• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dogzilla said:
And again, you know you're speaking the truth when your opponent finds it necessary to so comprehensively misunderstand what you say.
Click to expand...
As opposed to consciously make the choice to misrepresent what your "opponent" has said, as you so often do? Like this:


Dogzilla said:
TSR says all the Jews were missing after the war. So Jews no longer exist.
Click to expand...
When what I said was

TSR said:
No, it was presented that nearly all of the Japanese Americans sent to the internment camps came back from them -- and more importantly in the case of your lame excuse for an argument, none of them went missing.

This is in stark contrast to the millions of Jews who did not come back, and did go missing.
Click to expand...
Edited to correct "mission" to "missing"
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
And you've been trying to steer every conversation to the Eisatzgruppen for as long as I can remember. It's obvious that your inability to counter the weaknesses of the holocaust narrative brought to light by the revisionists has always necessitated the need to erect strawmen. But the strawmen you used to erect at least resembled the genuine scarecrow in a corn field you were trying to slay. Lately, your strawmen are now more like the Cowardly Lion in a Piggly Wiggly.
Click to expand...

You can comfort yourself in whatever way you please, but, no, not at all. For example, Lodz and Warsaw, which I've tried to get you to discuss, have not a thing to do with the open air shootings, but a lot to do with ghettos, Chelmno, and Treblinka.

Nor is there a strawman in my post, and you haven't even tried to define what you mean when you claim that. The post you call a strawman was actually a longer version of Belz's pithier,
Ah, I get it. You're saying "holocaust" doesn't mean what we think it means.
Click to expand...
I specified, as I've done a number of times before, how I see your particular attempt to misconstrue the Holocaust, whereas Belz seems less patient than I.

So your reply is just more of your familiar waffle, offered as always in the vain hope that diversions, bloviation, and bravado will cover over your epic failures to provide anything resembling an answer to material on, yes, mobile-killing squads, including the EGs, ghettos, concentration camps, and death camps.

Now, that said, there is a reason that, with you, I bring up Jaeger's report often enough: simply because you made up crap about it and Lithuania - and then tried running away from your shredded claims. I like reminding you of this. Still, like others in this thread, I've tried to get you to engage in a substantive discussion of that topic and others - like what happened to Jews in 5 cities - all for naught. You prefer thrilling yourself with your own empty rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
Yes. I'm sorry I said the Russians don't know how to use cameras. They did know how to use cameras and they were as capable of taking pictures as the British and the Americans were. Maybe they were not as adept at staging photos as the Americans were. Clearly, the Russians were hobbled by having liberated the death camps where the Jews were murdered en masse. The Russians didn't find hundreds of starving prisoners who could crawl onto the bunk beds for a photo op nor did they find the corpses of emaciated typhus victims scattered around the camp that they could put into a pile and push into a hole in the ground. They did the best they could with their hair brushes and prosthetic devices. But the hollow cheeks and eyes caused by starvation and the blotches caused by typhus gave the dead bodies in the ordinary concentration camps an appearance of death that ordinary citizens back home in Britain and especially America had never seen before. It was better than anything Psy Warfare had hoped to find!

So it wasn't Russian backwardness that made it impossible for them to take a picture comparable to the Bulldozing Bodies of Belsen. It's just that the Industrialized Murder Factories didn't look as bad. But still, you would think that a place like Treblinka, where murder occurred on such an unimaginable scale, would have presented an opportunity for a photograph of something incriminating.
Click to expand...

Here is someone who pretends to know what the Soviets photographed when they liberated the camps, and why, but hasn't a clue. And who ignores samples presented to him in order to persist in his mendacity. Again, at Auschwitz the Soviets photographed the camp, corpses (left behind in the 100s, not 1000s), and survivors. Images of the camp and survivors made by Soviet photographers were published in magazines like Ogonyok in the USSR - and, while they weren't the same as images made of Belsen, as the conditions in the camp were different, they "looked bad," unless the corpses of children and emaciated ex-prisoners - pencil thin limbs, hollowed torsos - photographed by R. Mazelev and printed in Ogonyok, no. 11, for 20 March 1945, under "Osventsim," are your idea of not looking so bad. (Shneer, Through Soviet Jewish Eyes, p 176)

It is correct to say, as does 000063, that Dogzilla is busily moving his goalposts: first, Dogzilla tries, the Soviets didn't take photographs of corpses at Auschwitz due to their incompetence; then - his assertion shown to be foolish - the photographs didn't look like Belsen; and, finally, the photographs simply aren't to his expectations - and, while he concedes there are liberation photographs made of Auschwitz by the Soviets, he is still unable to bring himself to admit that they show corpses of the victims of Nazi mass murder.
 
Last edited:
Ah and now he doesn't seem to realise that 1st Ukrainian Front overran AB before Belsen.Maybe some can get a good laugh out of the deranged crappy arguments he presents including this latest triumph of revisionism. In his head, nowhere else.

Really if you look harder there is nothing more substantial in any of Dogzilla than going around in circles. The Einsatzgruppen, Treblinka, Auschwitz, Resettlement, Deportation, the Germans moved people around. There was a war on. Jews went where Jews are. These people didn't exist.

Isn't Revisionism great!

All of this so he can continue to avoid by any means possible having to face or answer anything seriously in detail giving corroboration and some of that evidence thing - including discussing multiple sources.

But really if he's made his mind up and knows more than do Hoss, Stangl, Muhsfeld, Moll, Broad, Stark...then bully for him. But that's all. Bully for him. I'll take their words over Dogzilla's fanciful inventions or his daft crowing. I'm hoping he'll follow Saggy soon and find his own level at Codoh where Revisionism trumps all. He has done nothing here to convince anyone. If the dodging rule was enforced here, he'd be out.

When it is suggested that he reads something, he ignores the advice, displays shocking ignorance and then soon enough starts on the same unhinged process all over again. He wants to be taken seriously?

I assume this is all just very sad and somewhat sick attention seeking in his teenage years. It cannot be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Ah, I get it. You're saying "holocaust" doesn't mean what we think it means. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I never said the holocaust doesn't mean what you think it means. I do think that "holocaust denial" doesn't mean what you think it means. I would venture to guess that is probably because you haven't given much thought to the definition of the holocaust.
 
 
Nick Terry said:
No, you can't. Your statement that 'not all Jews in the camps were there as Jews qua Jews' is completely meaningless unless it is quantified.



No you don't. In recent months we've seen you deeply confused about the contours of the Final Solution and repeatedly ignore the numbers.

10s of 1000s of Jews were deported to Theresienstadt; from there 46,000 were deported onwards to Auschwitz. Overall, 1.1 million Jews were deported to Auschwitz. Those are the kind of facts that you mangle and misrepresent time and again, just as you misrepresent what happened to the 1.1 million Jews deported to Auschwitz and why it was that the Nazis carried out selections on arrival.

The bigger problem you have, as we've established repeatedly, is your inability to see how extermination fits in with genocide. Jews deported to Theresienstadt who were not transported onwards to Auschwitz weren't "exterminated" as you see it, but they died like flies and were meant to disappear entirely. They still died in a genocide; they still died in the Holocaust.

The catch is, the only reason they were sent to Theresienstadt was because they were Jewish.

So please, show us the evidence that there were more Jews sent directly to concentration camps for reasons other than being Jewish, than there were Jews sent to Theresienstadt.



Sorry, I didn't trip up. You just have, though, by failing to understand the distinction between Sammeltransporte and Sondertransporte.

You've also misrepresented my point, which was that the overwhelming majority of Jews sent to KZs were deported to them because they were Jews. Not 100%. The fact that 0.5% or even 1% were sent to KZs for other reasons doesn't then excuse or exculpate the Nazis.

The Nazis sent 100s of 1000s of non-Jews to KZs for often entirely spurious reasons. The KZs are one of the main reasons that everyone other than a tiny minority of loons has since 1945 thought that the Nazis were *****.



Your continual ability to mangle and misrepresent is quite astounding. This paragraph



doesn't say anything which would be germane to the issue of what was uncovered in 1945 on liberating the camps. It replied to your latest piece of plate-spinning, your refusal to "accept" that the Nazis persecuted Jews qua Jews.

I know you're dying to blurt out denier cliches about Jews being subversives, communists and partisans and how that justifies the Nazi treatment of the Jews, so why don't you save everyone some time and give it your best shot. We could all do with another laugh.
Click to expand...

How many Jews were murdered at Auschwitz?
 
Dogzilla said:
Number four is a pretty good one but it doesn't beat Belsen. If there were more of these why did they bother with a pile of suitcases?
Click to expand...

Because it is called "recording the available evidence."

If they hadn't "bothered with the suitcase" <SNIP> would say "So why didn't they take pictures of the other stuff? Why do we only have images of the bodies".

Edited by Locknar: 
Breach of rule 0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
000063 said:
Wait for it.Wait for it.And there go the goalposts. Read "I'm going to start making stuff up now".

No proof, I note.

Incredulity.
Click to expand...

Is everything a moving of goalposts, a strawman, or a lie to you guys?

Do you really need proof that starving prisoners were photographed on three level bunk beds at the western camps?

or that emaciated corpses were pushed into mass graves?

or that Russians took pictures of ordinary personal care or household items in piles?

or that emaciated typhus victims present an unusually disagreeable picture of death?

Incredulity? Yes, that's pretty much all I got. But when you don't have any evidence to make what you say believable, incredulity is all I need.
 
Cyrix686 said:
You won't look at the evidence and you won't read. That is the unbelievable part.
Click to expand...

That too. And when he gets trapped having brayed some ignorant silliness, say, about Soviet photography - and, under duress, starts backpedaling so fast he might crash into Mr Moore if he's not careful - he whines about someone calling him out for it.

For people who do care, here are two links to Soviet photos I think worth checking out:

Top image, Baltermants' Grief http://www.soviethistory.org/index....ubjectID=1943stalingrad&Year=1943&navi=byYear

And Vladimir Yudin's Survivor Searches for Glasses http://cdn1.tabletmag.com/wp-conten...t_Auschwitz_Looks_for_Glasses_harbaugh002.jpg
 
If (like his friend Mr. Moore,) all he is going to say now is "I'm incredulous," then what is the point?

Perhaps we should just leave DZ alone now with the familiar warm and fuzzy and sleepy incredulous feeling the period gives him in his gossamer dreamland?
 
Dogzilla said:
I never said the holocaust doesn't mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. The Holocaust means the mass extermination of Jews by the Nazis. You seemed to think it was just a rough time for them.

I do think that "holocaust denial" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Try as you may to make it appear as a genuine form of skepticism, we know better, if only by watching you in this thread.

I would venture to guess that is probably because you haven't given much thought to the definition of the holocaust.
Click to expand...

Ironic statement of the month.
 
Dogzilla said:
Number four is a pretty good one but it doesn't beat Belsen. If there were more of these why did they bother with a pile of suitcases?
Click to expand...

It's like asking me why I bothered taking a picture of the Toho building while in Tokyo while I could have taken one more picture of the Sky Tree, and somehow implying that the Sky Tree doesn't exist at all because of it.
 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom