• 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.
And lying about fabricated gassings would have put the kabosh on that. His political opponents would have buried him with the facts.

His political opponents were deniers? Really? Could you demonstrate this for us by pointing to where the Holocaust was an issue, for example, in the 1945 elections ousting Churchill or to where Clement Atlee and the Labour Party made Holocaust denial part of their pitch?

It is years since I've read properly about the history of the UK; however, I have no recollection of Holocaust denial as part of Labour's postwar strategy nor that Atlee et al were deniers. So your providing information showing that Labour would have buried Churchill on the Holocaust would be most interesting.

Also, could you tell us how much of Churchill's war history you've read and what are the most convincing parts?
 
Last edited:
And lying about fabricated gassings would have put the kabosh on that. His political opponents would have buried him with the facts.

An interesting theory. Seeing as how (as has mentioned before in this thread) Churchill both wrote and spoke in public on the subject of the holocaust, and this is not a hypothetical, please show examples of Churchill being proven wrong by his opponents with "facts" about the holocaust. Any of his oponents burying him with facts...
 
No, we have books citing the original sources,
SnakeTongue, indeed, seems ignorant of how the discipline of history operates - in all areas of research. In point of fact, however, 7 of the 9 quotations I listed were not from secondary sources citing originals but rather from published, translated versions of Third Reich sources:

- First quotation: NSDAP monthly Unser Wille und Weg 10 (1940) http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ewig.htm
- Second quotation: Goebbels diary, for dates given (I don't have a page reference handy)
- Fifth quotation: Robert Ley, Pesthauch der Welt (Dresden: Franz Müller Verlag, 1944) http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/pesthauch.htm
- Sixth quotation: Hitler letter, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Adolf_Hitler's_First_Antisemitic_Writing.html
Seventh quotation: Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 572-574
- Eighth quotation: Kurt Hilmar Eitzen, "Zehn Knüppel wider die Judenknechte," Unser Wille und Weg (6) 1936, pp. 309-310 http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/responses.htm
- Ninth quotation: Ernst Hiemer "Wann ist die jüdische Gefahr beseitigt?," Der Stürmer, #19/1942 http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ds11.htm

If SnakeTongue 1) has difficulties with the published material or 2) wants to argue that antisemitism was not a core value of the National Socialists, why doesn't he just state his case? I was not aware that this question was controversial - it certainly doesn't seem that it was for the National Socialists. The Third Reich did, it is true, modulate the messaging a bit, as during the war their courtship of allies led them to rethink how things were expressed, as in this instruction from the Zeitschriften-Dienst of the Reich Press Office, "Guidelines for Anti-Jewish Press Work," dated 25 August 1944, saying that through continued use of the term antisemitism
our relationships could be destroyed with non-Jewish Semites, namely the pan-Arab world that is so important for us. Hence, the press must take care to replace the words "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Semitic" with such expressions as "opposition to Jews," "hostility to Jews," "anti-Judaism," and "antagonistic to Jews" or "anti-Jewish."
This quotation is in fact taken from a secondary book, Jeffrey Herf's The Jewish Enemy, p 76. It is up to SnakeTongue, if he has a problem with this, to tell us why and show us where Herf has gotten matters wrong.
 
Last edited:
An interesting theory. Seeing as how (as has mentioned before in this thread) Churchill both wrote and spoke in public on the subject of the holocaust, and this is not a hypothetical, please show examples of Churchill being proven wrong by his opponents with "facts" about the holocaust. Any of his oponents burying him with facts...

Gassing is spelled gassing isn't it?

Chamber is spelled chamber isn't it?

Gassing van is spelled gassing van isn't it.


So, when Churchill said:

Quote:
'There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.'


Help me out here. I don't see gas, chamber, gassing, or vans. What the? I don't even see Holocaust.

I guess Winnie wrote that before the Holocaust became the world's golden cash calf.
 
Predictable reply. But you are dodging my questions, which were, to remind you, about whether Churchill's political opponents were deniers, about which I asked, Could you demonstrate this for us by pointing to where the Holocaust was an issue, for example, in the 1945 elections ousting Churchill or to where Clement Atlee and the Labour Party made Holocaust denial part of their pitch? and could you tell us how much of Churchill's war history you've read and what are the most convincing parts?

You are horribly missing the point: as both tomtomkent and I were trying to elicit, what is the evidence for Churchill's opponents being ready to crush him with facts about the Holocaust (including gas chambers)? What is the evidence for Churchill's reticence because of his opponents' readiness to contest the Holocaust? The war books written by Churchill reflect rather that he didn't think that the Nazi success in annihilating millions of European Jews, and the world's impotence in dealing with this, was part of his own wartime success story.

And, again, have you even opened the covers of Churchill's volumes?
 
Last edited:
Gassing is spelled gassing isn't it?

Chamber is spelled chamber isn't it?

Gassing van is spelled gassing van isn't it.


So, when Churchill said:

Quote:



Help me out here. I don't see gas, chamber, gassing, or vans. What the? I don't even see Holocaust.

I guess Winnie wrote that before the Holocaust became the world's golden cash calf.

So let me get this straight: Because Churchill never specifically mentioned gassing or used the word "Holocaust" (a term which, according to Wikipedia, wasn't even widely applied until the 1960's), you think he never talked about it at all. You are intentionally misinterpreting his quotation in order to support your warped worldview.
 
You argued in your blog that bullets shot from a pistol Walther P-38 lost the momentum after 50 meters and were deflected by ordinary cloth.

I guess you mean this part of my HC blog "Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan …" (red letters refer to links that I cannot post yet because I have not yet posted 15 times):

First of all, Wiernik’s pursuer did not fire a rifle, but a pistol, and he fired it from some distance away. It doesn’t take much familiarity with firearms to know that pistols are short-range weapons, ineffective at longer distances. For instance, the Walther P38 pistol used by German armed forces in World War II had an effective range of about 50 meters. A weapon’s effective range is the distance at which a weapon may be expected to fire accurately to inflict damage or casualties. So if Wiernik’s pursuer was carrying a Walther P38 and fired it from a distance of more than 50 meters, it is possible that, when it reached its target, the bullet no longer had sufficient force to go through all of Wiernik’s clothing (for understandable reasons, Wiernik may have been rather thickly clad on that day of his escape, and he mentions in the same chapter that «On that day, however, the men wore their clothes under their overalls. Before escaping, they would have to get rid of the overalls, which would have given them away at once.») and wound him seriously. The extent to which the bullet could still penetrate Wiernik’s body would also depend on what part of the shoulder it hit. If it was the shoulder blade – which is probable, as Wiernik had his back turned towards the shooter – the bullet was less likely to go any further beyond its effective range than it if had hit flesh.

Second, there was obviously something wrong with the gun, as it jammed after the shot that reached Wiernik. Whether the gun’s malfunction may have had an effect on the range or the accuracy of the shot fired I cannot tell, but I also see no reason to exclude this possibility.

Third, the bullet may have penetrated Wiernik’s clothing from a lateral angle, grazed his shoulder and then gone again through his clothing and away. The grazing impact would still have been painful, without however doing any damage, and Wiernik may incorrectly have assumed that the bullet had "stopped" at his shoulder. Actually that was not what Wiernik stated in the original text of A Year in Treblinka, which was written in Polish and which Andrew took the trouble of having a look at. The original Polish text of the passage in question is the following:

Kula mnie nie zraniła o, dziwo! Przebiła wszystko na mnie i odbiła się o łopatkę, pozostawiając znak.

This was translated as follows by our Polish reader Roman Werpachowski:

The bullet did not hurt me - very strange! It pierced everything on me and reflected from my shoulder blade, leaving a mark.

A bullet ricocheting from a shoulder blade is something different from a bullet "stopping" at the shoulder, and it has also happened on at least one other occasion, the one referred to here.

In short, there are a number of possibilities that must be excluded before concluding on the physical impossibility of this part of Wiernik’s account. In bluntly proclaiming such impossibility, Bud is making things too easy for himself. And in omitting details that may call his verdict into question, Bud is again displaying his intellectual dishonesty.

I look forward to an apology for your dishonest misrepresentation of my arguments.

So I think you understanding of certain physical laws is not appropriate to dictate how I use the results of a physical experiment in my formula.

Asssuming that were so, it wouldn't change the fact that your calculations for the hypothetical group lead to obviously mistaken if not ridiculous results, because you made the elementary mistake of leaving unchanged a parameter that you should have changed, namely the size of the box. One doesn't need much "understanding of certain physical laws" to see that. A little common sense and an Excel spreadsheet will do.

Your "oh but you don't understand while I'm a big fat scientist" - blather is called special pleading, IIRC. It's one of the debating tactics that characterize a charlatan,
 
That information is why Ike, Winnie, and de Gaulle never mentioned/lied about the Germans gassing Jewish people in their post war writings.

It was propaganda to fuel the fury of WWII. Kinda like WMD in Iraq.


And yet German and Germans to this day do not deny the Holocaust and their role in it. Indeed, even their historical research being done now affirms the reality of the Holocaust.




And yet German and Germans to this day do not deny the Holocaust and their role in it. Indeed, even their historical research being done now affirms the reality of the Holocaust.


Perhaps some day one or both of you will attempt to square that circle and explain why Germany and Germans are not spearheading the movement to deny the Holocaust. After all, surely they have the most to gain from having their name cleared.
 
Gassing is spelled gassing isn't it?

Chamber is spelled chamber isn't it?

Gassing van is spelled gassing van isn't it.....

Oh, I thought it was possible you might stoop this low. I even thought about saying something about it in my last post.

Yes, indeed. When NASA announced that Apollo 11 had successfully landed, they weren't actually letting themselves be caught in a lie; because they didn't actually say "..on the MOON."



So, Clayton, are you trying to claim that Churchill never mentioned the Holocaust in any form, or have you narrowed down to the claim that Churchill refused to give specific technical details in his memoirs? Because the former would just be silly.

Or are you just trying to make sure you aren't TECHNICALLY wrong, even if you invalidate your entire argument in the process? Congratulations. Churchill never mentioned Hawaiian Style Pizza either. You got a fact right and are now the most skilled debater in the room.

Assuming this is actually right. I haven't read his memoirs, and I'm willing to bet you haven't either. Incidentally, descriptions of the books say they do not mention Blechely Park, or the Manhattan Project. Or several other things that were at the time considered militarily sensitive. I suppose, Clayton, we must now assume that no German codes were ever broken and that Alan Turing is a big liar, eh?
 
I don't have the time to read every post here, but I'm curious.

Has any evidence been produced to prove that Elie Wiesel doesn't have a tattoo?

Don't know, but I don't like the fellow and wouldn't mind his being exposed as a fraud.

Of course that wouldn't change anything about the established history of the Nazi genocide of the Jews during World War II, just like the tall tales of a great many phony Vietnam vets don't change anything about the established history of the Vietnam War.
 
Don't know, but I don't like the fellow and wouldn't mind his being exposed as a fraud.

Of course that wouldn't change anything about the established history of the Nazi genocide of the Jews during World War II, just like the tall tales of a great many phony Vietnam vets don't change anything about the established history of the Vietnam War.
I'm looking forward to your radio debate with revisionist Fritz Berg of www.nazigassings.com on June 22 2010. Details here. www.codoh.com/news/1422
 
Don't know, but I don't like the fellow and wouldn't mind his being exposed as a fraud.
Of course that wouldn't change anything about the established history of the Nazi genocide of the Jews during World War II, just like the tall tales of a great many phony Vietnam vets don't change anything about the established history of the Vietnam War.
True. Strange how the CT nuts would want to say if a single person who claimed to have been victimized turns out to be a liar, the entire historical event never happened.

Does that mean if any one single Holocaust denier turns out to be a liar their entire POV is false?

Just checking.
 
Snake -- you are either;

A) Doing math really funny, or;

B) Doing math really funny because you believe you need to be didactic; that is to say, you are doing poor kindergarten math because you believe everyone else in the thread is mathematically illiterate.

If it is the latter, why not stop for a moment, assume that other people also have a clue, and present your arguments in something resembling modern syntax?

If B, he tried the same thing when he tried to "debunk" my simple logic by converting it to (incorrect) symbolic logic, hoping that it would be too complicated for anyone to understand. When he got spanked, he never bought up the subject again.

3 million? What happened to the 6 million?

You were specifically asked to account for 3 million specific missing Jews--which the official story says were killed in the Holocaust--by someone else and you said they never existed. You said that every bit of evidence pertaining to their existence was faked. I can't be arsed to find the exact posts since you're not going to answer anyway, and it's prima facie ridiculous.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post


The source is people who hope not to get caught in a lie. When one of them gets caught in a lie, no matter how BIG, the others put one foot, toes pointed down, behind the other and do an about face. Then continue on with their Holocaust tales of facts interspersed with lies. You'll never hear these people discuss or admonish liars like Elie Wiesel or Steven Spielberg. Ask them about Elie's book of dark lies, "Night" or his non-existent tattoo that he said he had.

Making big, blustery rhetorical statements that don't actually answer the question.

Ironically, you make this post when Snakey has been dodging admitting he's wrong on certain math for several pages now, and even his "do you have the original sources?" question is merely an attempt to keep the ball in the air a little longer.

I'm betting you've never even seen most or all of Lemmy's cited sources, and merely assume they're lies because they're part of Team Holocaust.
 
And yet German and Germans to this day do not deny the Holocaust and their role in it. Indeed, even their historical research being done now affirms the reality of the Holocaust.





And yet German and Germans to this day do not deny the Holocaust and their role in it. Indeed, even their historical research being done now affirms the reality of the Holocaust.


Perhaps some day one or both of you will attempt to square that circle and explain why Germany and Germans are not spearheading the movement to deny the Holocaust. After all, surely they have the most to gain from having their name cleared.
For your information it is against the law to question the holocaust in Germany, Austria, France and other EU countries. www.ihr.org/news/irving022006.html The people in Germany have no choice but to accept holocaust propaganda if they say they don't agree with it publicly they risk going to jail. All of these countries that imprison people for expressing a non violent opinion on a historical subject be it the holocaust or anything else are beneath contempt. They all call themelves "democracies" and freedom of speech are part of their constitutions and they are all signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees freedom of speech on all topics. Why don't these politicians practice what they preach? I support Germar Rudolf www.germarrudolf.com and his right to question the holocaust. He should never have gone to jail. www.holocaustdenialvideos.com
 
For your information it is against the law to question the holocaust in Germany, Austria, France and other EU countries. www.ihr.org/news/irving022006.html The people in Germany have no choice but to accept holocaust propaganda if they say they don't agree with it publicly they risk going to jail. All of these countries that imprison people for expressing a non violent opinion on a historical subject be it the holocaust or anything else are beneath contempt. They all call themelves "democracies" and freedom of speech are part of their constitutions and they are all signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees freedom of speech on all topics. Why don't these politicians practice what they preach? I support Germar Rudolf www.germarrudolf.com and his right to question the holocaust. He should never have gone to jail. www.holocaustdenialvideos.com

Since they of all people would know beyond a shadow of a doubt their guilt in the atrocities, you think they might not be willing to put up with the inevitable few wingnuts pretending otherwise??
 
For your information it is against the law to question the holocaust in Germany, Austria, France and other EU countries.
For your information, this is a lie.

Would you care to actually *cite* the laws involved?

Irving didn't "question" the Holocaust, he was found to have explicitly denied it, further to his (also legally determined) effort to whitewash Hitler's part in it.

Can you think of any reason why Austrians might be sensitive to anyone trying to obliterate historical fact in that way?
The people in Germany have no choice but to accept holocaust propaganda if they say they don't agree with it publicly they risk going to jail.
Nope.

The German law states "Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism"

Nothing there about questioning either.

Can you think of any reason why Germans might be sensitive to this?
All of these countries that imprison people for expressing a non violent opinion on a historical subject be it the holocaust or anything else are beneath contempt.
While I do not personally approve of such laws (mostly because they give deniers an excuse to whine and try to play the victim card) I understand those countries' more that average sensitivity to anyone trying to rehabilitate a political stance based in hate which nearly destroyed them.
They all call themelves "democracies" and freedom of speech are part of their constitutions and they are all signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees freedom of speech on all topics.
There is not, nor should there be IMO, an absolute freedom of speech anywhere in the world.

This is why we have, for examples, laws against fraud, slander and libel.
Why don't these politicians practice what they preach? I support Germar Rudolf and his right to question the holocaust.
You may be surprized to find that I would also support his "questioning".

However, he goes far beyond "questioning" and lies and distorts the historical and forensic evidence to do so, which is why he was forced to admit that "chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust 'rigorously'" when backed into a corner trying to support his crap
He should never have gone to jail.
He broke laws which a majority of Germans support while a citizen and resident of German, and which a majority of Americans (in the case of his deportation) support while he was a resident there.

Someone with the strength of their convictions would take the penalty as the cost of making the change.

Gandhi was jailed three times -- and kept working to make a positive change for his country, from within his country.

Martin Luther King was jailed, and kept working to make a positive change for his country, from within his country.

Rudolf was jailed, only after his lies caught up with him, having run away to hide in other countries like Brave Aryan Warriors always do. And what has he done to further what you would see as positive change to these laws?

Bupkus. He is every bit as impotent in his "noble crusade" to save Germany from the scars of its Nazi past as every other denier -- including you.
 
Last edited:
For your information it is against the law to question the holocaust in Germany, Austria, France and other EU countries. www.ihr.org/news/irving022006.html The people in Germany have no choice but to accept holocaust propaganda if they say they don't agree with it publicly they risk going to jail. All of these countries that imprison people for expressing a non violent opinion on a historical subject be it the holocaust or anything else are beneath contempt. They all call themelves "democracies" and freedom of speech are part of their constitutions and they are all signatories to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees freedom of speech on all topics. Why don't these politicians practice what they preach? I support Germar Rudolf www.germarrudolf.com and his right to question the holocaust. He should never have gone to jail. www.holocaustdenialvideos.com

The law is only a few years old. Please explain to me why they didn't manage to make a good case against the Holocaust in the sixty-some years when they COULD go around denying it.
 
The people in Germany have no choice but to accept holocaust propaganda if they say they don't agree with it publicly they risk going to jail.


Ah, yes, that tired old meme, one which was thoroughly debunked in the previous version of this thread.

I guess all that scholarly research into the Holocaust recently published in Germany by Germans—as helpfully listed in a prior post by Nick Terry—are all just fabrications by the grand global Jewish conspiracy which controls the media, academia, and everything else? All these decades later and German researchers and universities are still in league with the Jews to publish false research about the Holocaust? Is that your assertion? (Well, it has to be, really, because you have no other plausible alternatives, and thus are left with implausible alternatives.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom