Holocaust Denial Videos

[dudalb]

9/11Investigator went on and on about how the Posnan speech was faked...it wasn't Himmler's voice on the recordings, why would Himmlar (secretive bugger that he was) allow a recording, a transcript, etc.

I don't think Woolfe has met 9/11 Investigator yet. I want to see what happens, though.....

 

[headscratcher4]

Crumpit. I know he will appreicate 9/11Investigator's unique take on evidence like the Posnan speech.

Sting cheese sticks.

 

[JimBenArm]

Clingy!
headscratcher4, that's some excellent points you make.
And for some reason, after this thread, I want grilled cheese sandwiches for dinner.

With Velveeta slices.

 

[Nick Terry]

QUESTION: What's that leftover piece of meat in your refrigerator from last night's dinner called?

ANSWER: A torch if lit.

Yankel Wiernik said:
1) Bodies burn like wood, but women's bodies burn better (due to fat eventhough everyone in the Warsaw ghetto was supposedly starving) and were thus used as kindling.
2) That a naked woman leaped a 9 and a half foot high fence, grabbed a gun from a Ukrainian guard and shot two guards.
3) That a Ukrainian guard shot him but the bullet went through his clothes but didn't pierce his skin, it just left a mark.

This is paranormal stuff that humbles Uri Geller's claims.

Or maybe your interpretation is the product of the usual combination of quote-mining, distortion and mind-numbingly bovine literalism that characterises Holocaust denial's erstwhile 'revisionist method'.

Nick Terry can write paragraph after paragraph without straightforwardly saying whether he believes Wiernik is a credible inmate eyewitness.

There is nothing straightforward about assessing the credibility of a witness, as any historian, journalist, lawyer or police detective could tell you if you ever bothered to look up what they say about witnesses.

The historian Marc Bloch said that there is no such thing as the perfect witness, and this axiom is generally accepted by everyone exceot the conspiraloons, who continue to chase after this nonexistent species and bray triumphantly when the 'perfect witness' cannot be found.

A lengthy eyewitness account like Wiernik's contains literally hundreds of statements - the credibility of the account can only be judged in its totality, by examining the whole thing, and not by cherrypicking the anomalies while disregarding the rest. You list just three statements - in effect, sentences - which you think sound fantastic, ignoring the rest. You introduce wholly unwarranted assumptions - such as that the translation is 100% perfect, and that Wiernik's ability to express himself is entirely transparent and not liable to slip into metaphor or simile.

Language doesn't work like that, so unfortunately your mind-numbingly bovine literalism deserves little more than a mooooo in response.

Personally, I find Wiernik's account highly credible because he has a generally good memory for events and people, and is very easily corroborated. He highlights a number of events that are documented. There was a transport from Miedzyrzec in the summer of 1942, as the Fahrplananordnung shows, and plenty of other witnesses also recall the passengers arriving DOA en masse. There were transports from Bulgaria, there were transports from Grodno, and so on - all documented. As I explained above, there were SS men with the same names identified in both Wiernik and a document he could have not possibly had access to. Hair-cutting, too, is corroborated not only as a directive but as a proven by-product transported out of Treblinka, in a document naming the camp.

Wiernik's account is also highly credible because other contemporary pre-liberation accounts highlight the same incidents that are not necessarily documented. In particular, his memoir records many of the same details as are given in the testimony of Abraham Krzepicki, whose account was buried in a milk-can inside the Warsaw ghetto at the start of 1943 and not rediscovered until 1950.

I could go on, but there are hundreds of points of detail to assess. Which clearly neither denierbud nor his earthly representative have done.

Rather he changes the subject.

No, actually, I put the subject in its proper context. Wiernik describes the mass incineration of the bodies exhumed from the graves at Treblinka - in 1944 the same site was strewn with ash and cremains. Two points of data, tending towards the same conclusion, namely that lots of bodies were indeed burnt at Treblinka.

Your mind-numbingly bovine literalism cannot, as we will see below, suffice to debunk all the evidence of mass cremation at Treblinka.

If one does not introduce any ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses, then the conclusion is obvious: mass cremation took place, and Wiernik didn't describe it perfectly in his memoir.

That's actually a good illustration of the problem with denier illogic: you are unable to rule out more conventional explanations such as infelicities of expression or in other contexts, incompetence, and instead go straight for the knee-jerlk conspiracist explanation.

Well, sorry, you don't have any evidence to support your conspiracy theory, just supposition, dubious deduction and an almighty dollop of wishful thinking.

The myth is strong because when one thing is focused on (such as episode 1 and Yankel Wiernik) people will just jump to a new topic, and the next topic and the next topic. They will change the subject to some other reason of why they're sure it happened. Nick Terry did that by suddenly going into physical evidence found by the honest Stalinist government which had no axe to grind whatsoever.

Since you highlighted a remark in Wiernik's memoir dealing with mass cremation, naturally I introduced other evidence concerning mass cremation into the discussion. That is not 'changing the subject', quite the opposite. Same subject, different source.

And lo, we find that denierbud's earthly representative has to switch gambits, and instead of arguing from personal incredulity over an 'impossible' or 'paranormal' description by a witness, now attempts the well-poisoning routine of Blame the Soviets.

Especially cute is the sarcasm about the Soviets 'having no axe to grind whatsoever'. Indeed, regarding Polish Jews the USSR had no real axe to grind at all.

There is no discernible rational motive for the Soviet state to have conjured up a gigantic Hoaxed Holocaust and then done... what exactly? with the "very much alive" millions of Polish and other European Jews.

Unfortunately for deniers, the Cold War ended twenty years ago and the USSR ceased to exist 18 years ago. Since then old claims like 'Stalin sent all the missing Jews to the GULag' have been inadvertently debunked because we have all the GULag data. While the Soviet Union might look like a big place, hiding that many 'missing persons' inside it is... a non-starter.

By the 1940s, the much-blamed NKVD under Beria, the relevant secret police chief at the time, was basically judenfrei. After 1948, Stalin began a policy of overt antisemitism, heralded in the satellite states and eventually coming home to roost in Moscow. The few clear references to Nazi atrocities against Jews that were published before 1948 disappeared into a haze of waffling generalisations.

The Soviet investigation was repeated, in 1945, by the Poles. Local authorities complained for decades afterwards about grave robbers. Photos abound of the site in this phase. Entire books have now been written documenting the embarrassing aftermath of Treblinka.

Again, where is the motive to allege a 'Hoax' on the part of the Poles? If the Jews were alive then they would try to come back. Over 100,000 did exactly that in 1945, being repatriated from the USSR to Poland. Can you please explain how the Polish and Soviet regimes could tell the difference between 'safe' Jews who could be repatriated, and 'unsafe' Jews who had to be hidden away lest the 'Hoax' be revealed?

It must have been an administrative nightmare, screening and filtering all those people. If the Soviets and Poles couldn't even manage to catch all the traitors and Vlasovites, then how were they going to do it with this imaginary group of 'resettled' Jews that had not died at Treblinka?

Your explanation - actually, it's really just an insinuation, but we can all work out where it is headed - simply means we have auxiliary hypothesis on top of auxiliary hypothesis piling up, none of which are substantiated by anything like hard evidence.

That physical evidence is strongly debunked in this book.

No, it's not. For the record, Mattogno has seriously distorted the 1944 Soviet reports, including omitting crucial paragraphs from his recapitulation of them, and trying to create a deliberate confusion between the site inspections of Treblinka II, the extermination camp, and Treblinka I, the labour camp.

The Myth is strong because it's perceived as hateful. In reality it's anti-war and anti-colonialism. 200 years ago, atheism was also perceived as hateful. People who promoted it were "peddling."

In the interests of everyone else's lulz, please elaborate on this incoherent nonsense.

- Cheesy Wotsits

 

[woolfe99]

Cry me a river.

Seriously, Woolfe, you know the denires answer for these is that they are faked. I'm not trying to be contentious, it is just that any "evidence" they don't like is faked.

Crusty bacon. That is how some deniers handle evidence like those speeches. Others will say, for example, that the German word "Ausrottung" has multiple potential meanings and has thus been mistranslated as "extermination." Curiously, you rarely hear native German speaking deniers arguing this point. The native speakers will often take a third tac - claiming that it was all meaningless rhetoric and chest beating, or was meant in a "tongue in cheek" way. (Yet the audience clearly isn't laughing, except in the portion where Himmler says "every German has his one decent Jew.") The "re-translator" school will then ignore that the German word for "kill" is used two paragraphs down, and wholly ignore the next speech which says we must make "this people disappear from the earth." Since deniers believe in the "resettlement" thesis, one wonders if this means that the Nazis had secretly developed space travel in 1942 and were resettling the hapless Jews to the moon.

The point of this clarification is not be pedantic, but rather to point out that deniers use inconsistent and sometimes contradictory methods, all aimed at achieving the same result: denial. Some deniers will even employ both methods at the same time, at once raising vague "suspicions" (well poisoning) about authenticity, and also claiming that it isn't incriminating even if authentic. Way to go, forge a document that isn't incriminating, right? Yet this denier is certain, just certain, that one or the other must be true. That is because the conclusion preceeds the premise.

To me, the thing that I never understand is what the denires think was going on in those "transit" camps? Where were they transiting to? Why were innocent women and children involved? Why did populations have to transit it in first place.

I say this because they don't deny the camps...they exist. Too many people have seen them. So, they have to start by nibbling away at what happened in the camps. Somehow if they can get to "the deaths were really typhus and the fault of the allies and the german retreat" they can get away from the intense intentional evil of the matter.

But, I keep coming back to why the camps in the first place? If they didn't have the camps than people wouldn't have been dying in droves...regardless of whether gassed or just allowed to be worked to death or made sick through unsanitary conditions.

Principally they claim that these were transit camps for a program to resettle the Jews to the Soviet occupied territories. It is important to understand that prior to mass extermination becoming the policy, there was a policy to do just that, for a brief time (and before that it was supposed to be to Madagascar, and before that it was explusion and emigration).

Their problem is that there is no evidence for a resettlement program other than the fact that the Nazis sometimes used the word "resettlement" (a semantic artifact of their prior policy), as a euphamism for extermination. You can see Himmler letting the cat out of the bag on 10/4/43 by equating resettlement directly with extermination. That equation is drawn in a few other documents as well. Anyway, basically, there is no documentation of an actual resettlement being carried out, and no witnesses of any kind of ca. 1.5 million Polish Jews showing up in the occupied Soviet territories, and no trace of their existence post war.

Deniers ignore their burden to construct an alternative "resettlement narrative" (or any other alternative narrative that they care to create), because they are aware of the lack of evidence to support it. Accordingly, they are not "revisionists" as they claim to be. A revisionist is interested in revising history, i.e. modifying or replacing an accepted narrative with a new narrative. They are, instead, pure negationists. They are not actually interested in history. Rather, their interests clearly lie elsewhere.

The holocaust is the camps. The evil of Nazism was the existence of camps for massive populations in the first place. Once you get to the fact that the camps existed and that people died -- lots of them even if you go by the denires figure of a couple of hundred thousand to a million (still a lot of people) -- it seems to me that you pretty well establish the evil of the German state, and the rest is a detail of history as Le Pen would have it.

Ca. 2 million Jews, and scads of non-Jews, were killed by Einsatzgruppen and their assistants in the Soviet occupied territories, principally by shooting and secondarily by mobile gassing units. Another ca. 600,000 died in the ghettos through starvation, disease, and periodic shooting. On the main, the rest died in work camps, through attrition, or in extermination camps, from gassing and occasionally other means. If Hilberg is correct that the Jewish death toll is ca. 5.1 million, and he's probably close, then about half died outside the camps.

I guess what I am saying if that if we allow the arguent to be fought over the parsing of witness statements, we lose the bigger picture of the evil...the camps themselves and their use to deny rights and humanity to the millions they put in the camps...regardless of whether they were gassed, shot, starved, worked to death, experiemented upon, etc.

I agree.

And I've yet to see a denirer deny the existence of the camps.

They don't. They just claim that what happened inside the camps is not what the totality of the evidence says happened inside the camps.

Limburger.

- woolfe

 

[elbe]

Chewy cheesesticks, Batman! Isn't nice how well people can follow simple, but arbitrary, rules?

I always hoped that holocaust denial(ism?) would fade away as time went on. A sort of "bad things happened in the past, but we've moved past them" type of attitude. Is there really even that much point to it when there are fewer and fewer people left who were alive then, let alone partook? Even if, and it's a mighty big if, it was a giant con by the jewish from that time, what impact should that have on interactions with the jewish people from today? Or, using the real world, we shouldn't look down on all germans because of the actions of those in the 40s, right?

-Gotland Blue

 

[Horatius]

Chewy cheesesticks, Batman! Isn't nice how well people can follow simple, but arbitrary, rules?

Certainly is!

I realize that I have certain quirks of writing that often come up while posting here, and I find it an interesting exercise to apply an arbitrary rule, that forces me out of my usual habits. It gives me something else to think about whilst being confronted by yet another example of intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt neo-nazi nonsense.

I'm also dealing with being confronted with the knowledge that my knowledge of cheese can be summed up as "Monterrey Jack".

 

[tsig]

QUESTION: What's that leftover piece of meat in your refrigerator from last night's dinner called?

ANSWER: A torch if lit.

Yankel Wiernik said:
1) Bodies burn like wood, but women's bodies burn better (due to fat eventhough everyone in the Warsaw ghetto was supposedly starving) and were thus used as kindling.
2) That a naked woman leaped a 9 and a half foot high fence, grabbed a gun from a Ukrainian guard and shot two guards.
3) That a Ukrainian guard shot him but the bullet went through his clothes but didn't pierce his skin, it just left a mark.

This is paranormal stuff that humbles Uri Geller's claims.

Nick Terry can write paragraph after paragraph without straightforwardly saying whether he believes Wiernik is a credible inmate eyewitness. Rather he changes the subject.

The Myth is strong because it's perceived as hateful. In reality it's anti-war and anti-colonialism. 200 years ago, atheism was also perceived as hateful. People who promoted it were "peddling."

The myth is strong because when one thing is focused on (such as episode 1 and Yankel Wiernik) people will just jump to a new topic, and the next topic and the next topic. They will change the subject to some other reason of why they're sure it happened. Nick Terry did that by suddenly going into physical evidence found by the honest Stalinist government which had no axe to grind whatsoever. That physical evidence is strongly debunked in this book.

Clearly no matter how you want to play it the Nazis still lose the war. If they hadn't killed off a lot of their skilled help they would have had a better chance.

Brie

 

[Arus808]

cools! this has been quite the entertaining thread. One can hope that the cheese is eliminated from this obvious spammer.

Nguri

 

[Hokulele]

Criminy! Budly, a rebuttal isn't simply an argument from incredulity ("How can anyone believe this is true?!?"), but a detailed examination as to why one should or should not believe something is true. Here, watch. Nick Terry demonstrates how this is done.

Personally, I find Wiernik's account highly credible because he has a generally good memory for events and people, and is very easily corroborated. He highlights a number of events that are documented. There was a transport from Miedzyrzec in the summer of 1942, as the Fahrplananordnung shows, and plenty of other witnesses also recall the passengers arriving DOA en masse. There were transports from Bulgaria, there were transports from Grodno, and so on - all documented. As I explained above, there were SS men with the same names identified in both Wiernik and a document he could have not possibly had access to. Hair-cutting, too, is corroborated not only as a directive but as a proven by-product transported out of Treblinka, in a document naming the camp.

Wiernik's account is also highly credible because other contemporary pre-liberation accounts highlight the same incidents that are not necessarily documented. In particular, his memoir records many of the same details as are given in the testimony of Abraham Krzepicki, whose account was buried in a milk-can inside the Warsaw ghetto at the start of 1943 and not rediscovered until 1950.

Romano.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I'll bring this up because it looks like there's a pretty solid brain trust in here regarding Holocaust events.

Earlier it was pointed out that the architects of the Final Solution never even considered resettlement.

I could have sworn I saw an exhibit at the D.C. Holocaust Museum that stated at one point there was a plan to forcibly expatriate all European Jewry to Madagascar.

Obviously this plan was abandoned in favor of the atrocities that were carried out. I'm not denying ANYTHING here, and it's important to note that by the time this question was being addressed, the Nazi eugenics programs like Aktion T4 were already being carried out.

Am I mistaken here?

Parmigiano-Reggiano.

 

[The Big Dog]

c : "forcibly expatriate all European Jewry" to Madagascar, was a huge ****ing lie that was disbelieved by everyone, hence the reason they stopped telling it.

head

 

[JoeyDonuts]

A-ha. I don't think it was a lie at all. According to the wiki article (yeah, yeah it's sourced) it had been on the table and talked about for some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

ETA: Apparently by December 1941 it had been completely abandoned. To those that would speculate this is indicative of some sort of twisted altruism on the part of the Third Reich, think about this. From 1939-1941 Nazi Germany had already slaughtered 70,273 of their own people under Aktion T4. That doesn't even factor in other atrocities carried out by the Einsatzgruppen units at this point.

 

[Foolmewunz]

16.5

Not quite correct. Using it as evidence of how humane and kindly the Nazis were is the huge lie, but there was such a plan up to mid 1941. It's yet another example of the compulsion the Nazis had for planning. There are all sorts of records of it.

The pesky Brits, though. They didn't cave in and sue for peace. Evidently, by Hitler-Think, he needed a subdued Britain and had some sort of idea of using the British Navy for the deportation process. Weird notion - but then again, we're talking Nazis, here. "Weird" is the least worrisome thing about their ideas.

The plan actually had envisioned a Vichy "controlled" Madagasgar and using the English navy to deliver the approximately 4 million European Jews there. Brit and Free French forces retook Madagasgar from Vichy French control, and with the British Navy plying the Indian ocean to boot, they scrapped the plan and it was little heard of after the end of '41 if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Foolmewunz]

A-ha. I don't think it was a lie at all. According to the wiki article (yeah, yeah it's sourced) it had been on the table and talked about for some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

ETA: Apparently by December 1941 it had been completely abandoned. To those that would speculate this is indicative of some sort of twisted altruism on the part of the Third Reich, think about this. From 1939-1941 Nazi Germany had already slaughtered 70,273 of their own people under Aktion T4. That doesn't even factor in other atrocities carried out by the Einsatzgruppen units.

Wikipedia? Who'd a thunk it? A fairly accurate (and fairly good) article. Much more detail than I recalled.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Crabapples. Way to break the rules. [qimg]http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif[/qimg]

Crazy, I Thought you had typed "crappables," which would be like Lunchables for older folks with guts probs. loooool. white envelope of orange pixie dust in small box of elbow macaroni.

 

[Caustic Logic]

A-ha. I don't think it was a lie at all. According to the wiki article (yeah, yeah it's sourced) it had been on the table and talked about for some time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

ETA: Apparently by December 1941 it had been completely abandoned. To those that would speculate this is indicative of some sort of twisted altruism on the part of the Third Reich, think about this. From 1939-1941 Nazi Germany had already slaughtered 70,273 of their own people under Aktion T4. That doesn't even factor in other atrocities carried out by the Einsatzgruppen units at this point.

Courteous thanks for pointing this one out. When people deny any possible complication to the moral picture - that maybe Nazis thought of less evil options occasionally, etc. This just adds fuel to deniar's fires, IMO. They feel that "real history" is being covered up and this looks like evidence of that. I'm not an expert on the deportation issue, tho I did read "The Transfer Agreement" (Edwin Black) and absorbed bits of it. Highly recommended.

I'm sorry, no more cheese for Me...tsovone

 

[woolfe99]

I'll bring this up because it looks like there's a pretty solid brain trust in here regarding Holocaust events.

Earlier it was pointed out that the architects of the Final Solution never even considered resettlement.

I could have sworn I saw an exhibit at the D.C. Holocaust Museum that stated at one point there was a plan to forcibly expatriate all European Jewry to Madagascar.

Obviously this plan was abandoned in favor of the atrocities that were carried out. I'm not denying ANYTHING here, and it's important to note that by the time this question was being addressed, the Nazi eugenics programs like Aktion T4 were already being carried out.

Am I mistaken here?

Parmigiano-Reggiano.

Yes, the Madagascar plan was indeed real, for a time. It was an idea that had actually been kicked around for years in European anti-semitic circles, and if memory serves, the Poles even studied Madagascar as a potential place to expat their Jews to some time in the mid 1930's.

The Nazis picked up on the idea in mid 1940 when they realized they couldn't just expel Jews from their territories anymore, because immigration was shut down. It was first picked up by the Nazi foreign office, who drew up specific plans for a mass resettlement, one million Jews per year for five years. Later the plan was appropriated by the RSHA (central office of the SS), who drafted a different plan. While the foreign office plan would have provided the Jews with limited self-government in Madagascar, the RSHA plan would have had the Jews living their under SS control. It would have been a giant concentration camp, under horrid climatic conditions.

For a time, the plan was taken seriously enough that the Nazis actually delayed ghettoization projects in Polish cities like Warsaw, because they thought that any day the Jews would be deported to Madagascar.

However, the plan was abruptly abandoned in early 1941 when the Nazis realized that they could not defeat Britain in the short term, and hence the supremacy of the royal navy made it logistically impossible to transport the Jews to Madagascar (which would also have involved the comparatively smaller complication of getting the French to give up the colony, BTW).

Having planned to invade the USSR since late in 1940, they shifted their plan to moving the Jews into Soviet territory, probably to inhospitable places far north, or Siberia. That plan was then replaced by extermination in or around December, 1941.

Suggested reading on this topic is Christopher Browning, Origins of the Final Solution.

Edit: sorry I didn't notice that you guys had already linked Wiki on the topic. What's above is probably redundant of that.

- woolfe

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm also wondering what Budly thinks of the testimony of US, UK, and Soviet soldiers who liberated the various camps.

He's trying to pigeonhole the discussion down to one or two tiny details but it just doesn't work like that. In that regard it's very similar to 9/11 conspiracies in that the 'denier/truther' side of the argument seems to hold the belief that the entire narrative hinges upon the knife-edge of some small detail that, if they can crack, will call into question the entire narrative.

Maybe they'd have a shot if there was voluminous and concise evidence in support of their point that could be compiled and peer-reviewed.

In both cases, they resort to intellectual dishonesty, fallacies, and in some cases outright fabrication to push their message.

 

[Travis]

Hi Chaos: The first thing you did was break my guideline #1.

My 2 guidelines are quite reasonable.

I think that first episode is only 10 minutes long.

Hi Parky76: You broke Guideline #1.

Hi A.W. Smith

You broke Guideline #1.

Hi Questioninggeller: You broke guideline #1. But were you to watch that Donahue episode and comment on Michael Schermer, you'd actually be the first person here to do what I reasonably requested.

Hi Sword Of Truth,

You broke Guideline #2, as put forth in my initial post.

Hi Dudalb: That's sort of breaking Guideline #2 as I put forth in my initial post. I don't want any Jew bashing to begin which is why I put parameters on the discussion. Nor do I want this to be a discussion about "discussing Jew baiting." What I asked is very clear and reasonable. Why can't you do it?

Hi JoeyDonuts:

You just broke Guideline #1.

Hi Parky76

You broke Guideline #1.

Hi Budly,

Declaring that people have broken arbitrary bullcrap rules you only invented to avoid an honest discussion of your intellectually bankrupt ideas puts in you in violation of Travis Principle Ζζ.

Your punishment is that no one will regard you as being worth having a discussion with until you bring up some sort of claim that can be discussed without just sending us off to add hitcounts for your psuedo-history video abominations.

The ball is in your court. Do you really want to play or is this just one more game to you?