General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Belz...]

I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question.

I love how you guys always frame everything in terms of absolute dichotomies.

 

[Dogzilla]

Some cremated, some in mass graves, some probably left to rot, some may even have been buried properly.

Oh, I'm sorry but that answer is incorrect! "Probably left to rot" isn't specific enough to know if that matches the eyewitness narratives. Tell us where you think they were left to rot and we might have answer. Your suggestion that some were properly interred in consecrated earth is mildly humorous by crediting the Nazis for respecting Jewish burial rites while simultaneously shooting them willy nilly and stapling their earlobes to walls and cutting off their genitals with swords, etc. while they are alive. But I have yet to see that appear in survivor testimonies so it must be idle speculation on your part. But you get partial credit for correctly identifying cremating and mass graves. To make a mass grave you need to dig a hole in the ground, right? How many people do you think were disposed of in mass graves?

 

[Dogzilla]

Sad.

Sad isn't one of the options. So the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? True or False?

 

[Dcdrac]

Oh, I'm sorry but that answer is incorrect! "Probably left to rot" isn't specific enough to know if that matches the eyewitness narratives. Tell us where you think they were left to rot and we might have answer. Your suggestion that some were properly interred in consecrated earth is mildly humorous by crediting the Nazis for respecting Jewish burial rites while simultaneously shooting them willy nilly and stapling their earlobes to walls and cutting off their genitals with swords, etc. while they are alive. But I have yet to see that appear in survivor testimonies so it must be idle speculation on your part. But you get partial credit for correctly identifying cremating and mass graves. To make a mass grave you need to dig a hole in the ground, right? How many people do you think were disposed of in mass graves?

You are not in a position to say if any of it is correct you have provided no evidence whatsoever for your position nor have you proved any of the evidence provided to back up the reality of the holocaust, is false.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I discussed the enraged reality completely but you and Team Holocaust aren't reality centered.

Refresh our memories, Mr Moore. This is the last I recall:

Ostracizing and threats of death work well 99.44% of the time.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Sad isn't one of the options. So the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? True or False?

I don't dance to your simplistic orders, muppet. Sad was a comment on the quality of your thought and performance.

 

[000063]

Evidently I missed it.

I doubt that.

Can you please provide a link to where the connection between the Jaeger Report and gas/plan/six is explained?

I probably could, if I could be arsed to look up info for an intellectually dishonest sophist who will ignore it anyway.

(I'm referring to you, BTW.)

Actually, because the skeptics are now saying that nobody ever claimed there was a plan to exterminate all the Jews, you just need to tie the Jaegar report to the gas chambers and the six million.

We are saying, as we have been saying for a while now, that even if the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews, that doesn't mean it was practical to kill them all at once. The fact that this is an actual long-running historical debate, with a Wikipedia article and everything, should tell you something, as should the fact that none of the people debating it are deniers. As I pointed out, the Nazis wanted to conquer Europe, and weren't able to do so either. Does that mean they weren't planning to?

I can tell you're avoiding 3786, by the way, as well as Clay's posts. For two people supposedly on the same side, you rarely address each other's posts except for a round of backpatting, to put it politely.

I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question. Because I like watching you avoid intelligent debate like the plague so I'm going to try this again with different words: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

I count at least three strawmen in that one sentence.

Good job providing evidence of anyone at all in this thread stating your false dichotomy of "contact" vs "death" in any form whatsoev-no, wait, you've been running and back-pedaling ever since you made the Imaginary Jews assertion.

I discussed the enraged reality completely but you and Team Holocaust aren't reality centered.

Like many of your claims, you will never back this up. Considering that I have never, ever asked you when the Angry Jews would've thrown themselves at the Nazi Pigs and had time for a game of Telephone, you could not have addressed it before, and are manifestly mistaken or lying.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The fact that this is an actual long-running historical debate, with a Wikipedia article and everything, should tell you something,...

He is just playing games. This question - which has to do with the the goal of clearing Jews from Nazi-occupied areas, cumulative radicalization of Nazi Jewish policy, locally and centrally directed decisions and actions, escalation to a European-wide solution and policy - has been ventilated quite well in the previous HD thread, with Dogzilla refusing then as now to listen. Heck, in the past couple days, I've linked to or quoted from a number of posts from those earlier arguments. Dogzilla keeps repeating strawmen, unfazed.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I doubt that.

I probably could, if I could be arsed to look up info for an intellectually dishonest sophist who will ignore it anyway.

Remember, that with the Jaeger report Dogzilla's dishonesty and dodging reach monumental proportions. All his hot air and diversionary rhetoric can't cover up the fact that he advanced propositions to explain Jaeger's report - propositions unrelated to his simplistic definition of the Holocaust - propositions by which he tried to characterize the actions which Jaeger reported on as anti-partisan in aim, a rogue operation, or ethnic cleansing via population removal.

This - backing up his claims - is what he is running from and trying to cover up with his word salads on bad tangents.

 

[Dogzilla]

Also, the Holocaust is not viewed the way you define it, either in popular but serious literature or in specialist studies. Nick earlier quoted the Wikipedia definition as an example of a halfway decent, popular expression of what the Holocaust was:


Nick's comments included:

So you've learned nothing in months. You just keep repeating nonsense and attributing to those with whom you disagree viewpoints they don't hold.

Here's another popular view of what the Holocaust consisted of, from the USHMM, which differs from your trio, by a long shot, again not reducing the Holocaust to your description of it (gas chambers + 6 million + master plan) - but highlighting open-air mobile killing operations as a part of the Holocaust:

First of all, I say there is not sufficient evidence for gas chambers, for the murder of six million Jews, and for a master plan. That's not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Even saying there is no evidence isn't the same as saying it's not true. But that's just nit picking semantics.

To make it easy, let's just assume that I do deny those three things. You say the popular definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things--not by a long shot. That's good. My definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things either.

So where do you get the idea that I'm denying the holocaust?

 

[000063]

He is just playing games. This question - which has to do with the the goal of clearing Jews from Nazi-occupied areas, cumulative radicalization of Nazi Jewish policy, locally and centrally directed decisions and actions, escalation to a European-wide solution and policy - has been ventilated quite well in the previous HD thread, with Dogzilla refusing then as now to listen. Heck, in the past couple days, I've linked to or quoted from a number of posts from those earlier arguments. Dogzilla keeps repeating strawmen, unfazed.

The common misspelling of that term is "unphased", and I think it would be quite apposite; his convictions and claims have certainly not advanced in any real way since I became a regular in this thread.

 

[Dcdrac]

First of all, I say there is not sufficient evidence for gas chambers, for the murder of six million Jews, and for a master plan. That's not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Even saying there is no evidence isn't the same as saying it's not true. But that's just nit picking semantics.

To make it easy, let's just assume that I do deny those three things. You say the popular definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things--not by a long shot. That's good. My definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things either.

So where do you get the idea that I'm denying the holocaust?

There is stacks of evidence for the Gas chambers and the murder of 6 million innocnet people.

You on the other hand have totally failed to disprove any of it

 

[TSR]

I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question. Because I like watching you avoid intelligent debate like the plague so I'm going to try this again with different words: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

That is false as stated. A simplification is not necessarily inaccurate.

Your turn: Germany never had a plan to win the war in Europe. True or False?

 

[Nessie]

I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question. Because I like watching you avoid intelligent debate like the plague so I'm going to try this again with different words: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

It is true.

 

[TSR]

I discussed the enraged reality completely but you and Team Holocaust aren't reality centered.

If by "discussed completely" you mean "ran away from", I suppose.

Or perhaps you can cite the post in which your complete discussion took place?

 

[Nessie]

Sad isn't one of the options. So the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? True or False?

False.

 

[Dogzilla]

How about you quote, in context, where you've read historians stating this case?

You have so many open tickets here that it is rather startling to hear you complain that others aren't hopping to their assignments. . . .

How about you quote, in context, where I said historians have stated that case? I was quoting Nessie, not a historian.

What open tickets do I have? I have responded to every relevant question that hasn't needed clarification. You guys have been the ones who fear giving a straight up answer to anything.

I'm getting unclear and possibly contradictory statements from Nessie and TSR. I need clarity before I will proceed.

Let's try again: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

 

[Nessie]

First of all, I say there is not sufficient evidence for gas chambers, for the murder of six million Jews, and for a master plan. That's not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Even saying there is no evidence isn't the same as saying it's not true. But that's just nit picking semantics.

To make it easy, let's just assume that I do deny those three things. You say the popular definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things--not by a long shot. That's good. My definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things either.

So where do you get the idea that I'm denying the holocaust?

I had my doubts as well, but having read various links and arguments provided here, those doubts went. That was because the preponderance of evidence shows that there were homicidal gas chambers, millions of Jews were murdered and there was a plan to do so.

Any definition of The Holocaust, as in the name given specifically to the genocidal, ethnic cleansing action of the Nazis during WWII, includes those three elements.

 

[Nessie]

How about you quote, in context, where I said historians have stated that case? I was quoting Nessie, not a historian.

What open tickets do I have? I have responded to every relevant question that hasn't needed clarification. You guys have been the ones who fear giving a straight up answer to anything.

I'm getting unclear and possibly contradictory statements from Nessie and TSR. I need clarity before I will proceed.

Let's try again: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

If you quote me then make it clear you are doing so and show where the quote originally came from.

I have a history degree from one of the top Scottish Universities.

Your over simplistic questions are going to get over simplistic answers which will further confuse rather than clarify.

 

[LemmyCaution]

First of all, I say there is not sufficient evidence for gas chambers, for the murder of six million Jews, and for a master plan. That's not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Even saying there is no evidence isn't the same as saying it's not true. But that's just nit picking semantics.

To make it easy, let's just assume that I do deny those three things. You say the popular definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things--not by a long shot. That's good. My definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things either.

So where do you get the idea that I'm denying the holocaust?

First of all, your pointless clarification about evidence/no evidence aside, my point was that your definition of the Holocaust is simplistic and reductionist - not useful in any discussion or research program I can imagine, except one investigating the pathologies, denial being one. My point as made here:

Also, the Holocaust is not viewed the way you define it, either in popular but serious literature or in specialist studies,

not a word on sufficiency of evidence.

If you're so hepped up to discuss the totality of evidence, let's hear your take on Jaeger's squad again or better yet on the evidence for what happened to Jews in Vilna, Warsaw, Lodz, Riga, and Kiev, a little matter you have dodged for months.

Second, given all that, it is rather amusing to see you confuse the word include and reduce. You took this sentence of mine

Here's another popular view of what the Holocaust consisted of, from the USHMM, which differs from your trio, by a long shot, again not reducing the Holocaust to your description of it (gas chambers + 6 million + master plan) - but highlighting open-air mobile killing operations as a part of the Holocaust

and replaced, through stupidity, extreme bias, or mendacity, the concept reducing to the concept including, entirely altering the meaning. Nowhere in what I wrote or quoted were gas vans or gas chambers excluded, for example. In fact, my definition of the Holocaust includes gas vans and gas chambers - but does not reduce to them. My definition includes goals, policies, plans, and tactics - but not, as I explained to you some time ago, a pre-existing master plan. And I have written over and over that I believe that the genocide claimed the lives of 5+ million Jews - and that Nazi extermination actions claimed many additional lives. These points are included - but, as I wrote, the Holocaust doesn't reduce to them any more than it reduces to open-air shootings, phenol injections, ghettoization, death marches, etc., all of which are also included.

Your basic illiteracy here is astonishing. Whether intentional and contrived or a problem you suffer from.

You missed this:

But . . . you took a position on the Jaeger report and have been asked to explain and support it, whether or not it's relevant to your own personal view of things. You said that the Jaeger report dealt not with a series of extermination actions against Lithuanian Jews but with ethnic cleansing, or a rogue operation, or anti-partisan actions. Eh?

But of course you did.