General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
When you're done playing that broken violin, would you mind either telling me where those 6 million Jews went, or where is your evidence of a hoax ?
Click to expand...

The violin isn't broken until you agree that the only fate of the Jews in Europe during WWII is 1) survive the war or 2) murdered by the Nazis.
 
Dogzilla said:
The violin isn't broken until you agree that the only fate of the Jews in Europe during WWII is 1) survive the war or 2) murdered by the Nazis.
Click to expand...
So, there were no Jews among the troops that fetched up in landing craft on the beaches, then, yes?

False dichotomy is obviously false.
 
TSR said:
But just so you can make yourself look even more foolish:

Where did the millions of Jews who are accepted by normative historians to have been victims of the Holocaust go, if they were indeed not victims?
Click to expand...

By normative historians I assume you mean the dishonest conformists who knowingly distort history and dare not break lockstep with the narrative in order to continue enjoying a career in academia.

Without having firm figures to work with I suggest discussing where non-existent holocaust victims went to is an exercise in futility.
 
Charles Traynor said:
By normative historians I assume you mean the dishonest conformists who knowingly distort history and dare not break lockstep with the narrative in order to continue enjoying a career in academia.
Click to expand...
And like so many of your assumptions, this says a lot more about your agenda than about how things really work in academia.

Not to mention that it is demonstrable deniers such as David Irving who have been proven to distort sources -- didn't you get the memo? He lost in a court where he had the legal advantage, in a case he brought on himself.

Here's a challenge for you: name and support a single such distortion by a mainstream historian, or admit that you cannot.
Charles Traynor said:
Without having firm figures to work with I suggest discussing where non-existent holocaust victims went to is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of "firm figures"? And we aren't discussing non-existent anything. The Nazis' own records show the victims were rounded up and sent to the camps, their confessions show what happened to them there, and there is no documentation which contradicts this.

But do try to support your thesis that they did not exist in the first place.
 
Tomtomkent said:
False dichtomy based on a strawman argument.
Click to expand...

It is remarkable how many times he has repeated this false choice, which arose out of his howler about WW2 and the Holocaust. Here, already in May, are 4 posts explicitly addressing the fallacy:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8322191&postcount=2216

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8322093&postcount=2213

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8323671&postcount=2223

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8323803&postcount=2224

(One of these posts, on a wartime diary, required that Dogzilla had a read a book he's dismissed without knowing a thing about it.)

Nick Terry also addressed this issue in his usual thorough, patient manner: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8324601&postcount=2232
 
TSR said:
What is your definition of "firm figures"? And we aren't discussing non-existent anything. The Nazis' own records show the victims were rounded up and sent to the camps, their confessions show what happened to them there, and there is no documentation which contradicts this.

But do try to support your thesis that they did not exist in the first place.
Click to expand...

Which is why they clam up when asked about specific cases, often where German counts of the Jewish population, most of which then "went missing," match with other sources.

As Dogzilla himself told us, that Jews weren't there in the first place is the best argument they've got going.
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
The violin isn't broken until you agree that the only fate of the Jews in Europe during WWII is 1) survive the war or 2) murdered by the Nazis.
Click to expand...

But that's NOT what I'm saying. History is very clear that 2) is true. You contend that this isn't right. Okay, if this isn't right, then you NEED to explain the dissapearance of those millions of jews. People don't dissapear like that. We know they were alive before the war, and we have no idea where they went after. If it were only a few hundred, it could be simply that we lost track of them. But millions ? That is extremely unlikely. So if they weren't killed by the Nazis, the fact that we're missing millions of Jews is a problem for your 'camp'.

So what is it ? You tried to claim they never existed, but that was obviously nonsense. So what's left ? You claim that I'm only leaving you one option, but that's not true. I'm not imposing a choice at all. I'm asking:

If they weren't killed by the Nazis, which would fit the available we have in the first place, what happened to those millions of Jews ? Did they survive ? Did they all fall off a cliff like Lemmings ? Did they move to Avalon ? What ?
 
Belz... said:
If they weren't killed by the Nazis, which would fit the available we have in the first place, what happened to those millions of Jews ? Did they survive ? Did they all fall off a cliff like Lemmings ? Did they move to Avalon ? What ?
Click to expand...

His finger seems to be on the repeat button: "I don't know, I don't care, I don't see a problem with this."
 
TSR said:
Not to mention that it is demonstrable deniers such as David Irving who have been proven to distort sources -- didn't you get the memo? He lost in a court where he had the legal advantage, in a case he brought on himself.
Click to expand...


No one with any common sense has ever regarded David Irving as a serious holocaust revisionist. He only lost in court because the truth is unimportant in British courts and he arrogantly chose to represent himself rather than seeking help from real holocaust revisionists.
 
No, he lost in court because the Defence, in a reversal of the usual burden of proof, was able to prove that their statements were true.
 
Charles Traynor said:
No one with any common sense has ever regarded David Irving as a serious holocaust revisionist. He only lost in court because the truth is unimportant in British courts and he arrogantly chose to represent himself rather than seeking help from real holocaust revisionists.
Click to expand...

And yet, the arguments he attempted to make at his trial, his claims about "inconsistencies" in documentary and witness evidence sound remarkably similar to the claims deniers have made in this thread. Those arguments didn't convince the court not because the court didn't care about truth (the truth of Lipstadt's criticisms of Irving being at the centre of the case) but because the facts and evidence were against Irving. Having a whole brace of deniers on his side would not have changed the truth of the criticisms of Irving's work.
 
Border Reiver said:
No, he lost in court because the Defence, in a reversal of the usual burden of proof, was able to prove that their statements were true.
Click to expand...

Balderdash. People believe pathological liars all the time. Read Elie Wiesel's Night. Or about Elie Wiesel's fabricated tattoo.
 
Charles Traynor said:
No one with any common sense has ever regarded David Irving as a serious holocaust revisionist. He only lost in court because the truth is unimportant in British courts and he arrogantly chose to represent himself rather than seeking help from real holocaust revisionists.
Click to expand...

?

It seems that a glut of Holocaust huggers did indeed take him seriously.
 
TSR said:
But do try to support your thesis that they did not exist in the first place.
Click to expand...


It is not up to revisionists to prove a negative. The world has been waiting over 65 years for exterminationists to provide a single piece of physical evidence that these so called holocaust victims do in fact exist.

You people made the wild accusations of genocide and therefore the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders to prove your case. Show us the corpses in the excavated mass graves, show us the human ash in the burning pits, show us the science based crime scene reports from the gas chambers. What are you waiting for?
 
Charles Traynor said:
What agenda? Do tell us more about your misguided notions regarding yours truly.
Click to expand...

That would be your irrational need to deny established history, in support of which you offer sweeping generalizations supported by nothing more than a visceral need that your comments support that agenda as evidenced by your idiotic comments about academia, British courts, and your fellow members here.

Your turn: name a *single* historian whose career has suffered because they took a controversial stance which bore up under later scrutiny?
 
Charles Traynor said:
No one with any common sense has ever regarded David Irving as a serious holocaust revisionist.
Click to expand...
That's right -- he's been known to be a denier and Hitler apologist (not a revisionist, none of you are) for quite a while in rational circles.

Can you name a single denunciation from the denier side which even comes close to the deconstruction given his crap by Evans?
Charles Traynor said:
He only lost in court because the truth is unimportant in British courts and he arrogantly chose to represent himself rather than seeking help from real holocaust revisionists.
Click to expand...
What help could other deniers have offered? What help *was* offered? And which parts of the Evans report or Lipstadt's comments are not the truth? Because truth was the *only* defense available to the respondents, and the met the standard quite well, according to the judge.

I agree that Irving was so arrogant he expected that, having failed to intimidate the respondents into settling as has happened before, he ws convinced he'd be able to distract from his failings as an historian by forcing the court by dint of sheer rhetorical brilliance to become a pulpit from which to preach denial.

In which case you'd've been trumpeting his victory and claiming it for your side.

But you see -- everything relevant Lipstadt had to say she said in her book and so there was no reason to subject herself to questioning by that odious toad.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom