Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Robrob]

Using the Bromberg incident as pretext, they carried out a far-ranging action in October called the Intelligentsia Operation, murdering 1000s of teachers, officials, clergy, landowners, members of nationalist groups, and Jews - but also including asocials, prostitutes, and Gypsies. They also supported Wachsturmbann Eimann in murdering almost 8000 so-called incurables taken from mental hospitals in a Polish extension of T-4. The actions of Heydrich's EGs in Poland were so egregious that Wehrmacht leaders (yes, Blaskowitz among them) protested the atrocities - taking their complaints to von Brauchitsch and directly to Himmler as well.

Not to distract from all the antisemitism but do the CT loons also deny the German's extermination of Gypsies, Slavs, Poles, Disabled and mentally ill, leftists, Masons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc...

 

[LemmyCaution]

You think you deserve an answer to your question? Here the kind of answer I think you deserve: Last year I read 345,980 books on the holocaust. But only 215,245 count because I had already read 130,735 of them. Do guidebooks about hosting holocaust themed parties count? If so, I read 345,981 because I just finished Sumptuous Weddings, Death Camp Style For Dummies by Konrad Morgen. I wonder how supporting actors like AntPogo would answer your question?

Flippancy, and insults, don't change the obvious fact that you don't have command of the basics and seem utterly unfamiliar with recent (in the past 15 or so years) discussions and arguments. You show this when you cannot put together a coherent paragraph on the evolution of the Final Solution - and seem surprised by the basic case for it.

Nick knows so much about this that he can probably tell you which books I've read this past year just by overt and not so overt references in my posts. In the same manner, we can tell what you haven't read - and haven't absorbed. You don't even know to look in that Hilberg book you sound off about for help when you're floundering on issues he discusses at length.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Not to distract from all the antisemitism but do the CT loons also deny the German's extermination of Gypsies, Slavs, Poles, Disabled and mentally ill, leftists, Masons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc...

T-4 is really hard for them - because it involves gas murders. It is interesting to watch their tergiversations on T-4. Which, of course, connects to AR . . . causing even worse tergiversations . . .

 

[Nick Terry]

The really sad thing is that within the last few weeks much of the same ground covered by Nick - e.g., Jaeger, Stahlecker, EG orders, escalation, etc. - has been done over and over without any denier tackling it - the denier preference is to lie about what was written, if what was written is even acknowledged, change the subject, and move on.

The even sadder thing is that this same ground has been gone over and over by mainstream historians in the past 25 years, to the point of virtual exhaustion. One would expect that anyone coming to this subject with even 1% seriousness would have absorbed some of the basic facts about the escalation to mass murder in 1941. Yet the deniers cannot muster anything more than 'Einsatzgruppen only carried out antipartisan warfare', a claim so hoary it had a white beard in the 1960s.

 

[Nick Terry]

Not to distract from all the antisemitism but do the CT loons also deny the German's extermination of Gypsies, Slavs, Poles, Disabled and mentally ill, leftists, Masons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc...

Because the main cause to be propagated these days is antisemitism rather than a rehabilitation of the Third Reich, the Dead Nazi PR Machine is by and large obsessed only with the persecution of the Jews, and doesn't spend much time denying other Nazi crimes. It's of course no surprise that they know even less about the treatment of non-Jews than they do about the Nazis' conduct towards the Jews.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Instead of bleating about it - Do something. Anyone can create a Wiki page. They have extensive resources to help you do it. You can even keep track of changes you or other people do to the page

If people are trying to sensor the holocaust or discussions about potential survivors you will be able to prove it pretty darn fast.

Bonus tip - look at a site called "Wayback Machine" It stores copies of web pages for history. So once you make your page, save it at the site. It time stamps exactly when the save was done, so if your page somehow get removed, you can prove it with a link

Nick Terry should do it to show his integrity as a Holocaust scholar.

 

[Moss]

Good quote, thanks.

I think that Longerich's Heinrich Himmler is indispensable; I read it over the holidays and seem to be carrying it with me wherever I go these days. I read Gerwarth's biography Heydrich just before - and they go well together, Longerich's being by far the better piece of work.

I really liked that Longerich comments on Himmler's reading lists at different times. I already had the impression that Himmler was wellread, but Longerich expands on that. Though that also seems to have fired Himmler's imagination to an unrealistic degree. Himmler seems to have believed the heroic but tragic narrative he spun for himself.
I'm not quite sure how crucial the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was to the decision to speed up the extermination program but according to Longerich it seems to have surprised the nazi leadership to encounter such an armed resistance. I found that quite interesting as CM seems to have questioned the lack of resistance. (Which can ordinarily be explained by: What other options did the deported Jews have? They were neither armed nor particularly militant. In contrast to the straßenschlachterprobten nazis.)
Edit: Haven't read the Heydrich biography yet. I wonder whether I should buy the German version or the English Kindle version. Yes, I know I am a cheapskate.

 

[Dogzilla]

Um maybe because she is wrong. The Nazis never produced soap on a commercial scale, thats a given, but there is evidence they tinkered with the idea and may have gotten beyond simply mapping a process for doing it

Joachim Neander has been dispelling the soap libel by saying it wasn't done on a commercial scale but there's evidence they thought about it and maybe even thought about it a little more? So Joachim Neander has "dispelled the soap libel" to the degree that he "criticized Irene Zisblatt?"

 

[Nick Terry]

Nick Terry should do it to show his integrity as a Holocaust scholar.

It's not exactly common for scholars of any discipline to edit Wiki pages, so my not wasting my time doing so means precisely zip.

 

[Moss]

Not to distract from all the antisemitism but do the CT loons also deny the German's extermination of Gypsies, Slavs, Poles, Disabled and mentally ill, leftists, Masons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc...

The Dead Nazi PR Machine has the big problem that Aktion T-4 was more or less common knowledge. So much that a number of Catholic bishops complained. The most famous was probably Clemens August Graf von Galen.
Though the first to protest was the Lutheran bishop Theophil Wurm. (Who turned from a nazi collaborator into a vocal critic. Among other things of the persecution of the Jews despite having been somewhat antisemitic earlier.)

 

[Wroclaw]

Here's something I wrote last night elsewhere. I'm posting it below because it's indicative of what a person can learn by doing just the slightest bit of regular reading on this topic. What I wrote below mostly consists of things I didn't know even a year ago.

I would urge any denier that wants to appear credible to at least know the "narrative" you're denying.

I agree that normally it would be a terribly inadequate way of doing things, which is why it was not a hard and fast rule implemente*d in a bunch of places. Nor was Zyklon-B, for that matter, although it was used at Auschwitz and to a far lesser extent at Majdanek.

To understand why they might have used a diesel engine at Treblinka — and I say "might have" because, as already pointed out by someone else, none of the people who testified on this point were experts on engines — you have to consider how gassing came to become a "policy" at six camps in Poland.

Gassing was first used in the T4 euthanasia program in quasi-hosp*ital settings. When it came time for the "Final Solution" in Poland, the shooting of hundreds of thousands of Jews on the eastern front was taking its toll on the soldiers, so alternate means of executive mass numbers of Jews were sought. They tried gassing first at Chelmno in the Wartheland using vans that would pipe exhaust back into the passenger section. This worked, but it was ad hoc and the number that could be killed was limited. Similarly, the use of Zyklon-B at Auschwitz was experiment*al and largely ad hoc. Because there was not great communicat*ion between killing centers, what was tried in one place and worked continued to be used. Ergo, Auschwitz continued to use HCN; Chelmno continued to use CO.

When Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec were establishe*d, the staff to install gas chambers there came from the T4 program, so they chose CO. Remember that of thousands of Nazi concentrat*ion camps, only six conducted gassing to any serious extent, which means that while it was a huge program in terms of the number of people killed (~3 million), it was small in terms of the number of places, in comparison to the Einsatzgru*ppen murders (~1.5 million killed), which took place in hundreds of places.

Finally, two important points. This was a secret program, so raising eyebrows was sought to be avoided. Also, there was a war going on, and the war effort itself was going to take precedence in many cases for the best technology*.

That about cover it? Took me five whole minutes to type it out.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Joachim Neander has been dispelling the soap libel by saying it wasn't done on a commercial scale but there's evidence they thought about it and maybe even thought about it a little more? So Joachim Neander has "dispelled the soap libel" to the degree that he "criticized Irene Zisblatt?"

No, that is not the case, nor did MG1962 even imply that Joachim made that argument. MG1962 spoke for himself. Here is what Joachim himself has to say on the matter:

a) I never said that the Germans "made" soap from human fat. If you would take the trouble and read my paper published in the February 2006 issue of German Studies Review, you will find that my research shows that, at the Danzig Anatomic Institute (and nowhere else!) the soap that originates as a by-product in making organ preparations by chemical maceration was not thrown away together with other laboratory waste (as it is done in normal times), but, in the last months of the war, was collected and used for internal (!) cleaning purposes. At the institute soap was not "made," it originated as an inevitable by-product. The only accusation one could bring forth against the team under Professor Spanner is that they did not throw this soap away.
b) Generalizing from an isolated case to "The Germans" is by no means justified. Who would accuse "the Italians" of human soap making, only because Leonarda Canciulli boiled the corpses of her victims with NaOH to hide the traces of the crime and gave the soap that originated in this process away to neighbors? Or who would dare to say that "the Americans" dig out the corpses of dead people and make lampshades from their skin, as Ted Gain did? (For information about these criminals go googling.)

You really need to be more careful in your reading and with the accusations you toss around.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It's not exactly common for scholars of any discipline to edit Wiki pages, so my not wasting my time doing so means precisely zip.

Nice dodge. Let the lies be sanctioned by omission. Afraid you'll get tossed from club?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Here's something I wrote last night elsewhere. I'm posting it below because it's indicative of what a person can learn by doing just the slightest bit of regular reading on this topic. What I wrote below mostly consists of things I didn't know even a year ago.

I would urge any denier that wants to appear credible to at least know the "narrative" you're denying.

So it's back to being a secret? Unreal.

 

[Moss]

So it's back to being a secret? Unreal.

What exactly is that "it" you are referring to?
If you refer to the extermination program: Well, criminals tend to hide evidence of their crimes and also try to avoid being seen while committing them. I have no idea why you think that is different with the nazis.

 

[Nick Terry]

Nice dodge. Let the lies be sanctioned by omission. Afraid you'll get tossed from club?

Your paranoid worldview notwithstanding, there is no way that I or anyone else would be "tossed from the club" for writing a conventional Wiki page on a memoirist like Zisblatt. Scholars have written whole books about the Wilkomirski affair, ffs. Anyone writing a Wiki page on Zisblatt would be more than entitled to link it to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_memoirs
which discusses a wide range of examples from different eras and walks of life, thereby exposing the denier fixation on Zisblatt as a joke.

Since you have shown zero familiarity with scholarship of any kind, frankly I could give a **** what you think of me.

 

[Dogzilla]

I also consider it quite amusing that Herr Neander gets crap for actually reading revisionist arguments and acknowledging they have been at least partially right. I'm not sure how that justifies the plagiarism allegation as normally we tend to hear the "but our arguments get ignored!" choral. If that is how people are treated when they take your arguments at face value I frankly don't see much reason to.

I consider it quite amusing that Team holocaust is unable to identify even the most obvious prevaricators without our help and only when the lies are so incredibly obvious that even a retarded toddler would doubt them will they acknowledge that their feisty little hero with a remarkable will to survive is full of diamonds. Of course, they will do nothing to stop these liars from continuing to peddling their wares.

 

[A'isha]

Nick knows so much about this that he can probably tell you which books I've read this past year just by overt and not so overt references in my posts. In the same manner, we can tell what you haven't read - and haven't absorbed. You don't even know to look in that Hilberg book you sound off about for help when you're floundering on issues he discusses at length.

This is why his "mockery" of Dawidowicz's reference to the 1959 Soviet census stood out as such a red flag to me.

 

[Dogzilla]

in 1945 the US dropped an atomb bomb on Hiroshima as was public knowledge at the time. Why in 1965 did Professor Gar Alperovitz waste his time writing a book about something that was settled twenty years before, and why did he waste more time in 1996 writing another one?

I didn't know Alperovitz's thesis is that there's evidence that the United States may have tinkered with atomic energy on a limited scale or perhaps dropped a few tiny experimental nuclear weapons on Japan but the rumor about massive destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs were thoroughly investigated after the war and found to be without merit. I guess I misunderstood.

Are you getting analogy advice from AntPogo?

 

[LemmyCaution]

I consider it quite amusing that Team holocaust is unable to identify even the most obvious prevaricators without our help and only when the lies are so incredibly obvious that even a retarded toddler would doubt them will they acknowledge that their feisty little hero with a remarkable will to survive is full of diamonds. Of course, they will do nothing to stop these liars from continuing to peddling their wares.

Well, "they" won't gag "these liars" or heckle their public appearances. But they will, apparently, write and distribute critiques of their work describing their stories as not worth having been told. In your logic, this is PR for the imposters, I realize, but, to most people, saying that someone's story is inconsistent, rife with exaggeration and inaccuracies, historically false, improbable, and implausible is doing something to counteract misinformation. It is, actually, in the mode in which a historian or writer is most effective.