General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Nessie]

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

Can you give a name you think better describes what the Nazis did to the Jews during WWII, since you don't accept the use of the word Holocaust.

 

[Nessie]

This from the Jager Report

"In Lithuania there are no more Jews, apart from Jewish workers and their families."

Further evidence that not all Jews were to be killed, in that action at that time as the Nazis wanted Jewish labour. But what about the future?

 

[LemmyCaution]

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.

Merely repeating the word fabrication is not a proof. You might know this better if you'd spend some time in those things that seem to scare Dogzilla so much these days, books that is.

 

[LemmyCaution]

As any of the veteran members of this thread can attest, I am happy to discuss the Jaeger report, Mr Moore. Last time your objection was my summary was long and that a minor detail was a bit mangled in my wording, not the report's. As to Nessie's quotation of the salient conclusion, what say you?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Here's to two.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

Argumentum ad Youtubum. I know, you're going to say it "isn't YouTube", but any fool with a camera can make a video. How about digging up some original research on primary sources that makes the case that there were no gas chambers and insufficient cremation capacity.

 

[A'isha]

But Deniers aren't anti-Semites, right?

 

[000063]

Interesting, thankyou.

Only read the blurb on the link, rather than the book, but it is surprising that there were upto 150,000 jewish, or partly jewish, people in the German military. I had always assumed that there would be some who managed to stay in the army rather than being shot or gassed, but didn't think the number would be so high.

And just like the Jewish POWs, they were also immune to the rage that would've gripped any and all other Jews.

Strange. Clay, if they would instantly be suicidally enraged, at what point would they be finding time to tell other Jews?

The problem with your responses is that they don't address the central question to which you are responding. Sometimes you have a glimmer of a point but other times you do have, at best, a word salad--a long ponderous response that might be a very good answer to a different question but not the one you're answering. If you actually do respond, you'll usually ignore the salient point, misunderstand or misinterpret what was really said so you can create a strawman which you then slay with hostile rhetoric that belies a frightening lack of understanding of how logic, human systems, and the natural world operate. When you find yourself backed into a corner, you'll refer us to the title of a book and believe that you're actually citing a source. When that doesn't work, you fall back on good old "then where did they go?" as if that's your Get Out of Research Free Card.

Vague, generalized statements about the responses and respondees rather than any actual discussion of the response itself. A common tactic when sophists can't actually rebut their opposition.

They were so dangerous they needed to be exterminated, right down to the little boy in your avatar, but it was safe enough to have them in the German military? You do know Hitler didn't like the Jews and for the most part, they didn't like him?

No one said they were dangerous except, um, the Nazis. And Clayton Moore. Bigots often rationalize exceptions to their bigotry, such as your refusal to address most of Moore's many logical and factual errors.

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.

Ah, yes, your usual unsupported argument by loaded question.

Are you ever going to stay on topic?

The alleged lies of Holocaust deniers are on topic in a Holocaust denial thread.

 

[000063]

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."

You have also alleged that the evidence for the existence of these millions of people was fabricated. Oddly, that's all the detail you are willing to go into.

I thought you weren't a Holocaust Denier?

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.

Nope. You don't get to remove things from context and pretend no other evidence exists, and the fact that you are unwilling to even consider alternative interpretations, if even to refute them, indicates severe bias.

At some point in time you have to believe what you see is true and go with incredulity.

No, that's the exact opposite of incredulity. That's credulity. And selective credulity.

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."

There is a shedload of evidence of gas chambers being used to kill Jews. Photos. Videos. Logistical records. Testimony. You have never been able to explain how the Nazis, if coached, manage to corroborate each other and the other evidence, including that gathered before the war was over.

"insufficient cremation capability" "no Holocaust"

They had plenty of cremation capacity, and there were plenty of mass graves, despite Snakey's nitpicking of precisely how much could fit in such graves.

"time devoted to Mischlinge by Hitler and many high level Germans" "no Holocaust"

Or that they were willing to turn a blind eye in certain circumstances. A corrupt cop may ignore a drug deal by someone he's getting a payoff from, but not a rape or murder.

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.

Well, no, that would be because you lot never actually read them. We do still cite sources. Your side, meanwhile, can only whine about movies and link to videos.

I'm a revisionist.

Here's to two.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

Cough.

 

[Belz...]

The Holocaust is based on nothing more than wartime propaganda, rumors and outright lies. It is therefore fitting that Spielberg is making films based on complete bunkum to perpetuate the myth for future generations of gullible Believers.

Although it's common to create lies about your enemies to embolden your troops and civilians during a conflict, I'd like you to explain to me why they would do so once the war was over ?

In addition to that, and showing that the evidence we have for the Holocaust is entirely wrong, would you mind telling me where those 6 million Jews went ?

 

[Belz...]

They *need* it to be right, because the Holocaust being a hoax validates their hate.

Precisely. Show me a holocaust denier who isn't an antisemite.

 

[Moss]

It's no small wonder that our revivisectionists don't want academic writings on the plate. Their icons like Irving and Rudolf opt for academic fraud.

 

[LemmyCaution]

3. Should proven liars like Irene Zisblatt be allowed to give lectures to school children?

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_n...55-scotus-strikes-down-stolen-valor-act?lite: "Alvarez’s lawyers contended that the First Amendment freedom of speech protected 'exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio, and cocktail party puffery.'

His lawyers said that there was no evidence that false claims undermined the integrity of military medals, and to the extent they do affect their integrity, the government 'should encourage counter-speech or legislate against actual fraud,' – and Alvarez wasn’t accused of fraud, only of false speech."

False speech seems to be protected, no matter what your opinion is. What do you suggest for Zisblatt? A Sonder camp?

By the way, you will need to learn the rules of this forum - especially before jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that you are being censored.

 

[Charles Traynor]

In addition to that, and showing that the evidence we have for the Holocaust is entirely wrong, would you mind telling me where those 6 million Jews went ?

What 6 million Jews?

 

[swright777]

...
They didn't want to sound stupid to future generations.
...

Why do you think this? You obviously aren't concerned about sounding stupid to future generations.

 

[A'isha]

What film are you talking about when you say "The Liberators"? The closest thing I can find (based on the fact that you keep mentioning Spielberg's name) is a mention in this load of denier nonsense, which says the 1992 documentary Liberators: Fighting on Two Fronts in World War II is a hoax filled with interviews of soldiers who were induced to lie.

But I can't find any information describing where or how Spielberg was involved with this documentary. And it's still available at Amazon (having had a DVD release in 2006, 14 years after it was made).

Is this the film you're referring to? If not, what is the film you're talking about?

EDIT: It must be, since this 1993 LA Times article says it was "pulled from distribution" to PBS stations only, though as the Amazon link above shows, it had a DVD release long after this "pulling". It also seems that the Deniers are exaggerating things a bit, from reading the article.

"The review team's findings concur with critics of the film who have contended (that the two battalions) did not liberate Buchenwald and Dachau. However, the review team can substantiate the presence of the 183rd Engineer Combat Battalion at Buchenwald sometime within the week following April 11, 1945, and further acknowledges the possibility that some members of the 183rd may have been at Buchenwald within the 48-hour period of liberation" (as defined by military historians).

Filmmakers Nina Rosenblum and William Miles, who produced the film in association with WNET, rejected the station's finding and accused PBS of censorship.

"We do not feel that WNET has conducted an independent assessment of the programming," Miles Educational Film Productions said in a brief statement. "A continuation of this dialogue is counterproductive and only serves to denigrate the courageous concentration camp survivors and their heroic liberators."

The film had been received warmly, and earlier this year was nominated for an Academy Award.

"The message of the film--that black soldiers were among the liberators of concentration camps--is absolutely true," Kenneth S. Stern, an anti-Semitism expert, wrote in a report earlier this year for the American Jewish Committee. "The tragedy is that the film has serious factual flaws."

Still can't find any information about where Spielberg comes into this.

 

[Charles Traynor]

What film are you talking about when you say "The Liberators"? The closest thing I can find (based on the fact that you keep mentioning Spielberg's name) is a mention in t is a hoax filled with interviews of soldiers who were induced to lie.

But I can't find any information describing where or how Spielberg was involved with this documentary. And it's (having had a DVD release in 2006, 14 years after it was made).

Is this the film you're referring to? If not, what is the film you're talking about?

says it was "pulled from distribution" to PBS stations only, though as the Amazon link above shows, it had a DVD release long after this "pulling". It also seems that the Deniers are exaggerating things a bit, from reading the article.

At long last someone with an open mind.

This is indeed the film in question. Spielberg was the producer, he reused one of the proven Negro liars from this film later in the The Last Days.

 

[thedopefishlives]

At long last someone with an open mind.

This is indeed the film in question. Spielberg was the producer, he reused one of the proven Negro liars from this film later in the The Last Days.

According to the IMDB link, Spielberg had nothing whatsoever to do with this film. Quit lying and try again.

 

[Dcdrac]

At long last someone with an open mind.

This is indeed the film in question. Spielberg was the producer, he reused one of the proven Negro liars from this film later in the The Last Days.

Have you ever seen a photograph of Steven Spielberg he is not black, not that it would matter if he was..


If anyhting shows the fantasy world you inhabit its this

 

[Belz...]

Can you tell me any more about this documentary? The only mention I have found on it so far is at denier sites (and they don't give any real information.) A read through of Speilberg's complete filmography at the IMBD fails to turn up any mention of it.

Nor can I find any independent mention of controversy outside of the well-documented problems several people have had with "Shindler's List."

As far as I can tell this documentary doesn't exist and is a fabrication, which is ironic, seeing as how it's used to show how the pro-holocaust crowd lies.

 

[Border Reiver]

According to the User review at IMDB for The Liberators: Fighting on Two Fronts the movie was fraudulent because the camp was not liberated by the unit that the movie claimed did so, but by a different unit, and the reviewer was upset that the wrong unit was given the credit for liberating the camp.

The Spielberg part apparently is the result of Stevie interviewing one of the soldiers who claims to have been part of the liberation of the camp, but was not part of the unit that did.

If I understand the logic - movie makers, hoping to make a dramatic piece attribute the liberation of a death camp not to the actual unit that did the liberating, because they didn't check the war diary too closely or at all and this means that the holocaust didn't happen. By the same logic, if I make a movie about the War of 1812 wherein I attribute the American Defeat at Chateauguay to the Royal Newfoundland Fencibles and the 104th Reigment, instead of Les voltigeurs Canadien and the 1st Light Battalion, because I didn't do the proper research then the Battle didn't happen.