Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Nick Terry]

Just one more variable that absolutely must be taken into consideration here. The pace of arrivals in 1942 changed over the course of three phases:

1. July 22-mid August: exclusively Jews from Warsaw, 5,000/day (daily figures available). Sonderkommandos turned over extremely rapidly.

2. mid-August-early September: overload; Jews from Warsaw plus Jews from the provinces. Collapse of camp, thousands of bodies unburied, sacking of commandant Eberl. Sonderkommandos turned over extremely rapidly, a few survivors from this phase.

3. September-December 1942: Stangl in charge, Sonderkommandos stabilised, level of transports declines in comparison with the summer.

Any argument ignoring chronology and assuming there was a generic Treblinka process is not going to succeed. References about the size of work details might only apply to the later period since there are more survivors from phase 3 onwards, and very few from the first two phases. We simply don't know how big the work commandos were in phase 1 because there are no survivors from that phase at all.

Is it possible to kill and bury 5,000 people per day, minus hundreds spared for labour who are shot elsewhere in the camp? I don't see where there would be a serious bottleneck or impossibility here.

It was possible to kill larger numbers in phase 2 because so many were DOA and the guards resorted to machine-gunning new arrivals. Bodies went unburied. Nothing was done in an orderly fashion; it was a massacre. The camp collapsed.

So there's your bottleneck, already accounted for.

 

[Multivac]

Happy to oblige ... the most referenced witness on the subject, Yankel Wiernik, writes that at Treblinka 10,000 were killed and buried daily, with the number sometimes rising to 30,000. This is perfectly absurd and there is not a shred of evidence for it, other than the lies of obvious degenerates like Wiernik.



Next question.

Ok, three questions for you.

1) Why is it absurd?
2) Why do you claim there is no evidence?
3) Why do use the phrase "degenerate liar" to describe people who don't agree with you?

Thanks.

 

[TSR]

Ok, three questions for you.

1) Why is it absurd?
2) Why do you claim there is no evidence?
3) Why do use the phrase "degenerate liar" to describe people who don't agree with you?

Thanks.

.
Saggs' usual response is along the lines of:

1) Its absurdity is self-evident and that you claim not see it means you're a part of the hoax

2) Given that the Holocaust never happened, there could not possibly be evidence supporting it. QED

3) Since the above points are true, anyone disputing them *must* be such a liar. Again, QED
.

 

[Saggy]

Ok, three questions for you.

1) Why is it absurd?
2) Why do you claim there is no evidence?
3) Why do use the phrase "degenerate liar" to describe people who don't agree with you?

Thanks.

There are two kinds of lies, heroic lies ('I was captain of my high school football team' (Saggy)) and degenerate lies (I forced my former neighbors into the gas chambers' (Wiernik)). Heroic lies are lies about heroism, strength, nobility, accomplishment, etc. Degenerate lies are lies about weakness, victimhood, debasement, depravity, etc. The holohoax lies are degenerate lies.

 

[Cyrix686]

It's "absurd" because that's how a lot of them write. Anything connected with the Holocaust whatsoever is sooner or later to be called, "absurd," see "absurd gas chamber hoax." As they can't think for themselves or are too lazy to or unimaginative to make their prose and argument a bit more interesting, they imitate. Neither Sagacious or Clayton are particularly intellectual or innovative.

Perhaps there's "no evidence" because these guys are not actually Revisionists, A Revisionist reads and at least tries to keep up with things in order to, "re-interpret." There is nothing re-interpretative about yelling, "holohoax." It is intellectually dishonest and facile to hide behind these slogan sentences. I'm not saying that every one who insists on an absurd holohoax is dishonest here. However the ones yelling "holohoax" loudest and most often and who won't read the books or consider their content as adding to knowledge, (even if they disagree with it) are suspect. How on Earth could that one consider that they have re-interpreted anything? Rhadamanthine adamant opposition is not Revisionism, either. I don't know why they think it is.

 

[Cyrix686]

Finally something interesting from Saggy. Wow. Just because you don't like what occcured and wish to imagine that human kind can necessarily be as you think it should or could be, does not account for grim reality, labelling things "degenerate"? Well the behaviour may have been d. but it's showing that they are lies that you need to prove. Know that people change under extreme conditions. Lets hope you never have to go through such because when comfort and security are removed people can be nasty and will do nasty things.

I hope you are not misquoting Wiernik again.

 

[Saggy]

Well the behaviour may have been d. but it's showing that they are lies that you need to prove.

I don't have to prove anything, it is obvious. When Wiesel says that the Nazis tossed Jewish babies into the air to be used as target practice for machine gunners ('Night'), it is absurd and physially impossible. There is nothing for me to prove. It is a degenerate lie. When Wiernik says that he was punished by having his ears nailed to the gas chamber wall ('A Year in Treblinka') which he happened to be in the process of building, I don't have to prove anything, it is absurd. When he says that the Nazis snatched Jewish babies from their mother and tore them in half there is nothing for me to prove. Wiesel and Wiernik are prima facie obvious degenerate liars. No investigation necessary. When the USHMM tells me that a room with unsealed doors and a large plate glass window was used to gas Jews, it is absurd, there is nothing to prove, the USHMM is made up of degenerate liars.

 

[Border Reiver]

There are two kinds of lies, heroic lies ('I was captain of my high school football team' (Saggy)) and degenerate lies (I forced my former neighbors into the gas chambers' (Wiernik)). Heroic lies are lies about heroism, strength, nobility, accomplishment, etc. Degenerate lies are lies about weakness, victimhood, debasement, depravity, etc. The holohoax lies are degenerate lies.

Your definition of "Heroic lies" is a contradiction - If you are heroic, noble, strong, accomplished, etc. you don't need to lie about it, and a lie claiming to be so would be an admission that you were cowardly, weak, ignoble, unaccomplished, etc. pretending to an accomplishment (been the captain of the football team when in fact the coach had told you you were not fit to be the waterboy) is at best a pathetic attempt to garner credit for something you could never have hoped to do. Such a lie would in fact be "degenerate."

Your definition of "degenerate lies" makes little sense, but your ability to classify every witness as a degenerate liar now makes sense, since you believe that all the witnesses are lying.

So, in order for a victim of the Holocaust not to have been a degenerate liar using your definition, he or she would have needed to have exaggerated their exploits in punching SS guards in the face, kicking Himmler in the crotch, and then circumcising Adolf with his own teeth. While entertaining, such lies would be fairly obvious, but by your definition "heroic".

Of course, we don't need to exagerate the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to find examples of true heroism.

 

[Border Reiver]

I don't have to prove anything, it is obvious. When Wiesel says that the Nazis tossed Jewish babies into the air to be used as target practice for machine gunners ('Night'), it is absurd and physially impossible.

Well, I would hope you don't practice skeet shooting, cause by definition then the ability to hit an object thrown into the air with a firearm is impossible. It is unpleasant to imagine humans doing that to infants, but it is not physically impossible.

When Wiernik says that he was punished by having his ears nailed to the gas chamber wall ('A Year in Treblinka') which he happened to be in the process of building, I don't have to prove anything, it is absurd.

Plenty of recent evidence for sadistic criminals doing just that, so why is it impossible for a sadistic guard to do so, especially since he knows he won't face punishment for doing so?

When he says that the Nazis snatched Jewish babies from their mother and tore them in half there is nothing for me to prove. Wiesel and Wiernik are prima facie obvious degenerate liars. No investigation necessary.

Again, people are physically capable of such acts, and other atrocities.

When the USHMM tells me that a room with unsealed doors and a large plate glass window was used to gas Jews, it is absurd, there is nothing to prove, the USHMM is made up of degenerate liars.

Or you might not understand over pressure.

 

[Wroclaw]

I don't have to prove anything, it is obvious. When Wiesel says that the Nazis tossed Jewish babies into the air to be used as target practice for machine gunners ('Night'), it is absurd and physially impossible. There is nothing for me to prove. It is a degenerate lie. When Wiernik says that he was punished by having his ears nailed to the gas chamber wall ('A Year in Treblinka') which he happened to be in the process of building, I don't have to prove anything, it is absurd. When he says that the Nazis snatched Jewish babies from their mother and tore them in half there is nothing for me to prove. Wiesel and Wiernik are prima facie obvious degenerate liars. No investigation necessary. When the USHMM tells me that a room with unsealed doors and a large plate glass window was used to gas Jews, it is absurd, there is nothing to prove, the USHMM is made up of degenerate liars.

That argument is just epically dumb.

 

[Wroclaw]

Saggy, please tell me whether you believe the following stories to be true.

(1) In Barcelona in 1937, the Naftali Botwin Company tortured a priest before they finally hung his dismembered body from a statue of the Virgin Mary. A second priest was transfixed to a made-up crucifix and hung on it while he was still living.

(2) According to Bobrenyov, the poisons were at first administered in food. Mairanovsky’s reports describe how one of the first victims, a healthy, strong man, “rushed about the cell as his stomach pains worsened... it was clear he understood. He ran to the steel door, blood pouring from his eyes, beating the door with his fists and his feet. He shoved his hand into his slobbering mouth.”

(3) "I was very frightened when I saw the Khmer Rouge saw off the neck of a civilian with the sharp edge of sugar palm leaves," said Preap, standing amid a cluster of refugees beside a row of flimsy huts. "They spent three days cutting his head off," said Preap. "They sawed a little one morning, and then in the evening, and finally the following day in the morning and then in the evening, and finally the following day in the morning and night. "They made the victim stand up while there were cutting in front of hundreds of people living in the Khmer Rouge area. Then they held him up when he could stand no longer."

Three-word answer is all that's required, e.g., "Yes, no, yes" or "no, yes, no." You get the picture, I imagine.

 

[Saggy]

Here is an example of a degenerate lie, courtesy of Elie Wiesel - his book 'Night' is about his experience in the camps along with his father, who figures prominently in the book. Near the end he tells the tale of a Jewish prisoner who literally kills his own father over a slice of bread. Wiesel gives the actual dialog spoken in quote .... I don't have it but it's something like "Son, you'd kill me for a slice of bread?"... this absurd vignette is an example of a degenerate lie. I concede that I don't 'know' this is a lie, because it is physically possible, but .....

 

[Wroclaw]

Of course you don't have it. You've never read that book and you know it.

 

[Border Reiver]

And of course, starving people would never kill over food. Riots at food distribution centres in Hathi - how many people were trampled?

You of course know that Weizel's anecdote is false because:

a. Persons in extreme situations NEVER act in an extreme fashion;
b. I was there, and that wasn't how it went down;
c. I don't wish to believe that people would inflict such horror on another;
d. Those people always lie;
e. I refuse to be moved from my feelings of inadequacy and hatred.

Pick one.

 

[Wroclaw]

You forgot:

f. He's a Jew, so he must be lying.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I concede that I don't 'know' this is a lie, because it is physically possible, but .....

But what? I suspect the truncated section reads something like "but I want to believe it's a lie so I've convinced myself it must be."

Dave

 

[Wroclaw]

I can hear his heels clicking from here.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I don't see any coherent statement of your position that the mass graves and cremation were impossible, so there's nothing to respond to here.

I also don't see any coherent description of the entire process, just an attempt to find a bottleneck.

By all means identify a bottleneck using Arad but be aware that all this will do, once you have spelled out your argument properly, is cause others to look more closely at a wider range of primary sources (many published) and see whether you have accurately represented the issue, or whether there is a distortion in Arad or a limitation in his presentation.

In this particular case one problem is you're taking a generic description based on all three camps and trying to apply it exclusively to Treblinka. But there are no references cited in the section you've glommed onto. The next footnote along refers to Belzec.

And now you realise why serious students of these camps are often very dissatisfied with Arad's presentation.

As usual the work aspect is ignored by Terry. 10,000 a day.

7, 8 9, thousand Jewish children, women and men milling around while waiting to be gassed. That's what the Holocaustics are saying happened.

 

[Robrob]

I don't have to prove anything, it is obvious. When Wiesel says that the Nazis tossed Jewish babies into the air to be used as target practice for machine gunners ('Night'), it is absurd and physially impossible.

Now you're just lying. Obviously it's extremely possible to machine gun an object that size, tossed into the air. Why wouldn't it be?

When Wiernik says that he was punished by having his ears nailed to the gas chamber wall ('A Year in Treblinka') which he happened to be in the process of building, I don't have to prove anything, it is absurd.

It's not "physically possible" to nail someone's ear to a wall? Or you just chose not to believe Nazis could be so cruel? Either way you're not very bright are you?

When he says that the Nazis snatched Jewish babies from their mother and tore them in half there is nothing for me to prove. Wiesel and Wiernik are prima facie obvious degenerate liars. No investigation necessary.

Nice "logic." If I don't believe something, that automatically makes it not true. How's that work for you in the real world?

When the USHMM tells me that a room with unsealed doors and a large plate glass window was used to gas Jews, it is absurd, there is nothing to prove, the USHMM is made up of degenerate liars.

Feel free to explain why such a chamber would have to be hermetically sealed?

Near the end he tells the tale of a Jewish prisoner who literally kills his own father over a slice of bread. Wiesel gives the actual dialog spoken in quote .... I don't have it but it's something like "Son, you'd kill me for a slice of bread?"... this absurd vignette is an example of a degenerate lie. I concede that I don't 'know' this is a lie, because it is physically possible, but .....

So, it's "physically possible" but you know it's a lie because - why exactly?

 

[Nick Terry]

As usual the work aspect is ignored by Terry. 10,000 a day.

7, 8 9, thousand Jewish children, women and men milling around while waiting to be gassed. That's what the Holocaustics are saying happened.

Really? Where is this stated? Especially the part about 'milling around while waiting to be gassed'?