Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[kageki]

I am sure he was not referencing that as you publically debate a topic as well known as WW2

You have never heard a teacher say that before? WW2 is a vast topic anyways.

So enlighten me. Tell me who poured the gas at Auschwitz?

 

[Wroclaw]

Again, this was addressed by Nick Terry is an earlier post in this topic. Anyone wanting to know that can find the post.

 

[kageki]

Well, sure, nobody wants to talk about that atrocity because it was committed, apparently, by a big bad old Jew.

Actually, you're pointing to an interesting double standard, and this is it: I actually very strongly doubt that the atrocity discussed by you ever actually happened. We accept in atrocity accounts that there are lies, exaggerations, and mistakes in remembrance. However, we don't therefore conclude that the atrocities as a whole were never committed. You, however, do conclude that about the Nazis.

That's your answer for why we discuss these atrocities. Not because they happened or didn't happen, but because people like you deny that they did. You're the one making the exception — not us.

Funny how you didn't speak up about Nazi atrocities like drinking out of skulls. Give me a break about double standard.

I do not deny gas chambers based on generalities. Please don't make things up because you don't know me.

So what do you make of Irving these days? I'm actually partial to the viewpoint of people like Irving or Crowell that excepts certain parts of the Holocaust, but basically denies gas chambers. Partial denial if you will or as Crowell puts it "moderate revisionist".

 

[kageki]

Again, this was addressed by Nick Terry is an earlier post in this topic. Anyone wanting to know that can find the post.

I tried looking, but didn't find it. Why don't you throw us a bone or better yet give us a name.

 

[Wroclaw]

Funny how you didn't speak up about Nazi atrocities like drinking out of skulls. Give me a break about double standard.

I think it's all patently ridiculous. Is that enough? Without good forensics and documentary evidence, eyewitness testimony is basically useless, unless it's corroborated by other eyewitnesses.

In the case of gas chambers, there is both corroboration and documentary and forensic evidence. It's a clean sweep.

I do not deny gas chambers based on generalities. Please don't make things up because you don't know me.

Oh, did I offend you? How terrible! The whole conversation is offensive. Man up, for God's sake.

But this does lead to the question of what would suffice as evidence for you.

Well?

So what do you make of Irving these days? I'm actually partial to the viewpoint of people like Irving or Crowell that excepts certain parts of the Holocaust, but basically denies gas chambers. Partial denial if you will or as Crowell puts it "moderate revisionist".

I would deny gas chambers also if there weren't any evidence for them. The problem (for you) is that there are great big heaping piles of evidence. Why do you ignore it?

 

[Wroclaw]

I tried looking, but didn't find it. Why don't you throw us a bone or better yet give us a name.

Well, at one point, Ukrainians were being put to that task. It was precisely on my making that point that Dr. Terry posted a much more comprehensive list of people who held that responsibility.

 

[MG1962]

You have never heard a teacher say that before? WW2 is a vast topic anyways.

Oh I have heard teaches say it - I say it myself to my staff. They are generally not publically debating the issue at the same time, and telling other people they are wrong

So enlighten me. Tell me who poured the gas at Auschwitz?

Hans on even numbered days Fritz on odd numbered days - Thought eveyone knew that

 

[kageki]

I think it's all patently ridiculous. Is that enough? Without good forensics and documentary evidence, eyewitness testimony is basically useless, unless it's corroborated by other eyewitnesses.

In the case of gas chambers, there is both corroboration and documentary and forensic evidence. It's a clean sweep.



Oh, did I offend you? How terrible! The whole conversation is offensive. Man up, for God's sake.

But this does lead to the question of what would suffice as evidence for you.

Well?



I would deny gas chambers also if there weren't any evidence for them. The problem (for you) is that there are great big heaping piles of evidence. Why do you ignore it?

If you haven't noticed it's not just myself. Maybe you should ask Leuchter or Rudolf as well.

So what do you consider the smoking gun at Auschwitz?

 

[kageki]

Oh I have heard teaches say it - I say it myself to my staff. They are generally not publically debating the issue at the same time, and telling other people they are wrong



Hans on even numbered days Fritz on odd numbered days - Thought eveyone knew that

I'm sure Deborah Lipstadt finds that funny too.

 

[Clayton Moore]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/browse_thread/thread/b900fc883cc2b4b2


So Moll didn't actually pour the gas or "pull the trigger".

You know I asked this once myself. Was anyone actually convicted of doing the actual gassing at Auschwitz? The one that poured the gas through the holes in the roof?

I've read that camp doctors were assigned the task to climb the ladder of death. Possibly because of the highly technical calculation of the correct amount.

 

[MG1962]

I've read that camp doctors were assigned the task to climb the ladder of death. Possibly because of the highly technical calculation of the correct amount.

Read where?

 

[Wroclaw]

If you haven't noticed it's not just myself. Maybe you should ask Leuchter or Rudolf as well.

Leuchter is an idiot who's out of his depth. Rudolf is a liar.

So what do you consider the smoking gun at Auschwitz?

There is no smoking gun. There are several pieces of evidence that, taking separately, wouldn't amount to very much, but taken together, pretty much make the case. Consider:

(1) Around 100 people all stating that gas chambers were used at Birkenau; the majority identify an identical room in Krema II as such.

(2) Two documents refer to this room alternately as the Vergasungskeller or Gaskeller. No alternate explanations for what this room was used for seem to work, especially considering the room is designated on the blueprints as a morgue (Leichenkeller).

(3) The walls have tested positive for cyanide exposure — more than for the single fumigation that room was subjected to in the records but significantly less than what would have been on the walls if it were a routinely used delousing chamber.

That's a clean sweep, pal. That room was a gas chamber.

Accepting that Krema II had a gas chamber, it's not exactly a broad leap to concluding that Kremas III, IV, and V also did. Once you establish the use of gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, then why would you question their use elsewhere?

 

[Clayton Moore]

That's your answer for why we discuss these atrocities. Not because they happened or didn't happen, but because people like you deny that they did. You're the one making the exception — not us.

Whether it happened or didn't happen..

That's what's called a Freudian slip.

Openly disputing the details of the Holocaust myth would prove that is just a scam and take away the plethora of benefits it provides.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Read where?

Are you inferring that what I've read isn't common knowledge?

 

[MG1962]

Are you inferring that what I've read isn't common knowledge?

no I asked you where you read it - pretty simple question really

 

[TSR]

Pretty dam close.

.
Of course, sentence was passed in 2005 (after Irving had ducked the warrant for 6 years) so if he had served all of it, that means out in 2008.

And here we are, 2011 and Irving is *still* spewing his bile.

Guess CM also has a non-standard definition of "pretty dam < sic > close.
.

 

[kageki]

Leuchter is an idiot who's out of his depth. Rudolf is a liar.



There is no smoking gun. There are several pieces of evidence that, taking separately, wouldn't amount to very much, but taken together, pretty much make the case. Consider:

(1) Around 100 people all stating that gas chambers were used at Birkenau; the majority identify an identical room in Krema II as such.

(2) Two documents refer to this room alternately as the Vergasungskeller or Gaskeller. No alternate explanations for what this room was used for seem to work, especially considering the room is designated on the blueprints as a morgue (Leichenkeller).

(3) The walls have tested positive for cyanide exposure — more than for the single fumigation that room was subjected to in the records but significantly less than what would have been on the walls if it were a routinely used delousing chamber.

That's a clean sweep, pal. That room was a gas chamber.

Accepting that Krema II had a gas chamber, it's not exactly a broad leap to concluding that Kremas III, IV, and V also did. Once you establish the use of gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, then why would you question their use elsewhere?

Which of those witnesses actually poured the gas or was even an eyewitness?

 

[Wroclaw]

Which of those witnesses actually poured the gas or was even an eyewitness?

{Sigh}

You haven't even been trying to pay attention, have you?

We've already established, in this thread, in the last few weeks, that there were six SS eyewitnesses. Plus, there are a handful (less than ten) Sonderkommando that also were/are eyewitnesses. You have Kremer, Münch, Nyszli, Dragon, that's four just off the top of my head. Höss is another. Eichmann saw a gas-van operation.

Do you really need me to go on? You haven't read ANYTHING, have you? You haven't even read Leuchter and Rudolf. I'd bet my life on it.

 

[Wroclaw]

Whether it happened or didn't happen..

That's what's called a Freudian slip.

No, because I 100% intended to write what I wrote.

Openly disputing the details of the Holocaust myth would prove that is just a scam and take away the plethora of benefits it provides.

No, that's also not true.

I suggest you read Joachim Neander's recently published article on the human soap myth.

But I suspect you don't read much.

 

[Wroclaw]

Are you inferring that what I've read isn't common knowledge?

And I'm implying that you didn't read it anywhere because, in general, you don't read.