General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think it is a canard at all, "where did they go" is used to point out over and over and over again to Holocaust deniers that you don't know and can't answer the question sensibly. And sensibly does not mean:

"Jews went where Jews are."

:D

I don't imagine you're ever going to look at the Jaeger report, much preferring to misrepresent and falsely summarise what posters have written in order to get attention.
 
There it is again: One of my favorites. Tourists trampling all over the bodies of dead Jews but we can't dig because it's "desecration."
The cremains of the bodies, vs the bodies themselves -- and thanks for confirming that you have never been to Auschwitz and so do not know these fragments are not in the walkways.

But for all of that, who told you that that walking around and looking is the same thing as digging up and further damaging bodies?
 
Sounds like someone has been watching too much CSI on TV.

It was almost 67 years ago, during a World War.

No, sounds like a reasonable response to someone insisting that "science based crime scene reports" are required for the death camps -- but only for the death camps.
 
As usual, your links do not say what you want us to think they say. Nick's come the closest to meaningful answer. But the first just says that historians look at pre war death rates compared to during the war death rates so....what? His last one gives his estimate but doesn't say what it's based upon. He also takes great pains in explaining how there really weren't any natural deaths of Polish Jews during the war and that Nazi policies made any Jewish deaths part and parcel of the genocide. Your answers are just Dodge City.

But if these links constitute direct answers, and everybody knows that Jews who are missing were not necessarily killed by the Nazis, why keep spamming the wheredidtheygo canard?

Because everyone other than you gets the fact that the deportations to the death camps are documented with Nazi reports, transport lists, photos and copious witnesses. You claim that the death camps weren't death camps, so naturally people are going to ask you what happened instead, because they are aware that Jews really were deported to Auschwitz, Treblinka and the other camps, whatever you might try to pretend.

The question which you have repeatedly dodged isn't really about the total demographics of Jews in WWII. It's about explaining what happened to the smaller group of Jews deported to Treblinka, Auschwitz and the other death camps if those camps were not death camps, which is your basic claim.

Currently your answer is apparently 'I don't know and I don't care', a reply so transparent and so lame that it instantly destroys whatever credibility you might have on the rest of this subject.
 
The cremains of the bodies, vs the bodies themselves -- and thanks for confirming that you have never been to Auschwitz and so do not know these fragments are not in the walkways.

But for all of that, who told you that that walking around and looking is the same thing as digging up and further damaging bodies?

1) As you said, just more proof he doesn't know what he's talking about.

2) Funny how (hyperbole or not) he doesn't see how "walking through a graveyard" might be different than "taking a backhoe to a graveyard."
 
Field-walking. The correct term for using the eyes to determine the usage of a site. The most basic form of non destructive archaeology.
 
Last edited:
There it is again: One of my favorites. Tourists trampling all over the bodies of dead Jews but we can't dig because it's "desecration."

Go to your local cemetary. Walk around looking, even walking over the graves.

Now leave and come back the next day with a shovel, and start digging up some of the graves.

See which action provokes an angry response (hint: it's not gonna be the first one).
 
ANTPogo is right.

I do not wish to be facetious but you could try saying in your inevitable defence when the authorities wish to lock you up for being a nutter that you wanted to check for yourself to see that there really were people buried under the grass in the cemetery Dogzilla.
 
As usual, your links do not say what you want us to think they say. Nick's come the closest to meaningful answer. But the first just says that historians look at pre war death rates compared to during the war death rates so....what? His last one gives his estimate but doesn't say what it's based upon. He also takes great pains in explaining how there really weren't any natural deaths of Polish Jews during the war and that Nazi policies made any Jewish deaths part and parcel of the genocide. Your answers are just Dodge City.

But if these links constitute direct answers, and everybody knows that Jews who are missing were not necessarily killed by the Nazis, why keep spamming the wheredidtheygo canard?

Actually, as usual, you are wrong on all points you try making.

The first link has Trunk detailing the fate of Jews in Lodz not according to your strawman, that historians argue the Jews either survived or were murdered by Nazis. He compares normal mortality to ghetto mortality, which included normal mortality and 'extra" mortality. That is, he accounts for natural deaths and separates them out from murders. Trunk, unsurprisingly, discusses those Jews killed in the Final Solution, Lodz Jews mainly deported to Chelmno but also, of course, to Birkenau - and the evidence, separate from his demographic points, for these deportations.

The second link has a murder victim and number of ghetto Jews in Vilna executed for crimes they committed including murder of other Jews and attempted murder of Jewish policemen. None of these people are Holocaust victims, but criminals executed for their crimes. Despite your strawman.

The third link simply states that you haven't named one historian using your false dichotomy. Which you haven't. So why, then, is it "in play"?

The fourth link speaks in part to this convoluted formulation,
Jewish soldiers killed in combat are usually not counted as holocaust victims although I'm sure sometimes they are. But according to the wheredidtheygoists, if Jewish soldiers were potential holocaust victims, they would either 1) not be killed and survive the war or 2) their deaths would not be combat related but instead would have been murder, intentionally inflicted by the Nazis because the soldier was Jewish.
But, according to me, and I've asked where deniers think Jews wound up, what you say is flat-out wrong. Because I know where these people particular people ended up, and their deaths were combat related, as Paulsson argues in the link I gave you; this is no more a mystery than where the Jews deported from Warsaw to Treblinka wound up.

But the intent of the post in this link was to show a historian describing the deaths of Jewish civilians from combat actions - and not lumping these deaths into the Final Solution, for which we have other evidence, like deportation records and death camp documents; testimonies and forensic studies.

That was because you earlier argued that
We all know that somewhere between five and six million Jews were murdered during the Nazi holocaust. . . . none of the Jews living there were among the innocent civilians who got caught in the crossfire. . . . The war had nothing to do with those deaths. It sounds stupid but that's the holocaust for ya.
Well, actually, Paulsson estimates the numbers of Jewish combatant deaths, the number of Jews killed in pogrom-style attacks, and the number of civilian Jewish deaths, that is, Jews caught in the crossfire. He carefully distinguishes among the causes of death of Jews in Warsaw - and doesn't mix these deaths in with those of Jews murdered at Treblinka as part of the Final Solution.

The link to Nick's post is probably the one he referred to unthread.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it is a canard at all, "where did they go" is used to point out over and over and over again to Holocaust deniers that you don't know and can't answer the question sensibly. And sensibly does not mean:

"Jews went where Jews are."

Does sensibly mean "I don't know, and I don't care"?
 
The question which you have repeatedly dodged isn't really about the total demographics of Jews in WWII. It's about explaining what happened to the smaller group of Jews deported to Treblinka, Auschwitz and the other death camps if those camps were not death camps, which is your basic claim.

Currently your answer is apparently 'I don't know and I don't care', a reply so transparent and so lame that it instantly destroys whatever credibility you might have on the rest of this subject.

Precisely.
 
Well what have we had so far?

Not sensible replies list:

"They lived in a secret cave."
"Jews went where Jews are."
"There are secret communities
(what would Matthew know?)"

"Those people were never there."


So "I don't know and I don't care," is just made for my custom Dogzilla "not sensible replies," list.
 
Last edited:
But if these links constitute direct answers, and everybody knows that Jews who are missing were not necessarily killed by the Nazis, why keep spamming the wheredidtheygo canard?

Because, as said above, we know where these Jews went - and we also know where those murdered in the Final Solution ended up - what we don't know is where you lot think the Jews murdered in the Final Solution wound up. So we ask. Simple.

But, since you're not saying, we won't learn that either.
 
Last edited:
By running a perfectly sensible sentence together, "where did they go" into gibberish, Doggie wishes to make the sensible, not sensible and to further diminish and distort the question. Instead of answering it, which he will never do in public, preferring to furnish the forum with ludicrous plate-spinning acts instead.
 
It's not like you are an unknown quantity Mr Traynor.

Yes, and I find it quite telling that he chooses ... that person to name himself after: wife-beater, white slaver, pimp of the old-school who thought nothing of pulling a gun on his wife to make her turn tricks...
 
Yes, and I find it quite telling that he chooses ... that person to name himself after: wife-beater, white slaver, pimp of the old-school who thought nothing of pulling a gun on his wife to make her turn tricks...

IIRC he will have an answer for this - but not for his previous online name - Mr Albert Fish. Look him up. (Maybe it is vice versa . . . )
 
If the bodies were burnt and the human ash was found we would have more than eyewitnesses telling us so.
We have Jewish and German eyewitnesses. We have a Polish forensic report saying the the ash is human. We have body part remaining at the bottom of the burial pits that weren't burnt. We have photos of the human ash. Now we have Ms Colls locations of the original burial pits and soon we we have the forensic archeology. Try again.

The Poles conducted a forensic investigation in which they said human ash was found. How much human ash?
Lukaszkiewicz = "the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains"

Here is a photo of the human ash for you....

http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/bomb-crater-Treblinka_1945.jpg

So, here we are, with forensic reports, Jewish & German eyewitnesses, confessions by the COs they killed them all, GPR of the original mass graves....... and poor poor Dogzilla can't even nominate one Jewish community that, under his theory,Treblinka Jews sectretly escaped to and forgot they were from Treblinka.

Feeling silly yet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom