Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[little grey rabbit]

I want the evidence for the hoaxing. Not another referral to a nitwit book. Or another supposed debunking of Rabbi Wise, as though the genocide is encapsulated in his exchanges or a list of names without explanation, as though the names themselves demonstrate a case. Something that explains how this thing developed and spread and shows how Hilberg, for example. and Angrick & Klein and Longerich and Engelking and both Freidlanders and so on tarted things up, spread lies, deceived their readers. And, again, not a one-off swipe at this or that point but a coherent narrative telling how this thing was spun up and made persuasive.

Surely the hoaxsters are not so good as to completely cover their tracks: for instance, they apparently forgot to forge up a Hitler order. Get cracking, and stop ducking this simple request.

Do I need to prove the Germans didn't kill children with poisoned porridge as well, or do you concede that claim was probably a fabrication?

Evidence of witness SALIYUMS E.K., former prisoner of the camp:

“The Nazi Germans were exterminating Soviet children in Salaspils camp with some particular frenzy. Infants and elder children driven to the camp were forcedly taken away from their mothers and placed in special barracks. Some liquid substance was injected to them, which caused death from diarrhea. Children were fed with poisoned porridge and coffee. Up to 150 children died every day from such experiments”.

What do Angrick and Klein have to say about poisoned porridge? I am sure such a comprehensive book would have discussed the reason such testimonies exist.....?

 

[LemmyCaution]

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/

Again, Gene, in case you haven't been following, I belonged to a book club which made this book a selection, so I have read it and don't need multiple urgings and links to it. I've discussed this a few times upthread. I can't recall if I made this point, but the book is quite out of date, much research and historical writing having taken place since its publication, so, even if you don't agree with me that the book is weak, you will have to agree that for someone like me, who spends a good deal of time with recent histories of this period, it falls short. Not to mention that I asked for a summary of the narrative, not a link to an old failed attempt.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I wasn't aware that MIT handed out multiple degrees to nit wits.

Read more carefully. I said that the book was nitwit, not the author. Judging from the book, the author, though he may be competent in the field in which he holds degrees, is capable of nitwittery in the field of history. This happens sometimes when people competent in one field step into areas in which they are not competent. I don't know much about the author, other than his book. Anyway, please read more carefully or, if you did read carefully, stop strawmanning what those you disagree with have written.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Do I need to prove the Germans didn't kill children with poisoned porridge as well, or do you concede that claim was probably a fabrication?



What do Angrick and Klein have to say about poisoned porridge? I am sure such a comprehensive book would have discussed the reason such testimonies exist.....?

Again,

not a one-off swipe at this or that point but a coherent narrative telling how this thing was spun up and made persuasive.

 

[little grey rabbit]

So do you believe in poisoned porridge or not? And if you are a Poisoned Porridge Denier what is your coherent narrative to explain why testimonies concerning poisoned porridge exist in ex-Soviet archives?

 

[Gene Alley]

Read more carefully. I said that the book was nitwit, not the author. Judging from the book, the author, though he may be competent in the field in which he holds degrees, is capable of nitwittery in the field of history. This happens sometimes when people competent in one field step into areas in which they are not competent. I don't know much about the author, other than his book. Anyway, please read more carefully or, if you did read carefully, stop strawmanning what those you disagree with have written.

Perhaps you should write a review on this book and get it published in the weekly ADL newsletter, but then again it would only be your obviously biased opinion.

 

[LemmyCaution]

So do you believe in poisoned porridge or not? And if you are a Poisoned Porridge Denier what is your coherent narrative to explain why testimonies concerning poisoned porridge exist in ex-Soviet archives?

I don't know a thing about poisoned porridge except the little I can glean from your post about it.

I do know that in the camps run by the Nazis atrocities and brutalization of inmates were common, that the SS in the camps made use of dehumanizing tortures and punishments, and that atrocities were innovative in their cruelty. For example, in just one report we can read about

- prisoners kept on a diet of turnip soup, a little bread, a tiny scrap of meat distributed or withheld at the whim of camp directors

- the withholding of rations on the whim of camp authorities, just to be cruel

- inmates with TB whom camp administration refused medical treatment and housed alongside healthy inmates

- sick inmates made to work, flogged and beaten

- young children in the camps, held apart from their parents (as at Salaspils according to your source)

- women beaten in their faces with nail studded boards

- inmates punished by being locked into freezing dungeons made of concrete and denied food

- laborers hosed down with cold water in winter, as punishment, in the assembly squares

- workers executed for stealing potatoes

- public executions in the camps for minor violations of rules

As to the specifics of porridge, I don't know--and, more to the point--this sort of detail is not what I was after. What I wanted to hear was the denier narrative of how the hoax was spun, as a whole, as a historical development.

IIRC Angrick & Klein, shockingly, do not cover or even mention porridge as weapon or as food. Without knowing more, about the porridge at Salaspils and never having taken a position on porridge, I feel it would be presumptuous of me to spin out guesses about your quotation. Now this is different to those of you who have been talking about the hoax regularly, have supposedly gained knowledge of hoaxing, and who have taken positions on the topic. Sharing your explanation of its development shouldn't be so hard. You should be able to do this without hemming and hawing, strawmen, baiting, distractions, citations to dated books, or a query about porridge designed to take us off topic.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Perhaps you should write a review on this book and get it published in the weekly ADL newsletter, but then again it would only be your obviously biased opinion.

It is curious 1) that you would suggest an ADL newsletter and 2) that you presume anything I would say about the book would not be based on evidence but opinion.

As to the latter, I think it's a matter of projection. Poor Clayton, for example, struggled mightily to find one source to support his unsupported opinions about Mrs Zisblatt, Dr Neander, and Steven Spielberg. I understand that this is a little raw just now for you guys.

As to the former, why do you suggest an ADL newsletter?

In any event, no, I won't be posting a review of this dated book. We can discuss it here, of course, but I find it rather amusing to watch you all using various means to avoid writing out your up to date narrative of the history of the hoax. At this point, the amusement is blurring into boredom, true.

The ADL? Why the ADL? I had thought we were discussing the history of hoaxing, as a proper history, and trying to get past a few distractions. What does the ADL have to do with me and with this topic?

 

[Dogzilla]

The 1961 Civil Defense handbook describes the exact same process as used at Treblinka to do large scale removal of corpses after a nuclear attack. It also stresses the need to do this in a secluded area to avoid further damaging the moral of survivors.

For further details I refer you to the 1965 doco The War Game

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059894/

Do you have a link to the handbook itself instead of an IMDB description of a movie?

 

[Dogzilla]

The history of the hoaxing. How the hoax developed and captured the minds of so many people. Who was involved. How the hoaxsters worked, exchanged ideas, altered documents, tarted up evidence, staged photographs. When and where major accomplishments took place. The full story. All the evidence--lies exposed, the Jews behind the hoaxing, meeting notes, receipts and orders, memoranda, confidential notes, all the secrets of the hoax. Who will write it--Saggy? LGR? Dogzilla? Gene Alley?

You're getting hung up on the trivial details. We must not ask how such a massive disinformation campaign was technically possible. It was technically possible because it happened.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You're getting hung up on the trivial details. We must not ask how such a massive disinformation campaign was technically possible. It was technically possible because it happened.

You misunderstand or play games with what I was asking. I wasn't asking how it was technically possible for the hoaxing to take place. I was asking what happened, with proof.

For one thing, everything that can occur does not actually occur. What I am interested in is what actually occurred during the hoaxing and how.

You are continuing to dodge the request, I am growing increasingly bored by the game of dodge, so perhaps we should just add this one to the list of Rev non-responses.

 

[Ignorantbystander]

You're getting hung up on the trivial details. We must not ask how such a massive disinformation campaign was technically possible. It was technically possible because it happened.

Ok, so it was possible because it happened. And evidence is, of course, trivial.
Your 'arguments' grow stronger every day.

Do you still take yourself serious?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I don't know a thing about poisoned porridge except the little I can glean from your post about it.

I do know that in the camps run by the Nazis atrocities and brutalization of inmates were common, that the SS in the camps made use of dehumanizing tortures and punishments, and that atrocities were innovative in their cruelty. For example, in just one report we can read about

- prisoners kept on a diet of turnip soup, a little bread, a tiny scrap of meat distributed or withheld at the whim of camp directors

- the withholding of rations on the whim of camp authorities, just to be cruel

- inmates with TB whom camp administration refused medical treatment and housed alongside healthy inmates

- sick inmates made to work, flogged and beaten

- young children in the camps, held apart from their parents (as at Salaspils according to your source)

- women beaten in their faces with nail studded boards

- inmates punished by being locked into freezing dungeons made of concrete and denied food

- laborers hosed down with cold water in winter, as punishment, in the assembly squares

- workers executed for stealing potatoes

- public executions in the camps for minor violations of rules

As to the specifics of porridge, I don't know--and, more to the point--this sort of detail is not what I was after. What I wanted to hear was the denier narrative of how the hoax was spun, as a whole, as a historical development.

IIRC Angrick & Klein, shockingly, do not cover or even mention porridge as weapon or as food. Without knowing more, about the porridge at Salaspils and never having taken a position on porridge, I feel it would be presumptuous of me to spin out guesses about your quotation. Now this is different to those of you who have been talking about the hoax regularly, have supposedly gained knowledge of hoaxing, and who have taken positions on the topic. Sharing your explanation of its development shouldn't be so hard. You should be able to do this without hemming and hawing, strawmen, baiting, distractions, citations to dated books, or a query about porridge designed to take us off topic.

The above is idiocy. It is a 1 step forward and 2 steps back mentality. How could any productive labor be expected by the Germans with the above circus of horrors going on?

Yet young teenage women, the age old prime target of sadists and rapists, survive. In the midst of every cruelty and atrocity, plus many new ones, known to man. Except rape.
There are no rape stories?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Do you have a link to the handbook itself instead of an IMDB description of a movie?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059894/

ROTFLMAO

 

[LemmyCaution]

The above is idiocy. It is a 1 step forward and 2 steps back mentality. How could any productive labor be expected by the Germans with the above circus of horrors going on?

Yet young teenage women, the age old prime target of sadists and rapists, survive. In the midst of every cruelty and atrocity, plus many new ones, known to man. Except rape.
There are no rape stories?

Another post based on the evidence of your own opinion. I wonder, Clayton, do you deny atrocities in the concentration and POW camps? And only on the basis of your idea of common sense? Or do you have evidence about this? If these accounts are madeup, who made them up?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I don't know a thing about poisoned porridge except the little I can glean from your post about it.

I do know that in the camps run by the Nazis atrocities and brutalization of inmates were common, that the SS in the camps made use of dehumanizing tortures and punishments, and that atrocities were innovative in their cruelty. For example, in just one report we can read about

- prisoners kept on a diet of turnip soup, a little bread, a tiny scrap of meat distributed or withheld at the whim of camp directors

- the withholding of rations on the whim of camp authorities, just to be cruel

- inmates with TB whom camp administration refused medical treatment and housed alongside healthy inmates

- sick inmates made to work, flogged and beaten

- young children in the camps, held apart from their parents (as at Salaspils according to your source)

- women beaten in their faces with nail studded boards

- inmates punished by being locked into freezing dungeons made of concrete and denied food

- laborers hosed down with cold water in winter, as punishment, in the assembly squares

- workers executed for stealing potatoes

- public executions in the camps for minor violations of rules

Please provide a link to the in just one report

 

[LemmyCaution]

Please provide a link to the in just one report

What makes you think there is a link to this report? Are you under the impression that everything is Google-ready? In fact, I don't know if the report is reproduced on the Internet. I read about it in something called a book. I am away from home this weekend, and thus I summarized from a book I had read some time ago, using a post I'd made in another forum as the basis, so I will not be able to cite the reference this morning. I will be happy to provide the reference, however, when I return home this evening.

But please know that the one report I alluded to is the tip of a very large iceberg. Sofsky, The Order of Terror: The Concentration Camp, pp 214-240, contains many examples of terroristic practices in various concentration camps. To take two examples, at Dachau an SS order sheet listed 47 "crimes" for which prisoners were to be flogged; these included insolence toward SS, negligence at work, cutting up a woolen blanket, and pilfering a potato. p 332 At Sachsenhausen, guards selected certain prisoners and beat them with shovels, clubs, and water cans, resulting in serious injuries and deaths. The beard of one prisoner was set on fire. In a sort of precursor to waterboarding, 2 prisoners had hoses stuck into their mouths with the water turned on full. In February 1942, 60-70 prisoners were run out of their barracks and then beaten on the heads at the exit, after which they were forced to lie down in the snow where they were trampled by SS men. p 226 (Schubert and Sorge were later convicted of some of these actions.)

 

[MG1962]

Do you have a link to the handbook itself instead of an IMDB description of a movie?

Np otherwise I would have linked it. The doco was made using the document and graphics from the text are used during the show.

I doubt the book ever had wide ciruclation given some of the instructions and methods described in it. Especially the section on how to triage the wounded its extremely disturbing even by Nazi standards

 

[Clayton Moore]

Another post based on the evidence of your own opinion. I wonder, Clayton, do you deny atrocities in the concentration and POW camps? And only on the basis of your idea of common sense? Or do you have evidence about this? If these accounts are madeup, who made them up?

There are sexual atrocities against women described daily in minutiae on prime time TV. Did Himmler issue the extermination directive in code that forbade committing sexual atrocities against females? A KIIYP* code?

I read that 137 or so of the Germans, who were interrogated prior to the trials after the war, had their testicles crushed. Yet I haven't read any testimony of that happening to any prisoner in the camps.

* keep it in your pants

 

[TSR]

I read that 137 or so of the Germans, who were interrogated prior to the trials after the war, had their testicles crushed.

.
Was this in one of the non-denier resources you lied were your primary font of knowledge?

It never happened.
.