General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[000063]

00006, you have made a mistake since what I have said is that Wikipedia is a common source for the public to go to and it contains inaccuracies. I have not said it is a good source of information, I have criticised it. Then you insinuate I use to to trace other sources, but you will find no example of that.

If you're going to complain about people misinterpreting you, turnabout is fair play. I wasn't insinuating anything about what you do with it. I was talking about my own college experience.

Regarding the difference between outright denial and revision of facts, you still have not answered my question of what happens if a German historian finds something which if published it could result in them being charged with breaking denial laws?

EDIT - sorry, that should be 000063.

My point is that revising the facts, if the historian in question can back it up, ain't illegal, and there is a difference between correcting certain aspects and outright claiming that 3 million Jews who were killed never existed, as Clay has explicitly done.

The next logical step would be to ask yourself why there is an urgency for those laws.

No one here has said anything about "urgency" but you.

So what? I thought we were talking about the Federal Republic of Germany, in which the communist party and its party line are irrelevant. Or were you talking about some other party line? Did you forget that the NSDAP is no longer in power in Germany?

Amazing how both East and West Germany still toed the party line, despite their other differences.

 

[Dogzilla]

You seem incredibly ignorant to make statements like this about an estimated total.

Surely, even a denier could recognise that historians discuss specific incidents, where such questions are invalid.

How many "crossfires" were there in the Warsaw ghettos? How about Lvov or Riga? In 1942? Who would these crossfires have been between? How did they make the wounds look like the effects of typhoid or starvation?

Which forces fought at Triblenka? Which engagement would have caused the crossfire that might have killed upwards of 800,000 people while Poland was occupied by Nazis? Or the 20,000 who died carrying out slave labour.

Your post is incredibly ill concieved on any and every level and makes no logical sense.

So Jews weren't killed because they were innocent civilians caught in the crossfire? The crossfire of which battles? By which forces? How? Please do explain...

All of them. Any of them. You tell me where innocent Jewish civilians lost their lives during the war simply because they got caught in the crossfire. Your trolling questions imply that you don't believe there was such a thing.

But at least your insistence that historians discuss specific incidents where general statements about estimated totals are invalid means that we're not going to hear that idiotic "where did they go?" question from you anymore.

 

[Dogzilla]

No, that's how it seems to me. Tell us -- at what number does mass murder become genocide, given that the intent of genocide was made clear before Hitler ever came to power?

Ignoring the fact that the word 'genocide' didn't exist until after Hitler was dead, are you saying that the extermination of the Jews predated Hitler? Does that make you a functionalist or an intentionalist?

 

[Border Reiver]

Legislation usually does not coerce people in to acting in ways that they do not want to act. It coerces them into not acting in ways that they do. That said, it's funny how some people are unable to grasp how a country's laws influence it's citizen's behavior. I guess Lemmycaution would look at the openly gay behavior you might see in West Hollywood or San Francisco and compare it to the openly gay behavior you see in Tehran and conclude that because Iranian law forbidding homosexuality doesn't mandate heterosexual behavior, it's obvious that there simply are no gay people in Iran.

No, the absence of western style homosexuality in Iran simply means that the gay people in Iran are not open about it.

You do realize that homosexual behavior existed in Nazi Germany where there were legal penalties (like being sent to a camp) existed.

 

[Border Reiver]

Because certain things were introduced or discussed by the prosecution during the trial, that makes them "proven"?

Yes.

 

[Mudcat]

Legislation usually does not coerce people in to acting in ways that they do not want to act. It coerces them into not acting in ways that they do. That said, it's funny how some people are unable to grasp how a country's laws influence it's citizen's behavior. I guess Lemmycaution would look at the openly gay behavior you might see in West Hollywood or San Francisco and compare it to the openly gay behavior you see in Tehran and conclude that because Iranian law forbidding homosexuality doesn't mandate heterosexual behavior, it's obvious that there simply are no gay people in Iran.

The reason why there are laws in place prohibiting undesired actions and behaviors is because the undesired actions behaviors exist. Just in case t here was any confusion.

 

[Mondial]

Which is not the defining feature of a show trial

And got shot down by the other Allies.

Strange, that, for a show trial...

No, a few did. And Stone was of the opinion that the trial should have been under Western-style common law, a concept not understood in exactly the same way in each of the countries -- and not at all to speak of in the Soviet Union.

Senator Thomas Dodd who was part of the US prosecution team had this to say in a letter to his son Christopher (later a senator as well) dated September 25 1945 "You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel towards those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge you will understand when I tell you that this staff is seventy five per cent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial for their own sake. For mark this well the charge "a war for the Jews" is still being made and in the post war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter it is distasteful to me but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and everyone else". http://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-...0/private-letter-from-thomas-dodd-former.html So a US senator who is involved in the prosecution admits that 75% of the staff are Jews with an axe to grind and who are out for revenge. To you this is a fair trial?

 

[Mondial]

Except that Wiesel *hasn't* been proven a liar...

And to "prove" this, you cite the proven liar Mark Weber?

404. Why don't you summarize porter's "proof"?

The best your source can do is cite some errors in Vrba's memory

I see no lies proven on those pages, just a lot of personal incredulity.

Again, a lot of sneering and leading questions, but none of that, you know, proof thingy.

Indeed.

These liars and frauds need "holocaust denial" laws to keep their untruths from being questioned. Observation by a Jewish sociologist/camp survivor - "most of the memoirs and reports (of holocaust survivors) are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self inflation, dilettante philosophising, would be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks". Samuel Gringauz, Jewish Social Studies (New York) January 1950 Volume 12 page 65. www.eliewieseltattoo.com

 

[LemmyCaution]

But at least your insistence that historians discuss specific incidents where general statements about estimated totals are invalid means that we're not going to hear that idiotic "where did they go?" question from you anymore.

Because historians can demonstrate where the Jews of Warsaw, Lodz, Vilna, Kovno, Riga, Bialystok, etc. went, whereas you loons engage in make-believe and ignore the evidence, no, you haven't heard the last question about where you think these people wound up. Natch.

 

[nomuse]

Senator Thomas Dodd who was part of the US prosecution team had this to say in a letter to his son Christopher (later a senator as well) dated September 25 1945 "You know how I have despised anti-Semitism. You know how strongly I feel towards those who preach intolerance of any kind. With that knowledge you will understand when I tell you that this staff is seventy five per cent Jewish. Now my point is that the Jews should stay away from this trial for their own sake. For mark this well the charge "a war for the Jews" is still being made and in the post war years it will be made again and again. The too large percentage of Jewish men and women here will be cited as proof of this charge. Sometimes it seems that the Jews will never learn about these things. They seem intent on bringing new difficulties down on their own heads. I do not like to write about this matter it is distasteful to me but I am disturbed about it. They are pushing and crowding and competing with each other and everyone else". http://exposing-the-holocaust-hoax-...0/private-letter-from-thomas-dodd-former.html So a US senator who is involved in the prosecution admits that 75% of the staff are Jews with an axe to grind and who are out for revenge. To you this is a fair trial?

That's a rather creative addition to what can be drawn from the quote given.

 

[000063]

These liars and frauds need "holocaust denial" laws to keep their untruths from being questioned. Observation by a Jewish sociologist/camp survivor - "most of the memoirs and reports (of holocaust survivors) are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self inflation, dilettante philosophising, would be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks". Samuel Gringauz, Jewish Social Studies (New York) January 1950 Volume 12 page 65. www.eliewieseltattoo.com

And what exactly is to stop folks from speaking out against the holocaust en-masse, and damn the consequences? Laws? The world is damning their entire country, and they just bend over forward and take it? If the Jews wouldn't be cowed, as Clay asserts, by the Nazis actively killing them, why would legal measures have any real effect? And who are the "they" coordinating these actions?

 

[Dogzilla]

I recall you making a comment earlier in this thread that you are in interested in Holocaust revisionism from the point of view historical accuracy. I asked you what historical details, exactly, do you expect to be revised in any new examination of the Holocaust. You never did answer.

I expect details that a new examination of the holocaust find need to be revised to be revised. You can't expect me to be any more specific then that. I usually ignore questions that don't have answers or are meaningless. That's not the same as lying.

 

[Dogzilla]

Well, for example, the post directly after the one I'm responding to now.

Somehow I knew you wouldn't have an answer.

 

[Dogzilla]

Are you capable of answering the question or not?
How many countries don't have denial laws?
If you don't know just admit you don't know.
But don't try to pretend it is irrelevant to a point you made.

Sure. I can answer it in a general way. The vast majority of countries around the world don't have anti-denial legislation. I can't give you an exact number. What does that have to do with the price of hash in Amsterdam?

 

[TSR]

Ignoring the fact that the word 'genocide' didn't exist until after Hitler was dead,

The word did not -- the act did.

are you saying that the extermination of the Jews predated Hitler?

How in the world did you get that from what I wrote?

Does that make you a functionalist or an intentionalist?

Irrelevant in a "discussion" with a denier fantasist.

 

[TSR]

Yes.

No, that's not all it takes to be proven.

 

[TSR]

So a US senator who is involved in the prosecution admits that 75% of the staff are Jews with an axe to grind and who are out for revenge. To you this is a fair trial?

Todd does *not* say the Jews have "an axe to grind" nor that they are "out for revenge". What he *does* talk about is exactly what you are trying here: idiots with an ideological axe to grind using the demographic facts to cast doubt on the proceedings.

So yes, absent any evidence of their having influenced the IMT's judgement, the trials were fair.

Got any? I mean, other than your heroes by and large were convicted...

 

[TSR]

These liars and frauds need "holocaust denial" laws to keep their untruths from being questioned. Observation by a Jewish sociologist/camp survivor - "most of the memoirs and reports (of holocaust survivors) are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self inflation, dilettante philosophising, would be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks". Samuel Gringauz, Jewish Social Studies (New York) January 1950 Volume 12 page 65. www.eliewieseltattoo.com

Which does not answer the questions I posed to you.

But for those looking for this reference, which neither Mondial nor those he got the quote from have ever read, it is Volume 12, Number 1.

Gringauz was not talking about the Holocaust as a whole, but specifically about about the ghettos, and goes on to say:

In our opinion survivors of the great catastrophe can make an important contribution to the exploration of the problem.

Try again.

 

[TSR]

Somehow I knew you wouldn't have an answer.

You not liking the answer is not the same as my not having offered one.

Which of the words I used is confusing you?

You wrote:

It doesn't bother them if what you say about the holocaust is accurate. All that is important is that it sound really bad. There's also the problem of "no exacts" when it comes to the holocaust.

The first sentence is a lie.
The second sentence is a lie.
And I'd love to hear what you believe is the "no exacts problem" which would be specific the the Holocaust.

So yes, your very next post *does* offer an example of you playing fast and loose with the facts.

 

[Border Reiver]

No, that's not all it takes to be proven.

I'm well aware that in order for something to be considered proven in court one needs much more than the prosecution bringing it up and discussing it. Exactly what it takes depends on the nature of the allegations. Generally, to be considered proven the prosecution needs to present evidence of what happened and must provide corroboration, any counter evidence by the defence also needs to be considered and weighed. After all the relevant evidence is heard, the depending on the nature of the trial either a judge alone, a panel of judges or a jury will decide if a certain set of facts is proven or not.

Given who we're dealing with, and where the question was going I choose to choose an incredibly simplistic answer, to wit - the overall truth of the Holocaust can be accepted as true and it was discussed by the prosecution at the IMT.