General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Lenbrazil]

http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/40-45/corruption/index.html
If you read these so called Historical Holocaust sites objectively you learn that they aren't in sync because the lies contradict each other.

And how do the cited snippets contradict anything? You omitted that the 1st quote came from a guard.

 

[Nick Terry]

I know enough and that is that people can and will be found willing to testify tear jerking stories of whipping with a belt or digging trenches with bare hands in frozen grounds. German engineering hasn't heard of a shovel you know. Guilty until proven innocent.

This isn't even a response to the question, it's not even a handwave, it's just gibberish. I repeat: you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Natan]

This isn't even a response to the question, it's not even a handwave, it's just gibberish. I repeat: you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

A response to your question: I don't know alright. From reading up a little, it seems in 1982 all they had was concealing his past as an SS member in order to immigrate. That he was a cook at one point does not seem in doubt. There were no witnesses he did anything bad to any prisoner nor were there any documents he participated in the selections at the ramps nor that he was taking part in any death marches nor that he was responsible for any cruelty against inmates.

http://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweit...s-Lipschis-Ich-war-nur-Koch-in-Auschwitz.html

Witnesses can undoubtedly be produced though.

Talking about responses to questions, you still haven't answered one of mine in the Holocaust denial thread (hint: it wasn't originally named like that) after how many weeks/months now?

 

[Natan]

The article in Die Welt nevertheless goes along with the usual BS of the dark smoke from the crematoria being visible for miles and the hilarious several meter high flames coming out at night.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It's prosecutors in Germany who have actually indicted Lipschis so your 'point' is as usual, totally wide of the mark.

When the Simon Wiesenthal Center says jump the German prosecutors ask "How high?"

 

[Nick Terry]

A response to your question: I don't know alright. From reading up a little, it seems in 1982 all they had was concealing his past as an SS member in order to immigrate. That he was a cook at one point does not seem in doubt. There were no witnesses he did anything bad to any prisoner nor were there any documents he participated in the selections at the ramps nor that he was taking part in any death marches nor that he was responsible for any cruelty against inmates.

http://www.welt.de/geschichte/zweit...s-Lipschis-Ich-war-nur-Koch-in-Auschwitz.html

Witnesses can undoubtedly be produced though.

No, the case is being fought out on the basis of documents as far as I can tell. And that's the big difference between the early 80s and the 2010s, the US investigators didn't have access to all the available documents back them, the Germans do.

I've been involved in war crimes investigations in recent years - my work helped prove someone's innocence - and I know some of the people involved in these new cases in Germany, so I have a significantly better idea than you do about what they're trying to do here, and the evidence they're using.

Your chief comprehension problem is not understanding what they are indicting today. In the 1980s the focus was on individual crimes because those led to serious convictions. There is no claim that Lipschis shot anyone. The indictment is that by participating in ramp duty, Lipschis was an accessory to murder in the course of selections on arrival. He need never have seen the gas chambers nor pulled a trigger to be considered an accessory to that crime, because he already is one historically and morally.

Every Birkenau SS man and woman was complicit indirectly in that crime. They all go to their graves with the stain of having served at Birkenau on their conscience. If they acted in a decent fashion then a day in court should help them prove that they were human beings. Plenty of SS men managed to do just that in the past - giving convincing evidence they weren't obedient robots.

The question for the courts is how one measures the legal responsibility for this undoubted status as an accessory. A conviction would result in a suspended sentence; but it remains to be seen whether a court will weigh up things to produce a conviction.

This is the problem with division of labour based crimes. Everyone could deny full responsibility of the main crime at Auschwitz because everyone had a small part to play in a collective action.

Talking about responses to questions, you still haven't answered one of mine in the Holocaust denial thread (hint: it wasn't originally named like that) after how many weeks/months now?

Not answering a question is a different matter to giving a gibberish response. If I didn't answer one of your questions it's because I thought it was a waste of time.

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>
If they acted in a decent fashion then a day in court should help them prove that they were human beings. Plenty of SS men managed to do just that in the past - giving convincing evidence they weren't obedient robots.

That's good to know.

What bothers me most about some of this, is the casual way people try and...err, deny the seriousness of this. Putting the Jews, the United States, Churchill, Eisenhower, putting them on a level-playing field with the Nazis. As if the Nazi Government was just another government. As though The Final Solution was a government program no difference than the Allied Lend/Lease program or the Berlin Airlift after the war.

Sickening.

 

[Nick Terry]

When the Simon Wiesenthal Center says jump the German prosecutors ask "How high?"

No they don't. The Simon Wiesenthal Center is chasing after the German prosecutors who already made their own minds up for their own reasons.

Methinks you have absolutely no clue about contemporary German attitudes towards Nazism. They are the absolute last people to need telling what to do; they are the ones who now go to Rwanda and elsewhere to tell everyone else what to do about how to come to terms with the past.

 

[Noztradamus]

If you listen to German males of a certain age, you become convinced that the WWII German army fielded more non-combatants than any wartime army in history.

93 yo cook? he had more years than any of the prisoners did.

Thread title error. Shoud read

Lying Scum From Simon Wiesenthal Center Have 93 year Old Coot Arrested

 

[ddt]

Second, I understand the logic in comments I've heard such as, "It was impossible for these men to have refused,"

Actually, the research that has been done about Wehrmacht soldiers refusing such orders or asking for a relocation shows that that hardly impacted their careers. I don't know about SS men (and I'm aware this is a SS man).

I agree instead, that the crimes they were involved with are so monstrous, that they can never be let off the hook. I feel convinced having listened to the stories of people who were in those camps, seen the photos, and especially, heard the first-person accounts of the first American troops who went into some of those camps. It's so beyond comprehension that a government was doing this. There's no statute of limitations on this. Nor should there be.

Traditionally, the German statute of limitations on murder was 20 years. In the 1960s and 1970s, here has been a series of debates in the Bundestag, the German parliament, on extending this. This resulted in:
- 1965: starting the clock of the statute in 1949 (founding of the FRG) rather than in 1945;
- 1969: extending the statute to 30 years;
- 1979: abolishing thes statute altogether.
(German wiki: Verjährungsdebatte; JTA article from 1965)

 

[Natan]

The indictment is that by participating in ramp duty, Lipschis was an accessory to murder in the course of selections on arrival.

As far as I understood from Die Welt, there is no evidence he did ramp duty. Although I can see a cook selecting twins born years apart, instead of a good doctor.

 

[Nessie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22427976



So newyorkguy do you think it is right that after almost 70 years of being openly known to have been former Auschwitz guards and never charged with any crime that the Simon Wiesenthal Center can demand that 50 almost 90 or older men be arrested?

Well, I do.

What you are doing here is trying to make out that the Jews are behind this and by doing this they are evil. Not true.

 

[Lenbrazil]

A file that the Simon Wiesenthal Center had prepared on Csatáry implicated him in the deportation of 300 people from Kassa in 1941. In August 2012 the Budapest Prosecutor’s Office dropped these charges, saying Csatáry was not in Kassa at the time and lacked the rank to organize the transports. In January 2013 it was reported that Slovak police had found a witness to corroborate other charges relating to deportations of 15,700 Jews from Kassa from May 1944.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_Csizsik-Csatáry​

I wonder whether that witness testified digging a ditch in frozen ground with their bare hands.

Got a better source than Wikipedia?

 

[newyorkguy]

Actually, the research that has been done about Wehrmacht soldiers refusing such orders or asking for a relocation shows that that hardly impacted their careers. I don't know about SS men (and I'm aware this is a SS man)....

What exactly is meant by refusing such orders or asking for a relocation? Can you cite some of this research?

Btw, thnx to the mods for merging & getting rid of that dreadful thread title.

 

[Nessie]

The Simon Wiesenthal Center has a history of producing fake witnesses. Lying scum is an appropriate thread title.

Are they fake witnesses who were known to be fake or found to be fake? Was the Centre taken in by fake witnesses?

Can you link to the evidence regarding fake witnesses?

 

[Nessie]

How do you explain that the 50 guards have never been accused or tried long before now? Are you saying previous investigations missed these octogenarians and nonagenarians?

With so many people involved it is hardly surprising that some have managed for one reason or another been missed/evaded/managed to avoid justice.

What you are complaining about is indicative of failures to prosecute rather than anything else.

Do you realise that everything you say and claim has various explanations and all you do is attach the Jews are veil and Nazis not so bad explanation? That shows how heavily biased you are and no one who is biased like that will be able to discern the actual truth or even get close to it.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Eisenhower:

Link

Mr. Moore, please, you think what you want. That's your right. In the name of basic decency, however, don't slander men like Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower. Please!

Quote:
“Eisenhower ordered all available American troops to go and witness the horrors he’d just seen. He also forced German citizens and officials from nearby towns to do the same,” Mr. Boehner said in the letter. He understood that there must be a record, first-hand evidence and incontrovertible answers to those who would deny the Holocaust.”

http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2...cted-holocaust-denial-long-before-it-started/

Mr. Moore, please, you think what you want. That's your right. In the name of basic decency, however, don't slander men like Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower. Please!

That's sad. What Eisenhower insisted they see was the result of blocked/destroyed supply lines. Skinny, frail people are a horrific fright to observe. They were starving. Who do you think prevented supplies from reaching the camps? What possible reason could there be to prevent supplies from reaching the non-combatants held by the Germans?

“Eisenhower ordered all available American troops to go and witness the horrors he’d just seen. He also forced German citizens and officials from nearby towns to do the same,” Mr. Boehner said in the letter. He understood that there must be a record, first-hand evidence and incontrovertible answers to those who would deny the Holocaust.”

Those images were caused by Eisenhower, de Gaulle, and Winnie. Eisenhower managed to blame the Germans for those horrific images,



70 years later you steadfastly believe that Germans starved the camp residents.


The reason Eisenhower, de Gaulle, and Winnie prevented supplies from reaching the camps?

So that, forever, people who saw those images would blame them on the Germans.

Mr. Moore, please, you think what you want. That's your right. In the name of basic decency, however, don't slander men like Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower. Please!

The German guards were heroes. They could have easily "escaped" and left the camp's starving inmates to riot and kill each other. They hadn't done anything wrong so they didn't leave. They didn't expect to be slaughtered on sight as many were.

 

[Clayton Moore]

No they don't. The Simon Wiesenthal Center is chasing after the German prosecutors who already made their own minds up for their own reasons.

Methinks you have absolutely no clue about contemporary German attitudes towards Nazism. They are the absolute last people to need telling what to do; they are the ones who now go to Rwanda and elsewhere to tell everyone else what to do about how to come to terms with the past.

I'm certain the Germans themselves want to keep resurrecting the Holocaust.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Who has denied that the part of the holocaust they stood accused of happened?



So, who has denied that the crime they were accused of happened?

I'm not talking about whether or not individual Nazis admitted or denied the individual crimes that they were accused of committing. My point is that no Nazi has raised the defense that the Holocaust--as a whole--didn't happen in his criminal trial because no Nazi has ever been accused of committing the Holocaust--as a whole.

By that argument, a historian is required to be omniscient.

Why?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Ranb asked if any defendant "had used Holocaust denial" in their defense. That means did any defendants use the techniques of Holocaust deniers or do things like deny the existence of gas chambers. The answer is mostly no.

A war crimes trial defendant can deny they were there, deny knowledge, deny personal involvement, deny responsibility (plead superior orders), but can also try to minimise the crime. Which many did over the years - "yes there were some shootings but no they were just legitimate small-scale reprisals not full-blooded genocidal massacres".

These techniques are not really Holocaust denial, just typical defense strategies. Thus there was little call for denial in most trials. The only exception I know is where defense lawyers brought in an actual Holocaust denier into a shootings trial. That certainly counts as "using Holocaust denial", and was a failed desperation move that did not work, much as the defense lawyer who tried claiming that the killing of Jews was legal because Hitler said so and thus there was no legal basis for a prosecution of a legitimate act, failed to get his clients acquitted.

Defendants serving in extermination camps could do most of the above if they wanted, but also had the option to deny there were gas chambers at all. That would meet most people's definitions of Holocaust denial, which has really been gas chamber denial for more than 50 years But essentially none ever have.

Thank you for your answer. I have a better understanding of what was asked now.