• 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.
All that's important is that if there are "important questions" about the holocaust (what those questions are doesn't matter) for which we don't have enough evidence to conclusively answer (whether or not we actually have enough evidence to answer the questions or not doesn't matter), we can proceed to a conclusion without the evidence because "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
I realize that this is a tangent to an incredibly strained discussion of Shermer's adage, but are there important questions about the Holocaust for which there is not good evidence? If so, what are these questions and have historians tried to assert answers to them based on the idea that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"?
 
I realize that this is a tangent to an incredibly strained discussion of Shermer's adage, but are there important questions about the Holocaust for which there is not good evidence? If so, what are these questions and have historians tried to assert answers to them based on the idea that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"?

166 pages of this and the best revisionism can come up with is Clayton, Saggy, LGR and Dogzilla? Even Berg has a better argument than this lot.

They should get new handles: "Hopeless", "Pathetic", "Useless", and, "Boring". Interchangeable, BTW....

It's a one-off post, Mods, as I won't be back..... so do hatever the rules require.

See y'all...
 
No, I'm not. My post, to which you replied, went as follows:



That was a straightforward request for an explanation for what happened to the Jews of Europe. I even anticipated the possibility that there would be more than one fate:



but you insisted on ignoring this, and then ignored it again when I replied.

True, I ignored it and I will continue ignoring it because the challenge is meaningless. I don't quibble over the numbers. It's not something that interests me or that has any bearing on the holocaust. I don't think six million Jews were killed for the reasons I've already mentioned. But I can't prove that six million Jews weren't killed any more than you can prove they were.

I can't think of a good reason to give it much thought and neither you nor anybody else has been able to tell me why I should care about it.



I asked you not to obfuscate, and you continue to try to do so.



So what? I asked you to tell us what happened to the Jews of Europe. You're not telling us what happened, you're offering pointless musings about how to categorise dead people based on a strawman interpretation of what the Holocaust was.



Firstly: can you even find a hidden enclave of Jews somewhere?

I've never looked for one so I don't know.

Secondly: you're still missing the point. I asked you (as a representative of the belief system known as Holocaust revisionism) to explain what happened to the Jews. I said nothing about extermination, I did not prejudice the issue that way, I left it entirely open. This isn't about the existing explanation, it's about your explanation.

Based upon the number of holocaust survivors who are still alive today we know that quite a few European Jews did survive. I saw one study that estimated there were about 729,000 survivors worldwide in 2000. Anybody with basic actuary skills can take that number and give us an estimate of the number who were alive in 1945. Unfortunately, I don't do actuary so I can't tell you what the number is. We'll call it X.

So we have X Jews alive at the end of the war. I assume that the rest were killed during the war.

So what?


But you can't seemingly even offer the glimmer of an answer to the question. You're not telling me, go read this detailed study of the question written by this awesome researcher who shows convincingly that things worked out differently. If you could point to such a work then I and others would be all ears, and we could discuss that work.

Or, if it's so freaking obvious what the answer is, then you can explain it all to us, here and now, on this thread. Using evidence, of course. Not speculation and coulda-woulda-shouldas.



I didn't pose a false dilemma. I asked you an open-ended question. If you have evidence showing that 3 million survived, please present it. If you have evidence showing that 2 million died from collateral damage, please present it.

I don't the evidence necessary to answer those questions. What answers do you guys get? How many Jews were killed outside of the holocaust? How many died of natural causes? Surely you've accounted for this, right?


Really? Please demonstrate this, rigorously, taking into account known censuses and population registration statistics for the 1930s and 1940s.



Jolly good. Have you eliminated the migration from the Arab world from those figures?

No. But Jews from Arab countries continued trickling into Israel after the era of double digit population growth. And, the era of double digit Jewish population growth in Israel corresponded to the time during which many Jews emigrated to the United States.


actually at a time when virtually all of Europe had been liberated already, and when they had a mass of news reports discussing the extinction of community after community.

actually at a time when virtually all of Europe had been liberated and there were massive population shifts occurring. Borders were being redrawn and the Soviet Union wasn't exactly welcoming Westerners into the parts of Europe they had liberated. It would have been impossible to know in late 1944/early 1945 what the situation was with any precision.



that's because the overall figures have never been based on adding up individual death camp tolls, as you have been told repeatedly.

The total is always the sum of the parts. That's how math works.


But those are pointless distractions. Your job is to tell us what happened to the Jews using positive evidence, not to obfuscate and strawman and misunderstand the issue.

They survived the war and moved somewhere else or they were killed during the war. Again, so what?

Until you offer such an explanation, then you're going to be posting alongside two complete morons, a self-confessed troll and occasionally one other whacko in support of your beliefs, until one of you dies, at which point it'd be just two or three morons/troll/whackos. You're never going to get anywhere. You haven't so far, not after nearly 7000 posts. Another 7000 posts like the last 7000 won't get you any farther.

Time to change up, Dogzilla.

I don't play meaningless angels on the head of a pin games. Tell me what the relevance of your question is.
 
I didn't make any such point or claim. I simply asked you whether you could prove your claim that millions of civilians were killed as collateral damage in Eastern Europe during WWII. A straightforward request that implied no position on my side.

Your reply should actually have read 'I don't know how I can substantiate my off the cuff claim about millions of deaths from combat operations', since it's pretty clear you've never really thought about it very much, and perhaps might want to look some stuff up before you next shoot your mouth off.

I can substantiate that millions of civilians were killed during WWII by looking in the Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, Poor Richard's Almanac, or Wikipedia. Beyond that I do not have a capability of traveling back in time to the 1940s and conducting my own demographic research. So I can't prove my assertion.

Since people don't normally demand proof of facts which are in agreement, I can only assume that you disagree with my assertion about millions of civilian deaths during the war. Because I can't prove my assertion to your standards, I will concede the point. Millions of civilians didn't die during WWII.
 
I can substantiate that millions of civilians were killed during WWII by looking in the Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, Poor Richard's Almanac, or Wikipedia.

Those same sources go into great detail on the Holocaust. You were saying something about double standards...?
 
True, I ignored it and I will continue ignoring it because the challenge is meaningless. I don't quibble over the numbers. It's not something that interests me or that has any bearing on the holocaust.

The number of victims doesn't have any bearing on the Holocaust? The number of survivors doesn't have any bearing on the Holocaust? Really?

I don't think six million Jews were killed for the reasons I've already mentioned. But I can't prove that six million Jews weren't killed any more than you can prove they were.

On the contrary, the mass murder of 5-6 million Jews has been proven repeatedly, there are libraries full of detailed studies, including demographic studies and all kinds of pieces of research which clarify the fate of the survivors as well as the victims. There are sub-literatures on displaced persons, emigration before, during and after the war, national studies, and the published results of state and NGO enquiries.

Against all this, you throw up your hands and say 'I can't prove that six million Jews weren't killled'.

I didn't ask you to prove that they weren't killed. I asked you to explain what happened to the Jews of Europe.

I can't think of a good reason to give it much thought and neither you nor anybody else has been able to tell me why I should care about it.

Because unless you have a convincing explanation for the fate of the Jews, you're going to remain in the 'pointless denier' box forever.

I've never looked for one so I don't know.

And yet you're so convinced that millions of Jews were not exterminated.

Based upon the number of holocaust survivors who are still alive today we know that quite a few European Jews did survive. I saw one study that estimated there were about 729,000 survivors worldwide in 2000. Anybody with basic actuary skills can take that number and give us an estimate of the number who were alive in 1945. Unfortunately, I don't do actuary so I can't tell you what the number is. We'll call it X.

So we have X Jews alive at the end of the war. I assume that the rest were killed during the war.

So what?

So you haven't demonstrated any incompatibility in the numbers.

I don't the evidence necessary to answer those questions. What answers do you guys get? How many Jews were killed outside of the holocaust? How many died of natural causes? Surely you've accounted for this, right?

Stop trying to throw questions back at me. I asked you for your explanation.

No. But Jews from Arab countries continued trickling into Israel after the era of double digit population growth. And, the era of double digit Jewish population growth in Israel corresponded to the time during which many Jews emigrated to the United States.

This still doesn't even begin to change the numbers.

actually at a time when virtually all of Europe had been liberated and there were massive population shifts occurring. Borders were being redrawn and the Soviet Union wasn't exactly welcoming Westerners into the parts of Europe they had liberated. It would have been impossible to know in late 1944/early 1945 what the situation was with any precision.

Duh, that's why the estimate was a rounded off number (six million) whereas more detailed calculations compiled after the war give generally lower figures with a decimal point (Institute of Jewish Affair's 5.7 million, Hilberg's 5.1 million).

The total is always the sum of the parts. That's how math works.

Yet literally none of the calculations ever done regarding the number of Holocaust victims have added up the number of deaths in the extermination camps to arrive at the total. That's because extermination camps are only one part of the overall death toll.

They survived the war and moved somewhere else or they were killed during the war. Again, so what?

So one sentence is manifestly inadequate to explain anything, and that's the best you can offer right now.

I don't play meaningless angels on the head of a pin games. Tell me what the relevance of your question is.

It is self-evidently relevant. If you are unable to explain the fate of the Jews of Europe during WWII, then the value of your doubts and nitpicks and attempted negations can be set at precisely zero.

To repeat LemmyCaution's concluding point, "If you can't show the maths, the simple fact is that you haven't made your case. No amount of whining and complaining changes this fact."
 
I can substantiate that millions of civilians were killed during WWII by looking in the Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, Poor Richard's Almanac, or Wikipedia. Beyond that I do not have a capability of traveling back in time to the 1940s and conducting my own demographic research. So I can't prove my assertion.

Since people don't normally demand proof of facts which are in agreement, I can only assume that you disagree with my assertion about millions of civilian deaths during the war. Because I can't prove my assertion to your standards, I will concede the point. Millions of civilians didn't die during WWII.

Oh, the irony. The same encyclopedia sources can be used for the Holocaust as well. But you would refuse to accept those sources for that subject. Thanks for playing, you just exposed your double standards.

Unless, of course, you are able to follow the sources used by the encyclopediae and cited the various academic studies or national casualty statistical reports, applying critical judgement and weighing up the information carefully, as is conventional.

That should be obvious to any moderately well educated person.
 
True, I ignored it and I will continue ignoring it . . . I can't think of a good reason to give it much thought and neither you nor anybody else has been able to tell me why I should care about it. . . . I've never looked for one so I don't know. . . . So we have X Jews alive at the end of the war. I assume that the rest were killed during the war. So what?. . . They survived the war and moved somewhere else or they were killed during the war. Again, so what?
Whilst this response explains Dogzilla's inability to answer Nick's questions, it does absolutely nothing to further understanding of events during WWII and the Holocaust--or to identify gaps or weak points in the work of historians on the subject of this thread. I don't know, I don't care, I haven't read, I'm not interested are not exactly good history. If this is the best our revisionists have to offer -- "I know nothing, and I don't care!" -- Dogzilla has gone some distance to explaining, however, revisionists' lack of reception and their marginal status outside of their own small circles. Oh well, at least they are firm in their ungrounded and unexplained beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
I'm pretty sure you're just jerking me around because nobody who can operate a computer can be so stupid.

I can give that compliment right back to you. The irony here, is that you are the one, who doesn't get it.

Dogzilla said:
But just in case you really are that dense, I'll spell out what is obvious to everybody else: We're not talking about whether or not the Bible is true or whether or not the holocaust is true. We're not talking about evidence or lack of evidence for the Bible, for the holocaust, or for any historical event. The veracity of the events themselves do not matter for our discussion.

No Sherlock, you wanted to prove, that there is a double standard for the holocaust. So you brought up the old saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and just complained, how these bad historians like Shermer, who isn't even a historian to begin with, are ignoring this principle when it comes to the bible, but not with the holocaust.

And as I already said, and I say it for the third *********** time: nobody says, the bible stuff didn't happen and there is NO lack of evidence for the holocaust, period. So you either try harder to come up with an accurate analogy or you just can **** off.

And it doesn't matter, if you now are trying to claim, that you just don't believe in the holocaust and are not saying, that it didn't happen, because you still ignore the differences in the evidence, that speaks for the bible, which is none, and the evidence, that speaks for the holocaust, which is a sum of testimonies, audio files, documents, videos (for christs sake I even presented a video file that showed at least the method of gassing by the nazis and there is still a video of Hitler promising the "Ausrottung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa" (=destruction of the jewish race in europe), if a new world war should happen, which it did or are you also denying that?), and so on and on and on.

Again I could go on forever, but that doesn't change the fact, that you are still having your fingers in your ears and your eyes closed, while singing "lalala" and dancing around naked to some old crappy David Hasselhoff song. You are, like you buddies, a friggin waste of time.

Dogzilla said:
When we have stories in the Bible that cannot be confirmed outside of the Bible (whether or not there are stories in the Bible that cannot be confirmed outside of the Bible doesn't matter), the notion that we can still accept them as true because "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" is considered absurd.

It's considered to be "faith". But there is no faith component for the holocaust since its based on actual evidence. And this evidence was presented to you countless times. But you wouldn't be a true deniers, if you would accept this annoying fact.

Dogzilla said:
That's the problem! We couldn't find anything. Nothing to prove gas chambers. Nothing to prove an intentional plan to exterminate the Jews. It's now up to you guys to come up with evidence.

Sorry pal, it doesn't go away, just because you ignore the evidence. And you don't even understand German, so the fact that you are still arguing about the content of the documents is incredibly stupid.

Everyone who has some sanity left and understands German can go through the documents and see for himself, that not only do they mention the same details as the witnesses did regarding the extermination, but some of them are just unexplainable if you deny, that there was an extermination program going on, since they make this fact absolutly crystal clear.
 
Last edited:
So, if I follow your thinking correctly — please correct me if I'm wrong — these are the possibilities: European Jews (1) survived in Europe during the war; (2) died in Europe during the war due to causes other than extermination; and (3) died in Europe during the war due to extermination; and (4) left Europe entirely. That about sum it up?

No. There are only two possibilities: Everybody in Europe, including the Jews, either 1) survived the war or 2) did not survive the war.

If we accept these four possibilities, and again, I'm not insisting upon this point, then we are still left with a problem that evokes the "Where did they go?" question. I.e., what about those Jews that were sent to the concentration camps in Poland?

We can safely assume that they do not fall into (1), can we not? I.e., we simply have no evidence of their turning up someplace else years later in sufficient numbers to suggest something other than their having died.

I think we can also safely assume that they don't fall into (4). Again, we lack the evidence to conclude that they ended up elsewhere. Nearly seventy years after the fact and twenty years after the fall of the USSR, they haven't ended up anywhere else, and it's worth noting that at least a million of these people were under the age of eighteen, so it's entirely possible that, were they someplace else, they'd still be alive today.

That leaves only the possibility that they died in Europe. Here's where your claim hits the major snag. Because they were removed from their homes against their wills, their blood is on the Nazis' hands. That doesn't prove that they died in gas chambers in an extermination program per se, but it does make them the Nazis' responsibility.

You're taking a more circuitous route to get to the same conclusion as I do: Jews were either dead or not dead at the end of the war. You can make the argument that the Jews that died due to exigencies of the war are the responsibility of the Nazis because the Nazis started the war and the Nazis moved the Jews away from their homes. But you would have to conclude that all the non-Jews that died due to the exigencies of the war are also the responsibility of the Nazis because the Nazis started the war and the Nazis moved alot of non-Jews away from their homes as well. What you can't conclude is that all the non-Jewish civilians who were killed during the war were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time while all the Jewish civilians who were killed during the war were intentionally murdered as part of a master plan to kill all the Jews.



That essentially leaves two issues: The intentionality of their deaths and the numbers.

The intentionality is much of what is debated here, as it includes the matter of method of extermination. It's a bit beyond the purview of this particular post, but I'll briefly state that I think the evidence of gassing is overwhelming, encompassing, as it does, eyewitness testimonies from survivors and perpetrators, documents, and forensic testing, including cyanide testing at Auschwitz and extensive excavations at the Reinhard camps.

You're right that this is a bit beyond the purview of this particular post but the evidence for gassing is almost exclusively eyewitness testimony intentionally given for non-historical purposes, contradictory, and which doesn't mesh with physical evidence or in some cases, reality.


Again, most of this stuff has been gone over ad infinitum, but to state briefly: The initial death toll figures that were in the six million range were only calculated when the war was within a few months of ending. By this time, the vast majority of Jews were, in fact, already dead and it was well known that Germany would be losing very soon. These estimates, by the way, were initially then downsized, first by the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry, which found 5.75 million missing Jews, and then by Reitlinger (4.5 million), who was revised by Hilberg, who upsized to 5.1 million. (Not sure of Poliakov's numbers; I assume Nick could add them). Only with Benz and later writers do we get numbers consistently closer to, or even in excess of, six million.

When exactly were the initial death toll figures calculated? Within a few months of the wars end isn't precise enough. The earliest report of six million Jews dead I have seen was in January 1945. Six million Jews were predicted to be dead in 1943. Six million Jews in peril predates the war. With the massive upheaval caused by the major combat operations, the huge numbers of civilians fleeing the Red Army, and the Russian's refusal to allow the Western allies into the territory overrun by the Red Army it would have been impossible to gather any meaningful data during the final months of the war.

And Jews continued streaming into the American zone of occupation from the East for at least a year after the end of the war. By the end of 1945 the huge numbers of Jews in the DP camps in the American zone had become a major problem.

Jewish population growth in the 1940s was a result of two factors: (1) Legalized immigration, including of Jews who survived the Holocaust; and (2) The deportation or forced emigration of nearly a million Jews from Arab and Muslim countries in the wake of Israel's declaration of independence. With a very small Jewish population to begin with, those factors were going to contribute, and did contribute, to double-digit population growth.

Arab Jews did contribute to the Jewish population growth in Palestine but there were alot of Jews from Europe as well contributing to that double digit growth in population. There's also the fact that nearly all the Arab Jews who were expelled after Israel declared in independence ended up moving to Israel while the Jews in Europe emigrated to the United States in huge numbers as well as to Israel.

What did NOT happen was thousands, or even hundreds, of Jews claiming they'd been in Treblinka, or Sobibor, or Belzec, or Chelmno, and surviving, despite well kept records recording hundreds of thousands of Jews being sent there. The survivor numbers are in the double digits for Treblinka and Sobibor and single digits for Belzec and Chelmno.

We know they were sent to the camps. We know they either 1) died at the camps or 2) didn't die at the camps. The evidence that would remain if they had died in the camps isn't there. Ergo, they didn't die at these camps.

Ergo, if these hundreds of thousands of Jews were not exterminated, as voluminous evidence suggests, then what happened to them?

You assuming that missing Jews are dead Jews and dead Jews are exterminated Jews. That reasoning is faulty. If these hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered at these camps as voluminous eyewitness testimony tells us, where did they go? What happened to mass graves that held their bodies and what happened to their bodies?
 
When exactly were the initial death toll figures calculated? Within a few months of the wars end isn't precise enough. The earliest report of six million Jews dead I have seen was in January 1945. Six million Jews were predicted to be dead in 1943.

Evidence?
 
Where was that? Please LINK to the post where you definitively proved a double standard. Don't tell me to search the thread. LINK or it didn't happen.

Nick, when I was asked to show one example of the holocaust being held to a different standard, I needed to link to two YouTube videos as support. You said that you don't do YouTube videos. I'm sorry but you're not going to be able to participate in this discussion so providing you with a link would be a waste of time.

I can summarize my proof for you however. On the Phil Donohue Show in 1994, Michael Shermer appeared alongside Bradley Smith and David Cole to discuss the holocaust. Michael Shermer said, responding to a video by David Cole, that "David has asked some important questions that it would be good to have answers to but it's also important to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence that something happened. It's just things that need to be explained."

On Penn & Tellar's BS episode about the Bible, it's explained that there are Biblical stories that have no evidence outside of the Bible. Shermer gives the example of Jews fleeing from Egypt and wondering around the desert. He says that if thousands of years ago, the Jews had been wondering around the desert for forty years, they would have left some trace of it. He says archeologists have found no evidence of this activity. Some other Biblical scholar says that the lack of evidence for this activity is no problem because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Shermer shoots the guy down by saying that we can't use that form of reasoning with science.

So we have the same man and the same maxim. If it's the holocaust we're talking about, the maxim is true. If it's something else, the maxim isn't true.

And, as yet another double standard that I didn't mention the first time: A group of people living in the desert for a forty year period thousands of years ago would necessarily leave some evidence of this that archeologists could find today but hundreds of thousands of people being murdered, buried, dug up and then incinerated sixty years without leaving a trace isn't a problem.
 
And, as yet another double standard that I didn't mention the first time: A group of people living in the desert for a forty year period thousands of years ago would necessarily leave some evidence of this that archeologists could find today but hundreds of thousands of people being murdered, buried, dug up and then incinerated sixty years without leaving a trace isn't a problem.

It wasn't hundreds of thousands, it was six million. And remember, millions were gassed in what was analogous to Times Square, i.e. Auschwitz, which supplied 70,000 laborers to nearby industries EVERY DAY.

Here is the point, the holohoax is PREPOSTEROUS. You can't gas millions, 10,000 per day, at all. You can't gas them in Times Square, or Auschwitz, without the world being aware of it. You can't cremate 10,000 per day. No one in their right mind would try to annihilate the Jews in the middle of Times Square, or a major industrial area like Auschwitz. It's all completely absurd nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Nick, when I was asked to show one example of the holocaust being held to a different standard, I needed to link to two YouTube videos as support. You said that you don't do YouTube videos. I'm sorry but you're not going to be able to participate in this discussion so providing you with a link would be a waste of time.

I asked you for a link to your post where you supposedly proved that the Holocaust is held to a different standard of evidence. You seem to have confused this with your YouTube links.

You ought to be able to source something other than a YouTube video to substantiate your claim, if all you've got is something on YT then you might as well give up.

I can summarize my proof for you however. On the Phil Donohue Show in 1994, Michael Shermer appeared alongside Bradley Smith and David Cole to discuss the holocaust. Michael Shermer said, responding to a video by David Cole, that "David has asked some important questions that it would be good to have answers to but it's also important to remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence that something happened. It's just things that need to be explained."

On Penn & Tellar's BS episode about the Bible, it's explained that there are Biblical stories that have no evidence outside of the Bible. Shermer gives the example of Jews fleeing from Egypt and wondering around the desert. He says that if thousands of years ago, the Jews had been wondering around the desert for forty years, they would have left some trace of it. He says archeologists have found no evidence of this activity. Some other Biblical scholar says that the lack of evidence for this activity is no problem because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Shermer shoots the guy down by saying that we can't use that form of reasoning with science.

So we have the same man and the same maxim. If it's the holocaust we're talking about, the maxim is true. If it's something else, the maxim isn't true.

Blah, blah, blah.

In case you missed it, here's a link to a post I wrote above, within the last page or so.

It's already been pointed out several times, most recently by Kevin Silbstedt, that Michael Shermer is only one guy. Your claim, in case you forgot, was that the Holocaust is held to a different standard of evidence. That implied you were talking about a general condition. God knows you asserted the claim with a degree of certainty that suggests this.

If you're making a general claim, then you need more than one piece of evidence to back it up. Are we ever going to see another piece of evidence or are you still stuck on Shermer?

Did Raul Hilberg invoke 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' anywhere in his writings? What about Saul Friedlander? Or someone writing in History & Theory about the Holocaust? Is this adage common among Polish historians of the Holocaust like Robert Kuwalek and Alina Skibinska? How about among Germans? Does Christian Gerlach use it? Or French philosophers? Did Paul Ricoeur use it when discussing the Holocaust?

What about courts and judges? How many legal judgements cite 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' in connection with the Holocaust?

Or maybe you can tell us where it's used in the writings of historians and others who have written about the Holocaust as well as other subjects? Do genocide studies scholars use it? Michael Mann? Ben Kiernan? Can you show where Hannah Arendt used it in The Origins of Totalitarianism? What about the authors of Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick (ed), Beyond Totalitarianism, which is a literal mash-up betwen Soviet studies and Third Reich spoecialists? Or Tim Snyder in Bloodlands? Alex Prusin in The Lands Between? Maybe Pavel Polian has used it somewhere in his work, on both Soviet and Nazi crimes?

Heck, if you could show that some of those writers apply a different standard of evidence to the Holocaust than they do to other genocides or mass murders, then you'd be a little closer to proving your original contention.

That's assuming that you're not intending to rewrite your original bold assertion as 'the Holocaust is held to a different standard of evidence (by Michael Shermer in a YouTube video)'.

And, as yet another double standard that I didn't mention the first time: A group of people living in the desert for a forty year period thousands of years ago would necessarily leave some evidence of this that archeologists could find today but hundreds of thousands of people being murdered, buried, dug up and then incinerated sixty years without leaving a trace isn't a problem.

See, now you're just lying, and you don't even realise how badly you just shot yourself in the foot. In the case of archaeologists searching the Sinai for any evidence of the presence of ancient Israelites en route to or from Egypt, the search has come up with a big fat zero. That's after a 2000 year gap in between the original textual claim and somebody going 'hmm, maybe we could find some physical evidence'.

In the case of the Holocaust, written evidence was available in 1942 and by spring 1943 they were already digging up mass graves. And went on digging up mass graves until 1945, by which time lots and lots of mass graves had been uncovered, some with bodies (as at Kharkov or Rovno) and some with cremains and whatnot (as at Babi Yar, Treblinka, et cetera). Then archaelogists went back to the sites in the past 20 years and found or refound more bodies, and more cremains.

There is no way you can say this was "without leaving a trace".

I don't care whether you agree with the consensus interpretation that the excavations and exhumations proved mass murder. We all know you don't agree with that interpretation. What I do care about is that you do not lie about the subject by bandying around demonstrable falsehoods like "without leaving a trace".

If there is a genuine debate or discussion to be had here, it is an argument over interpreting traces. If you're going to resort over and over to dishonest rhetoric and bald-faced lies, then you're destroying the possibility of a meaningful discussion, and condemning yourself to the dunce's corner. Why should anyone bother to engage in the mass graves discussion you so clearly prefer if you keep on lying about it?
 
As I recall, Dogzilla already tried this "without a trace" gambit earlier in this thread and was shown to be lying back then. How anyone can take him seriously now is beyond me.
 
No. There are only two possibilities: Everybody in Europe, including the Jews, either 1) survived the war or 2) did not survive the war.



You're taking a more circuitous route to get to the same conclusion as I do: Jews were either dead or not dead at the end of the war. You can make the argument that the Jews that died due to exigencies of the war are the responsibility of the Nazis because the Nazis started the war and the Nazis moved the Jews away from their homes. But you would have to conclude that all the non-Jews that died due to the exigencies of the war are also the responsibility of the Nazis because the Nazis started the war and the Nazis moved alot of non-Jews away from their homes as well. What you can't conclude is that all the non-Jewish civilians who were killed during the war were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time while all the Jewish civilians who were killed during the war were intentionally murdered as part of a master plan to kill all the Jews.





You're right that this is a bit beyond the purview of this particular post but the evidence for gassing is almost exclusively eyewitness testimony intentionally given for non-historical purposes, contradictory, and which doesn't mesh with physical evidence or in some cases, reality.




When exactly were the initial death toll figures calculated? Within a few months of the wars end isn't precise enough. The earliest report of six million Jews dead I have seen was in January 1945. Six million Jews were predicted to be dead in 1943. Six million Jews in peril predates the war. With the massive upheaval caused by the major combat operations, the huge numbers of civilians fleeing the Red Army, and the Russian's refusal to allow the Western allies into the territory overrun by the Red Army it would have been impossible to gather any meaningful data during the final months of the war.

And Jews continued streaming into the American zone of occupation from the East for at least a year after the end of the war. By the end of 1945 the huge numbers of Jews in the DP camps in the American zone had become a major problem.



Arab Jews did contribute to the Jewish population growth in Palestine but there were alot of Jews from Europe as well contributing to that double digit growth in population. There's also the fact that nearly all the Arab Jews who were expelled after Israel declared in independence ended up moving to Israel while the Jews in Europe emigrated to the United States in huge numbers as well as to Israel.



We know they were sent to the camps. We know they either 1) died at the camps or 2) didn't die at the camps. The evidence that would remain if they had died in the camps isn't there. Ergo, they didn't die at these camps.



You assuming that missing Jews are dead Jews and dead Jews are exterminated Jews. That reasoning is faulty. If these hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered at these camps as voluminous eyewitness testimony tells us, where did they go? What happened to mass graves that held their bodies and what happened to their bodies?

Instead of playing burden of proof table tennis and throwing questions back at your opponents, why don't you just tell us what actually happened to the Jews?

Start on September 1, 1939 and take us through what actually happened to the Jews of Europe, as you see it.

It's a really simple request that you're evidently desperate to avoid. The request is not contingent on whatever you think of the consensus explanation.

It also cannot be derived from a negation of the existing explanation. You are not allowed to use deduction here. You must use induction - citing evidence to support a positive claim. That's the only acceptable procedure in history, and that's the one you've got to follow.

Course, you don't want to, but that's not really our problem.
 
No. There are only two possibilities: Everybody in Europe, including the Jews, either 1) survived the war or 2) did not survive the war.

That doesn't take into account Jews or non-Jews who emigrated during the war. You have to take those into account as well. What about Jews who were in the Soviet Union who were evacuated to Soviet Central Asia, e.g., to Kazakhstan? (I had a student whose family had this happen to them.) They were not in Europe anymore, but they survived, n'est-ce pas?

You're taking a more circuitous route to get to the same conclusion as I do: Jews were either dead or not dead at the end of the war.

Yes, but you have to take into account emigration also. You're fond of citing population statistics, so you have to concede this point.

You can make the argument that the Jews that died due to exigencies of the war are the responsibility of the Nazis because the Nazis started the war and the Nazis moved the Jews away from their homes.

You're conflating. Moving people away from their homes via deportation is not an exigency of war.

But you would have to conclude that all the non-Jews that died due to the exigencies of the war are also the responsibility of the Nazis because the Nazis started the war and the Nazis moved alot of non-Jews away from their homes as well.

Depends on whom you're talking about. Jews, absolutely. Poles and Soviet citizens, yes. A lot of Czechs, too. Not a lot of French or Dutch people, though, e.g.

What you can't conclude is that all the non-Jewish civilians who were killed during the war were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time while all the Jewish civilians who were killed during the war were intentionally murdered as part of a master plan to kill all the Jews.

No, but what I can conclude is that Jews were specifically targeted for extra-continental deportation, unless you consider the long-term consideration under Generalplan Ost.

When exactly were the initial death toll figures calculated? Within a few months of the wars end isn't precise enough. The earliest report of six million Jews dead I have seen was in January 1945.

That sounds about right. I haven't checked.

Six million Jews were predicted to be dead in 1943.

By whom? If Ben Hecht, you're wrong.

Six million Jews in peril predates the war. With the massive upheaval caused by the major combat operations, the huge numbers of civilians fleeing the Red Army, and the Russian's refusal to allow the Western allies into the territory overrun by the Red Army it would have been impossible to gather any meaningful data during the final months of the war.

Depends on the place, doesn't it? And you're discounting a few things as well. Just because the Red Army refused access to liberated territory, it doesn't mean that they didn't find anything there. In fact, the archives of the USSR make it pretty clear that they found a lot. Further, you discount that the Soviets wouldn't have at least shared the information they had or used it as propaganda as a means of, as some Nazi said, "knotting the noose" for the Nazis.

And Jews continued streaming into the American zone of occupation from the East for at least a year after the end of the war. By the end of 1945 the huge numbers of Jews in the DP camps in the American zone had become a major problem.

But are you assuming that no count of these Jews was ever taken? Or that the total number of Jews who ended up in DP camps, the U.S., or Israel explains away the several million who were still missing?


Arab Jews did contribute to the Jewish population growth in Palestine but there were alot of Jews from Europe as well contributing to that double digit growth in population. There's also the fact that nearly all the Arab Jews who were expelled after Israel declared in independence ended up moving to Israel while the Jews in Europe emigrated to the United States in huge numbers as well as to Israel.

Not that huge. Not nearly as many as ended up in Israel.

We know they were sent to the camps. We know they either 1) died at the camps or 2) didn't die at the camps. The evidence that would remain if they had died in the camps isn't there. Ergo, they didn't die at these camps.

But it is. Your refusal to accept the evidence of, e.g., Kola or the Institute for Forensic Research isn't my problem. If you want to present counterevidence, e.g., that the Jews ended up elsewhere, be my guest.

You assuming that missing Jews are dead Jews and dead Jews are exterminated Jews. That reasoning is faulty.

Only faulty if some other explanation were demonstrably available and empirically provable.

There isn't.

If these hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered at these camps as voluminous eyewitness testimony tells us, where did they go? What happened to mass graves that held their bodies and what happened to their bodies?

The mass graves are there. Your refusal to accept that they are there isn't my problem. You can bleat that there are no mass graves as much as you want. Tell it to Andrzej Kola. Tell it to Rachel Auerbach. Tell it to anyone, but don't try it here.
 
When exactly were the initial death toll figures calculated? Within a few months of the wars end isn't precise enough. The earliest report of six million Jews dead I have seen was in January 1945. Six million Jews were predicted to be dead in 1943. Six million Jews in peril predates the war.
With the massive upheaval caused by the major combat operations, the huge numbers of civilians fleeing the Red Army, and the Russian's refusal to allow the Western allies into the territory overrun by the Red Army it would have been impossible to gather any meaningful data during the final months of the war.

You're presuming, wrongly, that the total is actually six million and that demographic research hasn't advanced since 1945, both of which are false.

In actual fact the situation of the Jewish population of Europe had been tracked by news reports throughout the entire war. Organisations like the Institute for Jewish Affairs as well as the editors of American Jewish Yearbook took note of all the border changes and occupations, and once the major population displacements started, they received a great deal of information, both from the Axis press as well as underground reports. The Slovaks were entirely open about how many Jews they had deported in 1942, and publicised the figure in their press, for example.

Once extensive reports of killings began to come through, then you can easily find global estimates, starting with 1 million in mid-1942, then 2 million dead being estimated at the end of 1942, then in August 1943, the Institute of Jewish Affairs estimated 3 million dead, and broke down the totals by countries, giving figures for numbers displaced/deported/fled and numbers killed.

By the spring of 1944, there were reports in neutral and Allied countries picking up on a story run in a Nazi newspaper claiming 5 million had been got rid of - given all the other evidence that was accumulating this was understood to mean 'killed'.

In the summer of 1944, virtually all of the occupied Soviet Union was liberated, and Poland was overrun up to the Vistula, i.e. the Lublin district was liberated, and the camps there were exposed. This coincided with reports out of Auschwitz talking of very large numbers killed there - the Vrba-Wetzler report spoke (wrongly) of 1.715 million, before you even count the Hungarian Jews.

By this time, it was apparent to interested observers that the Jewish population on Nazi-occupied Soviet territories had been entirely wiped out other than small handfuls in hiding. The Soviet authorities registered those survivors as part of their reimposition of Soviet control on especially, the territories annexed in 1939-40. So you have some stats being reported in the western press on how few survivors there were in whole districts. But there was also still a great deal of uncertainty as to how many had survived by fleeing ahead of the occupation.

If you read the press in the first five months of 1945 you'll find quite a few reports discussing the number of survivors left in this or that country, or town. Only a tiny number were left in Lodz, for example (some who had been in hiding and the clean-up crew in the ghetto - less than 1,000).

The Institute for Jewish Affairs wrote a 16 page report synthesising all these different reports in June 1945. All the sources for their estimates are specified, and they emphasise the uncertainties. They also emphasise and estimate the numbers of survivors who were in Germany and who had been evacuated to the east in the Soviet Union.

Those figures are estimates. No one has pretended otherwise. The figures are also straight demographic balance sheets. You can easily see where the estimates went wrong (eg Belgium) and where they were close to the eventual mark. The figures for Poland are a slight underestimate, something caused by inflated estimates of the number evacuated to the interior of the USSR. We now have the precise figures, so we can prove this was inflated somewhat. The figure for Hungary (Trianon Hungary) is a slight understatement as well. The Netherlands are underestimated by 35,000 compared to the subsequent Dutch Red Cross investigation. The Soviet total is close to the accurate number for the demographic loss, once you include Jewish soldiers killed in action

Overall, the estimates are actually pretty good, all things considered. You can subtract there and add here, but there was sufficient data to project an overall demographic loss of 5.7 million, which is close to the most probable total for the total loss. Since the actual loss to mass murder and crimes against humanity was 5.1-5.3 million, there is already a fair bit of room to account for other demographic losses like war casualties.

Obviously, as things settled down, better data became available, and it was also possible to establish how many had been deported, who had returned, etc. It didn't take long for the Belgian government to work out that 24,000 Jews had been deported from their country, whereas only a thousand or so had returned. Ditto with the French. They initially overestimated the number deported, then corrected this, then worked out how many had returned.

Most countries in western Europe had temporary ministries for refugee affairs, because Jews were far from the only people who had been displaced by the war. Most countries had seen political prisoners deported en masse, and virtually all had seen massive numbers of civilian workers deported, along with contingents of POWs who were retained by the Nazis for labour in the Reich.

The Soviets and Poles also had their own commissions for repatriation and were quite keen to register their populations properly. The Jewish community in Poland kept very extensive records from the spring of 1945 onwards, and these track the return of Polish Jews from the USSR, as well as the exodus westward which accelerated in 1946. The same group of people were really being counted four times. They were evacuated or deported by the Soviets in 1940-41, then returned to Poland in 1945-46, then left for the west from 1946.

That's something which has been obvious since 1945 to all interested and informed observers, but of course it's understandable if troglodytes want to treble-count the same people in order to sustain their politically motivated feeble attempts to revise history. That said, I don't see any kind of balance-sheet being offered by any of the deniers on this thread, who seem to be denier-numerate only, whereby every number is always six million subtracted by six million.

The eventual 'triumph' of Six Million was of course the result of the IMT judgement citing Hoettl's guesstimate, and it is naturally a Very Bad Thing that popular consciousness repeats this figure when in fact it is more like 5.1 to 5.3 million. But then popular consciousness seems to believe that "Stalin killed 20 million" or that "communism killed 100 million" without ever bothering to check on the real numbers.
 
Let's see if anything has changed here lately. Joo haters talking to people who can't give a straight answer. Nope. Nothing has changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom