General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[000063]

And it's not even true. No one with any sense hates the Germans for the Nazis. People hate the Nazis and those sympathetic with them for what they did.

Yeah. Really. Fifteen years old! Fifteen years ago we didn't know Jack Diddley Squat about the holocaust! People were just making stuff up back then. But today, well, today we know for sure what happened.

The idiot challenge was to name the six camps (or was it five?) where there were gas chambers. Nobody said name all the places Jews died during the war.

Yet the claims Clay proceeded to make specifically involved the total death toll. He used the number from Wikipedia, which included the death toll from outside the camps. He made a claim outside the scope of the request, all on his ownsome, due to lack of comprehension.

This isn't moving goalposts. This is the equivalent of one saying "I was doing the speed limit, officer, and my wife's body is in the trunk." when asked only how fast one was going. Clay is the one who asserted that there's a discrepancy between two numbers that are actually for two different things.

Neither mentioned Wolzak so clearly neither can be relied upon.

That's incorrect, as has been pointed out.

 

[Border Reiver]

World War II? What does that have to do with the holocaust?

See, from about 1933 to 1945 there was this political party running the nation state of Germany commonly referred to as the Nazi party. Starting shortly after their being appointed to lead a minority government they started a propaganda campaign to isolate the people they had decided made for appropriate scapegoats for Germany's failures and were therefore unfit to be Germans.

Later they moved from propaganda to legal measures to do so - after assuming control of the mechanisms of government. The propaganda campaign continued to paint all of the groups (Jews, Romany, communists, etc) as nearly inter-changable, not really German even if they lived within Germany and in some cases had fought for Germany in the last war, and responsible for all the ills that Germany was suffering from.

Even later they decided to divert attention from their hamhanded methods of ruining the economy by indulging in that most common mechanism to do so - foreign military campaigning against the other - you may have heard of a few of these - Re-occupation (militarily) of the Rhineland, sending full bore military formations to the Spanish Civil War, Anschluss, Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, and the big catalyst, Poland. This is seen as the beginning of WWII in Europe.

While fighting a war against a large portion of the world, the Nazis decided to move to the next phase of their little scheme and began to get rid of their supposed enemies - many different methods were used, depending on time and place, and were generally carried out in the east where they could be done away from the eyes of the German people who would likely have been uncomfortable with the idea of exterminating an entire group of people for the offence of just being, as opposed to actually having done something (dislike is one thing).

The Holocaust's ground work was laid in the years leading to WWII and occurred during war.

That is what it has to do with WWII.

"Small scale acts?" "minor?" "This society?" Are you talking about Canada because that doesn't sound like the United States. The Japanese in particular were brutally removed from society. They were forced to abandon their homes and businesses or sell them at pennies on the dollar to greedy anti-Japanese Whites only too eager to exploit the racist politics of the day. They were locked into cattle cars with only what they could carry on their backs. They were taken to Dog forsaken wastelands in the interior of the country and locked behind barbed wire enclosures where they had to remain until their overlords saw fit to release them from their torment. Your dismissal of the horrific conditions in which these people were forced to endure only proves your callous disregard for human dignity. It shows that our society has not even begun to deal with its past. The Germans have faced their shame and are trying to atone for their sins. Evidently the only thing the Americans and Canadians have learned from this dark period in our history is that if hatred and bigotry are going to lead you to identify an entire group of innocent people as criminal enemies of the state and single them out for brutal treatment, it is better to choose a group of people who believe it is impolite to dwell on their people's misfortune rather than a group who base their holidays on it.

The Canadians interned persons of Japanese origin who lived within 100 miles of the coast of British Columbia. There was extensive fear (based on nothing other than racism) in the wake of Pearl Harbour and Hong Kong that they would spy for Imperial Japan.

I'm not dismissing the conditions in the camps, nor their aftermath. I freely acknowledge that it was a blot on our history. Oddly, the Canadians have paid reparations and faced our past. However the reparations bit took legal and political action over years - not exactly the actions of a "a group of people who believe it is impolite to dwell on their people's misfortune rather than a group who base their holidays on it".

And you're right - Americans shouldn't base a national holiday on the date of their alleged liberation from British rule, but generally we don't bring that up.

 

[swright777]

...
"Small scale acts?" "minor?" "This society?" Are you talking about Canada because that doesn't sound like the United States. The Japanese in particular were brutally removed from society. They were forced to abandon their homes and businesses or sell them at pennies on the dollar to greedy anti-Japanese Whites only too eager to exploit the racist politics of the day. They were locked into cattle cars with only what they could carry on their backs. They were taken to Dog forsaken wastelands in the interior of the country and locked behind barbed wire enclosures where they had to remain until their overlords saw fit to release them from their torment. Your dismissal of the horrific conditions in which these people were forced to endure only proves your callous disregard for human dignity. It shows that our society has not even begun to deal with its past. The Germans have faced their shame and are trying to atone for their sins. Evidently the only thing the Americans and Canadians have learned from this dark period in our history is that if hatred and bigotry are going to lead you to identify an entire group of innocent people as criminal enemies of the state and single them out for brutal treatment, it is better to choose a group of people who believe it is impolite to dwell on their people's misfortune rather than a group who base their holidays on it.
...

An official apology from the US government in 1988 and more than $1.6 billion in reparations. I think our (US) society has at least begun to deal with its past.

I hope wiki wasn't too far off on the amount of reparations.

 

[Dcdrac]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla
World War II? What does that have to do with the holocaust?

Tell me this is some kind of stupid joke??????

 

[Dogzilla]

I am struggling to believe that even a Hitler hugger could post such disrespectful crap.

Disrespectful because I am mocking a holocaust "survivor" who claimed to have been a test subject in the "medical experiment" that was posted on the Claims Conference website? Disrespectful because I am mocking the Claims Conference for including this man's testimony as a "survivor?" Or disrespectful to the French?

I am struggling to believe that even an organization founded to exact retribution from the German government for the crimes against the Jewish people would believe that this survivor has any credibility at all.

 

[Dogzilla]

Wolzek is mentioned in Wikipedia. Do you really want to go there again? For whom?

Wolzek isn't mentioned in the wikipedia holocaust article.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

Wolzek isn't mentioned in the wikipedia holocaust article.

What does Wolzak have to do with that?

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

World War II? What does that have to do with the holocaust?

The following table was published on page 175, of Snaketongue's favorite book, Documenten van de Jodenvervolging in Nederland 1940-1945

"Aantal slachtoffers van de Tweede Wereldoorlog in Nederland (368, Maart 1955) Cijfers verstrekt door het Rijks Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie.

Militairen (incl. stootroepen) 4570
Koopvaardij (Nederlanders) 1492
Getroffenen door bombardement e.d. 20400
Daling volksgezondheid onder voorbehoud 65000
Executies en standrecht 2000
Jodenvervolging 104000
Arbeitseinsatz (tewerkstelling door Duitsers) 10000
Concentratie kampen en gevangenissen in Nederland 1500
Concentratie kampen en gevangenissen in Duitsland 10000
Hongerwinter 1944/45 20000
Krijgsgevangenen 258
Vermist 500
Totaal ca. 240000"

There have been more recent publications, like this 210 duizend oorlogsslachtoffers by Joop Garssen en Carel Harmsen PDF from 2007, but the constant appears to be that disproportionally large number of Jews among the victims of WW II in the Netherlands.

Turns out Emigration can mean mass murder too. Did you know there is no entry for Mass Murder in the Oxford Dictionary Online. What could that mean?

 

[Dogzilla]

What does Wolzak have to do with that?

You said Wolzak was mentioned in the wikipedia article on the holocaust. It isn't. That's what Wolzak has to do with that.

 

[Nick Terry]

You said Wolzak was mentioned in the wikipedia article on the holocaust. It isn't. That's what Wolzak has to do with that.

No, BSO just said that Wolzek was in Wikipedia. Nothing about it being in the article on the Holocaust.

One can just as easily point out that Tremblinka, Belzhets, Sobibur, Chelm, Chelmo, Brzezinka, Rajsko, and many other misspelling or misnomer for an extermination camp aren't in the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust.

When was the last time you made an argument that didn't rely on negative evidence, Dogzilla?

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

You said Wolzak was mentioned in the wikipedia article on the holocaust. It isn't. That's what Wolzak has to do with that.

I didn't say that and neither did you.

 

[Dcdrac]

dogzilla is osme kind of joker right? or at the very least ignorant?

 

[000063]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla
World War II? What does that have to do with the holocaust?

Tell me this is some kind of stupid joke??????

It is certainly stupid.

dogzilla is osme kind of joker right? or at the very least ignorant?

He is quite laughable, but I don't think its on purpose.

 

[Nick Terry]

Disrespectful because I am mocking a holocaust "survivor" who claimed to have been a test subject in the "medical experiment" that was posted on the Claims Conference website? Disrespectful because I am mocking the Claims Conference for including this man's testimony as a "survivor?" Or disrespectful to the French?

I am struggling to believe that even an organization founded to exact retribution from the German government for the crimes against the Jewish people would believe that this survivor has any credibility at all.

Given that there were perfectly well documented sterilisation experiments at Auschwitz, there's actually nothing implausible or incredible about the testimony in question at all. It stands to reason that the doctors involved would at some stage in the two and a half years want to check on sperm counts to make sure their other experiments were working.

Indeed, the Wiki entry (since that seems to be the level you fail to operate on) for Horst Schumann quotes one of several historians who has looked at these experiments, saying exactly that:

Part of Schumann's control tests, to check whether the radiation had worked, was the so-called semen check: a stick covered with a rubber hose was inserted into the rectum of the victim and the glands stimulated until ejaculation occurred so that the ejaculate could be tested for sperm...

This is a quote from an article by Ernst Klee, who has written a whole book on medical experimentation at Auschwitz. Shall I go to the bookshelf and find Klee citing witnesses not called Mr K who testified to the same thing?

Before I do, however, please tell me this: do you think I will strike out and be unable to find another such witness?

I'm really rather unclear as to why you find the account incredible, given everything else Nazi doctors at Auschwitz are known to have done. Schumann's main emphasis was on using x-rays to sterilise his test subjects. Dr Carl Clauberg conducted sterilisation experiments where uteruses were burned out with acid. The chief doctor at Auschwitz, Eduard Wirths, photographed women's cervices and then amputated them so he could collaborate with the inventor of colposcopy. Wirths' brother Helmut showed up at the camp and took part in all the 'fun' they were having too. For more on a lot of this, see Robert Jay Lifton's book Nazi Doctors which is online in full.

But hey, if you think incredulity multiplied by ignorance is a winning strategy to convince people, by all means stick to it. After all, it's worked out sooo well for Clayton and you thus far, hasn't it?

 

[Dogzilla]

No, BSO just said that Wolzek was in Wikipedia. Nothing about it being in the article on the Holocaust.

One can just as easily point out that Tremblinka, Belzhets, Sobibur, Chelm, Chelmo, Brzezinka, Rajsko, and many other misspelling or misnomer for an extermination camp aren't in the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust.

When was the last time you made an argument that didn't rely on negative evidence, Dogzilla?

There's no such thing as negative evidence. That's why challenges to prove the holocaust didn't happen fail miserably.

We were talking about the wikipedia article on the holocaust, not wikipedia in general. Only willful ignorance would lead you to believe otherwise. Besides, neither wolzak nor wolzek appear to have an article so if those words appear at all on wikipedia you need to dig really deep to find them.

Wolzak isn't a misspelling. It was identified by Hoess after his initial confession and was not corrected nor withdrawn at any later time.

 

[Dcdrac]

I would not trust Wikipedia s a source myself, so like Clayton you have not done any primary research and only demonstrated that you know how to surf the internet

 

[Dogzilla]

Given that there were perfectly well documented sterilisation experiments at Auschwitz, there's actually nothing implausible or incredible about the testimony in question at all. It stands to reason that the doctors involved would at some stage in the two and a half years want to check on sperm counts to make sure their other experiments were working.

Indeed, the Wiki entry (since that seems to be the level you fail to operate on) for Horst Schumann quotes one of several historians who has looked at these experiments, saying exactly that:



This is a quote from an article by Ernst Klee, who has written a whole book on medical experimentation at Auschwitz. Shall I go to the bookshelf and find Klee citing witnesses not called Mr K who testified to the same thing?

Before I do, however, please tell me this: do you think I will strike out and be unable to find another such witness?

I'm really rather unclear as to why you find the account incredible, given everything else Nazi doctors at Auschwitz are known to have done. Schumann's main emphasis was on using x-rays to sterilise his test subjects. Dr Carl Clauberg conducted sterilisation experiments where uteruses were burned out with acid. The chief doctor at Auschwitz, Eduard Wirths, photographed women's cervices and then amputated them so he could collaborate with the inventor of colposcopy. Wirths' brother Helmut showed up at the camp and took part in all the 'fun' they were having too. For more on a lot of this, see Robert Jay Lifton's book Nazi Doctors which is online in full.

But hey, if you think incredulity multiplied by ignorance is a winning strategy to convince people, by all means stick to it. After all, it's worked out sooo well for Clayton and you thus far, hasn't it?

Two and a half years? They're performing sterilization experiments for two and a half years on people they want to exterminate?

You can find another witness who says the same thing? When you have as many survivors as we do you're bound to find at least one person who corroborate just about anything. I can find other survivors who swallowed their valuables and dug them out of their feces. Does that mean Irene is telling the truth?

 

[Dcdrac]

this is a complete diversion from the fact the crime occured, standard denier tricks

Attack one or two accounts in a vain effort to discredit the whole series of accounts and documentation

 

[Border Reiver]

Disrespectful because I am mocking a holocaust "survivor" who claimed to have been a test subject in the "medical experiment" that was posted on the Claims Conference website? Disrespectful because I am mocking the Claims Conference for including this man's testimony as a "survivor?" Or disrespectful to the French?

All of the above

 

[Nick Terry]

There's no such thing as negative evidence.

Then why do you keep on making 'there is no x' statements? Why are your main apparent arguments utterly dependent on negations?

That's why challenges to prove the holocaust didn't happen fail miserably.

You mean that's why your belief that the Holocaust didn't happen fails miserably to convince anybody.

We were talking about the wikipedia article on the holocaust, not wikipedia in general. Only willful ignorance would lead you to believe otherwise. Besides, neither wolzak nor wolzek appear to have an article so if those words appear at all on wikipedia you need to dig really deep to find them.

No you were joining in a big chain of posts starting with Clayton Moore being answered by someone else then you jumped in and then BSO replied to you. As is typical for this thread, the original context was fairly lost by the end.

BSO already asked you 'what does Wolzak have to do with' the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust and you didn't exactly spell it out.

This, incidentally, is a good example of your problem with no, not and n't. The fact that the main Wikipedia article on the Holocaust doesn't mention Wolzek is a statement of a negation. If that statement means anything worth a damn, it is an argument to negative evidence. Unfortunately you haven't spelled out what that argument is.

As far as most of us can tell, it seems by this stage of your black-knighting, you're just blurting out random negatives that are vaguely on-topic.

Wolzak isn't a misspelling. It was identified by Hoess after his initial confession and was not corrected nor withdrawn at any later time.

I said, misspellings or misnomers. Please pay attention.

The rest isn't really for you, it's for readers of this thread who are wondering what the hell you have been babbling about. Wolzek was identified by Hoess as one of three camps in the Lublin area under Globocnik. He never claimed to have visited the camp and correctly named the other two as Belzec and Treblinka. A simple deduction indicates he had misremembered the name of Sobibor. Since Hoess identified Wolzek as being past 'Kulm' and since Sobibor was in Chelm county, along with a town called Wlodawa, then it is not too difficult to see how the misnomer arose in his mind, especially since there are similarities between Wolzek and Belzec. The very fact that he identified the third camp in the correct area (near Kulm-Chelm) means all one is dealing with is a misremembered name.

You undoubtedly know this, I'm sure. Maybe there are a few people who have not encountered this anomaly before, well now they've heard about it, and an explanation of how it arose. They can easily google and find an online essay dealing with the issue. There is no possible mileage in this on any serious level. Not even the leading deniers really try to make a fuss over this. It's just a tedious waste of time.