General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[TSR]

If you(German soldiers) were killing Swiss people and Swiss babies in barbaric ways would you(German soldiers) want Swiss people to work near your food or have access to a scalpel 24/7? Or trust them to traverse the camp freely as in an honor system?

If by "honour system" you mean "closely supervised by men with guns", I suppose.

 

[Border Reiver]

If by "honour system" you mean "closely supervised by men with guns", I suppose.

Beats doing the work yourself, and you get the rush of power knowing that you can force these people to do something they'd rather not.

 

[TSR]

Beats doing the work yourself, and you get the rush of power knowing that you can force these people to do something they'd rather not.

But but but -- they might spit in the soup!


Of course, in CMWorld, the rat poison is right next to the salt, and the Nazi is too stupid to notice the Jewis cook using the former rather than the latter.

Why do you think the Nazis were so stupid, CM?

And not only that, the Nazis let the Jews pocket scalpels as a matter of course, and walk around the camp slashing at anything that moved.


Why do you think the Nazis were so stupid, CM?

 

[Dogzilla]

Yeah that's it.

It's certainly not the stupidity of him bringing up that the guy was handsome and his good looks was the reason he was chosen to be a kapo.


Then, instead of saying he forgot the guys name, he said he never got the guys name.

Dick and Jane stories are more realistic.

When I read that statement, I didn't get the idea that Rajzman was saying the guy was selected for his good looks. I thought it was more of an extraneous information sort of a comment. Maybe Rajzman was gay? The guy Rajzman was talking about or making up was cute so that's one of the things Rajzman remembered about him. It's not a big deal to me,

Mild sexual imagery isn't totally unknown among some of the heavyweight eyewitnesses to the holocaust. You got retired Sondercommando David Olere drawing only buck naked attractive young women when he drew any female victims of the holocaust. Then there's Filip Mueller and his story of being manhandled by two buck naked preteen girls inside the gas chamber. These guys are making up stuff and sometimes their sexual fantasies rise to the surface.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post

If you(German soldiers) were killing Swiss people and Swiss babies in barbaric ways would you(German soldiers) want Swiss people to work near your food or have access to a scalpel 24/7? Or trust them to traverse the camp freely as in an honor system?

The Swiss? Clayton clearly wants to ignore the specific views which the Nazis held about Jews and which animated their Jewish policies - opting for some warped plug and play version of a video game.

Again Clayton reveals his stunning ignorance of the camp system and how it was administered - particularly the use of prisoner functionaries in so-called prisoner self-administration (the system of elders and Kapos) and the role of labor in the camps.

These institutions relied not upon trust - Clayton's now familiar but illiterate strawman - but upon the differential use of rewards/benefits and brute power to divide the inmates, co-optng a small number of inmates into helping manage the general system of terror and installing a division of labor and hierarchy of roles. The system existed within the context of SS authority, which was absolute and arbitrary: Kapos and elders "enjoyed" benefits at the discretion and whim of their captors. Essentially Clayton's "trust" issue boils down to the question whether, to stay alive and to have some privileges, people in coerced, terrorized settings will cooperate or even collaborate with the authorities. Of course, some people will go along with the authorities - whether Jews or Swiss or Russians - to stay alive or to gain benefits, just as some people won't, some people will sometimes and not other times, and some people will give the outward appearance of cooperating or collaborating in order to find scope for resistance. And so on.

Clayton does not discuss individuals when he writes about Jews but seems to follow the dictum that "There are no distinctions between Jews," arguing from a premise that all Jews "would have" done whatever he feels they should have done in order to hold onto his negationism. With this depiction of "the Jews" lacking individuality and his incessant appeal to coulda/shoulda/woulda, Clayton relieves himself of the obligation 1) to discover through sources (which are voluminous and shred his silly speculations) how the system and its institutions actually worked - and how individuals and groups of individuals in particular contexts or roles responded and 2) to think about the implications of all this, including comparisons to related phenomena and the meaning for and experiences of individuals in various situations within the Nazi system. That is why Clayton's approach is not revisionist but negationist, because he doesn't make even the slightest effort to revise the history.

Nazi utilization of some victims to help manage the general victim population, of course, was not restricted to camps where Jews were held, much as Clayton dwells on his mischaracterization of the strategies and actions of Jews held in camps: this approach was, in fact, developed in the concentration camp system during the 1930s and was also employed, for example, in ghettos (with their Eldests of the Jews, Jewish Councils, and Order Services).

 

[Dogzilla]

I struggle to see why the credibility of National Socialism hinges on the Holocaust.

Come to think about it, the genocide part is pretty much the only thing they didn't royally screw up.

It was a totalitarian system, with a dysfunctional economy and an ideology that shouted it's supposed invincibility from the rooftops.
Germany's intelligentsia fled this retarded vortex of stupidity and violence, including almost everyone smart enough to develop the atom bomb.

Then, after much posing, huffing, puffing and big-mouthing, it marched it's army into the world's largest country. Most of which is thirty degrees below zero in summer.
Rather predictably, this army then ran out of supplies, froze solid and got blown to bits.
After Adolph's brilliant plan had ran it's course, Germany was in rubble, partitioned and a good portion of it's female population raped.

The only good thing about it, -the uniforms- have been safely preserved in BDSM subculture.

The Nazi's were widely regarded as history's biggest cock-up, until the introduction of New Coke in 1985.

Yeah, the idea that Nazism is a viable political system if it could just get rid of that holocaust stigma is one of the more brain dead theories to come out of this discussion. What do these people think is so great about Nazism that it stands a chance of even rising to the level of the Green Party?

But that's not ridiculous enough: They also go full tilt conspiraloon woo by hypothesizing some secret cabal is behind this plan to whitewash the Nazis by jettisoning the holocaust, then taking over by riding the wave of New-Nazi Party populism and then killing all the Jews.

I guess that's why holocaust denial is in the conspiracy theory section at JREF.

 

[Clayton Moore]

When I read that statement, I didn't get the idea that Rajzman was saying the guy was selected for his good looks. I thought it was more of an extraneous information sort of a comment. Maybe Rajzman was gay? The guy Rajzman was talking about or making up was cute so that's one of the things Rajzman remembered about him. It's not a big deal to me,

Mild sexual imagery isn't totally unknown among some of the heavyweight eyewitnesses to the holocaust. You got retired Sondercommando David Olere drawing only buck naked attractive young women when he drew any female victims of the holocaust. Then there's Filip Mueller and his story of being manhandled by two buck naked preteen girls inside the gas chamber. These guys are making up stuff and sometimes their sexual fantasies rise to the surface.

I don't know how old you are but, way back when, good looks were often catered to when a choice of leadership was to be made. Not all the time but if a quick decision had to be made the good looking guy won the day. Ugly/plain/homely people were thought to be stupid and undeserving of opportunity or promotion.

Think of the pecking order of your school buddies K-12.

 

[LemmyCaution]

But but but -- they might spit in the soup!


Of course, in CMWorld, the rat poison is right next to the salt, and the Nazi is too stupid to notice the Jewis cook using the former rather than the latter.

Why do you think the Nazis were so stupid, CM?

And not only that, the Nazis let the Jews pocket scalpels as a matter of course, and walk around the camp slashing at anything that moved.


Why do you think the Nazis were so stupid, CM?

Kind of makes you wonder - trusting as they were - why the Nazis stationed armed guards at the camps, had watchtowers placed along camp perimeters, had punishment cells, whipped and executed prisoners for infractions, and made use of barbed wire in their various camps. Must have been designed to keep out people rushing to enjoy the perks of camp living?

 

[LemmyCaution]

I don't know how old you are but, way back when, good looks were often catered to when a choice of leadership was to be made. Not all the time but if a quick decision had to be made the good looking guy won the day. Ugly/plain/homely people were thought to be stupid and undeserving of opportunity or promotion.

Think of the pecking order of your school buddies K-12.

Perhaps you and your buddies will apply your comedic talents now to this bit of sexually tinged imagery from Samuel Willenberg, also discussing Treblinka, in this case the prisoners' choice of a man from Warsaw to supply weapons for the inmate rebellion:

The grenades were taken in buckets covered with rags. Everything was placed beneath piles of potatoes, which served as the location at which the weapons were distributed. Slowly the rifles and bullets were removed. Everyone who knew how to use a hand grenade received grenades. We also had several revolvers. Additional weapons were supplied us by the storekeeper, a young, very ugly man from Warsaw whom we nicknamed “The Ape.” It was he who that morning had distributed to the conspirators a larger number of axes and wire-cutters than usual and several pairs of pliers. Many of us had hammers, knives, clubs, gasoline cans. . . .

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but I know we can count on you to explain away that truism.

 

[Clayton Moore]

The Swiss? Clayton clearly wants to ignore the specific views which the Nazis held about Jews and which animated their Jewish policies - opting for some warped plug and play version of a video game.

Again Clayton reveals his stunning ignorance of the camp system and how it was administered - particularly the use of prisoner functionaries in so-called prisoner self-administration (the system of elders and Kapos) and the role of labor in the camps.

These institutions relied not upon trust - Clayton's now familiar but illiterate strawman - but upon the differential use of rewards/benefits and brute power to divide the inmates, co-optng a small number of inmates into helping manage the general system of terror and installing a division of labor and hierarchy of roles. The system existed within the context of SS authority, which was absolute and arbitrary: Kapos and elders "enjoyed" benefits at the discretion and whim of their captors. Essentially Clayton's "trust" issue boils down to the question whether, to stay alive and to have some privileges, people in coerced, terrorized settings will cooperate or even collaborate with the authorities. Of course, some people will go along with the authorities - whether Jews or Swiss or Russians - to stay alive or to gain benefits, just as some people won't, some people will sometimes and not other times, and some people will give the outward appearance of cooperating or collaborating in order to find scope for resistance. And so on.

Clayton does not discuss individuals when he writes about Jews but seems to follow the dictum that "There are no distinctions between Jews," arguing from a premise that all Jews "would have" done whatever he feels they should have done in order to hold onto his negationism. With this depiction of "the Jews" lacking individuality and his incessant appeal to coulda/shoulda/woulda, Clayton relieves himself of the obligation 1) to discover through sources (which are voluminous and shred his silly speculations) how the system and its institutions actually worked - and how individuals and groups of individuals in particular contexts or roles responded and 2) to think about the implications of all this, including comparisons to related phenomena and the meaning for and experiences of individuals in various situations within the Nazi system. That is why Clayton's approach is not revisionist but negationist, because he doesn't make even the slightest effort to revise the history.

Nazi utilization of some victims to help manage the general victim population, of course, was not restricted to camps where Jews were held, much as Clayton dwells on his mischaracterization of the strategies and actions of Jews held in camps: this approach was, in fact, developed in the concentration camp system during the 1930s and was also employed, for example, in ghettos (with their Eldests of the Jews, Jewish Councils, and Order Services).

I used the Swiss because of their famed neutrality. Have you ever heard of biding your time? Waiting for just the right moment?

You don't understand that the German's would be petrified amidst 10s of thousands of Jews if the level of savagery and brutality had been administered by them as Team Holocaust demands.

You don't understand that people of that time realized they were expendable. Rage and revenge toward day in day out brutality would be more likely than the extra day, week, month of life you seem to think they would cherish so much.


You need to research the violence, world wide, of the union workers vs company goons and police confrontations. The willingness of workers to fight for reasons that pale in comparison to the savagery Team Holocaust alleges was levied against Jewish people in the camps.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Perhaps you and your buddies will apply your comedic talents now to this bit of sexually tinged imagery from Samuel Willenberg, also discussing Treblinka, in this case the prisoners' choice of a man from Warsaw to supply weapons for the inmate rebellion: Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but I know we can count on you to explain away that truism.

There you go. The "ape" did the dirty work because the Germans would think he was too stupid to be of any consequence.

Your Quote:

The grenades were taken in buckets covered with rags. Everything was placed beneath piles of potatoes, which served as the location at which the weapons were distributed. Slowly the rifles and bullets were removed. Everyone who knew how to use a hand grenade received grenades. We also had several revolvers. Additional weapons were supplied us by the storekeeper, a young, very ugly man from Warsaw whom we nicknamed “The Ape.” It was he who that morning had distributed to the conspirators a larger number of axes and wire-cutters than usual and several pairs of pliers. Many of us had hammers, knives, clubs, gasoline cans. . . .

 

[Nick Terry]

My Palm Reader told me you'd say that.

Or maybe I needed to strain to figure out new ways of slandering the dead or why the lawn mower wouldn't start. Or maybe you just hadn't said anything worth answering.

Translation: Doggie needs to think really really hard about how to repeat his strawmen.

What you said was that the Ukrainian guards were responsible for their actions because they had a choice to serve or not and when they found out exactly what their job entailed, they could have chosen to desert their post. Because some Trawniki did so, desertion was always a viable option and any guards who didn't is responsible for whatever happened in the camp.

And once again you elide points and misrepresent me. The point at which the Trawnikis had an actual concrete choice was when they were asked to sign an oath. They were not forced to sign, but sign they did. There were no threats involved. Once they had signed the oath of allegiance to the SS, then they were volunteers in SS service. This came with all the appropriate benefits one would associate such as pay, clothing, food, leave opportunities and promotion prospects. The same status and same benefits accrued to any volunteer in SS/Police service, whether they were a member of the Waffen-SS, Schutzmannschaft, or another formation which recruited collaborators or ethnic Germans.

Exactly. If a Soviet POW who chooses to join the Nazis rather than stay in the POW camp truly has a free choice, any Jew who chooses to leave his home and report for deportation instead of fleeing into the forest has a free choice as well.

Jews didn't 'report for deportation'. They were arrested or caught in roundups and forced onto trains at gunpoint. They were prisoners. They were not offered the chance to volunteer to join a uniformed, armed force or given pay, benefits and leave.

Soviet POWs were also captured, and were then sent to POW camps or to a POW labour detachment. Their choices were between escape, giving up and dying, becoming a trusty in the POW camp, allowing themselves to be used as forced labour, volunteer for armed service with the Army, or volunteer for armed service with the SS.

If deserting your post to avoid being implicated in the holocaust is a viable option for a Trawniki, escaping the camp to avoid being implicated in the holocaust is a viable option for a Jewish sondercommando.

<facepalm>

The Trawnikis were based outside the camp, allowed to go on leave and given days off to wander around nearby villages looking for Polish prostitutes and vodka. The Sonderkommandos were locked in a barbed-wire enclosed camp and only ever allowed out under armed guard eg to gather wood. If a Sonderkommando escaped Treblinka, all the other Sonderkommandos would be decimated, ie 1 in 10 men would be executed. If a Trawniki deserted, then this did not happen.

If the fact that some Trawniki did desert is proof that they all had this option, the fact that some Jews escaped from the camps is proof that they all had this option as well.

No it's not, and you continue to misrepresent the point. Trawnikis who deserted were not punished after the war in the same way as those who did not desert.

If any guard working at a death camp is liable for the deaths that occurred there merely by virtue of being at the camp and not deserting, any Jew who worked at a death camp and didn't escape is liable for the deaths that occurred there as well. As you said, the judge decided coercion isn't defense.

No, the Munich judges decided that the claims of coercion by Trawnikis were not credible. Demjanjuk's defense lawyers naturally tried to claim that he had been coerced into service, but this was untenable.

It was untenable for the general reasons already mentioned, and because Demjanjuk was captured in May 1942 in the Crimea, at a time when the mass starvation in Soviet POW camps was over and at a time when the Nazis were busily directing POWs into labour functions and also recruiting very large numbers as collaborators for the Osttruppen and Ostlegionen.

Demjanjuk was captured by 11th Army, who promptly recruited more than 2,500 Soviet POWs to join Osttruppen units before the mass of prisoners had even left the Crimea. He was then transported to Poland, where the number of Soviet POWs held in camps there rose by 100,000 between May and June 1942. Out of this 100,000, about 1,250 Soviet POWs volunteered to join the Trawnikis. So the other 98% did not. They were not at risk of mass starvation because the Nazis really, really needed them for the war effort, and because by this time, the system was set up to avoid the carnage of the previous winter. Thus, a claim that Demjanjuk volunteered out of fear for his life because he was convinced he would starve to death is completely untenable.

You want to generalise from Demjanjuk to all Trawnikis, without realising that the Trawnikis were not a homogeneous group and without realising that circumstances changed over time for Soviet POWs. After the 1,250 POWs recruited in May-July 1942 were put through the camp, the overwhelming majority of Trawnikis were Ukrainian civilians recruited from Galicia as volunteers or from the Lublin district as conscripts. The latter cohort, since they were conscripted, had very little choice about their fate and thus would not be regarded in the same way as a volunteer.

Please pay attention because here's the rub. The "Demjanjuk ruling" convicting him as an accessory to murder has so far only been made on Demjanjuk. If the German court system tried to prosecute a Trawniki conscripted in the summer of 1943 from the Lublin district who was sent to Sobibor as a guard in the autumn of that year, then there is much less chance that the verdict would be the same, because the defence could point rightly to the fact of conscription. There were such people by the way - local Ukrainian boys from Chelm county found their way into guard service at the neighbourhood death camp, Sobibor. But none have been prosecuted because they did not end up in Germany after the war.

The Munich court wasn't prosecuting a Trawniki guard recruited in the winter of 1941, it was prosecuting a guard who volunteered in June 1942.

A Trawniki who volunteered in November 1941 did so when the POW camps were charnel houses. There are thus much better grounds for accepting a defence of coercion for the act of volunteering, since statistically as well as subjectively, volunteering may have appeared to be the only way out of that situation. This does not hold true by the summer of 1942.

No Trawniki from the first 1,250 recruits have been prosecuted and convicted by a German court for the mere act of serving as an accessory to murder, whether at a death camp or anywhere else. A Trawniki from this cohort was prosecuted and convicted by a West German court in the 1970s for individual crimes committed at Treblinka I labour camp.

The first 1,250 Trawnikis may have been in fear for their lives, but they proceeded to act collectively in such a way that they attracted quite a few appropriate punishments for their individual crimes. There were naturally more able to win promotion. They also served longer, thus becoming exposed to an extremely brutal environment while in service at a variety of camps. They formed the original guard cohorts at the death camps and thus set the tone for later arrivals.

Thus, the first 1,250 Trawnikis have been prosecuted for individual crimes, in the same way that especially sadistic kapos have also been prosecuted for individual crimes, or they were prosecuted for treason in the Soviet Union of the 1940s and 1950s, which meant they were treated like any other collaborator in armed service, and thus were very often out in time for Khrushchev's amnesty.

Order No. 270 didn't apply only to Soviet turncoats. It applied to any soldier who had the audacity not to be killed. But please continue whitewashing the crimes of your hero Stalin and displaying your utter contempt for basic human decency.

Not even a nice try, since your original point was that the Nazis treated captured Soviet soldiers better than Stalin, which is completely false. I would only be whitewashing Stalin if I was denying the extent of his crimes, whereas you are exaggerating Soviet policy quite drastically.

The Soviets simply didn't kill liberated POWs or even send them all to the GULag. They were perfectly happy when escaped POWs made it to partisan units or returned to Soviet lines and used those men as any other. Indeed they reconscripted 650,000 liberated/escaped POWs. They put all returning Soviet citizens through filtration camps.

The stats are perfectly clear:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag#After_World_War_II

I'll respond to the rest of this if I get around to reading it and find something response-worthy.

translation: Doggie needs to figure out how to repeat his strawmen and keep the misrepresentation going.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You need to research the violence, world wide, of the union workers vs company goons and police confrontations. The willingness of workers to fight for reasons that pale in comparison to the savagery Team Holocaust alleges was levied against Jewish people in the camps.

My graduate work in history happens to be in the labor movement. I am a little bit familiar, therefore, with the history of labor violence, also having taught college level courses on that exact topic, labor violence in the 20th century.

What you need to do is to explain the relevance of workers' organizations - operating in industrial and commercial concerns which were situated in towns and cities (where the rule of law prevailed to some extent and at least countervailing forces squared off) and whose rights to form were partly protected, during the late 1930s in the USA, for example, by Section 7 of the Wagner Act, not to mention sections of the powerful Democratic party - to inmates held by the Nazis without any rights at all and virtually no means of self-defense in ghettos and camps. Now, you also need to recall that Jewish inmates in various settings did sometimes organize and rebel against Nazi power, despite their diminished opportunity to do so.

 

[Nick Terry]

Something to add, and I really think this deserves a reply.

In effect, Dogzilla is arguing that a Soviet soldier captured in June 1942 would have to be so in fear of Stalin, that rather than simply go along with being used as a forced labourer, the best option for them was to volunteer for the SS.

It's an utter absurdity.

 

[LemmyCaution]

There you go. The "ape" did the dirty work because the Germans would think he was too stupid to be of any consequence.

Your Quote:

No, the man from Warsaw, who happened to be ugly, was chosen to help in the conspiracy because of where he worked and his access to tools, usually distributed to work details but useful in the rebellion. Can't you read?

 

[LemmyCaution]

. . . Have you ever heard of . . . the German's would be . . . would be more likely . . . would cherish so much . . .

Or you could actually find some material describing what the conditions were in camps, ghettos, shtetls, and cities and what people made of their situation under Nazi rule - and telling how they reacted. That would prevent you from having to speculate so much - and make such foolish arguments. You could actually refer to what people wrote at the time, or explained later, about what happened to them, how they felt, and what they did. I dare you to try this method.

 

[Nick Terry]

Yeah, the idea that Nazism is a viable political system if it could just get rid of that holocaust stigma is one of the more brain dead theories to come out of this discussion. What do these people think is so great about Nazism that it stands a chance of even rising to the level of the Green Party?

But that's not ridiculous enough: They also go full tilt conspiraloon woo by hypothesizing some secret cabal is behind this plan to whitewash the Nazis by jettisoning the holocaust, then taking over by riding the wave of New-Nazi Party populism and then killing all the Jews.

I guess that's why holocaust denial is in the conspiracy theory section at JREF.

The idea that Nazism is a viable political system if only it could get rid of the stigma of the Holocaust is certainly one of the most unbelievably brain-dead ideas of the neo-Nazis themselves. But nobody ever said the nutzis were smart.

That's why Harold Covington of the NSWPP said

I recall seeing a television program on revisionism a few years ago which closed with Deborah Lipstadt making some statement to the effect that: "the real purpose of Holocaust revisionism is to make National Socialism an acceptable political alternative again." I normally don't agree with anything a Jew says, but I recall exclaiming, "Bingo! Got it in one! Give that lady a cigar!"

Obviously, the NSWPP has failed to make Nazism acceptable again and has failed to erase the Holocaust from the history books.

But that failure extends to the German NPD in their heyday, when obvious neo-Nazis like Walendy, Staeglich and Deckert tried to use Holocaust denial as political propaganda, the Kameradschaften in West Germany, which produced Ingrid Weckert, the National Front in Britain, whose journal was edited by Richard Harwood, the Front Nationale under Duprat and Le Pen senior, Vlaams Blok before they became Vlaams Belang, David Duke and his various ventures, and many other nutzi groups, including the ANSWPP, which produced Carolyn Yeager.

That failure also extends to nutters like Friedrich Paul Berg, who hardly bothers to hide his adulation of Hitler and Nazism, and certainly applied to David Irving, who has had a schoolboy crush on Dolfy for most of his life.

About the only nutzi group that was sensible enough not to deny the Holocaust as a matter of policy was William Pierce's National Alliance, since Pierce was pretty upfront that it might be necessary to repeat mass extermination of various groups. Still, the NA produced Mark Weber and Greg Gerdes.

It's a simple matter of historical fact that many deniers have been neo-Nazis, white nationalists with neo-Nazi sympathies or people who adulate and worship Hitler and Nazism. That applies above all to Willis Carto and all his various ventures since the 1960s, and he has been the undeniable #1 most active promoter of Holocaust denial on the planet for more than 30 years.

 

[A'isha]

Yeah, the idea that Nazism is a viable political system if it could just get rid of that holocaust stigma is one of the more brain dead theories to come out of this discussion.

That's not in the least surprising, considering it was originally proposed by a brain-dead Nazi.

What do these people think is so great about Nazism that it stands a chance of even rising to the level of the Green Party?

You'll have to ask Harold Covington.

But that's not ridiculous enough: They also go full tilt conspiraloon woo by hypothesizing some secret cabal is behind this plan to whitewash the Nazis by jettisoning the holocaust, then taking over by riding the wave of New-Nazi Party populism and then killing all the Jews.

I think you're projecting just a wee bit. There's no "secret cabal", just a tiny handful of impotent racists and anti-semites wanking over the thought of a world that will never come to pass.

I guess that's why holocaust denial is in the conspiracy theory section at JREF.

No, that's because Holocaust denial requires an insanely stupid and convoluted conspiracy to explain away all the historical evidence, placing it on the same level as Moon Landing Hoax theories and the idea that the world is secretly controlled by shapeshifting alien lizards from the lower fourth dimension.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It really burns Team Holocaust that I am so much more intelligent than they are. All they can respond with is chicken scratch and babble.

 

[Clayton Moore]

My graduate work in history happens to be in the labor movement. I am a little bit familiar, therefore, with the history of labor violence, also having taught college level courses on that exact topic, labor violence in the 20th century.

What you need to do is to explain the relevance of workers' organizations - operating in industrial and commercial concerns which were situated in towns and cities (where the rule of law prevailed to some extent and at least countervailing forces squared off) and whose rights to form were partly protected, during the late 1930s in the USA, for example, by Section 7 of the Wagner Act, not to mention sections of the powerful Democratic party - to inmates held by the Nazis without any rights at all and virtually no means of self-defense in ghettos and camps. Now, you also need to recall that Jewish inmates in various settings did sometimes organize and rebel against Nazi power, despite their diminished opportunity to do so.

The willingness of workers to fight for reasons that pale in comparison to the savagery Team Holocaust alleges was levied against Jewish people in the camps.