Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps. If the JREF frowns on links that could be misconstrued as an amazon sales pitch, you can steal large passages of the book from Google. This is the standard reference work for these three camps and it is the generally accepted historical narrative. It's written by the well respected Israeli scholar, Director of Yad Vashem from 1972 to 1993, and wanted war criminal Yitzhak Arad. You may find other narratives that don't fit exactly with this one but that's typical with the holocaust.
Holocaust deniers, explain this.
- Thread starter Gawdzilla Sama
- Start date
-
- Tags
- holocaust denial
- Status
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps. If the JREF frowns on links that could be misconstrued as an amazon sales pitch, you can steal large passages of the book from Google. This is the standard reference work for these three camps and it is the generally accepted historical narrative. It's written by the well respected Israeli scholar, Director of Yad Vashem from 1972 to 1993, and wanted war criminal Yitzhak Arad. You may find other narratives that don't fit exactly with this one but that's typical with the holocaust.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Hey Dogzilla, did you miss this?Ever visit this site Dogzilla? http://www.its-arolsen.org/index.php?id=2&L=1
Not enough evidence for you, right?
The narrative tells us that the Germans erased the evidence of the mass graves by burning the bodies and disposing of the ash. If the Germans didn't, then the narrative is wrong.
They should've gathered all the evidence they could because whatever evidence they did gather doesn't amount to a hill of beans. The Allies were gathering evidence to be used in the upcoming war crimes trials. The Americans brought Hollywood director Billy Wilder over to create film and photograph evidence of German atrocities. We have thousands of film and photo evidence of piles of dead bodies and bulldozers dumping corpses into mass graves and walking skeletons, etc. that were found in the camps liberated by the Americans and the British. Yet at Auschwitz or Treblinka or any of the other camps where the holocaust actually took place and which were liberated by the Soviets, we have nothing? The Russians had cameras. If the Russians and the Poles actually investigated any of these holocaust camps and found the horrors that they describe, why didn't they take clear pictures of them? We have decent footage of children rolling up their sleeves to show tattooed numbers so we can't say the Russians were simpletons who didn't know how photography worked.
This is the problem with the believers side. You dismiss the problems with the incredibly weak evidence of the holocaust by making vague references to the mountains of other substantial evidence. Yet you never show any of this other evidence. If you have all this great evidence somewhere, why do you keep showing us the crap?
I don't know if I've seen that blog specifically but it contains information that I've seen elsewhere. More excerpts from reports by Russians or Poles describing the stench of death, and visible ash everywhere and blah blah blah. Nobody thought to bring a camera?
Martin Gilbert scooping up handfuls of bone shards in the soil at Treblinka in the late 1950s. Is the concept of desecrating graves so foreign to Jews that they have no problem with people trampling all over the physical remains of their coreligionists?
And what about the Poles who have been setting mines and blowing up old artillery shells, scattering the bodies of dead Jews all over the surface of the camps looking for gold? Is there something in the character of the Pole that compels him to dig up mass graves looking for gold? Are all mass graves mined for treasures by the Poles? These camps were off the beaten path and camouflaged with sticks and leaves woven into the barbed wire so nobody could see what was going on inside the camp. How did the Poles know that hundreds of thousands of Jews had been murdered at the camp? Do the Poles know that Jews from the ghettos usually sewed diamonds and gold into their clothing? How did the Poles know the Germans and Ukrainians didn't undress the Jews before they buried them? How did the Poles know that even though all the mass graves were opened and the bodies burned completely to ash that there would still be enough rotting corpses fully dressed with diamonds and gold sewn into their clothing to make it worthwhile to descend en mass onto the campsite and overturn every square inch of the mass graves to find this hidden treasure?
Slandering the Polish nation to help explain why there are no dead bodies in the mass graves is despicable. It would be funny if it were such a serious charge.
But thanks for pointing us to this blog. The ludicrous and contradictory claims contained within is one of the reasons so many people doubt the narrative.
The holocaust isn't unbelievable because of its magnitude. It's not that we simply cannot believe that a civilized nation would inflict crimes of such a horrific nature upon innocents.
The holocaust is unbelievable when it is impossible. I think that slicing a fourteen year old in half with a chain saw would be a horrific crime. I think it is unbelievable that anybody could do something like that. However, I know that it is possible.
I think that it would be equally horrific if somebody tore a fourteen year old in half with his bare hands. It is also unbelievable that anybody could do commit such a crime. However, in this case, I don't think that is actually possible.
That is why this incredulity doesn't apply here. When somebody who is considered to be a very important eyewitness to the holocaust says that the gas chambers were packed with people at an average of one Jew per fifty five square inches (a 7 x 7 inches square is 49 square inches. an 8 x 8 inch square is 64 square inches), I don't believe him. It's not because I don't think the Germans were that cruel. It's because I don't think the Germans were magic.
When this person's testimony is considered to be believable and reliable, if maybe a little bit off, I wonder why he is even cited as a source. With all the mountains of evidence that is available to prove the most documented crime in history, why bother with somebody like Gerstein?
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
From Wiki:
In other words: Yes, Gerstein exaggerated but we have corroborating evidence for most of his story.
I realize that for a neo-Nazi holocaust denier this would be something to hang your hat on, but the phrase "mountain of a molehill" comes to mind.
Because 1, he was there and is therefore a witness and 2, we have corroborating evidence for most of his story.
Because 1, he was there and is therefore a witness and 2, we have corroborating evidence for most of his story.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
That narrative is indeed wrong, but it's not the standard, accepted, narrative. That's your narrative. The standard narrative is that the Germans took some steps to attempt to conceal their program to exterminate the Jews and Roma, but those steps were unsuccessful. They left a good deal more than a hill of beans behind.
The phrase "straw man" is thrown around a lot on JREF, and is often used incorrectly to describe any misrepresented argument. However, you have successfully provided a textbook example of the use of the straw man fallacy.
How much documentation (and I mean actual contemporary wartime German documents or as you said, "BY THE NAZIs) explicitly says Jews were being physically exterminated? I don't mean documentation by the Nazis that prove they were anti-Semites who stripped Jews of their rights, confiscated their property, forced them into ghettos and concentration camps, and wanted them to emigrate. I don't mean documents that use ambiguous words that need to be retrofitted with sinister meaning. I don't mean the redefining of the German language so that ordinary words become euphemisms or coded language to mask the extermination of the Jews. I don't mean train schedules or passenger manifests or anything related to deportation or movement of Jews from one place to another. I mean documents that explicitly say something about physically exterminating the Jews.
How many documents are there like that? If there was an extermination program on the magnitude of the holocaust, there would be documents associated with that. There wouldn't be one or two. There would be thousands upon thousands of them. The German cannot have possibly destroyed every copy of every incriminating document related to the extermination of the Jews. Enough time has passed for an explicit extermination document to come bubbling to the surface.
Where are these documents?
The Bad Arolson archives? No, I know about those. It was a big deal when this was finally digitized and opened up to the public. Access is restricted to the general public but at least anybody can theoretically look up the information that is stored there.
I remember reading that some of the detail of individuals is absolutely remarkable. I don't have easy access to this archive so don't really know. Maybe you can tell me, what have we learned about the holocaust since the archive was opened?
Since all the records are in digital format, it should be easy to query the database to get a count of the number of Jews who were murdered in gas chambers. Could you do that and get back to me?
What is this corroborating evidence for most of his story? If there is corroborating evidence, why do you need to quote-mine the lunatic rantings of a madman?
Is he the only witness to anything? If there is corroborating evidence, why do you need to quote-mine the lunatic rantings of a madman?
Is he the only witness to anything? If there is corroborating evidence, why do you need to quote-mine the lunatic rantings of a madman?
Where would you go to find the standard accepted narrative? I consider Yad Vashem and the USHMM two websites where somebody could find the standard holocaust narrative.
If your narrative that the Germans took some steps to conceal the program but were unsuccessful, there would be a good deal of evidence left and the narrative would address that. But it doesn't. It says that there are no evidence of the bodies at Treblinka because this evidence was destroyed. Granted, the way the evidence was destroyed depends on exactly who you read. Arad says that the camp was plowed over and a Ukrainian guard was given the plot to use as a farm. I've also heard it was plowed over and lupins were planted to conceal the bodies. Then there's the Poles blowing up the entire area of the camp looking for gold and diamonds among the corpses which destroyed the evidence.
But if the accepted narrative is that there was a great deal of evidence left behind, where is it?
Nick Terry
Illuminator
Written up in books you evidently haven't read, drawing on archives you obviously haven't visited.
Shall we play a game?
SS court verdict regarding the actions of SS Untersturmfuehrer Max Taubner, published in Ernst Klee (ed) "Schoene Zeiten".
Arisia
Graduate Poster
Deniers have had a couple decades head start on truthers and birthers when it comes to being incorruptible by the truth. I really hope this type of bigoted, hateful intransigence in the face of overwhelming evidence isn't a sign of things to come in future years/decades regarding 9/11, especially. (Birthers will go away when Obama is done with his second term, for the most part.)
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Completely wrong? In every detail?
Bluespaceoddity
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 440
But I do have this book, I don't need your dishonest summaries of the narrative. Neither does anyone else here benefit from your distortions of the record or in fact of your continued misrepresentations of the replies you receive. If I want to be reminded what was written I can take the book of the shelf or scroll back through the threads and read the original text. Rarely do you do them justice. Do you perhaps think no-one notices?
Nobody benefits from your participation, not as a history lesson. Unless it is seen as an incentive to go to the shelves to read the actual record.
As an other insight into the lengths you go to keep finding excuses to continue denying your body of work is quite instructive.
I didn't ask you to comment on the contents of the book. That's why I didn't quote from it. I asked you for whose benefit you play your game. The reference is there. It shows that methods about which you "speculated" were in fact used. It isn't the only reference work in which the description of these methods can be found. I don't need you to explain them for me or summarize them for me. It would be nice if you used them honestly but it seems to me that deliberate manipulation rather than unfamiliarity or incredulity is the root of your problem. The reference was given to let you know I noticed. Other people provided other links and book references with similar content. They too noticed that what you write isn't quite right.
The sentence was already picked up on by someone else but "There would probably be some there today." is a rather curious way to put it, given even your own previous remarks acknowledging that there are indeed still some there.
You didn't do the findings much justice the first time you mentioned the post-genocide surveys -in the other thread full of mass graves- but a person reading your latest recaps in this thread might think you were completely unaware of the archeological work of Andrzej Kola. Or Hydrokop. Was that not intentional? Was that not to manipulate this thread?
So the question is again -slightly rephrased- why do you play this game? Is there an invisible audience you think is persuadable by your methods? Does this persuasion rely on this audience being lobotomized? Does it rely on people not reading the actual record? Does it rely on people forgetting what you wrote yourself minutes or hours earlier?
For whose benefit is the game played and how does it work? That's what I'm curious about.
In all honesty though. I couldn't care less if you never responded to any of the questions. So far you've just been repeating familiar patterns. I'll continue adding books to the shelf regardless of your responses.
This is Gilead et al, about "some still there" at Bełżec:
"The mass graves (Fig. 8) are up to five meters deep and their fill consists mostly of charcoal and cremated remains. About a fifth of the graves also contains decomposing corpses in the state of wax-fat transformation. Grave 10 is one of the biggest (24x18m) and the deepest (5.2m). It consists mainly of decomposing corpses, and at the depth of 4.4m there is a layer of lime. Lime is found in other graves too and was probably used to accelerate decomposi- tion. Mass grave 5, 32x10x4.5m, is also one of the largest graves, but it contains only layers of burnt human remains. The burnt fill is separated by sterile sand indicating multiple fill- ing. The drilling and the analysis of sediments suggest to the archaeologists that when the centre was eliminated, there were 33 mass graves. Kola distinguishes between two groups of graves: the first and probably the earlier one, consisting of twenty-one graves clustered in the western and north-western part of Bełżec, and the others in the north-eastern section of the site (Kola, 2000: 38-40)."
Excavating Nazi Extermination Centres - Isaac Gilead, Yoram Haimi and Wojciech Mazurek (2009)
This conforms to the narrative you -for some reason- desperately try to manipulate. To the point where you occasionally "forget" about certain elements. To the point where you "subtly" alter the elements in virtually every sentence you write. It's a tedious exercise to correct each and every one of your distortions but it can't have escaped your attention that those who participate in these threads have noticed what you're doing. Even the once less familiar with the record barely recognize their own comments when you summarize them. It doubt anyone finds that convincing. Why do you persist? For whose benefit?
Bluespaceoddity
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
- Messages
- 440
Dogzilla said:
Dogzilla said:
[Dogzilla -Yesterday: "There would probably be some there today."]
[Dogzilla - Tomorrow?: Can someone DHL 1/10 of 1% of all the un-smashed Jewish teeth, please, or do I have to go blasting through the concrete anti investigation barriers myself?]
[Dogzilla - last week: ... please don't paint all Jews with the same brush ...]
Last edited:
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
Already posted in part.
First, prove that he's mad.
Second, because he was there and is therefore a witness, and because we have corroborating evidence of most of his story. I didn't quote mine him. You did.
Unfortunately for you, no.
First, prove that he's mad.
Second, because he was there and is therefore a witness, and because we have corroborating evidence of most of his story. I didn't quote mine him. You did.
Unfortunately for you, no.
First, prove that he's mad.
Second, because he was there and is therefore a witness, and because we have corroborating evidence of most of his story. I didn't quote mine him. You did.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
Uh... haven't Twoofers already reached the stage of utterly unreasoning intransigence? Like in about 2006?
Denial has never been that much of a draw with the kook crowd, whereas Twoofing was all the rage among teens in the mid-Noughties. Denial online is more of a legacy CT from Web 1.0, one associates it more with Usenet than Web 2.0 style forums.
After the Irving-Lipstadt trial in 2000 there wasn't much chance it was going to blossom. We could compare that point in time with the departure of Bush from office, and perhaps extrapolate from there to conclude that in 2018, there will be about three truthers sporadically posting on JREF or an equivalent future forum. At the moment there are, what, 10-20 Truthers on here at most?
Nick Terry
Illuminator
Arisia
Graduate Poster
Of course he's going to be re-elected in 2012, the Joos that are really in charge just love that Kenyan-born Muslim Communist!
- Status