Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Dogzilla]

You mean, the quote I posted. I went to the original source. Something you should probably learn.

Do you think the brackets added anything? Do you think they altered the meaning of his statement?

I cut corners by using what I could find on the internet. I cannot track down the original source of every quote I use. No I don't think the brackets added anything. But that's the way the quote appeared online.

 

[Dogzilla]

I am interested if you believe they exist

I don't know. I haven't read about death camps in North Korea.

 

[Dogzilla]

so that's what you do? I kind of figured.

So copying and pasting from an internet source is a logical fallacy?

 

[TSR]

I cut corners by using what I could find on the internet.

.
Denier 'scholarship' in action.
.

I cannot track down the original source of every quote I use.

.
Why not? The rest of us have no problems doing so. Is it because it's too much like doing research for you?
.

No I don't think the brackets added anything. But that's the way the quote appeared online.

.
And you feel absolutely no qualm about making definitive assertions about your cited quote under those circumstances? What your source mined was significantly different than what was actually written.

But you can't be bothered with minor details like accuracy, or the fact that people do not speak in brackets, nor use parenthetical comments to replace what they have actually written instead of, you know, writing what they wrote to begin with.

Failed denier 'research' ... fails.
.

 

[TSR]

So copying and pasting from an internet source is a logical fallacy?

.
Not necessarily if you *say* that's your source.

You didn't.

You said it was what was originally written.

It wasn't.

You could have said "such and such site says..."

You didn't.

You should have known that the use of such brackets indicates editing.

You are apparently too lazy to care.

Which is why you, and every other denier out there, are academic jokes, useful only for the comic relief.

And you fail at that, being rather more sad than funny.
.

 

[Wroclaw]

And again, how many people were holding how many loaded guns to how many heads for how long?

Well, coercion was one of merely many methods the Nazis used, but when violent resistance was used by the Jews, violence was always used back. The Nazis were well armed and severely outgunned even the best-supplied partisan units.

So how many? Well, the Nazis' guns could fire ten rounds a second. I think you can do the math.

 

[Saggy]

"Blobel, blobel, blobel."

Change the record, it's stuck again...

Blobel is 50% of the hoax -

50% - they gassed the Jews
50% - they disappeared the bodies

Blobel is the only 'evidence' for the disappearance of the Jews in the Reinhard camps and on the eastern theater. And, Blobel's 'confession' is absurd and an obvious hoax.

 

[Dogzilla]

One of your many dishonesties in this discussion is actually your refusal to consider scale properly. The Nazis used gassing at quite a few different sites, and they also cremated bodies at quite a few different sites. Some involved Jewish victims only, some a mix of Jewish and non-Jewish victims. But pretty much all we ever hear about from you is Treblinka, Treblinka, Treblinka.

Because Treblinka, Treblinka, Treblinka is the most ridiculous component of the entire holocaust. Most of your holocaust could work. Most of your holocaust has evidence supporting it. Not only is the evidence supporting the Treblinka story questionable at the very least, the scale of killing is impossible.

It's not like the number of sites where gassing and burning took place is that large, yet for some curious reason deniers always remain unable to discuss the entire set.

Because the "entire set" isn't the proper unit of analysis.

So let's consider scale, shall we?

There are probably dozens of sites where bodies of executed Jews were exhumed and cremated in the open air by one or other detachment of Sonderkommando 1005. Mostly near to big cities, whereas very few smaller towns were visited by 1005.

So we know that at Kharkov (12,000 Jewish victims) and Rovno (15,000+ Jewish victims), 1005 didn't visit, and mass graves were exhumed after the war, at sites we have German documents for.

we also know that bodies were exhumed and cremated at:
Pinsk (26,000 victims, documented),
Bronnaia Gora near Brest (17,000+ documented victims)
Mogilev (mixture of Jews, POWs and politicals)
Minsk (various sites, including POW graves)
Kiev-Babi Yar (33,000 Jews, c 15,000 non-Jews)
across much of the Crimea (28,000 Jews, documented)
Riga (various sites, > 40-50,000 Jews)
Kaunas (Fort IX, large)
Vilnius-Ponary (10s of 1000s of Jews)
Lwow-Janowska (10s of 1000s of Jews)
around Bialystok
around Grodno
Krakow (1000s of Jews, 1000s of Polish politicals)
Trawniki and Poniatowa (24,000 Jews)

These were all open-air cremations. The organisation of the exhumations and cremations was devolved to regional SS authorities as well as Blobel's department. Detachments 1005-A and 1005-B existed, but so did other "1005" detachments which were set up locally w/o Blobel's direct involvement. The labour forces came from a mix of Jews and Soviet POWs, so by late 1943 you're talking about probably, several thousand workers operating across multiple locations. We know of several dozen survivors who escaped these detachments, and we have a growing number of documents referring to their activities in various localities, plus proof of involvement of specific SS officers from annotations in their personnel files. The cremations were observed and reported by diarists or underground reports, and all the sites were looked at after liberation, and the graves were identified plus, naturally, cremains.

Since the killings of Jews that took place at these sites were extensively documented by the Nazis in a variety of SS, Police, Army and civil administration reports, the problem in ascertaining numbers comes more often from working out how many non-Jews were shot as resistance sympathisers or activists at these sites, as Sicherheitspolizei reports for the later phase of the occupation are relatively rare.

There are quite a few sites with 10-20,000 victims and several with up to 50,000 (Ponary, Babi Yar, Riga).

I am wondering whether Dogzilla can advance convincing arguments about scale against these sites. (We will ignore outright 'none of it ever happened' trolling and other delaying tactics.)

There are also many concentration camps which claimed similar numbers of victims. Firstly the ones without gas chambers

Buchenwald
Belsen
Flossenbuerg
Gross-Rosen

plus the camps in the Baltic states
Vaivara
Riga-Kaiserwald-Salaspils
Kauen
which overlap with the ghettos and shooting sites, so are less important

and then the camp which had a gas chamber but never used it
Dachau

and then the ones which also operated gas chambers for one of several different purposes (Commissar Order, medical experiments, 'Endphase', executions)

Natzweiler
Ravensbrueck
Stutthof
Sachsenhausen
Mauthausen

All the camps in the Reich had crematoria with a handful of muffles but some became such hell-holes that cremating all the bodies wasn't possible, eg Belsen. Most claimed victims in the 20-40,000 range. Mauthausen, however, claimed 100,000 victims who were virtually all cremated in a relatively small number of muffles in two crematoria, one in the main camp and one in Gusen.

Again one wonders if Dogzilla has an argument based on scale regarding these sites

Then there are the T4 institutes, usign gas chambers and all equipped with, usually, two muffle crematoria. Six institutes at

Hadamar
Bernburg
Sonnenstein
Brandenburg
Grafeneck
Hartheim

where 75,000 psychiatric patients were killed in 1940-41, followed by 15-20,000 concentration camp inmates selected under '14 f 13'. Well-documented, right down to the use of gas as the killing method.

Again one wonders if Dogzilla has any argument about scale against these sites.

Gas was also used at several improvised extermination camps in the form of gas vans. Notably

Semlin near Belgrade (7000+ victims)
Maly Trostinets near Minsk (well over 20,000 victims)

The bodies were later exhumed and cremated, as at other sites where shooting had been used. One can contrast these with exhumations of gas van victims at Smolensk, Krasnodar, Kharkov and a few other localities in the easternmost territories occupied by the Nazis, which were liberated in 1943. There is perfectly good documentary evidence linking gas vans used at Minsk and Belgrade and indeed, evidence linking Minsk and Smolensk.

A variety of methods were used at Majdanek, where 78,000 victims perished. 18,000 were shot in 'Erntefest' in 1943, a number that would have overwhelmed the relatively limited crematoria in the camp, so they were buried and then cremated. Other victims were also buried and then exhumed, eg the Jews of the Lublin ghetto shot in several actions over the course of 1942. Most of the 60,000 other deaths in the camp were 'normal' KZ deaths but there were 1000s who were gassed. 59,000 of the victims were Jews and nearly 20,000 non-Jews.

Again there doesn't seem to be a big problem with scale here.

Already we're talking about 100s of 1000s of victims, more than half a million in the camps in Germany, while a similar number were cremated at the various shooting sites. Meanwhile, well over a million bodies of Jewish victims in the Soviet Union were not cremated and left to be exhumed after liberation.

Chelmno is next up in scale, with 152,000 victims. 145,000 of them died in 1941-2 and were cremated over the winter of 1942-3. 7,000 more died in 1944 and were cremated over the second half of 1944. There doesn't seem to be a problem with scale here. The grave sites have been retraced using modern archaeological methods in recent decades.

Sobibor follows, with between 170,000 and 250,000 victims killed from May 1942 to October 1943. Cremation began in late 1942 and the site was still occupied in the spring of 1944. There doesn't seem to be a problem with scale here. Again, the grave sites have been traced using modern archaeological methods in recent decades, and we have rather striking aerial photos in which the outline of the graves is visible from the air, due to the difference in colour of the grass.

Can Dogzilla advance a convincing argument regarding scale with these camps?

It may be surprising, but Belzec isn't next. In fact it's the Brzezinka woods at Birkenau. in 1942-3 killings took place at Auschwitz in the Bunkers, with the bodies buried in mass graves until the autumn of 1942, then they began to use cremation. The same woodland area was used to inter Soviet POWs and regular inmates who died from other causes. The number buried and cremated in this complex of graves is over 250,000 in 1942-3; 10s of 1000s who couldn't be cremated in the single crematorium in Auschwitz I and nearly a quarter of a million who were gassed. Cremation work went on all winter and ended at an unknown time in the spring of 1943. The site was reused in August 1943 to kill and cremate a portion of the 30,000 Jews deported from Sosnowitz and Bedzin.

The same site was then reused in 1944 to kill and cremate a portion of the 330,000 Hungarian Jews deported to Auschwitz and selected to be murdered. The precise number is unknown and unknowable, but could be anything up to 100,000. So the total number who were killed and cremated in or around the Brzezinka woods could be as much as 400,000. It is probably a little less, but this places the site well above Sobibor and approaching Belzec. The time-frame stretched over 3 years and thus, it would be curious to see if Dogzilla can identify 'scale' as a convincing argument against the mass killings and mass cremation there.

We have a fairly exact number for Belzec, 434,000. Cremation again took many months and may have involved a very large workforce according to new evidence identified by Dieter Pohl. The site was investigated using modern archaeological methods recently and 33 mass graves were identified with a considerable volume.

The crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau consumed a larger number of victims than Belzec. The number incinerated in Krematorium I is in the low 10s of 1000s, maybe 30-40,000. Most were incinerated in Kremas II-V, which together had more muffles than most of the rest of the KZ system combined. In 1943 about 150,000 were cremated there, in the first four months of 1944 some 10s of 1000s, then from May to July 1944, the crematoria worked overtime to incinerate part of the 330,000 Hungarian Jews. The capacity of the crematoria was insufficient to cope with this number, so not only was the Brzezinka site reactivated, but five open air pits were set up around Krema V, which incinerated 10s of 1000s of bodies in the open. We know this was so because of aerial and ground level photos, among other sources (including contemporary Nazi documents).

So "Auschwitz" actually breaks down into
a) Krematorium I
b) Brzezinka site, 1942-3
c) Brzezinka site, 1944
d) open air pits near Krema V, 1944
e) Kremas II-V

Of just over 1 million victims claimed by the camp complex, not more than 50-60% were cremated in the four big new crematoria. The peak of killing saw no fewer than three sites in use.

The single largest site is thus Treblinka, where 780,000 victims died from July 1942 to August 1943, while the site itself remained operational for clean-up until at least November. In 1943, 713,000 people were deported to the camp, of whom several thousand were selected to work at the nearby Treblinka labour camp. Several thousand more were shot at the 'Lazarett' which was already a cremation site in the summer of 1942. There were apparently several thousand bodies littering the forecourt of the camp when it collapsed under Eberl, and these also seem to have been thrown into the 'Lazarett' fire. Thus under 700,000 bodies had to be buried in the mass graves. There were limited experiments with cremation in late 1942, but serious cremation did not begin until March. By the time of the revolt in August, most but not all of the bodies had been incinerated, so the total time-frame was up to 9 months, the bulk in 6 months.

By now, Dogzilla is probably absolutely dying to repeat his personal incredulity over Treblinka, but he shot himself in the foot by bringing up 'scale'. First he has to discuss all the other sites and specify at what point arguments about scale come into play.

And only arguments about scale. No moving of goalposts, no switching of tacks.

Who was it once said 'if you can't dazzle with your brilliance, inundate them with your b******t'? Oh yeah, that was me.

 

[Wroclaw]

Blobel is the only 'evidence' for the disappearance of the Jews in the Reinhard camps and on the eastern theater.

No, he isn't.

 

[Border Reiver]

Who was it once said 'if you can't dazzle with your brilliance, inundate them with your b******t'? Oh yeah, that was me.

The rest of us are dazzled, but your counter is simply to go "I don't believe the scale"?

 

[Dogzilla]

.
As anyone beyond a sixth-grade level of reading comprehension could tell you, in the first case the standard is "answering a single specific question correctly", and in the second "contemporary historical methodology".
.

I like the lack of complete sentences. But your definition, especially the second one, is too specific for me. Do you think you could perhaps be a little more vague and meaningless?

.
Okay, my bad: I should have said "comparable" so that you could not weasel about it.
.

.
If one is stating that contemporary historical methodology has been applied differently (understood to be your original claim, please feel free to clarify that claim if this is incorrect), then the obvious logical next step leads to the way in which the different sets of evidence were handled.

Please feel free to expand on why this is not the case.
.

.
Nor has anyone expect *you* tried to draw a "more true" or "less true" distinction. At least, that is the most rational point you could be attempting with your 'different standards' whine: that should the Holocaust have been held to the standards of other historical events it would become obvious that it is less true than we have been lead to believe.

Again, if you'd clarify this point should it not be what you were trying to express, we could all, I'm sure, use the chuckle.
.

.
So, we *are* considering evidence, then.
.

.
Which, again, can only be determined by evaluating that evidence to a standard of some sort. Please note the singular there.
.

.
But only "certain aspects", from a person whose evidence he has specifically renounced.
.

.
No, all we know is that Cole has questions. We cannot know the sufficiency of his evidence (other than the fact that, again, he has recanted the whole thing). His questions could the be result of ignorance of that evidence -- you know, like your fantasy in a subsequent post regarding the Japanese internees. Because *you*, not having done a lick of research on the matter, believe that no evidence exists for the post-camp fate of those internees does not mean that none such exists.
.

.
No, it's only a 'problem' when one generalizes that specific unanswered questions which are not specified (based on an unevaluated amount of research into an unknown set of evidence) are, in the opinion of one man, 'interesting' mean that our understanding of the Holocaust ***as a whole*** is less valid.

My middle female offspring has recently become fascinated with the precise chemical reactions which cause rocket fuel to be able to produce X amount of thrust for Y amount of fuel. We have been unable to locate a specific reference where these reactions are broken down micro by micro.

These questions are interesting from an academic standpoint, and even important from a developmental one, and while I am sure that such a resource could be located, if only in the head of someone in that field, we have yet to encounter it.

And yet neither of us generalizes from this lack of evidence on this specific topic a general belief that such an amount of thrust could not be obtained, meaning that rockets cannot take off.

Even should Cole and Shermer have been talking about the Holocaust as a whole (something you have posited not to be the case),

No, I posited we don't know for sure although the focus on "questions" tells me that they're not talking about the whole.

my response would be that they are both mistaken, since far too many other historians have evaluated the available evidence and come to a conflicting conclusion -- with all of the pesky unknowns from Cole spelled out in exhaustingly detailed, well, detail.
.

You're reaching outside the parameters of our discussion again. What others historians have written about what other evidence isn't important. I understand your need to bring in irrelevant information and substitute your feelings for facts. But you need to focus.

.
All that's important to *you*, certainly.

No. All that's important.

Come back and talk to us when you know specifically what his questions were, how he went about researching them, and which of those specific questions call into doubt the Holocaust as whole.
.

David Cole is incommunicado and without his perspective the exercise is futile. As it stands, we don't know and we can't know. Fortunately we don't need to know.

Since you believe it's important, you find out.

.
And yet, the largest single topic for your post is these questions that you say are unimportant, exzpcet for when they are...
.

.
I would say "roughly correct" until the last point. Shermer sees sufficient evidence to support the normative understanding of the Holocaust as a whole because there *is* sufficient evidence to support the normative understanding of the Holocaust as a whole, as other historians applying contemporary historical methodology have demonstrated time and again.

It's not important whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the partyline or what other historians have written. Why did Michael Shermer refer to absence of evidence if in fact no evidence is absent?

.

.
Which does not support your whine that a different standard is used to evaluate our understanding of the Holocaust.

And I would point out that "it would be good to have answers" != "the answers are needful to validate the big picture".
.

Why are the answers needful to validate the big picture? Doesn't existing evidence do that?

.
No, you made it quite clear you were referring to specific questions, not the Holocaust as a whole.

Except when it suits your whine to do the opposite.
.

.
And he is inarguable wrong in that conclusion.

As you are.
.

.
Nope. The evidence we have is sufficient because generations of historians have openly researched the matter and and as more evidence came to light altered our understanding of these events, in ways ranging from the trivial to the profound.
.

.
Unless one is attempting to show that this evidence was held to a different standard that that which supports the Holocaust.

That*was* your original claim, was it not?
.

.
It's not a question of belief. It's a simple historical fact, subject to change as new evidence comes to light.

Just like all historical facts, including those of the Holocaust.
.

.
Note that he does not do so arbitrarily, but by evaluating that evidence to contemporary historical standards.

The ones you're try to show are different for the Holocaust.
.

.
It should be noted here that there is no such lack of corroborating evidence supporting our understanding of the Holocaust...
.

.
Which is a good guideline, keeping in mind that "lack of evidence about specific yet unspecified questions regarding specific yet unspecified issues with the normative understanding" != "lack of evidence of any type for any aspect of the normative understanding".
.

.
An unsupportable conclusion, refuted by generations of historians...
.

.
Here's where you both trip up. That conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

Not knowing the statistical likelihood of a clear and sunny day in the Pacific Northwest therefore calling into question the common impression that it tends to be overcast there a lot more than the rest of the US does not mean that the sky doesn't exist.
.

That's weird. Not a disturbing weird like the kittens in the oven analogy....but weird.

.
That is never stated as his reason for accepting the existence and current understanding of those mountain of evidence that do exist, but do feel free to keep posting that lie.


And I'll keep pointing it out.
.

.
No, we have Shermer saying that there is not a single piece of extra-Biblical evidence to support it, so there is (for historians) insufficient evidence that that story is anything but a myth.
.

.
No, the form of reasoning which says no evidence at all is sufficient evidence is unacceptable.
.

.
It *was* applied equally. Its application just resulted in a different conclusion due to the differences in the evidence which *does* exist.
.

.
He could also have said that the academic consensus is that water is wet.
.

.
No, he didn't.

He said that evidence is (apparently) absent for specific yet unspecified questions about specific yet unspecified aspects of our overall understanding.

He said nothing at all to impeach that understanding or the evidence which does have existence, unless one is going to completely ignore the latter.

As you prefer to do, that being the only way to even try to claim that the standard itself is different.
.

.
No, it's not.
.

.
Wrong and wrong
.

.
I understand that you really really want the standard to be different, and that the only way that you can do so is by ignoring the existing evidence to which the whole "lack of evidence" thing does not apply due to a simple lack of, you know, lack.

But I'll give you this: you have the ignorance thing down pat. Too bad reality doesn't agree.

Here, I'll make it even more simple for you: Do we have any extra-Biblical
evidence at all which supports the proposition that the Holocaust as a whole happened?

Do we have any extra-Biblical evidence at all which supports the proposition that the Exodus as a whole happened?
.

Your unwillingness to remain focused on the issue at hand shows us that you're either stupid or dishonest. But at least you've backed away from arguing that 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' being valid for the holocaust but not for the story of Exodus isn't an example of a double standard because the two events are different. Sort of.

Try this. Tell me what you think Michael Shermer meant when he said that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence on the Phil Donohue show. Don't worry about looking foolish. The hole you're in can't get much deeper. But at least try to show us that you have some normative understanding of the English language and can interpret what other people say.

 

[TSR]

I like the lack of complete sentences.

.
Sorry that I do not feed this affection of yours, since I write grammitcally.
.

But your definition, especially the second one, is too specific for me. Do you think you could perhaps be a little more vague and meaningless?

.
So, you claim something to be held against a standard of which you do not even understand the name?
.

No, I posited we don't know for sure although the focus on "questions" tells me that they're not talking about the whole.

.
We do know for sure, since Cole has never addressed anything beyond the specific gas chambers at a specific camp never, for example, the mass shootings carried about by the EG.

The latter, being every bit as much a part of the Holocaust as the former, shows that Cole could not have been discussing the Holocaust as a whole, his (and your) dishonest claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

So with the revelation on your part, we can assume that you will stop posting lies about Shermer referring the whole in *his* comments?
.

You're reaching outside the parameters of our discussion again.

.
No, I'm not.
.

What others historians have written about what other evidence isn't important.

.
... unless one is demonstrating that the standard you whine about is one used by those historians, and used by those historians in all cases, not just the Holocaust.

Which *are* your claims: a standard you now hand wave away as being to vague is specific enough for you to claim is not evenly applied, and a demonstration that this is incorrect is not important.
.

I understand your need to bring in irrelevant information and substitute your feelings for facts. But you need to focus.

.
"Hello, Kettle? Yeah, this is Pot, how's it going? Uh huh. Uh huh. Yeah, well listen: I just phoned to let you know that you are black, okay? Take care...."
.

No. All that's important.

.
Can you name any scientist of any stripe who will back your whine that, when discussing the ways in which standards are used, actually discussing the ways in which they are used is not important?
.

David Cole is incommunicado

.
... but became so only after stating in no uncertain terms that what he had said before is hooey.
.

and without his perspective the exercise is futile. As it stands, we don't know and we can't know. Fortunately we don't need to know.

.
So, how relevant his puzzlement may have been to the Holocaust as a whole is not a needful to know in order to determine his whether his demonstration of a what you now claim is a vague description of historical standards has any merit?

Did you mindlessly copy and paste that off the Internet as well?
.

Since you believe it's important, you find out.

.
I'm not the one trying to use the questions you don't even know about to impeach a standard you claim is too vague.
.

It's not important whether or not there is sufficient evidence to support the partyline or what other historians have written. Why did Michael Shermer refer to absence of evidence if in fact no evidence is absent?

.
Since no one but you makes the claim that no evidence, as a general rule, is absent.

There are plenty of pieces of evidence that it would be nice to have.

However, the real world, and certainly real historians, deal with the evidence that is there as opposed to what impact the evidence which not there may or may not have, except when playing at "what if"?
.

Why are the answers needful to validate the big picture? Doesn't existing evidence do that?

.
Because, your claim is even less relevant to the use of that "vague" standard without it.

Yes, existing evidence does this -- that's rather been everyone elses' point all this time you've spent running, spewing irrelevancies and attempting to discredit things you do not even understand.
.

That's weird. Not a disturbing weird like the kittens in the oven analogy....but weird.

.
Shall I copy and paste the definition and discussion of the the uses of analogy for you?
.

Your unwillingness to remain focused on the issue at hand shows us that you're either stupid or dishonest. But at least you've backed away from arguing that 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' being valid for the holocaust but not for the story of Exodus isn't an example of a double standard because the two events are different. Sort of.

.
Of course, I have done no such thing. Which shows us that you are both: stupid enough to think that your dishonesty will go unnoted.
.

Try this. Tell me what you think Michael Shermer meant when he said that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence on the Phil Donohue show.

.
He meant what he said, IN CONTEXT, which was not a discussion of the Holocaust as a whole despite the lies you post about it.

Your turn: what was that context?
.

Don't worry about looking foolish. The hole you're in can't get much deeper. But at least try to show us that you have some normative understanding of the English language and can interpret what other people say.

.
Oh, what a clever, informed and insightful refutation of issues which you have admitted not even to knowing nothing about, but have stated the knowledge of which is irrelevant.
.

 

[LSSBB]

Who was it once said 'if you can't dazzle with your brilliance, inundate them with your b******t'? Oh yeah, that was me.

In this case it appears to be Trounce you with Truth.

 

[LemmyCaution]

And again, how many people were holding how many loaded guns to how many heads for how long?

(1) Do you know what a metaphor is? (2) Can you walk us through the course of the roundups and deportations from Lodz ghetto during the Gehsperre? (3) Can you walk us through the witness testimony for a typical open-air shooting, say that at Ponar during the week of the Great Provocation? (4) Can you explain the guard system along the perimeter of the Warsaw ghetto?

 

[LemmyCaution]

So copying and pasting from an internet source is a logical fallacy?

The issue is that you proudly quote mine. You don't even bother to check the original source in context but simply quote from someone's gloss on the source. You didn't bother to explain where you got your quotation and how it related to the original. You don't even want to be bothered to cite your sources. Copying and pasting in and of itself is not of course quote mining; what you did, by your own statement, was.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Blobel is 50% of the hoax -

50% - they gassed the Jews
50% - they disappeared the bodies

Blobel is the only 'evidence' for the disappearance of the Jews in the Reinhard camps and on the eastern theater. And, Blobel's 'confession' is absurd and an obvious hoax.

This can only demonstrate your limited awareness of all the evidence for the AR camps OR your mendacity. You may not like the evidence, but it exists. Your refusal even to engage with it, just as you refuse to support your claim about witness lies, renders your "revisionism" more like preaching to the diminishing choir.

 

[Nick Terry]

Because Treblinka, Treblinka, Treblinka is the most ridiculous component of the entire holocaust. Most of your holocaust could work. Most of your holocaust has evidence supporting it. Not only is the evidence supporting the Treblinka story questionable at the very least, the scale of killing is impossible.

So you keep on saying, without proving it, but there's a wee problem with this before we even consider your arguments, namely the fact that Treblinka was one of many sites at which a general policy was carried out. The fact that there were many killing sites is sufficient to prove a general policy even before we get to the many documents indicating a general policy was implemented in the Generalgouvernement and thus, in the territory with Treblinka 'serviced'.

It is more probable that your interpretation of Treblinka is wrong than that Treblinka was an exception to a rule, especially when there is zero evidence that anyone other than the known tiny handful of escapees survived the camp.

Because the "entire set" isn't the proper unit of analysis.

Yes, it is.

If (at least) 42 other sites saw killing and cremation on a mass scale, and Treblinka is firmly linked to those other sites through various institutional affiliations and many different pieces of evidence, then picking on Treblinka is picking on all 43 sites. You cannot isolate one from the others.

There are of course other potential units of analysis. One might be, for example, the fate of Polish Jews, who numbered nearly 3.5 million before the war and a few hundred thousand after the war, with 3 million dying, the single biggest line item in the Holocaust as a whole. Treblinka would have claimed a quarter of that number, bearing in mind the relatively low number of foreign Jews deported to that camp.

The remaining 2.25 million died at Belzec, Auschwitz, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek, Trawniki, Poniatowa, Krakow-Plaszow, Skarzysko-Kamienna; at Ponary, Bronnaia Gora, Janowska, Pinsk and around Bialystok and Grodno; also at places like Slonim and Rovno; and in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos, among many other places.

The fate of Polish Jews is a coherent unit of analysis, especially since the fate was ultimately identical despite the splintering of Poland into 13 different occupation districts: everyone other than a couple of hundred thousand workers was killed.

Who was it once said 'if you can't dazzle with your brilliance, inundate them with your b******t'? Oh yeah, that was me.

Gosh, what a well-reasoned and cogent critique of 43 different sites involving killing and cremation by the Nazis.

The burden of proof is very squarely on you to either explain why Treblinka is an anomaly to a policy rule, or explain all the cases. There is no logically coherent alternative.

 

[Wroclaw]

I would like to see his example of the topics that was supposedly censored by Hannover.

Me too.
Moderator

Oh, my freaking God...

 

[Saggy]

Oh, my freaking God...

CODOH doesn't censor topics, they censor Zionists, who will try anything to destroy rational discussion of the holohoax. If you don't believe me, just read this thread, read your own idiotic posts.

 

[Saggy]

The burden of proof is very squarely on you to either explain why Treblinka is an anomaly to a policy rule, or explain all the cases. There is no logically coherent alternative.

The usual complete idiocy from Nick Terry. In any rational world someone claiming a massacre at Treblinka would be required to produce some evidence. There is not a shred of any physical evidence of a massacre at Treblinka, and the physical evidence conclusively shows that there was no massacre there.

On the other hand there are lying Jews, first and foremost Yankel Wiernik, who have told absurd and physically impossible lies about Treblinka. If you want proof, just read 'My Year in Treblinka' by Wiernik, one of the most cited works by holohoax 'scholars' like Raul Hilberg. It is obvious phantasmagoria. Here's an example .....

pg. 14
One of them, Ivan, was tall, had and gentle eyes, but was, nevertheless, a sadist. He often attacked us while we worked and nailed our ears to the wall

pg15
Between 400 and 500 persons were crowded into a chamber measuring 125 square feet.