Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Nick Terry]

He writes: "My research clearly shows that Irene Weisberg Zisblatt is not only a survivor of Auschwitz and the Holocaust, but that she, indeed, has an interesting and instructive story to tell. A story of endless humiliations and extreme suffering, but also of survival against all odds. It would be similar to those that hundreds of survivors can tell or have already told. It certainly would be less adventurous than that which she tells. But it would be in accordance with the historically established facts. Irene Weisberg Zisblatt should tell her story about survival at Auschwitz without exaggerations and implausibilities. It then would be a really true story, worth to be told and retold and to be listened to."

Yeah. That's what you call giving an old lady a pass.

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking, and now you cannot muster up anything more than a quote-mine and a flippant comment.

There is something wrong with your brain, Dogzilla.

 

[A'isha]

You're back to 'where did they go?' You and all of Team holocaust will continue to fail with this gambit because they're not where you think they are. If they're not there, they must be somewhere else. Do you not understand the concept of mutual exclusivity?

If they're not where we think they are, then where are they, Dogzilla?

 

[LemmyCaution]

You don't think Jews would fight back against the Nazis? You think Jews didn't actually resist Nazi occupation? You don't think there were any Jewish partisans? You think Jews are helpless defenseless pathetic wretched dwarfs (as runty as Kitchener's Army) who are happy to accept any abuse they receive and I'm deeply antisemitic?

Do you even believe that the Nazis considered Jews to be their enemy?

Putting words into my mouth again.

Let me tell you clearly so that you stop doing this: I believe that a relatively small number of Jews fought back against the Nazis, with arms or using sabotage. These people made up a small portion of the partisan, armed fighters against the Germans, the majority of these not being Jewish. In some cases, but not most, they had some support from Jewish leaders and community members. I believe that many Jews resisted in other ways than directly fighting the armed power of the Nazis. I believe that some Jews didn't have time or information or a favorable situation from which to develop a resistance strategy - and that some Jews hoped for the best, even after it was too late. The reason I asked Clayton a long list of questions about his hypothetical Jew is that his question - and your language - are nonsensical without more specific information that recognizes differences among people in background, situation, and even aspirations.

I do not believe that the Jews who were unable to escape the Nazis were happy to accept anything coming their way. Far from it. I cannot imagine your having read a single statement of mine in this thread implying such a thing.

I know that the Nazis considered the Jews their dangerous enemy. Of course. By 1942-1943, the Nazis were hyperventilating that, in their view, with the Jewish enemy it was an apocalyptic situation - either Germany would annihilate the Jews or the Jews would annihilate Germany.

Again, that the Nazis fantasized the Jews as the world-enemy is not exactly news.

Nor is it news that the Nazis acted on their paranoid view of the world.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I'm quite sure that LemmyCaution and several others in this thread know exactly the kind of statements to which I was referring. They are the same statements that have been discussed in countless works since the 1940s. Hans Frank speaking to his cabinet on December 16, 1941, for example.

That was, ironically, the third quote in the long list I decided against posting. You won't be surprised to know that Robert Ley had pride of place.

 

[Nick Terry]

You're back to 'where did they go?' You and all of Team holocaust will continue to fail with this gambit because they're not where you think they are. If they're not there, they must be somewhere else. Do you not understand the concept of mutual exclusivity?

On the contrary, my post referred to among other things

a) evidence of the murder of 97,000 Jews in gas vans at Chelmno by early summer 1942
b) Hitler's repeated 'prophecy' of the extermination of the Jews
c) how this was interpreted by contemporary observers in late 1942
d) multiple statements by Hans Frank about the liquidation and annihilation of the Jews over the course of 1941-3
e) the deportation of 250,000 Jews from Warsaw to Treblinka
f) lengthy reports on Nazi policy and the implementation of the Final Solution written by Christoper Browning and Peter Longerich
g) the principle of total evidence

I outlined some generally well known facts about Hitler's speeches and noted in particular the repetition of his 'prophecy' spiel on 30 September 1942. In this speech, Hitler refers yet again to the extermination of the Jews and did so publicly.

I explained how Hitler had repeated this threat on numerous occasions since 1939, and that the larger the number of Jews that died, then the more difficult it becomes to interpret Hitler's utterances as mere rhetoric. By the time Hitler spoke in September 1942, millions of Jews had been killed by the Nazis. This was clearly an ongoing process at the time of his speech, and Hitler discussed his prophecy as something that was now being realised.

I then said that if you wanted to pretend that the speech didn't refer to mass murder, you would have to explain among other things

a) why contemporaries interpreted the speech as referring to mass murder
b) why Hans Frank spoke of an intent to liquidate the Jews in December 1941 and spoke of the annihilation of the Jews in December 1942 and June 1943,
c) why the chief medical officer of Warsaw talked about Nazi policy towards Jews as 'that is, to kill them'

in addition to asking you to explain what happened to the Jews of Warsaw.

It is of course well known what happened to the Jews of Warsaw. 250,000 were deported to Treblinka in the summer of 1942 and murdered there, if they had not died en route, jumped off the trains or been selected for a temporary reprieve in the Sonderkommando at Treblinka. Then the bodies were buried, and later dug up, and cremated.

What you do not seem to have got is how different strands of evidence become mutually confirming. However, there are several points to make before the mutual confirmation has to be discussed:

1) It is not very likely that a head of state talking of the extermination of a people merely 'misspoke' when he has repeated the same sentiment on numerous occasions
2) It is not very likely that a head of state talking of the extermination of a people merely 'misspoke' when this is how he was understood by other Nazis who wrote about his prophecy in their diaries and letters, and when neutral observers interpreted his statements in the same way
3) It is also not very likely a head of state talking of the extermination of a people merely 'misspoke' when the sum total of utterances from top Nazis and many subordinates use extermination to refer to mass murder, and add in other phrases which refer to killing, liquidation, death, etc.
4) It is also not very likely a head of state talking of the extermination of a people merely 'misspoke' when the sum total of utterances from top Nazis and many subordinates do not use extermination (Ausrottung, Vernichtung) to refer to mere resettlement or expulsion or forced emigration or whatever cop-out you might claim.

One does not therefore need to take Hitler's statement on 30 September 1942 at face value, but can situate it within chains of other statements and put it into context - the context of how Nazis in the 1940s discussed the extermination of the Jews, a context which as the examples cited from Hans Frank indicate, was a matter of policy. In December 1942, Frank referred explicitly to the order to annihilate the Jews coming from a higher authority. There was no one other than Hitler above Frank.

Hitler's speech came immediately after the Warsaw ghetto action of 1942. By virtue of simple chronology, it is thus one of many disparate pieces of evidence that proves that the fate of the Warsaw Jews was death at Treblinka. It is not the only one, nor necessarily the most crucial, but it is a piece of evidence corroborating that fate.

In turn, the fact of the deportation of the Jews of Warsaw to Treblinka confirms the above interpretation of Hitler's speech. But so do other actions, for example the mass murder of 152,000 Jews in the Warthegau at Chelmno, an action which was essentially completed by the time of the Sportpalast speech. Or the mass murder of about 115,000 Jews in Kube's GK Weissruthenien during 1942, which was ongoing at the time. Or the mass shootings and deportations of Jews in eastern Galicia, which were gathering pace at the time of the Sportpalast speech. Or indeed the ongoing elimination of Jews from Volhynia and the Polesie, which eventually claimed about the same number of lives as the deportation of Jews from Warsaw when it was completed by November 1942.

When a head of state talks publicly about exterminating a people while the organs and agencies of the same state are busily carrying out mass murder, then the common-sense inference is that the mass murder is part of the extermination and the extermination is being carried out by mass murder. This common-sense inference is only reinforced by the statements of every intermediary in between Hitler and enlisted SS/Police men when they are heard referring to mass murder or extermination.

It is further reinforced by all other pieces of evidence which describe the killings across all the relevant sites, whether those pieces are Nazi documents, underground intelligence reports, contemporary eyewitness accounts, or later eyewitness accounts and interrogations, or the physical evidence, or the archaeology.

Hitler's Sportpalast speech is obviously going to be understood in the light of what the Nazis were actually doing at the time of the speech, and in the light of what they had just done.

And in turn, what the Nazis were actually doing in the regions, whether to the Warsaw ghetto, in eastern Galicia, in Weissruthenien, Volhynia or the Warthegau, is going to be confirmed by the fact that the head of state spoke of extermination in public at that time.

So actually, it's not about what happened to the Jews of Warsaw, even though that's a question you should be able to answer, given your evident Treblinka fixation.

It's about how a speech by Hitler fits into:

a) the pattern of statements in public and in secret by top Nazis and their subordinates referring to extermination, killing, liquidation, death and the bumping-off of Jews
b) the pattern of Nazi actions in the same time-frame as the speech

I don't think anyone sane would agree that you can separate Hitler's speech from that contemporary context and pretend that it doesn't refer to what is going on.

The conclusion is therefore rather firm. Hitler's speech refers to Nazi actions at the time, and Nazi actions at the time were being carried out in accordance with the goals laid out in Hitler's speech, i.e. extermination. This conclusion sits in a spider's web of evidence which points in the same direction.

You can try and challenge this conclusion however you like. I don't think you'll come up with a convincing challenge, but one challenge that would revise our understanding is showing that the Jews of Warsaw did not die at Treblinka. This would falsify our understanding of the Final Solution and of Nazi intentions, since it would visibly contradict the conventionally accepted explanation. And it might lead us to revise our understanding of what Hitler meant when he spoke of extermination.

Because the conclusion about Hitler's speech is supported by evidence from the Warthegau, Volhynia, Weissruthenien and eastern Galicia, then nitpicking and obfuscating about mass graves at Treblinka isn't going to get you very far. Something more dramatic is needed to break the circle.

That something is clearly proof of life. Nothing else will by this stage make people listen to you and accept what you're saying. That's a view which has been echoed and restated by god knows how many people in this thread.

 

[LemmyCaution]

He writes: "My research clearly shows that Irene Weisberg Zisblatt is not only a survivor of Auschwitz and the Holocaust, but that she, indeed, has an interesting and instructive story to tell. A story of endless humiliations and extreme suffering, but also of survival against all odds. It would be similar to those that hundreds of survivors can tell or have already told. It certainly would be less adventurous than that which she tells. But it would be in accordance with the historically established facts. Irene Weisberg Zisblatt should tell her story about survival at Auschwitz without exaggerations and implausibilities. It then would be a really true story, worth to be told and retold and to be listened to."

Yeah. That's what you call giving an old lady a pass.

So you can read a passage that says Zisblatt told an untrue story - a passage that critcizes her for doing so, explaining the missed opportunity - a passage that basically calls her exaggerations and untruths not worth telling - and think the author is giving her a pass. You are so blinded by whatever blinds you that you can't even read.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You don't think Jews would fight back against the Nazis? You think Jews didn't actually resist Nazi occupation? You don't think there were any Jewish partisans? You think Jews are helpless defenseless pathetic wretched dwarfs (as runty as Kitchener's Army) who are happy to accept any abuse they receive and I'm deeply antisemitic?

Do you even believe that the Nazis considered Jews to be their enemy?

You nailed it there. As if millions of Jewish people, knowing their families fate was death, gathered what they could carry and traveled hundreds or thousands of miles by train, meekly to their death.

What now Team Holocaust? A million Jewish people were killed in total secrecy and millions of others unwittingly followed?

The Holocaust malarkey is an insult to the Jewish people who suffered and showed great courage through what did befall them.

 

[LemmyCaution]

One of the reasons you continue to fail miserably is your inability to listen and understand what people say. What did you say that would lead me to believe you are trying to find missing Jews?

Someone wrote this in a post to me:

If you really care about finding missing Jews, go . . .

So, I am listening and I am responding - and not failing miserably at all. In fact, I read what someone wrote – telling me how to find missing Jews if I really cared to do so. This led me to believe that that person thinks I need advice to find missing Jews. But I don’t think there are missing Jews, and don’t need this person’s advice.

You, however, continue to talk about talking - at the expense of discussing the history and what people actually did and went through. Your prerogative, of course, but you keep squandering chances to make any kind of case for denial.

I know you're not looking for them. I know where you think they are. You think their mortal remains are under the ground in a thousand anonymous mass graves or are being trampled by tourists walking amongst the stone monuments at few former "death" camps. You haven't looked for them there or if you have you haven't found them but lack of evidence has never stopped you from believing.

No, I haven't personally looked for remains. I am not an archaeologist, so my trying to find remains would be a cock-up of such magnitude I don’t want to think about it. But others have searched for remains in burial sites – and I’ve read their reports and I have even, in this thread, linked to summaries of their findings, for example, summaries written by Roberto Muehlenkamp.

So I know you're not looking for them. Since you care enough about them to tell me I need to find them, you should be looking for them. But I know you're not.

Well, I have shared with you a great deal of evidence about what happened to Jews in various places throughout Europe. Which you refuse to discuss and seem unable even to process. And I do know that when you claim that Jews were removed from a certain area – Germany, Vilna – then, logically, you should have something to say about where they were removed to. So your statement is worse than a red herring.

I didn't say the Nazis resettled the Jews. I said they wanted them out of Europe.

Actually you said removing the Jews from Europe was "Nazi policy." Not a simple desire suspended in the air. You also said that the Jaeger Report was evidence for "ethnic cleansing," according to the UN definition. So, fine, you want to argue that the population was removed and not put somewhere else - I will be happy to withdraw the word "resettlement" - recognizing that my inferring it gave you the benefit of the doubt, because driving a population from an area without someplace to put the people removed is about as close to mass murder as one can end get - and I will instead simply ask where the Jews of the 5 cities were deported to. Or, since I anticipate a quibble and long discussion about whether deport means deport and is means is, ask what became of the 450,000 Jews living in Warsaw in 1940. In rough numbers. Easy. Like that.

You won't answer that either.

When the war started emigration became impossible so the Jews were deported to various ghettos and concentration camps.

Emigration didn't simply become impossible - it was prohibited in an order from Mueller in October 1941, when Reich deportations began.

How many million Jews were put into these camps and ghettos? What % of Europe’s Jews were affected? From what places? You can say you don’t know or care, of course, but doing history and revising history would have you very interested in questions like these – if only to debunk what you take to be wrong-headed.

Now, Jews closed into ghettos – some of them shut in where they lived, some pushed in from other neighborhoods, and some deported from elsewhere – these Jews were also deported out of the ghettos. Like in Warsaw and Vilna. The Jews of Warsaw ghetto - to where were they deported? What number to other ghettos and which ghettos, what number to camps, and what number elsewhere? What became of the Jews sent from Warsaw to camps? The Jews of Vilna, removed from the city before the ghettos were set up, where did they go? Vilna Jews removed later from the ghetto - deported to where? Lodz? Riga?

The problem for your metaphysics is simple: If people are removed from a place, or shoved out, or deported, they have to end up somewhere else. Your failure to answer this question – you will only quibble with the question itself and with well known words and definitions – or make worthless generalizations – is puzzling – unless Nick is right about the inability of deniers to comprehend.

If Germany had won the war, "resettling" the Jews would have been possible. But Germany didn't so it wasn't.

I assume you're familiar enough with the evidence that Jews were deported to not need to go over that. This is pretty basic material. For you to not get it is something of a fail.

Of course I am somewhat versed in the history of deportations - as you know. For example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7937283&postcount=9097. Now, here you say finally something nearly correct - the Nazi plans for deportation of European Jews to a reservation “out east,” for example, proved impossible during the war. They once had resettlement plans, like Madagascar and Nisko/reservation. Even before the “eastern solution” disappeared, however, in the first weeks and months of Barbarossa, large numbers of Jews were being slaughtered in the conquered east. I assume you are familiar with the evidence for the shooting of Jews in large numbers in the western parts of the Soviet Union – and that this has nothing whatsoever to do with population removal, resettlement, deportation, ethnic cleansing, or anti-partisan warfare. If you do not, it is a fail.

I assume you also know that plans change when circumstances change. This is pretty basic material, the evolution of changes and escalation in Nazi Jewish policy. Are you not familiar with it? Is that why you can’t answer basic questions about different examples and types of extermination actions?

 

[Robrob]

You nailed it there. As if millions of Jewish people, knowing their families fate was death, gathered what they could carry and traveled hundreds or thousands of miles by train, meekly to their death.

What now Team Holocaust? A million Jewish people were killed in total secrecy and millions of others unwittingly followed?

The Holocaust malarkey is an insult to the Jewish people who suffered and showed great courage through what did befall them.

Argument from incredulity isn't actually honest or logical.

You see the same thing after every mass murder, "why didn't they fight back?!" Kids at Columbine, Virginia Tech and Norway all out numbered their killers. I suppose you think that was a hoax as well.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Argument from incredulity isn't actually honest or logical.

Nor is acting as if all members of a group react and behave in the same way to threats, opportunities, etc. This sort of thinking is that of a person either without much life experience or with great prejudice. That Clayton thinks European Jews - with all their diversity and differences during these years - were tight knit suggests the latter - but doesn't rule out the former.

 

[tsig]

You don't think Jews would fight back against the Nazis? You think Jews didn't actually resist Nazi occupation? You don't think there were any Jewish partisans? You think Jews are helpless defenseless pathetic wretched dwarfs (as runty as Kitchener's Army) who are happy to accept any abuse they receive and I'm deeply antisemitic?

Do you even believe that the Nazis considered Jews to be their enemy?

The river of the Nile flows deep and wide.

Are you sure WWII even happened? Maybe it was a Jewish plot to allow the US, UK and the USSR to invade an innocent Germany.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Regarding Caroline Crolls & Treblinka Investigation.

Dogzilla explains the Caroline Crolls investigation of Treblinka.

Yeah. I can explain it. It's yet another example of the "deniers" forcing Team holocaust to come up with evidence for their claims or at least make it appear as though they are doing so.

I see....so you agree academic historians have made an effort to debunk the fake Krege Treblinka video still promoted by Holocaust deniers. So it's a good thing.

I thought they knew where the graves were. We have eyewitnesses. Why do we need all this fancy science?

Justice Lukaszkiewicz's team had only fours days and 1940's technology. Ms Colls has modern GPR and, if she obtains the right to sample, high quality chemical analysis of soil. Ms Colls will probably identify the exact size of graves, location of the old & new gas chambers and may find new "things" no one has considered. Her work will allow conventional historians to proceed knowing their previous work is confirmed or reassess discrepancies.

You think this is a bad thing, as a revisionist, for what reasons?

Is it because it finally ends the holocaust denial cult?

 

[tsig]

You nailed it there. As if millions of Jewish people, knowing their families fate was death, gathered what they could carry and traveled hundreds or thousands of miles by train, meekly to their death.

What now Team Holocaust? A million Jewish people were killed in total secrecy and millions of others unwittingly followed?

The Holocaust malarkey is an insult to the Jewish people who suffered and showed great courage through what did befall them.

What did befall them, Clayton?

 

[MG1962]

You nailed it there. As if millions of Jewish people, knowing their families fate was death, gathered what they could carry and traveled hundreds or thousands of miles by train, meekly to their death.

What now Team Holocaust? A million Jewish people were killed in total secrecy and millions of others unwittingly followed?

The Holocaust malarkey is an insult to the Jewish people who suffered and showed great courage through what did befall them.

Yes Clayton because we know the powers that be were honest with everyone. And I am guessing you have never looked into the ways the Nazis acted as time went on to encourage Jews to take the final trip

People in the Warsaw ghetto were bribed with food and faked postcards from this cute little place called Treblinka. Why would the Nazis have to do that? If all Jews where compliant and did just what they were told just by asking.

But maybe a better question is why didn't Franz Stangle once protest his innocence? He had 10 years before being arrested to do it

 

[LemmyCaution]

3) It is also not very likely a head of state talking of the extermination of a people merely 'misspoke' when the sum total of utterances from top Nazis and many subordinates use extermination to refer to mass murder, and add in other phrases which refer to killing, liquidation, death, etc.

Just a few, a small unrepresentative sample of what some Nazi politicos were talking about and thinking about during the war years:

Robert Ley, from The Pestilential Miasma of the World, 1944:

Judah Must Die! 



There is thus in this struggle against Judah only a clear either/or. Any half measure leads to one's own destruction. Judah and its world must die if humanity wants to live; there is no other choice than to fight a pitiless battle against the Jews in every form, and not to give up until the last Jewish thinking has been destroyed everywhere. 

At the conclusion of this chapter, I wish to let the Jew Kurt Münzer speak about his race. . . .

The Jew Münzer was wrong in his superiority complex, since only 30 years later the Jew has been exterminated in Germany and Europe. 

We National Socialists have exterminated the Jewish spirit and the Jews themselves in Germany. We will not cease this struggle until the final judgment has been spoken against the Jews. Judah must die! Anti-Semitism will triumph throughout the world. . . .

This war was started by the Jews, and is a Jewish war in its deepest roots. It will be the same as the Jewish reaction to the National Socialist uprising in 1923. The Jews believed then that their hirelings could exterminate the National Socialist movement with blatant force, murder, and prisons. They achieved the opposite. . . .

Robert Ley in February 1942, at the Berlin Sportpalast:

Juda will and must be annihilated. That is our holy mission. That is what this war is about.

Robert Ley, in Der Angriff for 14 June 1942:

The war will end with the extermination of the Jewish race.

Robert Ley in Das Reich, 6 June 1942:

The Jews will pay with the extermination of their race in Europe.

Robert Ley, 2 June 1943:

Judah, Capitalists and Bolsheviks, listen, we want Judah to be exterminated, and Judah will be so. . . . That we know, we swear that we will not abandon the struggle until the last Jew in Europe is exterminated from the face of Europe.

Robert Ley, quoted in Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda during World War II and the Holocaust (The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2006), p. 155:

Comrades, believe me. I am not painting too grim a picture. It is bitter for me, bitterly serious. The Jew is the great danger to humanity. If we don't succeed in exterminating him, then we will lose the war. It is not enough to take him someplace. That would be as if one wanted to lock up a louse somewhere in a cage. It would find a way out, and again it would come out from underneath and make you itch again. You have to annihilate them, you have to exterminate . . .

Okay, enough from Ley. But, first, was he rebuked for these statements? Was he kicked out of the party or told to shut his mouth?

Now just a few from some other Nazi bigwigs . . .

Hans Frank on 25 November 1940:

we should give the Jews short shrift. It's a pleasure finally to be able to get physical with the Jewish race. The more of them that die the better. To smash the Jews is a victory for our Reich. The Jews should be made to feel that we have arrived

Ludwig Fischer, governor of the Warsaw district, October 1941:

this war is about a confrontation with Jewry in its totality... I believe the threat is answered when we annihilate this breeding ground of Jewry, from which the entire World Jewry continually renews itself

A personal favorite, from Dr Bruno Beger, of Himmler's Ahnenerbe, memo to Himmler, summer 1943:

Like Clauss, I take the view that the complete extermination of the Jews in Europe, and beyond that, in the whole world if possible, will not mean that the spiritual elements of Jewry, which we encounter at every turn, are fully eradicated. The important role of research on racial souls stems from this fact. Working tools, such as the one which Professor Clauss developed in the person of the half-Jewess, Lande, are indispensable for this research, since they form bridges to racial souls which are inimical to Germanic individuals.

So what? There are so many such statements . . . Did Dogzilla truly think there weren't when he challenged, "How many statements do you have from German politicians, as opposed to German military leaders, talking about exterminating the Jewish people?"

 

[MG1962]

Can you explain why they're billing this as the first coordinated scientific attempt to locate the graves? I thought they knew where the graves were. We have eyewitnesses. Why do we need all this fancy science?

Because if you knew anything about the site you would know most of the graves are covered in a huge concrete slab

 

[Robrob]

People in the Warsaw ghetto were bribed with food and faked postcards from this cute little place called Treblinka. Why would the Nazis have to do that? If all Jews where compliant and did just what they were told just by asking.

Remember, this is the CT loon who says if anyone ever pointed a gun at him he could just take it from him.

He's also the CT loon who couldn't "understand" why the Germans would have taken the warning agent out of the Zyklon-B poison gas. Because, "why would they care if they were warned, what were they going to do?"

 

[Dogzilla]

Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking, and now you cannot muster up anything more than a quote-mine and a flippant comment.

There is something wrong with your brain, Dogzilla.

That's called a quote. A quote mine is when a person starts with a premise--like, let's say: Nazis planned to exterminate all the Jews. Then that person reads a bunch of Nazi speeches and tries to find a sentence or two that can be retrofitted to sound extermination like. It's a way of working backwards to find evidence to support a predetermined conclusion. What I did was quote Joachim Neander's summary directly to show people just how far off base JN was with his critique of Irene Zisblatt.

 

[Moss]

I wonder if Dogzilla actually registered that even in his own statements deportation to the east became impossible. Which given that people were still deported to the camps should have ended them stranded there for the remainder of the war until the liberation.
So why don't we have some more evidence of a lot more people being liberated after the end of the unlawful German occupation of Eastern Europe? (And yes, the beginning of the unlawful occupation by the Soviet Union.) We still end up with the problem: Where are those people?

 

[MG1962]

Remember, this is the CT loon who says if anyone ever pointed a gun at him he could just take it from him.

He's also the CT loon who couldn't "understand" why the Germans would have taken the warning agent out of the Zyklon-B poison gas. Because, "why would they care if they were warned, what were they going to do?"

Yes I should know better. I do know that people who argue strongest that some element of history is incorrect are usually the ones who know the least about the period they are debating