• 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.
TSR said:
*If* they are liars, then I condemn those lies.

Your turn:

What's your opinion of court-proven liar Zundel? (the "False News" trial, wherein he not only failed to convince two different juries of the "truth" of denial -- but failed to even convince them that he himself believed his crap.)
What's your opinion of court-proven liar Irving? (most recently and spectacularly, having been found in a lawsuit he himself brought, to be a liar and distorter of History)
What's your opinion of court-proven liar Rudolf? (He lied about his employer endorsing his crap, he lied to the US on his visa application, he routinely invents make-believe friends with all sorts of impressive credentials -- and then "co"-authors books with them)
Click to expand...

Or, alternatively, what are their opinions of Kazimierz Sakowicz, Herman Kruk, Mark Dworzecki, Abraham Lewin, Oskar Rosenfeld, Oscar Strawczynski, Szlama Winer, and Abraham Krzepicki?
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Irving apparently disagrees. He saw nothing racist about it now either.

Let's ask a few other Brits: Was language like Irving's commonplace among academics - which is what Irving purports to be?
Click to expand...

No. Language of this kind is not common amongst academicsc or anyone else with two or more functioning brain cells.
 
TSR said:
No they did not mention gas chambers (not that cm has even read any of them). Which is *not* proof that there were no gas chambers -- that's the lie part.
Click to expand...

First thing you need to do is show us where anybody said that the fact that Churchill Eisenhower and DeGaulle wrote memoirs that didn't specifically say "gas chamber" is proof that there were no gas chambers. That's a ridiculous statement. Everybody knows that you can't prove a negative.

The fact that they didn't mention gas chambers is just another example of somewhere where it would be possible to find evidence that corroborates the holocaust but does not. Like the aerial photos of Auschwitz taken at the height of the Hungarian Action where people said the gas chambers were going non stop and the chimney's were shooting flames and smoke and corpses were burned in pits....and where the photos show none of that.


cm is talking about their memoirs and none of the gentlemen mentioned were ever in a death camp, so there is absolutely no reason that they should have mentioned them.
Click to expand...

None of them landed on a beach at Normandy on D-Day either but I think most people would be surprised if none of them mentioned D-Day when they wrote about the war. And Eisenhower did personally tour a camp where he saw things that "beggar description." That was a holocaust camp, wasn't it?

In order to justify this silliness, cm had to posit something that he calls "acquiescence by omission" by which anything not mentioned must be because they secretly knew that they secretly agreed with cm.
Click to expand...

Well I disagree with Clayton's acquiescence by omission theory if that is what Clayton really said. These three guys weren't omitting anything by writing in "acquiescence" to anybody when they didn't mention gas chambers. They didn't mention gas chambers like they didn't mention any other fabricated wartime propaganda stories. They didn't want to sound stupid to future generations.

As far as the rest of your sentence ("anything not mentioned must be because they secretly knew that they secretly agreed with cm.")....what are you talking about?
 
thedopefishlives said:
Total insensitivity aside, you'd be surprised at what the deniers could come up with as far as goalpost shifts. For example, if the mass graves uncovered were smaller than what Snakey's flawed math says they should be, you would complain about that. I'm sure there are other things the deniers could find, either in the results or in the methodology, that would let them continue in their fantasy world.
Click to expand...

Yes, I would complain if the evidence you found doesn't support what you're trying to claim--hundreds of thousands of bodies buried within a small well defined area. That's not moving goalposts.

And where was I insensitive?
 
Dogzilla said:
First thing you need to do is show us where anybody said that the fact that Churchill Eisenhower and DeGaulle wrote memoirs that didn't specifically say "gas chamber" is proof that there were no gas chambers. That's a ridiculous statement. Everybody knows that you can't prove a negative.

The fact that they didn't mention gas chambers is just another example of somewhere where it would be possible to find evidence that corroborates the holocaust but does not. Like the aerial photos of Auschwitz taken at the height of the Hungarian Action where people said the gas chambers were going non stop and the chimney's were shooting flames and smoke and corpses were burned in pits....and where the photos show none of that.




None of them landed on a beach at Normandy on D-Day either but I think most people would be surprised if none of them mentioned D-Day when they wrote about the war. And Eisenhower did personally tour a camp where he saw things that "beggar description." That was a holocaust camp, wasn't it?



Well I disagree with Clayton's acquiescence by omission theory if that is what Clayton really said. These three guys weren't omitting anything by writing in "acquiescence" to anybody when they didn't mention gas chambers. They didn't mention gas chambers like they didn't mention any other fabricated wartime propaganda stories. They didn't want to sound stupid to future generations.
As far as the rest of your sentence ("anything not mentioned must be because they secretly knew that they secretly agreed with cm.")....what are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Hilite
???? One of them was responsible for the attack on the Dardanelles in 1915.
 

And idiotic: walking = digging. As though visiting a cemetery, for example, and walking over the ground under which people are buried, would equate to digging up the bodies . . . in addition to imputing to "people" what they think and what concerns they have. And now playing the "who me?" card.
 
Dogzilla said:
They didn't want to sound stupid to future generations.
Click to expand...
You know this how?

Churchill, for most of the time the history of WWII was being written, was in the opposition, eying a political comeback.

Reviews I've read of Churchill's work - again, I haven't read the volumes - suggest that Churchill pitched the narrative (well, his ghostwriters did) to his own need in the present more than anything - earning money, presenting his leadership during the war as a triumphant success.

These reviews could be wrong, of course, so how do you know that Churchill was concerned, as Fauri says, "that there existed no satisfactory evidence to substantiate public claims that execution gas chambers did indeed exist" rather than omitted and included based on other goals? What's the evidence, aside from Fauri's argument that it must have been so because it was so?
 
Dogzilla said:
First thing you need to do is show us where anybody said that the fact that Churchill Eisenhower and DeGaulle wrote memoirs that didn't specifically say "gas chamber" is proof that there were no gas chambers. That's a ridiculous statement. Everybody knows that you can't prove a negative.
Click to expand...
Tell that to cm.

In their writings, by omission, Ike, Winnie, or de Gaulle averred that there were no gas chambers killing millions of Jewish children, women and men.
Click to expand...
Sorry, "aver by omission", not "acquiesce by omission". Still impossible, but I admit when I have made a mistake, unlike deniers.
Dogzilla said:
They didn't mention gas chambers like they didn't mention any other fabricated wartime propaganda stories. They didn't want to sound stupid to future generations.
Click to expand...
Wartime propaganda like the Battle of the Bulge, for example? Not mentioned.

No, they didn't land on D Day -- they only planned or commanded it.

And Eisenhower visited Ohrdruf, which was not one of the camps with gas chambers -- but you knew that already.

How do you *know* this was the reason no one mentioned gas chambers?

You engaged here in a habit common to deniers: no gas chambers, no Holocaust. Which ignores the fact, pointed out to you many many times before, that slightly less than half of the death toll of the Holocaust was from active killing in the death camps. Even if there were no gas chambers, the forced labour, starvation, illness and actions of the EG would mean deaths in the millions.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
No. The big three, Ike, Winnie and de Gaulle didn't mention the gas chambers in their writings after the war trials because they didn't want to be branded in history as liars. The brave, unarmed, neutral IRC stated there was no genocide by Germany.

I'll believe them before I'd believe the absurd tales of atrocities quoted on this thread.
Click to expand...

Shhh! Don't let Dogzilla see a post where somebody suggested Churchill didn't mention gas chambers because it would be a "lie" to state they exist. Or for that matter makes a definate statement "proving" the absence of gas chambers.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Nessie. What the Holocaustics fully understand is that the alleged gassings
are the foundation of the Holocaust lies and fabrications. Without the ridiculous gassing fabrication you have the 3 million Jewish people exiting trains without being registered fabrication. Then you have 3 million Jewish people who never got on the trains to begin with.
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe this crap, or do you just post crap like this to wind people up? This is a genuine question as I really don't understand how you could believe this nonsense.
 
Dogzilla said:
Yes, I would complain if the evidence you found doesn't support what you're trying to claim--hundreds of thousands of bodies buried within a small well defined area. That's not moving goalposts.

And where was I insensitive?
Click to expand...

What I said was that you would complain if the areas uncovered did not add up to Snakey's improper math. I have no doubt that it would support our claim just fine - the data we already have does just that, and yet still you insist that the mass graves are not big enough. Nevertheless, this is nitpicking over just a side issue. The denier crowd would find something to nitpick about, either in the results or in the process used, in order to further their delusions. Therefore, to my mind, it is pointless to disturb the final resting place of hundreds of thousands of people just to try to satisfy a group of people who have no intention of being satisfied.
 
http://wallenberg.umich.edu/drossel.html

Heinz Drossel

Heinz Drossel was a German army officer during World War II who refused to join the Nazi party. Despite the fact that he spent five years in the military supposedly pursuing Nazi objectives, Drossel found opportunities to follow his conscience and act upon his humanitarian values.
 
Clayton Moore said:
......

Nessie. What the Holocaustics fully understand is that the alleged gassings
are the foundation of the Holocaust lies and fabrications. Without the ridiculous gassing fabrication you have the 3 million Jewish people exiting trains without being registered fabrication. Then you have 3 million Jewish people who never got on the trains to begin with.
Click to expand...

I viewed the video. Its strategy is to repeatedly say "unbelievable". You would not get very far convincing a historian or court with that strategy.

The video does show that what is claimed about gassings taking place at Krema II is entirely possible.
 
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitzscrapbook/history/articles/Birkenau03A.html

Krema II and Krema III were T-shaped brick buildings which were mirror images. Each of the buildings had an underground gas chamber where Jews were murdered with Zyklon-B, a poison gas that was also used for delousing the clothing at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Both buildings are now nothing but ruins; they were blown up by the fleeing Nazis on Jan. 20, 1945, two days after the camp was abandoned
 
Dcdrac said:
http://wallenberg.umich.edu/drossel.html

Heinz Drossel

Heinz Drossel was a German army officer during World War II who refused to join the Nazi party. Despite the fact that he spent five years in the military supposedly pursuing Nazi objectives, Drossel found opportunities to follow his conscience and act upon his humanitarian values.
Click to expand...

That must have taken some balls! Any idea how he managed to avoid joining the party? I would have thought it would be mandatory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom