General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Tomtomkent]

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.

Nope. Sorry. This post makes no sense. We have good evidence of how many people caan beestimated to be killed, including civillians, in battles. We know about bodies recovered and disposed of after, who was on a ship that sunk. Etc.

More to the point we know when and where they took place. That is the problem you face Dogzilla.

There werent engagements in the "cleansed" ghettos. Or the anti tank trenches. Or the slavelabour camps. Or the death camps.

To say the "where did they go" question vanishes is pretty darned stupid, when youarelooking at specific incidents and noticing who is not accounted for. Who was not in the cities, or on the ships.

If they were killed in battles, one has to wonder why their bodies were shipped to poland to be incinnerated, or shot and dumped. why the allies would oblige hitler with joining this coverup, and why the Nazis then made all the evidence point to the Jewish population having been confined in ghettos and camps.

Alternatively Dogzilla could imagine some new battles where the camps were, that could explain the deaths by slave labour and extermination. Those bodies in anti tank trenches were... Caught by incredibly precise cross fires? From one direction, with identical range,weapons and discipline? While wearing the same pyjammas? With the same yellow star? By aWaffen SS unit called the Deaths Head, who happened to be on extermination duty? At a time and place where there were no allied or insurgent forces to engage with?

 

[Dcdrac]

This crossfire thing wow what a naew fantasy, so millions of people actively wandered around Europe in WW2 to battlefields stood up and waited to be shot in the crossfire....

Hmmmm reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltmMJntSfQI

 

[LemmyCaution]

Nope. Sorry. This post makes no sense. We have good evidence of how many people caan beestimated to be killed, including civillians, in battles. We know about bodies recovered and disposed of after, who was on a ship that sunk. Etc.

More to the point we know when and where they took place. That is the problem you face Dogzilla.

There werent engagements in the "cleansed" ghettos. Or the anti tank trenches. Or the slavelabour camps. Or the death camps.

To say the "where did they go" question vanishes is pretty darned stupid, when youarelooking at specific incidents and noticing who is not accounted for. Who was not in the cities, or on the ships.

If they were killed in battles, one has to wonder why their bodies were shipped to poland to be incinnerated, or shot and dumped. why the allies would oblige hitler with joining this coverup, and why the Nazis then made all the evidence point to the Jewish population having been confined in ghettos and camps.

Alternatively Dogzilla could imagine some new battles where the camps were, that could explain the deaths by slave labour and extermination. Those bodies in anti tank trenches were... Caught by incredibly precise cross fires? From one direction, with identical range,weapons and discipline? While wearing the same pyjammas? With the same yellow star? By aWaffen SS unit called the Deaths Head, who happened to be on extermination duty? At a time and place where there were no allied or insurgent forces to engage with?

In his radio debate with Roberto Muehlenkamp on Deanna Spingola's program, the fantasist Mr Berg predicted a couple times that in the mass graves at the AR camps and elsewhere we will find the corpses of men in uniform. This bit of whimsy hints at why Dogzilla doesn't like discussing specific cases - such as what became of the Jews of Vilna, Warsaw, Lodz, Riga, Kiev (as was proposed months ago) - such discussions interrupt denier fantasizing about what should have happened in their dreams.

 

[LemmyCaution]

This crossfire thing wow what a naew fantasy, so millions of people actively wandered around Europe in WW2 to battlefields stood up and waited to be shot in the crossfire....

Hmmmm reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltmMJntSfQI

it is deja vu all over again in here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233904&page=56

 

[LemmyCaution]

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...

The passage of Dodd's letter quoted by Mondial rather seems to be about the appearance of a conflict of interest and to give advice on tactics. That Mondial reads into this revenge and an unfair trial speaks to what Mondial wishes to add to this discussion, not to what Dodd wrote.

 

[cwporter]

Nuremberg documents

The standard version of events at Nuremberg is that the Allies examined 100,000 documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at The Hague. This is rather inexact.

The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'.
Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed; breach of rule 4.

The Stadtarchiv Nürnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents, and both say the original documents are in Washington.
Since the originals are, in most cases, 'copies', there is often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.

See here for more: http://www.cwporter.com/g3803ps.htm

 

[TSR]

Having been soundly spanked again on the issue of indictments not being proof, porter rushes to change the subject hoping no one will notice.

Fat chance.

The standard version of events at Nuremberg is that the Allies examined 100,000 documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at The Hague. This is rather inexact.

The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'.
Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.

Note the sneer quotes, by which porter hopes to suggest without having the cojones to come right out and state it are tainted in someway.

In support of this thesis, porter offers Because! I! Said! So!

Volume XXXIII, a document volume taken at random, contains 20 interrogations or affidavits, 12 photocopies, 5 unsigned copies, 5 original documents with signatures, 4 copies of printed material, 3 mimeographed copies, 3 teletypes, 1 microfilmm copy, 1 copy signed by somebody else and 1 unspecified.

The Hague has few, if any, original documents. The Hague has many original post-war 'affidavits', or sworn statements, the Tribunal Commission transcripts, and much valuable defense material.

Again with the sneer quotes.

They have the 'human soap', which has never been tested,

Is that your final answer?

and the 'original human soap recipe' (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery;

When was this proven?

but apparently no original wartime German documents.

Ummm. No.

The Hague has negative photostats of these documents, on extremely brittle paper which has been stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the staples are removed. When they are re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these documents have not been photocopied very often, and officials at the Hague say it is very unusual for anyone to ask to see them.

Which means ... ?

The National Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylor's Use of Captured German and Related Documents, A National Archive Conference) claim that the original documents are in The Hague. The Hague claims the original documents are in the National Archives.

Which documents, specifically and by number, do you refer to here?

The Stadtarchiv Nürnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents, and both say the original documents are in Washington.

And again, we're just supposed to take porter's word for this.

After all, he's never lied to us b...

I'm sorry, I couldn't even finish that line for laughing.

Since the originals are, in most cases, 'copies', there is often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.

Why don't you give a a specific example, I'm sure we can oblige you by tracing it.

That being the case, I'm also pretty sure porter with never offer such an example, nor support his forgery accusation, and will instead ignore all responses to this post just as he did the first one.

 

[Nessie]

And what research was that?

The Rudolph Report and Faurison's own research into the likes of Anne Frank.

That you will almost certainly disagree with the worth or value of such research does not matter. In the same way that revisionists will disagree with research that contradicts their views does not matter.

A part of freedom of speech is freedom for research and denial laws restrict those who say, through their own work, that they do not believe in the use of homicidal gas chambers or the story of Anne Frank as it is commonly told.

 

[Nessie]

You don't consider Irving's website and speeches to contain any amount of hate?

Fritjof Meyer, who Irving uses like no other in order to justify his own position, was a mainstream German journalist who challenged the amount of people gassed in Birkenau. Meyer estimated some 350,000 people gassed, mostly in the "bunkers" (as opposed to the Krematoria). That number is substantially less than modern estimates for deaths caused by the complex's gas chambers, which stand around 900,000-1,000,000. The work was investigated by German authorities and found not to be politically motivated. Had he peppered it with discussions of a "hoax," "propaganda," "Zionism," and other buzzwords typically found in revisionism he probably would have been charged.

Do I still approve of such laws? Personally, no, but that doesn't mean works which challenge the historiography and modern conceptions of the Holocaust cannot be produced in those countries.

When those whose belief that there were no homicidal gas chambers strays into anti-semitic remarks, of which some are attributed to Irving and hate speech in public, I have no issue with the law taking action. It is the area where researched work could be restricted by such laws that I am concerned about.

What would have happened if Meyer had come out from his research with no gassings at all?

 

[Cyrix686]

....and will instead ignore all responses to this post just as he did the first one.

Mm, I don't think his website is awfully pretty either.

 

[TSR]

The Rudolph Report

I'm sorry, I thought you understood that I meant "original research" and not "repackaging someone else's which had already been savaged when he did"

And little gems like a reference to " the 'Never Forgive, Never Forget' brigade" certainly make this look more like a political screed than actual research.

and Faurison's own research into the likes of Anne Frank.

But is was not that work of literary criticism which got him into trouble, was it?

That you will almost certainly disagree with the worth or value of such research does not matter. In the same way that revisionists will disagree with research that contradicts their views does not matter.

I disagree, and can support my thesis, that neither were historical research, or in support of historical revisionism (as opposed to denial)

A part of freedom of speech is freedom for research and denial laws restrict those who say, through their own work, that they do not believe in the use of homicidal gas chambers or the story of Anne Frank as it is commonly told.

Again, Faurisson was *not* convicted for critiquing Anne Frank, but for saying things like, how did that go again? Ah, yes: "Hitler never ordered nor permitted that anyone be killed by reason of his race or religion."

Seems to pretty clearly denying a major part of the Holocaust.

Why do you try to claim otherwise?

 

[LemmyCaution]

When those whose belief that there were no homicidal gas chambers strays into anti-semitic remarks, of which some are attributed to Irving and hate speech in public, I have no issue with the law taking action. It is the area where researched work could be restricted by such laws that I am concerned about.

What would have happened if Meyer had come out from his research with no gassings at all?

Here's what I think is going on here. Despite denier imputations to the contrary, most normal people posting here and in other HD discussion forums do not support restrictions on research into and speech based on that research about genocide. The quarrel, such as it is, seems to me to concern three issues:

1) how have anti-HD laws been applied, specifically (it is not enough to list people, topics they've investigated, by whatever methods, or written about, and their being convicted of a violation of the law - as you've done - in order to have a meaningful discussion of this first issue, you need to show hotab specific provision of a specific law was applied to their specific actions and what exactly they were convicted of and under what reasoning, to the extent it is available - that is, you have to go past the headline and head down the road TSR is on above and get into specifics of charges, violations, court judgments),

2) what is the role of laws prohibiting hate speech laws and incitement, and indeed to what extent are anti-HD laws connected with such prohibitions (I am guessing but I doubt in these forums we would find anything close to near unanimity on the desirability of such laws, by the way, with people having a variety of opinions about them), and

3) the conviction among normal people posting in these forums that the research of deniers is not honest research, thus connecting these supposed researchers back to point 2 (I am sure you will protest that such an assumption is unfair, an a priori stacking of the decks, and I will counter that I've read a lot of denier work and discussion and have yet to find any significant amount of it to be in anything resembling good faith - and so we will go round and round on this).

To make my own stance clear, from a point of view of relative privilege I confess, not having endured the consequences of movements like National Socialism first hand and not having been targeted by hate movements, I generally oppose laws restricting the expression of hateful ideas, including racism, and also oppose laws against dishonesty in writing and advocacy about interpretations of the past or in political programs. Mine is the slippery slope concern. As noted, opinions will vary.

 

[TSR]

Mm, I don't think his website is awfully pretty either.

No, I find the juxtaposition of "404" and "Page not found" to be particularly appealing...

 

[Cyrix686]

Oh Mr Porter I wanted to go to Darlington but got put out at Crewe.

Shhhh, before we return you to your program of Holoco$t brainwashing, we of the Mossad do not wish you to divulge the broken nature of his website to Carlos.

We like it that way. LOL

 

[LemmyCaution]

Shhhh, before we return you to your program of Holoco$t brainwashing. we of Mossad do not wish you to divulge the broken nature of his website to Carlos.

We like it that way. LOL

Which reminds me, Cyrix, if you check these Internets you will find that, to deal with this Strembleton situation, I've put in a great deal of overtime these past few days. I am sincerely hoping and requesting that there not be another issue with my overtime pay and rates/hours in that regard. Thanks in advance, LC

 

[Cyrix686]

I understand. And trust that a more generous treble will compensate for your inconvenience when extra work beyond the call of normal duty has been put in?

This also should rather handsomely make up for the stupid computer error last time with latke(s) shipments.

 

[Nessie]

.....

Why do you try to claim otherwise?

I am not claiming that clear anti-semtic hate language is anything other than that. I am looking at what problems denial laws have for research. So far they appear to be minor to not a problem, except if you are a revisionist/denier who uses anti-semitic hate language as well.

Is the Rudolph Report lawful to be published and agreed with in Germany?

 

[Nessie]

Here's what I think is going on here. Despite denier imputations to the contrary, most normal people posting here and in other HD discussion forums do not support restrictions on research into and speech based on that research about genocide. The quarrel, such as it is, seems to me to concern three issues:

1) how have anti-HD laws been applied, specifically (it is not enough to list people, topics they've investigated, by whatever methods, or written about, and their being convicted of a violation of the law - as you've done - in order to have a meaningful discussion of this first issue, you need to show hotab specific provision of a specific law was applied to their specific actions and what exactly they were convicted of and under what reasoning, to the extent it is available - that is, you have to go past the headline and head down the road TSR is on above and get into specifics of charges, violations, court judgments),

2) what is the role of laws prohibiting hate speech laws and incitement, and indeed to what extent are anti-HD laws connected with such prohibitions (I am guessing but I doubt in these forums we would find anything close to near unanimity on the desirability of such laws, by the way, with people having a variety of opinions about them), and

3) the conviction among normal people posting in these forums that the research of deniers is not honest research, thus connecting these supposed researchers back to point 2 (I am sure you will protest that such an assumption is unfair, an a priori stacking of the decks, and I will counter that I've read a lot of denier work and discussion and have yet to find any significant amount of it to be in anything resembling good faith - and so we will go round and round on this).

To make my own stance clear, from a point of view of relative privilege I confess, not having endured the consequences of movements like National Socialism first hand and not having been targeted by hate movements, I generally oppose laws restricting the expression of hateful ideas, including racism, and also oppose laws against dishonesty in writing and advocacy about interpretations of the past or in political programs. Mine is the slippery slope concern. As noted, opinions will vary.

For me it is primarily 1 - how have denial laws affected research?

As for revisionist/denial honesty, say I was in Germany and was to say that I really do not believe people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau and I then give a list of reasons for doing so. I cannot be linked to any anti-semitism because I am not, I use no hate language, you know that is not how I am, then what would happen?

 

[TSR]

I am not claiming that clear anti-semtic hate language is anything other than that. I am looking at what problems denial laws have for research. So far they appear to be minor to not a problem, except if you are a revisionist/denier who uses anti-semitic hate language as well.

No but when challenged to provide real original research which was impacted by these laws, you offered Faurie's Anne Frank critque.

Which was never a problem.

But yes , it is that hate language, the "brigade" and "Hitler" comments which will be a problem for a denier researcher.

Now, can you name a single denier "researcher" who has not engaged in such?

Is the Rudolph Report lawful to be published and agreed with in Germany?

No, and not by the vast majority of Germans.

That's kind of why Rudolf ran away with his tail between his legs and his lies on his lips.

 

[TSR]

As for revisionist/denial honesty, say I was in Germany and was to say that I really do not believe people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau and I then give a list of reasons for doing so. I cannot be linked to any anti-semitism because I am not, I use no hate language, you know that is not how I am, then what would happen?

That is a question for German courts to sort out, and I believe would depend a great deal on how legitimate your reasons were. If they amount to cm's "Nazis would never do that" and "The Jews would be walking time bombs as soon as they found out about it", I wouldn't count on leaving German soil anytime soon.