Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Mondial]

Still waiting for the explanation of your argument from incredulity.

As many times as you've made this argument, you've never managed to explain why it's impossible. I wonder why?

1) "babies being tossed into the air" Are you claiming babies can't physically be tossed in the air?

2) "targets for machine gunners" Are you claiming babies in the air can't be targeted by machine gunners (or, more accurately, sub-machine gunners)?

3) "adults thrown live into a burning pit" Are you claiming adults can't be thrown live into a burning pit?

4) "babies into another" Are you claiming babies can't be thrown into another pit?

5) "packing the gas chambers tightly with adults and throwing babies atop them to maximize the killing" Are you claiming adults couldn't be packed in tightly, that babies couldn't be thrown on top or both?

Well?

The reason for the disbelief is because these statements come from a proven liar Elie Wiesel. See www.eliewieseltattoo.com and www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml

 

[LSSBB]

David Cole recanted because of repeated death threats. See www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html He later contacted Bradley Smith of the Committee For Open Debate On The Holocaust www.codoh.com to admit as much. He still supports the revisionist position but is no longer an activist. Feel free to contact Bradley Smith to confirm the details.

Shouldn't I just contact David Cole himself?

 

[Clayton Moore]

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml

On the scholarly plane, the gas chamber myth is finished. To tell the truth, that myth breathed its last breath several years ago at the Sorbonne colloquium in Paris (June 29-July 2, 1982), at which Raymond Aron and François Furet presided. What remains is to make this news known to the general public. However, for Elie Wiesel it is of the highest importance to conceal that news. Thus all the fuss in the media, which is going to increase: the more the journalists talk, the more the historians keep quiet.

But there are historians who dare to raise their voices against the lies and the hatred. That is the case with Michel de Boüard, wartime member of the Resistance, deportee to Mauthausen, member of the Committee for the History of the Second World War from 1945 to 1981, and a member of the Institut de France. In a poignant interview in 1986, he courageously acknowledged that in 1954 he had vouched for the existence of a gas chamber at Mauthausen where, it finally turns out, there never was one. [19]

The respect owed to the sufferings of all the victims of the Second World War, and, in particular, to the sufferings of the deportees, demands on the part of historians a return to the proven and time-honored methods of historical criticism.

“Hear, hear!”

 

[Clayton Moore]

From
Rebel News editor@rebelnews.org
1:27 AM (1 hour ago)

The Truth about 'Night': Why it’s not Elie Wiesel’s Story

Why is Grandma Nisel not mentioned in Elie Wiesel’s Night?

According to Hilda Wiesel’s 1995 “Survivors of the Shoah” testimony, Grandmother Nisel (also spelled Nissel) went with the family to Auschwitz.

According to Elie Wiesel’s 1995 memoir, All Rivers Run to the Sea1, Grandmother Nisel went with the family to Auschwitz.

But Grandma Nisel is not mentioned even once in Wiesel’s 1958-60 supposedly autobiographical Night.

Can Nick Terry explain this?

 

[TSR]

No you didn't.

.
So, is it your contention that Klee is not an historian, or that "The Good Old Days" doesn't discuss the Holocaust at all
.

I'm always trying to help you out but you don't have to take my suggestions.

.
No, you aren't, but no, I don't
.

To review: You had challenged CM to find a historian who endorses the absurd claim about packing the gas chambers tightly with adults and throwing babies on top to maximize the killing.

.
And what makes it absurd, in your world?
.

It's a variation on the worn out challenge to, zb, "Prove that any historian has ever used {insert ludicrous IMT finding here} or {insert common survivor story that only an idiot would believe here} to try and show us that lies, falsehoods, or magical thinking of the holocaust variety are OK no matter how many people hear and believe the lies because nobody important does.

.
No, it is to show that those findings and stories have zero impact on the actual history involved.

Just like the fact that George Washington not having chopped down that cherry tree nor thrown a silver dollar across the Potomac does not mean the American Revolution didn't happen.
.

Naturally, directly linking any specific nonsensical claim to any specific historian is next to impossible.

.
Mostly because few of them use nonsensical claims.
.

To illustrate, I challenged you to find an historian who endorses ANY specific detail found in ANY specific holocaust survivor or perpetrator testimony so we can see what such an "endorsement" looks like.

.
And I gave you Klee.

Which you then lied about.
.

I helpfully suggested that you tell us how many historians have "endorsed" the one about Germans (or their collaborators) shooting teenage girls in the foot and taking their shoes.

.
And I rejected that suggestion, since AFAIK none have, but it is impossible to prove a negative.

You want to throw out that detail on that basis, be my guest -- it won't change a single thing about the normative understanding of the Holocaust.
.

You answered my challenge with "Klee, in "The Good Old Days" cites a report from Johannes Blaskowitz on the very first page of the main part of the book which speaks of the indiscriminate slaughter of Jews qua Jews."

.
Yes, thereby fulfilling your any historian and any detail requirements,
.

You also said that: "Since I never claimed any particular number of historians endorsed that detail. I feel no need to look it up, since whether her shoes were stolen or not makes precisely zero difference to the question of whether or not the Holocaust happened. But nice try at a goalpost shift..."

.
Which is true.
.

Your answer doesn't make a whole lot of sense

.
Which word is confusing you?
.

but I'm under the impression that you're not going to tell me which historian has specifically endorsed Pesye Schloss' shot in the foot story because you never claimed any particular number of historians endorsed that detail. That's OK because it's true that you never did make that specific claim. I offered it as a suggestion and you refused to do the research thingy necessary to find any such link.

.
It's not my claim nor that of anyone here (so I can hardly have defended it), so it's not my responsibility to research it.
.

So CMs factoid about babies thrown on top of the heads in a stuffed to the gills gas chamber is meaningless holocaust drivel because he can't tell us which historian has specifically mentioned this anecdote.

.
No, it is meaningless denier drivel that this shows anything contradicting the Holocaust as we know it.
.

Similarly, your unwillingness to find an historian who specifically endorses Pesye Schloss' foot story means that it too is meaningless holocaust drivel.

.
If that's how you want to treat it, go ahead.

But why I don't I give you more exercise by your running away from the question "So what if it is?"
.

If you can't tell us which historian has specifically endorsed any specific fact found in Pesye Schloss' testimony we can naturally assume that everything she said is meaningless holocaust drivel so we can effectively dismiss her as important.

.
No, we cannot assume that. It's been explained to you how eyewitness testimony can be unreliable in spots, and how this unreliability is handled.

It's no one's fault but your own if you choose to continue to make yourself the object of ridicule by ignoring that explanation.
.

Weirdly, you offered us Klee who cites a report from Blaskowitz in his book, "The Good Old Days." But you didn't tell us which specific detail Blaskowitz mentioned in his report that is specifically endorsed by Klee in his book. That's what we need here in order for you to pretend you answered the question.

.
When an historian offers such a source without commentary as Klee did in this case, it can be assumed that it is offered with approval, even if the historian doesn't add "... and I agree" at the end.
.

I'm going to pull a TSR here and refuse your request because I never made the claim that Elie Wiesel's Night is cited by any historian. Judging by the sales figures of this book and his other holocaust related offerings, he's probably the most widely read author in the holocaust genre. But I think the fact that a man who is so important in shaping the public perception of the holocaust is an absolute nobody among the academicians who study the holocaust is hilarious. It symbolizes the intellectual bankruptcy of holocaust scholarship.

.
No, it demonstrates problems with the pop culture. For example, most people assume that the signing of the Declaration of Independence was part and parcel with the vote for independency. This is because of the popularity of things such as the musical, film, and revival of "1776".

The fact is, these were two separate votes, with independency having been approved on July 2nd.

That the other is assumed to be fact does not indicate intellectual bankruptcy on the part of historians of the era, no more than it mean the American Revolution never happened.

Only the Holocaust has that standard applied by deniers.
.

So, no, I will not cite any historian who cites Wiesel. It suits me fine if none of them do.

And, as an aside, we were talking about babies thrown on top of the heads of Jews in the gas chamber. We weren't talking about Night or E Lie Weasel. Your attempt to bring the subject around to E Lie is what I believe you guys call shifting goalposts.

.
No, it was an *lowering* of the standards (not one specific detail from the book, but any detail at all from the book) in order to show that deniers can't even do the easier task.

That deniers cannot but still continue with the claim shows intellectual bankruptcy, unlike your example.
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Saggy's Prophecy:

But, the price will be paid. Eventually the world will recognize the hoax for what it is and it will be the end of the Jewish religion. The Jews have tweaked the world's nose for their entire existence, but this one is not going to go down easy, the price paid by the world has been too great. Unfortunately, we may have not seen nothin yet, this thing can get much worse for everyone.

The Jews have always paid, well maybe not always, but frequently paid for the trouble they have created, so, your confidence seems wildly misplaced to me.

 

[TSR]

Can Nick Terry explain this?

.
No, probably not (although there are a number of literary explanations).

But you know who can?

Elie Wiesel.

What, other than your innate reluctance to do any research at all into the history you are so rabid to deny, is stopping you from asking him?
.

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
No, probably not (although there are a number of literary explanations).

But you know who can?

Elie Wiesel.

What, other than your innate reluctance to do any research at all into the history you are so rabid to deny, is stopping you from asking him?
.

So I'm really going to give my name and address to some JDL thugs.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No, it is to show that those findings and stories have zero impact on the actual history involved.

Just like the fact that George Washington not having chopped down that cherry tree nor thrown a silver dollar across the Potomac does not mean the American Revolution didn't happen.
You want to throw out that detail on that basis, be my guest -- it won't change a single thing about the normative understanding of the Holocaust.

This is a very important point, which Dogzilla, speaking for all revisionists, simply can't comprehend, as in his exchange earlier with Nick.



There are two probable reasons that the shooting of Schloss in the foot and subsequent theft of her shoe don't show up in any accounts I've read of Ponar killings, neither because these actions are absurd on their face. I've already alluded to both of these reasons. 



First, there is no detailed reconstruction of the Great Provocation killings, as mentioned, along the lines of what Angrick & Klein did for Riga/Rumbula or, to add in another such case, Andrzej Zbitowski reconstruction of pogroms in Radzilow (in Facing Catastrophe: Jews and Non-Jews in Europe During World War II).



Second, related to this, historians focus on what is significant and what can be proved. In this case, more significant than this incident, historians deem, are how the executions were staged, how many victims there were, the purposes for the execution, the command structure for removals of Jews from Vilna and for the shootings, the identities of the shooters, who the victims were and how they were chosen, disposition of victims' property, the connection of the action to larger policy issues, and other major features of what the Germans did in the Great Provocation. Multiple, "meshing" sources can be used to develop views on such issues; with the single atrocity which Dogzilla raises, while there are corroborating documents for most of the girl's testimony, there is no other witness to the errant coup de grace shot, so no corroboration. That doesn't mean the testimony is false on this point: just that it doesn't rise to the level of many other elements of her testimony and other sources, and so is unlikely to be included in brief accounts of the action.

 

[TSR]

So I'm really going to give my name and address to some JDL thugs.

.
What JDL thugs are those?
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

David Cole recanted because of repeated death threats. See www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html He later contacted Bradley Smith of the Committee For Open Debate On The Holocaust www.codoh.com to admit as much. He still supports the revisionist position but is no longer an activist. Feel free to contact Bradley Smith to confirm the details.

Your first link doesn't say anything I could find about why David Cole recanted. Where is this supposed recantation mentioned in that article?

Your second link is useless (and worthless, given the destination) in that it is to the home page and doesn't point to where David Cole's contact with Bradley Smith is recounted.

Do you have any specific sources for your assertions, or are you speculating?

 

[Nick Terry]

Judging by the sales figures of this book and his other holocaust related offerings, he's probably the most widely read author in the holocaust genre. But I think the fact that a man who is so important in shaping the public perception of the holocaust is an absolute nobody among the academicians who study the holocaust is hilarious. It symbolizes the intellectual bankruptcy of holocaust scholarship. So, no, I will not cite any historian who cites Wiesel. It suits me fine if none of them do.

Since you've demonstrated no familiarity with any scholarship whatsoever, your opinion that scholarship on the Holocaust is 'intellectually bankrupt' is worthless.

Your claim is moreover completely illogical, and also slaloms from extreme to extreme. Things really aren't as black-and-white, all-or-nothing as you constantly pretend they are.

Wiesel isn't an "absolute nobody" to historians of the Holocaust. He just isn't relevant to a very large proportion of the scholarship, as explained previously. There is little reason why Christopher Browning, for example, would cite Wiesel when Browning has spent the greater part of his career looking at the origins of the Final Solution and the Holocaust in Poland. Similarly, someone studying Sachsenhausen isn't very likely to cite Wiesel because Wiesel was never there.

Where he is relevant, then some historians are likely to cite him - for example, if they are writing about the Holocaust in Hungary. But they will also cite a variety of other witnesses and memoirs. Same with historians writing about Auschwitz - Wiesel is cited a couple of times in the Auschwitz State Museum's 5 volume work Auschwitz 1940-1945, along with several hundred other memoirists and eyewitnesses. In both sub-fields, there are plenty of sources which historians can choose to cite.

If you or any other denier want to address the content of what Wiesel wrote, then you need to be familiar with those other sources, in order to see what is corroborated and what is personal - much as LemmyCaution has explained to you in another post today.

We've been over a lot of this before. There are several very good reasons why Wiesel will not appeal to a number of historians, over and above the fact that if they're writing about the Holocaust in x region he wouldn't even be relevant. Firstly, his memoir is extremely literary and does not necessarily lend itself to the kind of citations that historians prefer, which are more often descriptive. Secondly, his sheer popularity means that there are going to be those who sniff at him because of that popularity, in the same way that cognoscenti and intellectuals tend to disdain overly popular novelists or pop stars. Thirdly, there is Wiesel's evident religiosity, which is another turn-off for historians, most of whom tend to be rather secular.

For all these reasons, the apparent disconnect is quite explicable and not damning, contrary to what you apparently think. Indeed, the very fact that you are deliberately interpreting this as somehow damaging to the credibility of whoever, is a sign that you are in the grip of a raging paranoia.

 

[Nick Terry]

So I'm really going to give my name and address to some JDL thugs.

No, if you're that paranoid (since when did the Elie Wiesel Foundation have any connection to the JDL anyway?) then you'd set up a throwaway yahoo account with a different name and email the Elie Wiesel Foundation with your question.

However, it might help to write politely and not come over as a paranoid bigot, which may be a challenge, we know, but I'm sure you can manage it.

If your email is worded in a polite way that invites a proper response, you might well be told that Night uses literary artifice and referred to Wiesel's autobiography for a more narrative, descriptive account of Wiesel's life and experiences. If your email sounds like it's from a crank, then it will be ignored.

Simples.

 

[twinstead]

I'm pretty much certain what Clayton's email will sound like.

 

[Mondial]

Your first link doesn't say anything I could find about why David Cole recanted. Where is this supposed recantation mentioned in that article?

Your second link is useless (and worthless, given the destination) in that it is to the home page and doesn't point to where David Cole's contact with Bradley Smith is recounted.

Do you have any specific sources for your assertions, or are you speculating?

The first link www.ihr.org/books/ztn.html is to info about attacks on revisionists including David Cole to prove that he was assaulted. Yes, I have a specific source for my assertion. I sent an email to Bradley Smith asking about David Cole and he told me his recanting was due to death threats and not genuine. This was the reason for the second link www.codoh.com as Bradley Smith's email and other contacts are on this page. As he sent a private email to me he is obviously not going to publish it on his website. Feel free to email Bradley Smith yourself about this matter.

 

[Mondial]

Shouldn't I just contact David Cole himself?

Yes, you could if you wanted to but I doubt if you would get a response as Bradley Smith told me he does not wish to discuss holocaust revisionism in public.

 

[LSSBB]

Yes, you could if you wanted to but I doubt if you would get a response as Bradley Smith told me he does not wish to discuss holocaust revisionism in public.

Sounds all so... unprovable.

 

[LemmyCaution]

And I have a stash of secret documents, the contents of which I can't reveal, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq did have WMD's . . . As these documents were sent to me privately, and although I feel free to talk about them online and mention the names of people involved, I cannot reveal anything that would help you be certain I have these documents. Except, you know, this post.

Duh. These guys make up "facts," mis-date events, claim fraud without proof, alter statements people make, refuse to provide sources - and they wonder why no one believes them? It's almost a virtuouso performance in . . . uh . . . hoaxing.

Has anyone found the source Saggy thought was from Russia? Did any hoaxster apologize on behalf of the hoaxing community for LGR's doctoring of Longerich's statement and multiple refusals to provide sources? Has anyone found the Moscow Forgery Factories which have been claimed to be forging and manipulating documents in US possession? Has there been an explanation of why hoaxsters lied about the location of Herman Kruk's diary in 1944? Just checking . . .

And, no, Mondial, I don't believe a word you wrote.

 

[Wroclaw]

I'm pretty much certain what Clayton's email will sound like.

"Dear Joo..."

 

[Wroclaw]

What I don't understand is why you think that everything in the world has changed, and you can get away with it this time. The Jews have always paid, well maybe not always, but frequently paid for the trouble they have created, so, your confidence seems wildly misplaced to me.

Really?

Remember that the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising went on for longer than the general Polish resistance to the German offensive in September 1939.

Remember also that the vast majority of Jews today live in countries (U.S. and Israel) where guns are readily available.

But do, by all means, feel free to try your next move.