Holocaust deniers, explain this.

[Bluespaceoddity]

I refused to quote Arad from page 109 because I'm not your typist. If you want to quote something on page 109, you retype it. Clearly page 109 of Arad has no relevance or you would have quoted it.

The fact that denier bud failed to mention what's on page 109 in Arad shows to me, that at that point, denier bud wants his intended audience to think that on that issue there are only a few statements from people like Bomba and Samuel Rajzman. The ugly voice doesn't mention Oswald Pohl's order nor does he mention Franz Stangl's recollections.

The ugly voice also fails to mention historical precedents even though these offer a reasonable explanation for the tasks Bomba is forced to perform.

The ugly voice is fond of quote mining. The ugly voice doesn't like to mention corroborating evidence and pretends it doesn't exist unless he himself mentions it. He references sources that he forgets about a little later when they are inconvenient for the new point he is trying to make.

But you're not like ugly voice. It's your aversion from secretarial duties that prevent you from typing out inconvenient excerpts.
Would you be so kind to type out who Oswald Pohl and Franz Stangl were and what their respective places were in the hierarchy of the nazi state, perhaps?

What is on page 109 in Arad -about Pohl's order and Stangl's implementation of such an order- has already been referenced above in this thread by Matthew Ellard and Nick Terry. (Late edit to add links to previous posts by Nick Terry and Matthew Ellard )

You can type out excuses as your next homework assignment. You may call it: Why does Dogzilla type out one section of a text, but refuses to type out an other. A short essay in denial?

Have you checked Robert Kuwalek's text and footnotes yet, btw?

 

[Hans]

A short essay in denial?

Denial in the second degree....guilty

First degree denies material without seeing it
Second degree denies material after seeing it
Third degree denies material is real - its a forgery, etc
Fourth degree denies material after accepting it - but denying its context or importance
Fifth degree denies it as being bad or evil but acceptable. 'Its okay that they killed those people because....'

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

Denial in the second degree....guilty

First degree denies material without seeing it
Second degree denies material after seeing it
Third degree denies material is real - its a forgery, etc
Fourth degree denies material after accepting it - but denying its context or importance
Fifth degree denies it as being bad or evil but acceptable. 'Its okay that they killed those people because....'

Evident conviction on all counts.
In the court of popular opinion, to which they appear to appeal.

 

[Corsair 115]

What is the point of this idiocy?

That's the same question rational folks ask when they read the rambling rantings of Holocaust deniers and other assorted Nazi fans.

 

[Hans]

The point is if you can question something you can cause people to doubt - or deniers believe, to raise doubt is to destroy it - so the denier desperately believe. In this or one other 'denier' threads I demonstrated to Dogzilla that I could easy - using denier tactics, make his own birth 'questionable'.

Whether to attack the Jews/Zionists or revamp National Socialism this revisionist fad has failed, real history has not changed and Nazism hasn't regained any standing.