Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Mondial]

.
These rely on defending the Leuchter report, which has been shown to be fatally flawed by, among other things, the author's complete ignorance of the qualities of the very Zyklon he was pretending to study.
.

.
And this was retracted by the author.

And no, it has been known since the end of the war, if not before, that nearly half of the victims died of gunshot wounds and such, rather than by gassing.

Yet another example of denier lies.
.

The Leuchter Report had mistakes but it is an exaggeration to call it "fatally flawed". A similar investigation was carried out by the Polish government and it received results akin to The Leuchter Report www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p207_Staff.html You holocaust propagandists don't like to talk about that. As for the Rudolf Report www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/ it mentions the mistakes in The Leuchter Report and explains how they came about. You didn't mention any mistakes in The Luftl Report www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html Walter Luftl was the president of the Austrian engineers association and Germar Rudolf received a degree in chemistry from the Max Planck Institute. I suppose to you these qualifications make their work "pseudoscience"?
You are the one who is telling lies - about David Cole! He retracted his revisionist arguments www.holocaustdenialvideos.com because he received death threats from the zionist thugs of the JDL www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html He later came out and said he still supports the revisionist position on the holocaust www.ihr.org/leaflets/bothsides.shtml but he is no longer an activist because he does not want to receive any more death threats or physical violence directed at him.

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
Thanks for the admission that even the *dis*honest historians don't cite "Night".

.

Night (Oprah's Book Club) by Elie Wiesel and Marion Wiesel (Paperback - Jan 16, 2006) $9.95

Night; with Connections by Elie Wiesel (Hardcover - May 1, 2009) $63.

The Night Trilogy: Night, Dawn, Day by Elie Wiesel (Paperback - Apr 15, 2008) Buy new: $17.95

Wiesel's Night (Cliffs Notes) by Maryam Riess (Paperback - Sep 5, 1996)
Buy new: $5.99


Your historians seem to look the other way. Oprah's Book Club?

 

[TSR]

The Leuchter Report had mistakes but it is an exaggeration to call it "fatally flawed".

.
No, it's not.
.

A similar investigation was carried out by the Polish government and it received results akin to The Leuchter Report www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p207_Staff.html You holocaust propagandists don't like to talk about that.

.
That's the one that said
.

Therefore, one can hardly assume that traces of cyanic compounds could still be detected in construction materials (plaster, brick) after 45 years, after being subjected to the weather and the elements (rain, acid oxides, especially sulfuric and nitrogen oxides).

.
... which assumption was at the core of Leuchter's entire report? Seems a pretty fatal flaw to me.

And speaking of not wanting to talk about it, how about the further testing done by the Institute, which found
.

The present study shows that in spite of the passage of a considerable period of time (over 45 years) in the walls of the facilities which once were in contact with hydrogen cyanide the vestigial amounts of the combinations of this constituent of Zyklon B have been preserved. This is also true of the ruins of the former gas chambers. The cyanide compounds occur in the building materials only locally, in the places where the conditions arose for their formation and persistence for such a long time.

In his reasoning Leuchter claims that the vestigial amounts of cyanide combinations detected by him in the materials from the chamber ruins are residues left after fumigations carried out in the Camp "once, long ago" (Item 14.004 of the Report). This is refuted by the negative results of the examination of the control samples from living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a single gassing, and the fact that in the period of fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau Camp. The first crematorium (Crematorium II) was put to use as late as 15 March 1943 and the others several months later.

.
The ball's in your court...
.

As for the Rudolf Report www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/ it mentions the mistakes in The Leuchter Report and explains how they came about.

.
No, he does not.

That fell to Richard Green, during the course of whose demolition of Rudolf's crap Rudolf was forced to admit "[C]hemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust 'rigorously'."
.

You didn't mention any mistakes in The Luftl Report www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html

.
Sure I did. He relies on Leuchter's fatally flawed report as well.
.

Walter Luftl was the president of the Austrian engineers association and Germar Rudolf received a degree in chemistry from the Max Planck Institute.

.
Wrong again. Luftl was president of *an* association, which position he was asked to resign as a result of his crap science (an engineering association, incidentally, and not a speck of engineering in his report...) and Rudolf never got a degree from Max Planck, but was instead asked to leave after misrepresenting his connection with that Institute.
.

I suppose to you these qualifications make their work "pseudoscience"?

.
No, it's the fact that their science was crap that makes it so.
.

You are the one who is telling lies - about David Cole!

.
Put up or shut up.
.

He retracted his revisionist arguments www.holocaustdenialvideos.com because he received death threats from the zionist thugs of the JDL www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html

.
Got any of that, you know, proof thingy for this accusation, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?
.

He later came out and said he still supports the revisionist position on the holocaust www.ihr.org/leaflets/bothsides.shtml

.
Cole did not author that page, nor is he even mentioned in it.

Looks like you're the one caught in a lie...
.

but he is no longer an activist because he does not want to receive any more death threats or physical violence directed at him.

.
And you can quote him (not what someone said someone else said he said) making this assertion?


What am I saying, of course you can't.
.

 

[TSR]

Your historians seem to look the other way. Oprah's Book Club?

.
Since when is Oprah an historian of any sort?

Nice try, but yet another swing and a miss.

Or is it your contention that historians should spend every waking moment reading every book which touches on their research and offering opinions thereof?


No, wait: this is more of your "averral by omission" crap, isn't it? Figured out why your usage of that is wrong yet?
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

'Night' is direct proof of the holohoax for at least 3 distinct reasons, each one sufficient for any reasonable person to conclude that the holohoax is an absurd and grotesque collection of lies. Of course anyone can tell lies with no consequence, but Elie Wiesel is not anyone, he is the first director of the USHMM, a Nobel Prize winner, and the embodiment of the holohoax, his lies have consequences, Wiesel's lies ARE the holohoax.

The three reasons - the absurd phantasmagoria of babies being tossed into the air and used as targets for machine gunners, the absurd phantasmagoria of adults thrown live into a burning pit and babies into another, and the fact that Wiesel does not mention gas chambers even thought he was a prisoner at where the hoax claims 10,000 were being gassed and cremated daily.

The fact that 10 million copies have been sold, and that the book is recommended on many school reading lists, is a mystery I cannot fathom ! It is chutzpah to the 1000th degree.

The point I was actually making had to do with your delusions and your - I hesitate to elevate it by calling it anti-intellectualism - campaign to promote ignorance. You can't even think through, leaving aside your beliefs, why your lot are so isolated. As for myself, I have never read "Night" so it has played exactly zero part in informing my conclusions and views. But for millions of readers, contrary to your confident dismissal of the Critique and any other historical discussion, "Night" does not seem to be self-debunking, does it?

 

[LemmyCaution]

All it will take is a computer model using available data to prove much of it is a self serving fabrication.

Send this suggestion along to Mattogno, Graf, and Kues. Their effort to play historians having imploded so badly, they are looking for a new angle.

 

[Saggy]

But for millions of readers, contrary to your confident dismissal of the Critique and any other historical discussion, "Night" does not seem to be self-debunking, does it?

"Night" is self-debunking not for 3 reasons as I stated earlier, but for 6 - the additional three are as follows -

1. Wiesel, in this short book, describes taking a shower, explicitly for disinfection, on SIX separate occasions in the book, you can use amazon search inside the book for shower to find them,

2. Wiesel describes his stay in the hospital in Auschwitz where he was treated for an infected foot by a Jewish doctor and had a small operation,

3. Wiesel was in the hospital when the Russian army approached the camp, and he describes how the Nazis gave him and his aged father the choice to stay and await the Russians, or to decamp on a long march to a new camp in the Germany, and Wiesel CHOSE TO LEAVE WITH THE NAZIS.

You really should read the book. It is completely and obviously 100% hoax-debunking for at least the six reasons I explained.

And yet !

But, that is the norm for the holohoax. The best example are the hoax gas chambers at Auschwitz and Majdanek, both have large unbarred plate glass windows. How could any rational person think for one instant that these rooms were actually gas chambers? It is beyond me, but we can ask Dogzilla as he saw the room and believed. (I visited Majdanek by chance as a typical tourist, i.e. I didn't know a thing about the hoax, but the hoax gas chamber was closed so I didn't see it, I wonder how I would have reacted to the window) So, the hoax gas chambers are totally self-debunking, yet they are the centerpieces of the hoax.

Like I said, the hoax is amazing.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Now you are just confusing yourselves. First, a book like "Night" is such an obvious Zionist lie, you say, that denial doesn't need MGK. Then, realizing that the so-called Zionist lies haven't been obvious to 10 million readers, the persistence of "Night" becomes "a mystery [you] cannot fathom." Then Clayton Moore chimes in suggesting that "all it will take" is computer modeling. Now, you're back to the absurdity of self-debunking lies.

As I told you, "Night" has played no part in informing my conclusions about the Holocaust, nor am I surprised, or that interested, to hear that some authors memorialize, fictionalize, exaggerate, make mistakes, and lie. I have no view on "Night," but I rarely see it cited (I did just recently and, so rarely do historians use the book, that the citation stuck out) and know that, with so much evidence for the Holocaust, this single data point isn't important to the history. Its cultural impact is something else, but we're discussing the actual Holocaust, in the 1940s, right?

And you are stuck with the bold declaration that you won't read the critique written by Nick & Co., but just know it is worthless! As I said, anti-intellectual and hell-bent on promoting ignorance: denial in a nutshell. Oh, I forgot the furtherance of anti-semitism, too.

 

[Nick Terry]

It has evidently escaped Saggy's attention that research into the Holocaust is now broken up into a large number of sub-fields. Very few of them would actually have occasion to mention Wiesel. Each sub-field is now sufficiently mature that there are usually more than 100 monographs and edited collections per rubric. Often many, many more than 100 books. Plus hundreds of journal articles, and also often primary source editions.

At the risk of causing LemmyCaution to run up an even greater amazon bill, the following list indicates what are probably the major sub-fields in the study of the Holocaust. One could subdivide them further, of course, and there are also themes which bisect many of the sub-fields, eg the role of the Churches is studied in a German, Polish etc context, as well as in the context of bystander responses. So other people might consider 'religion' a separate sub-field, and indeed there have been conferences, edited collections, and research projects on that subject.

But 25 is a good starting-point.

Several of the sub-fields don't necessarily directly concern the fate of the Jews, but are regarded as essential in order to understand the Holocaust. One can, of course, add the separate fields of genocide studies, research into mass violence in the 20th Century, and Stalinism, all of which are regarded as similarly essential to grasping the Holocaust.

1. antisemitism
2. Nazi Jewish policy in Germany and Austria
3. Nazi Jewish policy in Poland; ghettoisation, etc
4. Aryanisation and robbery of Jewish property
5. Nazi 'racial science', racial ideology, medical experiments etc
6. the euthanasia program
7. decision-making and origins of Final Solution
8. occupation of Soviet Union and the war of annihilation
9. the Holocaust in the Soviet Union and Baltic states
10. the Holocaust in Romania
11. the Holocaust in Poland (Aktion Reinhard camps, Chelmno)
12. Nazi Jewish policy and deportations from western, central and south-eastern Europe
13. Auschwitz
14. the Holocaust in Hungary
15. Jewish forced labour
16. foreign workers and the war economy
17. the concentration camp system
18. repression of other minorities (Sinti/Roma, homosexuals, etc) in the camps
19. the end and aftermath of the Third Reich (death marches, liberation, displaced persons, etc)
20. institutional studies, perpetrator research and biographies
21. rescue, resistance, social, cultural and gender history
22. witnesses, memoirs, testimonies, diaries
23. wartime knowledge and bystander reactions
24. postwar trials and investigations
25. historiography and collective memory

It's rather sad, really, to watch uninformed ignoramuses try to reduce the complex events of the Holocaust down to a few soundbites and catchphrases, not least because of the utter futility of the effort.

Seriously, guys. Perhaps you ought to make a New Year's Resolution to shut up about a subject you evidently know nothing about. Or to actually learn something about it. One or the other.

 

[LemmyCaution]

And, of course, the work I read citing Wiesel concerned subfield #12, in Nick's parlance, that is, "Nazi Jewish policy and deportations from western, central and south-eastern Europe," specifically the deportations and experiences of deported Jews.

In this book, Gigliotti's study of deportation trains, Wiesel was not cited concerning the death camps, specifically the Auschwitz complex (#13), the liberation of Auschwitz and subsequent death marches (#19), or even slave labor in the camp system (#15), that is to say the areas on which the denier "Wiesel memes" focus.

 

[SpitfireIX]

After you supply an honest Holocaust historian.

Here's one I know personally. I had him for four classes, including Modern Germany, Nazi War Crimes, and Hitler and 20th-Century Germany.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Now, all you need to do is find an historian who endorses this detail, and *then* we can debate what exactly you find so "absurd" about the idea.

Or is that too much like that research thingy you hate so much?
.

Now, all you need to do is find an historian who endorses ANY specific detail found in ANY specific holocaust survivor or perpetrator testimony so we can see what such an "endorsement" looks like. Let's try this one: "Germans (or their collaborators) shot girls in the foot and took their shoes." Tell us how many historians have endorsed this specific detail of the holocaust and when, where, and how this "endorsement" was recorded.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Thanks for the admission that even the *dis*honest historians don't cite "Night".

Thanks for acknowledging the existence of "dis"honest historians.

 

[Clayton Moore]

"Night" is self-debunking not for 3 reasons as I stated earlier, but for 6 - the additional three are as follows -

1. Wiesel, in this short book, describes taking a shower, explicitly for disinfection, on SIX separate occasions in the book, you can use amazon search inside the book for shower to find them,

2. Wiesel describes his stay in the hospital in Auschwitz where he was treated for an infected foot by a Jewish doctor and had a small operation,

3. Wiesel was in the hospital when the Russian army approached the camp, and he describes how the Nazis gave him and his aged father the choice to stay and await the Russians, or to decamp on a long march to a new camp in the Germany, and Wiesel CHOSE TO LEAVE WITH THE NAZIS.

You really should read the book. It is completely and obviously 100% hoax-debunking for at least the six reasons I explained.

And yet !

But, that is the norm for the holohoax. The best example are the hoax gas chambers at Auschwitz and Majdanek, both have large unbarred plate glass windows. How could any rational person think for one instant that these rooms were actually gas chambers? It is beyond me, but we can ask Dogzilla as he saw the room and believed. (I visited Majdanek by chance as a typical tourist, i.e. I didn't know a thing about the hoax, but the hoax gas chamber was closed so I didn't see it, I wonder how I would have reacted to the window) So, the hoax gas chambers are totally self-debunking, yet they are the centerpieces of the hoax.

Like I said, the hoax is amazing.

Glass? As in unbreakable glass? I wonder why the victims didn't break it?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Thanks for acknowledging the existence of "dis"honest historians.

Guess what? There are dishonest scientists too. Know why? Because people are involved. But in neither case is dishonesty anything close to the norm. Know why? These areas have standards that are formally and informally enforced. There are also dishonest athletes and dishonest priests and dishonest labor leaders and dishonest business executives and so on, and sometimes dishonesty is tolerated, like in major league baseball. You will be hard pressed to show that being the case among historians and scientists, however.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi.../08/marc-hauser-harvard-science-misconduct-/1

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...-dean-hauser-guilty-of-scientific-misconduct/

Are you really as bereft as you try making out?

 

[TSR]

Now, all you need to do is find an historian who endorses ANY specific detail found in ANY specific holocaust survivor or perpetrator testimony so we can see what such an "endorsement" looks like. Let's try this one: "Germans (or their collaborators) shot girls in the foot and took their shoes." Tell us how many historians have endorsed this specific detail of the holocaust and when, where, and how this "endorsement" was recorded.

.
Klee, in "The Good Old Days" cites a report from Johannes Blaskowitz on the very first page of the main part of the book which speaks of the indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews.

Your turn (actually, I asked first, but I'm feeling charitable today) -- Which historian cites "Night" on any detail at all?

Since I never claimed any particular number of historians endorsed that detail. I feel no need to look it up, since whether her shoes were stolen or not makes precisely zero difference to the question of whether or not the Holocaust happened. But nice try at a goalpost shift...
.

 

[TSR]

Thanks for acknowledging the existence of "dis"honest historians.

.
Well, David Irving is still often referred to as an historian. Michael Bellesiles. David Barton.

But why is the dishonesty of some people a surprize to you?

Still waiting for a cite to any historian using "Night" as source...
.

 

[Dogzilla]

"Night" is self-debunking not for 3 reasons as I stated earlier, but for 6 - the additional three are as follows -

1. Wiesel, in this short book, describes taking a shower, explicitly for disinfection, on SIX separate occasions in the book, you can use amazon search inside the book for shower to find them,

2. Wiesel describes his stay in the hospital in Auschwitz where he was treated for an infected foot by a Jewish doctor and had a small operation,

3. Wiesel was in the hospital when the Russian army approached the camp, and he describes how the Nazis gave him and his aged father the choice to stay and await the Russians, or to decamp on a long march to a new camp in the Germany, and Wiesel CHOSE TO LEAVE WITH THE NAZIS.

This part of the story has particular relevance, at least to me. Here's little Elie, the Jewish boy from Hungary, with an infected foot. A foot that is so infected that he needs surgery to correct it. His fate is in the hands of the evil Germans who intend to kill all the Jews they can get their hands on except for those whose labor they can exploit temporarily and have in fact just wrapped up their extermination of 400,000 Hungarian Jews. German soldiers are being decimated as the Soviet army rolls closer and closer to Auschwitz. Rather than transfer all the medical supplies at Auschwitz to the front where they can help wounded German soldiers, or bring Germans soldiers back to Auschwitz for treatment, the doctors decide to operate on this little Jewish boy who cannot be exploited for slave labor and is going to be exterminated eventually anyway.

Elie's condition following the surgery is such that the Germans in charge of the camp can see that Elie needs to recuperate. He's lounging around in a hospital bed recuperating when it comes time to bug out. So Elie decides to go with the Germans rather than wait fo the Russians even though his foot injury is so severe that he isn't forced to work. But it isn't so severe that he can't survive the "death" march to Buchenwald.

What's great about this part of Night, as opposed to the flaming baby pit, is it's probably the truth. We're told lies about how the Germans wanted to kill all the Jews. Lies about how the Germans had just finished off the remnants of the Hungarian Jewish community. Lies about how only the Jews who could work would be kept alive temporarily; about all the young Jews who were sent to the gas chamber right away; all the disabled or old or unable to work Jews who were sent to the gas chamber.

But the Jewish boy from Hungary with an infected foot and no particular labor skills was, instead of being thrown into a flaming pit, provided with medical treatment paid for by the German government. And it must've been decent medical treatment because the man is still alive today and he does not walk with a limp.

It's the accidental honesty about the Nazi treatment of the Jews that makes Night valuable for teaching the truth about the holocaust. Nazi Germany provided no cost health care to the Jews (something Elie cannot get in the United States today). That's a fact that students should learn. The horrific imagery of emaciated prisoners, of human skin lampshades and shrunken heads found at Buchenwald are inextricably linked to the holocaust today. But Elie informs us that the Jews in Buchenwald were actually healthy enough and motivated enough to travel into Weimar to rape and pillage at will after they were liberated. That's another aspect of the holocaust that we must never forget.

You really should read the book. It is completely and obviously 100% hoax-debunking for at least the six reasons I explained.

And yet !

But, that is the norm for the holohoax. The best example are the hoax gas chambers at Auschwitz and Majdanek, both have large unbarred plate glass windows. How could any rational person think for one instant that these rooms were actually gas chambers? It is beyond me, but we can ask Dogzilla as he saw the room and believed. (I visited Majdanek by chance as a typical tourist, i.e. I didn't know a thing about the hoax, but the hoax gas chamber was closed so I didn't see it, I wonder how I would have reacted to the window) So, the hoax gas chambers are totally self-debunking, yet they are the centerpieces of the hoax.

The doors leading into the "gas chamber" were propped open and were in the shadows. There's not alot of bright lighting (no doubt to give the place a solemn feeling as well as reduce the chances of anybody noticing anything out of place--like plate glass windows). I didn't notice the doors. I didn't notice the lack of the door between the "gas chamber" and the "crematorium" But that wouldn't have been top of mind because I didn't know cyanide gas is explosive in high concentrations.

How is it that the "gas chamber" at Madjanek was closed when you were there? The gas chamber is what everybody wants to see when they visit a camp. Even when they say the gas chamber was never used, it's what the tourists visit the camp to see. It'd be like going to Disneyland and finding that Space Mountain, the Haunted Mansion, and Pirates of the Caribbean were closed.

 

[Dogzilla]

It has evidently escaped Saggy's attention that research into the Holocaust is now broken up into a large number of sub-fields. Very few of them would actually have occasion to mention Wiesel. Each sub-field is now sufficiently mature that there are usually more than 100 monographs and edited collections per rubric. Often many, many more than 100 books. Plus hundreds of journal articles, and also often primary source editions.

At the risk of causing LemmyCaution to run up an even greater amazon bill, the following list indicates what are probably the major sub-fields in the study of the Holocaust. One could subdivide them further, of course, and there are also themes which bisect many of the sub-fields, eg the role of the Churches is studied in a German, Polish etc context, as well as in the context of bystander responses. So other people might consider 'religion' a separate sub-field, and indeed there have been conferences, edited collections, and research projects on that subject.

But 25 is a good starting-point.

Several of the sub-fields don't necessarily directly concern the fate of the Jews, but are regarded as essential in order to understand the Holocaust. One can, of course, add the separate fields of genocide studies, research into mass violence in the 20th Century, and Stalinism, all of which are regarded as similarly essential to grasping the Holocaust.

1. antisemitism
2. Nazi Jewish policy in Germany and Austria
3. Nazi Jewish policy in Poland; ghettoisation, etc
4. Aryanisation and robbery of Jewish property
5. Nazi 'racial science', racial ideology, medical experiments etc
6. the euthanasia program
7. decision-making and origins of Final Solution
8. occupation of Soviet Union and the war of annihilation
9. the Holocaust in the Soviet Union and Baltic states
10. the Holocaust in Romania
11. the Holocaust in Poland (Aktion Reinhard camps, Chelmno)
12. Nazi Jewish policy and deportations from western, central and south-eastern Europe
13. Auschwitz
14. the Holocaust in Hungary
15. Jewish forced labour
16. foreign workers and the war economy
17. the concentration camp system
18. repression of other minorities (Sinti/Roma, homosexuals, etc) in the camps
19. the end and aftermath of the Third Reich (death marches, liberation, displaced persons, etc)
20. institutional studies, perpetrator research and biographies
21. rescue, resistance, social, cultural and gender history
22. witnesses, memoirs, testimonies, diaries
23. wartime knowledge and bystander reactions
24. postwar trials and investigations
25. historiography and collective memory

It's rather sad, really, to watch uninformed ignoramuses try to reduce the complex events of the Holocaust down to a few soundbites and catchphrases, not least because of the utter futility of the effort.

Seriously, guys. Perhaps you ought to make a New Year's Resolution to shut up about a subject you evidently know nothing about. Or to actually learn something about it. One or the other.

The problem isn't that we reduce the complex events of the holocaust down to a few soundbites and catchphrases. The problem is that if we point out one tiny problem with, for example, #18, you attack it as a hate-based denial of 1 - 25.

You guys are the ones who have the problem distinguishing between the concept of "some of it didn't happen" and "it didn't happen."

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Klee, in "The Good Old Days" cites a report from Johannes Blaskowitz on the very first page of the main part of the book which speaks of the indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews.

Your turn (actually, I asked first, but I'm feeling charitable today) -- Which historian cites "Night" on any detail at all?

Since I never claimed any particular number of historians endorsed that detail. I feel no need to look it up, since whether her shoes were stolen or not makes precisely zero difference to the question of whether or not the Holocaust happened. But nice try at a goalpost shift...
.

Naturally you can cite the specific passage from Klee where he specifically endorses the Germans shooting girls in the foot and taking their shoes. I don't have a copy of "The Good Old Days" or I'd look it up for you.