• 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.
The NYT has made a liar of you Nick, but it doesn't surprise me that you don't admit it.

Let's try another reference....close to home for you ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6573005.stm

EU agrees new racial hatred law

"Under the agreement, incitement to hatred or violence against a group or a person based on colour, race, national or ethnic origin must be punishable by at least a year in jail."


Now, why is Mattogno, who is obviously guilty of inciting racial hatred against Jews by denying the holohoax, in jail? To discover the answer, you'll have to read the article !

which evidently you didn't do.

From your own link - in fact, from the first few paragraphs of your link:

European interior ministers have agreed to make incitement to racism an EU-wide crime, but have stopped short of a blanket ban on Holocaust denial. The agreement makes it an offence to condone or grossly trivialise crimes of genocide - but only if the effect is incitement to violence or hatred.
The deal follows six years of talks, and will disappoint Germany, which pushed hard for a Holocaust-denial law.

and at the end:

Countries where it is already a crime to deny the Holocaust will stick to their existing rules, but other countries will not be obliged to help them with judicial investigations.

Germany thought otherwise, but couldn't extradite a Holocaust denier from Britain on an EU arrest warrant.

Saggy, if you disagree with the above, then please link to the statute of UK law (i.e. a law that has been enacted and is currently in force), which criminalises Holocaust denial. And then do the same with all the other countries that I said don't have laws against Holocaust or genocide denial.

Only if you can provide such links to a law can you win this one, because newspaper articles you evidently don't understand and didn't read properly cannot, under any circumstances, trump what is or is not in the law itself.

The whole point of the BBC article is to explain why the EU resolution ended up as a compromise between member states like Germany that wanted denial criminalised generally, and member states like Britain and the Scandinavian countries that did not.

Britain is not obliged to criminalise denial by the EU resolution, and hasn't done so. Any troglodyte can come to Britain and deny the Holocaust to their heart's content. They might not be listened to and might earn derision for their denial, but they're not going to end up in jail.

As I said, if you want to prove me wrong, then you must link to the statute in the UK law books which says otherwise.
 
You didn't read it at all, did you?

Whenever you see the nonsensical phrase 'incitement to hatred' you know the Jews wrote the law, and you know that it's real purpose is to criminalize any criticism of Jews. They don't have to put explicilty put holohoax denial in the law.

Mattogno is guilty of 'incitement to hatred' of Jews. The only reason he is not in jail for his crime is that the EU gave countries the option of enforcing the law. Mattogno is guilty of violating the law, but Italy has chosen not to prosecute.

The laws against 'incitement to hatred' are Orwellian. The Jews have been hated for 3000 years without the necessity of any incitement whatever other than their own actions. Now, however, anyone expressing hatred of Jews is guilty of a crime, the Jews are a priori absolved of all sins. Perfect.

HTH
 
Last edited:
Saggy, first, do you mind if I address you by your screen name?

Second, please explain how a small non-homogeneous group that up until early last century was quite often legally prevented from owning land, joining the military, or engaging in many professions, subjected to random killings over the years and in some areas prevented from even residing within certain countries and that presently occupy a really tiny territory with a marginal economy and a nasty security situation exert the level of control that you are suggesting?

Oh, and if you actually read the legislation - it criminalizes the incitement of hatred and violence - surely preventing unreasoning hatred and violence is a laudable goal for society?
 
For the record "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is a valid maxim when we're talking about the holocaust but it's not when we're not talking about the holocaust. That's called a double standard, not a false analogy.

You are again ignoring two things, I and others already explained to you:
1. Nobody says, that the stuff in the bible didn't happen, just because we have no evidence for it. You on the other hand are saying that about the holocaust. There is no evidence or reason to believe the stuff in the bible to be true, but that's it, it still could have happened.

2. There is no absence of evidence, when it comes to the holocaust in general, period. There is an absence of evidence in specific details and what you are doing is concluding from this absence in details, that the whole thing didn't happen. And that is a load of crap.

That's why you are making a false analogy.

Also, revisionists weren't always banned from the archives. Revisionism wasn't always illegal in the countries where one might want to visit archives. David Irving used to rummage around in the archives all the time.

So you had your chance, to bad you didn't find anything in 50 *********** years.
 
Last edited:
Second, please explain how a small non-homogeneous group that up until early last century was quite often legally prevented from owning land, joining the military, or engaging in many professions, subjected to random killings over the years and in some areas prevented from even residing within certain countries and that presently occupy a really tiny territory with a marginal economy and a nasty security situation exert the level of control that you are suggesting?

It's all about the money. Jews control the world's financial systems, starting with the Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve in the US along with the big banks. They also control the media in the US and the west generally. How have they managed to do it? It beats the hell out of me, I confess. But, it's a fact.

Just one example of the influence of the Jews - after WW I the Jews bought Winston Churchill. Let me find the link for those interested...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cMoVAf05WQ

You may have to follow the vid through a few segments.

Oh, and if you actually read the legislation - it criminalizes the incitement of hatred and violence - surely preventing unreasoning hatred and violence is a laudable goal for society?

A person can incite violence, but inciting hatred is Orwellian doublespeak meant to facilitate the implementation of government thought control. The hate speech laws and the hate crime laws are a subversive attack on free speech sponsored entirely by Jews, they have been remarkably successful in Europe, but the Jews have been thwarted somewhat in the US by the First Amendment, you can read about their efforts here ....

http://www.adl.org/internet/print.asp

and here ...http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/print.asp
 
I expect that virtually everyone reading this thread is increasingly at a loss as to why you cannot admit that you are flat-out wrong about Holocaust denial being a criminal offence in every EU member state.

This has been pointed out to you by numerous people on this thread. You have been given links to explanations clarifying the legal situation and asked to account for why prominent deniers living in specific EU states haven't been arrested. No lawyer in Europe would agree with you. None of the case law agrees with you. Events like Toeben not being extradited from the UK to Germany contradict your claim.

You're wrong, and that's that.

You notice this a lot with people who have views in opposition to the norm. If I had to guess, it is because if they were to admit that they are wrong about something, they very well could be wrong about everything.
 
This isn't about you obfuscating the issue and trying to declare that people were just missing. It's about asking for your side's best explanation of their fate. Currently, revisionism doesn't have one. You only have obfuscation.



The request wasn't about posing a false dilemma. It asked very simply for a coherent explanation of the fate of Europe's Jews which can run the numbers. Either you have one or you don't. After 65 years it's really not too much to expect that your side could offer some and say, this group met this fate, this group survived entirely, this group emigrated, that group were abducted by aliens, the other group were raptured.

Or whatever it is you can show happened to them.



You don't get it, do you? I predicted that you would try to shift burden of proof and lsurprise surprise, now you're asking questions of me when my point was that your side as a whole needs to answer them.



You tell me.



You tell me.



So? Their deaths can be estimated or calculated using a variety of sources. You just shot yourself in the foot by bringing up non-Jewish deaths because it's a virtual certainty that you're going to apply a different standard to Jewish deaths.



You can prove that collateral damage from bombing and shelling killed millions in Eastern Europe?



Am I? I didn't actually say anything, I merely asked you to provide a coherent explanation for the numbers without obfuscating or moving the goalposts. Clearly, that was too much to expect.

It's painfully obvious that you're floundering because no guru on the denier side has come up with anything that you can parrot. Unless you're going to try and have us believe Rassinier's dubious arithmetic.



This is a whopping great strawman. And strawmen don't add up to a coherent explanation. Vague assertions and conjectures don't add up to anything much at all.

You're missing the point, as usual. People can be missing without being dead and people can be dead without being exterminated. How would finding a hidden enclave of Jews somewhere prove that Nazi Germany never intended to physically exterminate all the Jews in the world and built magic gas chambers to further this aim? All that would prove is that some people survive a genocide--your stock answer to explain all the Jews who we know actually were left after the war.

You're "where did they go?" only works under the false dilemma of 1) survival or 2) extermination. That's why it fails every time. Of course, your case isn't helped by the fact that estimates of the Jewish population in Europe in the 1930s is even more nebulous than estimates of the Jewish population in the United States today; the Jewish population in Israel showed double digit growth throughout the late 1940s; and Jewish leaders were talking about six million dead before the war was even over--a number that shows remarkable resilience despite the ever decreasing estimates of individual "death" camp death tolls.
 
You can prove that collateral damage from bombing and shelling killed millions in Eastern Europe?

You got me with this one, I admit. I can't actually prove that millions of innocent civilians were killed during World War II so I'll concede your point that they were not.
 
A double standard you failed to prove existed.

Except I did.



It seems you have a typical layman's inability to read or comprehend footnotes. I suggest you look over writings by Udo Walendy, Germar Rudolf, Walter Sanning* and Carlo Mattogno and tell us what you see when you cast your eye to the bottom of the page.

*not his real name. Clue!

Revisionist authors bore me. I find the mainstream historians do a better job of debunking the holocaust.
 
You're missing the point, as usual.

No, I'm not. My post, to which you replied, went as follows:

I think you need to back up and reflect on how badly your side has failed on finding any survivors full stop.

I'm not talking about family reunions. I'm talking about making a convincing argument showing that the numbers are genuinely wrong and that another set of numbers are right.

Since it's a dead cert that you're only going to reply with drivel like the above post with attempts to obfuscate, move goalposts and play burden of proof table tennis, I should clarify that what I'm talking about is actually fairly simple.

If 'revisionism' was serious and amounted to something more than the antisemitic verbiage that it really is, then it'd be a simple matter to show the world that the numbers were all wrong and lo! here are the millions of Jews, this is what happened to them, some went here, some died, some went there.

That would shut up Saggy's fantasy Zionists, and hit newspaper headlines with the Major Revision to World History you seem to think is your natural birthright.

Tell you what: why don't we dig out a table of prewar population statistics for the Jews of Europe (and even the world), and then you and your buddies tell us, with evidence, what happened to them.

You tell us, the same way that every other historian would tell the story of a population upheaval or mass migration. With evidence.

No obfuscation, no conjectures, no appeals to unknowability, no burden of proof table tennis. It's just you and positive evidence.

That's how history is meant to be revised.

That was a straightforward request for an explanation for what happened to the Jews of Europe. I even anticipated the possibility that there would be more than one fate:

show the world that the numbers were all wrong and lo! here are the millions of Jews, this is what happened to them, some went here, some died, some went there.

but you insisted on ignoring this, and then ignored it again when I replied.

People can be missing without being dead

I asked you not to obfuscate, and you continue to try to do so.

and people can be dead without being exterminated.

So what? I asked you to tell us what happened to the Jews of Europe. You're not telling us what happened, you're offering pointless musings about how to categorise dead people based on a strawman interpretation of what the Holocaust was.

How would finding a hidden enclave of Jews somewhere prove that Nazi Germany never intended to physically exterminate all the Jews in the world and built magic gas chambers to further this aim? All that would prove is that some people survive a genocide--your stock answer to explain all the Jews who we know actually were left after the war.

Firstly: can you even find a hidden enclave of Jews somewhere?

Secondly: you're still missing the point. I asked you (as a representative of the belief system known as Holocaust revisionism) to explain what happened to the Jews. I said nothing about extermination, I did not prejudice the issue that way, I left it entirely open. This isn't about the existing explanation, it's about your explanation.

But you can't seemingly even offer the glimmer of an answer to the question. You're not telling me, go read this detailed study of the question written by this awesome researcher who shows convincingly that things worked out differently. If you could point to such a work then I and others would be all ears, and we could discuss that work.

Or, if it's so freaking obvious what the answer is, then you can explain it all to us, here and now, on this thread. Using evidence, of course. Not speculation and coulda-woulda-shouldas.

You're "where did they go?" only works under the false dilemma of 1) survival or 2) extermination.

I didn't pose a false dilemma. I asked you an open-ended question. If you have evidence showing that 3 million survived, please present it. If you have evidence showing that 2 million died from collateral damage, please present it.

That's why it fails every time. Of course, your case isn't helped by the fact that estimates of the Jewish population in Europe in the 1930s is even more nebulous than estimates of the Jewish population in the United States today;

Really? Please demonstrate this, rigorously, taking into account known censuses and population registration statistics for the 1930s and 1940s.

the Jewish population in Israel showed double digit growth throughout the late 1940s;

Jolly good. Have you eliminated the migration from the Arab world from those figures?

and Jewish leaders were talking about six million dead before the war was even over

actually at a time when virtually all of Europe had been liberated already, and when they had a mass of news reports discussing the extinction of community after community.

--a number that shows remarkable resilience despite the ever decreasing estimates of individual "death" camp death tolls.

that's because the overall figures have never been based on adding up individual death camp tolls, as you have been told repeatedly.


But those are pointless distractions. Your job is to tell us what happened to the Jews using positive evidence, not to obfuscate and strawman and misunderstand the issue.

Until you offer such an explanation, then you're going to be posting alongside two complete morons, a self-confessed troll and occasionally one other whacko in support of your beliefs, until one of you dies, at which point it'd be just two or three morons/troll/whackos. You're never going to get anywhere. You haven't so far, not after nearly 7000 posts. Another 7000 posts like the last 7000 won't get you any farther.

Time to change up, Dogzilla.
 
You got me with this one, I admit. I can't actually prove that millions of innocent civilians were killed during World War II so I'll concede your point that they were not.

I didn't make any such point or claim. I simply asked you whether you could prove your claim that millions of civilians were killed as collateral damage in Eastern Europe during WWII. A straightforward request that implied no position on my side.

Your reply should actually have read 'I don't know how I can substantiate my off the cuff claim about millions of deaths from combat operations', since it's pretty clear you've never really thought about it very much, and perhaps might want to look some stuff up before you next shoot your mouth off.
 
Except I did.

Where was that? Please LINK to the post where you definitively proved a double standard. Don't tell me to search the thread. LINK or it didn't happen.

Revisionist authors bore me.

Yet a moment ago you were bleating on behalf of people who bore you and whining about how they supposedly can't get into archives, even though they have got into archives.

Ah well, consistency isn't your strong suit.

I find the mainstream historians do a better job of debunking the holocaust.

Funny how essentially nobody other than a handful of deniers reports anything like this. You'd have thought that since mainstream historians have greater access to an audience, that if your reaction was at all common that there'd be more revisionists. But apparently not, since on a forum with 28,493 members there are about half a dozen of you guys, and a couple who got banned. And we all know that your sidekicks don't read mainstream historians, which means your reaction is essentially unique around these parts.
 
You're "where did they go?" only works under the false dilemma of 1) survival or 2) extermination.

So, if I follow your thinking correctly — please correct me if I'm wrong — these are the possibilities: European Jews (1) survived in Europe during the war; (2) died in Europe during the war due to causes other than extermination; and (3) died in Europe during the war due to extermination; and (4) left Europe entirely. That about sum it up?

If we accept these four possibilities, and again, I'm not insisting upon this point, then we are still left with a problem that evokes the "Where did they go?" question. I.e., what about those Jews that were sent to the concentration camps in Poland?

We can safely assume that they do not fall into (1), can we not? I.e., we simply have no evidence of their turning up someplace else years later in sufficient numbers to suggest something other than their having died.

I think we can also safely assume that they don't fall into (4). Again, we lack the evidence to conclude that they ended up elsewhere. Nearly seventy years after the fact and twenty years after the fall of the USSR, they haven't ended up anywhere else, and it's worth noting that at least a million of these people were under the age of eighteen, so it's entirely possible that, were they someplace else, they'd still be alive today.

That leaves only the possibility that they died in Europe. Here's where your claim hits the major snag. Because they were removed from their homes against their wills, their blood is on the Nazis' hands. That doesn't prove that they died in gas chambers in an extermination program per se, but it does make them the Nazis' responsibility.

That essentially leaves two issues: The intentionality of their deaths and the numbers.

The intentionality is much of what is debated here, as it includes the matter of method of extermination. It's a bit beyond the purview of this particular post, but I'll briefly state that I think the evidence of gassing is overwhelming, encompassing, as it does, eyewitness testimonies from survivors and perpetrators, documents, and forensic testing, including cyanide testing at Auschwitz and extensive excavations at the Reinhard camps.

That being said, the final issue is numbers.

Of course, your case isn't helped by the fact that estimates of the Jewish population in Europe in the 1930s is even more nebulous than estimates of the Jewish population in the United States today; the Jewish population in Israel showed double digit growth throughout the late 1940s; and Jewish leaders were talking about six million dead before the war was even over--a number that shows remarkable resilience despite the ever decreasing estimates of individual "death" camp death tolls.

Again, most of this stuff has been gone over ad infinitum, but to state briefly: The initial death toll figures that were in the six million range were only calculated when the war was within a few months of ending. By this time, the vast majority of Jews were, in fact, already dead and it was well known that Germany would be losing very soon. These estimates, by the way, were initially then downsized, first by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry, which found 5.75 million missing Jews, and then by Reitlinger (4.5 million), who was revised by Hilberg, who upsized to 5.1 million. (Not sure of Poliakov's numbers; I assume Nick could add them). Only with Benz and later writers do we get numbers consistently closer to, or even in excess of, six million.

Jewish population growth in the 1940s was a result of two factors: (1) Legalized immigration, including of Jews who survived the Holocaust; and (2) The deportation or forced emigration of nearly a million Jews from Arab and Muslim countries in the wake of Israel's declaration of independence. With a very small Jewish population to begin with, those factors were going to contribute, and did contribute, to double-digit population growth.

What did NOT happen was thousands, or even hundreds, of Jews claiming they'd been in Treblinka, or Sobibor, or Belzec, or Chelmno, and surviving, despite well kept records recording hundreds of thousands of Jews being sent there. The survivor numbers are in the double digits for Treblinka and Sobibor and single digits for Belzec and Chelmno.

Ergo, if these hundreds of thousands of Jews were not exterminated, as voluminous evidence suggests, then what happened to them?
 
Last edited:
It's all about the money.
Is it? Provide any evidence.

Jews control the world's financial systems,
Do they?
starting with the Bank of England,
They do? provide evidence. and why England?
and the Federal Reserve in the US
Representing under 5% of the world. Who cares what the fed does when it's in charge of a bankrupt economy? Who cares what the US does?
along with the big banks.
Who did what exactly? Overextended themselves? Sure, but you will have to come up with more than that.
They also control the media in the US and the west generally.
I have no TV, nor papers, nor subscriptions to anything. How is the ebil joo controlling me?
How have they managed to do it?
You have to show they have before asking that question.
So far, you have failed at that task.

It beats the hell out of me, I confess. But, it's a fact.
Making a wild claim does not make it so.

Just one example of the influence of the Jews - after WW I the Jews bought Winston Churchill. Let me find the link for those interested...
Please do. But we all know those will be hate sites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cMoVAf05WQ

You may have to follow the vid through a few segments.
And back to argumentum ad youtubem you go. No I am not about to waste time on your random buffoonery.



A person can incite violence, but inciting hatred is Orwellian doublespeak meant to facilitate the implementation of government thought control.
Nobody controlling my thoughts. Provide evidence that such exists.

The hate speech laws and the hate crime laws are a subversive attack on free speech sponsored entirely by Jews,
Evidence?

they have been remarkably successful in Europe,
You already got spanked on that one.

but the Jews have been thwarted somewhat in the US by the First Amendment, you can read about their efforts here ....

http://www.adl.org/internet/print.asp

and here ...http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/print.asp

And at last you show your true colours
 
You are again ignoring two things, I and others already explained to you:
1. Nobody says, that the stuff in the bible didn't happen, just because we have no evidence for it. You on the other hand are saying that about the holocaust. There is no evidence or reason to believe the stuff in the bible to be true, but that's it, it still could have happened.

2. There is no absence of evidence, when it comes to the holocaust in general, period. There is an absence of evidence in specific details and what you are doing is concluding from this absence in details, that the whole thing didn't happen. And that is a load of crap.

That's why you are making a false analogy.

I'm pretty sure you're just jerking me around because nobody who can operate a computer can be so stupid. But just in case you really are that dense, I'll spell out what is obvious to everybody else: We're not talking about whether or not the Bible is true or whether or not the holocaust is true. We're not talking about evidence or lack of evidence for the Bible, for the holocaust, or for any historical event. The veracity of the events themselves do not matter for our discussion.

All that's important is that if there are "important questions" about the holocaust (what those questions are doesn't matter) for which we don't have enough evidence to conclusively answer (whether or not we actually have enough evidence to answer the questions or not doesn't matter), we can proceed to a conclusion without the evidence because "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

When we have stories in the Bible that cannot be confirmed outside of the Bible (whether or not there are stories in the Bible that cannot be confirmed outside of the Bible doesn't matter), the notion that we can still accept them as true because "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is considered absurd.



So you had your chance, to bad you didn't find anything in 50 *********** years.

That's the problem! We couldn't find anything. Nothing to prove gas chambers. Nothing to prove an intentional plan to exterminate the Jews. It's now up to you guys to come up with evidence.
 
It's all about the money. Jews control the world's financial systems, starting with the Bank of England, and the Federal Reserve in the US along with the big banks. They also control the media in the US and the west generally. How have they managed to do it? It beats the hell out of me, I confess. But, it's a fact./quote]
Wow, more lies on top of the "EU holocaust denial ban" lie.:rolleyes:
 
You notice this a lot with people who have views in opposition to the norm. If I had to guess, it is because if they were to admit that they are wrong about something, they very well could be wrong about everything.
Well for the xians I believe something like this is what they fear;

Other believers seem to have similar problems accepting that any element of their dogma could be wrong.
 
I'm pretty sure you're just jerking me around because nobody who can operate a computer can be so stupid. But just in case you really are that dense, I'll spell out what is obvious to everybody else: We're not talking about whether or not the Bible is true or whether or not the holocaust is true. We're not talking about evidence or lack of evidence for the Bible, for the holocaust, or for any historical event. The veracity of the events themselves do not matter for our discussion.

All that's important is that if there are "important questions" about the holocaust (what those questions are doesn't matter) for which we don't have enough evidence to conclusively answer (whether or not we actually have enough evidence to answer the questions or not doesn't matter), we can proceed to a conclusion without the evidence because "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

When we have stories in the Bible that cannot be confirmed outside of the Bible (whether or not there are stories in the Bible that cannot be confirmed outside of the Bible doesn't matter), the notion that we can still accept them as true because "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is considered absurd.

The entire discussion started because you made the claim, still unsubstantiated, that the Holocaust was held to a different standard of evidence to other historical events. You've repeatedly avoided comparing the Holocaust to other 20th Century historical events and as we see above, have driven the discussion into an entirely pointless and tedious cul-de-sac with irrelevant comparisons to Biblical events.

To date, you've cited precisely one person, Michael Shermer, who has ever written about the Holocaust at book length, who said something about 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' in the context of a TV interview, and not in his book that anyone has so far shown (least of all you). But there are thousands of people who have written books on the Holocaust in a scholarly context, and uses of this phrase seem to be exceedingly thin on the ground in those books.

Nowhere have you even bothered to spell out an example where the average historian or writer on the Holocaust would implicitly or explicitly rely on the adage 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' regarding the Holocaust. Instead you keep repeating yourself and getting entangled in arguments by analogy while conflating parts for the whole.

You also seem to be relying on unstated assumptions about what constitutes evidence, which is quite possibly the root cause of your inability to convince anyone who has tried to discuss this with you, since you keep on talking past people and don't actually listen to what is being said back to you.

I predict that you'll ignore all of the above, as you have multiple previous posts I've made on the subject of standards of evidence and 'absence of evidence'.

That's the problem! We couldn't find anything. Nothing to prove gas chambers. Nothing to prove an intentional plan to exterminate the Jews. It's now up to you guys to come up with evidence.

Kevin was pointing out that after more than 50 years, revisionists have failed to find anything positive to substantiate any of the hypotheses or theories they have dreamed up. There is no evidence to substantiate any of the conspiracy theories about coercion, torture, forgery or hoaxing that have been proferred repeatedly over the decades by deniers. There is no evidence to sustain the 'resettlement' thesis, or to prove the deranged arithmetic of Rassinier, Butz, Sanning and other troglodytes who have tried to 'prove' that the real death toll was only a million, or whatever it's supposed to be.

On the other hand, there's more than enough evidence for gas chambers and an intentional plan of extermination that they were recognised as historical facts 65 years ago, and all the evidence that has been unearthed since then has only corroborated those facts.

The non-negligible amount of evidence for the Holocaust on one hand, and the nonexistent amount of evidence in support of revisionist contentions and claims on the other, are why you guys are reduced to arguing about all this on internet forums in ever decreasing numbers, and are firmly shut out of more serious venues.
 
You're "where did they go?" only works under the false dilemma of 1) survival or 2) extermination.
This is silly. Holocaust historians have accounted for Europe's Jewish population, arguing that 5+ million were exterminated by the Nazis and their allies. Since you disagree, you should be able to explain the numbers, roughly: 1) impact of normal demographic processes (births/deaths), 2) emigration to specific places, 3) resettlement, 4) hiding, 5) "collateral" damage of specific types, 6) changed name, 7) died in camps, 8) etc.

You will notice that many different fates could be involved.

Even in a contained case, like Warsaw or Lodz ghetto, you should be able to show population change in various categories, using those historians like Trunk you feel debunk the Holocaust, showing why the population in the ghettos declined at such a magnitude. You will need to discuss declining birth rates, the effect of disease, transfers to labor sites, flight and hiding, transfers to hygienic waystations like Treblinka, etc. You might even, if you looked hard enough, discover shootings and, well, shipments out to death camps as well as labor camps whose inmates were later liquidated.

If you can't show the maths, the simple fact is that you haven't made your case. No amount of whining and complaining changes this fact.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom