General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[LemmyCaution]

OK, it's been twenty four hours. The simple question "Does the Jaeger Report specify the killing of people not classified as Jews?" has been avoided by Lemmy, . . .

No, you are lying again. Yesterday I replied here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8413936&postcount=3558 to this dishonest gambit,

I've already summarized this for you. Twice. Stop trolling.

Read these posts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8413039&postcount=3518

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7973269&postcount=9600 - and the discussion that followed this post.

So I guess Lemmycaution's latest attempt at explaining how the Jaeger Report supports the Holy Trinity of the holocaust (six, plan, and/or gas) will die out again. Although I have faith it will be resurrected at some point in the future.

Your "holy trinity" of the Holocaust isn't how the genocide is defined in the literature - or even popular, online sources like Yad Vashem or the USHMM; also, we've discussed this issue at length before, and your acting as though we haven't further confirms your mendacity.

 

[Moss]

OK, it's been twenty four hours. The simple question "Does the Jaeger Report specify the killing of people not classified as Jews?" has been avoided by Lemmy, ANTPogo, and Nick Terry. I guess nobody else wants to try. It's funny how you people won't answer a simple yes/no question. It's OK. I understand. Holocaust facts must exist in the grey zone so you can wriggle out of them if they become untenable in the future. So I guess Lemmycaution's latest attempt at explaining how the Jaeger Report supports the Holy Trinity of the holocaust (six, plan, and/or gas) will die out again. Although I have faith it will be resurrected at some point in the future.

It's interesting that you would make an issue out of something that you could answer yourself by reading the report. What exactly is the problem with the suggestion that you read it yourself?

 

[TSR]

OK, it's been twenty four hours. The simple question "Does the Jaeger Report specify the killing of people not classified as Jews?" has been avoided by Lemmy, ANTPogo, and Nick Terry. I guess nobody else wants to try. It's funny how you people won't answer a simple yes/no question. It's OK. I understand. Holocaust facts must exist in the grey zone so you can wriggle out of them if they become untenable in the future. So I guess Lemmycaution's latest attempt at explaining how the Jaeger Report supports the Holy Trinity of the holocaust (six, plan, and/or gas) will die out again. Although I have faith it will be resurrected at some point in the future.

Perhaps they have more important things to do than jump to your call, given that if you had read the report, you would know the answer is "yes".

Now, make your point or get off the pot.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Perhaps they have more important things to do than jump to your call, given that if you had read the report, you would know the answer is "yes".

Now, make your point or get off the pot.

I'm not going to re-read my summary and my memory is less than perfect, but I recall that I wrote that 98% of Jaeger's 130,000+ victims were Jews. Meaning that, duh, 2% were not. IIRC I got my estimate by making a spreadsheet (this was quite a while ago) and tallying all the entries of murder actions and numbers of victims, by category, which Jaeger listed in his report. Maybe I counted wrong, who knows, but instead of dealing with what I've written in this thread and re-posted when germane, Dogzilla is playing games.

Specifically, instead of responding to the explanations of Jaeger's report that Nick and I have given, again going back several months, where we looked at the in its totality and in context, Dogzilla is trolling. He is as tedious as he is unable to defend his proposition that Jaeger's report was about anti-partisan actions, popular resettlement, or rogue, unauthorized operations.

Dogzilla's game here is to cover up the obvious fact that he can't defend the propositions he was earlier so sure of - and to divert from his failure and coverup.

 

[TSR]

I'm not going to re-read my summary and my memory is less than perfect, but I recall that I wrote that 98% of Jaeger's 130,000+ victims were Jews. Meaning that, duh, 2% were not. IIRC I got my estimate by making a spreadsheet (this was quite a while ago) and tallying all the entries of murder actions and numbers of victims, by category, which Jaeger listed in his report.

Instead of responding to the explanations of Jaeger's report that Nick and I have given, again going back several months, looking at it in its totality and in context, Dogzilla is trolling. He is as tedious as he is unable to defend his proposition that Jaeger's report was about anti-partisan actions, popular resettlement, or rogue, unauthorized operations.

Dogzilla's game here is to cover up from the obvious fact that he can't defend the propositions he was earlier so sure of - and to divert from his failure and coverup.

Obviously. I'm just playing out a little more rope.

 

[Dogzilla]

Would you care to answer the question? If those six million Jews weren't killed, what happened to them? Why do you desperately and transparently go through so much trouble in order to avoid answering this question every time you are asked, or even simply admitting you don't know? Literally no one here is proposing anything like your false dichotomy.

Literally EVERY one here is proposing that false dichotomy when they ask what happened to the Jews if they weren't killed. You're not asking if the Jews are alive or if they are dead. That would be a meaningless rhetorical question that would serve to establish the obvious. But it assumes a genuine dichotomy . You're not asking what happened to the Jews if they are not dead. If you asked that, and if we assume we would know what happened to them if they survived and we don't know what happened to them, your question would be a genuine dichotomy because if they're not alive, then they are dead.

But you're not asking meaningless questions of the obvious that assume a genuine dichotomy. You're asking what happened to six million Jews if they were not killed. That question sets up a false dichotomy: either we know what happened to the six million Jews or the six million Jews were killed. Not died. Not missing. Killed. As in someone or something caused their deaths. Because the accepted historiography of the holocaust says that Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the Jews and six million Jews did in fact die during the holocaust, your question about the fate of six million Jews if they were not killed is an even more specific false dichotomy: What happened to those six million Jews if they were not killed by Nazi Germany as part of the plan to exterminate the Jews?

Upthread I asked if the collateral damage that killed and displaced millions of non-Jews during the war might've affected the Jews as well. I asked if Jews might've been killed in reprisals. I asked if Jews had been immune to death by natural causes or simple old age. Everybody seems to believe that the war and natural causes might've killed Jews during the war but scoffed at the suggestion that any of the six million Jews were affected by these ordinary ravages of war or natural causes. So we have an unknown number of Jews who were not alive at the end of the war who died of natural causes or who were victims of World War II. Then we have the six million who didn't die of old age, disease, or any of the inconveniences caused by an armed conflict between the German Army and Russian Army passing through their neighborhood twice in three years or by the Americans or British passing through once. These six million Jews perished in the Shoah.

So, yes, you are making that false dichotomy that the only possible fates for six million Jews of Europe was 1) survive the war and maintain contact with everybody they knew before the war or 2) be murdered by the Nazis as part of their program to exterminate the Jews.

And, BTW, I have said more than once that I don't know what happened to them.

 

[Dogzilla]

I have to admit, the argument that "the Holocaust couldn't have happened because of forest fires!" is certainly a novel approach to denialsm...

You know your speaking the truth when your opponent needs to mangle your position so comprehensively. Anything remotely related to what you actually said cannot be rebutted so they need to create a strawman like this.

 

[Belz...]

Części, w której las lub niektórych lokalnych króla burmistrz typu byłoby ustanowienie prawa zajmujące III Rzeszy.

English, please.

 

[Belz...]

Dogzilla's game here is to cover up the obvious fact that he can't defend the propositions he was earlier so sure of - and to divert from his failure and coverup.

Which is the mark of the woo. Why do you think they believe this thing in the first place ?

 

[TSR]

You know your speaking the truth when your opponent needs to mangle your position so comprehensively. Anything remotely related to what you actually said cannot be rebutted so they need to create a strawman like this.

One notes that in true denier form, dz doesn't bother to actually detail in what way cm's comments were "mangled" -- it's supposed to be enough that it asserts it.

Care to tell us what cm's problem with forest fires is, it the whole thing is *not* meant to further his delusions regarding the Holocaust?

 

[Belz...]

You know your speaking the truth when your opponent needs to mangle your position so comprehensively. Anything remotely related to what you actually said cannot be rebutted so they need to create a strawman like this.

See what I mean, Lemmy ?

Seriously, Dogzilla, that is pretty much the argument made. Read it again.

 

[Dogzilla]

When and where?

You still haven't answered the question why the Red Cross sent out letters notifying people that their relatives and friends had perished in places like Auschwitz and Sobibor as a result of a.o. gas asphyxiation in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the twelve year reich.

I asked you here to respond to that in at least two recent posts. Why don't you?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8351489#post8351489
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8372319#post8372319

Did you have a look at the images I uploaded to my profile?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/album.php?albumid=846&pictureid=6196

I don't read dutch so I don't know what that letter says. But if it says somebody was gassed, how did the Red Cross know the identity of a specific person who had been gassed?

 

[TSR]

Upthread I asked if the collateral damage that killed and displaced millions of non-Jews during the war might've affected the Jews as well.

Since they were mostly concentrated in ghettos and camps which were not noted as being subject to collateral damage, that would be only peripherally.

I asked if Jews might've been killed in reprisals.

*Might* have been? Certainly. And documented as having been.

I asked if Jews had been immune to death by natural causes or simple old age.

Which requires no answer.

Everybody seems to believe that the war and natural causes might've killed Jews during the war but scoffed at the suggestion that any of the six million Jews were affected by these ordinary ravages of war or natural causes.

No, ordinary or normal are not adjectives that would -- even by your own admittance -- have applied to the treatment of Jews.

Unless you can name a population *not* targeted for elimination by the Nazis who also suffered close to a 50% reduction in their numbers during the war, there must have been some other factor(s) in play.

So we have an unknown number of Jews who were not alive at the end of the war who died of natural causes or who were victims of World War II. Then we have the six million who didn't die of old age, disease, or any of the inconveniences caused by an armed conflict between the German Army and Russian Army passing through their neighborhood twice in three years or by the Americans or British passing through once. These six million Jews perished in the Shoah.

Are documented as have perished, or as having been sent to places known to engage in mass murder, living under conditions pretty much guaranteed to adversely effect health.

So, yes, you are making that false dichotomy that the only possible fates for six million Jews of Europe was 1) survive the war and maintain contact with everybody they knew before the war or 2) be murdered by the Nazis as part of their program to exterminate the Jews.

One would expect that, having survived the war, they would have done what they could to contact *someone* they knew.

And, BTW, I have said more than once that I don't know what happened to them.

Then it is at the very least possible that they died in the way that normative history has shown that they did?

 

[Moss]

I don't read dutch so I don't know what that letter says. But if it says somebody was gassed, how did the Red Cross know the identity of a specific person who had been gassed?

Actually it says the reverse as Bad Arolsen only tallied the number of people with an actual official death certificate. Which the victims of selections and gassings did not get.

 

[Nick Terry]

Literally EVERY one here is proposing that false dichotomy when they ask what happened to the Jews if they weren't killed. You're not asking if the Jews are alive or if they are dead. That would be a meaningless rhetorical question that would serve to establish the obvious. But it assumes a genuine dichotomy . You're not asking what happened to the Jews if they are not dead. If you asked that, and if we assume we would know what happened to them if they survived and we don't know what happened to them, your question would be a genuine dichotomy because if they're not alive, then they are dead.

But you're not asking meaningless questions of the obvious that assume a genuine dichotomy. You're asking what happened to six million Jews if they were not killed. That question sets up a false dichotomy: either we know what happened to the six million Jews or the six million Jews were killed. Not died. Not missing. Killed. As in someone or something caused their deaths. Because the accepted historiography of the holocaust says that Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the Jews and six million Jews did in fact die during the holocaust, your question about the fate of six million Jews if they were not killed is an even more specific false dichotomy: What happened to those six million Jews if they were not killed by Nazi Germany as part of the plan to exterminate the Jews?

Upthread I asked if the collateral damage that killed and displaced millions of non-Jews during the war might've affected the Jews as well. I asked if Jews might've been killed in reprisals. I asked if Jews had been immune to death by natural causes or simple old age. Everybody seems to believe that the war and natural causes might've killed Jews during the war but scoffed at the suggestion that any of the six million Jews were affected by these ordinary ravages of war or natural causes. So we have an unknown number of Jews who were not alive at the end of the war who died of natural causes or who were victims of World War II. Then we have the six million who didn't die of old age, disease, or any of the inconveniences caused by an armed conflict between the German Army and Russian Army passing through their neighborhood twice in three years or by the Americans or British passing through once. These six million Jews perished in the Shoah.

So, yes, you are making that false dichotomy that the only possible fates for six million Jews of Europe was 1) survive the war and maintain contact with everybody they knew before the war or 2) be murdered by the Nazis as part of their program to exterminate the Jews.

And, BTW, I have said more than once that I don't know what happened to them.

Your talent for failing to get the point never ceases to amaze me. Here is a rough summary of the 'conversation' as it has been repeated umpteen times since the summer of 2010 when you showed up here:

1. Accepted history: 5 to 6 million European Jews were murdered in a genocide by the Nazis and their allies by a combination of methods including gas chambers killing 2-3 million.

2. Dogzilla: no they weren't. Zisblatt blah blah there were no gas chambers.

3. Puzzled skeptic: so what happened to them then?

4. Dogzilla: I don't know.

5. Annoyed skeptic: sod off then.

As long as your answer in stage #4 is 'I don't know', then you have not laid a dent on stage #1, end of story.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Literally EVERY one here is proposing that false dichotomy when they ask what happened to the Jews if they weren't killed.

All that Dogzilla is doing by repeating this silly strawman is demonstrating his ignorance of the basic literature, a number of relevant works of which have been cited in the two Holocaust threads.

 

[Nick Terry]

there's also no false dichotomy in asking Dogzilla what happened to the Jews if they were not murdered, since 'what happened' could well cover all kinds of things.

Dogzilla doesn't know what happened to them, by his own admission. And then wonders why everyone thinks he is clueless....

 

[LemmyCaution]

there's also no false dichotomy in asking Dogzilla what happened to the Jews if they were not murdered, since 'what happened' could well cover all kinds of things.

It does cover all kinds of things - and it does require anyone seriously answering to estimate the various outcomes, including, of course, approximately how many Jews were killed in actions. Even zeroing in on an extermination operation like the Great Provocation or the Great Deportation requires us to spell out various "fates" for Vilna and Warsaw Jews. We've discussed the underground in Vilna and how Jews survived, and we've been through Paulsson (Warsaw) and Trunk (Lodz), where escape and hiding, normal mortality, combat deaths, etc. are accounted for.

This is why Dogzilla is allergic to specific case studies - they expose his gambit as empty.

Dogzilla has something he likes with this false dichotomy - lord knows why - and no matter how inane it is and how many times it is rebutted, he cannot seem to stop himself from keeping at it.

 

[pooshoodog]

Literally EVERY one here is proposing that false dichotomy when they ask what happened to the Jews if they weren't killed. You're not asking if the Jews are alive or if they are dead. That would be a meaningless rhetorical question that would serve to establish the obvious. But it assumes a genuine dichotomy . You're not asking what happened to the Jews if they are not dead. If you asked that, and if we assume we would know what happened to them if they survived and we don't know what happened to them, your question would be a genuine dichotomy because if they're not alive, then they are dead.

But you're not asking meaningless questions of the obvious that assume a genuine dichotomy. You're asking what happened to six million Jews if they were not killed. That question sets up a false dichotomy: either we know what happened to the six million Jews or the six million Jews were killed. Not died. Not missing. Killed. As in someone or something caused their deaths. Because the accepted historiography of the holocaust says that Nazi Germany wanted to exterminate the Jews and six million Jews did in fact die during the holocaust, your question about the fate of six million Jews if they were not killed is an even more specific false dichotomy: What happened to those six million Jews if they were not killed by Nazi Germany as part of the plan to exterminate the Jews?

Upthread I asked if the collateral damage that killed and displaced millions of non-Jews during the war might've affected the Jews as well. I asked if Jews might've been killed in reprisals. I asked if Jews had been immune to death by natural causes or simple old age. Everybody seems to believe that the war and natural causes might've killed Jews during the war but scoffed at the suggestion that any of the six million Jews were affected by these ordinary ravages of war or natural causes. So we have an unknown number of Jews who were not alive at the end of the war who died of natural causes or who were victims of World War II. Then we have the six million who didn't die of old age, disease, or any of the inconveniences caused by an armed conflict between the German Army and Russian Army passing through their neighborhood twice in three years or by the Americans or British passing through once. These six million Jews perished in the Shoah.

So, yes, you are making that false dichotomy that the only possible fates for six million Jews of Europe was 1) survive the war and maintain contact with everybody they knew before the war or 2) be murdered by the Nazis as part of their program to exterminate the Jews.

And, BTW, I have said more than once that I don't know what happened to them.

Dogzilla seems to have the kindergarten notion that we are asking him and his fellow obfuscators to find every Jew allegedly murdered. What he fails to understand is that we haven't found anyone alive after being deported to AR camps other than the handful of escapees and those who rebelled. What he is being asked is to locate someone believed to be gassed at, say, Treblinka. His assertion, if that is what he is asserting in this garbled, silly post, obscures the one essential fact - if the Jews were transitted elsewhere from the AR camps there would be a detailed narrative documenting their travels. To claim that no German staff, no civilian bystanders, and none of the deported where ever heard from on a single occasion over the past 70 years is mind bogglingly stupid. But that is where revisionism is. Good for a laugh.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Which, sigh, has been pointed out, as well, over and over on these threads. Here's how Mynott put it some time ago:

Lets run for a moment that these millions were in fact merely resettled. For example the claim by your Holohoax Industry that Treblinka was in fact designed for this kind of purpose. A Transit center before resettlement ,some where out there.

1 Where were precisely these resettlement centers.?
2. What were they like.? Who administered them. ( the SS, Reich Security office, Wermacht etc.) .?
3. Have any of those agencies left documentation, photos and film etc including eyewitness accounts by both inmates and Guards, administrators etc.?. If not,why not.?. You'd think they would be only to pleased to show the world how kindly they treated the Jews in occupied territories.?
4. Did the advancing Russian armies report about them.?
5. Given their benevolent nature did the Germans ever invite the IRC to inspect and report about them. If not,why not.?
6. Are their extant inmate and Guard accounts of what went on in these "resettlement "centers?

This time a chance by you to specifically address the points raised.