Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[SnakeTongue]

Except, of course, in the first place what you quote so flippantly doesn't support what you wrote earlier.

You wrote:

Your quotation says that It never mentions political prisoners.

In the second place, your "holy book" and "amen" nonsense do not help your case, especially when you write something so stupid as millions of political prisoners were executed and follow it up on the first experimental gassing at Auschwitz and a reference to Jews being gassed there.

What I indeed wrote was the accusation which is made against the Third Reich. In no moment I affirmed that really happened. That is why I am asking for evidence.

By the way, you are supporting a "special pleading" for the Jews and ignoring all other kind of prisoners which were part of the concentration camps. Different from you, I do not give the Jews this special treatment, which is typically supported by Holocaust proponents.

There was indeed concentration camps, but not only for Jews.

How would you call the prisoners persecuted by a political party?

Race prisoners?

Religious prisoners?

Sexual prisoners?

The accusation against the Third Reich is made on the base that existed a policy for mass extermination of different kinds of people:

A Teacher's Guide to The Holocaust

Approximately 11 million people were killed because of Nazi genocidal policy. It was the explicit aim of Hitler's regime to create a European world both dominated and populated by the "Aryan" race. The Nazi machinery was dedicated to eradicating millions of people it deemed undesirable. Some people were undesirable by Nazi standards because of who they were,their genetic or cultural origins, or health conditions. These included Jews, Gypsies, Poles and other Slavs, and people with physical or mental disabilities. Others were Nazi victims because of what they did. These victims of the Nazi regime included Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, the dissenting clergy, Communists, Socialists, asocials, and other political enemies.

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/people/victims.htm

Feel free to prove your "special pleading" in favour of the supposed mass extermination of Jews...

I stand on the point where mass extermination did not happened against any kind of political prisoner.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Could you point out where a historian has claimed that such a document exists?

I did not argued that historians claimed that.

 

[SnakeTongue]

If the document was forged, what does a misinterpreted, biased translation have to do with anything?

Ask the reviewer of the biased translation, not me.

Leaving that aside, were other documents which historians use to prove events during the Holocaust forged? Or just this one?

I do not know. I did not analysed the other documents already presented. So I cannot tell you which documents where really forged or not.

 

[uke2se]

SnakeTounge, you should probably give it up. Smarter deniers than you have tried and failed. You're just embarrasing yourself.

 

[SnakeTongue]

There's a fair amount of evidence that has been able to prove that people committed the acts that are part of the Holocaust. I'll use some of the Canadian caselaw:

R. V. Finta Scroll on down to the "Facts" section of the judgement, right after you get through some of the source material used in the case

Canada v. Oberlander

R. V. Pawlowski

You can check Canlii for more. All proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will consult the links you provided.

 

[SnakeTongue]

SnakeTounge, you should probably give it up. Smarter deniers than you have tried and failed. You're just embarrasing yourself.

 

[uke2se]

[qimg]http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1430/talesfromholowood1.jpg[/qimg]

Wow, you can post an image. That's a strong argument.

Now, could you twaddle along? The grown ups might want to use this thread.

 

[A'isha]

Ask the reviewer of the biased translation, not me.

It's not biased. You simply have no clue what you're actually talking about.

I do not know. I did not analysed the other documents already presented. So I cannot tell you which documents where really forged or not.

I'm going to go for the Randi Challenge, and right here and now predict that every document which shows that the Holocaust actually happened will miraculously, under SnakeTongue's "analysis", turn out to have been forged. And, even more miraculously, his "analyses" will end up being remarkably similar to "analyses" that other deniers have already written.

 

[LemmyCaution]

What I indeed wrote was the accusation which is made against the Third Reich. In no moment I affirmed that really happened.

I asked you to show me an accusation of extermination of millions of political prisoners by gas. You didn't. You still haven't.

By the way, you are supporting a "special pleading" for the Jews

No, I am not. I am asking that you - yawn - show me a claim made that millions of political prisoners were put to death by the Nazis using gas. You didn't. You still haven't.

I am not ignoring other and ignoring all other kind of prisoners which were part of the concentration camps.

Nor am I. I am asking about your lie. That the original claim was millions of political prisoners put to death by means of gas. As you wrote:

The original claim: German Third Reich had mass exterminate millions of political prisoners with gas chambers.

Who made this claim? Show us an example. Where someone wrote or spoke about millions of political prisoners put to death in gas chambers. You didn't. You still haven't.

Different from you, I do not give the Jews this special treatment, which is typically supported by Holocaust proponents.

It was the Nazis who gave the Jews special treatment. But we are talking about a claim you say was made: that millions of political prisoners - your term - were killed by gas. Historians argue instead that over 2 million Jews were put to death in gas chambers. Not political prisoners. They also argue, for example, that millions of Soviet POWs were killed by the Germans - but not in gas chambers.

By the way, the manner in which you are hopping around gives away your confusion. At this point you seem not even to know what you wrote.

There was indeed concentration camps, but not only for Jews.

Of course there were. But concentration camps were not death camps, although prisoners were often killed in them. Auschwitz was such a prison camp for Polish political prisoners, for example, before it was a death camp. That isn't what we were discussing, though, was it? It was your statement that someone has claimed that the German gassed millions of political prisoners.

How would you call the prisoners persecuted by a political party?

Leaving aside that we are talking about a state, the Reich, not simply a poltiical party, that depends on who these prisoners were. If they were Jews, I would call them Jews. If they were Jehovah's Witnesses, I would call them Jehovah's Witnesses. If they were Catholics, I would call them Catholics. If they were Sinti and Roma, I would call them Sinti and Roma. If they were so-called asocials, I would call them asocials. If they were political opponents of the state, or thought to be so, like Communists, Socialists, or liberals, I would call them political prisoners.

Political prisoner is a specific term, with a specific meaning - not whatever you happen to define it as. That aside, you said others made this claim - that the Germans gassed millions of, specifically, political prisoners. You can't demonstrate where this was supposedly claimed, can you? Instead, you think squirming and wriggling and making up new meanings for words will excuse your lie.

You are very bad at this, Bob.

The accusation against the Third Reich is made on the base that existed a policy for mass extermination of different kinds of people:

By gas? As you first said?

Really, give it up. You lied. You were caught.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I'm going to go for the Randi Challenge, and right here and now predict that every document which shows that the Holocaust actually happened will miraculously, under SnakeTongue's "analysis", turn out to have been forged.

And, of course, he won't list the documents that were forged, but only make the claim when he is backed into a corner and realizes that IFWF.

 

[BravesFan]

The retarded thing about this is that we have the nazi's themselves admitting the holocaust occurred under oath. They never denied it at all. Rather they tried to push the blame around and deny personal responsibility.

The people who did it don't deny it. The people who survived it don't deny it. The people who lived in the nearby villages don't deny it.

Only anti-semitic historical revisionists trying to run some sort of misguided Public Relations end around on behalf of a Nazi party that doesn't exist anymore deny it.

it's like believing God exists yet choosing to be a Satanist. It's dumb.


all the evidence you would ever need is here : http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007147

but you won't read it, and if you do you will hand wave it all away......

 

[LemmyCaution]

I did not argued that historians claimed that.

Good. Then your question is irrelevant. No one thinks there was such a document. Anyone who sets out the case for the Holocaust does so without reference to such a document. I am not sure why you wanted to underscore this point, but it's good of you to concede it.

 

[A'isha]

Actually, SnakeTongue, I have a couple of questions about your "analysis" (or should that be "your" analysis?).

For instance, why is the "incomplete" date an indication of forgery to you? If the forgers were creating the document from whole cloth, why do you think they able to type out "26. März", the whole month and day, but only the last part of the year? Was their typewriter broken and missing the "1", "9", and "4" keys (which actually can't be the case, since the number "14" appears elsewhere in the document)?

If the forgers weren't creating a document from scratch (which you imply, but more on that in a bit), why would they be able to keep the year, but need to alter (or conceal) the decade? There's literally no other year ending in the number 2 besides "1942" that an altered original could have on it. 1932 was before Hitler even took power, and 1952 was long after the war ended.

Second, you say "Sending office code in the top right corner is not complete", because it's only "II D", and not "II D 3" (presumably, since you only have one question mark to represent the character you believe is missing, and that's what Alvarez thinks it's supposed to be). However, at the Czech site you cite as authoritative when it comes to Pradel's correct rank, it lists "II D 3" as Pradel's office (specifically, "II D 3 a" - "II D 3 b" was the Kraftfahrwesen des Sicherheitsdienst, headed by SS-Hauptsturmführer Gast and SS-Untersturmführer Heinrich), while Rauff's own office, being the overall commanding unit, is just "II D". Since the document is being sent by Rauff, not Pradel (it just mentions Pradel), why is it surprising to you that Rauff's office of "II D" is listed as the sending office instead of Pradel's office of "II D 3" (or "II D 3 a")? Especially when the document gets Pradel's own office of "II D 3 a" correct in the paragraph where it mentions his name?

As for the implications of an altered original, you say:

From the examination 6a, 6b and 7, is possible to conclude that the paragraph starting with “2)” was deliberately inserted to link the name “Prade” with the presumed sender “Raulf”.

Why would the forgers need to alter an existing document to link Pradel with Rauff? It was well known and well documented (even at that Czech website you cited) that Pradel was Rauff's subordinate in the RSHA. Of all the things a potential forger would need to manufacture, a link between those two men was not one of them!

But if Paragraph 2 was a forged addition, and it wasn't needed to show that Pradel and Rauff were connected, why was it added to the "altered" original? It contains literally nothing incriminating...all the really incriminating stuff (the first mention of "Sonderwagen", the mention of the Mauthausen concentration camp that the "Sonderwagen" is for, the bottles of carbon monoxide) are in the non-"crooked" paragraphs.

If only the "crooked" paragraph was added by the forgers, why did they bother? If all the paragraphs are forgeries, then why is one crooked in the first place?

And how could the forgers be simultaneously so sloppy as to forget to type "194" before "2" in their document and get Pradel's rank wrong...and also so insidious and influential as to get Dr. August Becker himself to give a statement saying that Pradel's rank matched the erroneous rank on the forged document?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Ask the reviewer of the biased translation, not me.

I asked you because you included it as an important point. Do you generally include rubbish you can't explain?

 

[A'isha]

Do you generally include rubbish you can't explain?

As seen in my post right above yours, it seems the answer to that question is "yes, he does".

 

[beachnut]

What an avalanche of questions...

You tell me. Just do not forgot to provide the evidence.

You can't answer questions? Not news!
You used a source to support your flippant nonsense, and fail to realize the irony. The source debunks your ideas on the Holocaust.

When you do real research on the Holocaust, you will realize your lack of understanding. Or not.

 

[A'isha]

I'm really curious to to know your answer to the question regarding the "incomplete office code" in the March 26, 1942 document, SnakeTongue.

You even circled where it said "II. D", and put a red question mark after it when you called it "incomplete", so you were obviously expecting to see something in the spot where you placed the question mark. I would just like to know what you were expecting to see there.

What is it that's missing in the designation showing the document was sent by Rauff's office, that you think ought to be in that spot? What is not there that should be there, according to you, such that its very absence is suspicious and a sign that the document was forged?

I mean, it can't be that you were simply parroting what Alvarez (or whoever cribbed from Alvarez that you in turn cribbed from) said, right? You must know enough about Rauff's office and its codes to be able to tell that the code used on the document was "incomplete", and didn't simply list "the office code is missing something after 'II. D'" as one of your criticisms because, well, that's what other deniers have in their lists of criticisms, and you're just blindly repeating what they said because you in reality have no clue whatsoever as to whether there's actually a problem with the office code or not.

Right, SnakeTongue?

 

[SanityGap]

How do you know when the picture was shot if there is no date presented?

It's your picture you posted, you show it is what you claim.

 

[A'isha]

It's your picture you posted, you show it is what you claim.

I've noticed that about SnakeTongue: for the stuff we post, documentary proof is required (even for things in actual published books with full and proper citations). However, for the stuff he posts, things found on completely unsourced Eastern European websites is all the "proof" necessary.

 

[SanityGap]

I've noticed that about SnakeTongue: for the stuff we post, documentary proof is required (even for things in actual published books with full and proper citations). However, for the stuff he posts, things found on completely unsourced Eastern European websites is all the "proof" necessary.

Standard denier tactic.