Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Dogzilla]

That's certainly part of it.

Churchill wrote about the Holocaust. So did Eisenhower. In fact, Eisenhower wrote about Ohrdruf, because he was there.

And what exactly did Eisenhower say about the holocaust that he saw at Ohrdruf?

Nobody in their right mind who is carrying out an extermination program is going to demonstrate it to the Red Cross.

That's true. It's also why the Red Cross never wrote about the extermination of the Japanese Americans.

 

[TSR]

Feel free to provide something, anything really, other than "argument from incredulity" for the nonexistence of Bigfoot, UFOs, or the Tooth Fairy.

.
The complete lack of evidence in support of those.

And before you once again try to claim that the same applies to the gas chambers you'll have to explain why we do not have any employee reporting to their superior anything that suggests these others' existence -- "Per you orders, shot a bigfoot and disposed of the body in prescribed manner" "on thus-and-such a day, landing and collection of human specimen persuant to directives" "Memo, re: the boss lady We really need to talk to TF about her use of cologne, it's waking the kids..."
.

"unsealed" can have two meanings here. One meaning is that the wood itself is not sealed. If that's what is meant then the wood would easily absorb cyanide gas. After repeated gassings the door itself would absorb enough gas to remain toxic. Nobody could touch it or even get near it without getting sick. This would greatly complicate the 24/7 operation of the gas chamber.

The other meaning is that the door does not form an airtight seal. This would allow an exchange of gas from the inside to the outside and vice versa. Air getting into the gas chamber would dilute the concentration of cyanide gas inside the gas chamber. Cyanide gas leaking out would be dangerous to anybody outside the gas chamber. Especially since there would be no warning agent to indicate how toxic the air actually was.

In either case, it is absurd.

.
And why does this absurdity *not* also apply to canvas tents used at far higher concentrations for far greater periods of time, exacerbating both of these issues?
.

 

[TSR]

And what exactly did Eisenhower say about the holocaust that he saw at Ohrdruf?

.
Exactly the same kinds of things every historical account of that labour camp does.

Do you even know what *that* is?
.

That's true. It's also why the Red Cross never wrote about the extermination of the Japanese Americans.

.
Unfortuneately for you, neither did anyone else, including the survivors.

You've been asked for the source for this "wild romour" that there were gas chambers there -- is there a reason other than the obvious that you have not cited one?
.

 

[tsig]

I'm not surprised that Churchill failed to mention the hoax gas chambers, as did Eisenhower and DeGaulle, after all Elie Wiesel who spent a year as a prisoner at Auschwitz and wrote a book describing his experiences, also failed to mention the hoax gas chambers.

What does surprise me is that Wiesel's book, 'Night', which proves that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, is promoted by the holohoax establishment and is recommended reading in many schools. Folks, that's chutzpah, and as the record shows, well founded.

The bible never mentions America therefore the USA doesn't exist!

 

[Clayton Moore]

No historian worth his/her salt would take a single piece of evidence and conclude a history from it, so don't play dumb, OK?

Historians? That's a laugh.
As I said previously in this thread.

Then there is the added absurdity of the Holocaust scholars demanding in the sixties and later that no one knew what was going in the camps then later doing a 180 and demanding that everyone knew and looked away.

 

[Clayton Moore]

.
Perhaps for some people -- the rest of us have to actively make the effort to lie, not the reverse.

And what, exactly, does this have to do with the spanking you just received?

Oh, it's that ol' lying by omission (to yourself, that you weren't) thing again. You seem to have practiced it long and hard, should be second nature to you by now. Is there a ball diamond at Rodeo Park? Can one attend concerts at the Disney Museum? Do you understand the difference between vocab and grammar now? And have you found those lies on the THHP site yet?
.

What happened to the THHP site? A google of "THHP site" gets nada.

 

[Wroclaw]

Historians? That's a laugh.

I'm not just talking about the Holocaust.

As I said previously in this thread.

Who demanded that no one knew? And demonstrate, please, that anyone with that position reversed their point of view.

 

[Wroclaw]

And what exactly did Eisenhower say about the holocaust that he saw at Ohrdruf?

I'm not your librarian, pal. Look it up yourself.

That's true. It's also why the Red Cross never wrote about the extermination of the Japanese Americans.

Yeah, AGAIN the big problem with that analogy is that there's also ZERO other evidence for the extermination of Japanese Americans.

There are (AGAIN) forensic reports, testimony, and documents proving extermination.

Now get to hand-waving or you'll disappoint.

 

[Wroclaw]

What happened to the THHP site? A google of "THHP site" gets nada.

Really? First hit I got:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&e....,cf.osb&fp=cc58da16baf8435c&biw=1225&bih=581

I thought Google was idiot-proof.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Eyewitness Accounts and Family Histories

Really? First hit I got:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&e....,cf.osb&fp=cc58da16baf8435c&biw=1225&bih=581

I thought Google was idiot-proof.

Eyewitness Accounts and Family Histories

Like a rock thrown into a quiet pool of water, the Holocaust produced ripples in ever widening circles as more and more people were affected by the magnitude of the crimes. The Holocaust History Project is devoted to preserving and explaining the history of the Holocaust.

Analysis of documents, scientific treatises on gassing apparatus and methods, debunking of deniers' lies, reproductions of primary and other sources - all these are very important to set the record straight and to preserve the truth. But the Holocaust History Project's mission includes not only these things, but explanations of how the Holocaust affected the victims, the perpetrators, and the witnesses caught in those terrible events and how the Holocaust continues to affect people today -- more than half a century after the Third Reich embarked on its program of genocide.

We believe that if we do not seek to understand the Holocaust at its most human - and most painful - level, we cannot understand it at all.

An Eyewitness Account of Ghetto Liquidation in Belarus by Michael Nosanchuk, one of the only survivors.

A Trip to Belarus by Katharina von Kellenbach, Professor of Religious Studies at St. Mary's College of Maryland, and niece of SS officer Alfred Ebner.

Last modified: December 1, 2003
Technical/administrative contact: webmaster@holocaust-history.org


Two eyewitness testimonies?

 

[TSR]

Really? First hit I got:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&e....,cf.osb&fp=cc58da16baf8435c&biw=1225&bih=581

I thought Google was idiot-proof.

.
In fact, there are only two links in that page which do not lead directly or within a single more click to THHP.

CM: it's in exactly the same place as it was when you claimed the site was nothing but lies and liars
.

 

[TSR]

Two eyewitness testimonies?

/
Yes, two. In that particular article. Which makes no claim that they are the only ones.

And once again, the "smarter than thou" deniers can't even manage a proper citation.

Now, your claim was that THHP was nothing but lies and liars. So that page should have a lie on it. Please quote that lie verbatim and *prove*, *with proper citation* that it is a lie.

Or you could, just this once, be honest and admit that your lies and liars claim was a knee-jerk reaction meant to excuse you from reading the evidence for which you had asked, and you have no actual proof of any lies whatever on that site, hmmmn?
/

 

[Clayton Moore]

/
Yes, two. In that particular article. Which makes no claim that they are the only ones.

And once again, the "smarter than thou" deniers can't even manage a proper citation.

Now, your claim was that THHP was nothing but lies and liars. So that page should have a lie on it. Please quote that lie verbatim and *prove*, *with proper citation* that it is a lie.

Or you could, just this once, be honest and admit that your lies and liars claim was a knee-jerk reaction meant to excuse you from reading the evidence for which you had asked, and you have no actual proof of any lies whatever on that site, hmmmn?
/

http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/belarus.shtml

History:

A Pilgrimage to Belarus

By Katharina von Kellenbach

As is often the case with scholars, my professional research interests are rooted in my personal life. I am the niece of Alfred Ebner, a SS-officer who became the deputy commissioner of the predominantly Jewish town of Pinsk in Belarus, a man who oversaw and participated in the slaughter of 30,000 Jews. I had first learned about the charges against Ebner as a teenager but could not emotionally or intellectually connect the elderly, somewhat withdrawn man to mass murder. Clearly, a man guilty of such crimes should be "marked" in some visible way, but my uncle was free. His trial was discontinued for fraudulent medical reasons, and he became a successful business man, a devoted husband and father, and a welcome guest at many family gatherings. Everyone denied what he had done and the charges against him were generally dismissed as vengeful lies and Soviet Cold War propaganda.

The highlighted are obvious lies. Realizing that if he had overseen and participated in the slaughter of 30,000 Jewish people he wouldn't have gone free for bogus medical reasons. As in there wasn't anyone on the Nazi accused side at the trials. He went free because he was innocent.

 

[LemmyCaution]

http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/belarus.shtml

History:

A Pilgrimage to Belarus

By Katharina von Kellenbach





The highlighted are obvious lies. Realizing that if he had overseen and participated in the slaughter of 30,000 Jewish people he wouldn't have gone free for bogus medical reasons. As in there wasn't anyone on the Nazi accused side at the trials. He went free because he was innocent.

You were asked to prove, not simply assert, your claims of lies. Once again, you confuse repetition with demonstration.

 

[Wroclaw]

Really?

This guy:

Killed a couple of hundred people with a bombing. The Scottish parliament sprang him on apparently false claims of being mortally ill. Dude's still alive.

 

[Moss]

The highlighted are obvious lies. Realizing that if he had overseen and participated in the slaughter of 30,000 Jewish people he wouldn't have gone free for bogus medical reasons. As in there wasn't anyone on the Nazi accused side at the trials. He went free because he was innocent.

The only thing you demonstrate is that a) you know how to argue from incredulity and b) lack a basic knowledge of post-war Germany. Many nazi perpetrators got off for spurious reasons and actually got pretty good jobs and even official position in government.

 

[Wroclaw]

Nobody could possible kill 30,000 Jews in Pinsk!

Here's what we do know:

(1) The Russian census of 1897 counted the Jewish population of Pinsk at 21,000.
(2) A Polish census of the city between 1919 and 1939 counted its Jewish population at 27,000.
(3) A ghetto was established by the Nazis in Pinsk when they occupied it in 1941. Jews from outlying regions were deported there.
(4) In the fall of 1942, Himmler ordered the Pinsk ghetto liquidated "without regard for economic necessities."
(5) There are virtually no Jews left in Pinsk, nor are there a sizable number of Jews anywhere in the world who claim to have left Pinsk at any point after the summer of 1941.
(6) Even the vast majority of Holocaust deniers admit that a very large numbers of Jews were shot behind the Eastern front.

CM, I ask you to do two things:

(1) Please indicate whether you disagree with any of the five points above. If so, please indicate why. Do not beg the question; rather, provide evidence that one of the above points is false.

(2) Once you've done that, please provide an alternate explanation for what happened to the Jews of Pinsk. In doing so, do not violate the principal of Occam's razor, i.e., do not provide an explanation that would require more than the above evidence, unless you can provide a really good point as to why your new evidence should be included.

 

[Wroclaw]

The only thing you demonstrate is that a) you know how to argue from incredulity and b) lack a basic knowledge of post-war Germany. Many nazi perpetrators got off for spurious reasons and actually got pretty good jobs and even official position in government.

Or at the very least, their kids did. Some even became president of West Germany

(Sorry. I'm feeling visual today.)

 

[A'isha]

The highlighted are obvious lies. Realizing that if he had overseen and participated in the slaughter of 30,000 Jewish people he wouldn't have gone free for bogus medical reasons. As in there wasn't anyone on the Nazi accused side at the trials. He went free because he was innocent.

Alfred Ebner was one of the defendants brought to trial on November 25, 1971 in Frankfurt, Germany, on the specific charge of aiding and abetting murder (the prosecution was handled under West German homicide laws, and the defendants weren't charged with genocide or other war crimes). Originally there were 18 defendants, but only six ended up being convicted.

Not a single one of the defendants denied that the murders they were charged with took place, it should be noted. The defense was a combination of saying they were only themselves following orders when they gave their own orders to carry out the murders, they didn't know the orders were illegal since Hitler had suspended the murder statute at the time the crimes had taken place (thus making them technically legal under German law at that time), and that other people who participated in the murders weren't put on trial (and, in fact, many of them were witnesses for the prosecution at this particular trial - prosecutor Gerhard Ott is quoted as saying "we drew a line between those who received the orders and those who gave the orders": the officers in charge at Pinsk during the murders).

Associated Press news articles about the case from 1973 stated, "One of the original accused was declared an imbecile, and his case was suspended at the very outset of the trial. That was Alfred Ebner, a top Nazi functionary at Pinsk, and was to be the chief defendant. Ebner sat with mouth agape and eyes staring dully into space while a psychiatrist read the results of his analysis: The 59-year-old Ebner had fled so deeply into 'illusional imbecility' that he required psychiatric help to find his way back to normality. Ebner may never stand trial."

The articles say that another one of the other defendants at that trial, Adolf "Butcher" Petsch, was also evaluated by a psychologist at the request of his lawyer, but was declared fit for trial. Petsch described how he and other members of his unit would be so covered with blood after mass executions that when he received a clean uniform afterwards, he didn't know whether they washed the uniforms, or simply issued them brand new ones each time. "Petsch seemed strangely pleased by the findings that are to seal his conviction", the articles note.

The defendants were found guilty, but the judge, Adalbert Schaefer, nevertheless imposed relatively light sentences (the judge is quoted in the articles as saying that the defendants themselves were "victims of inhuman times"). Petsch received the longest sentence - 15 years. The other five convicted defendants received sentences ranging from just 2 1/2 years to 4 years.

Care to rethink anything you said, Clayton Moore?

EDIT:And in response to your claim that "there wasn't anyone on the Nazi accused side at the trials", one of the witnesses (not a defendant, a witness), Johann Eckstein, was a subordinate of one of the defendants, an NCO in Police Battalion 306, the unit that sealed off the ghetto in Pinsk, rounded up its Jewish inhabitants, and executed them. Eckstein told the court that the orders were legal because of Hitler's decisions, and that he felt the orders were binding and that there was no way to avoid carrying out those orders. His former superior, defendant Johann Josef Kuhr, was the one who received the lightest sentence among the six men found guilty, of just 2 1/2 years (the prosecution had asked for 8 years).

 

[TSR]

Care to rethink anything you said, Clayton Moore?

.
Not least because that's not the page you originally offered as "proof" of your nothing but lies and liars claim.

*That* page, since the site is "nothing but" should be easy to find a lie on -- especially since it is far shorter than the one to which you tried to move the goalposts.

Here, let me give it to you again: http://www.holocaust-history.org/short-essays/family-history.shtml

Where's the lie there, CM? And don't forget that assertion is not proof, nor is incredulity.

Off you go...
.