Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Chaos]

The Sassen interview makes the truth of the Holocaust plainly clear.

Its seems to me that the fact of the Nazi program for extermination of the Jews is set in stone.

The only realistic debate now is how many Jews were victims of this policy.

And, of course, to how many absurd and idiotic lengths with Nazi admirers go to be able to continue denying the Holocaust.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Hey, why not all of the above? Maybe it's a forged interview of Eichmann being tortured into making ambiguous statements.

Pretty much. Deftly done, garethdjb, I do think you have peered into the heart of these beasts.

 

[LemmyCaution]

What you´re trying to tell us is, you know as well as we do that what I´ve translated is an honest statement, but your worship of the Nazis and hatred of the Jews prevents you from admitting it. Right?

Or, to ponder another alternative, I am simply stating out loud and in condensed form the reductio ad absurdum that is negationism. As Roseanna Roseannadanna used to say, "It's always something," and for these buffoons whether this "explanation" is at odds with that "explanation," it doesn't matter, so long as they can keep convincing themselves that they are negating.

For people who demand bizarrely particular forms of detailed proof to minute specification, they quite readily resort to unproven and wild assertions of forgery and fraud when they find themselves trapped and their distortions and lies are exposed.

 

[Chaos]

A friendly hint: If you´re trying to parody or satirize Holocaust Deniers, say so explicitly, because there is no argument so harebrained or deranged that a Holocaust Denier wouldn´t seriously field it.

 

[LemmyCaution]

A friendly hint: If you´re trying to parody or satirize Holocaust Deniers, say so explicitly, because there is no argument so harebrained or deranged that a Holocaust Denier wouldn´t seriously field it.

Thanks for the advice, but I won't be able to take it.

Alas, I cannot help making sport of these folks -- and readers, such as they are, will make of such comments what they will.

It is fine that you and others didn't catch the irony. This is, after all, a forum in which posts follow posts and momentary flubs and miscues are easily put straight later. Some got the irony, some didn't, such is life.

I am new here, of course, but know full well that the best satire of negationism comes from the negationists themselves. For that, a tip of the hat to 'em.

 

[dafydd]

Thanks for the advice, but I won't be able to take it.

Alas, I cannot help making sport of these folks -- and readers, such as they are, will make of such comments what they will.

It is fine that you and others didn't catch the irony. This is, after all, a forum in which posts follow posts and momentary flubs and miscues are easily put straight later. Some got the irony, some didn't, such is life.

I am new here, of course, but know full well that the best satire of negationism comes from the negationists themselves. For that, a tip of the hat to 'em.

You'll have to flag up a parody warning because these deniers come up with some doozies.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You'll have to flag up a parody warning because these deniers come up with some doozies.

Can no do. We will be able to sort it out, I am sure. And, yes, I have read and had to suffer through many of their doozies.

 

[Walter Ego]

Can no do. We will be able to sort it out, I am sure. And, yes, I have read and had to suffer through many of their doozies.

Welcome to the forum Lemmy. Loved you in Alphaville!

 

[TSR]

Can no do.

.
But you *can do*, just apparently refuse to do, even when the issue is made clear and you acknowledge it.

I give you three more posts to become *clever* in your parody before you go on ignore. If you insist on stupid posts, at least be halfway creative in your stupidity.

See Telltale Tom for examples.
.

 

[dafydd]

.
But you *can do*, just apparently refuse to do, even when the issue is made clear and you acknowledge it.

I give you three more posts to become *clever* in your parody before you go on ignore. If you insist on stupid posts, at least be halfway creative in your stupidity.

See Telltale Tom for examples.
.

He could learn a lot from Telltale Tom.

 

[LemmyCaution]

.
But you *can do*, just apparently refuse to do, even when the issue is made clear and you acknowledge it.

I give you three more posts to become *clever* in your parody before you go on ignore. If you insist on stupid posts, at least be halfway creative in your stupidity.

See Telltale Tom for examples.
.

Please put me on ignore. And learn common idioms while you are at it.

 

[LemmyCaution]

He could learn a lot from Telltale Tom.

Obviously, being new here, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. Perhaps that is your point. That said, my somewhat bitter post recording habitual denier retreats, which apparently went over a few folks' heads, was not an attempt as the previous poster assumed to be clever or creative.

I do think all but the most thin-skinned and literal-minded among us will survive a little bitter irony that isn't flagged as such with beacons and reading instructions. The thin-skinned and literal-minded can put newcomers who don't know Telltale Tom on ignore.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Back to the topic--please--deniers dismiss very plain statements from other perpetrators--and quibble and squirm about the plain meaning; Oskar Groening is another example that comes to mind, less notorious than Eichmann, but no fact uncomfortable to deniers' lying is too small for these people.

I am too new here to post a link to the PBS site on Groening (after the http and www just type pbs.org/auschwitz/about/transcripts_6.html) or to his Der Spiegel interview. They are worth reading. IIRC the denier case against the truthfulness of Groening's statements is that he failed to give precise and detailed descriptions of the gas chambers and that based on his brief admission of guilt one could not be sure he could have seen what he said he saw. We "debated" Groening for a painfully long time on another forum about two years ago.

 

[TSR]

Obviously, being new here, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. Perhaps that is your point. That said, my somewhat bitter post recording habitual denier retreats, which apparently went over a few folks' heads, was not an attempt as the previous poster assumed to be clever or creative.

I do think all but the most thin-skinned and literal-minded among us will survive a little bitter irony that isn't flagged as such with beacons and reading instructions. The thin-skinned and literal-minded can put newcomers who don't know Telltale Tom on ignore.

.
The point being, since it apparently needs to be spelled out for you *again* (since you ignored it the first time,) is that simply repeating what deniers actually write when you have no history here to indicate otherwise, simply suggests that you yourself believe those things.

It was neither ironic, clever or creative: it was a stupid way to introduce yourself to the forum. How are we to know you were bitter when you wrote it?








Oh, that's right, without your making it clear we would have absolutely no way to "get" your tone. And you didn't.









But if your responses are any indication of the way you conduct yourself, I shan't bother to formally put you on ignore: you likely will not be lasting long here anyway.
.

 

[VonKleist]

I do think all but the most thin-skinned and literal-minded among us will survive a little bitter irony that isn't flagged as such with beacons and reading instructions.

Being British, I jealously guard my right to use irony and/or sarcasm without emotes to indicate such, so I sort of agree with you. However, as a first post, the intent was bound to be open to misinterpretation.

Your Gröning link

Oh, expect to see the words "Oskar Gröning" and "degenerate phantasmagoria" in the same post soon.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Being British, I jealously guard my right to use irony and/or sarcasm without emotes to indicate such, so I sort of agree with you. However, as a first post, the intent was bound to be open to misinterpretation.

Oh, expect to see the words "Oskar Gröning" and "degenerate phantasmagoria" in the same post soon.

Being American I supposedly don't get irony. Misunderstandings can be cleared up, methinks, with a dollop of patience, so I'm a bit bemused.

Since my supposed posting faux pas is really not that pertinent or interesting, I should add here another gambit which deniers frequently use: When they can, they "isolate" cases and then limit them (there was a war on, Jews were partisans, Jewish spokespeople and organizations were attacking Germany, Jews really did carry disease, something had to be done, the measures in this case may have been a little hard . . . ). They employ this line of argument in the case of actions carried out as well as with testimony. The Eichmann statement in this case, a conclusion stated by a person who would know things, doesn't allow them to try this common trick: Eichmann's statement is too broad, unlike this or that cleansing Aktion, so the usual handwaving about the isolated case doesn't work.

Another big fish who openly talked about mass murder was Ohlendorf at the IMT, before he was charged; IIRC deniers resort to the forced "confession" claim to explain away Ohlendorf's proud recollections of his accomplishments, which he volunteered to his captors in interrogation.

 

[dafydd]

Obviously, being new here, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. Perhaps that is your point. That said, my somewhat bitter post recording habitual denier retreats, which apparently went over a few folks' heads, was not an attempt as the previous poster assumed to be clever or creative.

I do think all but the most thin-skinned and literal-minded among us will survive a little bitter irony that isn't flagged as such with beacons and reading instructions. The thin-skinned and literal-minded can put newcomers who don't know Telltale Tom on ignore.

If you want to put the cat amongst the pigeons you have to do it with style and elan. Check out some of the 911 threads to which Tom has contributed. He takes trolling to a higher level and I look forward to reading his posts. He's so good at it,the other truthers think that he is serious.

 

[LemmyCaution]

If you want to put the cat amongst the pigeons you have to do it with style and elan. Check out some of the 911 threads to which Tom has contributed. He takes trolling to a higher level and I look forward to reading his posts. He's so good at it,the other truthers think that he is serious.

I find Ohlendorf's postwar testimony interesting in that he volunteered it, he was a participant and leader of the mass executions in the southern region, he said one thing at the IMT and then argued differently at his own later trial, he started off with a kind of pride in the actions he commanded--and his arguments at his own trial (when his neck was on the line)--that smaller numbers of victims were involved than he had originally testified and the documents stated and that the executions were defensive necessities--have been picked up by deniers who begin with them until they have to fall back on their bedrock coercion and forgery escape mechanisms.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
The point being, since it apparently needs to be spelled out for you *again* (since you ignored it the first time,) is that simply repeating what deniers actually write when you have no history here to indicate otherwise, simply suggests that you yourself believe those things.

It was neither ironic, clever or creative: it was a stupid way to introduce yourself to the forum. How are we to know you were bitter when you wrote it?








Oh, that's right, without your making it clear we would have absolutely no way to "get" your tone. And you didn't.









But if your responses are any indication of the way you conduct yourself, I shan't bother to formally put you on ignore: you likely will not be lasting long here anyway.
.

Wow!

 

[Saggy]

I find Ohlendorf's postwar testimony interesting in that he volunteered it, he was a participant and leader of the mass executions in the southern region, he said one thing at the IMT and then argued differently at his own later trial, he started off with a kind of pride in the actions he commanded--and his arguments at his own trial (when his neck was on the line)--that smaller numbers of victims were involved than he had originally testified and the documents stated and that the executions were defensive necessities--have been picked up by deniers who begin with them until they have to fall back on their bedrock coercion and forgery escape mechanisms.

Would you be surprised if all the evidence for that WW II actually occurred consisted of court transcripts of men on trial for their lives? That is, there were no bodies, no ships, no guns, no destroyed cities, no photos, no documents, no physical evidence whatsoever, no documentary evidence whatsoever, that WW II had actually occurred.

Anyone who studies the holohoax will have that surprise, there is no physical or documentary evidence whatever, no bodies, no gas chambers, no photos, no movies, no records, no nothing to document the holohoax. Instead, we know that the holohoax happened because of the Nuremberg trials ! That's it. The testimony of men who were under immediate threat of execution. That, along with endless propaganda lies from the World Jewish Congress, is ALL the 'evidence' there is of the holohoax.