• 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.

General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dcdrac said:
CM if you are rounded up at gunpoint and you do not have a gun yourself or any weapon you are surrounded by solidiers with dogs terrorising you, do you really think you are going to be able to fight back?

Some did fight back when they scrapped together the means to do so, these victims were herded into ghettos and totally cut off they had no easy access to anything and took great risks to obtain the little they did have.

You really need to do some REAL research into this atrocity.
Click to expand...

You don't get it.

Jewish people were all over the camps. Jewish doctors treating German soldiers.
We're told Jewish babies were subjected savagery and everyone knew it.

Who do you think worked in the kitchens that fed the soldiers and camp staff and inmates? The soldiers? The camp staff? Or the inmates?

Yup the inmates did the crap jobs like working in the kitchen. That means the Jewish inmates had to be trusted. You don't go around brutalizing Jewish inmates and smashing Jewish babies into walls and then trust Jewish people near your food.

It's just common sense.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Violent behavior by authorities begets spontaneous violent retaliation by those being controlled.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. Cite studies to support this.

Clayton Moore said:
And to say every camp guard and camp support person would go along with violence against babies is insane.
Click to expand...
That isn't exactly what has been said. Still, violence against children is not uncommon in the world. Further, in the face of evidence of all sorts of Nazi terrorism and violence against all sorts of people, presented throughout this and the previous thread, instead of dealing with the evidence, you've simply repeated your "it wouldn't have happened like that" know-nothingism.

You come across as bringing very little life experience or even acquired knowledge to this discussion. Rather, you bring a reflex denial and blanket, unsupported dismissals of evidence. And, as far as not tasking Jews, in this thread you do, manifestly, for all to see.
 
Clayton Moore said:
It's amusing that the Holocaustics refuse to admit that Jewish people would have retaliated with measured and unmeasured violence if they were subjected to the horrors of the Holocaust myth. The guards and all camp personal would been under siege 24/7. The Jewish people would have reacted like normal persons in the midst of rampant savagery and terror.

And meaningful labor? Like that would happen in the midst of rampant savagery and terror.

I think the Holocaustics watched too many galley/quarry slave scenes when they were kids.
Click to expand...
Denier Rule 101: When shown to be wrong, repeatedly, in many different ways, stick fingers in ears, repeat errors over and over - and misstate what your opponents have said in the process.

Denier Rule 102: Ignore comparative cases, in so doing you can mock Jewish victims to your heart's content.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I think the Holocaustics watched too many galley/quarry slave scenes when they were kids.
Click to expand...
No, actually "Hoaxsters" or "Exterminationists" or "Holocaustics" or whatever you want to call normal people have read too many documents and books with evidence and discussion of the history to fall for your simple, so-called common sense hand-waving.
Clayton Moore said:
It's just common sense.
Click to expand...
Einstein: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
 
Last edited:
SnakeTongue said:
What compels you to believe that I am concerned with "credibility"?
Click to expand...
Clearly, you are not concerned with being credible. I, for one, do not believe you are concerned with credibility, nor do I think you are credible. What is your purpose for posting here, again?
 
LemmyCaution said:
Denier Rule 101: When shown to be wrong, repeatedly, in many different ways, stick fingers in ears, repeat errors over and over - and misstate what your opponents have said in the process.

Denier Rule 102: Ignore comparative cases, in so doing you can mock Jewish victims to your heart's content.
Click to expand...

Notice how I never mock the Jewish people of the Holocaust,

Yet this person flat out lies that I have.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Notice how I never mock the Jewish people of the Holocaust,

Yet this person flat out lies that I have.
Click to expand...

We notice how you deny mocking the Jewish people, right after mocking them with post after post of ridiculous BS.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Notice how I never mock the Jewish people of the Holocaust,

Yet this person flat out lies that I have.
Click to expand...
Sure you do. You belittle and mock Jews (but not Soviet POWs) for not resisting in the camps and ghettos - when some did resist, and when conditions in which the inmates were held were designed to prevent resistance. This is an old denier trick, by the way, to "defend" Jews because they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be overpowered and killed, one that I find as amusing as your confused typing of "the Jewish people of the Holocaust." You use, shall we say, a rather flexible notion of power in your apology for the National Socialists and your discussions of their main groups of victims.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
You don't get it.

Jewish people were all over the camps. Jewish doctors treating German soldiers.
We're told Jewish babies were subjected savagery and everyone knew it.

Who do you think worked in the kitchens that fed the soldiers and camp staff and inmates? The soldiers? The camp staff? Or the inmates?

Yup the inmates did the crap jobs like working in the kitchen. That means the Jewish inmates had to be trusted. You don't go around brutalizing Jewish inmates and smashing Jewish babies into walls and then trust Jewish people near your food.

It's just common sense.
Click to expand...

No it is you that do not get it, the inamtates if not murdered at the start were malnoursihed so they could work till they starved to death, surrounded by guards with guns.

lets apply some common sense here

The inamtes at best getting fed on a starvation diet

The guards every need met and heavily armed

What chance does the inmate have to fight back, none at all

And it is a matter of historical record that some inamtes did fight back and get killed.

CM you really need to look into this properly and not relay on the nonsense you have been, REAL RESEARCH, like reading the priamry documents yoursself, reading the withness accounts yourself visiting the sites yourself.

Oh I forgot judging by your refusal to accept scientific reports sourced the USA (the Autsim Vaccine thread) might be an impediment to you,
 
Langbein IIRC has a good description of how the treatment of inmates on their arrival in the camps disoriented them, creating a condition of shock, exposing them to brute force and violence, stripping them of connection to the outside world, rendering them powerless and making them subject to the random authority and brutality of the authorities. Bludgeoning them into submission while forcing them to focus on the most basic survival needs in order to stay alive. Prisoner account after prisoner account - the very evidence which Clayton continually handwaves away - also describe this process, which was followed by malnourishment, forced labor, harsh punishments, random violence and other forms of terror, and a series of mechanisms of almost total control.

Sofsky's book The Order of Terror, on the Lager, as well as Blatman's overview of the camp system in The Death Marches are other good discussions of conditions under which inmates were held. Also Wittmann's book on the Auschwitz trial presents evidence for uses of terror and brutality in that camp.
 
Last edited:
Nick Terry said:
I'm right and TSR is wrong, but the principle is similar. There is copious documentation on the deportation of 437,000 Jews from Hungary from May to July 1944 to Auschwitz. There is copious documentation on the fate of circa 110,000 Hungarian Jews selected for labour out of the 437,000 from May to July 1944 at Auschwitz, and sent to other camps. There is no documentation and indeed, no evidence whatsoever, indicating the survival of the balance (327,000 Jews) or their transport anywhere else. All the evidence points to their being murdered at Auschwitz, this evidence including contemporary documents of various provenance, but not bodycount reports from the SS, since those were destroyed, as indeed were most of the 'normal' camp records for 1944. The copious documents for the survival of 110,000 Jews are generally found elsewhere, eg in the records of Mauthausen or wherever.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it is a matter of right and wrong, just a disagreement on starting point, although I could have been clearer (and indeed, would have been had I been interacting with someone such as, say, Dr. Terry as opposed to DZ and CM). I put, based on the work of Dr. Karsai, the total number "deported" closer to 550,000 total. Less the 100k Dr. Terry quite rightly points out mostly died someplace other than Auschwitz (being none the deader for this distinction, and most still dead within the auspices of the Final Solution) this leaves ~450k. Which, for the purposes of pointing out denier idiocy, is close enough to 500k as makes no difference.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Sure you do. You belittle and mock Jews (but not Soviet POWs) for not resisting in the camps and ghettos - when some did resist, and when conditions in which the inmates were held were designed to prevent resistance. This is an old denier trick, by the way, to "defend" Jews because they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be overpowered and killed, one that I find as amusing as your confused typing of "the Jewish people of the Holocaust." You use, shall we say, a rather flexible notion of power in your apology for the National Socialists and your discussions of their main groups of victims.
Click to expand...

No I said that if they had really been subjected to the terror and savagery the Holocaustics say they were subjected to they would have responded as I said. Plus the Germans would never have been able to trust them to do even the most menial chores for fear of sabotage. The Jewish inmates would have been walking time bombs.
 
Clayton Moore said:
No I said that if they had really been subjected to the terror and savagery the Holocaustics say they were subjected to they would have responded as I said. Plus the Germans would never have been able to trust them to do even the most menial chores for fear of sabotage. The Jewish inmates would have been walking time bombs.
Click to expand...

Coulda woulda shoulda -- got any of that, you know, evidence thingy to support this, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Get back to us when you've read more than the denier crap you've been regurgitating here.
 
Clayton Moore said:
No I said that if they had really been subjected to the terror and savagery the Holocaustics say they were subjected to they would have responded as I said. Plus the Germans would never have been able to trust them to do even the most menial chores for fear of sabotage. The Jewish inmates would have been walking time bombs.
Click to expand...

They were malnourished unarmed and terrified and up against heavily armed soldiers whole garrisons of them what part of that do you not get?


And were ther uprisings normally ending up with the death of the brave rebels
 
Dcdrac said:
They were malnourished unarmed and terrified and up against heavily armed soldiers whole garrisons of them what part of that do you not get?


And were ther uprisings normally ending up with the death of the brave rebels
Click to expand...

They weren't malnourished till the allies destroyed the supply lines to the camps.

Besides sabotage requires anger, not muscle or weapons.
 
Clayton Moore said:
They weren't malnourished till the allies destroyed the supply lines to the camps.

Besides sabotage requires anger, not muscle or weapons.
Click to expand...

Given that almost all of the camps were beyond bomber range you will have to show how those supply lines were destroyed. But you have had this lie explained before haven't you.

I would have said that sabotage requires planning and access to at least basic equipment. Anger would result in just lashing out to little effect.

Do some reading.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
They weren't malnourished till the allies destroyed the supply lines to the camps.

Besides sabotage requires anger, not muscle or weapons.
Click to expand...

That is absoulute rubbish, they were delibertaly given a starvation diet form day one

What fantasy website did you soruce that from
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom