• 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.
Saggy said:
CODOH doesn't censor topics, they censor Zionists, who will try anything to destroy rational discussion of the holohoax. If you don't believe me, just read this thread, read your own idiotic posts.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who continues to bleat "just one witness" when he's been given 200.

It figures you'd defend the nancy-boy tactics of Jonnie Hargis.
 
"Wiernik, Wiernik,Wiernik" = Looks like Saggy doesn't have the loaf to deal with 43 murder and cremation sites. Looks like Saggy doesn't have the pan to deal with 200 witnesses either.

As for the Codoh forum...Saggy makes a claim that the place doesn't censor, this must be a new "Revisionist" use of the word, "censor."

"...registrants had their posts deleted or retained and eventually got banned when they became too inconvenient..."
Click to expand...

As another poster elsewhere remarked recently, not for the first time either upon the matter.

This is in a place (CODOH forum) where holocaust debate is supposed to be practiced.

So yes,

He deletes threads, he deletes posts and he manipulates threads so that they make it appear that Revisionists have won. Well, no wonder you put up such a poor show here Saggy. You should go back to Jonnie.

Let him fix everything for you.

"Wiernik, Wiernik, Wiernik."

Maybe Wiernik is the third 50% of the Holohoax?
 
Last edited:
Saggy said:
The usual complete idiocy from Nick Terry.
Click to expand...


Since Saggy's reply is a rerun, I therefore offer my own repeat:


Wow, Saggy, what a fact-based rebuttal! The length and breadth of the sources you cited in your response was astounding! The time it must have taken you to compile that compendium of sources and to laboriously create the list of individual citations!

Oh, wait, you did none of that. Never mind.


P.S. — You haven't trotted out your fantastical global Jewish conspiracy which controls the media, academia, and everything else for several posts now. I know how hard it must be for you to not fall back on that. Well, don't keep it in! We know you're dying to tell us all about it again. So let your conspiracy crankiness out!
 
Last edited:
Nick Terry said:
So you keep on saying, without proving it, but there's a wee problem with this before we even consider your arguments, namely the fact that Treblinka was one of many sites at which a general policy was carried out. The fact that there were many killing sites is sufficient to prove a general policy even before we get to the many documents indicating a general policy was implemented in the Generalgouvernement and thus, in the territory with Treblinka 'serviced'.
Click to expand...

How do we know there was general policy related to killing? Because there were so many killing sites. How do we know these were all killing sites? Because there was a general policy related to killing. How do we know there was general policy related to killing? Because there were so many killing sites. How do we know these were all killing sites? Because there was a general policy related to killing. How do we know there was general policy related to killing? Because there were so many killing sites. How do we know these were all killing sites? Because there was a general policy related to killing.

It is more probable that your interpretation of Treblinka is wrong than that Treblinka was an exception to a rule, especially when there is zero evidence that anyone other than the known tiny handful of escapees survived the camp.



Yes, it is.

If (at least) 42 other sites saw killing and cremation on a mass scale, and Treblinka is firmly linked to those other sites through various institutional affiliations and many different pieces of evidence, then picking on Treblinka is picking on all 43 sites. You cannot isolate one from the others.

There are of course other potential units of analysis. One might be, for example, the fate of Polish Jews, who numbered nearly 3.5 million before the war and a few hundred thousand after the war, with 3 million dying, the single biggest line item in the Holocaust as a whole. Treblinka would have claimed a quarter of that number, bearing in mind the relatively low number of foreign Jews deported to that camp.

The remaining 2.25 million died at Belzec, Auschwitz, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek, Trawniki, Poniatowa, Krakow-Plaszow, Skarzysko-Kamienna; at Ponary, Bronnaia Gora, Janowska, Pinsk and around Bialystok and Grodno; also at places like Slonim and Rovno; and in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos, among many other places.

The fate of Polish Jews is a coherent unit of analysis, especially since the fate was ultimately identical despite the splintering of Poland into 13 different occupation districts: everyone other than a couple of hundred thousand workers was killed.



Gosh, what a well-reasoned and cogent critique of 43 different sites involving killing and cremation by the Nazis.

The burden of proof is very squarely on you to either explain why Treblinka is an anomaly to a policy rule, or explain all the cases. There is no logically coherent alternative.
Click to expand...


And this little exercise of yours will in what way address the physical limitations imposed by our three dimensional universe? The fact that you say there was a general policy governing all these camps is irrelevant to this discussion. The only thing that matters is size of the camp and the number of people killed there.

If all the camps were all the same size and had the same death toll, or if the size of the camp was directly proportional to the death toll with a 1:1 ratio, you could consider them as a unit.

Otherwise, "policy" has nothing to do with the scale of killing.
 
Dogzilla said:
And this little exercise of yours will in what way address the physical limitations imposed by our three dimensional universe? The fact that you say there was a general policy governing all these camps is irrelevant to this discussion. The only thing that matters is size of the camp and the number of people killed there.

If all the camps were all the same size and had the same death toll, or if the size of the camp was directly proportional to the death toll with a 1:1 ratio, you could consider them as a unit.

Otherwise, "policy" has nothing to do with the scale of killing.
Click to expand...

Show us using math how physical limitations renders the commonly held history impossible.
 
Saggy said:
pg15
Between 400 and 500 persons were crowded into a chamber measuring 125 square feet.
Click to expand...

125 square feet? Methinks you need a new calculator. Also, if you're going to quote Wiernick, quote him properly. He never used square feet, but square meters.
 
Saggy said:
CODOH doesn't censor topics, they censor Zionists, who will try anything to destroy rational discussion of the holohoax. If you don't believe me, just read this thread, read your own idiotic posts.
Click to expand...
New use of "Zionist" = catchall term for anyone from any point of view, especially serious scholars, who do not subscribe to crackpot theories, special pleading, antisemitic musings, and made up nonsense about forgeries, Jewish conspiracies, liewitnesses, and such goofiness
 
Last edited:
Dogzilla said:
How do we know there was general policy related to killing? Because there were so many killing sites. How do we know these were all killing sites? Because there was a general policy related to killing. How do we know there was general policy related to killing? Because there were so many killing sites. How do we know these were all killing sites? Because there was a general policy related to killing. How do we know there was general policy related to killing? Because there were so many killing sites. How do we know these were all killing sites? Because there was a general policy related to killing.
Click to expand...

If you're done making an idiot of yourself....

And this little exercise of yours will in what way address the physical limitations imposed by our three dimensional universe? The fact that you say there was a general policy governing all these camps is irrelevant to this discussion. The only thing that matters is size of the camp and the number of people killed there.

If all the camps were all the same size and had the same death toll, or if the size of the camp was directly proportional to the death toll with a 1:1 ratio, you could consider them as a unit.

Otherwise, "policy" has nothing to do with the scale of killing.
Click to expand...

Well, let's take your chosen fixation on Treblinka, and hypothetically deduct 781,000 victims for a moment. That still leaves at least 4.5 million Jews killed by the Nazis across 42 other sites (Jews died everywhere, in every single KZ and euthanasia institute, so it really is 42 other sites - just counting the major ones where cremation was used).

It then produces a major anomaly, which is explaining why deportations to Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno and Sobibor resulted in death, whereas deportations to Treblinka supposedly did not. So already there's a biiig problem with fixating on Treblinka.

In practice, your incredulity about the scale of Treblinka couldn't do more than produce a hypothesis that a certain proportion of the accepted number of Treblinka victims did not die there. Since you haven't established that proportion or rigorously demonstrated the maximum possible number of victims, then your argument becomes even weaker.

Thus the request to identify the level at which 'scale' supposedly becomes a big deal. It doesn't seem very likely that you can invoke 'scale' for any site under 100,000 bodies cremated (by whatever means). You've not offered a single argument which would call into question the physical possibility of cremating 7,000 or 70,000 bodies.

You've also not offered any arguments for the camps in the 100-250,000 range (Chelmno and Sobibor). Nor have you offered any arguments for the camps in the 250,000 to 750,000 range (Belzec, Auschwitz crematoria, Brezinka woods). You've only repeated your tedious incredulity about... Treblinka.

On a continent-wide level it would already be extremely odd that the Nazis, who constantly talked about 'Jews' as a relatively undifferentiated entity, would murder all the Jews of the occupied Soviet Union and then cremate a large number of their victims at a variety of sites in the USSR, but not do the same to Polish Jews.

It becomes even odder when we consider that the Nazis murdered an awful lot of Polish Jews at a variety of sites in western Poland, like Trawniki, Poniatowa and Majdanek, or when clearing the Krakow ghetto.

Same with German, Austrian and Czech Jews. The Nazis murdered Jews of those nationalities at Riga, in Estonia, outside Kaunas, and at Minsk. They killed them at Chelmno, and at Auschwitz, and at Sobibor, and they killed them at Belzec and Treblinka too.

We now can add two simple observations:

1) there is an extensive body of evidence indicating that the Nazis had a policy of exterminating Jews other than a small proportion spared for work, and a few exemption categories.

2) there is no evidence that Jews deported to the camps who did not escape or who were not selected for work (Auschwitz) turned up anywhere else during or after the war.

and reiterate one crucial point

3) you haven't offered anything more than an argument to personal incredulity, haven't modelled anything, and haven't demonstrated the actual physical limits of what was possible or what would have been hypothetically achievable.

Even if we cut out hypothetically all five big death camps, then there were still 2.9 million Jewish victims of the Nazis and their accomplices; and now there are 2.4 million anomalies. Your theory cannot explain what happened to them, whereas the conventional explanation can. So they're anomalies for your theory.

And that's being extremely generous in labelling your argument to personal incredulity a 'theory'. It isn't even a properly formulated hypothesis. It's simply seizing on one point and then not stopping to consider whether your incredulity fits with everything else we know.
 
abaddon said:
Because he wants to maintain the pretense that he is not anti-semitic.
Click to expand...

Really?

'cause I heard this guy

fat.jpg


wants to maintain the pretense that he is not fat.
 
uke2se said:
Show us using math how physical limitations renders the commonly held history impossible.
Click to expand...

OK. First some parameters.

Do you accept that Arad's description in Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Action Reinhard Death Camps of the physical layout of the AR camps is accurate?

Ignoring for the moment any holocaust era mass graves and any mass graves for which the number of bodies is unknown (and anything the right-to-lifers call a 'mass grave' because it contains medical waste such as the byproducts of stem cell research or abortions), how many bodies were found in the largest mass grave ever found?
 
Dogzilla said:
OK. First some parameters.
Click to expand...
.
Ok, what parameters do you want to define?
.
Dogzilla said:
Do you accept that Arad's description in Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Action Reinhard Death Camps of the physical layout of the AR camps is accurate?
Click to expand...
.
If this is relevant to the parameters you want to use, make a positive statement about the matter and be prepared to defend it.

Note that you were *not* requested to ask random questions in return.
.
Dogzilla said:
Ignoring for the moment any holocaust era mass graves and any mass graves for which the number of bodies is unknown (and anything the right-to-lifers call a 'mass grave' because it contains medical waste such as the byproducts of stem cell research or abortions), how many bodies were found in the largest mass grave ever found?
Click to expand...
.
Is there a reason you bring up right-to-life? Has anyone, anyone at all in this thread done so, or is this yet another lame attempt on your part to distract from the fact that you have once again made a claim you cannot or at best will not support?

If you believe this 'largest mass grave ever found' is relevant, make a positive statement about the matter and be prepared to defend it.

Note that you were *not* requested to ask random questions instead of documenting that the original claim wasn't just you talking out of the hole in your keyboard.

Or are you going to lie again about how everyone accepts your premise in general and that quibbling about its details is all that's left?
.
 
Pretty much what TSR said. Prove your assertion. Then you can ask questions.
 
uke2se said:
125 square feet? Methinks you need a new calculator. Also, if you're going to quote Wiernick, quote him properly. He never used square feet, but square meters.
Click to expand...

"125 square feet" is a quote from the original published version, which is the English version published in New York City.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom