Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
First, you are ignoring my point, which was that there is at best weak linkage between misguided publicity and popular commemoration and the work of historians. You posted about Spielberg, for example, in response to discussion of the work historians have done and specifically an article showing that serious historians do not "give a pass" to those who lack credibility. Spielberg is non-responsive to the point you replied to--whether Dr Neander gave Mrs Zisblatt a free pass of some sort.

Second, what history is in dispute? You keep talking about good points and points of dispute and this and that. What points are in dispute is a valid question you should answer, as well as a corollary: Which points are in dispute among historians? I ask the corollary because one could say that evolution is in dispute because a few state school board members in this or that state, who have not studied evolution, say so. So I ask the corollary to clarify what you mean by in dispute.

I would be willing to wager that more people have gotten their basic "knowledge" regarding the holocaust from Spielberg, Wiesel, Anne Frank, and story tellers like Zisblatt than the few who have read Hilberg, Browning or Dr. Neander.
 
I didn't ask your opinion or what it feels like to you. I asked you about the history of this legislation, what it says about the laws' intent. If you don't know, that's fine. Is that what you are saying? That you don't know but that you have an opinion anyway?

I'm saying that the only real explaination for passing laws such as this would be as I stated. To prevent open discussion which could prove to be embarrasing. I'm sure that is not the way the legislators framed them while trying to get them enacted.:):)
 
I'm saying that the only real explaination for passing laws such as this would be as I stated. To prevent open discussion which could prove to be embarrasing. I'm sure that is not the way the legislators framed them while trying to get them enacted.:):)
I'm saying that that's well and fine, but again I was asking about the history, not your opinions, limited by your preconceptions and ideas of what must be. "Real historians" use actual documents, debate records, statements of participants -- and set these into the context of related events; they don't say that they can't think of anything but what they already believe. The mole of history takes surprising turns, Gene, and it you don't try following the mole you will be stuck living in your little world. I will drop this question now as you've sufficiently shown that you won't take it seriously.
 
I would be willing to wager that more people have gotten their basic "knowledge" regarding the holocaust from Spielberg, Wiesel, Anne Frank, and story tellers like Zisblatt than the few who have read Hilberg, Browning or Dr. Neander.
Again, that is a separate topic to the study of the period and properly understanding it. I would wager that most people know a few cliches about the Hoiocaust, if anything, at least in the US. So what? The same can be said about many other major events that happened. What does that prove?

A discussion of the Holocaust in popular culture is one which members of this forum could pursue for sure. But interpreting how images and popular conceptions of the Holocaust have evolved, how interest groups have pushed various pov's and interests in terms of the Holocaust, what kinds of museums reflecting what perspectives exist, how commemorations have developed, and other related questions is separate to discussing the events that the popular culture riffs on or the works of historians about the period itself.

And I will drop this one too Gene as you conflate the two over and over; I am interested here in discussing the history, not the popular culture.
 
I'm saying that that's well and fine, but again I was asking about the history, not your opinions, limited by your preconceptions and ideas of what must be. "Real historians" use actual documents, debate records, statements of participants -- and set these into the context of related events; they don't say that they can't think of anything but what they already believe. The mole of history takes surprising turns, Gene, and it you don't try following the mole you will be stuck living in your little world. I will drop this question now as you've sufficiently shown that you won't take it seriously.


History is a pack of lies we play on the dead.
Voltaire
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)


And a wise old lady once said:

"History is usually written by the victors, because the losers are either dead or no one cares to listen to them. So yes, history is often biased. That's one great thing about archaeological research - it simply presents facts. But the interpretation of those facts can be skewed unless those doing the interpreting are incredibly conscientious."
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that the only real explaination for passing laws such as this would be as I stated. To prevent open discussion which could prove to be embarrasing. I'm sure that is not the way the legislators framed them while trying to get them enacted.:):)

Sorry, but that's wrong.

These laws, all of them, in fact, are passed for no other reason than that denying genocide is viewed as incitement to hatred or the expression of hatred itself.

Whether or not that is true is beside the point for this discussion. Rather, there are two key points here: (1) No free society should afford to individuals or groups the right not to be offended; and (2) Since open discussion of genocide occurs in all cases, if that were the point of such laws, then clearly they have failed.
 
But you do see the relevance of scale as I pointed out to you?
Do you agree that scale matters?

another hint.

What effect has a strong wind on a burning candle? and what is the effect of strong wind on a huge wildfire?


Do you still think that denierbuds experiment has any significance in proving it impossible to burn large quantities of bodies on huge pyres?


Not really. The fatal flaw with his demonstration is that he isn't burning a human body. No other animal has exactly the same characteristics as a human so showing us that a non-human animal doesn't burn easily doesn't prove that people don't either. However, if I saw a demonstration where somebody tosses a match on the carcass of a non-human animal and the carcass burst into flames and quickly burned completely to ash, I might be so willing to judge a person who thinks people burn easily as incredibly gullible.
 
Um well its a cop-out and if after 104 pages the best you scholars can come up with for an explanation for the Hoax is it "just kinda happened," well... You know, I've seen the whole three ring circus of denier explanation, this took place, that person was there, none of which I'm going to mention because I don't want to revisit those beaten carpets. Saggy threw out Mickey earlier. I've read that before too. Some of these explanations on the hoax have actually gone so far as to contain Historical names and Historical organisations and have been on the whole very elaborate but alas evidence-less and absent when it came to corroboration. Its true, wonderfully paranoid Byzantine works of Art have been painted to explain the Hoax. Some tinged with Jew-hating. Lets cut a long story short... I suppose "kinda happened" has a minimalist economy Dogzilla, I'll grant you that. But nothing else.

T:jaw-dropphanks for dropping my jaw. Amazing stuff.

Perhaps I was being a little too flip when I said 'it just kinda happened.' I'm just trying to point out that there is no grand conspiracy to spread holocaust disinformation. The spread of disinformation was not so much a product of laws and commands as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization.
 
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post



Thanks, again, for making me your obvious superior when it comes to thought processing.

The statement does not say that aquamation was used to the exclusion of any other method. Nor do I compare the totals of the various methods of disposal of diseased animals.

Twisty twisty.
It's quite clear what you were attempting with that line...otherwise it is a complete non-sequitur with respect to the 2001 livestock pyres.
 
As for the corpses all being burned to ash, can someone remind me exactly what was found in the probe tests at one of the sites? I'm pretty sure it wasn't just an ash layer...
 
Not really. The fatal flaw with his demonstration is that he isn't burning a human body. No other animal has exactly the same characteristics as a human so showing us that a non-human animal doesn't burn easily doesn't prove that people don't either. However, if I saw a demonstration where somebody tosses a match on the carcass of a non-human animal and the carcass burst into flames and quickly burned completely to ash, I might be so willing to judge a person who thinks people burn easily as incredibly gullible.

So scale isn't relevant? And the fatal flaw is that he uses an animal?
Seems your understanding of both physics and biology are very poor.
 
Sorry, but that's wrong.

These laws, all of them, in fact, are passed for no other reason than that denying genocide is viewed as incitement to hatred or the expression of hatred itself.

Whether or not that is true is beside the point for this discussion. Rather, there are two key points here: (1) No free society should afford to individuals or groups the right not to be offended; and (2) Since open discussion of genocide occurs in all cases, if that were the point of such laws, then clearly they have failed.
I concluded before I went to bed last night that Gene Alley neither knew why these laws were enacted nor what is really wrong with them.

Apart from the problem of laws that deny a people hearing from and thus knowing about those with whom they live, Gene Alley is proving much like the deniers on this thread with their apparent allergy to specifics. They tend to substitute their naivete or their version of common sense for finding out about things, whether the topic is the history of the Holocaust, popular conceptions of the Holocaust, public education and the Holocaust, or even postwar anti-hate speech legislation. In all these cases, what we get is opinion, without substantiation, presented as supposedly obvious facts.

People are really quite interesting, and they come up with things that are surprising and even amazing. Sadly, the extermination of the Jews is as much one of those things as the invention of modern computing.
 
Perhaps I was being a little too flip when I said 'it just kinda happened.' I'm just trying to point out that there is no grand conspiracy to spread holocaust disinformation. The spread of disinformation was not so much a product of laws and commands as it was a matter of spirit, of shared comprehension, of consonance and synchronization.
And I will continue to point out 1) that you and little grey rabbit are strawmanning the request in that I did not imply a conspiracy, but rather asked only how the disinformation, or "lying" as Saggy said, came into being and spread, with specifics and evidence, 2) not you, not Saggy, not rabbit has given your version of this history, and 3) in fact, rabbit and you have tried putting up smokescreens and diversions rather than getting down to writing out what should be easy to summarize as a core tenet of your beliefs about the Holocaust.

In my opinion, your stalling and quibbling and obfuscating is already another denier epic failure.
 
Last edited:
So scale isn't relevant? And the fatal flaw is that he uses an animal?
Seems your understanding of both physics and biology are very poor.
It would also be helpful for him to cite where he has read that somebody tossed a match on the carcass of a victim of the Nazis to have it burst into flames.
 
It would also be helpful for him to cite where he has read that somebody tossed a match on the carcass of a victim of the Nazis to have it burst into flames.

That would probably be Wierniks account. But those were decomposed bodies. But that methane gas can be produced during the process of decay of corpses is probably also beyond Dogzilla's basic understanding of biology.

I know he's probably reluctant to be educated but still;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decomposition

Bloat

The bloat stage provides the first clear visual sign that microbial proliferation is underway. In this stage, anaerobic metabolism takes place, leading to the accumulation of gases, such as hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, and methane.

oh and this part is under "Human decomposition" so let there be no mistake that it's about animals, whose physical characteristics can of course in no way be compared to humans.
 
This is Wiernik's famous description:
Work was begun to cremate the dead. It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires. Since cremation was hard work, rivalry set in between the labor details as to which of them would be able to cremate the largest number of bodies. Bulletin boards were rigged up and daily scores were recorded. Nevertheless, the results were very poor. The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn. Whenever an airplane was sighted overhead, all work was stopped, the corpses were covered with foliage as camouflage against aerial observation.
It was a terrifying sight, the most gruesome ever beheld by human eyes. When corpses of pregnant women were cremated, their bellies would burst open. The fetus would be exposed and could be seen burning inside the mother's womb.
All this made no impression whatsoever on the German murderers, who stood around watching as if they were checking a machine which was not working properly and whose production was inadequate.
Then, one day, an Oberscharführer wearing an SS badge arrived at the camp and introduced a veritable inferno. He was about 45 years old, of medium height, with a perpetual smile on his face. His favorite word was "tadellos [perfect]" and that is how he got the by-name Tadellos. His face looked kind and did not show the depraved soul behind it. He got pure pleasure watching the corpses burn; the sight of the flames licking at the bodies was precious to him, and he would literally caress the scene with his eyes.
This is the way in which he got the inferno started: He put into operation an excavator which could dig up 3,000 corpses at one time. A fire grate made of railroad tracks was placed on concrete foundations 100 to 150 meters in length. The workers piled the corpses on the grate and set them on fire.
I am no longer a young man and have seen a great deal in my lifetime, but not even Lucifer could possibly have created -a hell worse than this. Can you picture a grate of this length piled high with 3,000 corpses of people who had been alive only a short time before? As you look at their faces it seems as if at any moment these bodies might awaken from their deep sleep. But at a given signal a giant torch is lit and it burns with a huge flame. If you stood close enough, you could well imagine hearing moans from the lips of the sleeping bodies, children sitting up and crying for their mothers. You are overwhelmed by horror and pain, but you stand there just the same without saying anything. . . .
Did Wierknik describe the cremation differently elsewhere?
 
Did Wierknik describe the cremation differently elsewhere?

No, not the cremation process itself, but IIRC there's a passage in his account where he mentions that after opening a mass grave to be processed, some guards or SS threw in a match which resulted in smoke coming out of the grave.
I know it has nothing to do with the cremation process but it's another thing that deniers make a big issue of. And probably what Dogzilla was referring to.
 
Thanks. I can't find it. I wonder if this is the passage:
Once the Germans threw some burning object into one of the opened graves just to see what would happen. Clouds of black smoke began to pour out at once and the fire thus started glimmered all day long. Some of the graves contained corpses which had been thrown into them directly after being gassed. The bodies had had no chance to cool off. They were so tightly packed that, when the graves were opened on a scorchingly hot day, steam belched forth from them as if from a boiler.
We'll see what Dogzilla references.
 
"Irene Weisberg Zisblatt should tell her story about survival at Auschwitz without exaggerations and implausibilities. It then would be a really true story, worth to be told and retold and to be listened to."


Doesn't sound like a pass.

Oh it's a pass. She's been spreading prejudice against the German people to the benefit of the Zionist agendas.

People make up lies to hide the truth. Isn't that how it works?

Is your hero going to organize a retraction tour that would reach all the children she lied to?

His blog entry is his damage control for the lies told by Zisblatt to America's children? And you're okay with that? Of course you are.
 
She's been spreading prejudice against the German people to the benefit of the Zionist agendas.

Don't make me laugh. Holocaust education (at least here in Europe) is about warning against the dangers of (racial) prejudice. Not about blaming the Germans. I think only the limited prejudiced mind of a racist/holocaust denier interprets the Holocaust as an accusation against the Germans.


His blog entry is his damage control for the lies told by Zisblatt to America's children? And you're okay with that? Of course you are.

I'm not, and neither is dr Neander
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom