• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
It occurs to me that these people really have no idea of how academic research is conducted on the journal level. You don't get sweeping overviews of topics in journal articles or, to a large extent, in monographs. Instead, you get very specific treatments, which is why a lot of the work you'll find on, e.g., "pure" labor camps are going to be found in journal articles. You want to discuss the medical profession in the Third Reich at large, you're going to want to consult a book (e.g., Lifton), but if you want to know about medical care at Natzweiler-Struthof, then a journal article is probably the way to go (or a dissertation, come to think of it).

Many "revisionists" have probably never consulted a peer-reviewed journal, much less actually read one.
 
I think a hat and T-shirt should be prepared that has written on it

I don't know anything about [insert subject]
but I'll deny it!
 
Wroclaw said:
It occurs to me that these people really have no idea of how academic research is conducted on the journal level. You don't get sweeping overviews of topics in journal articles or, to a large extent, in monographs. Instead, you get very specific treatments, which is why a lot of the work you'll find on, e.g., "pure" labor camps are going to be found in journal articles. You want to discuss the medical profession in the Third Reich at large, you're going to want to consult a book (e.g., Lifton), but if you want to know about medical care at Natzweiler-Struthof, then a journal article is probably the way to go (or a dissertation, come to think of it).

Many "revisionists" have probably never consulted a peer-reviewed journal, much less actually read one.
Click to expand...

As in fiction always sells better than truth.
 
LemmyCaution said:
It is interesting when people take partial information or something written for one purpose and concoct elaborate scenarios around it, either proofs or debunking, for which the summary or partial statement is really unsuited. In this case, one should recall, I was not trying to prove a form of torture--laying out all the details and particulars--but rather to reply to Clayton Moore, who, seemingly obsessed with rape and testicle torture, wondered why sexual abuse was not showing up in accounts of Nazi depravity. So I quoted a single sentence, which, as Nick guessed, speaks to a torture of the genitals of a person hanging from a door: I was good enough to help Dogzilla avoid moments like the one he is now in the midst of, caused by his overhasty and embarrassingly silly rendition, in fact, by including a page reference should he or anyone have wanted to check the full context.
Click to expand...

What can I say? I trusted that the quote you provided was the complete quote. I've done that in the past with your posts but I have now learned the error of my ways. I have also learned to not hastily apply Doggam's Razor--the principle that if a holocaust survivor says something that can have more than one interpretation, the interpretation that sounds the silliest is probably what the survivor meant to say.

In this case, had Dogzilla read the context, he would have learned that the physics involved were as simple as this: "During interrogation, prisoners were strung up on a grate door, their arms tied behind their backs, their feet dangling several centimeters above the floor." Some prisoners, Sofsky continues, were hung the opposite way, upside down. And in some cases, then, the prisoners, thus tied up, were subjected to a "special form of torture" as described.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, that does make the described rough treatment within the realm of possibility. Nobody can prove that the prisoners actually received rough treatment like that, but at least it's possible.


ROTFLMAO indeed: no one claimed that the weight of a prisoner was borne by his genitals, and a source was given should Dogzilla have wished to learn something, rather than leaping to conclusions and looking for what he considers to be opportunities for mockery.
Click to expand...

I do enjoy mocking the over-the-top survivor accounts. That, and Doggam's Razor is a dangerous combination.


RODOH is all insults, says Dogzilla, in contrast to what? His post on physics? It is difficult to take seriously Dogzilla's weak excuse to engage Angrick & Klein, for example, in the context of the history of the hoaxing, after reading his above implosion.
Click to expand...

WEAK excuse? I don't recall giving ANY excuse to avoid engaging Angrick and Klein in the context of the history of the hoaxing.
 
Wroclaw said:
It occurs to me that these people really have no idea of how academic research is conducted on the journal level. You don't get sweeping overviews of topics in journal articles or, to a large extent, in monographs. Instead, you get very specific treatments, which is why a lot of the work you'll find on, e.g., "pure" labor camps are going to be found in journal articles. You want to discuss the medical profession in the Third Reich at large, you're going to want to consult a book (e.g., Lifton), but if you want to know about medical care at Natzweiler-Struthof, then a journal article is probably the way to go (or a dissertation, come to think of it).

Many "revisionists" have probably never consulted a peer-reviewed journal, much less actually read one.
Click to expand...

A lot of deniers fall for the 'single study' fallacy, which is also a trick used by other denialists, but it is utterly incomprehensible to academics. It is virtually impossible to achieve a passing grade on a student history essay using only one book - least, I hope it's impossible, because any student that tried that with me would fail outright. Sometimes students ask for a textbook on a particular course and they get a little surprised when they are told there isn't one, but that they are going to read all these different monographs and articles, each of which will complement the others in answering different questions and building up a composite picture. That much should be obvious to anyone who correctly remembers an undergraduate education in the humanities, social sciences or sciences. Even if there are textbooks, then they are invariably out of date before long, and have to be replaced.

For a general reader it can be different. If you want to read a comprehensive, well-balanced one volume history of the American Civil War then as far as I've been aware for the past 20 or so years, you went to James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom, written in I think the 1980s. And Which was, of course, about 120 years after the ACW happened. There have been many histories of the ACW before McPherson in one, two, three or more volumes, and there have probably been many more since then. A true ACW buff isn't going to be content with a one volume work, and indeed research on the ACW continues to this day. Sooner or later, the research done since McPherson published in the 1980s will be synthesised into an even better one volume history of the ACW. Maybe that's happened already, if anyone's an ACW buff they could make a recommendation. But I would imagine it hasn't. Note I am talking about a good, well-balanced, comprehensive one volume history of a major event, not a multi-volume work, or a cheap knock-off, or a summary for students.

I like McPherson, even though I'm sure specialists could find loads to disagree with in it. I like Hilberg, too, but McPherson had something like a 100 year edge on Hilberg because Hilberg wrote his book 15 years after the event, not 120 years after the event. And in those 100 years, the practice of history changed a lot, people did a heck of a lot of research, and the relevant journals churned out a ton of articles. People changed their minds about the causes and origins several times, and different schools, trends and opinions came and went. They'll probably continue to do so into the foreseeable future. Holocaust historiography ain't going to be any different.
 
I wasn't going to join in this thread, but...

I think I can help Clayton, so that he doesn’t need to write complicated computer programs - I did the following calculations using Excel! Please check out the following, to see if his theory had been vindicated.... or not.

Around December 1940, Hitler decided to invade Russia - Operation Barbarossa. The date of the invasion was 22 Jun 1941, so it happened around 6 months after the decision.

A few statistics:
Around 3.2-3.5 million German soldiers were moved to the Soviet Frontier. This total included both the Wehrmacht (Army) and Luftwaffe (Air Force).
Something like 98 army divisions were involved in this move, 69 infantry, 19 panzer and 10 motorised. Many of these would have transferred from France, where they had been expecting to invade Britain.
Now full-strength infantry divisions had around 17,000 men, panzer divisions 16,500 and motorised 15,500.
This gives around 1.2 million infantry, 315,000 Panzer troops and 150,000 motorised, totalling 1.65 million divisional troops.
It took about 50 trains to move an infantry division, 80 per panzer division and 70 per motorised.
So - this results in a total requirement of nearly 3,500 trains for infantry divisions, 1,500 for panzer divisions and 700 for motorised divisions.
That gives us a total of around 5,700 trains. That’s an average of around 300 troops per train, plus all of their heavy weapons, transport and equipment.
Now in the 1940’s only around 60% of the strength of the Wehrmacht were in divisions, the reminder being support and service troops. This calculates at around a million additional troops, who themselves needed some 3,800 trains.
This means that in six months the Wehrmacht moved 2.75 million troops, to Poland and Romania, many from France using 9,500 trains in total.
This means that on average 365 trains were used per week (around 50-60 a day), just to transport army soldiers. At the same time, many Luftwaffe ground personnel had to undergo the same journey.

Just using the army numbers, we can now extrapolate some figures for Clayton.

The SS used to pack 50 people into each of the train wagons. This gives a train containing 2,500 people.
The Wehrmacht used 9,500 trains to transport two and three quarter million troops, plus their equipment and weapons, in six months.
9,500 trains, at 2,500 per train, allows 23.75 million to be transported - that’s nearly 50 million per year.

If we use 6,000,000 people and 3 years for the holocaust, then we have:
6 million people at 2,500 per train require 2,400 trains.
2,400 trains over 150 weeks means an average of 16 per week, or 2-3 a day.

Wow! A couple of trains per day is impossible!
 
Nick Terry said:
Something tells me Dogzilla is going to be very 'busy at work' for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

My work schedule is keeping me from participating as much as I would like. But there's also the fact that the forgery related to the holocaust theme doesn't really interest me. I don't believe that any of the questionable aspects of the holocaust are questionable because they rely on forged documents.
 
Rincewind said:
The SS used to pack 50 people into each of the train wagons. This gives a train containing 2,500 people.
Click to expand...

The numbers I have seen suggest they were puting closer to 100-125 in a carriage. Which makes your number train trips 'required' even more achivable
 
Originally Posted by LemmyCaution View Post
I don't know a thing about poisoned porridge except the little I can glean from your post about it.

I do know that in the camps run by the Nazis atrocities and brutalization of inmates were common, that the SS in the camps made use of dehumanizing tortures and punishments, and that atrocities were innovative in their cruelty. For example, in just one report we can read about

- prisoners kept on a diet of turnip soup, a little bread, a tiny scrap of meat distributed or withheld at the whim of camp directors

- the withholding of rations on the whim of camp authorities, just to be cruel

- inmates with TB whom camp administration refused medical treatment and housed alongside healthy inmates

- sick inmates made to work, flogged and beaten

- young children in the camps, held apart from their parents (as at Salaspils according to your source)

- women beaten in their faces with nail studded boards

- inmates punished by being locked into freezing dungeons made of concrete and denied food

- laborers hosed down with cold water in winter, as punishment, in the assembly squares

- workers executed for stealing potatoes

- public executions in the camps for minor violations of rules

As to the specifics of porridge, I don't know--and, more to the point--this sort of detail is not what I was after. What I wanted to hear was the denier narrative of how the hoax was spun, as a whole, as a historical development.

IIRC Angrick & Klein, shockingly, do not cover or even mention porridge as weapon or as food. Without knowing more, about the porridge at Salaspils and never having taken a position on porridge, I feel it would be presumptuous of me to spin out guesses about your quotation. Now this is different to those of you who have been talking about the hoax regularly, have supposedly gained knowledge of hoaxing, and who have taken positions on the topic. Sharing your explanation of its development shouldn't be so hard. You should be able to do this without hemming and hawing, strawmen, baiting, distractions, citations to dated books, or a query about porridge designed to take us off topic.


Clayton Moore said:
The above is idiocy. It is a 1 step forward and 2 steps back mentality. How could any productive labor be expected by the Germans with the above circus of horrors going on?

Yet young teenage women, the age old prime target of sadists and rapists, survive. In the midst of every cruelty and atrocity, plus many new ones, known to man. Except rape.
There are no rape stories?
Click to expand...

Once again the Holocaust contingent skulks away. They recant over and over testimony after bloodcurdling testimony yet it seems the German monsters weren't interested in rape.
 
Rape was less common a German war crime, because of the relatively steep penalties connected to race treason, but it was not unknown. When the victims were not Jewish, in particular, it was probably as common as it was for all other armies during WWII, with the exception of the Soviets after '43 or so, at which point it seems they were carrying out rape pretty much as a matter of policy.

Consider, however, fair-haired and -skinned Jewish and other non-"Aryan" women kept in the Freudenabteilung. Was that not rape, if a more "civilized" form of it?
 
Dogzilla said:
What can I say? I trusted that the quote you provided was the complete quote. I've done that in the past with your posts but I have now learned the error of my ways.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this-- or maybe I do but cannot believe what I am reading. I quoted what was relevant to the topic. The topic being whether sexual abuse was part of the narrative of what happened in the camps. I wasn't trying to demonstrate how sexual torture was carried out--just show Clayton Moore that the practice was out there, so to speak. It is hardly a matter of trust or my fault if you, on account of your biases, jumped on a single sentence for mockery. What if the book had just had that single sentence--given its focus--but somewhere else, or in the source consulted was the full description? This happens all the time in historical writing: your overly quick snap to mock-mode says a lot about your bias and raises in my mind whether you have the patience, or the capacity, to handle historical works. Something I will bear in mind.

Dogzilla said:
Well, yes, that does make the described rough treatment within the realm of possibility. Nobody can prove that the prisoners actually received rough treatment like that, but at least it's possible.
Click to expand...
Right. Your point being that it wasn't has now been retracted, so this seems a non-issue, other than a propensity on your part to misread.

Dogzilla said:
I do enjoy mocking the over-the-top survivor accounts.
Click to expand...
Fine. But I must note that you derive your pleasure in odd ways. I would wager that there are far more truly traumatized victims, whose testimony reflects their trauma, than outright frauds trying to put something over on people. If you derive your pleasure from taunting and mocking people who have suffered great harm and have subsequent trouble processing it, that is between you and your god.

Dogzilla said:
WEAK excuse? I don't recall giving ANY excuse to avoid engaging Angrick and Klein in the context of the history of the hoaxing.
Click to expand...
You gave the weak excuse that Rodoh isn't up to your standards--of mocking victims?--because there are too many insults and not enough enlightenment. I forget how you put it, but that was the basic concept.
 
Gene Alley said:
Can you produce any direct quotes from any of these men which backs your assertion that they are hate mongers? If so produce them, not some crappy one sided article that makes unfounded accusations and general characterizations that support your silly position. You have failed miserably to support your position once again.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I have supported my assertion that they are hate mongers. You are just determined to deny this fact. Your denial makes rational discussion with you impossible.

A few Zundel quotes:

"In the "White Power Report," Zundel wrote:
"The Jews give us, their White hosts, wars, depressions, inflation, unemployment, energy shortages, higher and higher taxes and air piracy. Like sheep, they expect us to go down
the road with them - all the way to the kosher slaughterhouse."
Click to expand...

We loved Hitler because he was a White Man. We loved him because he replaced the wasteful idleness of our penal system with productive labor and punishment with redemption.
We loved him because he did the Work of the Lord, by driving the money-changers out of our country. We loved him because he wrested the creation of our money away from the Jews, like his American predecessor, Abraham Lincoln. We loved him because he was a deeply spiritual man who did not allow the Jews to confuse Christian teachings. The unhealthy and the mentally-defective were discouraged from inflicting more of themselves upon our hard-pressed population; sterilization was recommended for carriers of genetic defects. The German people could decide who should have children -- not the Jewish bankers. We loved him because he brought us together. White men from all the countries of Europe joined his ranks to defend the Holy Swastika Banner of our Race. Our White heroes are brave, forthright, strong and kind. The "heroes" of our racial enemy are cowardly, devious, weak and cruel. ,,, Thus do we differ from our racial enemy, the Jew. Today, his spirit soars beyond the shores of the White Man's home in Europe. Wherever we are, he is with us.
HEIL HITLER!

- Ernst Zundel and Eric Thomson,
"The Hitler We Loved and Why"
Click to expand...

More (pdf)
 
Last edited:
Gene Alley said:
You are nit picking and backpeddling while totally ignoring the fact that the real victims of hate speech are the ones who have been harrassed attacked and physically assulted by your buddies.
Click to expand...

No, I am not. I am supporting my assertion that Ernst Zundel purveyed neo-Nazi material and holocaust denial, something that is illegal in many countries, and for which Zundel was tried and convicted. Your desperate denial is getting ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom