• 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.
Clayton Moore said:
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
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.





Gas was edited out because there were no gas chambers.

Think about it. Censorship? It was the 1950s. We hated Germany. But the line was drawn at putting lies in "hard copy" so to speak.
Click to expand...

So why edit something that was a hoax, why didn't the hoaxes just say, oh they were shot, worked to death, starved drowned burned etc etc. Why did they choose something needing physical evidence then mess it up?
 
Clayton Moore said:
The proof is you asking inane questions.
Click to expand...
.
On the contrary it is your assertions which have been shown time and again to be lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly

Even if you mean that my questions are inane because you have no intention of answering them, pointing out that fact by pointing and laughing as you run away carries its own significance.

*then* we can get to the larger picture that even everything you just posted were true: in what way does my asking for your proof serve as the very proof requested?
.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Think about it. Censorship? It was the 1950s. We hated Germany. But the line was drawn at putting lies in "hard copy" so to speak.
Click to expand...
.
Yeah, we hated them so much we rebuilt their economy and incited them to join NATO.

Why was the line drawn *anywhere*, if the Jooos controlled everything anyway?
.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
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.





Gas was edited out because there were no gas chambers.

Think about it. Censorship? It was the 1950s. We hated Germany. But the line was drawn at putting lies in "hard copy" so to speak.
Click to expand...
You will provide evidence against Serling's explanation of this incident (which by the way conforms with other explanations in print and on the Web), right? Or we will be treated to another of your "It's obvious to anyone" or "The proof is that you ask inane questions"?

Oh, I see that you are still claiming Rod Serling, like Churchill, never mentioned gas chambers? So, you will explain this
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.
Click to expand...
while you are at it. Right?
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
The proof is you asking inane questions.

It's like Wroclaw interjecting


Originally Posted by Wroclaw View Post
Click to expand...
This is the actual sound of Clayton Moore conceding that he has absolutely no evidence of torture or mistreatment leading the named men to change their testimony.
 
Last edited:
TSR said:
.
Yeah, we hated them so much we rebuilt their economy and incited them to join NATO.

Why was the line drawn *anywhere*, if the Jooos controlled everything anyway?
.
Click to expand...
When he provides evidence for his claim that the reason for the removal of the word gas from the TV broadcast of "Judgment at Nuremberg," Clayton Moore will need to explain, not only how the powerful Jews were beaten by the American Gas Association, but also why one of those involved in the censorship is quoted as explaining it on the basis, not of historical accuracy but as "commercial judgment" which led the sponsor to pressure CBS (quoted in Eric Burns, The Invasion of the Mind Snatchers) - and why too Time magazine wasn't in on the drawing of the line, editorializing on 27 April 1959, in "Moment of Silence" that the deletion of the word gas on the program was "some of the most naive censorship ever to be inflicted on a show."
 
LemmyCaution said:
. . . Kruk also explained that he had “gained access to a few of the sex who came from Ponar” including Trojak and Schloss. Kruk noted that Schloss had told him that “three of us” (survivors of the shooting) spent the night with peasants in a village. . .
Click to expand...
Apologies for this one: spellcheck is no good when I type "sex" (!?!??!?!) for "six." This should have read, of course, that Kruk gained access to some of the "six" survivors - not to some of the "sex'! Sheesh. Sorry.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Apparently. Very embarrassing, even if the two words are spelled similarly, the i and e keys are nowhere near each other. Ugh. :blush:
Click to expand...
.
Note to deniers: this is how we big kids admit mistakes: come clean as soon as the error is noted, and take the good-natured ribbing from others knowing that having done so does not impact credibility, nor does it mean everything by a given poster / author / witness is suspect.

This would be a cue for CM to own up to zir "no Nazis admitted gas chambers" and related lies, and DZ to take responsibility for "NYT articles in the early 1900s written at the behest of the WJC" among many other lies they have posted here.
.
 
I’m pretty new around here, and have followed this thread on and off, but have hesitated on posting anything. Please excuse me if this is a derail at all. A little background history on me… I was born in the Midwest and no reside in the South. Was raised Catholic, but have become a Baptist since relocating. I have no strong feelings on Jewish people, though I don’t agree with how Isreal was established (not that I have any alternate ideas either, mind you!), and I disagree with their actions periodically. I say all this to avoid the “Zionist” label that gets thrown around here a lot.

My interest in this thread comes from my father’s history. He was born in Hungary in 1933, and so did a lot of growing up during WW2 and saw much firsthand. He lived southwest of Budpest in a small village outside a town named Szekesfehervar. He talks about how in the later part of the war the Germans occupied his area and that many people we sent off to camps (no idea which one/ones). His family was Catholic, but they knew several Jewish families. In the deportations, those families were sent away, as was the family of his best friend (The father was a doctor, respected in the area, and anti-Nazi. The family was father, mother, older sister and dad’s friend). Of the people he personally knew (8-10 families, maybe 30-35 people tops), the only ones that returned were the older sister of his friend and 3 family friends that lived just up the road from them.

His friend’s sister told him that shortly after they arrived at the camp, the other members of the family were taken away (including the boy), and never seen again. The sister had no idea why she was not taken as well. This same type of story was related by the other family friends as well. Keep in mind, the people that did not return all had homes and property still waiting there. (Most of this was family land that had been theirs for generations)

My question is, for those that think that the holocaust is a hoax, where did the people go if they weren’t killed? In know we’re talking a tiny sample size compared to the totals, but if only 3 of the 35 or so that my dad knew ever came back (and the others were never heard from again), what supposedly became of them? I can think of no explanation that fits the reality, other than that they were killed as my father told.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
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.

Gas was edited out because there were no gas chambers.

Think about it. Censorship? It was the 1950s. We hated Germany. But the line was drawn at putting lies in "hard copy" so to speak.
Click to expand...

Yet another in a long line of falsehoods. It's quite obvious it's a Gish Gallop you just make up as you go.

I'd love to hear your explanation how the all powerful International Zionist Conspiracy(tm) was afraid to offend defeated Germany?
 
Clayton Moore said:
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
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.

Gas was edited out because there were no gas chambers.

Think about it. Censorship? It was the 1950s. We hated Germany. But the line was drawn at putting lies in "hard copy" so to speak.
Click to expand...

Yet another in a long line of falsehoods. It's quite obvious it's a Gish Gallop you just make up as you go.

I'd love to hear your explanation how the all powerful International Zionist Conspiracy(tm) was afraid to offend defeated Germany?
 
Which Germany? At that time there were already two. Each build up to be the puppet for a side in the starting Cold War.
While the GDR got well and truly shafted by the Communists("lol, industry?") the FRG was rearmed pretty fast and was included in relevant economic treaties. The US actually pampered the FRG a lot with the Marshall Plan and it got to enjoy the Wirtschaftswunder partially thanks to that aid program.
As for hating the ex nazis: nazi intelligence was recruited by the OSS and allowed to become part of our intelligence apparatus, both Verfassungsschutz and BND are based on Abwehr and SD officers. Nazi scientists were heavily recruited and subsidised unless they happen to end up in the GDR or Siberia. A lot of shady higher ups in the nazi party and related organisations went scot free or made a career in post war Germany. Only later did that sufficiently piss off other Germans to bother with prosecutions.
Quite hated by the USA those Germans...
 
Indeed, the entire Cold War is a point of cognitive dissonance for deniers.

They present post-war history as the drama of the Hoax and the tragic defeat of the Nazis, ignoring what the historiography of the period is all about. This leads them to absurdities like overplaying Holocaust memorialization and museums and seeing a conspiracy behind any Holocaust education.

We have the spectacle of one denier on this forum, and another forum, arguing that certain documents in Allied hands were manipulated by the Soviets during the late '40s war crimes trials - when the Americans were going it alone and, far from in cooperation with the Soviets, treating them as the new enemy, in effect "Nazifying" the Soviets and taking W. Germany in as an ally.

For deniers to sustain their mythology, the Cold War itself almost has to be presented as part of the Hoax, otherwise it is too disruptive to how they want to understand the postwar trials, the place of the Holocaust in postwar geopolitics, the leniency which the Cold War brought for ex-Nazis and war criminals, etc.

-
 
Question for Nick Terry or anyone else who might know:

I just finished watching Speer und Er (with English subtitles), and I'm halfway through Gitta Sereny's bio of Speer. As you know, Speer claimed to have left the Posen meeting early to meet with Hitler, allowing him to claim that he didn't know about what was happening to the Jews. Let's put aside for a moment the issue of whether he would have heard about Himmler's speech from his associates.

At least one other person who attended that meeting, Baldur von Schirach, was alive at the time Goldhagen made the accuasation about the Posen meeting in the 1971. What did Schirach (or anyone else who was there) have to see about Speer's claim?

I remember reading an interview with Schirach in which he claimed that few people wanted to eat after Himmler's speech, so he certainly remembered the event. Moreover, Himmler specifically addressed Speer during the beginning of the speech, so it's natural that those who attended have looked over to see how Speer reacted, as a result, and noticed his absence.
 
I suppose dogzilla , Clayton Moore etc are familiar with the works of eminent Historians Laurence Rees, Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Alan Bullock and Christopher Browning of whom the historicity of the Holocaust is unquestioned.?
And I can reassure them that as far as am aware all are, "Juden Frei"!
 
Mynott said:
I suppose dogzilla , Clayton Moore etc are familiar with the works of eminent Historians Laurence Rees, Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Alan Bullock and Christopher Browning of whom the historicity of the Holocaust is unquestioned.?
And I can reassure them that as far as am aware all are, "Juden Frei"!
Click to expand...

You jest, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom