Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

It was Friedrich Mennecke


You note the pattern of segueing from talking about gassings to discussing meals - oh the horror, the horror.

What is your opinion of it? I think it is rather crude and lacks a certain je ne sais pas

I stated my opinion: it was, as the entries denote, business as usual. Those involved were getting a job done, some found it world historic and perhaps thrilling, some thought it dirty but necessary, others perhaps saw a career move, some gave it little thought, some viewed it better than service on the front. And so on. Life is rich and variegated, full of surprises and flair, but it also sometimes is rather dreary and workaday. Big deal.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The forensic studies on gassings only happened decades after the fact and it was initiated by revisionists!

Not true. You haven't read Roberto Muehlenkamp's material at HC, have you?

Plus you all like quoting Rudolf who basically said these studies are inconclusive.

I do not believe I have ever quoted Rudolf. Please don't put words into my mouth.

You sure talk a lot and then end with "you hate Jews". Talk about laughable indeed. That's all you can say in the end.

There is a lot to say about this topic because it is large, much has been written about it, and deniers cook up some real inanity.

I will allow other readers of this thread to decide whether "you hate Jews" is all I have said in the end. In fact, in your case, not having encountered you before, I said I didn't know what your motivation is but that it is implausible that it is implausibility. I did mention, and would do so again and again, what I've surmised from reading a lot of deniers' stuff. The antipathy towards Jews is self evident and can be missed only by readers who share the same outlook. But that is all about motivation, and most of what I write on this topic and have written in this thread isn't about the motivation of deniers; rather, it is about how I see the events themselves. Not all of what I've written but most.

Well aspects of the Holodomor is being debated and some do deny it, but it's not throwing out history. Revision would be the correct term. The deportations and slave labor of the Holocaust still happened after all and that honestly was bad enough.

No, it is throwing out history to do without testimony and documents. You are changing the topic here. Why do you fail to mention the open air shootings in what "happened after all"? Do you deny them? How do we know about them?

 

[Wroclaw]

Well aspects of the Holodomor is being debated and some do deny it, but it's not throwing out history. Revision would be the correct term. The deportations and slave labor of the Holocaust still happened after all and that honestly was bad enough.

I want to know if you think millions died in Ukraine during the Holodomor. That's a yes or no question, so please answer.

 

[Wroclaw]

Slight variation this time, instead of gassing -> food, we have food -> gassing

Waiting for you to decide which eyewitness you'd like to discuss first, Bunny.

 

[MG1962]

Europa, Europa
Amazon.com Review

The length and breadth of your scholastic efforts are truely inspiring. Do you think because you have not heard of this man or the film made of his life, no one else had?

And again for the umpty ninth time you miss the point

 

[LemmyCaution]

The length and breadth of your scholastic efforts are truely inspiring. Do you think because you have not heard of this man or the film made of his life, no one else had?

And again for the umpty ninth time you miss the point

Bingo. I knew it. I just knew Clayton Moore had another skill besides avoiding questions. He also is good at missing the point.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So where is your list Clayton. Show me your genius at work

Duh. You ask about books that you know don't exist. That's much like the questions posed about the Holocaust by the minions of the spewers of Holocaust exaggerations and outright lies.


Where is Elie Wiesel's tattoo?

 

[kageki]

Not true. You haven't read Roberto Muehlenkamp's material at HC, have you? I do not believe I have ever quoted Rudolf. Please don't put words into my mouth.
There is a lot to say about this topic because it is large, much has been written about it, and deniers cook up some real inanity.

I will allow other readers of this thread to decide whether "you hate Jews" is all I have said in the end. In fact, in your case, not having encountered you before, I said I didn't know what your motivation is but that it is implausible that it is implausibility. I did mention, and would do so again and again, what I've surmised from reading a lot of deniers' stuff. The antipathy towards Jews is self evident and can be missed only by readers who share the same outlook. But that is all about motivation, and most of what I write on this topic and have written in this thread isn't about the motivation of deniers; rather, it is about how I see the events themselves. Not all of what I've written but most.

No, it is throwing out history to do without testimony and documents. You are changing the topic here. Why do you fail to mention the open air shootings in what "happened after all"? Do you deny them? How do we know about them?

I've read some of it mostly about the AR camps and the Kola report.

I will agree there are some that are truly "anti-semitic", but it is not obligatory and necessary to add that every time. If the point is to show a bias then so are Jews and others.

Well you do need to throw out some testimony and documents sometimes if they are fraudulent, but you are not saying the Holocaust consists of only the gas chambers are you? No actually I don't necessarily deny open air shootings because that makes sense. Irving has said there were shootings at Sobibor, but still denies there were gas chambers at Auschwitz.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I've read some of it mostly about the AR camps and the Kola report.

I will agree there are some that are truly "anti-semitic", but it is not obligatory and necessary to add that every time. If the point is to show a bias then so are Jews and others.

I haven't done so. Simple. Everyone has a bias, in terms of pov, but the biases that you will see on denier sites etc are of a different sort: they are prejudice and outright hatred. There is much that is paranoid or delusional. It is necessary to call this out, actually. Why is anti-semitic in quotations marks in your post, by the way?

Well you do need to throw out some testimony and documents sometimes if they are fraudulent, but you are not saying the Holocaust consists of only the gas chambers are you? No actually I don't necessarily deny open air shootings because that makes sense. Irving has said there were shootings at Sobibor, but still denies there were gas chambers at Auschwitz.

First, I posted that scholars weed out bad sources. They do more: they compare and critique them. So you are only making the same point I already made. Second, no, I am far from saying that the genocide consists only of gas chambers. Perhaps, whilst generalizing about my posts, you haven't actually read them. Just a bit upthread I summarized the ways in which extermination took place and, based on Hilberg, gave 2.5 million non-gassing deaths out of 5.1 million Jews murdered. I haven't, in fact, posted much about the gas chambers. Third, what does not "necessarily" denying the open air shootings mean? Why "necessarily"? Did they occur or not, in what magnitude, and how do you know? Why do they "make sense" but not other forms of killing? Based on what evidence?

As an aside, I myself think that the open air shootings make no sense, are improbable, and are extreme enough to cause a kind of cognitive dissonance along with moral repugnance. The way to understanding them, just the same, is reading the evidence for them, how people processed the actions, and discussions and analyses of them. However little (common) sense these extermination actions make, they happened. Ponar meant death, frankly.

 

[Wroclaw]

Where is Elie Wiesel's tattoo?

On his arm. Prove to me that Eric Hunt isn't lying.

 

[kageki]

I haven't done so. Simple. Everyone has a bias, in terms of pov, but the biases that you will see on denier sites etc are of a different sort: they are prejudice and outright hatred. There is much that is paranoid or delusional. It is necessary to call this out, actually. Why is anti-semitic in quotations marks in your post, by the way?

First, I posted that scholars weed out bad sources. They do more: they compare and critique them. So you are only making the same point I already made. Second, no, I am far from saying that the genocide consists only of gas chambers. Perhaps, whilst generalizing about my posts, you haven't actually read them. Just a bit upthread I summarized the ways in which extermination took place and, based on Hilberg, gave 2.5 million non-gassing deaths out of 5.1 million Jews murdered. I haven't, in fact, posted much about the gas chambers. Third, what does not "necessarily" denying the open air shootings mean? Why "necessarily"? Did they occur or not, in what magnitude, and how do you know? Why do they "make sense" but not other forms of killing? Based on what evidence?

As an aside, I myself think that the open air shootings make no sense, are improbable, and are extreme enough to cause a kind of cognitive dissonance along with moral repugnance. The way to understanding them, just the same, is reading the evidence for them, how people processed the actions, and discussions and analyses of them. However little (common) sense these extermination actions make, they happened. Ponar meant death, frankly.

So are you denying open air shootings or just voicing curiosity?

Shooting someone is a well established and straightforward. Gassings on the other hand provide enormous complications partially explained by gas chamber executions done in the US amongst other reasons.

Here is a thread from CODOH that touches upon the gas chambers:
http://www.codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=392

 

[Wroclaw]

I will agree there are some that are truly "anti-semitic"

I would like to nominate Kageki for the award for "understatement of the decade."

but it is not obligatory and necessary to add that every time.

Yes, it is. It goes toward the motive of people making ridiculous claims.

If the point is to show a bias then so are Jews and others

Please demonstrate.

Well you do need to throw out some testimony and documents sometimes if they are fraudulent, but you are not saying the Holocaust consists of only the gas chambers are you?

No one is saying that, but it does constitute about half.

No actually I don't necessarily deny open air shootings because that makes sense. Irving has said there were shootings at Sobibor, but still denies there were gas chambers at Auschwitz.

If you're willing to accept that the Nazis shot Jews on the Eastern Front, then ask yourself this: Why wouldn't they seek out a more "efficient" way to kill Jews that would be less taxing on their own troops? There were, as they noted at Wannsee, eleven million of them left in Europe. Quite a task for even the Einsatzgruppen to undertaken, given their growing propensity toward alcoholism and suicide.

They were human, after all.

 

[Wroclaw]

Shooting someone is a well established and straightforward. Gassings on the other hand provide enormous complications partially explained by gas chamber executions done in the US amongst other reasons.

Please demonstrate when a couple of hundred prisoners in the United States have been executed simultaneously in a single room.

Unless you can do this, then you will have to admit that your analogy is invalid. It's like the often-used analogy about commercial crematoria.

Here is a thread from CODOH that touches upon the gas chambers:
http://www.codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=392

Great, so you link us to Jonnie Hargis's circle-jerk, where anyone disproving his lies gets tossed out unceremoniously after being accused of "dodging"?

Are you high on pot?

 

[LemmyCaution]

So are you denying open air shootings or just voicing curiosity?

Shooting someone is a well established and straightforward. Gassings on the other hand provide enormous complications partially explained by gas chamber executions done in the US amongst other reasons.

Here is a thread from CODOH that touches upon the gas chambers:
http://www.codoh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=392

You do not read well, do you?

Open air shootings: I posted, as I have already reiterated, that 1.4 million Jews were murdered in open air shootings. Perhaps this link will drive the point home for you: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7220899&postcount=2421 You seem to accept some figure so I am asking you on what basis.

Shooting 1.4 million unarmed and defenseless people is neither well established nor straightforward. Think about what you are saying. It is almost insane. Since you seem slow to understand, I am not arguing that gassing over 2 million people to death is established or straightforward. This was all out there on the edge. Strangely, it all took innovation and creativity, bureaucratic and logistical support, etc. But none of it was established and straightforward.

The motivation behind these killings is what drove innovation and creative solutions. The Nazis wanted the Jews eliminated, so they kept looking for more efficient and "better" killing methods. It is the National Socialist view of Jews that drove experimentation and improvement, not to mention "completeness." To devise "sardine packing" is not too different from experimenting with explosives or gas vans or exhaust or Zyklon B. It is all edge experience, and it is all mass murder. There were few precedents for the "creative" Nazis to fall back on, as gathering thousands of people together at the edges of pits and systematically firing bullets into their heads was not an established activity of governance or a typical means of problem solving or whatever strange notion you are trying to get at.

 

[Dogzilla]

I'm losing track, but didn't we do this one already? Seventy-seven percent of Poland's Jews lived in cities. The percentage living in cities in the USSR or Hungary might have been lower, but they were industrialized countries. Further, the whole matter of a sizeable percentage of Eastern European Jews having been veterans of WWI, or at least of the tsarist army, would have subjected them to delousing at some point.

It's a red herring. That's all.

Jews living in the Pale of Settlement had been gravitating toward larger population centers in Russia since the May Laws passed in the late 19th century restricted them from settling anew outside of towns and boroughs. I don't know what the population of a "town" or "borough" was in Russia at that time.

By the 1940s the USSR had greatly expanded industrial production but that had been a recent development. If it was "industrialized" it was only barely so. Even in the United States at the time, roughly twenty percent of the workers were employed in agriculture (compared to three percent or so today).

The sophistication of the eastern European Jews compared to the non-Jewish population aside, the fact is that the belief that Germans were making soap out of Jews was widely circulated and accepted as true among the Jewish populations in the East in the 1940s. That belief was so well entrenched that some elderly Jews who grew up in mid-twentieth century Europe still believe it today. If these supposedly enlightened people would believe something as ridiculous as that, why would they not be frightened of a delousing procedure that they had never seen before?

 

[Wroclaw]

JThe sophistication of the eastern European Jews compared to the non-Jewish population aside, the fact is that the belief that Germans were making soap out of Jews was widely circulated and accepted as true among the Jewish populations in the East in the 1940s. That belief was so well entrenched that some elderly Jews who grew up in mid-twentieth century Europe still believe it today. If these supposedly enlightened people would believe something as ridiculous as that, why would they not be frightened of a delousing procedure that they had never seen before?

Nice try.

First of all, my very point was that they HAD seen delousing before, because most of the men in their 40s or older had already served in the military.

Beyond that, you're conflating the soap myth with delousing. The soap myth was a definite unknown. It was not outside the realm of possibility either, given Spanner's experiments outside Danzig.

 

[Dogzilla]

That would assume there was something called a "special action" and that this special action could be called a normal delousing.

That would be my interpretation as well.

So would a shower block be called a bunker? Rather unlikely and that leaves to one side as to why Kremer said it was an "extermination camp" - Vernichtungslager - something popular after the war but not heard during the war. Since I have provided a much stronger and better evidenced paradigm to view Kremer's diary and his testimony, it would be foolish to ignore.

Why would a gas chamber be called a bunker? What is your paradigm?

As you can have this discussion 100 times with 100 different Hoaxsters, about Kremer's diary - and everytime you will lose.

However, if that is your hobby, be my guest.

I have never lost this discussion. The fact is that the diary doesn't explicitly describe extermination. No believer is going to actually concede this point but when the facts of the diary are pointed out, the conversation will shift to Kremer's testimony about the diary rather than the diary itself. That's as close to winning a concession as you get in this game.

 

[Dogzilla]

Please demonstrate when a couple of hundred prisoners in the United States have been executed simultaneously in a single room.

Unless you can do this, then you will have to admit that your analogy is invalid. It's like the often-used analogy about commercial crematoria.

You can scale up from a single prisoner in a single room to estimate the work involved in killing thousands at one time.

You can do the same with crematoria although it would be more useful to look at how big agriculture disposes of animal carcasses on an industrial scale. How were the remains dealt with during the swine flu or mad cow disease incidents that involved killing all the chickens or all the cows in a country? Were they burned?

You can't simply say that something that sounds implausible is possible because nobody has ever done it before or after.

 

[Wroclaw]

You can scale up from a single prisoner in a single room to estimate the work involved in killing thousands at one time.

Well, hundreds.

But: No, you can't "scale up." It's a much more difficult problem, using a different variety of HCN, if HCN is even being used (compare the Reinhardt camps, e.g.). The differences are, in fact, so large, that it's virtually, if not literally, incomparable.

You can do the same with crematoria although it would be more useful to look at how big agriculture disposes of animal carcasses on an industrial scale. How were the remains dealt with during the swine flu or mad cow disease incidents that involved killing all the chickens or all the cows in a country? Were they burned?

Yes, they were. Know why? When they weren't, they bubbled up from under the ground. Where have I heard that before...

You can't simply say that something that sounds implausible is possible because nobody has ever done it before or after.

Except it was also done in Bosnia in a much more limited way.

 

[000063]

Duh. You ask about books that you know don't exist. That's much like the questions posed about the Holocaust by the minions of the spewers of Holocaust exaggerations and outright lies.

In some distant and remote planet, there are organisms; life. These organisms are almost entirely unlike humanity, their appearance, their clothing, their culture, their logic.

And on that planet, your post would make the slightest bit of sense.