General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Cyrix686]

Good stuff:

If they were so concerned with winning the war why did they:

Why, you'd almost think that the myth of a super organized and efficient was just that - a myth. Maybe, just maybe the Germans had a racist demo gouge in charge, who put ideology above practicality, didn't know when not to interfere and unlike at least the Western Allies, had no one next to him that was willing to say, "No"

Regarding that. Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick in his memoirs wrote on the thing totally unexpected to the Foreign Office...of why Adolf attacked Russia and opened a Second Front with Britain undefeated,

"Hitler was not a reasonable man and the generals were not in control."

The Inner Circle, memoirs of Ivone Kirkpatrick. MacMillan London 1959. p154.

That's good enough for me too. A perfect little quote. Whilst IK didn't like Hitler and the Nazis from the time he spent in Berlin 1933-1938, I can't actually fault that succinct assessment.

His personal memoirs on the Hess landing in the Ducal grounds as "Captain Horn," are very memorable too.

 

[LemmyCaution]

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

Well, in the post I read, since you said "you guys," not "Nessie," I wondered where you got it. If you got it from Nessie, fine, you've answered the question. But stop attributing it to "you guys" then.

I do wonder who wrote this:

the description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews

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.

Oh my. I will simply let this crap pass. Except to remark that your put-on amnesia, which forces repetition, makes this discussion tedious beyond expression.

Anyone interested in reality can, of course, scan through posts from members of this forum - 00063's come immediately to mind - to see some of your open tickets.

 

[Dogzilla]

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

So you don't want to be pinned down by acknowledging either that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews or that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews?

Is this because none of those myriad definitions of the holocaust you posted earlier include a mention of "a plan" so any discussion of a plan to exterminate the Jews is irrelevant here?

 

[000063]

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

It's a premise of the statement, by my understanding, unless you phrased it poorly.

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.

You are terrible at deciding what is or isn't relevant. For example, I have literally never seen you correcting Clay, no matter how blatantly wrong he is. A "straight-up" answer is not the same as a correct answer. You have repeatedly ignored the question of what happened to 6 million Jews, despite being asked probably dozens of times, until you asserted that they never existed. And then promptly ran away from all attempts to discuss this claim with you. You have also repeatedly ignored my request to show where anyone made claims consistent with your contact/killed fale dichotomy. You cannot even answer the question of whether you read the Jaeger report.

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

By who?

of historians claiming

Again, who is making this claim about historians?

the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and

Hang on. Why not an "and/or"?

is not accurate.

Why does it have to be both? It could be

Simplification / Accurate | Simplification / Inaccurate
Not a Simplification / Accurate | Not a Simplification / Inaccurate

Your question only allows for one of four possibilites as a "True" answer.

Is that statement true or false?

It's a straw man and needlessly complex. Why not just say

""The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews." True/False?" ?

This is an entirely rhetorical question. I know why. Even going

"Historians have claimed that "The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews." True/False?"

Creates confusion as to which premise you are asking is true or false? Whether historians made the claim? Whether the claim itself is true? Whether both are true? What you are currently at is asking a question about a claim that "someone" has alleged historians have claimed about something else. You are three nested claims in.

I find it interesting that for all the claims you say people make, you never provide any evidence of such, IIRC. When someone asks you to provide such evidence, you just change the subject.

 

[Nick Terry]

There's a world of difference between wanting to kill all the Jews, and being able to do so. The Nazis quite clearly wanted to eradicate the Jewish race from Europe and that meant killing them. Historians are in fairly unanimous agreement about this, based on reading the Nazis' own words, which rather repetitively talk about destroying the Jews in Europe.

They were unable to kill them all, because there were military, diplomatic, political and economic barriers to doing so. Bulgaria, a Nazi ally, said 'no' to Nazi requests to deport all of their Jews, and only handed over Jews living in territories annexed from Greece and Yugoslavia. Jews living in core Bulgaria were not deported. The Nazis had to accept this during the war, because Bulgaria was an important military ally in the Balkans, something which outweighed the Nazis' desire to annihilate the Jews of Europe. So 50,000 Jews were saved. The Nazis also experienced disappointment with Romania, which had killed rather a lot of Jews single-handedly, but backed down from handing over Jews still living in core Romania despite conferences to draw up a deportation plan and railroad timetable to Belzec. Clearly the Nazis were disappointed, but could hardly do anything about this because Romania was the chief source of oil for the Axis and a major military ally.

On the other hand, there was no government in Poland allied to Nazi Germany so the Nazis made their own decision about what to do with Polish Jews. That decision was to wipe them out as far as possible. The sole barrier was economic necessity - some Jews needed to be kept alive as slave labourers since the occupation economy required it. Therefore, a small minority was kept alive for the time being, despite the manifest ideological wish of the senior leadership to kill 'em all.

Had the Nazis won the war, they were talking about eradicating 30 million Slavs from Eastern Europe. There is no question in the minds of historians that all Jews would have been killed once the war was over and the Nazis no longer had to worry about wartime exigiencies.

So yes, the Final Solution was certainly a plan to kill all Jews. If you say plan then many people might think of the Five Year Plans in the Soviet Union. Plans are not enacted instantaneously but in stages, as and when they become feasible. Killing most Jews was feasible, killing literally every single one in a single blow was not. The Final Solution began in earnest at the earliest in 1941 and wasn't adopted as policy until January 1942. The war ended in May 1945, a full 20 months before a five year plan would have been completed, with the Nazis defeated. That's why there were survivors.

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[LemmyCaution]

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?

I don't know, as I don't recall any historian (see upthread, sigh) arguing it this way - although the Nazis wanted to be rid of the Jews and if it took killing them, which they decided it would, they were willing to try to. As someone said today, having a goal and realizing it are different matters. Apparently, Nessie did put it this way, you say, I dont recall. But I haven't checked for this exact concept in major works by historians - they speak of the Nazis wanting to be rid of the Jews for various reasons - but they also imbed the discussion in those reasons and don't play semantic games with who was a Jew and the like. The way you express it is foreign to the way they discuss the Nazis' Jewish policy and the Final Solution. I think your gloss is such an oversimplification as to be fairly useless. But, the Nazis had a goal of exterminating the Jews of Europe, yes, although not from the start of the war. See, we get into qualifiers and distinctions, which your simple statement doesn't allow for.

As you know, I've posted at length on how I see National Socialist goals and the escalation to the Final Solution. Nothing I wrote, as far as I can recall, would suggest my interest in your simplification of a complex issue.

 

[000063]

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.

Doggie's managed to create some sort of strange oversimplified/overly complex superposition question. On one hand, it oversimplifies what people are actually claiming. On the other, it adds qualifiers so it can be plausibly deniable. What you end up with is basically 100% straw man.

 

[000063]

...
I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

It's not. It's merely difficult for him to accept.

 

[LemmyCaution]

So you don't want to be pinned down by acknowledging either that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews or that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews?

Is this because none of those myriad definitions of the holocaust you posted earlier include a mention of "a plan" so any discussion of a plan to exterminate the Jews is irrelevant here?

I don't? I never said that. It was a state-sponsored policy supported by a number of evolving plans aimed at realizing the destruction/mass extermination of the Jews of Europe - pursued in stages and even halting when it became impossible to complete. Your statements are just too simple to be useful. A policy differs to a plan, in the sense of a master plan, with all its angles thought out, which is why I say policy with evolving plans. This is really not that hard, and I've posted at length about it.

Note: Ok, after reading Nick's post, which uses the word plan, I can add that the connotation I want to avoid is that of a master plan, with fixed component parts, and as a plan somehow created at the outset. The policy and tactics to support the Nazi's goal - eliminating Jews from German territory - underwent evolution, and escalated into a policy of extermination, called the Final Solution, embracing actions already underway and driving actions in the future, which responded to the kinds of conditions and impasses that Nick cited. I think he and I are saying pretty much the same thing with different terminology. The result was mass murder - along with exploitation, brutalization, starvation and all that we've long discussed here - and 2 of 3 Jews who had lived in Europe dead as a result.

The other point is that the expression emphasizing desire – that the Nazis "wanted to kill the Jews" – is not quite right. I am sure some (Moll?) did, want to kill Jews, but the way I read the policy is that the Nazis came to the decision that to realize their racial and national goals, they had to kill the Jews, whether they wanted to or not. Himmler expressed this concept in talking about hard duty and maintaining decency and the special qualities of the SS in executing critical policy objectives.

 

[000063]

So you don't want to be pinned down by acknowledging either that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews or that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? ...

Kids, this is a straw man. The nation of Doggiestan is one of the thread's top producers of them, exceeded only by the Moore Republic, which is the thread leader in incredulity.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Doggie's managed to create some sort of strange oversimplified/overly complex superposition question. On one hand, it oversimplifies what people are actually claiming. On the other, it adds qualifiers so it can be plausibly deniable. What you end up with is basically 100% straw man.

Thank you for more clearly stating what I was trying to express.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Kids, this is a straw man. The nation of Doggiestan is one of the thread's top producers of them, exceeded only by the Moore Republic, which is the thread leader in incredulity.

Especially when directed at someone whose arguments about this Dogzilla has read for months.

 

[Cyrix686]

Snipped...

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

And neither do I, none of it as Nick Terry has posted, the constant references to doing so, would tend to make one think so too really. Unless one wanted to live in a fantasy world where history is what you want it to be instead of what it is.

There was an attempt to carry out the Endlösung der Judenfrage. Between five and six million souls lost their lives as a result of this policy. Mainly through, starvation, being worked to death, ill treatment, shooting and gassing. Now there's an end to it. If you want to believe Revisionist rubbish that's up to you. You are perfectly at liberty to do so but before you come out and try and argue against this, in which example after example after example can be given where this policy and all that it entailed is referred to, read something. Alternatively you can stop pretending that you haven't read anything.

Either one would be helpful in discussing your denial of the Holocaust.

 

[000063]

... Alternatively you can stop pretending that you haven't read anything....

ftfy.

 

[Dogzilla]

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

Nessie disagrees. There's no agreement as to whether Germany had planned to exterminate all the Jews or not. Some of you say that a plan to exterminate the Jews isn't even a salient feature of the holocaust. This is why Team holocaust appears to be confused and unable to articulate a coherent position. Your "arguments" are nothing more than disagreeing with anything a person you've labeled a "denier" says and blindly agreeing with everything a "skeptic" says.

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

False.

 

[TSR]

Nessie disagrees.

Nessie is in the minority, and has stated that he has not studied this era.

There's no agreement as to whether Germany had planned to exterminate all the Jews or not.

Among those who *have* studied these events, there is no disagreement.

Some of you say that a plan to exterminate the Jews isn't even a salient feature of the holocaust.

Please cite the "some" to which you refer.

This is why Team holocaust appears to be confused and unable to articulate a coherent position.

It only appears that you really really want that to be the case, and are unafraid of posting lies and distortions to justify that particular article of faith.

Your "arguments" are nothing more than disagreeing with anything a person you've labeled a "denier" says and blindly agreeing with everything a "skeptic" says.

And yet you started this post highlighting the exact opposite.

How gave you managed to avoid having everything taste like gym socks, when you have your foot in your mouth so often?

False.

And for the same reasons your stated question was false.

 

[000063]

Please cite the "some" to which you refer.

Doggie will not respond to this question at all.

Also, the longer and more detailed a post rebutting him is, the shorter his actual response, to the point where he might not ever respond.

Also, Doggie will never explain what his criteria for "relevant" posts to respond to is, or provide evidence of people in this thread making the claims he says they make, even when directly asked for them.

Nor will he criticize the logical failings of his fellow deniers.

I want my million, Randi.

 

[Dogzilla]

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: 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.

I haven't dodged discussion of these for months. What is there to discuss? I reject the evidence for gas/plan/six. If you thinking Jaeger and Vilna are relevant to that, state your case.

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

Then you would agree that denying gas/plan/six is a denial of three elements of the holocaust and not a denial of the holocaust? On the other hand, if denying the three elements of gas/plan/six is "denying the holocaust," how is the holocaust not reduced to those three elements?

You missed this:

But of course you did.

No I didn't miss it. I ignored it because it isn't relevant.

 

[000063]

it isn't relevant.

Pfft!

 

[Belz...]

Sad isn't one of the options.

Have you stopped beating your wife ? Yes or no ?