As an FYI to Warden and others, I'm going to bold my main assertion below, because much of this is off topic, which is fine by me but can get tedious for others.
The Warden said:
Pizzaman said:
Of course. Except the things that all the survivors have in common from Treblinka are: (1) They say it was an extermination camp, not a transit camp; and (2) None them went to the GULAG.
What prisoners say is the most unreliable information from the Holocaust. Prisoners have claimed electrocution, chlorine, sexual experiments, floors opening, impossible numbers, and numerous other examples which have been discussed and debunked time and time again. They said there was tattooed skin, human skin lampshades, and shrunken heads too. Even after lugging them into a courtroom, it still didn't make it any more true. Perhaps you can contact C.D. Jackson to come here and settle things once and for all.
But we're not talking here about the testimony. We're discussing the alleged status of Treblinka as a transit camp. Do try to stay on topic.
Pizzaman said:
They didn't do those things to convince people of guilt. They did them because they believed they were true. Without them, they still would have won convictions, as the Frankfurt trials, which had none of those things, amply proved.
They believed they were true because they relied on the infamous testimonies you keep clinging to. Again, those "truths" didn't turn out so well.
This is a distraction. I'll discuss testimony in other threads if you'd like.
As far as the Frankfurt trials, look at the results:
These are convictions of low level officials and privileged prisoners based on most of the faulty information that derived from Nuremberg.
Incorrect. While it's true that these are convictions of low level officials and prisoners (which is precisely my point — individual defendants), they were not convicted based on Nuremberg testimony, if only because the only Auschwitz perp who testified at Nuremberg, i.e., Höß, didn't provide testimony on aspects for which most of the above were convicted. Again, most of these folks were convicted of individual acts. But again, we're getting off point here in discussing Auschwitz at all.
Now I'm sure you might think the pharmacist, medical orderlies, and the dentist masterminded the Holocaust, but those of us in reality know this is ludicrous.
Which is why they received prison terms or were released, not executed.
Again, you miss the point (besides the issue that the reason they didn't get the death penalty is that West Germany didn't have it), which is that none of the defendants in Frankfurt were "masterminds." Eichmann had already been tried and executed by then, and everyone above him in the chain of command was dead, as was Höß. All you're left with is functionaries.
Pizzaman said:
In fact, most DIDN'T change their names, except, as you note, the ones who went to Israel.
a.k.a the majority of the inhabitants of the new found land when they developed the Yiddish language from Hebrew.
I think you have that backwards and, in any case, it's incorrect. Most of modern Hebrew was developed from liturgical Hebrew. Very few loanwords in modern Hebrew came by way of Yiddish. A cursory knowledge of Yiddish's status in the early days of the state of Israel would be informative here.
Pizzaman said:
I don't see what relevance name changes have.
Name changes and the lack of records of such prove my point they aren't too interested in the details in order to divvy out German money to "survivors".
Anyone can walk in with the basic information and a sob story of a Jew from WWII era, and simply claim they changed their name.
But Dr. Neander's post above pretty much shoots that theory out of the water.
Pizzaman said:
Yes, I do believe they would challenge a claim if there were on proof. Otherwise, they'd go broke. Common sense.
And yet, it takes the Eric Hunts of the world to expose the Zisblatts, denierbuds to expose well.... numerous witnesses, and Carolyn Yeagers to expose the Wiesels (name changed by the way).
Germany can't challenge these people. They would be accused of antisemitism! :lol:
And yet, as Dr. Neander pointed out, claims were, in fact, refused.
Pizzaman said:
Make up your mind: Are the stories ridiculous or did they hedge on details?
The stories are ridiculous, which is why they hedge on details.
Is there some specific reason you believe it isn't possible they stopped asking for details once they started to see their story line crumbling as a result of those details?
Yes, and that is that I don't think the testimony undermines the history. But AGAIN, we're off topic.
Pizzaman said:
Again, you'll need to prove that.
The obvious change in testimonies over the years and lack of details is proof positive.
It's Dr. Neander's post that says all they need is to show they were there at the time.
They didn't ask "Which camp(s) were you at".
Remember?
But, as he also noted, many could tell where they'd been anyway. None except the already known survivors said Treblinka.
Pizzaman said:
Yes, thank you for the correction.
Welcome.
Pizzaman said:
Also, I don't find the testimonies in that video unreliable, but that's off topic here.
I wasn't referring to that section of the video in particular.
There's a whole movie loaded with consistent debunking of testimonies, in case you haven't heard.
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/one_third_of_the_holocaust.html
Yes, and in fact, I've seen the whole of it refuted:
http://onethirdoftheholocaust.blogspot.com/
Pizzaman said:
No, it isn't, but at least if people had been through a transit camp, they'd probably say so.
Well, it's common sense that if they had "been through" the camp in the first place, it can't be called an extermination camp.
Or they wouldn't have been available for you to wonder why they didn't claim camp loyalties.
Not sure I understand your point here.
Pizzaman said:
Your mistake here is thinking that the Census Bureau keeps the same records as INS.
They don't.
Wonderful. I've yet to see any 6 million claim based on INS records. They're always dependent on Jewish post war sources.
I look forward to seeing your conclusions based on the information you're claiming being presented.
I didn't say you could prove six million dead Jews based on INS records, particularly because the number of Jewish immigrants to the U.S. after WWII was the smallest of the three waves of Jewish immigration here (the other two being post-U.S. Civil War from Germany and Austria and 1895-1920 from Eastern Europe).
Pizzaman said:
Nearly zero during the war. The doors were closed.
You mean the same way the doors have been closed to immigrants who don't go through the proper channels now?
Yes, very effective indeed.
As you are well aware, I'm sure, the largest cohort of illegal immigrants in the U.S. come from Mexico, with which the country shares a border.
Where is the border between Eastern Europe and the U.S.?
Thank you.
Pizzaman said:
But when you allege a transit camp, you've got to prove one.
So following your logic, if you claim an "extermination camp", you would have to show the remains of people who were "exterminated", right?
I haven't seen you do that.
Show me a thread to do so, and we'll talk.
Since you can't produce the remains of the alleged amounts, the space required for those amounts was impossible, and the method of burning was impossible to maintain the amounts claimed, why would anyone have to show you it was a transit camp. The very fact that the claims of extermination are impossible show it was a transit camp. The information provided by Hannover shows people passed through the camp.
Ah, but I never denied people had been sent through the camp. I merely claimed that wasn't the camp's purpose.
Pizzaman said:
So the fact that the remains claimed aren't there is a different topic?
We'll you haven't proved that.
Interesting. I seem to think it's rather important to the theory of transit vs. extermination.
It is, but this thread is about transit.
