Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

So there was quote about gas vans that was from the Black Book of Jewry. Maybe Russian Jewry. Maybe Polish Jewry. Maybe just Jewry. I'm not sure and I don't think it was ever decided. It doesn't even really matter.

More of your disingenuousness and another example of your floundering around with historical material. For it matters where a source comes from, when, where, who, right? And it matters in what context a statement was made. And it really matters if the statement is authentic and quoted accurately. A denier, Saggy, posted a statement about quicklime poisoning in trucks - he claimed to have the book in which this statement appeared, but he wasn't able to cite the page. He used this statement to cast doubt on a compilation of interviews and source material called The Complete Black Book of Russian Jewry. Internet hits on the quotation Saggy used all show up referenced to The Black Book of Polish Jewry. Asked a number of times, Saggy failed to come up with a citation for his quotation. Since most of the Internet hits are to denier sites, and since you guys have no compunction about altering statements and misdating documents, asking for a citation before taking Saggy's post at face value was most reasonable - in addition the quotation's being gratuitous in the first instance, as it was entirely irrelevant, according to the denier sites, to the any point Saggy was trying to make about The Complete Black Book of Russian Jewry.

Now what you take from this juvenile nonsense you and your chums play at is . . . "the only reason somebody could cast doubt on it's truthfulness is going to be anti-Semitism." Saggy apparently confuses Poland and Russia and doesn't have a source for his quotation - and you go off about the long shot chance that "the Jew" might not be a liar . . .

And now you wonder why it occurs to people who read your muddling and faffing about that there might be a hint of antisemitism in it?

How long, oh lord, how long . . .

 

[Wroclaw]

Holocaust denial is always miscast as anti-Semitic. Anti-denialist folks believe that questioning a statement to the effect that three people can fit into one square foot or that ten times as many people as you've ever seen at Disneyland Anaheim can easily be buried in an area one seventh the size of the public area of Disneyland Anaheim doesn't have anything to do with visualizing objects in three dimensional space. It's all about hating the Jews. Questioning statements of fact from holocaust survivors is tantamount to calling all Jews liars.

Wrong and wrong.

First of all — AGAIN — repeating stupid assumptions about the ability or inability of certain individuals to recall with 100% accuracy the dimensions of a gas chamber does nothing to prove or disprove that they existed. So you should drop it.

Second and more importantly, nobody is saying that assessing someone's inability to judge spatial relations is equivalent to Jew-hatred.

What we ARE saying is that harping on such issues w/r/t the Holocaust when you don't do w/r/t other genocides is suspicious, to say the least. When you then add Saggy-esque or Bunny-esque remarks about Jews, then the conclusion is pretty obvious.

So we have a probable Jewish eyewitness quoted in a "Jewish" historical resource. No matter what, since the book(s) is about the holocaust, the only reason somebody could cast doubt on it's truthfulness is going to be anti-Semitism.

Again, wrong and wrong.

First, neither Black Book can be fairly said to be a "Jewish" publication.

Second, nobody is going to say that calling information from either book patently incorrect is anti-Semitic. To do so would be to call the entire Holocaust historical establishment anti-Semitic, since none of the members of said establishment accept, e.g., "steam chambers."

With this response, I'm being told that the person I was quoted (who was Jewish) in a book published by the Jewish community, had no way of knowing if the door was hermetically sealed or not and that "hermetically sealed door" was merely hyperbole. Or what the rest of us would call a lie.

No.

A lie implies intent to deceive. You can perhaps prove he was wrong; you can't prove he was "lying" without proving intent.

Sorry, but I don't make the rules.

Or, to take it to the logical meta-level, my problem is that I believed a Jewish eyewitness.

But you're the only person who seems to care that the witness is Jewish one way or the other. We're perfectly willing to accept the testimony of non-Jewish witnesses within reason. If they state physically impossible things as part of their testimonies, then clearly we're going to disregard that part of their statement and, therefore, treat the rest of their statement with suspicion and keep in mind the need to corroborate.

Since I love irony, I said what I said in a way that highlighted that irony as best as I could. I'm sorry if it sounds like prejudice to you. That's because it is. But when somebody from Team holocaust says Jews are liars or idiots, I don't believe in sugarcoating it to make them sound PC.

No one says "Jews are liars" on my side of this debate. We say "some witnesses may have been mistaken." You and I both know the witnesses whom we're debating are Jews.

You assume the rest.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Second, nobody is going to say that calling information from either book patently incorrect is anti-Semitic. To do so would be to call the entire Holocaust historical establishment anti-Semitic, since none of the members of said establishment accept, e.g., "steam chambers."

Frankly, I mentioned the Black Book of Russian Jewry not to "endorse" its contents but to show, in response to denier whiffle, how early attention had focused on the open-air shootings. Recalling the book, these many years after I read it, in this thread I also observed, "The Black Book does have some passages that strike me as sensationalistic as well as some testimonies that can't be corroborated; it also has material that does stand up." In other words, handle with care - watch out for lurid, unproven passages and material that doesn't stand up. Which assessment frankly is not antisemitic - it's based on the passages and what I recall could be made from them - whereas calling the Black Book a Jewish book full of degenerate or pathological lies is antisemitic.

 

[LemmyCaution]

A lie implies intent to deceive. You can perhaps prove he was wrong; you can't prove he was "lying" without proving intent.

And, here is the problem with Saggy's not being able to give a reference for the statement ostensibly about Poland: without knowing more, Dogzilla can't begin to make a case for intent - that snippet alone doesn't give us enough to go on; we'd need to see more to have any shot at being able to say more.

That deniers immediately start talking about lies for every Jewish witness speaks volumes. Remember Saggy's one-witness challenge? It wasn't about witness credibility, was it? Here's what Saggy's strange challenge focused on:

There is not a single credible Jewish holohoax witness. All one has to do to discover the holohoax is a complete fabrication is to read the actual 'testimony' of any of these pathological liars.

I did not ask to see a list of 200 pathological liars, I asked to see the name of one credible Jewish witness to the holohoax. Name him/her. Let's examine the lies of any witness you want to pick in detail. We know Yad Vashem has a list of 50,000 pathological liars, we don't need your list of 200. Just name ONE.

As a result, because of their beliefs about Jews, deniers are strangely silent about the probably antisemitic Polish witness Sakowicz who's been mentioned several times in here - and many others who could be - because that testimony, despite its bias, confirms Jewish witness testimony.

 

[Wroclaw]

Indeed, as does the witness testimony of several SS men, who anti-Semitic in many cases. This leaves only two possible conclusions: (1) The Jewish witnesses are not lying; or (2) The SS and Jews have conspired together and, again, in over 70 years, not a single whistle blower has emerged.

 

[Dogzilla]

I think I see the problem.

Initially, you wrote, Now you change the request from "ANY" to "who, what, when, where, why, how." That's fine. It would help if you specified up front. What's left unclear is whether qualifying testimony has to include all elements - who, what, when, where, why, how, in what order, in what formats the testimony needs to be, whether it has to contain full names with addresses and ID cards, how exact the dates and locations have to be, etc. We - and least I did - thought that by ANY you meant any . . .

I believe you are beginning to see the stupidity of dismissing lies and gross inaccuracies about the holocaust merely because we cannot always provide a direct link from any specific lie to a specific historical source. The fact that a specific lie has not been shown to be "endorsed" (whatever that means) by a historian does not mean that the lie is irrelevant or benign.

 

[Dogzilla]

Nope. Here's the TOS:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

Ain't nothing there about denial.

Not ours. Theirs.

 

[TSR]

And TSR concurs with Lemmycaution, "indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews" is a specific detail!

Here's another helpful hint: Asking who, what, when, where, why, how will get you closer to a specific detail. But, like I said, you guys like to keep it fuzzy.

.
This report includes information abuot who, what, when and where -- which are all separate details in their own right. The how and why we know from other sources.

Much, much better than your so-called support of your claim that the WJC dictated the content of the NYT (mostly before they even existed)
.

 

[TSR]

Who tried to crack jokes? You asked me how many people were buried in the mass graves at Madjanek. I told you. Why don't you give us a number that won't make you laugh if you don't like mine?

.
"Three million. No, one and a half million. No, seventy nine thousand. Wait! Count all the shoes and divide by two!" was meant to be a serious answer?

Free hint: no one is laughing at your lame joke.
.

So you are stating emphatically that the door with the plate glass window opening into the gas chamber is the original door that prevented people from breaking out of the gas chamber?

.
No, I am stating emphatically that no such door existed in Majdanek.

What was under discussion was that one of three gas chambers at Makdanek had a window which saw too high to be any use in breaking out of that chamber.

Do try to keep up.
.

There's a whole link devoted to it. Click on "a word about denial"

.
< click > < click > < clickclickclick >

Nope, clicking on your words above does absolutely nothing.

Nor was any such tabbo inplace while Saggs polluted their servers with his crap.
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I believe you are beginning to see the stupidity of dismissing lies and gross inaccuracies about the holocaust merely because we cannot always provide a direct link from any specific lie to a specific historical source. The fact that a specific lie has not been shown to be "endorsed" (whatever that means) by a historian does not mean that the lie is irrelevant or benign.

Not at all, what I am seeing is your floundering, your inability to think straight, and your disingenuousness.

You've been told over and over by a number of us under what conditions historians, and we, will use, and why, witness testimonies. You absorbed none of it.

I also see the stupidity of how you guys operate - your chums lie about dates, they alter quotations, they make claims they have not a shred of support for - and when their empty claims and yours are refuted or questioned, you guys repeat them ad nausuem, hoping that mere mindless repetition will somehow put them across.

I also see you retreat from every specific case into generalities and incoherence - as the specific cases prove fatal to your denial and whatever "meta" commentary (empty waffle) you try wrapping around it. You cannot stay with a single topic in any depth because you are ignorant and you have no methodological bearings. You even admit your ignorance - but that doesn't stop you from opining on what you say you neither know nor care about.

What I am seeing is a sad, dishonest, routed performance - the usual for denial.

You finally asked where historians use any details, any details at all, from witnesses - two of us posted the first thing that came to mind, out of too many examples to count. And you wouldn't accept the most obvious cases - changing the nature of your request to make it look as though you have some kind of point.

You remain clueless about how historians work. Did you get through even a secondary school history course - were you even graduated from secondary school? Your approach to history shows not a sign of it - but it does show, as noted, many signs of antisemitic bias, a bias which seems to stand in for historical understanding in your case.

 

[Saggy]

Saggy, give it up. This one isn't going anywhere.

You wish.

The simple fact is, according to you, the hoax gas chamber fraud was made public knowledge was in Pressac's book. The date of publication is?

We don't need to spell out the details, they're simple enough, let's discuss the time line.

So, for 40 or so years no one outside an inner circle knew that the hoax gas chamber was a hoax, and with the publication of Pressac's book the academics/researchers became aware. It was still presented to the public at large as being 'in its found/original state' in the late 90's according to Van Pelt.

That is the chronology of one of the most degenerate hoaxes in history.

 

[TSR]

The simple fact is, according to you, the hoax gas chamber fraud was made public knowledge was in Pressac's book. The date of publication is?

.
But not only in that volume, nor was that volume the first such reference..

This has been pointed out to you several times, just in the last couple of days.

Why do you keep lying about it?
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

.
This report includes information abuot who, what, when and where -- which are all separate details in their own right. The how and why we know from other sources.

Much, much better than your so-called support of your claim that the WJC dictated the content of the NYT (mostly before they even existed)
.

But Dogzilla reserves the rights to change at any time the standard and acceptable level of granularity for an answer he will acknowledge, particularly when his questions are answered, and to go onto another topic when he can't think of how to respond to answers to what he asks or claims. And, on the other hand, he reserves the right on his part to claim anything without any methodological standard whatsoever, so long as it tends protect his beliefs, ignorant as their basis might be.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You wish.

For the quality of discussion, yes. But in that your persistence makes you look worse and worse, and - hard to imagine - shreds your credibility more and more - no.

Or do you think you are convincing anyone?

 

[Dogzilla]

I know for a fact that this issue has been discussed before on this thread, most recently in June 2011, when Saggy was schooled on this precise same issue by me. And it was discussed before on another thread in September 2010, when Dogzilla's ignorance was corrected.

And how was I "corrected?" I wasn't wrong. The gas chamber at Auschwitz is not always described accurately by the tour guides. The fact that Sehn described the reconstruction in 1946 doesn't mean I'm wrong. It means the tour guides at Auschwitz don't always know what they're talking about.

 

[Saggy]

And how was I "corrected?" I wasn't wrong. The gas chamber at Auschwitz is not always described accurately by the tour guides. The fact that Sehn described the reconstruction in 1946 doesn't mean I'm wrong. It means the tour guides at Auschwitz don't always know what they're talking about.

Pay attention. No one has said Sehn described the 'reconstruction', they said he described the Nazi conversion of the crematorium to an air raid shelter. By punching holes in the ceiling? See?

And, the tour guides know exactly what they are talking about, they are repeating the lies that the museum authorities have told them, that is their job. They don't know they are lies, but the person who wrote the script does.

 

[Saggy]

For the quality of discussion, yes. But in that your persistence makes you look worse and worse, and - hard to imagine - shreds your credibility more and more - no.

Or do you think you are convincing anyone?

Maybe I'll convince Dogzilla.

 

[LemmyCaution]

And, the tour guides know exactly what they are talking about, they are repeating the lies that the museum authorities have told them. They don't know they are lies, but the person who wrote the script does.

Then, if the tour guides are kept in the dark by the museum authorities, logically, the tour guides don't know exactly what they are talking about. But you prefer grand rhetorical flourishes to thinking.

Will you now produce the evidence to support the claim you are making, that the museum authorities feed lies to the tour guides? Names, dates, documents, conversations, etc.?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Maybe I'll convince Dogzilla.

Well, good going, but I think he's pretty much there.

 

[tsig]

I believe you are beginning to see the stupidity of dismissing lies and gross inaccuracies about the holocaust merely because we cannot always provide a direct link from any specific lie to a specific historical source. The fact that a specific lie has not been shown to be "endorsed" (whatever that means) by a historian does not mean that the lie is irrelevant or benign.

So you're throwing evidence under the bus.

IOW evidence, we don't need no stinkin' evidence.