General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

How many Jews were murdered at Auschwitz?

What a transparent dodge.

What a transparent dodge.

 

[A'isha]

Forget about reading a book...apparently even reading Wikipedia is too much trouble for our Brave Truth-Seeking Deniers.

 

[Cyrix686]

Captain incredulous and his sidekick Robin er Superincredulous!

 

[Cyrix686]

I guess twelve people at the wire, one of whom is an elderly lady - now we are in denier world where everything is viewed with incredulity (lots of it) - seriously must add up to there was no Holocaust.

I get it.

 

[TSR]

Or this?
http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/s637-469/6731547902502384752.jpg

How did the old woman escape extermination?

How did that kid stay chubby?

And how did the little kid near the chubby kid escape selection for extermination?

BTW I'm glad they all survived.

Why were the old lady, the non-chubby kid and that little kid behind barbed wire in the first place?

 

[Clayton Moore]

I guess twelve people at the wire, one of whom is an elderly lady - now we are in denier world where everything is viewed with incredulity (lots of it) - seriously must add up to there was no Holocaust.

I get it.

Yup. You betcha. They killed the children and the people who couldn't work.
They even fed all the prisoners a diet that would weaken them so much that they couldn't work and then the German's would kill them.

Just one lie after another.


Then they brought them back to life so that the following picture could be taken.

http://collections.yadvashem.org/photosarchive/s637-469/6731547902502384752.jpg

 

[Clayton Moore]

Why were the old lady, the non-chubby kid and that little kid behind barbed wire in the first place?

To get their picture taken.

 

[TSR]

What a transparent dodge.

Yes, you and dz pretending that the number has not been discussed here as well as in the literature is rather transparent.

Roughly a million people died at the three main camps at Auschwitz, the majority of them considered Jewish by the Nazi definition.

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

Which is the point I made that you've been doing back flips to try and refute--i.e., that photos of Belsen don't represent the conditions in the eastern camps.

 

[TSR]

To get their picture taken.

So, millions of people documented as having been uprooted from their homes were sent to the camps to have their pictures taken?

Using what you have tried to pass off as logic, why not just take their pictures at their houses and places of work? Why strip all of that from them and sent them to death camps for a photo op?

 

[TSR]

... photos of Belsen don't represent the conditions in the eastern camps.

Yes, they do.

Or have you been holding out on pictures which show significantly better conditions?

Then why haven't you posted them and put an end to your continual tap dancing?

 

[Cyrix686]

You betcha Clayton?

Yes in denier world. But we are not in denier world where you can make stuff up and be Captain Incredulous!



We're in the real world.

Overall in the real world as opposed to snuggly wuggly incredulous land your replies are becoming sillier and sillier. And er

pathetic.

 

[Belz...]

Yup. You betcha. They killed the children and the people who couldn't work.
They even fed all the prisoners a diet that would weaken them so much that they couldn't work and then the German's would kill them.

Just one lie after another.

I'm getting a bit tired of this. Seriously, I'd expect at least some argument or evidence. You're not even trying. All you do is say "lie, lie, lie" and think you're being terribly clever. Hint: you're not.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Which is the point I made that you've been doing back flips to try and refute--i.e., that photos of Belsen don't represent the conditions in the eastern camps.

???? Belsen wasn't in the east, and it wasn't a death camp. So how could Belsen mirror conditions in Birkenau or Treblinka?

But you are lying, frankly, because you posted this, which is a very lame attempt to "whitewash" the death camps:

the holocaust death camps liberated by the Russians didn't have comparable images of horror to photograph. Besides the Russians couldn't figure out how to wind a watch. How would they know what to do with a camera?

Which, frankly, seems to be you going on about 1) your inability to understand what went down at camps, like Birkenau, involved in the Final Solution, 2) how you refuse to write anything factually accurate at all, in this case concerning Soviet photography, and 3) your ignorance - complete and astounding - of the course of events in the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Soviet photographic and journalistic traditions and, specifically, photographic treatments of the Nazi camps, shootings, and other war crimes.

You get almost nothing, ever, right in anything you post - and yet declare smug self satisfaction with your outpouring of ignorance, mistakes, false dichotomies, strawmen, and blatant misrepresentations. Hooray for you and for denial.

 

[000063]

And again, you know you're speaking the truth when your opponent finds it necessary to so comprehensively misunderstand what you say.

You mean, like a certain revisionist here does regularly, on just about any topic?

No, I'm not talking about you, though I would like to remind the audience about the time you made up the existence of a false dilemma where the second premise was one literally no debunker had proposed or was willing to accept, and how you held onto that same argument regardless of how many people corrected you. I myself asked you at least once to provide evidence of someone making such a claim, and you didn't even bother to respond. And that was just last week. You really have no moral room to talk about the alleged strawmen of others, what with that plank in your eye.

I remember a time when you could misinterpret a possibly ambiguous choice of words and fly off on some tangent that was unrelated to what I said.

I also once lectured you about your comprehension problems. You read something that you cannot understand, or do not want to understand, and then you dismiss it out of hand or "break it down".

I note that you are no longer directly using the term "irrelevant" or its converse, after repeatedly being asked what you actually define as relevant.

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.

And how is the Eisatzgruppen not relevant? We need something other than your blanket denial. If the same evidence dismisses your claims, there's no need to provide more. For example, your refusal to read the Jager report.

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.

More vague claims you will never back up, much like you won't respond to the fact that post #4437 proved you flat out wrong.

How many Jews were murdered at Auschwitz?

Attempted subject change, not actually a response to the post being quoted.

What a transparent dodge.

Indeed.

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....

Mostly Jews. Wait, do those still count, or is the Holocaust limited to Jews?

 

[000063]

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

Only when I read your posts. Oh, and Clay's. Perhaps you should get some new tactics.

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?

I need evidence of the Russians' motivations for their actions, which was the foundation of that section of your post. All you're doing is speculating on decisions made by men who are likely dead, in a hypothetical scenario, with no evidence whatsoever. You can't just make up stuff based on what we know and expect it to be taken as gospel.

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.

Once again; what you, personally, "believe" ain't worth crap. Skepticism requires evidence. Provide it, seek it, or be quiet.

 

[Belz...]

3) your ignorance - complete and astounding - of the course of events in the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau and Soviet photographic and journalistic traditions and, specifically, photographic treatments of the Nazi camps, shootings, and other war crimes.

Seems he has something against the Soviets, for some reason. It's odd. Not liking Jews... not liking Soviets. Now, what does that remind me of ?

You get almost nothing, ever, right in anything you post

There are a few of those, here. I don't understand how that happens. That you're on the wrong side of some issues is expected. But all of them ? Huh.

 

[Belz...]

Mostly Jews. Wait, do those still count, or is the Holocaust limited to Jews?

I don't know. I was always under the impression that the term only applied to the Jewish side of the mass murders. Wiki seems to agree, but I'm willing to listen to alternate definitions. Not by Dogzilla, of course.

 

[LemmyCaution]

And how is the Eisatzgruppen not relevant? We need something other than your blanket denial. If the same evidence dismisses your claims, there's no need to provide more. For example, your refusal to read the Jager report.

Exactly. Dogzilla has his own private "understanding" of the Holocaust, which he's expressed as plan + 6 mil + gas chambers. As Belz wrote,

Ah, I get it. You're saying "holocaust" doesn't mean what we think it means.

In the first place, Dogzilla's "understanding" reduces the number of Jewish victims by over 40%, rendering the actions by which these people died, in Dogzilla's mind, "irrelevant." Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of the WW2 era, an honest approach, and clear thinking can see right through this gambit. It's been shredded here enough times.

In the second place, Dogzilla must think he's got an ace up his sleeve with his oft-repeated formula: it is hard to understand why, as his musings on plan + 6 mil + gas chambers have likewise been comprehensively undone here to the point that his signature tactic has been dodging when cornered, which means almost constantly. When he has a bit more life in him, Dogzilla uses his second favored tactic, which is actively trying to confuse the discussion (by means of moving the goalposts, vacuous rhetoric and contrived misunderstandings, handwaving relevant points away, and bringing out the strawmen).

As to the gas chambers, his preferred case, I've already noted that Dogzilla has dodged discussion of 5 specific instances, offered months ago, of Jews being murdered en masse, two of these instances leading directly to death camps where Jews were gassed. He declares these instances irrelevant. Wonder why?

More vague claims you will never back up, much like you won't respond to the fact that post #4437 proved you flat out wrong.

Yes, and also in posts #4372, 4384, 4415, 4417, 4433, a point I add because 1) it is not like there's a single anomalous example that Dogzilla can handwave away and 2) the number of members chiming in with examples should give Mr Moore pause with a claim he's not made in a while (about these guys making headway with their daft arguments).

Oh, and this other claim of Dogzilla's

Any films you saw are not evidence of the final solution. There aren't any.

was shown to be false in post #4371.

 

[Belz...]

I need evidence of the Russians' motivations for their actions, which was the foundation of that section of your post. All you're doing is speculating on decisions made by men who are likely dead, in a hypothetical scenario, with no evidence whatsoever. You can't just make up stuff based on what we know and expect it to be taken as gospel.

Of course he can. Isn't that how real investigators do things ? I mean, in movies and novels and such ?? Right ???