• 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.
I have read priamry documents at the Villa at wannasee the place were the fianl solution was planned.

I have been to the sites of two of the Concnetration Camps Belsen and Dachau

I have read first hand accounts by death camp survivors and I strongly reccomemnd you do especially Primo Levi

What primary research have you done?

None as far as i can tell.

it is obvious to me you ahve no interest in the truth of htis matter.

The truth being millions of people were killed by an evil regiem, in an industrialised and systematic manner there is no getting away from it no matter what fantasy you choose to beleive.

I also reccommned you read the transcript of the Eichman trrial at Tel aviv in 1961
 
Clayton Moore said:
They weren't malnourished till the allies destroyed the supply lines to the camps.
Click to expand...

This is simply untrue.

Prisoners in the camp received meals three times a day: morning, noon, and evening. Factors influencing the nutritional value of the food included the official nutritional norms in the Nazi concentration camps. In practice, Auschwitz prisoners with less physically demanding labor assignments received approximately 1,300 calories per day, while those engaged in hard labor received approximately 1,700. After several weeks on such starvation rations in the camp, most prisoners began to experience organic deterioration that led to the so-called "Muzulman" state, extreme physical exhaustion that ended in death.
Click to expand...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/auconditions.html
 
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, Clayton. The Nazis weren't buddy-buddy with their Jewish prisoners so they could trust them not to poison their food.

Any food service work or medical work by Jews would have been done grudgingly and in constant fear of death or torture.

Powerful motivator, fear.
 
First Hand Withness Hugo Gryn

http://education.hmd.org.uk/case-studies/hugo-gryn/read

http://www.history.co.uk/explore-hi...tml?bctid=68642738001&Separating-at-Auschwitz

Hugo left Berehovo and came to the UK in 1946 where he continued his education, became proficient in English and studied hard. He then went to Cincinnati in the U.S.A. where he became a rabbi, returning to London to become a leading figure in the British Jewish community and a regular contributor on BBC programmes such as The Moral Maze. In 1978, shocked by the growth of Holocaust denial, he began to speak in public about his experiences. He hid nothing, even recalling how he became involved when prisoners killed a sadistic camp guard. To challenge denial he devoted a whole year of his life to bearing witness. He wrote “Time is short and the task is urgent. Evil is real. So is good. There is a choice.”
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
No wonder, as it's simply ungrammatical. Let's analyze that "sentence":

appellare: infinitive active voice, present tense of appello = to appeal, to call.
ad: preposition, "to", with its complement (a noun or nominal verb form) always in the accusative case.
participatur: indicative, third person singular, passive voice, present tense of participo = to share; so this form means "s/he is shared"
opinio: nominative singular of opinio, -onis = "opinion" (the accusative would be opinionem)
Click to expand...

People called Romans they go the house?
 
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...
Do you have even a slight clue as to how the National Socialists viewed Jews, including Jewish children? I am not thinking of Himmler's Posen speech, which you lot tripped over so horribly some months ago but of many, many other sources in which we can learn how the Nazi mentality differed from your "common sense" strawman. I ask because you seem oblivious to National Socialist viewpoints and motivations.
 
truethat said:
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.
Click to expand...

See, Eichmann isn't credible. First because of the manner in which he was deported, then because of statistical accuracy.
 
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...

<off topic, but related>

Being generally ignorant of history, you are likely unaware of the extensive periods of time where humans enslaved and generally mistreated each other.

Periods of time where people were:

a. Forcibly removed from their homes;
b. Families broken up;
c. Deliberately placed with persons with whom they may not have shared a common language;
d. Subjected to severe physical mistreatment;
e. Subjected to severe mental mistreatment;
f. Provided with less than optimal nutrition for prolonged periods;
g. Generally deprived of tools that could be used as weapons;
h. Guarded by well fed and equipped guards; and
i. Offered the opportunity to carry out tasks in exchange for continued existence.

Slavery was fairly common in this world up until about 150 years ago and the above points are just some of the ways that slaves were controlled and conditioned.

By your earlier statements you'd have expected there to be nearly constant slave revolts and rebellions as children where sold separate from their parents, Older slaves being killed when they were no longer economically viable, or the very common slave cooks and doctors taking their opportunities. What is remarkable is that there were very few slave rebellions for the number of slaves in societies.

You may notice some similarities between historical slavery and some of the elements of the Holocaust. You will probably ignore them in favour of handwaving a response along the lines of "But common sense tells me that people in that situation would have done what I imagine I would do."
 
LemmyCaution said:
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.
Click to expand...
Strange how he rarely, if ever, addresses the other groups of people in the camps. If the whole thing was a fake, why aren't the gypsies and so forth speaking up? Did the Jewish Conspiracy come up to them in a bar, Lefty style, and go "you wanna buy historical sympathy?"
 
000063 said:
Strange how he rarely, if ever, addresses the other groups of people in the camps. If the whole thing was a fake, why aren't the gypsies and so forth speaking up? Did the Jewish Conspiracy come up to them in a bar, Lefty style, and go "you wanna buy historical sympathy?"
Click to expand...

Can I get it wholesale?
 
SnakeTongue said:
Because I am not using logical fallacy.

I thought you had me on your ignore list...
Click to expand...

I sure do. Doesn't mean I can't still read and criticize your posts.

Your Latin reads "appeal to popular opinion". That is the exact definition of the bandwagon fallacy. Why use Latin at all, especially phrases which people aren't familiar with? Why use symbolic logic instead of responding to someone in a conversational format. The only explanation I can think of is if you are not actually interested in communicating clearly with the other people in the discussion, but merely looking like you are winning. There's a difference between being unable to refute you because you are right and being unable to do so because you are talking nonsense which is not even wrong.

I note you ignored the rest of my post, including the bits where I accuse you of not really responding to people's posts.
 
Clayton Moore said:
They weren't malnourished till the allies destroyed the supply lines to the camps.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense, and total ignorance. Please cite literature on the various parts of the camp system that discusses the treatment of prisoners during the 1930s and war years - including what prisoners were fed. Please also discuss what a Musselmann was.

This will be after, of course, you respond to the earlier request that you share the studies on which you base your argument that violence and terror don't ever terrorize and immobilize people but lead always to full-on rebellion.

Your blanket statements and ludicrous generalities - always made without any grounding - would be amusing if the subject weren't so painful.
 
Last edited:
You are using a false dichotomy. If the prisoners didn't fight back, it means they didn't fight back. It doesn't mean the Holocaust never happened.

I'm out. The same false dichotomy has been used about the people on the planes on 911. Since they didn't fight back it wasn't hijacked. Prior to the Holocaust nothing like this had ever happened in modern memory. It was inconceivable to many what was going on.

Fighting back, think this way. Before 911 if someone tried to hijack a plane most passengers would cooperate thinking that not all would die, and that some may be singled out but they'd have chance of surviving. So people wouldn't do anything. In fact rebel types, the Rambo guy might even sit quietly afraid that his attempts to overtake the hijacker might wind up with another person killed if he screwed up.

After 911 all bets are off. People will attack. This has been shown many times recently. People know what could happen and feel they are motivated to save themselves and others. The paradigm has changed.

It is easy to sit and look and say that people should have done it differently. You can see today that Jews do it completely differently. They fight back and they fight back hard, they have mandatory military training. The squash out Hamas, sometimes I think they fight back too hard and too diligently. They hold their ground. This shows that they understand now clearly what happened to them and would make sure it would never happen again.

In addition all your excuses mean nothing. The fact that you don't understand how it could have happened, well welcome to the club. But the piles of bodies, the testimony, the evidence and the witnesses all prove it did happen.


You also haven't answered why if it didn't happen, that no Jewish group of people have come forward and spoken out as much. This is why you look like you are antisemitic. You suggest that all Jews are part of a hideous collusion and than none were honest enough to come forward, all lied. Right. eyeroll
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
Slavery was fairly common in this world up until about 150 years ago and the above points are just some of the ways that slaves were controlled and conditioned.
Click to expand...

An excellent point. The number of people involved in enslaving people from west Africa and transporting them across the Atlantic was always far exceeded by the number of people being enslaved, especially in west Africa itself.

Surely, the Africans, had they not wanted to be enslaved, would have fought back, right?

So Clayton, why didn't they?
 
truethat said:
You are using a false dichotomy. If the prisoners didn't fight back, it means they didn't fight back. It doesn't mean the Holocaust never happened.

I'm out. The same false dichotomy has been used about the people on the planes on 911. Since they didn't fight back it wasn't hijacked. Prior to the Holocaust nothing like this had ever happened in modern memory. It was inconceivable to many what was going on.
Click to expand...

Another excellent point.

In fact, the passengers on the planes on 9/11 had the experience of media coverage of previous hijackings as a reason NOT to resist the hijackers. If they sat down and kept their mouths shut, conventional wisdom told them they were going to be inconvenienced but not killed.

Ditto with the Jews in Europe, by the way. They had been subjected to periodic massacres, of course, and deportations, but they hadn't been subjected to extermination. Therefore, until about 1942, they really had no reason to expect it.

Any person who's read Hilberg knows that he deals with the issue of compliance on the part of the Jews of Europe and the role it played in their own destruction. He places this phenomenon in its historical context. It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, he does so in his first chapter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom