:
The one in which the Nazis secretly developed flying saucers which kept an eye on humanity after being launched from secret, underground bases in Antarctica?
Click to expand...

It is the same person.
Ernst Zundel is a holocaust denier.
Ernst Zundel also ran the Nazi UFO websites.

Nizkor web-page on this issue.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/flying-saucers/whats-new.html


I don't have any hard data but it does seem that holocaust deniers do not limit their strange application of logic to just holocaust denial. I guess Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things" is a good introduction into this side-topic.
 
I recently read that reparations were up to 64 billion dollars.

For the past few days the "confessions" and the punishments of the SS have been discussed.

It seems odd that so few were actually punished for their role in the killing, some say up to 12 million, of noncombatants in the camps.

Certainly the victors and the victims would have not been inclined towards leniency. That said it's obvious that the NEW Holocaust is not the actual Holocaust.
 
Clayton Moore said:
And every one of those German historians would lose their position if they deviated from Holocaust party line. Let alone having criminal charges brought against them and a kangaroo court trial.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that the German state, as a whole, admits to the Holocaust because if anybody in Germany didn't admit to it the German state would persecute them for not admitting to it?

Dave
 
Clayton Moore said:
And every one of those German historians would lose their position if they deviated from Holocaust party line. Let alone having criminal charges brought against them and a kangaroo court trial.
Click to expand...
So you admit that you are unfamiliar with their research and publications? Yet you are somehow insinuating, without in the least demonstrating it, that their research is shaped by section 130?

By the way, these historians, for years, have vigorously debated, with others in their profession, aspects and interpretations of the Holocaust, far from there being a "party line." Which you would know if you had the slightest familiarity with their work.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
You might want to review the fifth column of the chart.
Click to expand...
As I alluded to earlier. What, pray tell, does the Cold War commutation of sentences passed down in 1948, sentence reductions which could not by law have to do with the facts of the case, say about whether or not the EG murders took place? (The evidence for the mass murders in this case, by the way, was mostly reports made by the leaders of the EGs and discovered IIRC in Gestapo headquarters, by American investigators in early 1947.)

In fact, there was a grave miscarriage of justice, IMHO, in the EG trial: first, the prosecution laid their hands on too few people, given the number involved. I say this realizing that in a line of speeding automobiles, the police manage to pull over only a few and ticket them. Often some guilty people receive the benefit of the law whilst others drive off. Still. Second, the early releases were politically motivated and allowed men manifestly guilty of genocide to escape the punishments they richly deserved.

It is strange to see a new denier gambit: instead of victor's justice Clayton Moore has introduced the bizarre concept of victor's leniency as a supposed argument against the guilt of those convicted and then treated less than harshly.

In the case of the EG Trial, 24 men were indicted. These defendants were accused, and found guilty of, playing leading roles in the criminal killing of over 1 million people in the eastern campaigns. Of these victims more than 95% were Jews. In April 1948, at the conclusion of the EG Trial,

- fourteen of those convicted in this trial were sentenced to death by hanging
- two received life terms in prison
- three received twenty-five year sentences
- two were given ten year prison terms
- one was released based on time served

(One of those charged committed suicide immediately after his indictment, and one died in prison, untried, due to advanced Parkinson's disease.)

What was the fate then of the 22 men convicted of crimes against humanity and of killing over a million people?

- one of those convicted was released immediately after the trial
- four convicted EG leaders were hanged, along with Oswald Pohl, in 1951
- between 1951 and 1958, fourteen of these mass murderers were released from prison through clemency or on parole, granted by the American authorities
- in May 1958 the final three guilty men were released from prison

By no more than ten years following their convictions for murdering over one million civilians, 18 of the EG leaders, including 10 sentenced to death, were out of jail and ostensibly free men. Within a decade, 4 of those convicted were dead, the rest free.

The death sentences went to more senior leaders responsible for the mass murders of mostly Jews but among them so-called Asiatics, the insane, Gypsies, asocials, and other "enemies" of the German Volk. The chief justice of the EG tribunal, Michael Musmanno, was a long-time opponent of the death penalty and seems to have struggled with the death penalty in this case as well. Interestingly, those leaders guilty of the mass murders who were sentenced to death all admitted their part in the execution program, their commanding of execution actions, and large numbers of victims. Musmanno, whose opposition to the death penalty centered on the impossibility of remedying a mistaken conviction after an execution, seems to have settled on death where defendants freely admitted their actions. EG leaders given long prison sentences were those who did not admit to the killings.

In 1951 four of the defendants were executed. The other nine who had been sentenced to death had their cases reviewed by John McCloy, the new high commissioner in Germany. The review process, as I posted earlier, specifically did not allow for review of the facts of the case; indeed, the Advisory Board (headed by David Peck), which recommended clemency actions to McCloy, did not review the documentary evidence from the trial nor the trial transcript.

The board members, and McCloy, who were under intense lobbying pressure, based clemency on statements of the defendants and background checks.

The mandate of the Peck Board was shaped by the growing tensions of the Cold War, during which the conflict with Germany receded, and guided the panel to use "charity and generosity" toward the defendants to the extent possible. McCloy had, in fact, the authority to mitigate sentences but not to comment on or disturb judgments of guilt.

McCloy's legal team expressed concern about the Peck recommendations precisely on account of the panel's not having looked at the evidence.

All this suggests that McCloy bent over backwards without regard to the evidence to help in mending relations between the US-Germany during the early Cold War (Telford Taylor called the clemency actions "the embodiment of political expediency"), especially when, in the sober light of day, in 1980, McCloy himself would write, "if I had all the facts I now have, I might have reached a more just result" than he had done with his sentence reductions. These events occurred, of course, in the early 1950s, in a far different context than that of today, at a time when Germans had not yet done the soul-searching and coming to terms with the Nazi crimes that have taken place since.

In the universe of flying saucers from Antarctica, Moscow forgery factories, and Jewish lies and hoaxing, this is evidence against the genocide? What a crock. No wonder these people, when not reviled, are taken as a kind of low comedy.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Ellard said:
It is the same person.
Ernst Zundel is a holocaust denier.
Ernst Zundel also ran the Nazi UFO websites.

Nizkor web-page on this issue.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/flying-saucers/whats-new.html


I don't have any hard data but it does seem that holocaust deniers do not limit their strange application of logic to just holocaust denial. I guess Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things" is a good introduction into this side-topic.
Click to expand...
Yes, Zundel's research on UFO's from Antarctica is a good example of the kind of work forming the foundation for the arguments of Mr Moore, Mr Saggy, Mr Rabbit, and Mr Dogzilla. No wonder they run from discussion of scholarly work on the Holocaust and rest content with vague and general dismissals, supposed anomalies and convoluted but unsubstantiated claims of fraud, and outright Jew baiting: they don't have anything else.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom