General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[000063]

To get it straight: this shows the Holocaust supporters don't have their versions always straight. Papers are produced showing 24 hour operation, then there are papers that they shouldn't, it is alleged it was pretty much standard operation to put more than one body per muffle, then there are documents that say only one body should be cremated at a time.

And yet, both of the sources you use ultimately disagree with your position. The reason you're trying, incorrectly, to pit them against each other is that you can't respond to them on their own merits, which is why you didn't answer my question about whether you agree with the rest of the web page.

The fact that different people have different interpretations of certain aspects of the Holocaust has been a running theme of the debunkers throughout the discussion, and the apparent discrepancy in this case has already been explained. Let me try again; an automaker might say that running a car at about the same speed will increase gas mileage. But the car will, eventually, still run out of gas, just like it would with stop-and-go.

 

[TSR]

To get it straight: this shows the Holocaust supporters don't have their versions always straight.

Leaving aside the loaded language, this is different than ANY OTHER HISTORICAL EVENT, EVER ... how?

 

[Belz...]

To get it straight: this shows the Holocaust supporters don't have their versions always straight.

The irony of that statement is staggering.

You never answered my question about burning bodies, Simon. Care to try again ?

 

[Natan]

Well, sourced from the usual liars which is not the same thing at all. Seriously, quotes from "The Protocols"? David Irving?

Scroll down to: Most Outrageous Tales of the Holyhoax

Top story:

Attacking the source. Of course I know it is a rather anti semitic site, but do you expect me to find a collection of demonstrably questionable testimonies about the Holocaust on a site promoting the Holocaust as real and "semite friendly"?

Denier "scholarship" in action.

Diverting by attacking the source in action.

 

[uke2se]

Scroll down to: Most Outrageous Tales of the Holyhoax


Attacking the source. Of course I know it is a rather anti semitic site, but do you expect me to find a collection of demonstrably questionable testimonies about the Holocaust on a site promoting the Holocaust as real and "semite friendly"?


Diverting by attacking the source in action.

It appears as though you believe that attacking a source is some sort of fallacy. Let me assure you that it is not. A holocaust denial site is not a proper source for anything at all. Thus it will not be accepted as such in this discussion. If you can find sources for your arguments in credible texts, such as those by legitimate historians, you won't run the same risk of not being taken seriously.

 

[TSR]

Scroll down to: Most Outrageous Tales of the Holyhoax

Not my claim, not my job.

*You* scroll down, *you* find 50 'laughable' witnesses, *you* tell us why they are laughable.

Our job is then to show that your source is crap.



Oops! Already done that...

Attacking the source.

You've offered nothing else.

Of course I know it is a rather anti semitic site, but do you expect me to find a collection of demonstrably questionable testimonies about the Holocaust on a site promoting the Holocaust as real and "semite friendly"?

No, we just expect credible, and not demonstrably acting out an agenda with nothing to support it but the agenda.


But I guess you should get a quarter point or so for the backhanded admission that denial is necessarily anti-Semetic. I guess it's true that even a blind pig posts the occasional truffle.

Diverting by attacking the source in action.

Once again -- if you think there is value to be had there, *you* find it and present it here.

Just make sure your source isn't citing known liars and (at best) half truths.

50 objectively laughable witnesses.

You're not off to a terribly good start.

 

[FluffyPersian]

Attacking the source.

Actually, he's attacking the credibility of the source, which is perfectly legitimate.

Of course I know it is a rather anti semitic site, but do you expect me to find a collection of demonstrably questionable testimonies about the Holocaust on a site promoting the Holocaust as real and "semite friendly"?

Only a denier would call the Holocaust "semite friendly."

 

[Robrob]

Attacking the source. Of course I know it is a rather anti semitic site, but do you expect me to find a collection of demonstrably questionable testimonies about the Holocaust on a site promoting the Holocaust as real and "semite friendly"?

Diverting by attacking the source in action.

Your admitted antisemitic site references the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and at the very top of the page kicks off with a number of well debunked claims against the Diary of Anne Frank.

Here is the truth. You can apologize later.

4. It has been said that there are entries in the diary in ballpoint pen. Is that correct?
No, that is not correct. All the diary entries are written in various types of ink and (coloured) pencil, not in ballpoint. The document analysis by the Netherlands Forensic Institute showed that the main part of the diary and the loose sheets were written in grey-blue fountain pen ink. In addition, Anne also used thin red ink, green and red coloured pencils and black pencil for her annotations: not ballpoint. Nevertheless, the allegation can still regularly be seen on extreme right-wing websites and elsewhere that the diary of Anne Frank is written in ballpoint pen. Sneering remarks are made about "A. Frank the ballpoint girl," and it is pointed out that the ballpoint pen only came into common use in Europe after the Second World War. The conclusion forced by this allegation is that the texts in the diary could not have been written by Anne Frank herself.

 

[Natan]

And yet, both of the sources you use ultimately disagree with your position. The reason you're trying, incorrectly, to pit them against each other is that you can't respond to them on their own merits, which is why you didn't answer my question about whether you agree with the rest of the web page.

The truth needs to be puzzled together by reviewing several sources of information, revisionists do not get everything right, neither do Holocaust historians. It is entirely possible that a web site contains a valuable piece of information that is correct but contains other pieces of information that are incorrect. Claiming otherwise is a fallacy and shows a very binary world view.

 

[Natan]

Please stop trying to divert the thread away from the subject of these alleged communist ties which Moore has not provided evidence for. This is another example of your double standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#Internment_ends

So what's the official number for the Japanese deaths in those camps? Oh wait, there aren't any official figures. I wonder why.

 

[uke2se]

The truth needs to be puzzled together by reviewing several sources of information, revisionists do not get everything right, neither do Holocaust historians.

Sorry, but "revisionists" deniers get nothing right.

It is entirely possible that a web site contains a valuable piece of information that is correct but contains other pieces of information that are incorrect. Claiming otherwise is a fallacy and shows a very binary world view.

That's why you need to show evidence for these pieces of information being true that doesn't stem from websites that are obviously full of lies, obfuscation and... well... denial. Show us a proper source or drop your claims.

 

[Belz...]

Still waiting on those 50 laughable witnesses, Simon.

 

[A'isha]

So what's the official number for the Japanese deaths in those camps? Oh wait, there aren't any official figures. I wonder why.

There are, actually. A good summary of figures and sources can be found in Japanese Americans, from Relocation to Redress.

Of the 120,313 Japanese-Americans interned in WRA camps from 1942 to 1946, 1862 died (including deaths of all causes), or just under 1.6% of those interned.

Contrast this to the Nazi concentration/death camp system, where the percentage of prisoners who died in the camps varied from 50% to 90%.

 

[TSR]

The truth needs to be puzzled together by reviewing several sources of information, revisionists do not get everything right, neither do Holocaust historians.

Please detail for us a single item about the history of the Holocaust which has been researched by revisionists first (not even exclusively) which has added to our understanding of these events?

No, mainstream historians do not always get everything correct right out of the block. The difference between them and deniers, however, is that real historians strive for that accuracy, and employ a methodology which contributes to to that overall accuracy.

Deniers reverse that process, departing from a desired conclusion and attempting to shoehorn the facts to service that conclusion.

It is entirely possible that a web site contains a valuable piece of information that is correct but contains other pieces of information that are incorrect.

True. But if a website such as the one you most recently cited *starts off with* obviously agenda-driven lies, then anyone citing it has a much harder time demonstrating the value of that tidbit. Usually by collaboration with a source which does not have that agenda or those lies.

In which case, the rational thing to have do would be to cite the second source to begin with, and avoid the uphill battle altogether.

Claiming otherwise is a fallacy and shows a very binary world view.

Still waiting for those fifty objectively 'laughable' eyewitness accounts, or a retraction...

 

[Border Reiver]

So what's the official number for the Japanese deaths in those camps? Oh wait, there aren't any official figures. I wonder why.

The figures are not readily available for a number of reasons - the main one being that the figures were not tallied separately from the general population of the US at that time. A basic point though is that the figures were not statistically different from the general population.

Conditions were austere, that has been admitted since, oh 1942.

 

[Nick Terry]

Is a gassifying cellar in Birkenau STILL that far fetched?

Yes, because there are multiple blueprints of the crematoria and a fat paper trail on the construction, as well as documents specifying rooms and contents when the finished building was handed over to the camp administration. Cf Pressac.

Nothing indicates the presence of a 'gasifier' in the basement, whereas the exact same space identified as a Vergasungskeller is known to have been equipped with gastight doors and was also labelled a Gaskammer. Ergo, the portmaneau word Vergasungskeller means gassing cellar, as would be linguistically more probable in any case, since Vergasung demonstrably meant gassing qua fumigation, but which is beyond all reasonable doubt (a) because of other corroborating documentary evidence and (b) the absence of any documentary evidence identifying a 'gasifier' in the basement of the crematorium.

Give it up

 

[Nick Terry]

Thought so. It's all there sourced so you don't need to do any work. If I remember correctly I still need to look for your 30 voluntary SS witnesses as to the gas chambers, i.e. do your work. When I'm finished reading this thread (at page 70 of 104), I'll start.

If it's all there sourced then it shouldn't take you very long to type out the names. I'm skeptical that there are even 50 listed on that website because deniers tend to witter on about the exact same cases.

And we've also got the issue of agreeing on laughability. If there is the slightest doubt there then the name goes on a B-list. You can have Moshe Peer as an A-list example of a laughable witness. You can't have Wiernik as an A-lister since nobody other than deniers thinks he's laughable.

Looking further down the list, I spot Vasily Grossman's 'Hell of Treblinka' being included but he wasn't even a witness, he was a journalist arriving after the fact. So he has to be struck off both the A and the B list entirely, as he's not a witness at all.

 

[Nick Terry]

To get it straight: this shows the Holocaust supporters don't have their versions always straight. Papers are produced showing 24 hour operation, then there are papers that they shouldn't, it is alleged it was pretty much standard operation to put more than one body per muffle, then there are documents that say only one body should be cremated at a time.

There are documents saying only one body should be cremated at a time? Where are those then, in relation to Auschwitz and the Topf ovens?

 

[Nick Terry]

The truth needs to be puzzled together by reviewing several sources of information, revisionists do not get everything right, neither do Holocaust historians. It is entirely possible that a web site contains a valuable piece of information that is correct but contains other pieces of information that are incorrect. Claiming otherwise is a fallacy and shows a very binary world view.

I think what we'll claim is that there is a very extensive record of woos quote-mining and selectively citing sources. More specifically, deniers are exceedingly prone to quote-mining.

In this particular case, you cite from a secondary source (a web page) whose interpretation fundamentally disagrees with your apparent claim. While it is exceedingly common among deniers and woos to try and 'turn' sources against themselves, don't think we didn't spot this.

 

[Nick Terry]

So what's the official number for the Japanese deaths in those camps? Oh wait, there aren't any official figures. I wonder why.

In all, 120,313 people were under WRA control. 90,491 were transfered from assembly centers; 17,491 were taken directly from their homes; 5918 were born to imprisoned parents; 1735 were transferred from INS internment camps; 1579 were moved here after being sent from assembly centers to work crops; 1275 were transfered from penal and medial institutions; 1118 were taken from Hawaii; and 219, mostly non-Japanese spouses, entered voluntarily.7

Of these 120,313: 54,127 returned to the West Coast after their incarceration; 52,798 relocated to the interior; 4724 moved (or were moved) to Japan; 3121 were sent to INS internment camps; 2355 joined the armed forces; 1862 died during imprisonment; 1322 were sent to institutions; and 4 were classified as "unauthorized departures."

Source: Roger Daniels, Sandra Taylor, and Harry Kitano (eds), Japanese Americans, from Relocation to Redress; University of Utah Press; Salt Lake City, Utah, 1986, as cited on http://home.comcast.net/~chtongyu/internment/camps.html (note 7).

Those look like pretty official numbers to me....