Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

For his project investigating "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," Dogzilla's would do well to add to his list of examples not commented upon Gideon Greif's essay on his interviews of survivors of the Birkenau Sonderkommando, of which unfortunately only a small portion is available online: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ip...epage&q=greif "we wept without tears"&f=false.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Update on Jaeger Report

Dogzilla tried to avoid the import of the Jaeger Report of December 1941 in three ways: 1) he argued that the report dealt with anti-partisan operations; 2) he argued that the report dealt with ethnic cleansing, as defined by the UN (regional population removals, not genocidal murders); and 3) he likened the operations of Jaeger's command to rogue activities of soldiers without authority.

His empty claims were responded to here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7879945&postcount=8549.

In this discussion, I maintained, in a nutshell, that SS officer Jaeger described approved mass exterminations of Jews which were aimed at making Lithuania free of Jews, in a series of operations that were nearly successful in doing so, resulting in the deaths in summer-fall 1941 of over 130,000 Lithuanian Jews for the German-definded crime of being Jewish, before higher German authorities cut the killings off to retain ~35,000 Jews as forced laborers.

To support what I maintained, I quoted relevant text from the Jaeger Report and summarized it. I also correlated the report to other events, and sources, we've been discussing.

Thereupon, Dogzilla answered, weakly, with a quip about "Team Holocaust" supposedly having said it doesn't matter if eyewitness testimony is accurate; a query about why the EGs were formed and what were their missions; and a series of statements attempting to equate unapproved activities of soldiers with an approved mission of an officer. Dogzilla also tried excusing his fumbling performance on account of lack of interest in the extermination campaign in Lithuania.

Dogzilla's post received this reply, 4 or 5 days ago: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7887903&postcount=8683, to which he has not responded.

My question is whether Dogzilla still maintains that the Jaeger Report described anti-partisan operations, forced population removals (but not mass murders of Jews), and low-level, unapproved excesses. If Dogzilla does so maintain, my further questions are what in the Jaeger Report does Dogzilla cite in support of these claims, and what other sources on Vilna, Kovno, and other extermination sites in Lithuania provide further evidence that the report dealt with anti-partisan operations, population removal, and unapproved excesses?

Dogzilla has charged me and others with not caring whether what we write is accurate. If he still maintains the same claims as he did at the outset of the discussion on the Jaeger Report, let him address that document and other sources - and in the interests of accuracy explain how they support his position. Here is a good opportunity for Dogzilla to show us how revisionist "scholarship" works.

 

[Belz...]

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

Holocaust deniers don't watch quality television, MG.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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

Like other great men of the time, Ike, Charles, and Winston, Rod passed on passing on, for posterity, any mention of the heinous "gas chambers" garbage. Why? Because it was a lie.

 

[Wroclaw]

You're aware Rod Serling was Jewish, right?

 

[Clayton Moore]

You're aware Rod Serling was Jewish, right?

So was the great Al Rosen. Nobody made a big deal about it when us kids talked about who was the best 3rd baseman in the American League. I doubt if I even knew, at that time, that Rosen was Jewish.

It's telling you gotta bring Jewish to every conversation.

 

[Border Reiver]

Like other great men of the time, Ike, Charles, and Winston, Rod passed on passing on, for posterity, any mention of the heinous "gas chambers" garbage. Why? Because it was a lie.

Or because it was unnecessary to make a really effective statement?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Like other great men of the time, . . . Rod passed on passing on, for posterity, any mention of the heinous "gas chambers" garbage. Why? Because it was a lie.

Is that so?

From a recent blog entry:

It is a good time to reflect on how far we have come. One good example of outrageous censorship in the past is 1950's television. April 16, 1959 CBS's Playhouse 90 did the first production ever of "Judgment at Nuremberg" in the form of a teleplay. Two years later it would be made into a major motion picture starring Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster. After the teleplay was filmed, the sponsor, American Gas Association, took offense to the many reference to the "gas" chambers. Since the film was about the holocaust and Nuremberg trials, they really couldn't change that. So as a compromise, they edited the word "gas" out of the film so that silence would replace it. So if someone in the film said "they were marched into the gas chambers," the film that played on television said, "they were marched into the ... chambers." I can't imagine this happening nowadays. Sponsors don't have that much power anymore. The explosion in media outlets might have a lot to do with that. Also, the public probably wouldn't let them get away with it.

http://manofwow.blogspot.com/2010/12/changing-face-of-censorship.html

Anyway, here is an excerpt from an interview Serling did with Mike Wallace in 1959, the topic being censorship and the two getting into Serling's outrage about a case of TV censorship - of a reference to gas chambers:

Rod Serling: Most assuredly, and in those cases where there is a problem of public taste, in which there is a concern for eliciting negative response from a large mass of people, I can understand why the guys are frightened. I don't understand, Mike, for example, other evidences and instances of intrusion by sponsors. For example, on Playhouse 90, not a year ago, a lovely show called Judgment at Nuremberg, I think probably one of the most competently done and artistically done pieces that 90's done all year. In it, as you recall, mention was made of gas chambers and the line was deleted, cut off the soundtrack. And it mattered little to these guys that the gas involved in concentration camps was cyanide, which bore no resemblance, physical or otherwise, to the gas used in stoves. They cut the line.
Mike Wallace: Because the sponsor was...
Rod Serling: Did not want that awful association made between what was the horror and the misery of Nazi Germany with the nice chrome wonderfully antiseptically clean beautiful kitchen appliances that they were selling. Now this is an example of sponsor interference which is so beyond logic and which is so beyond taste—this I rebel against.
Mike Wallace: You've got a new series coming up called The Twilight Zone. You are writing, as well as acting executive producer on this one. Who controls the final product, you or the sponsor? . . .

 

[Clayton Moore]

Or because it was unnecessary to make a really effective statement?

The reason, gas chambers, the ignorant masses believe in the Holocaust and the PROOF used by the shills to insist the Holocaust is absolutely true and irrefutable, under penalty of law or stigmatization, isn't important enough to be mentioned in writing.

What a coincidence the Nazi's never mentioned them either.

 

[Wroclaw]

So was the great Al Rosen. Nobody made a big deal about it when us kids talked about who was the best 3rd baseman in the American League.

You're mad. What about Brooks Robinson?

I doubt if I even knew, at that time, that Rosen was Jewish.

It's telling you gotta bring Jewish to every conversation.

Not really considering where we are.

 

[Wroclaw]

Good work, LC. Notably, the interview took place before the Twilight Zone episode, which Serling said was inspired by the Eichmann trial, two years later.

 

[Wroclaw]

the ignorant masses

Are you people all this conceited?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Is that so?

From a recent blog entry:
http://manofwow.blogspot.com/2010/12/changing-face-of-censorship.html

You know, of course, who directed the Playhouse 90 television version of “Judgment at Nuremberg”? Anyway, here is an excerpt from an interview the director did with Mike Wallace in 1959, the topic being censorship:

So where is the mention of gas chambers in major movies of the past almost 50 years?

Again, none of these famous directors want to go on record, for posterity, as portraying gas chambers as historical truth.

If it was even a possibility that gas chambers were the truth, a prestigious Hollywood type would have made a movie that portrayed them.

 

[Wroclaw]

What a coincidence the Nazi's never mentioned them either.

Except those 69 SS witnesses to Auschwitz-Birkenau alone, so that doesn't even include people like Kurt Franz, Franz Suchomel, etc., stationed at AR camps.

 

[Border Reiver]

Beyond having heard of it in the short exposure I had to WWII in grades 1-8, I didn't get a hint of the depths until I spoke with a great uncle who'd been one of the Canadian troops who'd liberated Bergen Belsen.

 

[Wroclaw]

So where is the mention of gas chambers in major movies of the past almost 50 years?

Again, none of these famous directors want to go on record, for posterity, as portraying gas chambers as historical truth.

If it was even a possibility that gas chambers were the truth, a prestigious Hollywood type would have made a movie that portrayed them.

And achieve what, exactly? Off the top of my head, most Holocaust movies refer to the gas chambers — Schindler's List, for one — but only one film I'm familiar with actually depicts them, and that's Uwe Boll's Auschwitz, which came out last year. Boll is a horror director. Nobody else would touch something as disturbing, material-wise. At least as far as I know.

Oh, just remembered that Errol Morris, who is, after Michael Moore, probably the most successful documentary filmmaker working, made a doc about Leuchter that deals with the gas chambers extensively.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You're mad. What about Brooks Robinson?

What about him?

Not really considering where we are.

That's what the Holocaust is all about. Letting bad Jewish people hide and do their crap neath the skirts of Judaism.

 

[LemmyCaution]

So where is the mention of gas chambers in major movies of the past almost 50 years?

Again, none of these famous directors want to go on record, for posterity, as portraying gas chambers as historical truth.

If it was even a possibility that gas chambers were the truth, a prestigious Hollywood type would have made a movie that portrayed them.

Did Rod Serling avoid mentioning gas chambers because he knew they were "a lie"?

I don't watch a lot of movies - but immediately Schindler's List comes to mind and my wife told me about a recent movie called The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, which didn't sound good at all . . . and . . . let's first get straight whether Serling avoided mentioning the gas chambers . . . then we can find someone who knows about the movies of the last 50 years . . .

Note: I made an error in my post, since edited, having misread an entry that made me think that Serling directed the "Nuremberg" episode - he didn't. He simply commented on it, having worked on other Playhouse 90 episodes.I apologize for the error.

 

[TSR]

What a coincidence the Nazi's never mentioned them either.

.
You mean other than Höss, Muthig, Hoellriegl, Krebsbach, Niedemayer, Altfuldisch ...

Shall I continue on down the list, or do you have enough to run from now?
.

 

[TSR]

If it was even a possibility that gas chambers were the truth, a prestigious Hollywood type would have made a movie that portrayed them.

.
Because, of course, they all cashed in on My Lai, for example -- and the Great Leap Forward, and the Great Crime -- or did none of those ever happen, either?
.