Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Nick Terry]

Couldn't he just say it's not part of the Holocaust because there's no written order from Hitler and also he's not sure what HSSPF's did, what were the KdS and BdS, and someone needs to tell him more about the RKO first?

Nah. I predict he will ignore the new suggestion and continue to witter on about the previous one for another 20 pages, because that's just what he does.

 

[TSR]

I was wrong ! LOL !

.
You certainly were, but not in the way you're meaning here.
.

OK, I'll spell it out ..... converting the crematorium to an air raid shelter was not the 'reconstruction' of the hoax gas chamber, the 'reconstruction' consisted of punching holes in ceiling.

.
Nor has anyone said they were the same. *you*, however, sneered at the very idea that the building was ever an air raid shelter.

But, true to the denier handbook, you ignore that and move on to another subject, where you are equally wrong.
.

Our esteemed holohoax scholar Nick Terry, and you, want to conflate these two separate events that occurred years apart, the conversion by the Nazis, the 'reconstructon' by the Poles/Soviets.

.
No, no one is conflating the two.
.

Confuse the issue. Absolutely mind boggling that they are so obvious and shameless about their lies, but, if you can't see it, who can? Do you understand now?

.
We all understand that you post lies and ignorance, and aren't man enough to admit the ignorance, but instead try to distract with more lies.
.

Here is the reality - the gas chamber hoax was exposed to the academic/research community by Pressac in 198?.

.
Speking of lies, this one has been pointed out to you numerous times.
.

The tour guides do not do their own research on the camp history, they rely on what the museum administration tells them.

.
And if they are backed into a corner and have to go off script, may make mistakes.
.

They are preforming their job exactly as they are supposed to when they unknowing give a false history of the hoax gas chamber.

.
Not saying that it was converted and then reconstructed may not be good history, but does not falsify what they *do* say.
.

The persons who wrote the history for them, F. Piper, for example, do know the actual history of the 'reconstruction' of the hoax, as we know from David Cole's interview.

.
As well as from a multitude of other sources...
.

 

[MG1962]

One thing I see here and other places is the Holocaust is a modern invention, before the late 60s early 70's the hoax apparently didn't exist.

On Nov 10th 1961 an episode of the Twilight Zone Deaths-Head revisited aired

Here are the details if anyone is interested

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734563/

More to the point is Serling's closing monologue


All the Dachaus must remain standing. The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwalds, the Auschwitzes - all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the Earth into a graveyard. Into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance, then we become the gravediggers. Something to dwell on and to remember, not only in the Twilight Zone but wherever men walk God's Earth."

The question becomes. How did Serling predict such precise description of an event supposed not to have been invented for another 10 years. Or is it Serling was moved by his knowledge of what happened at these places to craft a thought provoking moment in televsion

 

[Dogzilla]

.
The entire report is being offered as accurate by Klee, if that's not endorsement perhaps you would be so kind as to share your definition?

The who what where and when are all there in the report. The Who include the Army under his command, the SS assigned to his area, and Polish citizens both Jewish and not, dead and not.

The What is the indiscriminate (no due process, etc.,) slaughter of the Poles, especially the Jews.

The Where is the areas of Poland under his command.

The When is "currently happening.

If you want more detail than that, it is available from other sources -- that's kinda how history works.

You need to provide details from the report that are endorsed in Klee. Your answer should standalone and not depend on your fans having access to and reading the material in its entirety. If quoting the text is going to require too much retyping or put you at risk of violating fair use of copyright material, then give us the page and line numbers.

And you originally said the what detail was the 'indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews.' Now the what detail is 'the indiscriminate (no due process) slaughter of the Poles, especially the Jews.' And the who now involves Germans and "Polish citizens, Jewish and not, dead and not." This is a fairly significant difference that goes beyond merely shifting goalposts. "Jews qua Jews" sounds holocaustic. "Polish citizens" not so much.

Lie.

Lie? You said my claim was that the WJC dictated the content of the NYT (mostly before they even existed). I said that wasn't my claim. That's not a lie. My claim was that "Every few years starting in early 1900's there would be some press report (often at the behest of the WJC) about millions of Jews suffering in Europe." You even linked to my original quote so you knew what you were saying was flat out wrong.

.
And when called on it, you referred to the NYT archives, which you whine you wouldn't link to because some of it was paid info. Informed that I had a subscription so you should link away, you ran and are running still.

And lying about it.

You never said you had a subscription but if you did, why should I believe you? And not everybody does have a subscription. I'm not going to link to content people have to pay for because either 1) the link isn't going to work if you don't have a subscription or 2) it's going to work and non-subscribers will get something for free. I told you how to find the information yourself. If you won't seek, I can't help you.

 

[Dogzilla]

You were wrong to say "Please read up on the changing history of the holocaust before you make grand pronouncements" since the history has never changed. What might or might not have been stated by a few museum tour guides 20-30 years ago isn't even vaguely close to what most people would consider to be 'history'. And yet this is the best that the deniers can muster on this issue.

The actual events in the past have not changed. People can't go back in time and doing something differently. But the history of Auschwitz as presented by the Auschwitz state museum has most definitely changed over the years. Does "four million" sound familiar?

 

[Wroclaw]

Nobody can prove the holocaust didn't happen. You can't prove a negative. But if you could, and a stupid docent at a museum spouting out rubbish is all the evidence it takes to prove that a historical event didn't happen, there is no history.

You could go a long way toward proving this particular negative if you were able to demonstrate where six million missing Jews ultimately ended up.

It's a fallacy, btw, that you can't prove a negative. I can prove the sky isn't green by analyzing the wavelength of the color we see. I can prove the wouldn't isn't flat by photographing it from space or by demonstrating the curvature.

So get to showing us where those Jews went. Snap to it!

 

[Nick Terry]

The actual events in the past have not changed. People can't go back in time and doing something differently. But the history of Auschwitz as presented by the Auschwitz state museum has most definitely changed over the years. Does "four million" sound familiar?

The history of most things have changed over the years, or rather, the way they are represented has changed. In the 1960s and 1970s Robert Conquest was talking about 4 million dead at Kolyma, and now specialists think it's about 25% of that number.

as for museum minutiae, someone wrote a book about that, which I've yet to see acknowledged by any revisionist:

Huener, Jonathan, Auschwitz, Poland and the Politics of Commemoration, 1945-1979. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2003

 

[TSR]

You need to provide details from the report that are endorsed in Klee.

.
The entire report is endorsed by Klee, as has been explained to you before.
.

Your answer should standalone and not depend on your fans having access to and reading the material in its entirety.

.
Now we have yet another qualification to your original demand, which was "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". You've been given the example asked for, and are now desperate to avoid addressing it.
.

If quoting the text is going to require too much retyping or put you at risk of violating fair use of copyright material, then give us the page and line numbers.

.
Already done. Which part of " on the very first page of the main part of the book" doyou have problems understanding?
.

And you originally said the what detail was the 'indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews.' Now the what detail is 'the indiscriminate (no due process) slaughter of the Poles, especially the Jews.' And the who now involves Germans and "Polish citizens, Jewish and not, dead and not." This is a fairly significant difference that goes beyond merely shifting goalposts. "Jews qua Jews" sounds holocaustic. "Polish citizens" not so much.

.
The addition of the Poles does not change the fact that the Jews mentioned were killed *because* they were Jews. That this was mentioned as distinct from Poles in general makes this even clearer.
.

Lie?

.
Yes.
.

You said my claim was that the WJC dictated the content of the NYT (mostly before they even existed). I said that wasn't my claim. That's not a lie. My claim was that "Every few years starting in early 1900's there would be some press report (often at the behest of the WJC) about millions of Jews suffering in Europe." You even linked to my original quote so you knew what you were saying was flat out wrong.

.
And what is significantly different from my summary (with the addition of some real world facts) to your statement? No, you didn't mention that the WJC didn't exist for most of any reasonable definition of "the early 1900's" but that's because you hadn't thought your lie all the way through.

And the fact remains that your excuse for not supporting the lie was lame to begin with, and your continued running from the same indicates that you knew it.
.

You never said you had a subscription but if you did, why should I believe you?

.
Yes, I did. And whether you believed me or not, you could have put the "lie" to my statement by supplying the link.

But you still refuse to...
.

And not everybody does have a subscription. I'm not going to link to content people have to pay for because either 1) the link isn't going to work if you don't have a subscription or 2) it's going to work and non-subscribers will get something for free.

.
You forgot 3) there is no such link to be had...
.

I told you how to find the information yourself. If you won't seek, I can't help you.

.
Let's see, how did that go again?

"Your answer should standalone and not depend on your fans having access to and reading the material in its entirety."

Double standard much?

Not to mention that your directions were simply search for "six million" and "Jews" or various combinations" which is only slightly more than useless -- ~25 hits between 1900 and 1939. Some of which carry headlines such as "ENGLAND IS SEEKING ECONOMIC PANACEA;" or " MELLON PLAN FINDS CHAMPION AND FOE" neither of which seems to pertain.

15 of those 25 are paid content, but even those have an abstract available.

So. Of those 25, which specifically were written at the behest of the WJC, and how do you know?
.

 

[TSR]

The actual events in the past have not changed. People can't go back in time and doing something differently. But the history of Auschwitz as presented by the Auschwitz state museum has most definitely changed over the years. Does "four million" sound familiar?

.
But wait: isn't the Holocaust sacrosanct and unable to be questioned?

Of *course* as new facts come to light our understanding of history changes. That's how *real* revisionism works.

But note that it was not *deniers* who figured out that the "four million" was incorrect, nor even that caused the change to be made. That was the job of *real* historians, working with *real* facts, instead of lies and personal incredulity like all deniers do.
.

 

[Nick Terry]

Nobody can prove the holocaust didn't happen. You can't prove a negative. But if you could, and a stupid docent at a museum spouting out rubbish is all the evidence it takes to prove that a historical event didn't happen, there is no history.

If you seriously believed that nobody can prove a negative, then all your efforts here are entirely futile and pointless. OK, we knew that already, but as a matter of philosophical principle, your claim that 'nobody can prove the holocaust didn't happen' means that negationism is utterly impossible.

In practice and in reality, you don't operate on that basis, because you seem to think you can negate historical events by raising the standard of proof and standards of evidence for the Holocaust (and the Holocaust alone), as if historical events magically disappear into a puff of smoke because there is supposedly 'not enough' evidence to satisfy the unreasoning and unreasonable demands of an anonymous internet troll.

It's been said often enough, but if we applied your apparent standards of proof and evidence to other historical events, then most of human history would become unknowable. So for that reason alone, your strategy of insisting that standard x must pertain otherwise an event didn't happen, is fallacious, and will always be fallacious.

I'm addressing what is evidently your core argument since you've repeated variations on this theme often enough. Quite simply, your core argument is wrong, and is not accepted by any relevant discipline or method of investigation. It's also not accepted in any study of epistemology that I have read.

History can't, as a rule, be negated. It can however be revised. Your mistake is to say on the one hand 'nobody can prove a negative' and then on the other impose arbitrary standards of evidence as if this would negate the events.

What you consistently refuse to do is demonstrate that history must be revised and prove a new historical explanation. That's virtually the only way that history really changes, and it demands that the person making the new claim show through new evidence that x happened instead of y. The only other way is to demonstrate that the evidence on which the previous explanation relied was fabricated.

The latter route is one that many 'revisionists' have tried to take, but since they lack provable expertise with documents and resort to various arguments to incredulity when claiming 'forgery', and provide no evidence of any forgery, they aren't listened to.

There are however more fundamental problems with the forgery gambit, since the evidence for the Holocaust consists of more than the evidence which deniers have hitherto tried to claim was forged. The evidence is superabundant that several million Jews were deported to specific camps and did not emerge out alive to be tracked by other historical sources.

The most reasonable explanation for why they cannot be tracked elsewhere is that they were murdered at the camps, as indicated by a large pile of evidence relating to those camps, of varying kinds.

Simply trying to throw all that evidence in the trash-bin and declare it unworthy, as you do repeatedly, doesn't solve the problem of explaining why there is so much evidence deporting several million Jews precisely to those same camps.

Your response to this has generally been to raise irrelevancies, dissemble and try to change the subject. One of your favourite irrelevancies is to say 'the Jews went where the 4M went when the Auschwitz death toll was reduced to 1M'.

But this still doesn't solve the logical and evidentiary problem, since the 1M figure is based on copious documentation of the deportation of a slightly larger number to Auschwitz, and copious documentation relating to the survival of the discrepancy between the two figures. The 4M figure was an estimate calculated on the basis of projected cremation capacity. Thus your gambit compares apples and oranges.

The other problem, of course, is explaining why the deported Jews would have been treated any differently to the similar number of Jews who died by being shot or in ghettos and labour camps.

Those are the two fundamental problems with revisionism's attempts to deal with the sum total of the evidence for the Holocaust, and they have never, ever been solved by any denier.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You need to provide details from the report that are endorsed in Klee. Your answer should standalone and not depend on your fans having access to and reading the material in its entirety. If quoting the text is going to require too much retyping or put you at risk of violating fair use of copyright material, then give us the page and line numbers.

And you originally said the what detail was the 'indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews.' Now the what detail is 'the indiscriminate (no due process) slaughter of the Poles, especially the Jews.' And the who now involves Germans and "Polish citizens, Jewish and not, dead and not." This is a fairly significant difference that goes beyond merely shifting goalposts. "Jews qua Jews" sounds holocaustic. "Polish citizens" not so much.

What a pile of gibberish. Now your objection is that TSR didn't cite Blaskowitz's note to your liking. Problem is that no matter how he referred to it, at what summary level, not typing the whole thing out (and not itemizing major details as I did, which you are ignoring), no matter how he referred you to it in this thread, the note says what it says and it is the noted which appears in Klee's book as an example of German atrocities including "misguided slaughter" of Polish Jews.

Crap, TSR would have fulfilled the conditions of your challenge simply by citing and not commenting on the report because you asked to be pointed to

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,

which TSR manifestly did. And the report can be read - and if you read it, you can try to explain to an increasingly puzzled readership just what the heck you think you're accomplishing.

By the way, here is much of the Blaskowitz note, copied from AHF, not all that was reproduced in Klee, but 90% of what he included in his book:

It is misguided to slaughter tens of thousands of Jews and Poles as is happening at present; because, in view of the huge population neither the concept of a Polish State nor the Jews will be eliminated by doing so. On the contrary, the way in which this slaughter is being carried out is causing great damage; it is complicating the problems and making them much more dangerous than they would have been with a considered and systematic approach. The consequences are:

(a) Enemy propaganda is provided with material which could nowhere have been more effectively devised. It is true that what the foreign radio stations have broad-cast so far is only a tiny fraction of what has happened in reality. But we must reckon that the clamour of the outside world will continually increase and cause great political damage, particularly since the atrocities have actually occurred and cannot be disproved.

(b) The acts of violence against the Jews which occur in full view of the public inspire among the religious Poles not only deep disgust but also great pity for the Jewish population, to which up to now the Poles were more or less hostile. In a very short time we shall reach the point at which our arch-enemies in the eastern sphere—the Pole and the Jew, who in addition will receive the particular support of the Catholic Church—will, in their hatred against their tormentors, combine against Germany right along the line.

(c) The role of the armed forces, who are compelled impotently to watch this crime and whose reputation, particularly with the Polish population, suffers irreparable harm, need not be referred to again.

(d) But the worst damage which will accrue to the German nation from the present situation is the brutalization and moral debasement which, in a very short time, will spread like a plague among valuable German manpower.

If high officials of the SS and police demand acts of violence and brutality and praise them publicly, then in a very short time we shall be faced with the rule of the thug. Like-minded people and those with warped characters will very soon come together so that, as is now the case in Poland, they can give full expression to their animal and pathological instincts. It is hardly possible to keep them any longer in check, since they can well believe themselves officially authorized and justified in committing any act of cruelty.

The only way of resisting this epidemic is to subordinate those who are guilty and their followers to the military leadership and courts as quickly as possible.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=142303

FYI in his biographical reference at the end of his book, Klee indicated why Blaskowitz's note was included, describing it as one of "two memoranda on atrocities of SS and police in Poland," which Blaskowtiz wrote as leader of 8th Army in Poland, his complaints causing him to be removed on occasions from his positions.

So now you have 1) Blaskowitz's note, 2) a great number of references and summary statements on the GP massacre at Ponar, 3) Nick's two examples, 4) Angrick & Klein's chapter, and 5) three or four other examples I referred you to from discussions on this thread. My only question is what you will do to keep dodging.

 

[Nick Terry]

This is a good one because it is exposing the way the holocaust industry thinks.

This is new. So the 'holocaust industry' also included communist Poland? The same communist Poland that waged viciously anti-Zionist campaigns and drove most of its tiny remaining Jewish minority out of the country in 1968? That communist Poland?

 

[TSR]

This is new. So the 'holocaust industry' also included communist Poland? The same communist Poland that waged viciously anti-Zionist campaigns and drove most of its tiny remaining Jewish minority out of the country in 1968? That communist Poland?

.
That's just what the Jooo wants you to think -- lull you into a state of inactivity out of sheer terror by only pretending to control the governments, banks, and mass media of every country in the world.

Oh, and that lousy figgy pudding you got from Auntie Mabel for Christmas? They were behind that, too. All part of the plan to eliminate the White Man with bad cooking and even worse dental care...
.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
That's just what the Jooo wants you to think -- lull you into a state of inactivity out of sheer terror by only pretending to control the governments, banks, and mass media of every country in the world.

Oh, and that lousy figgy pudding you got from Auntie Mabel for Christmas? They were behind that, too. All part of the plan to eliminate the White Man with bad cooking and even worse dental care...
.

If the Joos are trying to eliminate anybody with bad cooking and even worse dental care, they must targeting the English specifically.

 

[TSR]

.
No one needed you to make the joke more obvious, DZ. And you will note I made a funny and managed not to piss on the graves of millions of people.

What we *do* need you to do is tell us which of those 25 articles were written at the behest of the WJC.
.

 

[MG1962]

Looks like Saggy just got put on the naughty mat for two weeks

 

[Corsair 115]

You only have to read their actual 'testimony' to know that the holocaust is a paper thin collection of absurd lies.

And yet Saggy's vast, worldwide Jewish conspiracy which controls the media, academia, and everything else is somehow not an absurd lie. Figure that one out.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
No one needed you to make the joke more obvious, DZ. And you will note I made a funny and managed not to piss on the graves of millions of people.

What we *do* need you to do is tell us which of those 25 articles were written at the behest of the WJC.
.

I really wish you would keep better track of what people say around here. Which of what 25 articles are you talking about? Did I say there were 25 articles and some of them were written at the behest of WJC? Did you give me 25 articles and demand that I identify the ones that were written at the behest of the WJC? What are you asking?

 

[TSR]

I really wish you would keep better track of what people say around here. Which of what 25 articles are you talking about? Did I say there were 25 articles and some of them were written at the behest of WJC? Did you give me 25 articles and demand that I identify the ones that were written at the behest of the WJC? What are you asking?

.
I am asking that you either support your lie that "Every few years starting in early 1900's there would be some press report (often at the behest of the WJC) about millions of Jews suffering in Europe" or retract it. You then introduced the NYT archives as supporting this crap, but refuse to actually give a link.

Mostly because you haven't got one.

Instead. you offer instructions for a series of searches only slightly better than "Google it" in an attempt to shift the burden of proof (despite your whine that *my* answers should stand alone).

The other details necessarily follow from what you *did* say, and so we have 25 articles in the archive you referred to, found using the instructions you gave, and *still* you're running from a reasonable attempt to support the lie you posted.

It's something to do while you consider where you're going to move the goalposts about Klee...
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It's something to do while you consider where you're going to move the goalposts about Klee...
.

And thinking of novel ways not to tackle the numerous other replies Dogzilla has received to his strange request for ANY example of AN historian using ANY detail from a perpetrator or survivor testimony. So he can see what an "endorsement" looks like.