Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

Aaand we see you doing it again. . . . Now you assert that Jews "helped load passengers onto the trains", referring presumably to the Jewish ghetto police. It's pretty hard to think of a single deportation where there weren't large numbers of Nazi police and auxiliaries driving the deportees onto the trains; the majority of deportations affected ghettos where there wasn't a Jewish police force worth naming. Their role is fairly marginal to the overall success of deportations from the larger ghettos.

Thanks for this excellent summary, Nick. I want to add to the point about ghetto roundups. It is documented that during the September Gehsperre in Lodz, the famous Children's Action, the infamously collaborative Jewish police force was seen as so ineffective by the SS, despite the exception of the Jewish police from deportation, that midway through the action the SS moved in and took over, with far more brutality and effect than were in force during the early part of the action.

As to Gens, deniers might want to read Kruk's diary, for example, to understand that, as with Rumkowski, ghetto inmates were divided. In Vilna, there was significant, vocal opposition to some of Gens's policies, e.g., the Oszmiana action. Kruk's header for one part of his discussion of this action in fact is "How Jews Destroy Jews (About the Slaughter in Oszmiana)." Gens was forced to defend himself within the ghetto - and following the action never really had the credibility he had before it. At the same time, as the Nazis' hand-picked "leader" of the ghetto, and go-between, ghetto residents continued to depend on Gens. I think you are right that Gens would have been tried after the war, just as some Auschwitz Kapos were tried (and convicted). This point ties to your point about the SK, in that surviving members have expressed that some of their silence was due to the negative perception of them within the Jewish community for years following the war.

 

[TSR]

I didn't try to compare anything to anything. I showed one example of how an epistemological standard was OK for the holocaust but not OK for the not holocaust. (In fact, it's not OK at all)

.
No, you very clearly *tried* in your "example" to equate the bodies of evidence between these events.

Here, let me help you out:

com·pare: to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences

Now, since it is the same standard you are referring to, then something *else* must be different.

Which is *either* the fact that one example was the Holocaust, in which case you are begging the question with what you believe is a tautology, or the evidence is different in the cases.
.

If you want to argue that there is an entire class of evidence supporting the holocaust but there isn't supporting aliens or Egyptians, then you need to take that up with Dr. Shermer. He is the one who said there is an absence of evidence for the holocaust. He is the one who said that that's OK.

.
But Shermer *didn't* say there is a general absence of evidence. He was very clearly referring to Cole's 'questions' which he characterized as not significant but instead "nice to know".
.

The evidence or lack thereof for the holocaust isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing--not if but to what degree--the holocaust is held to a different standard. It obviously is. Everybody else has conceded that point while you try to twist the discussion into something it isn't.

.
Really? I haven't seen anyone else concede this point at all.

And no, the discussion is not to what degree, but if. Something you have spectacularly failed to demonstrate.
.

Yesterday you didn't know that Shermer had touched on that subject. Now you know that particular standard isn't discussed in his touching on the subject. You know this because you read the entire book overnight?

.
No, because someone *reliable* pulled off our shelves and pointed out the passage to me, having more recently re-read it than I.

Your turn: on what page does Shermer apply this standard?
.

The Law of the Moser doesn't apply to crimes like murder or rape. Although you're partially correct in that some Jews still believe in the basic principle.

.
Now this, on the other hand, *is* off topic, and a flat out lie.
.

I swear to Dog, first you say Abe Foxman doesn't know God poop from the concept of 'chosenness' and now this. Why do you hate Jews so much???

.
This is also both.
.

I did. I gave a splendid example of how an epistemological statement of principle (a bogus one) was OK when we're talking about the holocaust but was correctly identified as bogus when we're talking about the not-holocaust. Pay attention!

.
No, that's what you tried and failed to do, for reasons that have been pointed out by other posters as well.

But do keep flailing -- it's mildly amusing in a train-wreck sort of way.
.

 

[MaxMurx]

I have attached a link to a 2009 paper concerning standards and requirements of forensic investigations of genocides. The 220 pages paper, which's main topic is the Yugoslavian conflict, gives a short introduction into the history of those investigations. As an example from history the GERMAN KATYN investigation from 1943 is described. The Russian investigation and its presentation in the Nuremberg trials reportedly have been fraud. Holocaust is mentioned in one single word (being a 'political issue'). And this is in in a paper about forensic examinations of genocides. The largest one ever having been occured. Do you think this is an acceptable situation? With only a little rest of honesty, dilligence and scientific accuracy: shouldn't there at least be mentioned a few of the thousands of mass atrocities which are reported to be proven to have been committed by the Germans? Where are those investigations? In Yugoslavia eye witness were present, even TV was present but the necessity of forensics remained. Is there nothing in the inside of people telling them that for the pure sake of honor and dignity those data have to be obtained? Not to say that accused also have a right of a fair and honest trial which includes a state of the art forensic investigation. The first day those data were available any kind of "Revisionism" would even disappear. Where is the problem? Don't you have the impression that it is a bad service to all law and justice if we accept such dishonest procedures?

Link: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=utk_graddiss&sei-redir=1

 

[Saggy]

Do you think this is an acceptable situation?

It is not acceptable. It is, like the entire holohoax, absurd. There is no investigation because there was no holocaust. Only the holohoax is real, the systematic and well organized campaign by world Jewry to convince the world that phantasmagoria is reality.

 

[MG1962]

It is not acceptable. It is, like the entire holohoax, absurd. There is no investigation because there was no holocaust. Only the holohoax is real, the systematic and well organized campaign by world Jewry to convince the world that phantasmagoria is reality.

So tell me Saggy why hasn't someone from the Birzeit University done their doctorate on this?

 

[Wroclaw]

Holocaust is mentioned in one single word (being a 'political issue'). And this is in in a paper about forensic examinations of genocides. The largest one ever having been occured. Do you think this is an acceptable situation?

Yes, I do.

It's a doctoral dissertation on a very specific series of investigations done in the former Yugoslavia. She only felt the need to provide Katyn as the starting point for where her investigations were ultimately taking her, using it (Katyn) as an example of how the investigations can be undertaken and twisted for political matters.

You clearly understand little or nothing about academia.

 

[Wroclaw]

So tell me Saggy why hasn't someone from the Birzeit University done their doctorate on this?

Indeed, or anywhere else in the world where Jews are personae non grata?

Mahmoud Abbas, of course, wrote his doctoral dissertation in the Soviet Union on Zionist collaboration with the Nazis — a dissertation that many who've read it (I've not) have tagged as soft Holocaust denial. So where is the great Arab/Muslim scholar to tackle the big bad Holocaust in some academic way? I mean, it's not like they don't have universities in that part of the world.*


*In fact, they have the oldest ones in the world.

 

[MG1962]

Indeed, or anywhere else in the world where Jews are personae non grata?

Mahmoud Abbas, of course, wrote his doctoral dissertation in the Soviet Union on Zionist collaboration with the Nazis — a dissertation that many who've read it (I've not) have tagged as soft Holocaust denial. So where is the great Arab/Muslim scholar to tackle the big bad Holocaust in some academic way? I mean, it's not like they don't have universities in that part of the world.*


*In fact, they have the oldest ones in the world.

And even in the Jewish controlled world, controverisal topics are ripe pickings for papers.

In the town I live in one of our most cherished and long lived legends was totally destroyed 2 years ago by a history paper dealing with public memories. The author could do it because he used original research, applied it in an academic way, and scored very well with his conclussions.

So if the world is awash with proof the Holocaust is a fake, why hasn't some hotshot History major written about it.

 

[TSR]

.
Durrr. Because they're all in on it.

But I'm curious about this Katyn "presentation" -- what, exactly was presented, and how did the court treat it? Can it be that we've finally found DZ's so-called double standard regarding the Holocaust?
.

 

[Dogzilla]

I have tried explaining to you that your common sense is not a proof of what happens in the world. What appears to you to be incongruous and easily dismissed may happen under extreme conditions which are not familiar to you. You, LGR, and others who harp on this sort of "impossibility," mocking the victims as you go, apparently live circumscribed lives the limited experience of which circumscribes your awareness of what people can do.

Let's just take an example from the 'sixties of what people are capable of: In August 1969, after the murders of Sharon Tate and others, during which murderer Susan Atkins had tasted the victims' blood on her hand to renew her life, members of the Manson family went to the home of a well-to-do couple, Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Manson and an accomplice bound the couple and left. Those left in the house murdered the couple. LaBianca's body was later discovered with an ivory-handled carving fork stuck into his chest, a knife in his neck, and the word "war" carved into his stomach. He had been stabbed 26 times. Rosemary his wife had 41 stab wounds. "DEATH TO PIGS"* and "RISE" were daubed onto the living room walls in blood.* The phrase "HEALTER SKELTER" was similarly written on the refrigerator door. Testimony indicated that after the murders one of the killers had walked to LaBianca's corpse, stuck the fork had been stuck into it and then carved the word "war" on it.

The killers then showered and finally, before leaving the scene of the murders, went to the kitchen and fixed themselves something to eat.

Did I make this up? The events I've described aren't precisely analogous to the situation at Auschwitz, of course, because Mueller was a victim, not a perpetrator. But both events share the similarity in which people do very ordinary things under extreme conditions, ordinary things that seem incongruous given the extremity. I suggest you read more and learn more about human beings before you lecture people with wider experience about idiocy, lies, and impossibilities.

You're confusing unimaginable with impossible. The Manson family committed acts which are unimaginable. Susan Atkins tasted her victim's blood. That's disgusting but we all know it's possible to do that. If Susan Atkins bragged about devouring the bodies of all the victims before leaving the scene of the crime, we would say she was lying because that would be impossible.

There are elements of the holocaust that are simply impossible.

 

[TSR]

There are elements of the holocaust that are simply impossible.

,
And yet, you cannot cite a single historian or court as accepting any such 'impossible' element.

Just as you cannot cite a single example of any non-denier here agreeing that the evidence for the Holocaust has been held to a different standard (or indeed, even offer a good example of this happening).
,

 

[Nick Terry]

You're confusing unimaginable with impossible. The Manson family committed acts which are unimaginable. Susan Atkins tasted her victim's blood. That's disgusting but we all know it's possible to do that. If Susan Atkins bragged about devouring the bodies of all the victims before leaving the scene of the crime, we would say she was lying because that would be impossible.

There are elements of the holocaust that are simply impossible.

Is starving someone to death impossible? No. Is shooting them impossible? No. Is shooting lots of people over the course of 1-3 days impossible? No. Is gassing someone impossible? No. Is gassing someone using Zyklon B impossible? No. Is gassing someone using engine exhaust impossible? No. Is cremating a body impossible? No. Is cremating large numbers of bodies in the open air impossible? No, see the FMD epidemic in the UK in 2001. Is cremating multiple bodies in crematoria impossible? No, the documents explicitly state this was done.

Those are the core facts, and no amount of trying from deniers after 30 years (curiously, we didn't hear much about 'physical impossibility' until uber-chimp Faurisson started screeching) has proven them to be impossible.

Anything else is a peripheral detail, and most of those aren't actually as impossible as deniers seem to think. Deniers like to make fun of Elie Wiesel quoting another person's testimony referring to "geysers of blood" coming out of a mass grave. The tedious literalism can be ignored, the fact is that mass graves are known sometimes to swell and leak fluids, the phenomenon was observed, once again, in 2001 during the UK FMD epidemic.

 

[Nick Terry]

It sounds like we agree on Wiesel in a vacuum. I don't focus on him but not because I think it's foolish to do so. I think it's foolish to insist that somebody who IS the holocaust in the popular imagination is so unimportant to holocaust scholars.

This has already been answered, but it strikes me that Dogzilla, in common with his brethren, hasn't really thought through the maths on this one very well. Wiesel was deported to Auschwitz in 1944 along with hundreds of thousands of Jews from Hungary. By definition a historian who is interested in the ghettos, the mass shootings in the Soviet Union, in Treblinka, or in Auschwitz in 1941-3, will have absolutely no reason to cite Elie Wiesel.

As Wiesel was far from the only witness who survived deportation from Hungary, there is no compulsion to cite him even regarding that event. His memoir is extremely literary, and thus won't necessarily meet the tastes of many historians, who might prefer other sources. There is no compulsion on historians of the Gulag to cite Solzhenitsyn, either, and probably the majority of works written on the Terror etc don't cite him - even though Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for Literature and was widely hailed as the living icon of the Gulag.

Then there's the Primo Levi factor. Levi is much more appealing to academics because he was a better writer than Wiesel, and in the view of many offered significantly more penetrating reflections on the Holocaust. Levi's notion of the grey zone is widely cited and very influential, whereas I can't think of anything Wiesel has said which has become part of the conventional scholarly understanding of the Holocaust. Most of the remarks deniers like to quote from Wiesel have been cited approximately zero times by academics.

Wiesel didn't make the list of 100 most important people in the 20th Century - but Anne Frank did. Wiesel didn't make the list of 100 best books of the 20th Century compiled by Le Monde - but Anne Frank and Primo Levi did. Anne Frank's diary has sold easily five times the number of copies that Wiesel has sold of Night. Since we know 2 million copies of Night were reputedly sold to Americans after he appeared on Oprah a few years back, then it should perhaps be pointed out that Wiesel isn't nearly as much of a public figure in Europe as he has been in the US.

Interestingly, Primo Levi wins a googlefight with Elie Wiesel (4.5 million hits versus 3.08 million hits).

Finally, it need hardly be pointed out that anything which becomes too popular is going to turn off the cognoscenti. Same thing happens in music. Denier rants about Wiesel are about as relevant as some moron ranting about Madonna to a fan of dubstep.

 

[Cyrix686]

LOL It's true, I'd never heard of Elie Wiesel, even if he is "The Holocaust" according to the deniers. Now I'd heard of Primo Levi and I have enjoyed his books. He is a far better writer, more thoughtful and penetrating. Hyper intelligent. Anyone upon this board interested in the Holocaust should read his books. His likes will not be seen again.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Is starving someone to death impossible? No. Is shooting them impossible? No. Is shooting lots of people over the course of 1-3 days impossible? No. Is gassing someone impossible? No. Is gassing someone using Zyklon B impossible? No. Is gassing someone using engine exhaust impossible? No. Is cremating a body impossible? No. Is cremating large numbers of bodies in the open air impossible? No, see the FMD epidemic in the UK in 2001. Is cremating multiple bodies in crematoria impossible? No, the documents explicitly state this was done.

Those are the core facts, and no amount of trying from deniers after 30 years (curiously, we didn't hear much about 'physical impossibility' until uber-chimp Faurisson started screeching) has proven them to be impossible.

Anything else is a peripheral detail, and most of those aren't actually as impossible as deniers seem to think. Deniers like to make fun of Elie Wiesel quoting another person's testimony referring to "geysers of blood" coming out of a mass grave. The tedious literalism can be ignored, the fact is that mass graves are known sometimes to swell and leak fluids, the phenomenon was observed, once again, in 2001 during the UK FMD epidemic.

ahahahhahah Defending liar supreme Wiesel.



in 2001 during the UK FMD epidemic

I'm sure that was done in secret.




The history of the Holocaust myth should be called the great historical flip flops.

Nobody knew outside of the camps.

Everybody in Europe knew and therefore everyone in Europe was complicit as was the USA.


Ike, Charles, and Winston didn't saddle themselves with the Holocaust lies for eternity.

What we hear here is that the lies are acceptable for the greater good.

 

[TSR]

What we hear here is that the lies are acceptable for the greater good.

,
But we only hear that from you -- what greater good do the lies in your posts serve?
,

 

[Clayton Moore]

This has already been answered, but it strikes me that Dogzilla, in common with his brethren, hasn't really thought through the maths on this one very well. Wiesel was deported to Auschwitz in 1944 along with hundreds of thousands of Jews from Hungary. By definition a historian who is interested in the ghettos, the mass shootings in the Soviet Union, in Treblinka, or in Auschwitz in 1941-3, will have absolutely no reason to cite Elie Wiesel.

As Wiesel was far from the only witness who survived deportation from Hungary, there is no compulsion to cite him even regarding that event. His memoir is extremely literary, and thus won't necessarily meet the tastes of many historians, who might prefer other sources. There is no compulsion on historians of the Gulag to cite Solzhenitsyn, either, and probably the majority of works written on the Terror etc don't cite him - even though Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for Literature and was widely hailed as the living icon of the Gulag.

Then there's the Primo Levi factor. Levi is much more appealing to academics because he was a better writer than Wiesel, and in the view of many offered significantly more penetrating reflections on the Holocaust. Levi's notion of the grey zone is widely cited and very influential, whereas I can't think of anything Wiesel has said which has become part of the conventional scholarly understanding of the Holocaust. Most of the remarks deniers like to quote from Wiesel have been cited approximately zero times by academics.

Wiesel didn't make the list of 100 most important people in the 20th Century - but Anne Frank did. Wiesel didn't make the list of 100 best books of the 20th Century compiled by Le Monde - but Anne Frank and Primo Levi did. Anne Frank's diary has sold easily five times the number of copies that Wiesel has sold of Night. Since we know 2 million copies of Night were reputedly sold to Americans after he appeared on Oprah a few years back, then it should perhaps be pointed out that Wiesel isn't nearly as much of a public figure in Europe as he has been in the US.

Interestingly, Primo Levi wins a googlefight with Elie Wiesel (4.5 million hits versus 3.08 million hits).

Finally, it need hardly be pointed out that anything which becomes too popular is going to turn off the cognoscenti. Same thing happens in music. Denier rants about Wiesel are about as relevant as some moron ranting about Madonna to a fan of dubstep.

Elie Wiesel

About 3,050,000 results (0.49 seconds)

Primo Levi

About 2,530,000 results (0.21 seconds)


Did you really think your word would be considered the truth?

 

[uke2se]

Elie Wiesel

About 3,050,000 results (0.49 seconds)

Primo Levi

About 2,530,000 results (0.21 seconds)


Did you really think your word would be considered the truth?

Argumentum ad googlum.

The list of logical fallacies has really increased since the rise of the internet.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Wiesel on Wiki

Life in the United States

In 1955, Wiesel moved to New York City, having become a US citizen: due to injuries suffered in a traffic accident, he was forced to stay in New York past his visa's expiration and was offered citizenship to resolve his status. In the US, Wiesel wrote over 40 books, both fiction and non-fiction, and won many literary prizes. Wiesel's writing is considered among the most important in Holocaust literature. Some historians credit Wiesel with giving the term 'Holocaust' its present meaning, but he does not feel that the word adequately describes the event and wishes it were used less frequently to describe significant occurrences as everyday tragedies.[14]

He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986 for speaking out against violence, repression, and racism. He has received many other prizes and honors for his work, including the Congressional Gold Medal in 1985, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Letters in 1996.

Wiesel also played a role in the initial success of The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosinski by endorsing it prior to revelations that the book was fiction and, in the sense that it was presented as all Kosinski's true experience, a hoax.

Oddly, none of his lies are mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel#2007_attack_on_Wiesel

 

[Cyrix686]

Google fight Clayton Moore.

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Primo+Levi&word2=Elie+Wiesel#