General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Clayton Moore]

Wannsee makes it very clear that there were different plans. It goes into detail about what counts as a Jew. It shows that the bulk were expected to die of natural causes whilst working, there would be a special action for the more resistant and WWI soldiers were to be treated a bit more sympathetically so as not to upset other Germans and go to a ghetto.

You cannot use a very basic summary of Nazis plan to exterminate all Jews and then go into the detail and then declare misleading basic summary is wrong.

As for Jews serving in the military, so did some British and Commonwealth soldiers and there was a coloured regiment based in the Netherlands.

Yeah sure. A pass it down dictum that authorized genocide. No draft. No nothing. Wing it.

There was no master plan because there was no plan. Just an alleged interpretation of a conference presentation. Or whatever fabrication of what Himmler said or is said to have meant when he said it. No orders. No draft. No grand plan.

This time spent by Hitler and many others deciding whether to grant exemptions from the racial laws submitted by Mischlinge, was it to hide the fact that a Jewish genocide was in progress? Was Hiltler told by Himmler that he and high level Germans must devote time to Mischlinge to fool people into scoffing at the idea or notion that a genocide of Jewish people was in progress.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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."

There have to be proofs that the "Holocaust" was mostly fabrication. "no Holocaust" means that what happened during the time frame of the "Holocaust" was mostly fabricated/fabrication. The fabrication that millions of Jewish children, women, and men were killed in gas chambers means that "no gas chambers" "NO HOLOCAUST."



There are many instances, many events, many happenstance such as Mischlinge that make it so obvious that there was was no grand plan to exterminate Jewish people that they can be considered absolute PROOF that there was no grand plan. They have to be considered absolute proof by themselves. At some point in time you have to believe what you see is true and go with incredulity.

in·cre·du·li·ty/ˌinkrəˈdo͞olitē/
Noun:
The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Synonyms:
disbelief - unbelief - scepticism - distrust - mistrust

add the many nails to the "no Holocaust" coffin

"no gas chambers" "NO HOLOCAUST."
"insufficient cremation capability" "no Holocaust"
"time devoted to Mischlinge by Hitler and many high level Germans" "no Holocaust"

 

[TSR]

Yeah sure. A pass it down dictum that authorized genocide. No draft. No nothing. Wing it.

Just like a pass down dictum that authorized the invasion of the USSR.

Or didn't that happen, either?

There was no master plan because there was no plan. Just an alleged interpretation of a conference presentation. Or whatever fabrication of what Himmler said or is said to have meant when he said it. No orders. No draft. No grand plan.

One usually ends a profession of faith by saying "Amen".

This time spent by Hitler and many others deciding whether to grant exemptions from the racial laws submitted by Mischlinge,

Who told you mischlinge were allowed to submit for exemption?

Was Hiltler told by Himmler that he and high level Germans must devote time to Mischlinge to fool people into scoffing at the idea or notion that a genocide of Jewish people was in progress.

No.

Any other stupid questions you could be answering for yourself if you bothered to actually educate yourself on the history on which you are so rabid to cast doubt?

We could all use some more laughs.

 

[thedopefishlives]

There have to be proofs that the "Holocaust" was mostly fabrication. "no Holocaust" means that what happened during the time frame of the "Holocaust" was mostly fabricated/fabrication. The fabrication that millions of Jewish children, women, and men were killed in gas chambers means that "no gas chambers" "NO HOLOCAUST."



There are many instances, many events, many happenstance such as Mischlinge that make it so obvious that there was was no grand plan to exterminate Jewish people that they can be considered absolute PROOF that there was no grand plan. They have to be considered absolute proof by themselves. At some point in time you have to believe what you see is true and go with incredulity.

in·cre·du·li·ty/ˌinkrəˈdo͞olitē/
Noun:
The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.
Synonyms:
disbelief - unbelief - scepticism - distrust - mistrust

add the many nails to the "no Holocaust" coffin

"no gas chambers" "NO HOLOCAUST."
"insufficient cremation capability" "no Holocaust"
"time devoted to Mischlinge by Hitler and many high level Germans" "no Holocaust"

That's all well and good, except for the following issues:

1) You have not proven there were no gas chambers.
2) You have not proven insufficient cremation capability.
3) You have not demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction why Hitler's careful politicking with respect to Mischlinge is proof of a lack of genocidal intent.

Without your proof of these CLAIMS, it does not necessarily follow that there is no Holocaust. Come back when you have actual evidence of any of these three.

 

[TSR]

Deniers don't say "no gas chambers, no holocaust."

add the many nails to the "no Holocaust" coffin

"no gas chambers" "NO HOLOCAUST."
"insufficient cremation capability" "no Holocaust"
"time devoted to Mischlinge by Hitler and many high level Germans" "no Holocaust"

You were saying, DZ?

 

[LemmyCaution]

So citing popular history books is wrong.
Discussing academic studies is wrong.
Films ARE evidence though?

Who is trying to "get out of research"? I would suggest it isn't the folks following the academic studies and research into the context and understanding of archival evidence...

Just a hint, but when discussing history, the study and understanding of history tends to be relevent.

Aw he's just feeling inadequate and retreating to anti-intellectual cliches - whether due to lack of educational attainment or his struggle with the basic literature I don't know - and frustrated with his inability to put across mendacity, BS, and empty claims.

When he gets really, really frustrated with his incapacity, he makes up crap about what other people have replied to him.

 

[LemmyCaution]

It's patently obvious you haven't read anything beyond the title of Bryan Mark Rigg's book, which is pretty poorly regarded for its sensationalist approach and exaggerations. I'd love to see you try to summarise the core points of Rigg's claims accurately.

Incidentally, Rigg never made tenure and hasn't had a university position for six years, nor has he seemingly published anything for five years. He now works in banking.

Thanks for the link, Nick. The criticism seems apt on the score of sensationalism, for example, his title leading pretty directly to the misunderstanding in the posts from Mr Moore and Dogzilla.

 

[Clayton Moore]

1975? Source and citation. Living people? Source and citation.

The ridiculousness and lack of citation are why team Holocaust no longer use it. Kinda like the steam and electric chambers and the brain bashing gadgets and so on.

 

[Nick Terry]

The ridiculousness and lack of citation are why team Holocaust no longer use it. Kinda like the steam and electric chambers and the brain bashing gadgets and so on.

That doesn't answer the request for a source and citation. For all we know you could be making this up, therefore you need to pony up a proper, traceable source.

 

[LemmyCaution]

There have to be proofs that the "Holocaust" was mostly fabrication.

It is curious. You say this, yet none of you have shown such proofs. You merely assert fabrications, forgeries, and hoaxing but have yet to demonstrate evidence for any of your claims. Remember the Moscow Forgery Factories. Where's the beef?

 

[Clayton Moore]

You were saying, DZ?

I'm a revisionist.

 

[Clayton Moore]

That's all well and good, except for the following issues:

1) You have not proven there were no gas chambers.
2) You have not proven insufficient cremation capability.
3) You have not demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction why Hitler's careful politicking with respect to Mischlinge is proof of a lack of genocidal intent.

Without your proof of these CLAIMS, it does not necessarily follow that there is no Holocaust. Come back when you have actual evidence of any of these three.

Here's to two.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

 

[TSR]

I'm a revisionist.

No, you are a denier. You see all of those "no Holocaust"'s I quoted?

That's denial.

Here, let me help you out (again):

What Is the Historical Method?

< ... >

In this context, history is inductive in its methodology, in that it accumulates the facts, tries to determine their nature and their connectivities and then attempts to weave them into an understandable and meaningful mosaic.
What is Legitimate Historical Revisionism?

On its basic level, revisionism is nothing more than than the advocacy of revision, which in itself is the act of revising, or modifying something that already exists. Applied to history, it means that historians challenge the accepted version of the causes or consequences of historical events. As such, it is an accepted and important part of historical endeavour for it serves the dual purpose of constantly re-examining the past while also improving our understanding of it. Indeed, if one accepts that history attempts to help us better understand today by better understanding how we got here, revisionism is essential.

< ... >

What Do "Revisionists" Do?

"Revisionists" depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion. Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology described above, thus turning the proper historical method of investigation and analysis on its head. That is not to say that historians never depart from a preconceived or desired result; they often do. But in adhering rigorously to the correct methodology, they accept that the result of their investigation may not be what they envisaged at the beginning. They are prepared to adapt their theories to that reality. Indeed, they are often required to revise their conclusions based on the facts. To put it tritely, "revisionists" revise the facts based on their conclusion.

Since "revisionists" depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not happen, i.e., they deny its existence, they are often called "deniers". Rather than analyze historical events, facts, their causes and consequences, and their interactions with other events, they defend a conclusion, whether or not the facts support it.

 

[Cyrix686]

You a Revisionist. LOL what deluded BS.

"Revisionist," maybe.

No good Mr. Moore. People here won't want to watch your stupid videos. This is an academic and somewhat bookish community, its not cartoons on Saturday morning.

Do you have difficulty understanding that concept? Obviously you do.

 

[Border Reiver]

Here's to two.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

Your video link is not proof - by this "logic" I can cite "Inglorious Bastards" as an example of special operations in WWII, and proof that Hitler did not commit suicide in 1945.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You a Revisionist. LOL what deluded BS.

"Revisionist," maybe.

No good Mr. Moore. People here won't want to watch your stupid videos. This is an academic and somewhat bookish community, its not cartoons on Saturday morning.

Do you have difficulty understanding that concept? Obviously you do.

As was the case recently at SSF, we have deniers advancing an intellectual Know-Nothingism and whining that people cite books they've read, summarize research they've done or learned of, etc. Our deniers our all focused on Gilligan's Island, Hollywood, and crappy shock vidz. What a strange malady is this thing called denial!

 

[Clayton Moore]

No, you are a denier. You see all of those "no Holocaust"'s I quoted?

That's denial.

Here, let me help you out (again):

There have to be proofs that the "Holocaust" was mostly fabrication. "no Holocaust" means that what happened during the time frame of the "Holocaust" was mostly fabricated/fabrication.

 

[Nessie]

Yeah sure. A pass it down dictum that authorized genocide. No draft. No nothing. Wing it.

There was no master plan because there was no plan. Just an alleged interpretation of a conference presentation. Or whatever fabrication of what Himmler said or is said to have meant when he said it. No orders. No draft. No grand plan.

This time spent by Hitler and many others deciding whether to grant exemptions from the racial laws submitted by Mischlinge, was it to hide the fact that a Jewish genocide was in progress? Was Hiltler told by Himmler that he and high level Germans must devote time to Mischlinge to fool people into scoffing at the idea or notion that a genocide of Jewish people was in progress.

Just because at the tiem of Wannsee not all Jews were going to be killed does not mean the Holocaust did not happen. Non sequitur.

Even if there was no homicidal gassing that does not mean that there was no Holocaust. Non sequitur.

There clearly was a plan as numerous camps and ghettos were constructed or cordoned off and Jews moved wholescale from their homes to these places. That did not happen without a plan.

Wansee is clear about what is to happen to the Jews. Some Jews work to death, some go to ghettos, some are allowed to live and some get special treatment. That does not mean there was no Holocaust, non sequitur.

 

[Cyrix686]

I think what you suffer from Mr. Moore is actually negationism. The clue being in the word, "no"

 

[TSR]

There have to be proofs that the "Holocaust" was mostly fabrication. "no Holocaust" means that what happened during the time frame of the "Holocaust" was mostly fabricated/fabrication.

And given your complete lack of an evidence to support the "fabrication" delusion, let alone its ramifications, you are once again denying history.

If you have an internally self-consistent narrative which better explains the extant evidence, let's hear it. BTW, "Mostly"? Which of the details do you not dispute, and why?

So far, all you have offered is ignorance, sneers and personal incredulity. Once again, let's pick a starting place: the Jäger Report. This report details the killings of close to 150k Jewish men, women and children. This report is known to have been produced as five copies, one of which is available for examination at the Central Lithuanian Archives, Vilnius. An English translation is available here. What *evidence* (not incredulity, not wild claims) do you have that this document was fabricated? Do you know where / when / by whom it was forged?