Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[MG1962]

Saggy's confusion deepens; the Buchenwald shrunken heads and lampshades were never identified as being from Jewish victims and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust as this term is usually understood, i.e. the genocide of European Jews. Nor did the Danzig Anatomy Institute case involve Jews, it in fact involved the corpses of Germans sentenced to death who 'donated' their bodies to medical science.

But it must be remembered that most of these incidents have passed into public knowledge as extreme acts of the Nazis. A lurker may then infer if these stories are wrong, where does the line end. Were the Nazis in fact judged incorrectly.

However if it can be established none of the convicted Nazis were charged with anything relating to these incidents, then one can argue those bringing the charges concentrated on events that has sufficent evidence for and not simply relying on made up stories to prosecute

 

[LemmyCaution]

This document was offered by Walter Ego as evidence of Hitler's order for the euthanasia program. The bunny seemed to cast aspersions on the reliability of this document to prove a Hitler euthenasia decree and it appears as though you concur.

That's not refuting a claim that was never made. That's an example of the denier trick of refuting a claim that IS made. Who was it who said something about those deniers being slick, backing up all their claims with facts and figures?

Anywho, refuting a claim that wasn't made is what you just did.

No, and you are now compounding the problem. Little Grey Rabbit tried to rebut a claim that the document was, as he put it, "an official law or regulation." It was neither. Nor did Walter Ego claim it to be a law or regulation. Walter Ego simply produced a document related to the euthanasia in response to a post which implied none would be found. He called it a decree IIRC and noted the backdating. Little Grey Rabbit called the document pathetic and tried to support this judgment by saying that the document did not meet the criteria for something it was not and was not claimed to be. That is trying to refute a claim that was not made--neither by Walter Ego nor by the mainstream historians whom Saggy and other deniers so often strawman.

Try again.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I'm going to have to track down this book and check Dr. Terry's facts. Were there really that many articles in the New York Times about the Jews of Europe during the years 1939-1945? That they reported persecution and deportation isn't surprising--after all, Jews were persecuted and deported during those years. But "less than a story a day" about the Jews? That must mean more than two stories every week, doesn't it?

I would never have imagined it would be that high.

Of course, you wouldn't. But any rational observer would expect a number of news stories concerning European Jews during these years. With widespread persecution of the Jews by the National Socialists and their allies, and then the Holocaust, what would be surprising would be an absence of news about the persecution. Given the dimensions of the crime and the numbers of victims, and the way in which cities and territories were reshaped by the deportations and genocides, the number of stories cited by Nick Terry seems rather on the low side than the high side.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Wow. The holohoax wasn't about the Jews after all. Thanks for the update !

Here is someone who has lost his marbles and the thread. The Germans were guilty of many crimes beyond those involving the mass murder of Jews. Some of these crimes were crimes against Germans (T4, as one example); others involved Zigeuner, Soviet POWs, hostages whether in France or Serbia or the USSR shot in collective reprisals, and on and on. To cite these wider crimes is not to water down the genocidal program against European Jews but merely to acknowledge the breadth of National Socialist criminality.

 

[TSR]

... EVERY FREAKING DAY ...

.
And yet, you have to refer to an article from 2006.

Tell you what: produce a story about the Holocaust from today from at least four sources, and you get a six month pass, too.

On each from the major media, by academia, by politicians, and by the government.

That *was* your claim, right? Every freaking day, by the major media, by academia, by politicians, and by the government.

Or were you being a degenerate liar again?
.

 

[Wroclaw]

Could you point out any examples of Nazis who were persecuted, arrested, charged or otherwise disadvantaged by their involvement in human soap, human lampshades or throwing babies into burning pits please.

It seems to me rather beside the point to prove that. But could it be that Saggy is wholly unaware of what was alleged about what the Reichswehr did in Belgium during WWI?

 

[Wroclaw]

I hate to embarrass Saggy like this, but here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20C15F6385D147A93C4A8178AD85F4D8185F9

I'll try to attach a PDF...

 

[Wroclaw]

What fun...

 

[MG1962]

It seems to me rather beside the point to prove that. But could it be that Saggy is wholly unaware of what was alleged about what the Reichswehr did in Belgium during WWI?

Agreed and the reason I brought it up. True or false those stories neither damaged or bolstered the holocaust narrative.

I have always been very wary of descriptions coming from WW1. Events such as the The Crucified Canadian have left me in two minds about the validity of other horror stories from the period

 

[Wroclaw]

True, and I think there's real reason, given an identifiable anti-German bias in the media during that period, to be skeptical of atrocities reported from WWII also. However, unlike the atrocities widely reported during and after WWI, the ones from WWII were (mostly) borne out as true in the long run.

 

[Nick Terry]

Wow. The holohoax wasn't about the Jews after all. Thanks for the update !

I have to agree with LemmyCaution here:

Here is someone who has lost his marbles and the thread. The Germans were guilty of many crimes beyond those involving the mass murder of Jews. Some of these crimes were crimes against Germans (T4, as one example); others involved Zigeuner, Soviet POWs, hostages whether in France or Serbia or the USSR shot in collective reprisals, and on and on. To cite these wider crimes is not to water down the genocidal program against European Jews but merely to acknowledge the breadth of National Socialist criminality.

Saggy, it may come as a big surprise to you, but pretty much everyone who actually reads a proper book on the Third Reich soon enough realises that the Nazis murdered millions of non-Jews as well as murdering millions of Jews.

This poses serious problems for deniers, as we saw with your T4 fiasco. The same can be said for other Nazi crimes.

The Nazis presided over the deaths of 3 million Soviet prisoners of war, most by starvation, more than 100,000 were executed. Several groups of Soviet POWs were even gassed at Auschwitz, Mauthausen-Gusen and Neuengamme.

Now, which group did the Nazis hate more, Jews or communists? Pretty much everyone would agree they hated Jews more. So....

But let me guess. You don't know very much about the fate of Soviet POWs, just like you don't know very much about euthanasia and just like you don't actually know very much about the Holocaust.

So you'll just keep on repeating 'holohoax, holohoax, Wiesel, diesel, Wiernik' and pray that 1 in 100,000 readers of this forum might be as cognitively challenged as you are.

 

[MG1962]

True, and I think there's real reason, given an identifiable anti-German bias in the media during that period, to be skeptical of atrocities reported from WWII also. However, unlike the atrocities widely reported during and after WWI, the ones from WWII were (mostly) borne out as true in the long run.

Well I think the biggest issue was the Germans were up to things well beyond the minds of any propagandist trying to demonise them could think of.

Also if I am not mistaken the evidence at Nuremberg was largly German documents and media rather than material produced by the Allies after the fact. Perhaps if WW1 had ended in similar fashion, the Allies may have been able to take similar action on a much smaller scale

 

[Wroclaw]

Well I think the biggest issue was the Germans were up to things well beyond the minds of any propagandist trying to demonise them could think of.

You also had KZs being liberated and literally hundreds of dead bodies of civilians lying about. That provides pretty much instant verification that you're dealing with people who just don't give a freak.

 

[Wroclaw]

So you'll just keep on repeating 'holohoax, holohoax, Wiesel, diesel, Wiernik' and pray that 1 in 100,000 readers of this forum might be as cognitively challenged as you are.

Damn, Nick, you really handed it to him.

I think Saggy just gets hung up on any evidence containing the "ie" combination in it.

 

[Wroclaw]

It occurs to me that Nick's point above is essentially proved thus: Years ago, when Mark Weber had first taken over the IHR, the standard spin on the Holocaust was that the Germans had really, honest-and-for-true, been nasty folks, but they just plain didn't use gas chambers, didn't do any central planning, and didn't kill anywhere near six million Jews.

Now, Weber is a bright guy, and I don't think for a minute he ever really believed his own BS, but stick with me here:

So Weber et al. are floating the standard three-point denier nonsense, but they realize just how freaking stupid they would look if they denied much else. So they concede mass shootings on the Eastern Front and that Jews were among the victims, but they hedge and say that these were anticommunist actions, for the most part. (Bear that bit in mind.) And, in order to bolster their point about no Führerbefehl meaning no central plan, they have to fall back on the signed T4 order. So they have to also concede euthanasia.

Again: So far, they have conceded Einsatzgruppen massacres and euthanasia.

On top of that, they basically have to concede reprisals, as these were done publicly for all to see. Lidice was practically bragged about.

Now check Nick's point above: They killed Czech civilians, communists, and the handicapped, and Weber et al. admit this, if reluctantly. Did they not hate Jews more? Would it not, therefore, make sense that Jews would be killed for being Jews?

This is why Weber eventually pulled up his tent stakes and why, conversely, the CODOH chimpanzee circuit has doubled down and now denies all Nazi atrocities lock, stock, and 1.5 million smoking barrels. The worst thing for Weber is that maybe he looks like a hypocrite. For the CODOH apemen, they just look they'd deny their own mothers if it would clear the way for their prejudices.

 

[Walter Ego]

It occurs to me that Nick's point above is essentially proved thus: Years ago, when Mark Weber had first taken over the IHR, the standard spin on the Holocaust was that the Germans had really, honest-and-for-true, been nasty folks, but they just plain didn't use gas chambers, didn't do any central planning, and didn't kill anywhere near six million Jews.

Now, Weber is a bright guy, and I don't think for a minute he ever really believed his own BS, but stick with me here:

So Weber et al. are floating the standard three-point denier nonsense, but they realize just how freaking stupid they would look if they denied much else. So they concede mass shootings on the Eastern Front and that Jews were among the victims, but they hedge and say that these were anticommunist actions, for the most part. (Bear that bit in mind.) And, in order to bolster their point about no Führerbefehl meaning no central plan, they have to fall back on the signed T4 order. So they have to also concede euthanasia.

Again: So far, they have conceded Einsatzgruppen massacres and euthanasia.

On top of that, they basically have to concede reprisals, as these were done publicly for all to see. Lidice was practically bragged about.

Now check Nick's point above: They killed Czech civilians, communists, and the handicapped, and Weber et al. admit this, if reluctantly. Did they not hate Jews more? Would it not, therefore, make sense that Jews would be killed for being Jews?

This is why Weber eventually pulled up his tent stakes and why, conversely, the CODOH chimpanzee circuit has doubled down and now denies all Nazi atrocities lock, stock, and 1.5 million smoking barrels. The worst thing for Weber is that maybe he looks like a hypocrite. For the CODOH apemen, they just look they'd deny their own mothers if it would clear the way for their prejudices.

I agree. It never made much sense that the Jew Haters and Hitler Huggers would draw the line at the gas chambers and admit the other Nazi mass atrocities. The Holocaust was the ultimate, even logical, outcome of the Nazi "racial cleansing" policies preached by Hitler from the 1920's onwards. The Nazis were hardly adverse to going to extremes.

 

[Skeptic]

and with either argument, he'd be forgetting the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, the Hearst group papers, the Times in London, the Manchester Guardian, Canadian newspapers, Australian newspapers.... which were not Jewish-owned, therefore he ignores them as they're inconvenient to his fantasies.

Ah, but they were all secretly Jewish-owned, you know, because they Jews control everything.

 

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

We're not talking about 'some Sergeant', we're talking about the most referenced eyewitness, Yankel Wiernik, and Nobel Prize winner and first director of the USHMM Elie Weisel. See the difference?

Nope, since you still don't get it. Maybe I was using the wrong words, so I try it again:

1. You still haven't proven even one lie.

2. You still haven't quoted these eyewitness testimonies. Why do I get the feeling you made them up or distorted them? Would be nothing new for you.

3. Nobody gives a rats ass about such details in eyewitness testimonies, since every historian, well, every god damn human being with even a little bit of critical thinking, knows, that eyewitness testimonies are unreliable in DETAILS.

How they seperated babys and other victims in each burning pit is such a detail, that can only be confirmed, if we hold other forms of evidence against it. It is completly believeable, but we don't know and a pathetic looser in the internet saying "Its a zionist lie" doesn't make it a lie.

And even if this one is a lie or just hear-say, what the **** does this have to do with reality of the gas chambers and existence of burning pits. We got forensic studies, pictures, perpetrator testimony and whole bunch of documents that completly proof the existence and nature of the Auschwitz Death Camp, even if we ignore Wiesel and other eyewitnesses.

And even if we don't ignore Wiesel, if he lied about the seperation of the victims in the burning pits, what does this have to do with the existence of the burning pits or killings? This slippery slope BS is for total retards. It is still possible, that Wiesel lies about the seperation of victims, but NOT about the burning pits. (which are proven by photos anyway)

And that Seargent in the Vietnam War could also be the most referenced witness for the Vietnam War. Everybody lies, exagerates or is mistaken and just because of one lie, there is no reason to assume that a whole story is wrong or based on lies, you would have to show this. But you don't, because you have absolutly *********** nothing other then your moronic fascist agenda.

 

[Craig4]

This just shows the failure of the thought process of the denier and their kind. He's looking at the testimony in isolation not the totality of the evidence. You have to look at the testimony and how the physical evidence and documentary evidence all intertwine and support each other to give a whole picture of what happened. It's what an actual scholar would do.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I agree. It never made much sense that the Jew Haters and Hitler Huggers would draw the line at the gas chambers and admit the other Nazi mass atrocities. The Holocaust was the ultimate, even logical, outcome of the Nazi "racial cleansing" policies preached by Hitler from the 1920's onwards. The Nazis were hardly adverse to going to extremes.

Something tells me that Saggy hasn't read much of the output of his apparent heroes--articles from the Nazi press, statements of the Minister of Propaganda, curriculum materials of the National Socialist era, speeches by big and little Nazis, pamphlets or books from the late '30s and '40s written by National Socialist "thought leaders," and such--let alone scholarship like that from Herf or Koonz. To say that the National Socialists hated Jews more is putting it mildly: they reserved a special category for the Jews and used a specialized vocabulary to describe Jews as the world evil, the most dangerous enemy of Germany and the West, instigator of the world war, a destructive pest that had to be dealt with in order to eliminate the ills associated with both plutocracy and Bolshevism and for the Aryan race to reach its potential.