• 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.
Wroclaw said:
Really? The JDL set Hans Aumeier straight? The interview with him was done when he was a POW. I.e., in 1946; the JDL wasn't founded until the 1960s.

Or did you mean Irving? Who lives in a country with no JDL?
Click to expand...

The JDL is so good that it manages to set people straight retroactively. That's why they managed to make all those Jews disappear to somewhere even our most diligent and competent nazi fanbois revisionists are unable to find them. Despite all that effort they put into finding them...
 
Moss said:
The JDL is so good that it manages to set people straight retroactively. That's why they managed to make all those Jews disappear to somewhere even our most diligent and competent nazi fanbois revisionists are unable to find them. Despite all that effort they put into finding them...
Click to expand...

I can't speak for everybody but I haven't looked for any of them. Why would I? They're probably all dead.
 
LemmyCaution said:
You think you're funny? Their families and friends searched for those who were missing, desperately.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that?

Whenever I ask someone online what efforts their family made to locate relatives they believed died in Treblinka et al, I have never yet received any kind of answer other than vitriolic abuse.
 
Wroclaw said:
Interestingly, former "revisionist" David Irving, who now states quite clearly that Jews were gassed in camps run by Nazi Germany during WWII, calls Aumeier a mass murderer:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Aumeier/280146.html

If the 3,000 figure comes from here, it is deaths from "natural causes."
Click to expand...

Technically correct, but if one reads the interrogators compete remark

PW states that, as the result of epidemics, approximately 3,000 prisoners died at AUSCHWITZ from 'natural causes', but is not prepared to admit the number of people killed by his guards.
Click to expand...

ie not admitting gassings. According to wikipedia he also denied gassings at his trial in Poland.

ETA: Actually he does mention some gassings - although as I understand he retracted this at his trial

PW states that during his period at AUSCHWITZ between 15,000 and 18,000 people were done to death in the gas chambers. He denies responsibility, alleging that gassings were carried out by a special task-force under the command of Untersturmfuehrer HAESSLER who, together with the members of the task-force, was directly responsible to the Camp Commandant
Click to expand...

His gas chamber/crematorium is a fantasy construct half Bunker II/half Krematorium 2
 
Last edited:
Actually this admission of gas chambers came 2nd hand in an August 1945 report. In his first statement in June 1945 he unambiguously denied gas chambers

Im Sta[m]lager I bestand ein Krematorium bestehend aus 2 Öfen. Dort wurden die Leichen verbrannt. Das Krematorium unterstand dem Leiter der politischen Abteilung und dem Lagerarzt. Meiner Zeit waren in Birkenau 2 oder 3 Krematorium [sic. Krematorien] in Bau. Von Gaska[m]ern ist mir nichts bekannt, auch wurde zu meiner Zeit kein Häftling vergast. Als ich versetzt wurde, waren ungefähr 54 000 Häftlinge in Auschwitz und Birkenau, darunter waren auch ci. [sic. ca] 15 000 Frauen und Kinder. Häftlinge welche erkrankten, wurden dem Krankenbau überstellt welcher ausschliehslich dem Lagerarzt unterstand.
Click to expand...
 
little grey rabbit said:
Do you have a source for that?

Whenever I ask someone online what efforts their family made to locate relatives they believed died in Treblinka et al, I have never yet received any kind of answer other than vitriolic abuse.
Click to expand...

That's probably because it is the appropriate response. If members of your family have been killed by the nazis, simply because they were jewish or disabled, and you are asked by someone that doesn't think they were killed "what did you do to try and find them" the only appropriate response is "what the bleeping bleep do you think I did you bleeping moron"
 
little grey rabbit said:
Do you have a source for that?

Whenever I ask someone online what efforts their family made to locate relatives they believed died in Treblinka et al, I have never yet received any kind of answer other than vitriolic abuse.
Click to expand...

Well, then, let's try an experiment. I'll kill somebody who you love and who loves you, and...

Whoops. Sorry.
 
little grey rabbit said:
Actually this admission of gas chambers came 2nd hand in an August 1945 report.
Click to expand...

No, it came FIRSTHAND in the report. I.e., his interrogator reported what he said.

You people are unbelievable.

In his first statement in June 1945 he unambiguously denied gas chambers
Click to expand...

Yes, because it would be unheard of for a person under interrogation to deny initially his/her crime.
 
Wroclaw said:
Yes, because it would be unheard of for a person under interrogation to deny initially his/her crime.
Click to expand...

Another example of their being dumbfounded at completely innocuous and common-sensical events.

Here's a hint: In real life people often lie and minimize about their culpability first then fess up and implicate themselves later. Rarely is it the other way around.
 
Wroclaw said:
Well, then, let's try an experiment. I'll kill somebody who you love and who loves you, and...

Whoops. Sorry.
Click to expand...

My family also lost members during WW2 - or should I say my family really did lose members during WW2.

I have to say as it all happened many years before I was born it doesn't really concern me one way or another - although I am sure it was important to the generations before me.

If anyone would like to know the reasons I believe these people are dead and what efforts were made to locate them, I would only be too glad.

It certainly wouldn't be something I would get offended about.
 
Wroclaw said:
No, it came FIRSTHAND in the report. I.e., his interrogator reported what he said.

You people are unbelievable.
.
Click to expand...

The account linked to is 2nd hand within any reasonable definition of the term, in as much as this is not a signed statement rather a report of what had been discussed. In same the way if I said my aunt played social tennis with the Hoess girls at school and they said Krema II was really a bakery this would be 2nd hand (or third hand), eg "I talked to someone who was at Birkenau and he said that Krema II was actually a bakery" is a 2nd hand account.

However, there exists a signed statement repeating what was 2nd hand from Aumeier in this stance, so its a trivial point - aside from demonstrating your inability to grasp the most simple of historical methodology.

ETA: Actually he does mention some gassings - although as I understand he retracted this at his trial
You'll need to prove that.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Aumeier

The trial lasted from November 25 to December 16, 1947, and Aumeier stated that if he was found guilty and sentenced to death, he would "die as a 'Sündenbock' (scapegoat) for Germany". He told the court that he had never killed anyone at Auschwitz and neither had any of his men and denied knowledge of the gas chambers. On December 22, Aumeier was sentenced to death, and he was hanged on January 28, 1948 in Montelupich Prison, Kraków.
Click to expand...

another great victory for the chosen people
 
Am I supposed to feel sorry for that *******?
Edited by LashL: 
Edited for Rule 10.
He says he didn't kill anyone because he didn't pull any triggers himself or put the Zyklon-B in himself.

Neither did Eichmann. Or you. Though I imagine, in your case, you wish you had.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wroclaw said:
No, it came FIRSTHAND in the report. I.e., his interrogator reported what he said.

You people are unbelievable.
Click to expand...

If his interrogator telling us what he said is a FIRSTHAND report, what do you call what he said to his interrogator?


Yes, because it would be unheard of for a person under interrogation to deny initially his/her crime.
Click to expand...

Was he being accused of the crime of murdering people in gas chambers when he denied gas chambers?
 
He didn't deny the gas chambers, so the point is irrelevant. He merely said he wasn't aware of them.
 
Which, to tell you for the hundred-thousandth time, proves or disproves nothing. None of those men were ever in Auschwitz. Aumeier was.

Do you need an ****** Venn diagram to undertand this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom