General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Dogzilla]

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.

I never did understand the point of Snakey's "improper" math. So I couldn't tell you if the areas uncovered didn't add up to it. I'm not sure if Snakey had a problem with the theoretical body density in the mass graves or if his issue is with the ability to calculate the density of bodies in the mass graves at all. I can't even tell you if it was "improper" or not. I know that to calculate the proposed body density, Team holocaust relied upon data from Charles Provan. So with Snakey making an argument I don't understand and Roberto responding wih facts based upon a dubious "experiment" from Chuck P., I tuned out of that discussion.

But bodies buried in mass graves at the death camps isn't nitpicking over a side issue. If all the people who were sent to the camps were never seen again, and if their bodies had never been disposed of in anyway at these camps, what happened to them? Is it nitpicking if hundreds of thousands of Jews weren't murdered at the camps?

 

[nomuse]

I never did understand the point of Snakey's "improper" math. So I couldn't tell you if the areas uncovered didn't add up to it. I'm not sure if Snakey had a problem with the theoretical body density in the mass graves or if his issue is with the ability to calculate the density of bodies in the mass graves at all. I can't even tell you if it was "improper" or not. I know that to calculate the proposed body density, Team holocaust relied upon data from Charles Provan. So with Snakey making an argument I don't understand and Roberto responding wih facts based upon a dubious "experiment" from Chuck P., I tuned out of that discussion.

But bodies buried in mass graves at the death camps isn't nitpicking over a side issue. If all the people who were sent to the camps were never seen again, and if their bodies had never been disposed of in anyway at these camps, what happened to them? Is it nitpicking if hundreds of thousands of Jews weren't murdered at the camps?

It is nitpicking because it is nitpicking.

Can Snake's calculations show that only one body could fit in the known graves? That no body could fit in the known graves? Even that only a dozen bodies could fit in the known graves?

No.

So we have graves, we have people who were registered and shipped and who later were never seen again. We have German records of people being killed, we have eyewitness testimony of people being killed, and we HAVE A GRAVE WITH BODIES IN IT.

What POSSIBLE purpose is there to show that the graves that we know about could not have held every last body we believe should be there?

Unless you are prepared to show that the graves were incapable of holding even a fraction of the numbers, then it is, exactly, nitpicking.

 

[Dogzilla]

One thing I have been wondering about of late is why we don't have a recommended reading list of literature about the Holocaust. People like Nessie might benefit from that. We might even ask to have it stickied.

The people over at H-Holocaust discussion network made an attempt at developing a "holocaust canon." I don't remember what exactly came of it and I can't do a search right now--connection keeps timing out. I think there was some support for breaking out the scholarly works that academics might rely on and the popular works that have a much greater impact on people's perception of the holocaust.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No. Deniers don't say "no gas chambers, no holocaust." Deniers say "no gas chambers, no gas chambers." YOU people say that "no gas chambers" means "no holocaust."

What does "no holes, no Holocaust"* mean then?



--

* Fauri et al.

 

[Dogzilla]

SWould depend on which gas chamber was under discussion, would it not? Which one, and your evidence that anyone credible claimed 2000 people?

Rudolf Hoess said there were 2,000 man gas chambers. Oh wait, you asked if anyone who is credible said that. No. Nobody credible ever said that.

It is well known, for example, that at Auschwitz, multiple bodies were burned in a single muffle -- and the next bodies were introduced before the last ones were fully consumed.

How do you introduce a body into a crematorium muffle while there is a body inside already burning? Do you just open the door and toss it in?

 

[LemmyCaution]

I'm quite certain there was a self-serving purpose behind his books. Naturally he would want to downplay the fact that when Great Britain started the war over the issue of Polish sovereignty, she was the greatest imperial power the world had seen--commanding an empire upon which the sun never set. Under Churchill's leadership, the war ended with Great Britain becoming the bankrupt lapdog of a former colony while Poland was under the control of the world's greatest totalitarian superpower.



Churchill did refer to the use of "scientific machinery" during the Hungarian action in a memo dated July 11, 1944 that was reprinted in the last volume of his work. At the time he can hardly be faulted for not being more specific because nobody was sure if the Germans were using gas chambers, steam chambers, electric floors, pedal powered brain bashing machines, or burning people alive. In 1953, when his book was published, the burning them alive story was still all the rage (hence the term "holocaust"). He wouldn't know if there was compelling evidence for gas chambers because any camps with "gas chambers" were off limits to westerners. What could he have possibly referred to as evidence that there were gas chambers in 1953?

Say what?

 

[Dogzilla]

It is a concern for many of the relatives and other interested parties. Has been for years. Has been told you several times before. In Belzec that problem has now been solved although there are indications that graves extend even beyond the current memorial. The same is true in Treblinka. A redesign process for the memorial in part to protect the graves in Sobibor has had some set backs including the fatal plane crash of Polish representatives involved in the decision making but it is now being worked on again. Whenever possible remains found on the surface have been reburied on site but it doesn't in anyway imply that -all- relatives are satisfied with that state of affairs or that they have no objection to exhuming the existing mass graves.

I've never heard anything about remains found on the surface being reburied. This is not something that has ever been discussed and I'm sure you're lying about it. Yet I've heard tales of the surface being littered with bone shards at the camps. So there must be a constant burying/reburying remains at the camp--especially right after a rain when the bones seems to rise to the surface. Do they have a team of rabbis at the camp to ensure the remains are given a proper burial or do tourists take it upon themselves to dig a hole, light a candle, say the kaddish and get back on the bus?

 

[Dogzilla]

Which completely ignores the fact that Germany started the War by invading Poland which resulted in Great Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declaring war.

Germany started the German-Polish war by invading Poland while the Soviet Union started the Second Russo-Polish war by invading Poland. Great Britain and France started the world war by declaring war on Germany.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You get "stupid ideas" out of people's heads by educating them with the facts. When you respond by attacking them for asking the questions or telling them to 'read some books' it appears as though you don't really have any good answers and you're angry at them because you don't have any good answers.

Well, the non-deniers on this thread have done both/and. We have answered, oftentimes at great length, with our views of the Holocaust, how it developed and what its component pieces are. When we do this, as you know, some nitwit denier is sure to append an ironic word count to his reply or to dismiss the reply as "word salad." OTOH, we also refer people, whether ignorant or curious, to the basic literature any informed discussant should be familiar with - and not only to "read some books" but often to read specific books. Not our fault if you have nothing to say about - and dodge - specific questions, if you haven't grasped the basics of the historiography, if your don't want to deal with specific and longish answers.

 

[Dogzilla]

Actually we are discussing academic writing as it is the relevant portrayal of the topic at hand. That your claims fall short of demolishing that is not my problem.

Actually we're discussing the holocaust. Academic understanding of the holocaust is tangential to the discussion. For example, if the overall perception of the holocaust is that there was a plan to exterminate all the Jews, the fact that scholars understand that some Jews were never intended to be exterminated doesn't matter much.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Actually we're discussing the holocaust. Academic understanding of the holocaust is tangential to the discussion. For example, if the overall perception of the holocaust is that there was a plan to exterminate all the Jews, the fact that scholars understand that some Jews were never intended to be exterminated doesn't matter much.

No, academic understanding is not tangential to the discussion of the Holocaust, its scope, its development. Academic understanding may be tangential to the overall perception of the Holocaust, but not to the Holocaust. You fellows seem to be having great difficulty with differences that are clear to people without an axe to grind.

 

[TSR]

Not Youtube
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

Why should I care about what this person has to say?

Zyklon-B

Thank you for confirming you know absolutely nothing about Zyklon-B or the HCN gas it produces.

How does it contaminate bodies, exactly?

 

[Nick Terry]

One thing I have been wondering about of late is why we don't have a recommended reading list of literature about the Holocaust. People like Nessie might benefit from that. We might even ask to have it stickied.

Book recommendations came up several times in the previous thread and quite a few titles have been discussed or itemised.

It depends on what is sought, a top 10/20/30/40 or more; or something identifying the most comprehensive/interesting works on specific themes that are still in print.

There's not much point paying any attention to the deniers on this one since they demonstrably don't read books.

 

[TSR]

How do you introduce a body into a crematorium muffle while there is a body inside already burning? Do you just open the door and toss it in?

Thank you for confirming you know little to nothing about the mechanics of cremation in the camps.

One would open the door, slide out what amounts to a tray on rollers (the bit of still burning corpse having fallen through the holes therein) load up anywhere from one to four bodies depending on their size, slide it back in and close the door.

Didn't you at one point claim to have read Pressac?

In any case, there is a good discussion of the matter here. Let me know if you need help with the big words.

 

[Cyrix686]

I've never heard anything about remains found on the surface being reburied. This is not something that has ever been discussed and I'm sure you're lying about it. Yet I've heard tales of the surface being littered with bone shards at the camps. So there must be a constant burying/reburying remains at the camp--especially right after a rain when the bones seems to rise to the surface. Do they have a team of rabbis at the camp to ensure the remains are given a proper burial or do tourists take it upon themselves to dig a hole, light a candle, say the kaddish and get back on the bus?

I have. Lying about it? Why should he lie about it? Lying we really leave to you. Along with mendacity and cowardice and sheer bloody ignorance.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I have. Lying about it? Why should he lie about it? Lying we really leave to you. Along with mendacity and cowardice and sheer bloody ignorance.

Haven't heard about it, haven't cracked a book to read about it, haven't read a word salad about it, haven't a clue about it = I'm being lied to. In denierthink, eh.

 

[000063]

We are not discussing academic writing here; we are discussing Spileberg’s propaganda films, which are filled with outright lies.

Please stop trolling this thread.

We're discussing both, or have you not read the extended discussion with Nessie about public misconceptions about the Holocaust which have filled the past few pages of this thread where academic writing was specifically discussed?

Documentaries are not always accurate, and should not be expected to be blindly by anyone with historical knowledge. You have no evidence the so-called lies were knowingly made, and you've been proven outright wrong on the claim that it's been pulled off the shelves.

Why don't you watch it [YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS THE FILM] and answer the following for those who can't:


http://www.holocaustdenier.com/questions-for-holohoax-promoters/

Edited by LashL: 

Snipped for Rule 4 (and Rule 6) and added link to source.

You can't even summarize your own source? TSR already pointed out some people are unable to watch videos.

Book recommendations came up several times in the previous thread and quite a few titles have been discussed or itemised.

It depends on what is sought, a top 10/20/30/40 or more; or something identifying the most comprehensive/interesting works on specific themes that are still in print.

There's not much point paying any attention to the deniers on this one since they demonstrably don't read books.

If I'm not mistaken, Clay has actually declared book recs to be attempts to red herring on more than one occassion. Hence why he sticks to easily-digested videos and web pages he can quote mine. The equivalent of intellectual fast food. Except that he's eating it from some rathole that hasn't seen a health inspector in two administrations, and thinks 'lard' is a food group.

 

[Cyrix686]

I don't know but I can quite understand why uke2se finds him insufferable.

 

[Cyrix686]

I don't know but I can quite understand why uke2se finds him insufferable.

Please delete double post mods...

 

[Clayton Moore]

Rudolf Hoess said there were 2,000 man gas chambers. Oh wait, you asked if anyone who is credible said that. No. Nobody credible ever said that.



How do you introduce a body into a crematorium muffle while there is a body inside already burning? Do you just open the door and toss it in?

A more difficult toss was honed with the throwing small children through the doorway atop the adults in the gas chambers. I'm not sure the adults complied with the sonderkommando's orders to pass them back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando

http://www.sonderkommando.info/skauschwitz/temoignages/art/olere/IMG4_fichiers/image005.jpg

http://www.sonderkommando.info/skauschwitz/temoignages/art/olere/IMG4_fichiers/image007.jpg

http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/genocide-episode-20-of-the-world-at-war/

In 1973, most people had never visited Dachau and Auschwitz was behind the Iron Curtain where no Westerners were allowed to go. In the documentary, Dov described how the Auschwitz Krema I gas chamber was filled to capacity and then little children were thrown in on top of the heads of the adults. After the prisoners were gassed, Dov said that it only took 15 minutes to burn the bodies.

The gassing of the Jews at Auschwitz took place around 30 years before the documentary was made. Dov, a Polish Jew, looked no more than 40 years old in the documentary. He must have been a child of 10 when he witnessed the gassing of prisoners in Krema I at Auschwitz. Children under the age of 15 were gassed upon arrival at Auschwitz, according to Holocaust historians, but Dov did not explain why he wasn’t gassed.