Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

That is an inaccurate statement, and rather prickish in my opinion. No need for that.

Every argument of the type "this guy says that, so it's true" is useless. Just because someone says something, even if he is an authority, doesn't make that statement true.

I was under the impression that this was what this discussion forum was all about. There is certainly no need for all of the hostility that you have displayed towards me.

The "I'm not a truther/creationist/denier/conspiracy fan/ whatever"- routine isn't new. To believe that such as mass fakery is even possible and that every piece of evidence was faked already takes a special kind of ... well you know.

Not my strawman.

Actually it is, you brought up your friend in the cremation business, which implies that both can be compared. Otherwise, why would you mention that?

Thanks for the photo and the specs. Were there two other units like this at the compound? That would certainly bring the capacity up to the 4700 figure that was mentioned earlier.

Look at the document I posted, there were 5 (!) crematories

2 x 1440 bodies could be handled by Krematorium II and III
and
2 x 768 by Krematorium IV and V.

Krematorium I was converted into an air raid shelter in 1943.

But all this doesn't include the burning pits, that were also used at Birkenau.

The ovens at Krema II were dismantled an the crematorium bombed to rubble when the Nazis left, in an effort to stem the 'gas chamber' propaganda lies that the Soviets had been generating since the capture of Majdanek. But, apparently the Nazis didn't quite get it, that the morgue rooms were supposed to be 'gas chambers', as these were not destroyed, and, as noted, you can stand in them today.

You really do have cognitive problems, do you? It was already explained to you, that the crematory at Majdanek was also burned down by the nazis before the liberation and the one today there is also reconscruction like Krema I at Auschwitz with only the ovens being the original ones.

And the crematories at Auschwitz weren't "bombed", they were first partially dismantled and the rest was dynamited by the SS. Again, why if they had nothing to hide?

 

[LemmyCaution]

That's your strawman. You are the one who brought up the term "holocaust denial", not me. In my opinion the term is being misused. A holocaust denier to me would suggest someone who allegedly participated in the burning of human beings and is denying his guilt. What's your point?

I stand corrected by ddt for my rather loose usage, having written a couple of times about laws against hate speech and Holocaust denial, as the relevant German legislation indeed doesn't specifically mention Holocaust denial (and certainly, as ddt pointed out, not historical debate and rethinking either). As I am sure you can guess, arguing that the Holocaust--that is, a genocide of Europe's Jews carried out by the National Socialist government--did not occur is the commonly understood meaning of Holocaust denial, not your contrivance.

Here are the relevant sections of the German legislation, copied from Wikipedia:

§ 130 Public Incitement (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005)
(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:
1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.
(...)
(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.
(4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. (...)

§ 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons (1985, amendments of 1992)
Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.

§ 194 Application for Criminal Prosecution
(1) An insult shall be prosecuted only upon complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the aggrieved party was persecuted as a member of a group under the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree, this group is a part of the population and the insult is connected with this persecution. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if the aggrieved party objects. When the aggrieved party deceases, the rights of complaint and of objection devolve on the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2). The objection may not be withdrawn.
(2) If the memory of a deceased person has been disparaged, then the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2), are entitled to file a complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the deceased person lost his life as a victim of the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree and the disparagement is connected therewith. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if a person entitled to file a complaint objects. The objection may not be withdrawn. (...)

Now, there is a lot in this law that I find very troubling, but a provision for arresting and imprisoning people who hold and state varying viewpoints on the Holocaust is not one of them, as I can't find this provision in the law. Indeed, in Germany, very sharp debates have taken place, and continue, about the way in which the mass murder of Jews, and others, was planned and carried out, how and when and by whom key decisions were made, the nature of the National Socialist government, the roles of various groups in Germany and occupied countries, etc.

My opinion of the law aside, given its contents and your statement that ddt's post is his strawman, I am having difficulty following your thinking about the relationship (as noted previously) of laws like the German law, as you introduced such legislation, to the question of the occurrence of the Holocaust. Please explain what the thinking is behind your posting the following? What did you mean, if not Holocaust revisionism, commonly called denial, by your phrase invoking disagreement with "the generally accepted narrartive"?

. . . the outrageous actions of those who would support arresting and imprisoning people for advancing and arguing different historical perspectives regarding the holocaust . . . these draconian, totalitarian laws. . . . I am not comfortable with supporting the prosecution of anyone for thought crimes. . . . The red flag is: What the hell are these tyrants so afraid of by the free dissimination of information whether they agree with it or not. They prosecute these "crimes" under the auspecies of public safety saying that those who disagree with the generally accepted narrartive are inciting others to commit hate crime, which is a bunch of crap, and could be said of any inflammitory political speech which those currently in power disapprove of.

One revisionist here, Clayton Moore, has noted that he believes that these laws were directed at circumscribing discussion of a historical topic. Is that how you understand them? Why was the legislation passed and what was its aim?

 

[Clayton Moore]

That's your strawman. You are the one who brought up the term "holocaust denial", not me. In my opinion the term is being misused. A holocaust denier to me would suggest someone who allegedly participated in the burning of human beings and is denying his guilt. What's your point?

The most obvious reasons the Holocaust myth is indeed a hoax are the incredibly roundabout methodology, enormous resources, manpower, and expense of its implementation in direct competition with the war effort. Increasing in intensity as all those things were in short supply as Germany began losing the war.

The Holocaust fabrication is a portrayal of ritual genocide.

All the Holocaust hoax people ignore the enormity of managing, supporting, and staging six million plus internees from points A through Z.

Additionally the Holocaust hoax people demand the Jewish internees had no clue of their eventual fate and cooperated till they were tricked into entering gas chambers.

 

[Cyrix686]

Some part of the post is probably fine, I don't really care what is and what isn't fine. It's the ludicrous assumption casually tossed in that it is in fact a True Given (didn't you know) that one can happily accept such a classic Revisionist concept as, "gas chamber" propaganda" as reality, as Saggy has done that elicited the comment.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Every argument of the type "this guy says that, so it's true" is useless. Just because someone says something, even if he is an authority, doesn't make that statement true.



The "I'm not a truther/creationist/denier/conspiracy fan/ whatever"- routine isn't new. To believe that such as mass fakery is even possible and that every piece of evidence was faked already takes a special kind of ... well you know.



Actually it is, you brought up your friend in the cremation business, which implies that both can be compared. Otherwise, why would you mention that?



Look at the document I posted, there were 5 (!) crematories

2 x 1440 bodies could be handled by Krematorium II and III
and
2 x 768 by Krematorium IV and V.

Krematorium I was converted into an air raid shelter in 1943.

But all this doesn't include the burning pits, that were also used at Birkenau.



You really do have cognitive problems, do you? It was already explained to you, that the crematory at Majdanek was also burned down by the nazis before the liberation and the one today there is also reconscruction like Krema I at Auschwitz with only the ovens being the original ones.

And the crematories at Auschwitz weren't "bombed", they were first partially dismantled and the rest was dynamited by the SS. Again, why if they had nothing to hide?

Burning pits. What nonsense.

 

[BaaBaa]

http://webpage.pace.edu/nreagin/F2005WS267/SherminAli/Pit.jpg

I know. Crazy, right?

 

[ddt]

That's your strawman. You are the one who brought up the term "holocaust denial", not me. In my opinion the term is being misused.

Could you point me out why my use of "holocaust denial" is a strawman? Your words were:

That along with the outrageous actions of those who would support arresting and imprisoning people for advancing and arguing different historical perspectives regarding the holocaust

So could you please point me out those people who "advance and argue different historical perspectives regarding the holocaust" who don't in fact deny the Holocaust took place? And could you please also point then out what their "different perspective" is?

And even if you could point to someone who advances the viewpoint that, say, "only" 2 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, the point still stands: neither the German, nor the Dutch laws mention the Holocaust specifically, but are general hate speech laws. People in those countries are not prosecuted for Holocaust denial per se, but for the hate speech that invariably is included in their writings.

A holocaust denier to me would suggest someone who allegedly participated in the burning of human beings and is denying his guilt. What's your point?

Oh, don't start even with semantic sophistry. A "holocaust denier" is someone who denies the Holocaust took place. Full stop. Period. (to please both the US and the UK readers). Trying to redefine established terms doesn't earn you brownie points in this discussion.

ETA: And I have a simple question too. Here's the "Digital Monument to the Jewish Community in the Netherlands". It lists approx. 34,000 Jews who in Spring/Summer 1943 were murdered in Sobibor. Can you give me one single name that's falsely listed there, i.e., one Dutch Jew who is claimed to have been murdered in Sobibor but actually survived and lived after the war?

 

[Cyrix686]

ddt:

"Oh, don't start even with semantic sophistry. A "holocaust denier" is someone who denies the Holocaust took place. Full stop. Period. (to please both the US and the UK readers). Trying to redefine established terms doesn't earn you brownie points in this discussion."

Nicely put.

 

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

Burning pits. What nonsense.

Appeal to ridicule noted.

And to bad the Sonderkommando photographed this "nonsense":

And burning pits can also be seen on this air photo near Krematorium V:

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

EDIT: Damn it, BaaBaa was faster.

 

[BaaBaa]

NM

 

[uke2se]

Ahhh. Another babbling "because why" interrogation.

Already answered by my statement.

Thank you, Clayton. Your admittance to being completely ignorant of the history you're so desperate to deny is appreciated.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The most obvious reasons the Holocaust myth is indeed a hoax are the incredibly roundabout methodology, enormous resources, manpower, and expense of its implementation in direct competition with the war effort. Increasing in intensity as all those things were in short supply as Germany began losing the war.

The Holocaust fabrication is a portrayal of ritual genocide.

All the Holocaust hoax people ignore the enormity of managing, supporting, and staging six million plus internees from points A through Z.

Additionally the Holocaust hoax people demand the Jewish internees had no clue of their eventual fate and cooperated till they were tricked into entering gas chambers.

You are flat wrong, again. For example, Hilberg's 3 volumes are practically a study of the organizational effort, involving of course resources, manpower, expense, logistics, various skills, and coordination, which the genocide and other Nazi actions, like deportations and population reshuffling, demanded.

The waste, from your point of view, was not waste from a National Socialist point of view, which held that the Jews were behind the war, orchestrating it and controlling the elites in the UK, USA, and USSR and that the war wouldn't be worth winning without a final solution to the Jewish question. The waste, as you see it, does not suggest a hoax; it suggests that the Nazis had a view of the world that you fail to understand. That is all.

Nor does the research claim that all Jews were ignorant of their fate and cooperated until they entered gas chambers. First, nearly half the Jewish deaths were not by gassing. They took place as the Germans conquered large swaths of eastern territory and then moved on, leaving EGs, police battalions, HSSPFs, and various civilian authorities in charge of areas with large numbers of Jews. At this point, Jews not killed in the first sweeps were trapped and without much recourse. Jewish diaries (confirmed in the case of Ponar) speak of the killings and the dilemmas faced by the survivors. In many cases, Jews were trapped in walled ghettos, from which escape was difficult.

Second, there is a vast literature on Jewish strategies--how activists warned others (deniers call these communications and warnings unfounded rumors, of course), how many of the Jews evaded and escaped the Nazis by hiding with Aryans or building melinas or fleeing from areas before the Germans advanced into them, how some Jews organized resistance and fought back, or how very often Jewish leaders and masses tried to go along and give the Nazis what they thought was demanded in the hopes that they would survive until the Nazis were defeated. There were a few outright collaborationists, too, of course.

 

[uke2se]

You are flat wrong, again. For example, Hilberg's 3 volumes are practically a study of the resources, manpower, expense, and coordination which the Holocaust entailed.

The waste, from your point of view, was not waste from a National Socialist point of view, which held that the Jews were behind the war, orchestrating it and controlling the elites in the UK, USA, and USSR and that the war wouldn't be worth winning without a final solution to the Jewish question. The waste, as you see it, does not suggest a hoax; it suggests that the Nazis had a view of the world that you fail to understand. That is all.

Nor does the research claim that all Jews were ignorant of their fate and cooperated until they entered gas chambers. First, nearly half the Jewish deaths were not by gassing. Second, there is a vast literature on Jewish strategies--how activists warned others (deniers call these communications and warnings unfounded rumors, of course), how many Jews evaded and escaped the Nazis by hiding with Aryans or building melinas or fleeing from areas under German control early on, how some Jews organized resistance and fought back, or how very often Jewish leaders and masses tried to go along and give the Nazis what they thought was demanded in the hopes that they would survive until the Nazis were defeated. There were a few outright collaborationists, too, of course.

Don't bother. Clayton has admitted that he is ignorant of the facts and seems to believe he doesn't need to know anything about the holocaust to determine that it was a hoax. That kind of "thinking" is impossible to cure.

 

[uke2se]

BTW, has Gene posted the valid points he thinks the deniers have made in this thread yet?

No?

 

[ddt]

A holocaust denier to me would suggest someone who allegedly participated in the burning of human beings and is denying his guilt. What's your point?

In addition to my earlier comment, your attempt at semantic sophistry gives rise to another question at you. Can you name any SS officer or other Nazi who denied his part in the Holocaust on the stand? You claimed to have read the thread, so the answer should be easy, as the topic has come up before.

 

[LemmyCaution]

BTW, has Gene posted the valid points he thinks the deniers have made in this thread yet?

No?

Nope. Nor answered the other questions compiled so kindly by TSR.

Nor helped out Clayton with his confusion on the Taubner case, cited by Wroclaw.

He says all this will take study and time, and that he only has so many hours to devote to this.

But that's a little disingenuous in the case of the questions asked about assertions which he made, isn't it? I mean, if he didn't know what the good points are without more study, why did he decide the points were good enough to mention? If he thinks the historians are rubbish, wouldn't you expect him to have reasons for drawing this conclusion before more study?

 

[uke2se]

But that's a little disingenuous in the case of the questions asked about assertions which he made, isn't it? I mean, if he didn't know what the good points are without more study, why did he decide the points were good enough to mention? If he thinks the historians are rubbish, wouldn't you expect him to have reasons for drawing this conclusion before more study?

I would expect that. But then, I'm not a holocaust denier. Maybe reality works differently for them.

 

[TSR]

The ovens at Krema II were dismantled an the crematorium bombed to rubble when the Nazis left, in an effort to stem the 'gas chamber' propaganda lies that the Soviets had been generating since the capture of Majdanek.

.
What "lies" were generated by Soviets regarding gas chambers in the roughly six months between the time that Majdanek was liberated and the time that the Nazis dynamited the gas chambers at Auschwitz (with dates and proper citation) and what evidence do you offer that the Nazi destroyed them for the reason you have claimed?
.

 

[Gene Alley]

ddt:

"Oh, don't start even with semantic sophistry. A "holocaust denier" is someone who denies the Holocaust took place. Full stop. Period. (to please both the US and the UK readers). Trying to redefine established terms doesn't earn you brownie points in this discussion."

Nicely put.

I bet the above post, (shameless brown nosed butt licking that it is) will gain you some much deserved "brownie points" here with the heavy hitters in holocaust central. You are a real up and comer!! However I am not here to garner any of these coveted brownie points.

I personally reject many of these buzz/weasel word like "holocaust denier", "birther", "truther", anti-semite, "war on terror", "conspiracy theorist" Islamofascist and other crappy little manufactured perjoratives which are commonly used in propaganda campaigns to marginilize and condemn those who disagree with a set position.

 

[uke2se]

I personally reject many of these buzz/weasel word like "holocaust denier", "birther", "truther", anti-semite, "war on terror", "conspiracy theorist" Islamofascist and other crappy little manufactured perjoratives which are commonly used in propaganda campaigns to marginilize and condemn those who disagree with a set position.

You would, wouldn't you? Me? I call it as I see it.

Why do you hate Jews?