Piper versus Wiesenthal

[NeoNietzsche]

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/aktualnosci/news_big.php?id=563

They used statements by former prisoners as a basis for establishing the length of time that the particular crematoria had functioned, and their daily capacity. Multiplying these two factors yielded a figure of 5,000,000. Estimating that at least 20% of the time had been taken up by interruptions for maintenance or repairs, the commission concluded that 4,000,000 had been burned, and therefore had perished, in the camp.3 That figure appeared in a communiqué that the Soviet commission published in Krasnaya Zvezda on May 8, 1945, and was reported by the press around the world. Former camp commandant Rudolf Höss corroborated this number in his testimony before the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg the following year. He stated that 3,000,000 had died in the camp, and this statistic was generally assumed to apply only to the period when he had been commandant, from 1940 to 1943.

Polish crime investigators and the Supreme National Tribunal in Poland, which tried the Auschwitz prisoners, also accepted the figure of 4,000,000. Established by the prosecutorial authorities rather than by researchers, this number gained acceptance by the public and became canonical knowledge on the subject of Auschwitz for many years, in Poland and elsewhere.


http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394667

The figure of 3-4 million murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau was an invention of communist officials in Poland (and the former U.S.S.R.) which sought to blur the uniqueness of Jewish suffering at Auschwitz. To do this, they purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau by many times their true numbers. In a clever attempt to disguise the subterfuge, the figures for Jewish losses were inflated by nearly double, so that their losses would still be larger than those of non-Jewish victims, though now by a much smaller ratio.

The Hoaxers have still not gotten their story straight.

[cerberus]

NeoThe Hoaxers have still not gotten their story straight.

You should not be so hard on yourself , honestly - it will only result in some neurotic conflict which will manifest itself as an obesssional illness or a depressive eposide at some time in the future.

Neo - the process by which in the light of new evidence and a greater understanding is what historians do , they revise the facts in the light of new information.
There is no major mystery , no hoax and no subterfuge.

As far as hoax goes I will leave this to the revisionists - I have already given you some examples of their various conflicting tales, I think it should be "your experts" that you should be talking to.
This is what happens when :deadhorse: becomes habit.:(

[Globus]

The Hoaxers have still not gotten their story straight.

Wiesenthal isn't the author of what you posted, and the author is simply wrong.

Now if only you could admit you're wrong!

[NeoNietzsche]

The Hoaxers have still not gotten their story straight.

[Globus]

The Hoaxers have still not gotten their story straight.

And deniers think mindless repetition is as good as evidence and an argument.

[eggheadbanga]

The Hoaxers have still not gotten their story straight.

Remind me what the Revisionist 'story' is again, Neo.

[Kriger]

Remind me what the Revisionist 'story' is again, Neo.

Refer to the thread: The Hoax, Where's the Evidence?", post number #61.

You're welcome.

[eggheadbanga]

Refer to the thread: The Hoax, Where's the Evidence?", post number #61.

You're welcome.

How come different Revisionists accept different death tolls for Jews during World War II? Why can't they get their story straight?

:confused:

[Kriger]

How come different Revisionists accept different death tolls for Jews during World War II? Why can't they get their story straight?

:confused:

I'm not a revisionist. Why ask me?

[eggheadbanga]

I'm not a revisionist. Why ask me?

Because you replied to my post with what you perhaps naively thought was an answer, and because I'd like to make sure Neo has to explain why the 'other side' of the debate has its own contradictions. If you've nothing concrete to add then you can buzz off.

:thanks:

[Kriger]

Because you replied to my post with what you perhaps naively thought was an answer, and because I'd like to make sure Neo has to explain why the 'other side' of the debate has its own contradictions. If you've nothing concrete to add then you can buzz off.

:thanks:

Oh, have you become an administrator then? How did I miss that?

I'll post what I want when I want and where I want. I contribute my own perspective to any discussion, just like any one else here. Whether you like it or not concerns me in the least. Your personal attacks really are quite pathetic.

[eggheadbanga]

Oh, have you become an administrator then? How did I miss that?

If you don't have anything concrete to add then why post on the thread at all?

I'll post what I want when I want and where I want. I contribute my own perspective to any discussion, just like any one else here.

which seems to mostly consist of some generalities, followed up by 'I have made my views clear' stated half a dozen times over when asked further details about the point you were trying to make.

Whether you like it or not concerns me in the least.

I could believe that if you didn't get so worked up about things.

Your personal attacks really are quite pathetic.

Your contributions to these threads are vapid.

[Kriger]

If you don't have anything concrete to add then why post on the thread at all?



which seems to mostly consist of some generalities, followed up by 'I have made my views clear' stated half a dozen times over when asked further details about the point you were trying to make.



I could believe that if you didn't get so worked up about things.



Your contributions to these threads are vapid.

You have a right to your opinions as I have a right to mine.

I see no reason to endlessly reiterate what I have already stated. Yet you keep demanding me to.

You're right. I will henceforth not respond to your endless demands to reiterate myself. I hereby make it public notice that when I do not respond to one of your demands to reiterate myself, it is for this reason.

In the meantime, if I have any other observations to state, I will do so whether it means Egghead is going to demand I reiterate or not.

[calvin]

These guys are so used to being able to bully and intimidate in the “outside” world that they don’t think that they have to show anyone any basic respect or courtesy in an open forum of debate. These guys think that they are so clever yet they seem to be completely ignorant of the axiomatic truth that persuasion is better than force (especially if you don’t have much force to bring to the table in the first place). The ultimate tragedy is that one begins to associate the defenders with their cause. I am deeply disturbed by the deaths, murders and expulsions of everyday Jewish people but gassing six million Globbys or Milhouses somehow fills me with infinitely less dread.

[Kriger]

These guys are so used to being able to bully and intimidate in the “outside” world that they don’t think that they have to show anyone any basic respect or courtesy in an open forum of debate. These guys think that they are so clever yet they seem to be completely ignorant of the axiomatic truth that persuasion is better than force (especially if you don’t have much force to bring to the table in the first place). The ultimate tragedy is that one begins to associate the defenders with their cause. I am deeply disturbed by the deaths, murders and expulsions of everyday Jewish people but gassing six million Globbys or Milhouses somehow fills me with infinitely less dread.

I agree, Calvin, and what I find to be equally abhorrent are those who capitalize from the grief and misfortune of others.

[eggheadbanga]

You have a right to your opinions as I have a right to mine.

I see no reason to endlessly reiterate what I have already stated. Yet you keep demanding me to.

You're right. I will henceforth not respond to your endless demands to reiterate myself. I hereby make it public notice that when I do not respond to one of your demands to reiterate myself, it is for this reason.

In the meantime, if I have any other observations to state, I will do so whether it means Egghead is going to demand I reiterate or not.

Shirt, I keep asking you to elaborate what you are saying. I certainly don't expect you to reiterate what you said at the start, I expect you to add to what you have said. Otherwise it is indeed very, very tedious. My demands are not for reiteration, they are for clarification. But for some reason you're unwilling to provide this. Why?

[Kriger]

Shirt, I keep asking you to elaborate what you are saying. I certainly don't expect you to reiterate what you said at the start, I expect you to add to what you have said. Otherwise it is indeed very, very tedious. My demands are not for reiteration, they are for clarification. But for some reason you're unwilling to provide this. Why?

My questions cannot be stated any more succinctly than what they have been. If you, as the expert, have no answer, why do you demand one from me?

[eggheadbanga]

My questions cannot be stated any more succinctly than what they have been. If you, as the expert, have no answer, why do you demand one from me?

See the other thread.

[Globus]

These guys are so used to being able to bully and intimidate in the “outside” world that they don’t think that they have to show anyone any basic respect or courtesy in an open forum of debate.

LOL! That's rich, coming from a denier who, like the entire lot, do nothing but exhibit disrespect for the sane segment of the human race, including historians and witnesses by the hundreds.

What you and yours call intimidation in the real world is merely the understandable reaction of normal, decent people to what you have to say. That's why you confine yourselves to saying it in selected internet enclaves which you are used to dominating, so that when others come in and expose you, you think it's intimidation.

These guys think that they are so clever yet they seem to be completely ignorant of the axiomatic truth that persuasion is better than force

You can't persuade people who hold to a nonsensical conspiracy theory based on motives which are usually antisemitic in nature. The purpose is merely to let those who are not so afflicted know what the history actually is.

[Globus]

I agree, Calvin, and what I find to be equally abhorrent are those who capitalize from the grief and misfortune of others.

So you must be talking about people like the Jew haters at IHR who actually make their living from the grief and misfortune of Jews!

[Kriger]

So you must be talking about people like the Jew haters at IHR who actually make their living from the grief and misfortune of Jews!

I do not recall isolating this to any particular group. You would have to produce evidence that the "jew haters" at IHR make their living from their views.

[eggheadbanga]

I do not recall isolating this to any particular group. You would have to produce evidence that the "jew haters" at IHR make their living from their views.

Go onto Guidestar.com, register a free account, look up 'Legion for the Survival of Freedom' and see how much Mark Weber's salary was for 2004. He makes a living from this stuff.

[Globus]

I do not recall isolating this to any particular group. You would have to produce evidence that the "jew haters" at IHR make their living from their views.

Well, they are the only group I know of making hay from the misfortune of Jews.

Your ignorance about the IHR, a well known antisemitic organzation of long standing, is your problem.

[Kriger]

Go onto Guidestar.com, register a free account, look up 'Legion for the Survival of Freedom' and see how much Mark Weber's salary was for 2004. He makes a living from this stuff.

I'll do that. I really do not pay attention to what either extreme has to say about anything other than to note what they say. Just so you understand, I do not frequent IHR.

I pay attention to unbiased opinions. And even then, I dig for more unbiased information. Nothing personal, but your information is too biased for me.

Socio-political opinions are just that. Biased opinions of the facts.

[Kriger]

Well, they are the only group I know of making hay from the misfortune of Jews.

Your ignorance about the IHR, a well known antisemitic organzation of long standing, is your problem.

Your opinion means nothing to me. I thought I had already made this clear.

[Globus]

Your opinion means nothing to me.

It doesn't matter whether it does or not.

You're merely denying something you know nothing about.

[Kriger]

It doesn't matter whether it does or not.

You're merely denying something you know nothing about.

I am not denying anything. I am asking questions which you are obviously incapable of answering.

[Globus]

I am not denying anything.

Sure you are.

You're somewhat coy, but only somewhat.

[Kriger]

Sure you are.

You're somewhat coy, but only somewhat.

Here we go with this senseless back and forth routine that has nothing to do with the issues at hand.You really are not worth the time to respond to.

This is the last time I respond to your idiotic shit-stirring. At least Egghead is willing to discuss the matter.

[Globus]

Here we go with this senseless back and forth routine that has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

Then stop doing it.

[NeoNietzsche]

Remind me what the Revisionist 'story' is again, Neo.
Various - to little consequence. As you have pointed out, and as is obvious, the Revisionist case is basically negationist, and is in the position of proving a negative, for the most part. Contradiction in negation does not prove the positive in anywhere near the measure that contradiction in the positive disproves the positive. I trust that you are bright and honest enough to concede this point.

[Globus]

Various - to little consequence. As you have pointed out, and as is obvious, the Revisionist case is basically negationist, and is in the position of proving a negative, for the most part. Contradiction in negation does not prove the positive in anywhere near the measure that contradiction in the positive disproves the positive. I trust that you are bright and honest enough to concede this point.

LOL!

Run that through a meat grinder and it would parse no worse.

Of course proving an alternative scenario to proven history does not involve proving a negative.