• 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.
I never heard of Zisblatt until she popped up as an outrage in RODOH - and for awhile had trouble distinguishing her from a few others telling dubious tales who would pop up from time to time. It may seem odd to Clayton Moore but, speaking for myself, I keep busy reading scholars' books and source documents - and joining in debate and discussion on Internet boards, not monitoring the doings of survivors, possible impostors, and like that. I haven't read many best-selling memoirs, as I stay clear of them, for methodological reasons and probably on account of my taste in reading. Like Nick I haven't seen The Last Days. Just on Amazon I get over 1600 hits for Holocaust memoirs, a genre I avoid - so the notion that it is surprising I haven't heard of or studied each one is a little goofy, to say the least. Each year about 40 million people in the US see professional hockey and basketball games, and, whilst I am something of a sports fanatic, hockey and basketball not appealing to me, I didn't see a single game of either nor could I name the pro championship teams of either sport. Large deal: I am still a sports fan.
 
I think this question deserves an answer from Dogzilla, Clayton Moore and Saggy, especially now that Dogzilla is trying to pose as a truthseeker.

It would be interesting to see how many times Dogzilla and co refuse to answer the question....

I will be happy to answer the question, but only after you have answered the two outstanding questions put to you ....

1 - What is the name of one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holohoax?
2 - When did it become public knowledge that the hoax gas chamber at Auschwitz was constructed after the war by the Soviets?

Now, there is a difference between the substantive questions I have asked you, and the idiotic question you have asked me, but, we'll overlook that.

You have posted numerous non-answers to both these questions. Why not give another, just for our amusement.
 
It would be an interesting test of the strength of revisionism to see . . .
What contributes to the lack of interest and probably also to their dwindling number is their refusal to try to explain the history. Dogzilla, for example, doesn't know or care what happened to the Jews living in Europe at the outset of the war, well, at least the Jews in five cities I proposed discussing - and does everything he can to avoid giving an answer and to obfuscate his failure to offer anything on the question. The question - if they were not killed by the Germans in mass extermination actions or dying of malnutrition and disease in ghettos, where did they go? - is really broader than "where did they go?" It is a question of what was the history of these cities and the Jews living in them: what was the policy of the occupiers, how was it implemented, what did the Nazis do and what did Jews experience, what did "neighbors" observe and how were they affected, how did occupiers and inmates relate to each other, how did people live and die, and the other big issues in history. That is really what Dogzilla is ignoring when he says he doesn't know and he doesn't care - and why their merry troupe dwindles and the interest level falls, since any interest this thread offers is in our discussing and debating what happened, not in trying to figure out why Dogzilla doesn't want to discuss what happened or guess the next excuse he will come up with for dodging obvious and significant issues.
 
Last edited:
1 - What is the name of one credible Jewish eyewitness to the holohoax? 2 - When did it become public knowledge that the hoax gas chamber at Auschwitz was constructed after the war by the Soviets?

Why do you ask these questions in such a biased manner?...can't you discuss this topic without behaving like a jerk?

It's like asking, "have you stopped beating your wife"?


No, there is no credible witness to the supposed holohoax, because there was no hoax.

...and the public never "learned" that the gas chambers were a hoax, because the chambers were real.



On a related note...why do you hate the Jews, so, Saggy?....did a Jew kill your puppy, run off with your mother, or steal your bicycle?

There must be some deep seated psychological reason for your extreme hated...probably won't be a "happy" person until you admit that irrational hatred.
 
I will be happy to answer the question, but only after you have answered the two outstanding questions put to you ....

So what excuse do you have for not posting the bibliographic information for that book claim to have?

You were being truthful when you said you had it and obtained the quote you posted by flipping though its pages...weren't you, Saggy?

On a related note...why do you hate the Jews, so, Saggy?....did a Jew kill your puppy, run off with your mother, or steal your bicycle?

Why_dda774_242224.gif
 
Last edited:
Indeed, we were briefly joined by one guy who managed to get himself banned from CODOH for apparently offending the mighty Hannover, a sixtysomething gaping a-hole of truly apocalyptic stupidity.

Sitting at 8:13 p.m. in New York's Penn Station awaiting my now-half-hour-late train back to Philadelphia, this made me laugh. Thanks for that.
 
So having been bested on every argument you've made thus far, you try to change the subject. Again.

How utterly transparent.

No, just trying to keep you guys focused on a pretty simple question that is remarkably difficult to get an answer to. I swear, I make one passing reference to Neander's analysis of Zisblatt as a measure of his competence and - zoom - we're off arguing about an old bitty who got famous by lying about digging through her feces.
 
But a PhibPac Vet and former Systems Programmer will do a much better job than nobody doing it

All I could do is accuse Zisblatt of lying. A Holocaust scholar could discredit her and end her credibility as a Holocaust speaker.

Is it the way of Team Holocaust to ignore lies rather than expose them and set the record straight? Shouldn't Team Holocaust attempt to speak to the children and explain that they were lied to?

Shouldn't Steven Spielberg return his Academy Award and explain and apologize for each of the fabrications in The Last Days?
 
I consider it quite amusing that Team holocaust is unable to identify even the most obvious prevaricators without our help and only when the lies are so incredibly obvious that even a retarded toddler would doubt them will they acknowledge that their feisty little hero with a remarkable will to survive is full of diamonds. Of course, they will do nothing to stop these liars from continuing to peddling their wares.
.
What's even more amusing is that DNPRM has, in each and every case, had to wait until *real* scholars have done the work, and then crowed "I told you so!"

I defy you, as I have done many times on similar subjects, to cite so much as *one* denier, before she was denounced by Holocaust scholars, who had written even a single sentence deconstructing Zisblatt.

And then, after it was already exposed, they complain that Holocaust scholars aren't doing enough to expose the lie.

Seriously: what more are you expecting than has been done? Is every student of history in the entire world expected to spend every waking moment continually denouncing her -- and why does this only apply to those scholars? Where is a single word from you about Saggs' or CM's lies, or from them about yours?
.
 
Last edited:
Team Holocaust enabled the LIAR Zisblatt to poison the minds of children and adults with Holocaust lies by not informing on her.
.
Remind me again, CM: which denier was it that exposed Zisblatt?
.
It is up to Team Holocaust to retract those lies and explain why each lie told by Zisblatt was indeed a lie.
.
That has been done -- in an article you *still* have not actually read.
.
A Holocaust scholar should be able to perform this task much better than a PhibPac Vet and former Systems Programmer.
.
Speaking of lies, what happened your demonstration of a single lie in Cristol's book?

Where is your denunciation of the lies on Saggs' website?

Where is your indignation at DZ for zir distortions of other posters' comments?

What are *you* personally, doing to further the cause of exposing Zisblatt's memoir?
.
 
Last edited:
All I could do is accuse Zisblatt of lying. A Holocaust scholar could discredit her and end her credibility as a Holocaust speaker.

One already has, remember this is what we have been discussing for the last 3 pages

Is it the way of Team Holocaust to ignore lies rather than expose them and set the record straight? Shouldn't Team Holocaust attempt to speak to the children and explain that they were lied to?

Sure and the kids would then go to Wikipedia and find nothing because Team Denier was too lazy to write the simplest of articles

Shouldn't Steven Spielberg return his Academy Award and explain and apologize for each of the fabrications in The Last Days?

So you want Spielberg to send 1/10th of his award back? You do realize Zisblatt is not the only person interviewed. Or are you disputing all the narratives covered by the documentary
 
A who and a what?
.
CM is once again trying to suggest that zie is a rough tough Navy Walrus with education, using terms which insofar as they might be true (I am only accepting this for the sake of making this point) points to zie having been at best a desk jockey. PhibPac == Amphibious Forces, Pacific Theater -- more specifically the administrative structure thereof. What the *real* soldiers aptly call REMFs, for the most part. Systems Programmer (he used to use "Engineer", until he got schooled) == entry level network administration, more of a gofer for the guys that really work with the Big Iron.
.
 
Last edited:
More arm-flapping, obfuscation and dodging from Dogzilla.

Einsatzgruppen were formed in 1938 (Anschluss), 1939 (annexation of the Czech lands), 1939 (Poland), 1940 (for use in the west), 1941 (for use in the Balkans) and for 'Barbarossa'. Their function was to serve as mobile political police forces to impose Nazi rule by arresting political opponents of the Nazi regime, and from 1939 onwards, by shooting potential opponents, which they did in Poland fairly extensively in the autumn of 1939. The guidelines for 'Barbarossa' are available and lay down categories of individuals who were to be summarily liquidated, irrespective of whether there was any actual opposition or not. On July 2 1941, Heydrich ordered that:

This was an extension of the illegal Commissar Order which decreed the summary execution of military commissars, with civilian 'commissars' slated to die at the hands of the Einsatzgruppen, along with "Jews in party and state functions", which covered potentially everyone down to a postman.

On July 17, 1941, Heydrich issued Action Order No 8, which regulated who was to be summarily executed from along captured Soviet prisoners of war being screened for 'undesirables', another illegal order. The categories of intended victims now included "all Jews". So any Jewish soldier in the Red Army could now be executed.

These two orders refute the arm-flapping about how the Einsatzgruppen were only created for "antipartisan warfare".

The tasks of the Einsatzgruppen expanded from these starting points to encompass the systematic mass murder of all Jews in the occupied Soviet territories. The expanded orders were passed on orally, and referred to in writing retrospectively. One such retrospective reference is in the Jaeger report.

The Jaeger report is evidence of a policy of systematic extermination of Jews in the occupied Soviet territories, a policy which was being implemented across the length and breadth of the front by October 1941. This was SS policy; it still had to be negotiated with the civil administration and Wehrmacht on a region by region or even town by town basis. Thus when Jaeger writes

he clearly understood that the "solution of the Jewish problem" was to be carried out by murdering the Jews, and that the task was essentially complete, because he couldn't kill any more for the time being:

Einsatzkommando 2 in neighbouring Latvia wrote around the same time, 'the goal to which EK 2 strove from the outset, was a radical solution of the Jewish problem through the execution of all Jews'. This was another retrospective comment, indicating that by early 1942, EK 2 understood its goals to include total extermination. 'execution of all Jews' cannot be understood in any other sense, I think it's fair to say, even in Dogzilla World.

Stahlecker, who commanded Einsatzgruppe A and thus controlled EKs 2 and 3, wrote rather similarly in a February 1942 which recorded the execution of 248,000 Jews by the sub-units of the Einsatzgruppe to that date.

These sources and many others indicate that the SS escalated during the summer of 1941 to a policy of total extermination of Soviet Jews, modified only by logistical limitations and the opposition of civil or military authorities, who virtually never wanted to preserve more than a fraction of the Jewish population for labour.

Since the commander of EK2, Lange, was present at the Wannsee conference, this policy of total extermination is obviously linked to the evolution of Nazi Jewish policy across the whole of Europe.

Heydrich coordinated the activities of the Einsatzgruppen while also planning the Final Solution. Shortly after Wannsee, he sent the Einsatzgruppen a photocopy of his 'tasking' from Goering on July 31 1941 to prepare a total solution of the Jewish question - this was Heydrich's CYA authorisation from a more senior Nazi, the same authorisation used to convene Wannsee.

The cc'ing of this memo was a way of signalling to the Einsatzgruppen that their activities were now part of a grand project unfolding across the whole of Europe. Given that the Einsatzgruppen understood their role as including the murder of all Jews wherever possible, any deported Jews turning up in the occupied Soviet territories were liable to be killed. Which is precisely what happened with a couple of dozen transports from Germany to the Ostland in 1942.

For these and many other reasons, it is conventionally understood that Nazi policy escalated in stages, with the implementation of extermination in the occupied Soviet territories preceding a decision to exterminate Jews across the whole of Europe.

At the time when the decision to exterminate the Jews across the whole of Europe was announced to the political leadership and senior civil servants in December 1941 (by Hitler on 12 December, as noted in Goebbels' diary) and January 1942 (by Heydrich at Wannsee), the methods and timing were still up in the air, as should be obvious from the fact that various death camps were not yet even constructed. The Nazis thought in terms of killing off large numbers through exhausting forced labour, as well as in terms of continuing the mass shootings. And indeed, mass shootings carried on through 1942 and 1943 in parallel with gassing. Both were simply methods. Extermination can be carried out by a variety of means. The end result is the same, dead people.

No, it's not an interesting question, since it's a rather blatant attempt at derailing the current discussion. Your attempt to drag things back to a peripheral issue has already been answered some pages back, whereas you've not even attempted to reply to a great many questions put to you in the past few pages.


If the answer you gave is the final answer, Auschwitz was not officially acknowledged to have been significantly modified until the 1980s, any modification done under the communist regime isn't relevant, and the first time researchers from the western side of the iron curtain were able to access the site independent of the communist authorities was 1988. And this in no way limits the historiography of Auschwitz. If that's what you believe, you should at least try to say it in a way that doesn't sound as pathetic as the way I say it.

But if that's your answer or simply don't like Auschwitz anymore, let's talk about the rest of Europe that ended up in Soviet hands. When did the west gain access to those regions in the east that are important to the holocaust story? For example, when were westerners allowed to physically inspect the sites where the EG had been operating? How much of the documentary evidence we have for the EG was provided to western scholars by the Soviets and how much of it was discovered by researchers on the western side of the iron curtain independent of the Soviets?

These are the more interesting questions. But something you wrote above piqued my curiousity: Why do we have this documentation that clearly refers to the Nazi's intentional extermination of the Jews and precisely records the numbers of Jews, broken down by sex and age, who were shot but we don't have similar documentation for those Jews who were gassed? I understand that the exact policy and the methods used to accomplish the goal of total extermination of the Jewish population evolved over time. But shooting and gassing were carried out in parallel through 1942 and 1943. In the Nazi mind, shooting and gassing were simply methods that led to the same result, dead people. Why track one and not the other?
 
Here's something I wrote last night elsewhere. I'm posting it below because it's indicative of what a person can learn by doing just the slightest bit of regular reading on this topic. What I wrote below mostly consists of things I didn't know even a year ago.

I would urge any denier that wants to appear credible to at least know the "narrative" you're denying.


Are you diamonding me? You didn't know most of that stuff a year ago?
 
If the answer you gave is the final answer, Auschwitz was not officially acknowledged to have been significantly modified until the 1980s, any modification done under the communist regime isn't relevant, and the first time researchers from the western side of the iron curtain were able to access the site independent of the communist authorities was 1988. And this in no way limits the historiography of Auschwitz. If that's what you believe, you should at least try to say it in a way that doesn't sound as pathetic as the way I say it.
.
But that's not what the evidence shows

Nor is it a matter of "belief"

Nor even anywhere close to what Mr. Terry said

So as it stands we just have your pathetic blather which is every bit as pathetic as, well, your blather.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom