General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Nessie]

Modern forensic technology is being used to examine at least one AR camp, as we know.

Do you think that there are problems with the evidence for the killing operations in any of the programs you mention - or is this suggestion more in the way of slamming the door shut on a favorite denier pet peeve?

There has been limited use of modern forensic technology on one camp. I would like to see more. Also, regarding the examination of such sites, is it really true that Jewish law prevents digging at such sites as they are burial sites and that is hwy we are limited to ground radar?

I am very much suggesting this action to slam the door shut on a revisionist/denier claim about the lack of mass graves and where did all the bodies go?

 

[Nessie]

Frankly, Nessie, that is not what you said at the outset. You said "orthodox" historians don't have answers and implied that that bothered you - and haven't explained what the gaps are in "orthodox history" in your many posts since. You cited rather public misperceptions when asked about actual gaps in what you call orthodox history, one of your starting premises. Do you see the confusion here is your own - and that you've dug your own hole?

You want to have it both ways. You can't.

I don't think your "book learning" is coming along quite fast enough . . . sorry to say.

"Don't have good enough answers" is what I really said. Considering elsewhere we are in agreement about context of quotes being important I would hope that you would not then ignore that here. An example of that we have just discussed, modern forensic examination of Treblinka II.

Then I said "and it has not gone with the times making it clear to the public that many claims about the Holocaust were grossly exaggerated ones from immediately after the war, now found to be wrong." So whilst scholars have been correcting what was wrong, the public have been left behind and retain inaccurate knowledge.

I am not trying to have it both ways.

 

[TSR]

I disagree I have been avoiding the questions as I have answer one already and then been sidetracked by unfounded accusations desperately waving my hands to distract from the fact that I could not support that answer.

ftfy

Regarding revisionism raising some important issues I would say the lack of a Hitler Order, use of diesel to gas people, the presentation of gas chambers which are either reconstructions or more likely to have been used for the fumigation of clothes as definitely used for homicidal purposes and doubts about Elie Weisel's testimony are examples.

Hitler order -- your (and their) ignorance of how Hitler governed is showing again.
Use of diesel -- addressed here.
More likely to have been used for fumigation of clothes -- cannot be supported by any evidence.
Elie Weisel's testimony -- in which court of law was this testimony offered?

I commented that I do not think that orthodox history does not have good enough answers, to which you replied "With all due respect -- no one ever has all the answers to all of the details of *any* historical event." I took that as read for reasons I have already explained that I do not hold the Holocaust any differently from any other historical event and was only looking for better and not perfect information for the general public.

And the "reasons" you have given changed three times, and greatly postdated this exchange

I then commented "I do not think that revisionism/denial will ever provide reliable answers to their own questions as they are biased and some of their techniques are frankly appalling." to which you replied "Only some? Which of their techniques are not? And can you provide an example of a relevant question posed by a denier?"
I do not see how my comment has given you reason to ask those questions. Only some what? Which of their techniques are not what? I have already provided you with an answer to relevant questions posed by a denier above.

I'm sorry, I assumed that English was your first language and that you could associate a list of questions to the statement you made.

So let me try to clear up your confusion: "Only some (of denier techniques which implicitly suggests that all are appalling)? Which of their (denier) techniques are not (appalling)? And can you provide an example of a relevant question posed by a denier (one of those "their own questions" you mentioned)?"

Next is this exchange

Nessie - I think banning revisionism/denial is wrong as that makes the orthodox side lazy as it can hide behind the law
TSR - Can you define "the orthodox side" and offer us examples of any individual fitting that definition who has "hidden behind the law"?

The orthodox side is the believer/exterminationists side as defined by revisionism/deniers,

Unless you are admitting to be a denier, this is unresponsive, since I asked for *your* definition.

or those who are not revisionists/deniers

Fallacy of the false dilemma -- you've left out the vast majority of people who don't care.

or the standard recognised history of the Holocaust as presented in recognised scholarly works on the subject.

But you *just* said you were not talking about "scholarly works" and whine that I misunderstood you to be.

You have me on an individual hiding behind the law. But I was not talking about scholarly work, but public perceptions.

See? You can't even be consistent within the same post.

I agree with Sir Leon Brittain who said when campainging not to make denial a crime when he said ""Any attempt to stifle their work, however, will always lay one open to the suspicion that one has something to hide. And nothing such people can say is quite as damaging as the suppression of their right to say it."

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//nyms/chuck/1996/chuck.0696

My own views on such laws is very clear and has oft been stated here.

Then you asked about which historian or researcher has endorsed this idea, referring to the perception all camps had homicidal gas chambers. But I was never talking about historians or scholars, I was talking about the general ignorant public. That also applies to your next point about the numbers who died at Auschwitz.

Then you agree that these are not "orthodox history". So why should "orthodox history" be concerned with it?

Finally the reason why I would like to use modern forensic technology to examine the T4 gas chambers, Action Reinhard camps and Krema II is because we can and we have nothing to hide and the potential for more proof to refute the revisionist/deniers.

Given the mountains of evidence that already exists, why do you think this piece would offer a significant advantage in refuting them.

You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason their way into.

 

[TSR]

Please, find a footnote on the AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.

TSR thinks that I have issues with footnotes which do not exist.

That was badly worded, sorry.

I meant to say "any statement with which.."

 

[TSR]

and would like you to explain how you reached the above conclusions form them.

Not just from them, but also from your latest backpedal that you were talking about "popular perception", when you had very clearly said "orthodox history".

 

[TSR]

Then I said "and it has not gone with the times making it clear to the public that many claims about the Holocaust were grossly exaggerated ones from immediately after the war, now found to be wrong."

"Wrong" != "grossly exaggerated".

The former is a mistake, the latter implies intent.

Got anything to support that implication?

So whilst scholars have been correcting what was wrong, the public have been left behind and retain inaccurate knowledge.

Which is entirely their right -- if they don't care enough to keep current, what do you suggest? Re-education camps?

I am not trying to have it both ways.

Yes, yes you are.

 

[Dcdrac]

I can stongly reccommend visiting this exhibition CM you will need to leave the USA scary thought I know

http://www.iwm.org.uk/exhibitions/iwm-london/the-holocaust-exhibition

 

[Nessie]

ftfy

Hitler order -- your (and their) ignorance of how Hitler governed is showing again.
Use of diesel -- addressed here.
More likely to have been used for fumigation of clothes -- cannot be supported by any evidence.
Elie Weisel's testimony -- in which court of law was this testimony offered?

And the "reasons" you have given changed three times, and greatly postdated this exchange

I'm sorry, I assumed that English was your first language and that you could associate a list of questions to the statement you made.

So let me try to clear up your confusion: "Only some (of denier techniques which implicitly suggests that all are appalling)? Which of their (denier) techniques are not (appalling)? And can you provide an example of a relevant question posed by a denier (one of those "their own questions" you mentioned)?"

Unless you are admitting to be a denier, this is unresponsive, since I asked for *your* definition.

Fallacy of the false dilemma -- you've left out the vast majority of people who don't care.

But you *just* said you were not talking about "scholarly works" and whine that I misunderstood you to be.

See? You can't even be consistent within the same post.

My own views on such laws is very clear and has oft been stated here.

Then you agree that these are not "orthodox history". So why should "orthodox history" be concerned with it?

Given the mountains of evidence that already exists, why do you think this piece would offer a significant advantage in refuting them.

You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason their way into.

Please deal with what I say, not your version of what I say. If you don't get something, ask for clarification before you attack it.

As for clarification, your response to "I do not think that revisionism/denial will ever provide reliable answers to their own questions as they are biased and some of their techniques are frankly appalling" of "Only some? Which of their techniques are not? And can you provide an example of a relevant question posed by a denier?" shows more doubt about your grasp of English than mine. Your response does not follow. Your attempt to rectify it also does not follow. "Only some (of denier techniques which implicitly suggests that all are appalling)? Which of their (denier) techniques are not (appalling)? And can you provide an example of a relevant question posed by a denier (one of those "their own questions" you mentioned)?" You will need to clarify further please.

I have struggled to get what you are getting at with the rest of your post, apart from you don't like my points about commonly held public views on the Holocaust.

 

[TSR]

Please deal with what I say, not your version of what I say. If you don't get something, ask for clarification before you attack it.

I get it quite well. You now want to pretend that you didn't start talking about "orthodox history", changed to "education" and now want to pretend you've been discussing "public perception" which you can't seem to differentiate from your own admitted ignorance.

As for clarification, your response to "I do not think that revisionism/denial will ever provide reliable answers to their own questions as they are biased and some of their techniques are frankly appalling" of "Only some? Which of their techniques are not? And can you provide an example of a relevant question posed by a denier?" shows more doubt about your grasp of English than mine. Your response does not follow. Your attempt to rectify it also does not follow. "Only some (of denier techniques which implicitly suggests that all are appalling)? Which of their (denier) techniques are not (appalling)? And can you provide an example of a relevant question posed by a denier (one of those "their own questions" you mentioned)?" You will need to clarify further please.

I have struggled to get what you are getting at with the rest of your post, apart from you don't like my points about commonly held public views on the Holocaust.

I quite obviously am addressing your assertion that "Regarding revisionism raising some important issues I would say the lack of a Hitler Order, use of diesel to gas people, the presentation of gas chambers which are either reconstructions or more likely to have been used for the fumigation of clothes as definitely used for homicidal purposes and doubts about Elie Weisel's testimony are examples" are only examples which point out your ignorance, and have nothing to do with either "orthodox history" or "public perception".

But here we go again, you said "I do not think that revisionism/denial will ever provide reliable answers to their own questions as they are biased and some of their techniques are frankly appalling".

My reply with many more words than I need to be using, since no one else has expressed any confusion, is that it is not "some" denier techniques which are appalling, it is all of them. I further invite you to name for us those denier techniques you do not find appalling, and give us a relevant question posed by a denier which has not already been answered.

For example, Berg was answered long before he ever published and no denier has ever even mentioned this. That you didn't know this, simply points out again your fundamental ignorance and a certain, I'll be charitable, naïveté regarding denier sources.

 

[Nessie]

"Wrong" != "grossly exaggerated".

The former is a mistake, the latter implies intent.

Got anything to support that implication?

Which is entirely their right -- if they don't care enough to keep current, what do you suggest? Re-education camps?

Yes, yes you are.

The implication is yours alone based on semantics and a hostility towards me from the very start, which is your problem.

So I am more bothered about public ignorance than you. Re-education camps is another strawman.

No, no I am not.

 

[TSR]

The implication is yours alone based on semantics and a hostility towards me from the very start, which is your problem.

No, one must know the correct figure before one can exaggerate it. One can be *wrong* without knowledge of the correct figure. But one *must* have an intent to exaggerate.

*Is* English your first language?

So I am more bothered about public ignorance than you.

No, one can be mightly concerned about an issue while acknowledging that there is nothing reasonable to be done about it.

Re-education camps is another strawman.

No, it is a question. You see that little squiggle at the end, it looks like this: ?

That indicates a question. If one is reading this outloud, one allows one's pitch to rise, which is the verbal equivalent.

You're welcome.

No, no I am not.

Well, I guess technically you've wanted it all three ways, but you've explicitly abandoned the middle option, so yes you are.

 

[Nessie]

I get it quite well. You now want to pretend that you didn't start talking about "orthodox history", changed to "education" and now want to pretend you've been discussing "public perception" which you can't seem to differentiate from your own admitted ignorance.

I quite obviously am addressing your assertion that "Regarding revisionism raising some important issues I would say the lack of a Hitler Order, use of diesel to gas people, the presentation of gas chambers which are either reconstructions or more likely to have been used for the fumigation of clothes as definitely used for homicidal purposes and doubts about Elie Weisel's testimony are examples" are only examples which point out your ignorance, and have nothing to do with either "orthodox history" or "public perception".

But here we go again, you said "I do not think that revisionism/denial will ever provide reliable answers to their own questions as they are biased and some of their techniques are frankly appalling".

My reply with many more words than I need to be using, since no one else has expressed any confusion, is that it is not "some" denier techniques which are appalling, it is all of them. I further invite you to name for us those denier techniques you do not find appalling, and give us a relevant question posed by a denier which has not already been answered.

For example, Berg was answered long before he ever published and no denier has ever even mentioned this. That you didn't know this, simply points out again your fundamental ignorance and a certain, I'll be charitable, naïveté regarding denier sources.

I can't help you when rather than asking for clarification you just go into attack mode.

As a final attempt to clarify in post 2666 I said "that orthodox history does not have good enough answers." and to paraphrase to some questions.

Then in post 2669 I said "By way of further explanation.....and my knowledge on the Holocaust was a general TV series like World at War, mentions elsewhere in books and visits to the Imperial War Museum and Anne Franks House. I felt then and still do now that the general public are very ignorant of the Holocaust and for example are certain that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz (I am not) which were used to kill millions of Jews (the numbers are far less)."

That is two separate issues which you have molded into one.

One area where I agree with revisionism/denial is in more study of the physical evidence such as the sites at Krema II and the Action Reinhard camps.

Presently listening to Berg in a radio debate with Roberto Muehlenkamp.

 

[Nessie]

No, one must know the correct figure before one can exaggerate it. One can be *wrong* without knowledge of the correct figure. But one *must* have an intent to exaggerate.

*Is* English your first language?

No, one can be mightly concerned about an issue while acknowledging that there is nothing reasonable to be done about it.

No, it is a question. You see that little squiggle at the end, it looks like this: ?

That indicates a question. If one is reading this outloud, one allows one's pitch to rise, which is the verbal equivalent.

You're welcome.

Well, I guess technically you've wanted it all three ways, but you've explicitly abandoned the middle option, so yes you are.

The original death figures after WWII were grossly exaggerated. You don't need an intent to do that or to know what the true figure is. It can happen by mistake, a not surprising one in the chaos at the end of the War. Mistakes happen, researchers get it wrong. That can easily produce exaggerated figures without intent.

Yes English is my first language, is it yours?

I think that it is wrong to let the public be ignorant and there are ways of dealing with that. I see nothing in your argument to change that view.

I did not see it as a serious question as exactly how do you you go about setting up re-education camps. It was a ridiculous comment and strawman.

I don't understand your last comment. Please clarify.

 

[TSR]

I can't help you when rather than asking for clarification you just go into attack mode.

I can't help *you* if cannot clearly communicate your meaning. I'm not the only one commenting on this -- is it at least a little possible that the problem is not everyone else?

Presently listening to Berg in a radio debate with Roberto Muehlenkamp.

I'm not sure I catch your meaning, can you clarify?

 

[TSR]

The original death figures after WWII were grossly exaggerated. You don't need an intent to do that or to know what the true figure is. It can happen by mistake, a not surprising one in the chaos at the end of the War. Mistakes happen, researchers get it wrong. That can easily produce exaggerated figures without intent.

No, it can produce *erroneous* figures.

Yes English is my first language, is it yours?

Ah, then we're back to the education problem, and you were not properly taught reading comprehension. I'll take that into account.

I think that it is wrong to let the public be ignorant and there are ways of dealing with that. I see nothing in your argument to change that view.

No one "let's" the public be ignorant -- the public bears responsibility for that, assuming correct information is available and they choose to retain that information.

Given that the information *is* available, for the ¿third? ¿fourth? time what do you suggest the address both the first and last clauses above. Follow up: why aren't you doing it?

I did not see it as a serious question as exactly how do you you go about setting up re-education camps. It was a ridiculous comment and strawman.

No, it was a question -- we went over this. But thanks for so blatantly demonstrating the truth the last clause to which I just referred.

Now, to answer your first question, I would refer you here for the basics. If you have any questions after reviewing this article, I try to address them or point you to a source who can.

I don't understand your last comment. Please clarify.

I don't understand *your* last comment -- could you clarify?

 

[Nessie]

I can't help *you* if cannot clearly communicate your meaning. I'm not the only one commenting on this -- is it at least a little possible that the problem is not everyone else?

I'm not sure I catch your meaning, can you clarify?

Yes I am sure I am also responsible for this, as well as you and Lemmy, which is why I have gone to lengths to clarify my position and answer your questions.

Since you mentioned Berg I mentioned as an aside that I was listening to him in a radio debate. Thats all.

 

[Corsair 115]

It is always a pleasure to deal with an expert. I wonder if you could assist me?
I am unable to locate the following items of Holocaust evidentiary material in any archive:
- 1 steam chamber (IMT XXXII 153-158, III 567);
- 1 electrical chamber (IMT VII 576-577, XII 369);
- 1 German atomic bomb (for instant cremation work at Auschwitz) (IMT XVI 529);
- 1 tree (used as murder weapon) (IMT VII 582);
- 1 portable oven (IMT VII 586);
- 1 pedal-driven brain bashing machine (IMT VII 376-377);
- 1 bone-grinding machine (IMT VII 439, 549-550, 446, 593);
- 1 spanking machine (IMT VI 213);
- 1 lampshade of human skin (IMT XXXII 258, 259, 261, 263, 265, 269);
- 1 pocket book and 1 pair of driving gloves, all of human skin (IMT XXX 352, 355);
- 1 pornographic picture painted on canvas of human skin (IMT XXX 469);
- 1 book bound in human skin (IMT VI 331);
- 1 saddle, 1 pair of riding breeches, 1 glove, 1 house slipper, 1 ladies' handbag, all of human skin (IMT V 171);
- 1 torture box (disguised as an ordinary wardrobe) (IMT XVI 561, 546, 556-557);
- 1 chair stuffed with human hair (IMT XIX 506);
- 1 mattress stuffed with human hair (IMT I, 252)
- 1 pair of human hair socks (IMT XXXIX 552-553, XX 353
- 1 jar of human soap (IMT VII 597-601);
- 1 piece of tanned human skin.
We know these objects existed, because they were "proven" at Nuremberg by means of "official documents" and "sworn statements". But nobody knows where any of it is. Since most of the evidence is of Soviet origin, could it be in Moscow? Please advise. I should be most grateful for any assistance in this matter.

And the above obviates my point how, exactly? Of all the nations and peoples on the planet, those surely with the most to gain from demonstrating the Holocaust did not happen is Germany and Germans. They would at last clear their names of being responsible of one of the most heinous crimes in human history. So Germany and Germans ought to be among the first to be championing the cause of disproving the Holocaust.

And yet they aren't. Even today their historical research and publications accept the reality of the Holocaust and Germany's part in it.

Perhaps you can square that circle? Because so far no one else has managed to do it.

 

[TSR]

Since you mentioned Berg I mentioned as an aside that I was listening to him in a radio debate. Thats all.

I'm sorry, could you clarify what you mean by "listening"?

 

[Nessie]

No, it can produce *erroneous* figures.

Ah, then we're back to the education problem, and you were not properly taught reading comprehension. I'll take that into account.

No one "let's" the public be ignorant -- the public bears responsibility for that, assuming correct information is available and they choose to retain that information.

Given that the information *is* available, for the ¿third? ¿fourth? time what do you suggest the address both the first and last clauses above. Follow up: why aren't you doing it?

No, it was a question -- we went over this. But thanks for so blatantly demonstrating the truth the last clause to which I just referred.

Now, to answer your first question, I would refer you here for the basics. If you have any questions after reviewing this article, I try to address them or point you to a source who can.

I don't understand *your* last comment -- could you clarify?

Semantics, drivel, ad hominems, piss takes.

 

[TSR]

Semantics, drivel, ad hominems, piss takes.

Yes, those are the tools of the denier.

Altho I'm not quite sure what you mean by "drivel"?

Could you clarify?

And have you noticed also that none of the rest of us have such consistent problems understanding or being understood by each other?

Curious, that...