General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[A'isha]

This post must be a forgery. The office code (or whatever) should be A II 3 c.


ETA: I realize I shouldn't have divulged what I thought the real code should be. I should just say that it is wrong and not elaborate on why I know this.

 

[swright777]

...
I initially thought this poll was kind of worthless but it has yielded an interesting result. More than 85% of the respondents say they don't know enough or care enough about holocaust denial to participate in a holocaust denial discussion but they know it's wrong anyway.
...

I'm one of the more than 85% who chose #4. I never said that I don't know enough or care enough about holocaust denial to participate.

I know that HD is mostly a bunch of lies spread on behalf of antisemitism or Hitler lust or whatever other crazy reason deniers have. So apparently I know more about HD than you.

I know that gas chambers were used to kill millions of Jews (but not 6 million). So I guess that I know more about the Holocaust than you as well.

There are others that post in the HD threads that are more knowledgeable than I am and are better equipped to deal with deniers. I'm satisfied lurking while they tear deniers apart.

 

[BaaBaa]

I saw it too, Brannagh as Heydrich was chilling

Eichmann as nervous host was good, too- all he cares about is that the meeting goes as planned.

On a related note, I was at the local second-hand book store and saw a copy of Wiesel's "Night". Thanks to CM's mishegoss about EW, I had to see what the tsuris and kvetching was about.


And I picked up a copy of "Schindler's List", too.


Reading Is FUNdamental!

 

[swright777]

...
You could say, for example, that 1.1 million Japanese civilians weren't vaporized at Hiroshima without being accused of denying World War II. But if you say the evidence of 1.1 million Jews being gassed at Auschwitz isn't as solid as most people believe it is, well, you're saying that nothing bad happened to the Jews in Europe during World War II. If you say that perhaps some of the gas chambers that were documented as "evidence" in actuality were not really gas chambers but showers or delousing rooms, you're saying there were no gas chambers. If you say there were no gas chambers, you're saying there was no holocaust. It is stupid but that is the way it is.
...

There is no evidence that 1.1 million Japanese civilians were vaporized at Hiroshima. The high-end estimate of total deaths for Hiroshima and Nagasaki within the first four months after the bombings is 246,000. About half of these deaths for each city occurred on the first day. I assume any Japanese vaporization would have occurred on the first day.

There is evidence of 1.1 million Jews being gassed at Auschwitz.

There is evidence that there were gas chambers, and that the gas chambers were indeed gas chambers.

There is evidence that the Nazi regime intended to kill every Jew in Europe.

I'm seeing a trend here.

And I know that I'm probably wasting my time responding.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Or that the Germans were guilty of the Katyn Forest Massacre?

Which witnesses testified to this, and what evidence do you offer that those witness knew what he or she was reporting was incorrect and reported contrary to the facts anyway? Who was convicted of this act?

And to forestall your upcoming bluster about Katyn - was anyone convicted solely for the Katyn Massacre?

Indeed, try to find a single judgment from Nuremberg that mentions Katyn at all...

The full history of Katyn is well known and a diversion.

Appellare ad participatur opinio.

Arguments dismissed by corroboration of secondary evidence:

This section contains photos taken in 1943 by the Nazis, during their exhumations of the Polish dead from the Katyn forest sites where the NKVD had murdered them on orders from Stalin in 1940.

They are from "Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von Katyn", Berlin 1943.

Katyn Forest Massacre​

DR. STAHMER: With reference to the events at Katyn, the Indictment contains only the remark: "In September 1941 11,000 Polish officers, prisoners of war, were killed in the Katyn woods near Smolensk." The Russian Prosecution only submitted the details at the session of 14 February 1946. Document USSR-54 was then submitted to the Tribunal. This document is an official report by the Extraordinary State Commission, which was officially authorized to investigate the Katyn case. This commission, after questioning the witnesses. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal are aware of the document and they only want you to call your evidence; that is all.

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 17 - ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-EIGHTH DAY Monday, 1 July 1946​

The indictment, it bears in full:

In September 1941, eleven thousand Polish officers, prisoners of war were killed in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk [1] .

This indictment was written jointly by the four ministries. That of France included Edgar Faure. It is therefore wrong to say that at Nuremberg only the Soviets accused the Germans of this crime.

(...)

At the trial, the victors judged the vanquished, according to law (a law hastily forged), without appeal, by violating the principle of non-retroactivity of laws and adopting the principle of collective responsibility ( any member of an association declared criminal, such as the Office of the Reich, the staff, the SS, was presumed guilty, retroactively).

(...)

France, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union in the indictment common to these four nations, accused Germany of murdering eleven thousand Polish officers at Katyn. Then, these same nations have ultimately found guilty of Germany murder when they said that, based on Article 21 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal, that the report of the inquiry Soviet value was "authentic proof" indisputable and irrefutable.


Wednesday, August 1, 1990 - Katyn at Nuremberg​

(...)

If one combines in a while the only items 19 and 21 of the Statute, we find that the accusers and the judges at Nuremberg there had an absolute weapon that allowed them 1) to provide "technical rules relating to the taking of evidence ", 2) to call" proof "that they would consider it, they, personally, have" value "of evidence, 3) to assume what they deem to be" common knowledge "and, in fact, was essentially the sum of the inventions of their propaganda on the" German barbarism. " In good French and to speak like everyone else, at Nuremberg, the victors could avoid proving the charge that they were against the vanquished. They have benefited greatly from this shameful privilege and, ultimately, their lie of Katyn has been only one of their biggest lies, all literally declared indisputable; in France, forty-five years later, the July 14, 1990, was to appear in the Official Journal socialist-communist law Fabius-Gayssot that since then makes it indisputable that type of lies in prison and heavy financial penalties.

Friday, April 20, 2012 - Back on "Katyn at Nuremberg"​

 

[Nick Terry]

Appellare ad participatur opinio.

Arguments dismissed by corroboration of secondary evidence:

<spam snipped>

Katyn wasn't mentioned in the IMT judgement.

Nothing you spammed, and nothing that the senile retard Faurisson has ever written, changes this fact, which is what was being referred to above. The posters who mentioned this fact did not commit a logical fallacy, nor did they appeal to a shared belief, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, unless one appeals to a shared belief when discussing anything in the past, in which case there's still no logical fallacy to discuss.

Oh, and by the way, your Latin is simply not used anywhere.

The traditional Latin phraseology used in English when invoking logical fallacies is argumentum ad, as in argumentum ad hominem (300,000 hits on Google).

But no, there's no known use of 'argumentum ad participatur opinio', either.

Gorbatogo mogila ispravit

 

[A'isha]

Maybe he was trying to cast a Harry Potter-esque magic spell?

 

[Nick Terry]

Maybe he was trying to cast a Harry Potter-esque magic spell?

magical thinking was at work, certainly....

 

[truethat]

Actually, Soviet POWs died in great numbers in Nazi camps - some 3.5 million out of 5.7 million captured, most of the deaths occurring in the first 8 months or so of Operation Barbarossa. These captives were shipped to camps on open rail cars, held under heavy guard, malnourished, denied medical care, keptin open camps, subject to murder actions, made to do forced labor, and mistreated in other ways. Due to their weakened state and the conditions they were held in, Soviet prisoners of war did not resist en masse despite being military.

Doesn't matter, he seems to assume that there should be some sort of rebellion going on based on atrocities. He might think that mistreatment of a baby is going to galvanize the people, that's because he's envisionig a CGI version rather than it actually happening. Terror can be immobilizing, especially when there are other children to think of.

 

[000063]

http://imgur.com/gallery/3YjlD

"A young German soldier (pictured center left, without helmet) refuses to participate in the execution of 16 Yugoslav civilians. He positioned himself within the group and was executed for disobeying his NCO. He choose death instead of killing hopeless civ[ilians]."

His name was Josef Schulz.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?87493-The-actions-of-Joseph-Schultz

Kinda puts a hole in the deniers claims that the soldiers didn't really know what they were doing, eh?

...
I find it insulting to Jewish people of that time to portray that the overwhelming majority of them were docile and accepting of the alleged chaotic level of violence in the camps.

Clayton Moore, please be aware that only the membership agreement prevents me from verbally lighting into you for that wildly incorrect statement with enough vigor and alacrity to be seen from space.

It is all the more galling because you've been proven wrong about that straw man dozens of times by this point. Only people almost entirely uninformed about the Holocaust think that no one had any idea what was going on. Unless they think Anne Frank's family was hiding in an attic for their health. It is a overwhelmingly minority belief.

Why would you address only lurkers and revisionists?

Well done.

Appellare ad participatur opinio.

Why not just say "the bandwagon fallacy"? And what does the bandwagon fallacy have to do with any of the posts? Clayton made several unbacked claims, and is, as usual, refusing to back them up. He does this all the time. He's well known for it.

Maybe you aren't familiar with the bandwagon fallacy. Here's a primer on the most common fallacies.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

There, maybe you won't have to resort to Latin. I find it hard to see how any of the post segments you quoted rely on an opinion being popular to lend themselves weight.

Arguments dismissed by corroboration of secondary evidence:

[quotes]​

Well, this is new. Throw in a made up latin phrase to look credible, then post text without bothering to explain its relevance.

I also note that you are not making any actual statements responding to those who disagree with you, just hand-waving it with a fancy phrase.

 

[FluffyPersian]

http://imgur.com/gallery/3YjlD

"A young German soldier (pictured center left, without helmet) refuses to participate in the execution of 16 Yugoslav civilians. He positioned himself within the group and was executed for disobeying his NCO. He choose death instead of killing hopeless civ[ilians]."

In many cases, those who opted out of the shootings were not punished at all. See Browning's Ordinary Men for details.

 

[truethat]

I don't get why this is even discussed when even Eichman himself flat out stated that there was a goal to exterminate the Jews that he felt was horrible.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Doesn't matter, he seems to assume that there should be some sort of rebellion going on based on atrocities. He might think that mistreatment of a baby is going to galvanize the people, that's because he's envisionig a CGI version rather than it actually happening. Terror can be immobilizing, especially when there are other children to think of.

I agree with you. That is why Clayton's posts read anti-semitic: he targets Jews for a supposed failure to act in ways that very few people would be able to act under the circumstances. Some Jews, as we know, in some circumstances, managed to organize and resist, some resisted in individual ways; most, however, were shocked into what comes across as a kind of numbness. Terrorized. In fact, to take this a step further, one technique which the Nazis used to manage their camps was terror which helped immobilize - your word, and one that is apt IMHO - the inmate victims. A similar use of terror as a strategy was also the case outside formal camps, e.g., in the ghettos. The reason I cited the fate of the Soviet POWs was to show that different groups of people - whether military or not - in these terrorized institutions suffered and reacted in ways that were not dissimilar. But of course Clayton denies terror in the camps and has mocked accounts of how terror was used.

 

[LemmyCaution]

In SnakeTongue's post I managed to find some references to the indictment pertinent to Katyn - and some folderol on the flaws of the IMT - but nothing, referenced or explained, that answer this:

Who was convicted of this act?

D'ya think it's because SnakeTongue doesn't know the difference between indictment and conviction? Or that he is just creating noise?

 

[nomuse]

Actually, Soviet POWs died in great numbers in Nazi camps - some 3.5 million out of 5.7 million captured, most of the deaths occurring in the first 8 months or so of Operation Barbarossa. These captives were shipped to camps on open rail cars, held under heavy guard, malnourished, denied medical care, keptin open camps, subject to murder actions, made to do forced labor, and mistreated in other ways. Due to their weakened state and the conditions they were held in, Soviet prisoners of war did not resist en masse despite being military.

I have to wonder if the extremely hierarchical Soviet military, and the lack of a truly common language, were also factors. Without an officer corps they would be less capable of organized activity than, say, captured Allies might.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Katyn wasn't mentioned in the IMT judgement.

Nothing you spammed, and nothing that the senile retard Faurisson has ever written, changes this fact, which is what was being referred to above. The posters who mentioned this fact did not commit a logical fallacy, nor did they appeal to a shared belief, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, unless one appeals to a shared belief when discussing anything in the past, in which case there's still no logical fallacy to discuss.

Dr. Nicholas Terry, call the connoisseur Robert Faurisson a "senile retard" only shows your frailty to recognize and respect a person which profess the same science which you practice.

Oh, and by the way, your Latin is simply not used anywhere.

The traditional Latin phraseology used in English when invoking logical fallacies is argumentum ad, as in argumentum ad hominem (300,000 hits on Google).

But no, there's no known use of 'argumentum ad participatur opinio', either.

You confused my preference to use Latin to express small sentences with logical fallacies coined in Latin. Because this personal preference is not based on collective shared belief it is not possible to find any citation of the phrase using the Google search tool.

I am pleased you proved that I have an unique preference for Latin.

Gorbatogo mogila ispravit

The leopard cannot change his spots

Maybe he was trying to cast a Harry Potter-esque magic spell?

I appreciate your sarcasm.

Not magic spell but word spell.

In SnakeTongue's post I managed to find some references to the indictment pertinent to Katyn - and some folderol on the flaws of the IMT - but nothing, referenced or explained, that answer this:

Who was convicted of this act?

D'ya think it's because SnakeTongue doesn't know the difference between indictment and conviction? Or that he is just creating noise?

I know the difference.

My intention was to provide the readers with reliable references regarding the subject discussed.

I am sure the reference shows that were an indictment but not a conviction.

Therefore it answer the question you quoted.

 

[Wroclaw]

Dr. Nicholas Terry, call the connoisseur Robert Faurisson a "senile retard" only shows your frailty to recognize and respect a person which profess the same science which you practice.

Really? Faurisson isn't an historian; his advanced degree is in French literature.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Why not just say "the bandwagon fallacy"?

Because I am not using logical fallacy.

I thought you had me on your ignore list...

 

[A'isha]

Because I am not using logical fallacy.

On the contrary, you use lots of logical fallacies.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I know the difference.

My intention was to provide the readers with reliable references regarding the subject discussed.

I am sure the reference shows that were an indictment but not a conviction.

Therefore it answer the question you quoted.

A less pretentious, honest answer, then, would have been: "There was no conviction of anyone for this act at Nuremberg." Right?