Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Dogzilla]

Clayton, you do realize that just calling someone a liar doesn't make them one - they actually have to be lying about something.

Back at post #7053 I asked you to actually live up to your claim to be a revisionist. Use evidence to debunk these witnesses, if that is your intent.

If this was a court case the perponderance of evidence supporting the Holocaust would be sufficient for a conviction in a criminal court (proof beyond a reasonable doubt, in case you were unclear on the appropriate standard). Whereas you and the rest of your denier cohorts "cross-examinination" of the witnesses by going "they are just lying" without ANY counter evidence would not be considered a rebuttal at all. So, you can understand why we have little to no respect for any assertion you may make.

Because you're evidently unclear on the appropriate standard, here in the United States, preponderance of evidence is a burden of proof most commonly associated with civil law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof in criminal law. Preponderance of evidence doesn't lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of Pesye Schloss, her story in The Last Days of Jerusalem in Lithuania we're told that she was shot in the arm and fell into the ditch where a soldier, noticing that she was still alive, removed her shoes and shot her in the foot. A little later she crawled out of the ditch and to safety in Vilna. In Who Will Write Our History?, she is said to have survived the shooting and, not being wounded, crawled out of the ditch and to the safety in Vilna.

To be fair, the first story would be considered hearsay evidence while the second is a second hand account of the original hearsay evidence. The first account introduces unnecessary cruelty into the circumstances under which she is wounded while the second account says she wasn't wounded. If a victim told an investigator she was wounded and in a later interview said she wasn't wounded, that discrepancy would need to be explained or the victim's credibility would be suspect.

I'll admit that I don't know where Saggy is going with his demands for the name of one credible witness or why he won't choose one from the list of two hundred that you gave about thirty pages back. If I were you I would just ignore him. But if you choose to engage him, give him the best you got. Remember that an enormous quantity of weak evidence doesn't add up to strong evidence. When you highlight the weaker links like Pesye Schloss, it makes it look you don't have any stronger links.

 

[Saggy]

I'll admit that I don't know where Saggy is going with his demands for the name of one credible witness or why he won't choose one from the list of two hundred that you gave about thirty pages back. If I were you I would just ignore him. But if you choose to engage him, give him the best you got. Remember that an enormous quantity of weak evidence doesn't add up to strong evidence. When you highlight the weaker links like Pesye Schloss, it makes it look you don't have any stronger links.

>If I were you I would just ignore him.

Heck, if I were Nick Terry I'd ignore Saggy too.

>he won't choose one from the list of two hundred

I chose Rudolf Hoess, who isn't even Jewish, and Elie Wiesel, who is an obvious pathological liar, both from the list. The list is complete crap.

>But if you choose to engage him, give him the best you got.

That is the point. There is NO best, there is not even one reasonably credible Jewish witness. How in hell could there be? The reason NT wants to slide by with a list is that he's not on the spot to name and defend ONE witness.

And remember, Nick Terry is a respected, if not loved, holohoax scholar. If he can't provide the name of one credible witness, no one can. Again, no surprise.

THINK ABOUT THIS - THERE IS NOT ONE CREDIBLE JEWISH WITNESS TO THE HOLOCAUST.

HTH

 

[Wroclaw]

HTH

You put a "T" in there by mistake.

 

[Border Reiver]

Saggy, your "refutation" of the evidence of both was to go (and I paraphrase), "I don't believe them," and then you stopped - no reasons, no counter evidence, nothing but an argument my 7 year old has learned not to make.

 

[Nick Terry]

Because you're evidently unclear on the appropriate standard, here in the United States, preponderance of evidence is a burden of proof most commonly associated with civil law. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof in criminal law. Preponderance of evidence doesn't lead to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of Pesye Schloss, her story in The Last Days of Jerusalem in Lithuania we're told that she was shot in the arm and fell into the ditch where a soldier, noticing that she was still alive, removed her shoes and shot her in the foot. A little later she crawled out of the ditch and to safety in Vilna. In Who Will Write Our History?, she is said to have survived the shooting and, not being wounded, crawled out of the ditch and to the safety in Vilna.

To be fair, the first story would be considered hearsay evidence while the second is a second hand account of the original hearsay evidence. The first account introduces unnecessary cruelty into the circumstances under which she is wounded while the second account says she wasn't wounded. If a victim told an investigator she was wounded and in a later interview said she wasn't wounded, that discrepancy would need to be explained or the victim's credibility would be suspect.

I'll admit that I don't know where Saggy is going with his demands for the name of one credible witness or why he won't choose one from the list of two hundred that you gave about thirty pages back. If I were you I would just ignore him. But if you choose to engage him, give him the best you got. Remember that an enormous quantity of weak evidence doesn't add up to strong evidence. When you highlight the weaker links like Pesye Schloss, it makes it look you don't have any stronger links.

Wherein lies the pointlessness of the exercise. The historically literate posters are fully aware there are interesting, comprehensive and conclusive sources like

the Jaeger report
Sakowicz diary
other German documents
many statements from SS men

etc

which detail the killings at Ponary outside Vilnius.

By denier rules, wherein documents are declared superior to testimonies, it matters not in the slightest whether deniers express incredulity towards a minor testimony: such incredulity cannot hope to make a dent on the 'superior' evidence.

In this instance, what we have is a witness whose account was recorded in a contemporary diary, and her news contributed to a belief inside the ghetto that the Nazis were killing the Jews of Ponary at Vilnius.

It would be exceedingly improbable for the Jewish witness to have made it all up when a Polish bystander wrote down a diary for several years recording what went on at Ponary, while German documents also detailed the dates of the Aktionen and much else.

Therefore all deniers have achieved here is demonstrating their grotesque ignorance of what are regarded as extremely basic facts about the Holocaust in Vilnius.

 

[Nick Terry]

And remember, Nick Terry is a respected, if not loved, holohoax scholar. If he can't provide the name of one credible witness, no one can. Again, no surprise.

I must admit it's an interesting concept in jurisprudence and history, to demand one, and only one, witness, from only one group involved in the events, and ignore all other evidence.

Tell me, Saggy, do you think your approach will ever catch on? When can we expect the Supreme Court ruling and the statement from the American Historical Association?

 

[Saggy]

Tell me, Saggy, do you think your approach will ever catch on? When can we expect the Supreme Court ruling and the statement from the American Historical Association?

I do think it will catch on. I do thing everyone will soon come to realize that there is NOT ONE CREDIBLE JEWISH WITNESS to the holohoax. It's a simple idea each and everybody can understand.

You could of course prove me wrong if there was such a witness, but, since there isn't you can't. See?

 

[Wroclaw]

God, you're obnoxious.

 

[Nick Terry]

I do think it will catch on. I do thing everyone will soon come to realize that there is NOT ONE CREDIBLE JEWISH WITNESS to the holohoax. It's a simple idea each and everybody can understand.

You could of course prove me wrong if there was such a witness, but, since there isn't you can't. See?

I'm afraid I don't see, because it's well known that there are witnesses plural. It is also well known that the credibility of those witnesses plural has been assessed in the course of several thousand separate trials conducted in all manner of legal systems over a period stretching from 1945 to this year. The credibility of those witnesses plural has also been assessed in literally thousands of books. Some of the witnesses plural were found not to be credible, as is normal for witnesses in general. The overwhelming majority were found to be credible.

That's how things stand in the real world, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself, that's how they will continue to stand.

If you're having difficulty with the word 'plural', google is your friend.

 

[A'isha]

Saggy will dismiss every single witness to the Holocaust as unreliable, no matter what they say, because in his mind the very fact that they testify to the occurrence of the Holocaust is what makes them unreliable.

The only witness to the Holocaust that Saggy will ever find credible is the one who says it never happened.

 

[Nick Terry]

Saggy, please list all the witnesses who said the Holocaust never happened. Let's assess their credibility while we're waiting for reality to penetrate your thick skull.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Saggy View Post

And remember, Nick Terry is a respected, if not loved, holohoax scholar. If he can't provide the name of one credible witness, no one can. Again, no surprise

.

I must admit it's an interesting concept in jurisprudence and history, to demand one, and only one, witness, from only one group involved in the events, and ignore all other evidence.

Tell me, Saggy, do you think your approach will ever catch on? When can we expect the Supreme Court ruling and the statement from the American Historical Association?

So, Nick Terry, you don't have one. That's the bottom line. All that literature and not a single witness whose testimony is fit for scrutiny.

 

[Saggy]

So, Nick Terry, you don't have one. That's the bottom line. All that literature and not a single witness whose testimony is fit for scrutiny.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[tsig]

I have come to realize what a valuable asset you are Nick, to revisionists like myself. Unlike the usual nitwits on this board you are a respected (I suppose) scholar, and you are very familiar with the literature on the holohoax. In short, you are an AUTHORITATIVE source of information on the hoax. By the same token, you are an authoritative source on the LACK of information, and hence your value to revisionists.

That said, there is only one question I'd like you to answer - what is the name of one credible Jewish witness to the holohoax? Then, if you'd like to respond and for the elucidation of the masses, what did this witness testify to and how do you know the testimony is accurate?

Looks like you're already moving the goalposts.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Aren't you denying that the holoaust happened? Surely this is holocaust denial.

Personally, I don't hate holocaust deniers. I just don't understand how they can deny the overwhelming archive of evidence about the holocaust.

The time frame of what happened to the Jewish people of Europe has been named the Holocaust.

No one can deny that there was a Holocaust. That overwhelming archive of evidence about the Holocaust is not about a genocide against the Jewish people by Germany. It's about the rigors of war and prejudice against a minority.

 

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Saggy View Post
.
So, Nick Terry, you don't have one. That's the bottom line. All that literature and not a single witness whose testimony is fit for scrutiny.

I have many more than one witness. What I haven't got is a clear rationale as to why only one is needed, when there are 10s of 1000s. I also haven't had an explanation as to why the thousands of trials and thousands of books which have found witnesses to be credible must apparently be ignored.

Who appointed you judge anyway?

 

[Nick Terry]

That's it in a nutshell.

Is it? Everyone other than you and Clayton Moore seems to realise that a list of 200 witnesses was supplied quite some time ago. Yet since then, instead of discussing those witnesses, or even trying to discuss all of the witnesses for one camp, you insist on demanding 'one' witness to 'the holohoax'. It has gone beyond a joke; you are the living definition of a broken record. Cut it out.

There can't be 'one' witness to something that happened at dozens of sites. Get it? There can't be 'one' witness if there are many witnesses.

If you want to discuss Treblinka, like Dogzilla, who evidently thinks you are suffering from a brain defect, then discuss Treblinka. That means, not just ONE Treblinka witness, but all of them that can be out on the table. Wiernik, Strawczynski, Glazar, Willenberg, Rajchman, Bomba BUT ALSO Suchomel, Franz, Stangl, Horn, Hoess. And we can throw in Shalayev, Shul'ts, Fedorenko and many others too. Not to mention Puchala. Those witnesses were Jews, Germans, Ukrainians, and Poles.

They're all credible witnesses because they confirm each other's accounts having given their statements independently. Their testimonies are confirmed by documents, and by physical evidence. Unless you deal with the totality of the evidence, then you are nothing better than a bawling toddler throwing your rattle out of the pram.

I have provided countless names. You, however, haven't even begun to deal with them. If you repeat your imbecilic mantra, then I will report you for spamming. The same goes for your buddy Clayton Moore. I suggest others do the same.

Grow up, Saggy.

 

[Robrob]

In the case of Pesye Schloss, her story in The Last Days of Jerusalem in Lithuania we're told that she was shot in the arm and fell into the ditch where a soldier, noticing that she was still alive, removed her shoes and shot her in the foot. A little later she crawled out of the ditch and to safety in Vilna. In Who Will Write Our History?, she is said to have survived the shooting and, not being wounded, crawled out of the ditch and to the safety in Vilna.

To be fair, the actual quote is slightly more ambiguous:

"On September 4, 1941, Herman Kruk first recorded the reports of mass executions in Ponar. Six Jews, including two young Jewish girls whom Kruk had interviewed, eleven-year-old Yudis Trojak and sixteen-year-old Pesye Schloss, who had survived the shootings and, not having been wounded, made their way back to the Vilna Ghetto."

In other words, what this run-on sentence is saying; six Jews - to include the two girls - all of whom had survived the massacre "unwounded," were able to make it back to Vilna.

Obsessing over minutia that one of the six actually was wounded doesn't exactly invalidate the entire report nor any other reports about the event.

That said, there is only one question I'd like you to answer - what is the name of one credible Jewish witness to the holohoax? Then, if you'd like to respond and for the elucidation of the masses, what did this witness testify to and how do you know the testimony is accurate?

Here, let's make this easy for them. Please tell us exactly what you find incredible about Pesye Schloss' story. While you are at it, please tell us exactly what happened to her entire family?

While you are at it, what do you find incredible in the SS own documentation of the massacres?

- SS-Standartenfuehrer Jaeger in his report of December 1, 1941 on "Secret Reich Business" for EGA commander Stahleker puts the number of deaths at Ponar on September 2, 1941 as follows: "864 Jews, 2,109 Jewesses, 817 Jewish children (punitive action because German soldiers had been shot by Jews)" [total: 3,890]


- Jaeger’s report for also stated that “On 12 September, 993 Jewish males, 1,670 Jewish women, and 771 Jewish children, a total of 3,334, were liquidated in Vilna”

 

[LemmyCaution]

I have a simple question: "Sonderbehandlung" like other words are said to have been coded message words, the orders for extermination only being transmitted orally and never in a written clear text form.
Assume that you are the last station in the chain of command and you would receive orally an order to exterminate millions of people, however what you are ordered sounds like: "Treat them the special way." How can you make sure that This order came from a competent position of the command chain and not from any other idiot with a pathological hate towards Jews or someone cheating you? And how can you protect yourself from the possibility that after you have done your work and exterminated Millions of human beings, the others say: "With "special treatment" we meant a special hair wash procedure, you idiot. You're the only one to blame and necessary to be prosecuted!". Transmission of encrypted orders by vocal means is not so easy as it looks like, in particular if for the code regular terms of the language are used which could also have their normal meaning. Or do I have a problem of understanding? Could you please explain the procedure of the orders being transmitted from Berlin to Poland?

Instead of speculating, you should familiarize yourself with documents using the term Sonderbehandlung, their context, the usage of the term, and actions referred to by the term, explained in other documents. Many times camouflage words become "terms of art" or do you think that mobsters in old time Chicago really signed the contracts they took out on other mobsters and had them notarized?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Wherein lies the pointlessness of the exercise. The historically literate posters are fully aware there are interesting, comprehensive and conclusive sources like

the Jaeger report
Sakowicz diary
other German documents
many statements from SS men

etc

which detail the killings at Ponary outside Vilnius.

By denier rules, wherein documents are declared superior to testimonies, it matters not in the slightest whether deniers express incredulity towards a minor testimony: such incredulity cannot hope to make a dent on the 'superior' evidence.

In this instance, what we have is a witness whose account was recorded in a contemporary diary, and her news contributed to a belief inside the ghetto that the Nazis were killing the Jews of Ponary at Vilnius.

It would be exceedingly improbable for the Jewish witness to have made it all up when a Polish bystander wrote down a diary for several years recording what went on at Ponary, while German documents also detailed the dates of the Aktionen and much else.

Therefore all deniers have achieved here is demonstrating their grotesque ignorance of what are regarded as extremely basic facts about the Holocaust in Vilnius.

Not to mention Dogzilla's implication that there was conflicting witness testimony, which he tried to put over on readers by citing a small error in Kassow's Who Will Write Our History?, which is based on and slightly butchers Kruk's account. This gloss is simply dishonest:

The first account introduces unnecessary cruelty into the circumstances under which she is wounded while the second account says she wasn't wounded. If a victim told an investigator she was wounded and in a later interview said she wasn't wounded, that discrepancy would need to be explained or the victim's credibility would be suspect.

There was just one account given by Pesye Schloss, that is, Kruk's recording of the 16 year old's testimony, which, as Kassow's footnote makes clear, was the basis for Kassow's summary, into which the author, not the witness, introduced the error about wounds. In this sole account, there was no "unnecessary cruelty," just the girl's recounting of her taking two bullets and surviving after passing out. There was no later witness account that challenges credibility or needs to be explained. The only credibility suspect here is Dogzilla's. Why would Dogzilla try to mislead members of this forum about Kassow's footnote in Who Will Write Our History? p455

The point which you illustrate only too clearly is the absurdity of the one witness gambit: even focusing on just one witness, inevitably where multiple sources exist the discussion will broaden with other evidence. In this case, the evidence broadens to other witnesses interviewed and cited by Kruk, survivors and local peasants alike. And to Sakowicz's journal. And to German perpetrator accounts and documents. And to other journals and memoirs. The documents on Ponar, each reinforcing the others, are indeed abundant. Even in Who Will Write Our History?, a discussion of Warsaw ghetto, Kassow observes how news of the Ponar murders reached Jews in Warsaw--first repeated by Poles, then from Aryeh Wilner, then from members of Jewish youth groups. In October 1941 an underground Warsaw newspaper carried an account of the executions at Ponar. Daniel Fligelman, an Oyneg Shabes member in Warsaw, interviewed Wilner in depth: Wilner "described how the Germans seized thousands of Jews on the streets and in their homes and transported them to an unknown destination. At the beginning of September [when Pesye Schloss was captured and taken to Ponar] a Jewish woman, who had escaped from the killing grounds of Ponar, gave the ghetto its first eyewitness account: in large pits that the Soviets had dug to store oil, the Germans and Lithuanians were shooting thousands of Jews . . .' p286 Just as local accounts in Vilna maintained, the Oyneg Shabes members were aware that the shootings were carried out by Lithuanians directed by German officers. p297 Pesye Schloss's testimony is neither a "weaker link" as Dogzilla imagines nor does it stand in isolation: it is part of and is corroborated by a number of sources documenting the early September murders at Ponar.