Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Saggy]

Saggy! You're back!

Are you going to cite that book you quoted last month, Saggy? With the full title, authors/editors, publisher, copyright date, Library of Congress info, and ISBN (if available)?

You said you had the book, and found the quote in question by randomly flipping through the pages, so it should be an easy task for you.

Writing that incredible needs no citation. It stands on its own.

 

[A'isha]

Writing that incredible needs no citation.

Yes it does.

So provide it.

 

[Dogzilla]

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

You parked your car in front of your house last night. I didn't see your car parked in front of your house this morning. I don't know where you parked your car. Does that mean your car is parked in front of your house? Are you even going to look?

 

[A'isha]

You parked your car in front of your house last night. I didn't see your car parked in front of your house this morning. I don't know where you parked your car. Does that mean your car is parked in front of your house? Are you even going to look?

My car got stolen by Nazis and destroyed. You, however, say it never got stolen (or sometimes you claim that it was stolen, but was later returned...you're pretty inconsistent), and that my car is really safe and sound and secretly manipulating the world's finances and government from behind the scenes.

So, show me where my car is, if it wasn't destroyed.

 

[Nick Terry]

You parked your car in front of your house last night. I didn't see your car parked in front of your house this morning. I don't know where you parked your car. Does that mean your car is parked in front of your house? Are you even going to look?

lame argument by analogy is lame.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The 'testimony' of holohoax survivors is not to be evaluated with the misplaced notions of fact and fiction, instead it is to be interpreted as a cry

Ignoring what I posted this morning, that Neander's article is framed as fact vs fiction right down the his subtitle.

 

[LemmyCaution]

My car got stolen by Nazis and destroyed. You, however, say it never got stolen (or sometimes you claim that it was stolen, but was later returned...you're pretty inconsistent), and that my car is really safe and sound and secretly manipulating the world's finances and government from behind the scenes.

So, show me where my car is, if it wasn't destroyed.

Assuming you can define car and provided there was one there in the first place, whatever a car is . . .

 

[Moss]

You parked your car in front of your house last night. I didn't see your car parked in front of your house this morning. I don't know where you parked your car. Does that mean your car is parked in front of your house? Are you even going to look?

Why aren't you looking when it would allow you to provide evidence for your thus far unsupported alternative narrative of what happened to the Jews of Europe? What do you fear?

 

[Saggy]

Ignoring what I posted this morning, that Neander's article is framed as fact vs fiction right down the his subtitle.

Neander must be a novice. He needs to read Clendinen's book.

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

No, I read Neander's summary of Neander's analysis of Irene Zisblatt's story. He says she is an authentic survivor of Auschwitz and the holocaust. She has an interesting and instructive story to tell--a story of endless humiliations, extreme suffering, and survival against all odds. It's a story that hundreds of survivors could tell. It's a story that should be told. But it's a story that should be told without exaggerations and implausibilities so it is in accordance with historically established facts. It would be then be a really true story. Not just a true story. But a really true story.

You say he's taking her to task...ripping her a new one...putting her through the meat grinder by calling her exaggerations and untruths not worth telling. What do you mean by saying that lies aren't worth telling? Are lies sometimes worth telling? The problem that you and Neander have with her story is that it's fine except she tells some stories that are so implausible that they might not be believed even in a cultural milieu conditioned to genuflect in front of all survivors and believe any nonsense that comes out of their mouths. You believe that if she would just stick to the "established facts" there wouldn't be any problems. Is your brain so lacking in critical thinking skills that you can't see that when you have a person who has already gone on record with as many impossible fantasies as Zisblatt has, she simply cannot be trusted? If she dropped the story about how she saved her diamonds while in Auschwitz, dropped the story about being pushed out of the gas chamber and hiding under the eves, dropped the story about being thrown over the fence into the open boxcar, dropped the story about almost being skinned by Ilse Koch, dropped the story about Mengele tattoo removal experiments (which worked so well she doesn't have any evidence of ever having a tattoo), and dropped the story about the eye color injections, would you believe she saw a women beaten to death at roll call because other survivors have said they saw women beaten to death at roll call? Just because something happened to other prisoners doesn't mean it happened to Irene. I realize that Team holocaust doesn't concern itself with accuracy about the holocaust as long as it sounds bad. But the way the Gerstein Syndrome manifests itself with you guys is appalling. At least Irene Zisblatt, unlike Pesye Schloss, can be proven to have actually existed.

What Neander did and what you are doing is called giving her a pass. An appropriate response to Irene Zisblatt would be greeting her public appearances with the same enthusiasm that David Irving receives.

 

[A'isha]

See?

Told you.

 

[Nick Terry]

I realize that Team holocaust doesn't concern itself with accuracy about the holocaust as long as it sounds bad.

It's quite clear you haven't even comprehended Joachim Neander's article if you can say something as stupid as this.

It's precisely because of a concern for accuracy that Joachim Neander took the time and trouble to research Zisblatt and test her story rigorously, and precisely because of a concern for accuracy that we published it on our blog; the article is the #1 search result for 'zisblatt' and one of the most read articles in HC history (after the photo galleries of mass graves, go figure).

Joachim isn't a native speaker of English, and he's also the kind of writer who takes an extremely even-handed approach to everything. I don't read the 'offending' concluding remark at all in the same way that you do; it is for starters extremely unlikely that Irene Zisblatt is going to change her story. After researching her odyssey through the camp system, it's clear that Joachim wished she had told that story and not the fantasy she did tell. It may help to remember that Joachim has written peer-reviewed articles chronicling other camp inmates' journeys through the system in 1944-45. He did his doctorate on the evacuation of Dora-Mittelbau. The conclusion reads to me far more like an expression of regret than 'giving her a pass'.

Frankly, it's pretty obvious that nothing will ever satisfy you short of the witch-burning you clearly desire. But that doesn't entitle you to spin Joachim's article as a 'defense'. It's quite clearly not a defense, but a very trenchant and very well researched critique of a memoir that is clearly worthless as a historical source.

 

[Saggy]

It's quite clearly not a defense, but a very trenchant and very well researched critique of a memoir that is clearly worthless as a historical source.

An analysis of degenerate garbage is 'trenchant and well researched'? Any fool knows that Zizblatt is lying every time she opens her mouth. And yet, the entire holohoax establishment vouched for her, explicitly in the case of the Jewish 'scholars' credited in Spielberg's movie, explicitly in the case of the Acadamy Awards committee who gave the movie an Oscar, and implicitly by Yad Vashem, the holohoax museum. and every academic 'historian' who said nothing till the lies were aired out by Eric Hunt.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No, I read Neander's summary of Neander's analysis of Irene Zisblatt's story. He says she is an authentic survivor of Auschwitz and the holocaust.

That is his conclusion. He also says, and you are leaving this out, that she fictionalized about her story. So he does not defend Zisblatt.

She has an interesting and instructive story to tell--a story of endless humiliations, extreme suffering, and survival against all odds. It's a story that hundreds of survivors could tell. It's a story that should be told. But it's a story that should be told without exaggerations and implausibilities so it is in accordance with historically established facts. It would be then be a really true story. Not just a true story. But a really true story.

He criticized her for telling a false story, instead of her real story. So he does not defend Zisblatt.

You say he's taking her to task...ripping her a new one...putting her through the meat grinder by calling her exaggerations and untruths not worth telling.

That is not what I said. I said that Neander did not defend Zisblatt and that he was very effective in showing why her story is not to be believed. Please show me where I said what you claim I did. I also informed you that Neander's style is judicious - and that goes for Holocaust atrocities as well as people who tell atrocious lies.

What do you mean by saying that lies aren't worth telling? Are lies sometimes worth telling?

I said that Neander concluded that Zisblatt's story was not worth telling because it was filled with lies. You have matters backwards, as you usually manage to get them.

The problem that you and Neander have with her story is that it's fine except she tells some stories that are so implausible that they might not be believed even in a cultural milieu conditioned to genuflect in front of all survivors and believe any nonsense that comes out of their mouths. You believe that if she would just stick to the "established facts" there wouldn't be any problems.

No, the problem with Zisblatt's story is that it is not true. Therefore, it is not fine, on any level. Someone's else story, a reliable witness, would be fine - not Zisblatt's. Zisblatt is not to be trusted, and her lying helps no one - it does not help anyone understand the history, it harms her as an individual, it harms people who do tell the truth.

Have you read anything else by Neander, by the way?

Is your brain so lacking in critical thinking skills that you can't see that when you have a person who has already gone on record with as many impossible fantasies as Zisblatt has, she simply cannot be trusted?

Since I think, from reading Neander's critique, that Zisblatt cannot be trusted, I am not sure what your point is. You seem all worked up - so worked up that you cannot think properly.

If she dropped the story about how she saved her diamonds while in Auschwitz, dropped the story about being pushed out of the gas chamber and hiding under the eves, dropped the story about being thrown over the fence into the open boxcar, dropped the story about almost being skinned by Ilse Koch, dropped the story about Mengele tattoo removal experiments (which worked so well she doesn't have any evidence of ever having a tattoo), and dropped the story about the eye color injections, would you believe she saw a women beaten to death at roll call because other survivors have said they saw women beaten to death at roll call? Just because something happened to other prisoners doesn't mean it happened to Irene.

Your hypothetical makes no sense. Zisblatt is clearly a dissembler - so, no, I would not trust anything she says. Even if it matched other testimony, without a great deal of other proof. I would assume that Zisblatt is simply echoing things she has gotten in ways other than through her own direct experience. Because of her record as being unreliable. If Zisblatt dropped all the points you say, she wouldn't be Zisblatt.

I realize that Team holocaust doesn't concern itself with accuracy about the holocaust as long as it sounds bad.

This is demonstrably false - and is really slanderous. Neander is perhaps best known, in fact, for debunking something that sounds really bad about the Nazis - the soap myth - and he debunked it precisely because it isn't true. Neander is scrupulous and very careful in his work and in his judgments.

You are making, by the way, absolutely, stunningly appalling comments based on your irritation and frustration about your epic failures, I assume. You show no signs of familiarity with Neader's work - yet you don't hesitate to vilify him as someone who doesn't care about accuracy.

What Neander did and what you are doing is called giving her a pass. An appropriate response to Irene Zisblatt would be greeting her public appearances with the same enthusiasm that David Irving receives.

If you think calling someone's supposedly true life's story fiction, and then proving it false, is giving that person a pass, then go with that explanation. I don't think any rational human being would agree with you.

 

[Dogzilla]

Dogzilla explains the Caroline Crolls investigation of Treblinka.
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.

It would certainly appear as though somebody is making an effort. Although I'm not sure if this is actually a new study or if it's one that's been sitting on the shelf and is merely being excavated in anticipation of the upcoming Auschwitz liberation day celebration cotillion. Still, it's a step forward.

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?

This is not a bad thing for revisionists at all. We just want the truth. If the truth is that 850,000 people had been buried at Treblinka, dug up, incinerated, and reburied it would be good to know that there's evidence that this happened.

 

[tsig]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Look, my brain already hurts after my brief soujourn into thinking like a denier, so you're going to have to be a little bit clearer.

We need a special thread for those who have stayed too long* here.

In that thread nothing contentious is allowed and you cannot post unless you say something nice about someone. Cookies and milk will be provided.

*read one post

 

[OCaptain]

lame argument by analogy is lame.

Yeah, I don't think he understands that an analogy is supposed to help MAKE your point...

 

[Nick Terry]

It would certainly appear as though somebody is making an effort. Although I'm not sure if this is actually a new study or if it's one that's been sitting on the shelf and is merely being excavated in anticipation of the upcoming Auschwitz liberation day celebration cotillion. Still, it's a step forward.

And yet previous 'steps forward' have been dismissed by you with the usual handwave. Which makes the following

This is not a bad thing for revisionists at all. We just want the truth. If the truth is that 850,000 people had been buried at Treblinka, dug up, incinerated, and reburied it would be good to know that there's evidence that this happened.

positively hilarious. To quote the famous movie line, you can't handle the truth. If you really wanted the truth, then you'd spend real time studying real sources properly, as is the common practice when someone is interested in something.

How many books on the Holocaust did you bother to read last year, Dogzilla?

 

[OCaptain]

An analysis of degenerate garbage is 'trenchant and well researched'? Any fool knows that Zizblatt is lying every time she opens her mouth. And yet, the entire holohoax establishment vouched for her, explicitly in the case of the Jewish 'scholars' credited in Spielberg's movie, explicitly in the case of the Acadamy Awards committee who gave the movie an Oscar, and implicitly by Yad Vashem, the holohoax museum. and every academic 'historian' who said nothing till the lies were aired out by Eric Hunt.

Hmmm....it's a good thing then that we have fools around to tell us these things...

 

[OCaptain]

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?

Your hatred has irreparably blinded you to historical facts.