Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[little grey rabbit]

No, Zisblatt is not "perfectly typical and representative".



I don't need to name any. You're the one who, if you want to be taken seriously, have to demonstrate that every single witness, whether Jewish, non-Jewish or German, is lying.

You name three witnesses from Treblinka - there are more than 300 witnesses from Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. There are 90 named in Arad's book which appeared 24 years ago.

You name two survivors of Auschwitz (and whatever else Zisblatt said, it seems from documents that she was there for a while). But neither of them were witnesses in any investigations of trials. The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial heard the evidence of more than 400 witnesses, after a pre-trial investigation involving 1,400 witnesses.

You simply keep on repeating 'liar, liar, liar' without ever backing up your claims. You assume that all the witnesses are the same and are treated the same. But Zisblatt is not Wiernik. No serious historian thinks Zisblatt is a credible witness. Every serious historian thinks Wiernik is a credible witness.



So here's my challenge thrown down to you and Dogzilla and Clayton Moore. Wiernik's memoir is under 20,000 words long. It's easily available online. You and Dogzilla and Clayton Moore are going to break new ground in revisionism, because you're all going to analyse the entire statement, all 20,000 words of it.

There are 20,000 words, and probably several thousand discrete points which are made, ranging from a name to a time-frame to a dimension to a number to colours and impressions.

Everyone can read the statement, because it's online. So we can see very clearly if any of you are cherrypicking things. You need to tell us what points in the statement can be confirmed by documents, and what points are corroborated by other witnesses.

Before you can blether about "lies" you must first tell us what is true in the statement.

Was there an SS man at Treblinka called Franz? Yes or no?
Were transports from Bulgaria sent to Treblinka? Yes or no?
Were Jews from Warsaw deported to Treblinka? Yes or no?
Was there a forced labour camp nearby? Yes or no?

The answer to all those questions - and many more - is 'yes'. A documented yes.

You need to tell us about the people mentioned, either by name or description. Count them all up. Tell us whether they have been confirmed by another source. You need to tell us about the events, big and small, that happened in the camp during the time Wiernik was there. There are lots of things you need to do in order to analyse the entire statement.

Then, and only then, will you and Dogzilla and Clayton Moore be doing anything which remotely approximates what lawyers and historians do.

You're not going to do this, of course. Because you only know how to spew out your cherrypicked incredulities.

But that's OK, because the Wiernik Challenge can remain a standing one.

Very well, I will make a start.

We begin at Chapter 1

It happened in Warsaw on August 23, 1942, at the time of the blockade. I had been visiting my neighbors and never returned to my own home again. We heard the noise of rifle fire from every direction, but had no inkling of the bitter reality. Our terror was intensified by the entry of German "squad leaders" (Schaar-fuehrer) and of Ukrainian "militiaman" (Wachmaenner) who yelled loudly and threateningly: "All outside".

In the street a "squad leader"" arranged the people in ranks, without any distinction as to age or sex, performing his task with glee, a satisfied smile on his face. Agile and quick of movement, he was here, there and everywhere. He looked us over appraisingly, his eyes glancing up and down the ranks. With a sadistic smile he contemplated the great accomplishment of his mighty country which, at one stroke, could chop off the head of the loathsome hydra.

He was the vilest of them all. Human life meant nothing to him, and to inflict death and untold torture was a supreme delight. Because of his "heroic deeds," he subsequently became "deputy squad commander" (Unterschaarfeuhrer). His name was Franz. He had a dog named Barry, about which I shall speak later.

I was standing on line directly opposite my house on Wolynska Street. From there we were taken to Zamenhof Street. The Ukrainians divided our possessions among themselves under our very eyes. They quarreled, opened up all bundles and assorted their contents.

Well as Dr Terry will be aware, Barry the famous Dog was originally the pet of a guard at Sobibor at this point.

Kurt Franz was at this stage based at Belzec, not yet Treblinka. Besides which there is no other accounts of Treblinka staff personally conducting the raids in Warsaw.

Oh my, not a very promising start for Mr Wiernik.

 

[TSR]

Ignoring a lie or a misdeed and allowing them to continue is the same as condoning them.

So I'm correct, you don't give a flying crap about the truth as long as you benefit from the lies.

,
You mean like your posted lies in this very thread?

You don't seem to give a flying crap about the truth, period.
,

 

[Clayton Moore]

No, Zisblatt is not "perfectly typical and representative".



I don't need to name any. You're the one who, if you want to be taken seriously, have to demonstrate that every single witness, whether Jewish, non-Jewish or German, is lying.

You name three witnesses from Treblinka - there are more than 300 witnesses from Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. There are 90 named in Arad's book which appeared 24 years ago.

You name two survivors of Auschwitz (and whatever else Zisblatt said, it seems from documents that she was there for a while). But neither of them were witnesses in any investigations of trials. The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial heard the evidence of more than 400 witnesses, after a pre-trial investigation involving 1,400 witnesses.

You simply keep on repeating 'liar, liar, liar' without ever backing up your claims. You assume that all the witnesses are the same and are treated the same. But Zisblatt is not Wiernik. No serious historian thinks Zisblatt is a credible witness. Every serious historian thinks Wiernik is a credible witness.



So here's my challenge thrown down to you and Dogzilla and Clayton Moore. Wiernik's memoir is under 20,000 words long. It's easily available online. You and Dogzilla and Clayton Moore are going to break new ground in revisionism, because you're all going to analyse the entire statement, all 20,000 words of it.

There are 20,000 words, and probably several thousand discrete points which are made, ranging from a name to a time-frame to a dimension to a number to colours and impressions.

Everyone can read the statement, because it's online. So we can see very clearly if any of you are cherrypicking things. You need to tell us what points in the statement can be confirmed by documents, and what points are corroborated by other witnesses.

Before you can blether about "lies" you must first tell us what is true in the statement.

Was there an SS man at Treblinka called Franz? Yes or no?
Were transports from Bulgaria sent to Treblinka? Yes or no?
Were Jews from Warsaw deported to Treblinka? Yes or no?
Was there a forced labour camp nearby? Yes or no?

The answer to all those questions - and many more - is 'yes'. A documented yes.

You need to tell us about the people mentioned, either by name or description. Count them all up. Tell us whether they have been confirmed by another source. You need to tell us about the events, big and small, that happened in the camp during the time Wiernik was there. There are lots of things you need to do in order to analyse the entire statement.

Then, and only then, will you and Dogzilla and Clayton Moore be doing anything which remotely approximates what lawyers and historians do.

You're not going to do this, of course. Because you only know how to spew out your cherrypicked incredulities.

But that's OK, because the Wiernik Challenge can remain a standing one.

I don't have to do anything but point out that the Holocaust gang condones and encourages liars by ignoring them. As in Zisblatt, Parks, and Spielberg.

 

[TSR]

I don't have to do anything but point out that the DENIER gang condones and encourages CLAYTON MOORE POSTING LIES by ignoring them.

.
FTFY

THHP.
Kreger.
'Unfairly labeled'.

Just to name a few to get us started...


Then we can get into deniers ignoring the books of each of the people about whom you've whined, etc. Tell us all: who was it that exposed each of them? Which denier said "boo" about them prior to that?
.

 

[Nick Terry]

Very well, I will make a start.

We begin at Chapter 1

Well as Dr Terry will be aware, Barry the famous Dog was originally the pet of a guard at Sobibor at this point.

Kurt Franz was at this stage based at Belzec, not yet Treblinka. Besides which there is no other accounts of Treblinka staff personally conducting the raids in Warsaw.

Oh my, not a very promising start for Mr Wiernik.

Not a very promising start for bunny. You are meant to begin the Challenge with the facts that you can confirm from documents or other witnesses. Then you can see what's left by way of statements which you cannot personally confirm.

Barry was indeed at Sobibor, and belonged to another guard, before ending up in Franz's possession at Treblinka. That one can be confirmed fairly amply.

Besides which there is no other accounts of Treblinka staff personally conducting the raids in Warsaw.

Actually there are, but they're not as readily available as the sources you probably know. Which is why an honest bunny should start by enumerating all the facts that can be confirmed from what he knows.

Before you get to nitpick in the Challenge, you must spell out what can be confirmed. Otherwise you fail the Challenge.

submissions will not, of course, be accepted in the form of individual nitpicks.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Not a very promising start for bunny. You are meant to begin the Challenge with the facts that you can confirm from documents or other witnesses. Then you can see what's left by way of statements which you cannot personally confirm.

Barry was indeed at Sobibor, and belonged to another guard, before ending up in Franz's possession at Treblinka. That one can be confirmed fairly amply.



Actually there are, but they're not as readily available as the sources you probably know. Which is why an honest bunny should start by enumerating all the facts that can be confirmed from what he knows.

Before you get to nitpick in the Challenge, you must spell out what can be confirmed. Otherwise you fail the Challenge.

submissions will not, of course, be accepted in the form of individual nitpicks.

Well we will have to take Professor Twinkle-toes word for it that there is good proof of Treblinka staff taking part in Warsaw raids.

None of which alters the fact that Franz was stationed at Belzec until the removal of Irmfried Eberl at the beginning of September 1942

 

[LemmyCaution]

Well we will have to take Professor Twinkle-toes word for it that there is good proof of Treblinka staff taking part in Warsaw raids.

None of which alters the fact that Franz was stationed at Belzec until the removal of Irmfried Eberl at the beginning of September 1942

Professor Twinkle-toes? Is someone frustrated? You will need to 1) keep in mind that Nick Terry has already stated that some % of the eyewitness testimony is likely to be in error (conflated dates, gaps, merged events, conjectures stated as certainties, etc.) and 2) look at the document as a whole, and in relation to other accounts, like Strawczynski's, Glazar's, Friedrich,'s, and Cymlich's (not to mention reports about Nowodworski and others, Polish and underground press reports, etc.), to weigh its overall credibility, weed out errors and misimpressions, and make use of it in understanding the camp.

 

[Wroclaw]

I'm talking about authorities who let him slide and looked the other way for many years. But then you knew that.

Actually, I didn't because you were hardly clear.

So why don't you tell us all the names of these Jews who let Madoff slide?

 

[Wroclaw]

Rauff, Rademacher, Sassen all recruited by Mossad/Shin Bet.

Your point being?

(By the way, Shin Bet is internal security, not foreign. They only really deal with the territories. As such, they would have little to know interest in Nazi war criminals. Which demonstrates that you have little to know idea what you're talking about.)

 

[Saggy]

So here's my challenge thrown down to you and Dogzilla and Clayton Moore. Wiernik's memoir is under 20,000 words long. It's easily available online. You and Dogzilla and Clayton Moore are going to break new ground in revisionism, because you're all going to analyse the entire statement, all 20,000 words of it.

LOL ! I have a copy, one of the most expensive books in my collection ! Got it years ago, and I'm hoping this thing goes up in value as it is classic phantasmagoria. And, I did analyze it ..... here's my quiz for you .... here's a quote ....

"However 'freedom or death' was our motto. In the meantime I completed the construction of the blockhouse."

These two lines in themselves are completely idiotic, this jackass is whispering 'freedom or death' to himself as he builds the blockhouse (and gas chambers too). But in the line that follows the two above he really kills it ..... it is so great I can barely wait till someone answers. A classic along with Meuller's stone cold tea. What is the next line following the quote above ?

 

[Saggy]

Nick also claimed that the testimonies must be considered collectively, not individually. That's true.

No, this is complete nonsense. If we evaluate the testimony of the thousands that have seen alien landings collectively, we conclude that the aliens are amongst us. Why don't we conclude that? Because you cannot evaluate testimony collectively, and testimony is worthless unless corroborated by physical evidence where you would expect it. In the case of a single murder the first evidence you look for is the body and then the murder weapon. For six million it should be a snap, yet, there are no bodies, there are no murder weapons. You could have 50,000 testimonies, and maybe Yad Vashem does, but they are still entirely worthless because they are not corroborated by a shred of physical evidence.

If you haven't seen the Frontline program on the confessions/convictions of 7 Navy guys to a rape/murder they didn't commit, see it now, it is compelling and unbelievable ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

If Nick Terry had advanced the thesis of collective credibiltiy for his PhD, he would have been laughed out of school.

I'm looking for one credible witness. There is no such person. There is one name I don't want to hear because he doesn't launch into the wild phantasmagoria like Zizblatt or Wiernik, but still, his 'testimony' is crap and he was not an 'eyewitenss'.

 

[Cyrix686]

How about attempting the Wiernik challenge Saggy, you know, instead of posting time-wasting repetitive trash?

What do you think Dogzilla, is Nick right or is Seven up with his repeated rubbish that the Holocaust is to be compared to UFOs? There are traces and there are weapons, what Saggy thinks seems to be just plain-stupid. Seven up doesn't just deny, he point-blank refuses to accept any of this. Thus there is no point in directing him to any archaeological report or to reading any contemporary account of the conditions of the killing sites and comparing that with contemporary eyewitness accounts and perpetrator accounts, for a simple reason. Denier pests like him (who Wroclaw has now put on ignore wisely) are more interested in cracking denier jokes and playing "I don't believe it." Otherwise he would stop trying to compare well documented accounts of the Holocaust with the UFO cult.

 

[Saggy]

How about attempting the Wiernik challenge Saggy, you know, instead of posting time-wasting repetitive trash?

I have an analysis typed up. I will post it when Nick Terry proves that he is really interested and answers my easy question, what is the line that follows this quote ....


"However 'freedom or death' was our motto. In the meantime I completed the construction of the blockhouse."

 

[Cyrix686]

Your book is only making twenty bucks on Amazon. that means you must have some right old rubbish in your "collection," if that's your most valuable book. This would explain a great deal.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

"To celebrate the occasion, the 'Hauptsturmfuehrer' treated us to rum and sausage."(*4)"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-166821.html

4 seconds to google this. So what?

 

[Cyrix686]

I thought that Saggy's most valuable book was Zisblatt's. I think though he probably meant Wiernik...Seven Up doesn't give any more details than this so I'm assuming he has a 1st edt 1944 publication in Yiddish. Later English translation reprints are making $81.00 on Amazon currently.

 

[Saggy]

"To celebrate the occasion, the 'Hauptsturmfuehrer' treated us to rum and sausage."(*4)"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-166821.html

4 seconds to google this. So what?

There is a saying amongst math profs which I can't manage to google up, to the effect "You can't explain anything to a stone", which we will paraphrase .... nothing means anything to an idiot !

Unless I'm mistaken the book was originally published in English in 1944 in NYC ! That's the edition in the library and that's the one I've got.

 

[Cyrix686]

Correction 1st Yiddish edition.

Nyu-York: Farlag "Unzer Tsayt," 1944.

 

[Dogzilla]

Anybody Nick would name would be unreliable, because the holocaust is a HOAX. But, surely the burden is on poor Nick to produce at least one witness he can defend as credible. Let's see what he's got.

Bauer, with all the resouces of Yad Vashem, produced Filip Meuller, and if there was ever a more obvious pathological liar I'd like to see him/her.

Spielberg, with a research department that could buy Yad Vashema and the USHMM hoax museum, came up with Irene Zizblatt.

Can Nick do better then Bauer, or Spielberg. I don't think so.

I think there are alot of eyewitness accounts that can be dismissed right away as 'fanciful.' Filip Mueller, with his description of what Yehuda Bauer describes in the introduction to Eyewitness Auschwitz as "the beauty of Yana's death" is an example of this. Elie Wiesel and his baby burning pit is another. Denis Avery's story about sneaking into Auschwitz is so ridiculous it's amazing anybody would believe it. Of course, Zissblatt and the rest of The Last Days gang have left us a permanent record that will amaze and amuse future generations that supposedly intelligent people really were that stupid as recently as the early 21st century.

Because many people here don't see anything suspect about Mueller, it's certainly possible that they wouldn't question any other eyewitness accounts that are equally fanciful. There seems to be a consensus that Zissblatt and Wiesel are FOS and their memoirs are given little credence. It's true that if you thumb through the index of the most important books about the holocaust, you won't find any references to Irene and not very many for Elie either. However, Spielburg did consider Irene credible enough to include in his "everything you are about to see is true" "documentary" and that's good enough for most of the people who saw this movie. And, although Elie might not get many references in the major historical works, a quick google search for 'holocaust syllabus' comes up with quite a few syllabi that have Night on the list of required or recommended reading. So, obviously, these two mentally deranged survivors have some clout.

So, yeah, you're right. It's possible that anybody Nick or anybody else could name as reliable isn't going to be. But nobody will rise to your challenge if you've predetermined the outcome. I read all survivor tales with my BS detector on high. But I like to think I'm as objective as I can be for someone who has had his intelligence insulted by the stories of holocaust survivors as often as mine has.

In general, the biggest names in the survivor community tell some of the biggest whoppers. But that's because those lies make for a more sensationalistic story. Jews being rounded up and sent to the gas chamber is better than black market profiteers who happen to be Jewish being rounded up and sent to a prison camp where some of them contract typhus and die. Hundreds of Jews being murdered by the SS on death marches in the final days of the war is better than hundreds of Jews being strafed by Allied fighters in the final days of the war.

It's the most sensationalistic stories that get the most press. The fact that some of the most sensationalistic story tellers are considered reliable by scholars is one of the reasons holocaust denial is still around. But even a majority of prevaricators doesn't prove they are all liars.

And if Nick won't do it, why don't you give it a try?

OK. I'll give it a go. Here is a summary of memoir. It's not the full length article but it gives you the gist of what the person said. I don't see anything here that strikes me immediately as prima facie ridiculous. (NOTE that I accept that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis and that they were shot on the Eastern front. The fact that they were shot is consistent with a policy to exterminate the Jews but it isn't in any way evidence that there was a policy to exterminate the Jews. And, of course, it says nothing about the reality of gas chambers.)

Now, from the same holocaust survivor memoir pool, we have George Ginzburg whose story was brought to the attention of the RODOH people by our very own LGR. Be sure to read all the way to the part about donating a testicle.

 

[Dogzilla]

The Kaltenbrunner argument is a red herring, and you know it. As a stand-in for Heydrich at Nuremberg, he got tarred with Heydrich's brush and it's probably true that much, if not most, of what he was charged with at Nuremberg were things for which he was ultimately not responsible. That responsibility would have fallen to Heydrich or Eichmann.

Heydrich never stood trial, of course, but Eichmann did. So do you think what Eichmann was charged with he denied?

The fact that there were Nazis who didn't deny their role in the holocaust doesn't mean that none of them denied their role. Kaltenbrunner didn't acknowledge a policy of extermination. He denied signing order that he was accused of signing and he demanded to see witnesses who testified against him in affidavits.

The statement was that "no Nazi denied the holocaust." I only need to find one who did to prove my point. Kaltenbrunner is one. Goering is another.