General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Belz...]

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.

This is the problem with Holocaust deniers. You think that asserting things makes them true, all the while saying that the people who do have evidence for their claims are merely asserting.

 

[Belz...]

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

If your definition of "agreement" is "everybody in the world agrees" you are bound to be dissapointed.

 

[Belz...]

I reject the evidence

You most certainly do.

 

[Dogzilla]

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

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 haven't avoided that question. I have said I don't know what happened to any missing Jews. I don't know what happened to any of the Jews period. What does that mean? There must be some relevance to you guys because it comes up all the time. But 'm not going to keep answering it if nobody can articulate any meaning from my answer.

By who?

Again, who is making this claim about historians?

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

You're right. I was trying to use the words you guys have used and it does come out needlessly complex. It's a concept that is complex enough as it is. Saying that the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews isn't the same thing as saying they had a plan to kill all the Jews or that they had the means to kill all the Jews or that they tried to kill all the Jews or that they actually did kill all the Jews.

But it's made needlessly complex around here because nobody wants to be pinned down. It's not possible to discuss anything without people agreeing to something as simple as whether or not the Nazis intended to physically exterminate all the Jews in Europe.

 

[pooshoodog]

I apologize. I've been understanding the question as a false dichotomy of either survival or murder. What you're really saying is that Jews might've suffered any number of fates, but if Dogzilla doesn't know what that fate was, then they were murdered. OK. I get it now. That makes perfect sense.

No one should have a problem with Dogzilla not knowing the answer. It is most likely that Dogzilla doesn't know if his fly unzips north or south. The problem is that we know that Jews were shipped by the hundreds of thousands to Treblinka but no one knows where they subsequently went (other than normal, intelligent people who all hold to the self evident reality that these Jews were gassed at Treblinka just as Commandant Stangl, and all known German and Ukrainian guards have repeatedly asserted). None of the demented, neo-Nazi advocates of Holocaust denial have a plausible, or even a ridiculously implausible theory about where we might find the Jews transported to Treblinka.

If Dogzilla argued that they were taken by space aliens or turned into mushrooms by forest fairies, we would at least have an enjoyable bit of whimsy for entertainment's sake. But Dogzilla is boring me with his trolling. Hopefully someone new will appear to make this discourse amusing.

 

[Cyrix686]

Well perhaps Dogpoet would liven the proceedings up.

He was sighted on Amazon on a Thomas Dalton review...as smokennmirrors, I think that's the same guy.

I rather hope "Dogzilla" isn't actually dogpoet transmitting all along Pooshoodog. LOL.

Anyway back to the topic, as "Dogzilla" doesn't accept the evidence and has rejected it - and we haven't got any other evidence - I'm stumped as to what else we can do.

I suppose we could make some up for him that he won't reject?

 

[LemmyCaution]

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.

As you well know I have done so - what I asked you in return was to explain and support your viewpoint on Jaeger's activity. You've refused to do so.

That matter is separate to your definition of the Holocaust, which I've already also explained is not mine. I can link Jaeger's actions to the USHMM definition - and in fact have already laid out that case.

You are tiresome and boring. Your dodging, which you find cute, adds to the tedium you bring here.

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?

Since you won't explain your perspective - for example, you throw out a denial that Jaeger's actions constitute anti-Jewish extermination actions - how in the hell should I know where your denial stops? You have been known to generally accept a general statement about something general but deny specifics that put your heroes in hot water. Frankly, I don't know what you think because you dance all around and wind up expressing negationism or smug ignorance as your best position.

So we have gas vans, gas chambers, 5+ million murder victims, state-sponsored extermination policy, open-air shootings in Lithuania . . . you deny all these . . . what else?

You tell us.

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

No, you didn’t. You first denied it had to do with Jewish extermination actions. Then you ignored questions your denial raised because you couldn't answer them.

But if we are to determine all that you deny, or even what your views are about the Holocaust, the Jaeger report is highly relevant. Your saying that Jaeger's report is about anti-partisan actions, rogue operators, or population resettlement suggests you are a denier of the mobile killing operations - and your stonewalling underscores the suggestion.

To be clear, the reason you dodged this issue - that you toss out ignorant negationism about Jaeger too - isn't that you find it irrelevant, no, it's because you made mind-numbingly stupid claims that you haven't figured out how to support. And you wish the questions about your claims would simply go away.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Pfft!

And the 2nd aspect to Dogzilla's weak "it isn't relevant" plea is actually quite simple: the major surveys of the Holocaust, specialist monographs and essays, online information from THHP and the USHMM, etc., all claim that the liquidation of the Jews in Lithuania during 1941, on which Jaeger reported is part of the Holocaust. Indeed, the mobile killing operations are treated by scholar after scholar as early cases of the mass extermination of the Jews. Hilberg's total of Jewish victims includes the murders carried out by Jaeger's squad and the other mobile killing units. A good example of all this - I won't cite more, for fear of boring those readers still awake after Dogzilla's tedious exercises - comes from the THHP Website:

The Jaeger Report is not only authentic but stands as one of the most important documents about the Holocaust.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/intro001.htm

I believe, forgetting all else, that the argument that historians, scholars, and others make that the Jaeger report is one of the most important documents about the Holocaust renders it not only relevant but begging for deniers to knock it down.

Yet Dogzilla runs away from the report.

Since Dogzilla has no answer for the questions we've asked him about his claims about the Jaeger report, he now mutters that the report isn't relevant to the Holocaust. Yet those who write on the Holocaust, and who argue the case he disagrees with, all include Jaeger's actions as part of the Holocaust. Astonishing. The lengths this one will go to avoid defending his propositions. The dodging. The inane attempts to divert. Which he expects reasonable people to accept!

One of the most important documents about the Holocaust. Isn't relevant. According to Dogzilla.

 

[LemmyCaution]

. . . I reject the evidence for . . .

I believe our work is done here. Thank you, Dogzilla.

 

[LemmyCaution]

If Dogzilla argued that they were taken by space aliens or turned into mushrooms by forest fairies, we would at least have an enjoyable bit of whimsy for entertainment's sake. But Dogzilla is boring me with his trolling. Hopefully someone new will appear to make this discourse amusing.

It has reached a certain state, hasn't it?

 

[pooshoodog]

Well perhaps Dogpoet would liven the proceedings up.

He was sighted on Amazon on a Thomas Dalton review...as smokennmirrors, I think that's the same guy.

I rather hope "Dogzilla" isn't actually dogpoet transmitting all along Pooshoodog. LOL.

Anyway back to the topic, as "Dogzilla" doesn't accept the evidence and has rejected it - and we haven't got any other evidence - I'm stumped as to what else we can do.

I suppose we could make some up for him that he won't reject?

Dogpoet is a generally insane, self obsessed, deluded fool with 6 or 7 more loyal internet followers than Dogzilla will ever assemble. Thus, Dogpoet would be an improvement and we could all amuse ourselves as he worked himself into a slobbering rant over the state of the planet and the Jews who control it.

Dogzilla could take a page out of Dogpoets notebook, and start to foam at the gills a little, before we all die of tedium.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Fish came and went. Is he coming back? Maybe Strembleton, licking his wounds, would put in an appearance here. VBG? Moose, may he rest in peace? Any other ideas? - and not Gertrud!

 

[000063]

I haven't avoided that question. I have said I don't know what happened to any missing Jews. I don't know what happened to any of the Jews period. What does that mean? There must be some relevance to you guys because it comes up all the time. But 'm not going to keep answering it if nobody can articulate any meaning from my answer.

Because you cannot say the official story is wrong without advancing and supporting an alternative theory.

I assume you no longer believe in the "Imaginary Jews" theory?

You're right. I was trying to use the words you guys have used and it does come out needlessly complex. It's a concept that is complex enough as it is. Saying that the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews isn't the same thing as saying they had a plan to kill all the Jews or that they had the means to kill all the Jews or that they tried to kill all the Jews or that they actually did kill all the Jews.

He sees the light.

But it's made needlessly complex around here because nobody wants to be pinned down.

And then it goes dark again. You misunderstood us. The error is on your end. We have literally been stating the difference between various ways of dealing with the Jews over and over and over again, and now you act like it's some great revelation?

The "pinning down" as you call it is a series of strawmen and false dichotomies. It's not "needlessly complex". You oversimplify people's arguments because you don't understand them, and then people don't agree with your distortions. It's really that simple.

What are the odds multiple people would be unable to deliver the same basic arguments in a form you could not understand, and the problem is on their end? The only commonality is the argument, and you. And a single person is automatically going to be more likely to be wrong than multiple people, when dealing with the same information.

It's not possible to discuss anything without people agreeing to something as simple as whether or not the Nazis intended to physically exterminate all the Jews in Europe.

Yes it is. The answer is "eventually". It's the difference between "are you having a salad for lunch?" and "are you having a salad for lunch at any point in the rest of your life?".

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

It's not difficult to understand. But as we've seen here, there is some confusion among those who profess an understanding and others who are not willing to take a stand. You don't help when you say on one hand that there is no doubt all Jews would have been killed once the war was over except for elderly Jews or WWI veterans. All Jews don't have to be killed all at once for there to be a plan to kill all the Jews. But if some Jews are never going to be killed you can't say there is a plan to kill all of them.

Of course, even if the Nazis did plan to kill all the Jews and did actually succeed in killing all the Jews, the only Jews they would kill would have been the people they defined as Jews. But that's a layer of complexity that very few people around here can actually understand. So, never mind.

 

[Corsair 115]

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

A. Not gear up the economy for sustained production of necessary war materiel vice continuing production of luxury goods;
B. allocating resources to projects that are ineffecient (development of super heavy tanks when medium tank production was low);
C. Diverting resources to a multiple front war instead of concentrating on winning one fight first;
D. Inefficiently mobilizing their own national manpower resources (no attempt to conscript for industrial or agricultural work, no efficient use of the adult female population, duplicate military organizations, etc); and
E. interference by politicians at strategic, operational and tactical levels.

While I agree with your overall point, in the interests of accuracy I have to say that in regards to points (A) and (D) the comments are not entirely correct, based on some sources I have read.

I would say the biggest thing which doomed Germany during the war was its senior leadership. Göring, for example, was a disaster as head of the Luftwaffe.

 

[Dogzilla]

And the 2nd aspect to Dogzilla's weak "it isn't relevant" plea is actually quite simple: the major surveys of the Holocaust, specialist monographs and essays, online information from THHP and the USHMM, etc., all claim that the liquidation of the Jews in Lithuania during 1941, on which Jaeger reported is part of the Holocaust. Indeed, the mobile killing operations are treated by scholar after scholar as early cases of the mass extermination of the Jews. Hilberg's total of Jewish victims includes the murders carried out by Jaeger's squad and the other mobile killing units. A good example of all this - I won't cite more, for fear of boring those readers still awake after Dogzilla's tedious exercises - comes from the THHP Website: http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/intro001.htm

I believe, forgetting all else, that the argument that historians, scholars, and others make that the Jaeger report is one of the most important documents about the Holocaust renders it not only relevant but begging for deniers to knock it down.

Yet Dogzilla runs away from the report.

Since Dogzilla has no answer for the questions we've asked him about his claims about the Jaeger report, he now mutters that the report isn't relevant to the Holocaust. Yet those who write on the Holocaust, and who argue the case he disagrees with, all include Jaeger's actions as part of the Holocaust. Astonishing. The lengths this one will go to avoid defending his propositions. The dodging. The inane attempts to divert. Which he expects reasonable people to accept!

One of the most important documents about the Holocaust. Isn't relevant. According to Dogzilla.

One of the most important documents about the holocaust you say? Let's test that using the Irrelevant Documents Test. You know, the test we apply to reject the relevance of any appearance of, say the Auschwitz four million or the Auschwitz four and a half million, in a trial transcript. When has the Jaeger Report been introduced into evidence in any court? Which specific defendant was convicted based upon which specific information found in the report? How did the Jaeger Report factor into a convicted criminal's sentence? Which specific information was cited specifically by the court as a factor in determining the guilt of and or the sentence of the convicted criminal? If any other evidence was submitted along with the Jaeger Report in any criminal trial, please explain the relative importance of the Jaeger Report vis-a-vis the other evidence and prove that the trier of fact believed that the facts in the Jaeger Report are in fact true.

Then you can tell me how this report is relevant to gas/plan/six--something you continually run away from doing.

 

[Dogzilla]

Yes it is. The answer is "eventually". It's the difference between "are you having a salad for lunch?" and "are you having a salad for lunch at any point in the rest of your life?".

If the answer is "yes, eventually" then the answer is "yes" If the answer is "yes, except for those who have been temporarily exempted" then the answer is "yes" If the answer is "yes, except for those who have been exempted" the answer is "no."

 

[Nick Terry]

It's not difficult to understand. But as we've seen here, there is some confusion among those who profess an understanding and others who are not willing to take a stand. You don't help when you say on one hand that there is no doubt all Jews would have been killed once the war was over except for elderly Jews or WWI veterans. All Jews don't have to be killed all at once for there to be a plan to kill all the Jews. But if some Jews are never going to be killed you can't say there is a plan to kill all of them.

Of course, even if the Nazis did plan to kill all the Jews and did actually succeed in killing all the Jews, the only Jews they would kill would have been the people they defined as Jews. But that's a layer of complexity that very few people around here can actually understand. So, never mind.

Never mind indeed. You are of course dizzy from all the semantic plate-spinning.

Most people understand full well that confining elderly people into a massively overcrowded ghetto and undernourishing them is going to *kill* them.

The whole point was to engineer the demise of the Jewish race, right down to the elderly German Jews who had the quarter-Jewish grandchildren that caused Nazi racial theorists so many headaches. The elderly German Jews could have been left in peace to die out naturally, minus the younger generation. But they weren't. They were deported into a hell-hole, whereupon they dropped like flies. Therefore, they were murdered. A less direct form of murder than bullets or gas, but murder nonetheless. Which is why the Jews who died of natural causes in their own homes are not considered Holocaust victims, whereas the Theresienstadt victims are.

Most people who study this subject for longer than five minutes realise that the Nazis were racists on an epic scale, not just regarding Jews but regarding all European peoples and also regarding Germans. The simple fact is that none of the exceptions were applied to Polish Jews because Poles as a whole were one of the next peoples on the chopping block. The exceptions were applied only inside Germany and Austria, because separating out an entire people is always going to be a tricky exercise when they have been coexisting and intermarrying with you for several generations, as was very much the case in Germany.

55,000 German and Austrian Jews were sent to Theresienstadt. That's a smaller number than inhabited the Wilno ghetto you are so keen to avoid discussing. What happened to the Jews of the Wilno ghetto, Dogzilla?

 

[Dogzilla]

No one should have a problem with Dogzilla not knowing the answer. It is most likely that Dogzilla doesn't know if his fly unzips north or south. The problem is that we know that Jews were shipped by the hundreds of thousands to Treblinka but no one knows where they subsequently went (other than normal, intelligent people who all hold to the self evident reality that these Jews were gassed at Treblinka just as Commandant Stangl, and all known German and Ukrainian guards have repeatedly asserted). None of the demented, neo-Nazi advocates of Holocaust denial have a plausible, or even a ridiculously implausible theory about where we might find the Jews transported to Treblinka.

And their missing status proves the holocaust???? How?

 

[Dogzilla]

Never mind indeed. You are of course dizzy from all the semantic plate-spinning.

Most people understand full well that confining elderly people into a massively overcrowded ghetto and undernourishing them is going to *kill* them.

Good thing the Nazis didn't do that!

The whole point was to engineer the demise of the Jewish race, right down to the elderly German Jews who had the quarter-Jewish grandchildren that caused Nazi racial theorists so many headaches. The elderly German Jews could have been left in peace to die out naturally, minus the younger generation. But they weren't. They were deported into a hell-hole, whereupon they dropped like flies. Therefore, they were murdered. A less direct form of murder than bullets or gas, but murder nonetheless. Which is why the Jews who died of natural causes in their own homes are not considered Holocaust victims, whereas the Theresienstadt victims are.

If that is what you think that is what happened, why did you say they were "exempt" from the Final Solution? Shooting and gassing them is holocaust-bad but sticking them in hellholes where they drop like flies is just a little worse than not calling them on their birthday?

Most people who study this subject for longer than five minutes realise that the Nazis were racists on an epic scale, not just regarding Jews but regarding all European peoples and also regarding Germans. The simple fact is that none of the exceptions were applied to Polish Jews because Poles as a whole were one of the next peoples on the chopping block. The exceptions were applied only inside Germany and Austria, because separating out an entire people is always going to be a tricky exercise when they have been coexisting and intermarrying with you for several generations, as was very much the case in Germany.

55,000 German and Austrian Jews were sent to Theresienstadt. That's a smaller number than inhabited the Wilno ghetto you are so keen to avoid discussing. What happened to the Jews of the Wilno ghetto, Dogzilla?

I dunno. Were they shot by Germans into a pit? If that happen, I'm sure you can show me the pit and the forensic report. But how would that be evidence for gas chambers, for six million dead, or for a plan to exterminate all the Jews (except the ones who are exempt) anyway?