Holocaust Debate

[Fade the Butcher]

I propose an official Holocaust debate. Any takers?

[Thomas777]

I propose an official Holocaust debate. Any takers?

*drops gauntlet

[Donny the Punk]

I have been preparing for this for some time. Give me until wednesday and I'll establish it myself.

No objections, I hope?

[Fade the Butcher]

We need to establish the rules of such a debate, say, a limited number of responses and appoint an interlocutor to moderate the discussion.

[Dan Dare]

Sounds like fun.

[Donny the Punk]

Keep in mind I was (and am) planning to continue to focus on Aktion Reinhard and Treblinka in the near future. Any moderator should be aware of that.

As for a catholic Holocaust debate, if a thing of such scope be possible, I'm also game but not right now.

[Dan Dare]

Gentlemen- start your excavators!

[Fade the Butcher]

I will propose a few ground rules.

1.) No rhetorical flourishes from either side. Each side should stick to making substantial points. The formal debate should be a purely factual discussion of the points in dispute.
2.) No chanting of loaded terms like (Holocaustianity, Holohoax, Denier etc.)
3.) An interlocutor will ask predetermined questions. Each side will submit their responses in an equal number of limited posts.
4.) All participants must register beforehand.
5.) There shall be absolutely no tolerance of ad hominem. Discuss the subject, not the person.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Each side will submit their responses in an equal number of limited posts


And for rebuttal? Or should a follow up question be given to the interlocutor?

[Thomas777]

I will propose a few ground rules.

1.) No rhetorical flourishes from either side. Each side should stick to making substantial points. The formal debate should be a purely factual discussion of the points in dispute.
2.) No chanting of loaded terms like (Holocaustianity, Holohoax, Denier etc.)
3.) An interlocutor will ask predetermined questions. Each side will submit their responses in an equal number of limited posts.
4.) All participants must register beforehand.
5.) There shall be absolutely no tolerance of ad hominem. Discuss the subject, not the person.

Sounds fair to me. I also want some regulation of evidentiary integrity. I don't want to see full-screen shots of random piles of dead people followed by posts such as "how do you explain this!"

I want some authentication...source of photographic evidence, things of this sort.

[Dan Dare]

yes, I agree.

Rules of evidence appropriate to criminal proceedings should apply.

[Donny the Punk]

Predetermined questions?

[Fade the Butcher]

And for rebuttal? Or should a follow up question be given to the interlocutor?

There should be a limited number of rebuttals, say, three or four per question for each side after submitting their initial response to the question. The subject under discussion tends to lose coherence in long drawn out threads.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I want some authentication...source of photographic evidence, things of this sort.

Within reason. The hurdle for evidence should be no higher than any other historical event. I don't want to see a huge post on a variety of subjects responded to with an endless stream of questions about "who invented the camera that took this picture".

[Sulla the Dictator]

yes, I agree.

Rules of evidence appropriate to criminal proceedings should apply.

I would like the same rules to apply to the other side of the debate as well.

[Thomas777]

Within reason. The hurdle for evidence should be no higher than any other historical event. I don't want to see a huge post on a variety of subjects responded to with an endless stream of questions about "who invented the camera that took this picture".

That is fine. Reasonable authentication for our purposes should be the original source of the photograph, secondary source (if it is published in a learned treatise) and date of the photograph. Nobody should be expected to undertake heroic measures to proffer a complete history of any photos presented.

[Donny the Punk]

Since the questions are to be predetermined, how about determining some viz. A R/Treblinka.

[Fade the Butcher]

Predetermined questions?

The interlocutor will ask predetermined questions that are hotly disputed by Holocaust advocates and Holocaust critics. You will have to decide beforehand which questions you want the interlocutor to ask. Each side will respond to the same question and will be given three or four opportunities to make rebuttals. Then we shall move on to the next question and so on until the debate is over.

[Sulla the Dictator]

There should be a limited number of rebuttals, say, three or four per question for each side after submitting their initial response to the question. The subject under discussion tends to lose coherence in long drawn out threads.

Why not two simultaneous threads, with the interlocutor posing the first question to each side in each. The two people post their first answer, the opponent posts his rebuttal, and the original poster posts his response.

Then the next question is asked.

[A. Radek]

We need to establish the rules of such a debate, say, a limited number of responses and appoint an interlocutor to moderate the discussion.

I linked to one set of rules when I brought this up before. There are other sets out there.

[Dan Dare]

Has the scope of the discussion been confined to the AR camps; Potty appears to have assumed that to be the case.

[Thomas777]

I also propose that learned treatises can be impeached within the bounds of relevancy. What I mean by that is that both the facts alleged by the author(s) may be impeached by a contradictory learned treatise or the author(s) of the treatise in question may be examined for credibility on both collateral matters and non-related matters that are relevant to the author(s) reputation for truthfullness (though not indefinately) and a rebuttal post should be permitted to rehabilitate them, followed by a final post by the proponent to reassert the author's credibility and reputation for truthfulness.

[Fade the Butcher]

Why not two simultaneous threads, with the interlocutor posing the first question to each side in each. The two people post their first answer, the opponent posts his rebuttal, and the original poster posts his response.

Then the next question is asked.

I think there should be a seperate thread for each specific question (or one single grand Holocaust Debate thread). The thread will be started by the interlocutor who asks the question. Each side will submit their initial response. Then each side should proceed to a limited number of rebuttals. Starting a seperate thread for each side in the debate would fudge the discussion.

[Dan Dare]

That is fine. Reasonable authentication for our purposes should be the original source of the photograph, secondary source (if it is published in a learned treatise) and date of the photograph. Nobody should be expected to undertake heroic measures to proffer a complete history of any photos presented.

We should not forget that captioning is often considered to be a part of the photographic evidence, albeit quite often erroneously. The same rules that apply to photographs should also apply to accompanying captions.

[Fade the Butcher]

I linked to one set of rules when I brought this up before. There are other sets out there.

Can you post that link again?

[Donny the Punk]

Has the scope of the discussion been confined to the AR camps; Potty appears to have assumed that to be the case.
I had been writing about Treblinka (and those aspects of AR which applied to it) before anything like this was proposed.

Considering that:
i) 'The Holocaust' is an enormous issue, far too broad in my opinion to be given any kind of adequate treatment without months of prior research (there is simply too much to discuss)
ii) Treblinka is the current Holocaust issue du jour, with both sides claiming that the previous debate was sidetracked

it seems both reasonable and fair to restrict the focus (in this case, as in others) to a more manageable and relevant topic.

[Sulla the Dictator]

We should not forget that captioning is often considered to be a part of the photographic evidence, albeit quite often erroneously. The same rules that apply to photographs should also apply to accompanying captions.

Elaborate.

[A. Radek]

Ah, these are the ones, I believe:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85871

In order for the moderators to approve a formal debate, the debate proposal must address the following ten parameters:


1) The topic of the debate.
2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.
3) The scope of the debate.
4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.
5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.
6) The maximum length of each statement.
7) The time limit between statements.
8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.
9) The starting date of the debate.
10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

One major problem is time limits. Not everybody is screwing off at college, and access to a decent library is a fair trip for some people, and they're not able to check out books to study at their leisure, so they have to write down material on site. Agreement on materials that everybody has access to is an important factor.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I had been writing about Treblinka (and those aspects of AR which applied to it) before anything like this was proposed.

Considering that:
i) 'The Holocaust' is an enormous issue, far too broad in my opinion to be given any kind of adequate treatment without months of prior research (there is simply too much to discuss)
ii) Treblinka is the current Holocaust issue du jour, with both sides claiming that the previous debate was sidetracked

it seems both reasonable and fair to restrict the focus (in this case, as in others) to a more manageable and relevant topic.

I'm certain that we might have multiple takers on the debate of the Holocaust. It might be interesting to establish a team of debators for an issue as large as this. :p

[Donny the Punk]

I also propose that learned treatises can be impeached within the bounds of relevancy. What I mean by that is that both the facts alleged by the author(s) may be impeached by a contradictory learned treatise or the author(s) of the treatise in question may be examined for credibility on both collateral matters and non-related matters that are relevant to the author(s) reputation for truthfullness (though not indefinately) and a rebuttal post should be permitted to rehabilitate them, followed by a final post by the proponent to reassert the author's credibility and reputation for truthfulness.
This is an argument for rebutting with copy-and-pastes. Historical discussions should be argued in terms of primary documents only, especially if Dan's proposed courtroom rules are to reign. If debaters are incapable of interpreting the evidence themselves, they have no place in a historical debate.

[Dan Dare]

...Considering that:
i) 'The Holocaust' is an enormous issue, far too broad in my opinion to be given any kind of adequate treatment without months of prior research (there is simply too much to discuss)
ii) Treblinka is the current Holocaust issue du jour, with both sides claiming that the previous debate was sidetracked

it seems both reasonable and fair to restrict the focus (in this case, as in others) to a more manageable and relevant topic.

If I am considered to be one of the sides in the 'issue du jour' as you put, I don't consider the previous debate to have been sidetracked, but rather stalled because of an inability to produce the corroboration that was required.

I strongly suspect that if we launch on the same venture the same impasse will appear at some point.

[Thomas777]

This is an argument for rebutting with copy-and-pastes. Historical discussions should be argued in terms of primary documents only, especially if Dan's proposed courtroom rules are to reign. If debaters are incapable of interpreting the evidence themselves, they have no place in a historical debate.

What I proposed is well within the bounds of what is permitted to impeach the testimony of expert witnesses and the learned treatises of experts in any American court.

[A. Radek]

Can you post that link again?

Yes. You posted before I found it.

[Sulla the Dictator]

If I am considered to be one of the sides in the 'issue du jour' as you put, I don't consider the previous debate to have been sidetracked, but rather stalled because of an inability to produce the corroboration that was required.


I'm sure you do feel that way. That isn't how I interpret that thread at all.

None the less, the issue you're referring to is ONE small part of the Aktion Reinhardt camps. The majority of the issue wasn't discussed in depth.

[Sulla the Dictator]

What I proposed is well within the bounds of what is permitted to impeach the testimony of expert witnesses and the learned treatises of experts in any American court.

It seems contrary to the purpose of the forum to have a cut and paste debate between David Irving and Richard Evans.

[Donny the Punk]

If I am considered to be one of the sides in the 'issue du jour' as you put, I don't consider the previous debate to have been sidetracked, but rather stalled because of an inability to produce the corroboration that was required.

I strongly suspect that if we launch on the same venture the same impasse will appear at some point.
If one of the questions were to be "Was Treblinka(II) an extermination camp run by the Nazis for the purpose of executing Jews and other undesireables en masse?" (which I believe is fair; feel free to comment), then spending multiple pages on a detail of that question is sidetracking, especially if a rule of limited number of postings is to be enforced.

[A. Radek]

This is an argument for rebutting with copy-and-pastes. Historical discussions should be argued in terms of primary documents only, especially if Dan's proposed courtroom rules are to reign. If debaters are incapable of interpreting the evidence themselves, they have no place in a historical debate.

Fine. So, run out and find German, Russian, Hungarian, and Polish speakers for both sides to have the debate, then.:rofl:

[Thomas777]

It seems contrary to the purpose of the forum to have a cut and paste debate between David Irving and Richard Evans.

Both constitute persuasive evidence in the form of expert testimony. How can I formulate a persuasive argument off the top of my head without falling back on learned treatises?

The trouble that I am seeing here is who is the trier of fact? How is this debate won or lost? Who renders the verdict?

[Fade the Butcher]

The last debate degenerated into a shrill, incoherent, redundant, shouting match. I think this format will be more agreeable for all parties, as each point in dispute will arrive at a terminus in a limited number of responses.

[Donny the Punk]

What I proposed is well within the bounds of what is permitted to impeach the testimony of expert witnesses and the learned treatises of experts in any American court.
Sure, but this is not a criminal proceeding or an investigation into the commentaries of other historians.

Historical research and exegesis is always conducted solely with primary documents, no exceptions. If this is to be a historical (NOT historiographical) discussion, so-and-so's opinion of such-and-such a piece of evidence is irrelevant when we as debaters can discuss that piece of evidence ourselves.

[Dan Dare]

Elaborate.

Certainly, most happy to oblige.

One of the items that you attempted to insinuate into the Treblinka discussion was the photograph depicted on p.246 of Ernst Klee's "The Good Old Days"

While the photograph itself might be reasonably adduced to have originally been part of the Franz Album, the provenance of the accomapanying caption "Excavator used for corpses at Treblinka" is unknown.

[Donny the Punk]

Fine. So, run out and find German, Russian, Hungarian, and Polish speakers for both sides to have the debate, then.:rofl:
After a fairly thorough review, I'm convinced that at least 99% of the relevant documents have been translated. :p That's good enough for me.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Both constitute persuasive evidence in the form of expert testimony. How can I formulate a persuasive argument off the top of my head without falling back on learned treatises?


Do you support a legal standard for what defines expertise?


The trouble that I am seeing here is who is the trier of fact? How is this debate won or lost? Who renders the verdict?

I would assume a mutually agreed party or a panel of three judges, such as in parliamentary debate.

[Fade the Butcher]

Ah, these are the ones, I believe:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=85871


These rules are all really good. I think we should adopt them.

[Thomas777]

Do you support a legal standard for what defines expertise?



I would assume a mutually agreed party or a panel of three judges, such as in parliamentary debate.

I'll stipulate to both of those suggestions. But I'm too tired to flesh all that out right now, so you guys do it. I'm off to bed and you guys can tell me the rules on Saturday.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Certainly, most happy to oblige.

One of the items that you attempted to insinuate into the Treblinka discussion was the photograph depicted on p.246 of Ernst Klee's "The Good Old Days"

While the photograph itself might be reasonably adduced to have originally been part of the Franz Album, the provenance of the accomapanying caption "Excavator used for corpses at Treblinka" is unknown.

I don't think thats relevant. If corpses were exhumed at Treblinka, I doubt you would deny they used the excavators. If they were exhumed would be your side of the debate. That excavators were used in the process is irrelevant.

How would you suggest one cite a caption?

[Dan Dare]

If one of the questions were to be "Was Treblinka(II) an extermination camp run by the Nazis for the purpose of executing Jews and other undesireables en masse?" (which I believe is fair; feel free to comment), then spending multiple pages on a detail of that question is sidetracking, especially if a rule of limited number of postings is to be enforced.

That was not the impasse I was referring to, as I believe you are quite aware.

I can assure you that if the same 'excavator' claim is made again I shall contest it just as vigourously.

[Sulla the Dictator]

These rules are all really good. I think we should adopt them.

Is there an option for making a post invisible?

[A. Radek]

After a fairly thorough review, I'm convinced that at least 99% of the relevant documents have been translated. :p That's good enough for me.

I know, but then they constantly claim they were 'mistranslated', and use that argument. Be sure and cite English translations as being acceptable.;)

[Fade the Butcher]

Is there an option for making a post invisible?

What do you mean?

[Dan Dare]

I don't think thats relevant. If corpses were exhumed at Treblinka, I doubt you would deny they used the excavators. If they were exhumed would be your side of the debate. That excavators were used in the process is irrelevant.

How would you suggest one cite a caption?

If the provenance is doubtful, it would be prudent not to introduce it.

[A. Radek]

These rules are all really good. I think we should adopt them.

Double post

[Sulla the Dictator]

What do you mean?

The rules give an option for simultaneous posts. For example, if Dan and Potyondi were debating and Potyondi posts first, a mod could make his post invisible until Dan posts as well.

[Donny the Punk]

That was not the impasse I was referring to, as I believe you are quite aware.

I can assure you that if the same 'excavator' claim is made again I shall contest it just as vigourously.
Sure, Dan, but be aware that I've not been spending days to start a thread about three excavators. :)

[Dan Dare]

Do you support a legal standard for what defines expertise?



I would assume a mutually agreed party or a panel of three judges, such as in parliamentary debate.

Parliamentary debates do not have judges, they are settled by majority vote.

[A. Radek]

These rules are all really good. I think we should adopt them.

I thought so. They also lend themselves to modification without destroying the structure.

There are some other sets, but I have some fence posts to dig in the morning, so I'll look them up later.

[Sulla the Dictator]

If the provenance is doubtful, it would be prudent not to introduce it.

Who exactly would raise that doubt? And by what measure do we decide if its reasonable or not?

[Fade the Butcher]

I need to know the following in addition to the questions that shall be discussed in the debate.

1) The topic of the debate.
2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.
3) The scope of the debate.
4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.
5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.
6) The maximum length of each statement.
7) The time limit between statements.
8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.
9) The starting date of the debate.
10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

[Dan Dare]

Sure, Dan, but be aware that I've not been spending days to start a thread about three excavators. :)

I'm very happy to hear that.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Parliamentary debates do not have judges, they are settled by majority vote.

http://www.apdaweb.org/old/guide/judging.html

[Donny the Punk]

Parliamentary debates do not have judges, they are settled by majority vote.
I'm fairly certain Sulla was referring to university parliamentary debate, the rules for which can be found here http://www.debating.net/flynn/Sydrules.htm , and which are judged by a panel of three.

[Donny the Punk]

I need to know the following in addition to the questions that shall be discussed in the debate.
I've proposed Was Treblinka(II) an extermination camp run by the Nazis for the purpose of executing Jews and other undesireables en masse? for a main focus. I assume that it's reasonable, though I invite anyone to comment and express approval/disapproval.

In addition, if someone considers it apposite to ask some ancillary questions that should be addressed in the debate (relating to the main topic), then feel free.

[A. Radek]

I forgot to add everybody might want to read a few of the debates on that sire to see if the rules work, or if this is really what you had in mind.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=17

[Dan Dare]

Who exactly would raise that doubt? And by what measure do we decide if its reasonable or not?

In anticipation of this question, I offer the following "evidentiary item" which I hope will better illustrate the point.

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/1333/lubas3copy7ne.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Now I am willing to confess within the confines of this thread that I added the caption to this photograph.

However the photograph and its accompanying caption are now orbiting cyberspace ad infininitum while my confession only lives for as long as the current incarnation of the Phora.

See whum sayn?

[Sulla the Dictator]

In anticipation of this question, I offer the following "evidentiary item" which I hope will better illustrate the point.

See whum sayn?

Sure. But I don't think its legitimate to question, say, if a photo comes from the Franz album unless one has reason and evidence to question it.

[Dan Dare]

I'm fairly certain Sulla was referring to university parliamentary debate, the rules for which can be found here http://www.debating.net/flynn/Sydrules.htm , and which are judged by a panel of three.

I'm actually more used to a more open style of debate such as at the Oxford Union, or the well known debating society featured at www.intelligencesquared.com. In both of these it is the audience that decides whether the motion is carried or not.

Three judges sounds too Napoleonic for my tatse.

[Dan Dare]

Sure. But I don't think its legitimate to question, say, if a photo comes from the Franz album unless one has reason and evidence to question it.

Again. I am focusing on captions. Creative captioning is a well-known propaganda tool.

I still don't think you have quite got it yet.

[Donny the Punk]

Well, you two can sort that out; I don't really care. For one because it's not the point for me, and secondly because I think it'll be very unlikely to achieve any sort of impartial judgement on this forum due to its demographics.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I'm actually more used to a more open style of debate such as at the Oxford Union, or the well known debating society featured at www.intelligencesquared.com. In both of these it is the audience that decides whether the motion is carried or not.


Oh, I don't think there's any point to having the membership of the Phora decide who won a debate on the Holocaust. :p


Three judges sounds too Napoleonic for my tatse.

Sounds perfect to me. Ideally all three would be impartial, but we can't have fulltime judges. In this case, we might be able to get one from each side who are REASONABLE, and a third judge closest to impartiality.

[Donny the Punk]

Again. I am focusing on captions. Creative captioning is a well-known propaganda tool.

I still don't think you have quite got it yet.
I think we can probably all agree on the following conventions:

i) the validity of a photograph can be established by a source citation (i.e. in the case of the Franz photos, the Dusseldorf court's acceptance of the album from the arresting police department as having come from his apartment)
ii) what a photograph is depicting is subject to the same standards of historical explanation as any other facet of a claim (i.e. it should be demonstrated, likely using auxiliary evidence but also perhaps elements within the photo itself, that the photo shows what the debater claims it shows)

No?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Again. I am focusing on captions. Creative captioning is a well-known propaganda tool.


This strikes me as your effort to handicap your opposition, since its unlikely you'll be posting any photographs. You creating a silly example to set up a broad spectrum for future objection doesn't strike me as reasonable.

[Sulla the Dictator]

ii) what a photograph is depicting is subject to the same standards of historical explanation as any other facet of a claim (i.e. it should be demonstrated, likely using auxiliary evidence but also perhaps elements within the photo itself, that the photo shows what the debater claims it shows)



This is going to be an opening for a whole world of distraction. "How do we know this was in Franz's original album?" "How do we know this picture was taken of an inmate who was at Auschwitz".

[Donny the Punk]

I don't see distraction as being a huge sticking point in a debate like this simply because it's not economical when you have a limited number of posts within which to make a convincing case. Also because 'how do we know it's not...?' is not an argument of any kind, whereas some evidence suggesting that such-and-such a photo comes from or depicts some alternative thing/place is.

[Dan Dare]

I've proposed Was Treblinka(II) an extermination camp run by the Nazis for the purpose of executing Jews and other undesireables en masse? for a main focus. I assume that it's reasonable, though I invite anyone to comment and express approval/disapproval.

In addition, if someone considers it apposite to ask some ancillary questions that should be addressed in the debate (relating to the main topic), then feel free.

My comment would be that this topic is too nebulous.

What does "en masse" mean?

Who are presumed to be the "other undesirables"?

[Donny the Punk]

My comment would be that this topic is too nebulous.

What does "en masse" mean?
Does changing it to "systematically and in the hundreds of thousands" work for you?

Who are presumed to be the "other undesirables"?
If you like, we can drop the caveat and keep it just to "principally Jews".

[Dan Dare]

I don't see distraction as being a huge sticking point in a debate like this simply because it's not economical when you have a limited number of posts within which to make a convincing case. Also because 'how do we know it's not...?' is not an argument of any kind, whereas some evidence suggesting that such-and-such a photo comes from or depicts some alternative thing/place is.

Well this really all goes back to the evidentiary standards that are in play.

In a criminal proceeding as I'm sure you are well aware the prosecution has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that includes any items that are presented in evidence. It seems an unreasonable imposition on the defence to truncate its right to cross-examination of whatever the prosecution puts forward.

As noted earlier it's hard to see how anything less can be contemplated for any discussion in this subject area.

[Dan Dare]

Does changing it to "systematically and in the hundreds of thousands" work for you?

If you like, we can drop the caveat and keep it just to "principally Jews".

I could go along with "in excess of 800,000 Jews"

[Donny the Punk]

Well this really all goes back to the evidentiary standards that are in play.

In a criminal proceeding as I'm sure you are well aware the prosecution has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that includes any items that are presented in evidence. It seems an unreasonable imposition on the defence to truncate its right to cross-examination of whatever the prosecution puts forward.

As noted earlier it's hard to see how anything less can be contemplated for any discussion in this subject area.
Prosecutors have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, yes, and I agree this is a good standard to cleave to insofar as the available evidence allows. Unlike a legal proceeding, however, history seeks to construct a narrative, not simply prove an allegation. In that regard, I believe that BOTH sides of this and any other debate should have the burden of making cases (case/counter-case, as it were).

Upon that reflexion, it might be better to perhaps keep the question as simple as possible, such as "What was the purpose of Treblinka(II) and what occurred there during its existence?" EDIT: with the condition that a coherent and definite thesis is advanced to answer it by both sides at the beginning of the debate.

[Donny the Punk]

Can we agree to/discuss the following?

1) The topic of the debate.
"What was the purpose of Treblinka(II) and what occurred there during its existence?"

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.
Obviously myself vs. Dan; do we want to work in 'teams', have simultaneous identical debates between different members of different teams, etc.? Up for discussion, since I don't know.

Each side MUST have a thesis to propose and argue, it being an answer to the question posed above, mine being the 'traditional' scholarly exegesis of Treblinka, which has been more or less fleshed out above. Dan's to be...?

3) The scope of the debate.
The Treblinka concentration camp. Other matters only insofar as they relate to the Treblinka concentration camp somehow (i.e. Aktion Reinhard, 'Final Solution,' etc.).

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.
No idea; five posts each? ten? I defer on this point.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.
A simultaneous first posting by both parties in separate threads. After that point, successive replies in an A-B-A-B scheme until the post limit has been reached. Illustrated:
http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/8008/scheme9qh.jpg

Or does this fracture the back and forth too much and create needless duplicates of each argument/set of information? Perhaps we could stick to a simultaneous first posting, but merge both first posts into one thread and maintain the A-B-A-B scheme that way. That seems better, actually. Each side could have an identical number of replies and then a final rebuttal:
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/2126/scheme23fc.jpg
and so on until the end. Much improved, I think.

6) The maximum length of each statement.
None, with the understanding that in cases of direct quotation, only the most relevant parts should be pasted while the remainder (if any) should be linked to.

7) The time limit between statements.
A week? Two days? No idea; someone propose something

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.
Unlimited with regards to primary sources only (i.e. testimony, photographs, physical evidence, maps, investigations, documents, schedules, etc.) I believe that quoting third party commentary (secondary sources) should be disallowed.

9) The starting date of the debate.
I proposed Wednesday. It can't be earlier than Tuesday, for me.

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.
No ad hominem, no pejorative terms (holocaustianity, etc.), no counter-factuals (i.e. "what if such-and-such a thing...?"), no 'LOL's. Demanding absolute and unequivocal proof of a claim is also inimical to historical inquiry. I propose a 'best fit' model, where the validity of both points and evidence must be addressed in terms of plausibility and supporting evidence. That will eliminate impasses.

[Basil Fawlty]

Gentlemen- start your excavators!
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dan Dare again.

[Hugh Jorgen]

I propose an official Holocaust debate. Any takers?

Holocaust? What Holocaust? All this proposed talk about nothing! :nono:

[Basil Fawlty]

After a fairly thorough review, I'm convinced that at least 99% of the relevant documents have been translated. :p That's good enough for me.What say you if some of those documents only appear in translations made by Revs?

Also, what if one or more of the interlocutors has a command of a relevant langauge that the other side do not?

[Donny the Punk]

What say you if some of those documents only appear in translations made by Revs?
I can't possibly imagine any circumstance where that would be the case. Do you have one?

Also, what if one or more of the interlocutors has a command of a relevant langauge that the other side do not?
I doubt that will be a problem. Is it? I am fluent in French and can read measly scraps of German, certainly not enough to criticise translations from the latter into English.

[Hugh Jorgen]

I can't possibly imagine any circumstance where that would be the case. Do you have one?

I doubt that will be a problem. Is it? I am fluent in French and can read measly scraps of German, certainly not enough to criticise translations from the latter into English.

Bzzzt! You're unqualified - Holocaust BS is from another planet. I think that you should be fluent in Klingon. :p

[Basil Fawlty]

I can't possibly imagine any circumstance where that would be the case. Do you have one?Yes. Only portions of IMT and NMT are available online and the transcripts of the official publication are edited anyway. There is a CD-ROM in German which is the best available edition of IMT because it contains material not included in the official and only partially available IMT online.

I have access to the full official hard copy of IMT/NMT and would in principle be willing to make scans of documents from that but there would need to be compelling reasons as this would constitute quite a lot of trouble for yours truly to organise. If anyone anticipates that they might need to draw on such material they should let me know as soon as possible so I can facilitate them.

Also, the documents of the Auschwitz trials in the early 60's are on CD but in German. German-competent members of the Phora and or teams could assist in translating any material if necessary.

[Hugh Jorgen]

I could go along with "in excess of 800,000 Jews"

I could go along with 3250 plus niccolo and his donkey. :p

[Donny the Punk]

Yes. Only portions of IMT and NMT are available online and the transcripts of the official publication are edited anyway. There is a CD-ROM in German which is the best available edition of IMT because it contains material not included in the official and only partially available IMT online.

I have access to the full official hard copy of IMT/NMT and would in principle be willing to make scans of documents from that but there would need to be compelling reasons as this would constitute quite a lot of trouble for yours truly to organise. If anyone anticipates that they might need to draw on such material they should let me know as soon as possible so I can facilitate them.

Also, the documents of the Auschwitz trials in the early 60's are on CD but in German. German-competent members of the Phora and or teams could assist in translating any material if necessary.
Volumes 1-9 of 15 of the NMT are available in English at the following link: http://www.mazal.org/NMT-HOME.htm

Volume 1-4 of a rather larger 42 of the IMT are available in English here: http://www.mazal.org/IMT-HOME.htm

I don't anticipate the need for reference to any others, especially since the WHVA/Pohl case is found in volume 5 of the NMT.

[A. Radek]

Basil can't be trusted with anything to with documentation or translations. He's a proven falsifier.

The documents on the Mazal site are good enough to serve their purpose here.

[Basil Fawlty]

If the believers put up that buffoon Oberon/Radek, it would amount to throwing the towel in.

The offer is withdrawn, offline documents will only be supplied to the rev side.

[Donny the Punk]

If the believers put up that buffoon Oberon/Radek, it would amount to throwing the towel in.

The offer is withdrawn, offline documents will only be supplied to the rev side.
Meow. :rofl:

How about it Dan? Your thoughts on post #79? http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=48753&postcount=79

[Basil Fawlty]

Meow. :rofl:

How about it Dan? Your thoughts on post #79? http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=48753&postcount=79On the one hand you seem pretty eager to talk abut Treblinka, on the other you vainshed pretty quickly in the face of the vacuum chamber question.

[Donny the Punk]

I don't recall one, probably because I stopped paying attention after Dan stalled the debate in an effort to avoid addressing the Treblinka documents. Agreement to these rules would hopefully prevent that from happening again.

[Basil Fawlty]

I don't recall one, probably because I stopped paying attention after Dan stalled the debate in an effort to avoid addressing the Treblinka documents. Agreement to these rules would hopefully prevent that from happening again.You have a very creative memory - http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45499&postcount=137

[Donny the Punk]

It seems to my poor eyesight that the only chambers referred to in that post were "steam chambers". As I never did look at the link, I can't claim any interest or participation in a debate about "vacuum chambers". The reason I never looked at the link was the same as for my exit from the thread as a whole, given above.

[Dan Dare]

How about it Dan? Your thoughts on post #79? http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=48753&postcount=79

I'm a little tied up at the moment with other commitments so will respond in detail sometime later tonight (Friday) or tomorrow.

My immediate thought is that the topic proposed ""What was the purpose of Treblinka(II) and what occurred there during its existence?" is too open-ended. I think a debate should have a single declarative motion that can be either carried or not.

[A. Radek]

If the believers put up that buffoon Oberon/Radek, it would amount to throwing the towel in.

Buffoons are those who try to claim Arad stated there 'were dozens of gas chambers', then run off and hide after being proven a blatant liar.

The offer is withdrawn, offline documents will only be supplied to the rev side.

Nobody accepted your non-offer, or takes you seriously. You were just comedy relief. Go back to entertaining the other zoo animals at the Liberty Forum, your true metre. We're having fun watching Dan try to weasel and obfuscate his way out of stuff here.

[Sulla the Dictator]

You have a very creative memory - http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45499&postcount=137

LOL Yeah, it was you Basil. :p

Not Dan's rather crude attempt to ignore Potyondi's lengthy post.

[Donny the Punk]

I'm a little tied up at the moment with other commitments so will respond in detail sometime later tonight (Friday) or tomorrow.

My immediate thought is that the topic proposed ""What was the purpose of Treblinka(II) and what occurred there during its existence?" is too open-ended. I think a debate should have a single declarative motion that can be either carried or not.
That is antithetical to the pursuit of historical truth. To have one side simply trying to criticise the other's interpretation without offering a logical alternative which uses the same evidence is denial, not revisionism. Treblinka was built for a reason, and something happened there during its operation - both of these salient issues are raised by the question. There is no validity to your attacking one account of the collected evidence without stating in turn what really went on. There are no deliberate elisions permitted in historiography (i.e. 'because I disagree with the current view, there can be no acceptable view whatsoever'), for its writing is in and of itself a conclusion.

As I've stated earlier, I'm more than willing to make my thesis available prior to any debate. It's been more or less proposed above.

[Dan Dare]

Here is my alternative proposal for the topic for our proposed debate:

"This house believes that the Nazis murdered over 800,000 Jews at Treblinka in the period starting July 24, 1942"

As I understand it, that is the claim, correct?

[Donny the Punk]

Here is my alternative proposal for the topic for our proposed debate:

"This house believes that the Nazis murdered over 800,000 Jews at Treblinka in the period starting July 24, 1942"

As I understand it, that is the claim, correct?
I would agree to that on two conditions:

i) the resolution be altered to "...murdered between 700,000 and 1.4 million Jews..." or simply "...murdered over 700,000..." as the exact number is unknown and estimates are difficult; furthermore that it be "...starting in May 1942."
ii) you guarantee to make a counter-proposal as to what happened at Treblinka instead of just picking at the resolution the whole time. That counter-argument must be disclosed before the debate, just as my side's is above.

[Dan Dare]

700,000 seems too low; at Stangl's trial in 1971 the court decreed that the earlier court-decreed 1965 tally (700,000) should be superseded by a new one of "mindestens 900,000". But if you wish to claim up to 1.4 million I am happy to go along with that as well. I suggested 'over 800,000' purely in deference to Yitzhak Arad's meticulously calculated tally of 881,390.

As far as a "counter-proposal" is concerned, as you should be aware by now I make no claim to fully understanding what actually transpired at Treblinka. My view is that there is much that is yet to be learned.

[Empress Cheesatine]

This could technically be made into a specific forum section, divided up into threads on certain camps and so forth.

I'd suggest a special thread for Auschwitz, since that is the one where the most are claimed to have been exterminated.

Also another section may be called for regarding Einsatzgruppen, Buchenwald (with the skin items) and so forth.

[Donny the Punk]

700,000 seems too low; at Stangl's trial in 1971 the court decreed that the earlier court-decreed 1965 tally (700,000) should be superseded by a new one of "mindestens 900,000". But if you wish to claim up to 1.4 million I am happy to go along with that as well. I suggested 'over 800,000' purely in deference to Yitzhak Arad's meticulously calculated tally of 881,390.
I chose "over 700,000" because it's the only minimum figure that can be corroborated by converging sources. When it comes to establishing whether Treblinka was an extermination centre or not, I think you can live with a figure that large as a reasonable burden of proof.

As far as a "counter-proposal" is concerned, as you should be aware by now I make no claim to fully understanding what actually transpired at Treblinka. My view is that there is much that is yet to be learned.
That's a cop-out, sorry. :p I explained why this was important above. Like I said, I'm not going to waste thousands of words on excavator photos while the larger conclusions go unaddressed. "That there is much to be learned" is not a historical position of any kind, especially when there are many, many evidentiary sources surrounding this event. To say that the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were sent to Treblinka were not mass murdered but to refuse to comment on what actually happened to them (when there is evidence which points to what did) is unacceptable, I'm afraid.

[Dan Dare]

I...That's a cop-out, sorry. :p I explained why this was important above. "That there is much to be learned" is not a historical position of any kind, especially when there are many, many evidentiary sources surrounding this event.

I can understand why you might think so, but I'd suggest that many historians, particularly those of the 'old school' might prefer to take a conservative approach in cases such as this where it is far from clear that no stone remains unturned.

... To say that the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were sent to Treblinka were not mass murdered but to refuse to comment on what actually happened to them (when there is evidence which points to what did) is unacceptable, I'm afraid.

I didn't say I wasn't prepared to comment merely that, unlike those partisans who diligently hew to the received opinion of the standard account, a natural skepticism compells me to insist that there remain a considerable number of open questions, anomalies, and loose ends that need to be addressed.

If we can approach the discussion in that frame of mind I am happy to proceed; if not you will need to find yourself another jousting partner.

[Donny the Punk]

I can understand why you might think so, but I'd suggest that many historians, particularly those of the 'old school' might prefer to take a conservative approach in cases such as this where it is far from clear that no stone remains unturned.
I'm not familiar with the 'old school' of history; does it precede the Annales? :p Historians too timid to draw conclusions from fragmentary evidentiary records don't get past first year university. In other words, they don't exist.

I didn't say I wasn't prepared to comment merely that, unlike those partisans who diligently hew to the received opinion of the standard account, a natural skepticism compells me to insist that there remain a considerable number of open questions, anomalies, and loose ends that need to be addressed.

If we can approach the discussion in that frame of mind I am happy to proceed; if not you will need to find yourself another jousting partner.
Criticising the interpretation of a historical event based solely on 'open questions, anomalies and loose ends' without offering a more logical alternative is not a legitimate historical frame of mind. Half of suggesting that one thing did not happen is suggesting that another is more likely to have instead. Such criticism is implausible by its very nature for that reason.

What I think you mean to do is niggle over auxiliary details without addressing any of the other evidence or the broader conclusions arrived at through the synthesis of that evidence. Like with the excavators.

If it's not acceptable to you, I'll take up Thomas777 or Basil or wintermute or anyone else who is willing to defend a position rather than simply deny one.

[Dan Dare]

I am completely relaxed either way, please proceed as you see fit.

If you get no takers I'll be happy to take up the matter at your convenience.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I can understand why you might think so, but I'd suggest that many historians, particularly those of the 'old school' might prefer to take a conservative approach in cases such as this where it is far from clear that no stone remains unturned.


I'm unfamiliar with any historian so 'conservative' as to be unwilling to advance a theory of an event.

[A. Radek]

I suggested 'over 800,000' purely in deference to Yitzhak Arad's meticulously calculated tally of 881,390.[/b]

Your source for this?

[Slavic Enforcer]

Please, spare us finally threads that have to do with the Holocaust.

I'm really sick and tired of it.

[Trojan]

Please, spare us finally threads that have to do with the Holocaust.

I'm really sick and tired of it.

Then you are on the wrong thread.

[Trojan]

Interesting debate proposal - however, both sides must carry a burden of proof. Simply submitting a challenge with out an alternative explanation can not stand.

The standard of proof should be that which is accepted by acedemia, not the standard required by law. For instance, sworn statements are available, and eyewitness accounts abound. These may not be admissable in a legal setting but would be accepted for what they are in acedemia.

[Slavic Enforcer]

Then you are on the wrong thread.

It doesn't matter if I read the thread or not, almost everytime when I am on the index page I see that a new holo-thread is there, and it nerves!
Does really everytime when somebody thinks he has found out something new about the Holocaust a new thread must be made?
I don't think so.

[Basil Fawlty]

It seems to my poor eyesight that the only chambers referred to in that post were "steam chambers". As I never did look at the link, I can't claim any interest or participation in a debate about "vacuum chambers".My mistake, steam chambers. Vacuum chambers is another equally ludicrous allegation that was made.

[A. Radek]

It doesn't matter if I read the thread or not, almost everytime when I am on the index page I see that a new holo-thread is there, and it nerves!
Does really everytime when somebody thinks he has found out something new about the Holocaust a new thread must be made?
I don't think so.

Don't click on it then. It's been a ongoing row for a while, between a handful of people, and exists for the comedic value of laughing at the Deniers, who have yet to come up with anything other than bullshit, and not even orginal bullshit. think of it as a another Genn Miller thread, one you only read because it's slow elsewhere.

[A. Radek]

Interesting debate proposal - however, both sides must carry a burden of proof. Simply submitting a challenge with out an alternative explanation can not stand.

The standard of proof should be that which is accepted by acedemia, not the standard required by law. For instance, sworn statements are available, and eyewitness accounts abound. These may not be admissable in a legal setting but would be accepted for what they are in acedemia.

Well, see, the Deniers can't agree to that, since they have nothing to begin with. This is why this 'debate' isn't going to fly, at least with the Dans and certainly not the Basils.

[Glenn Miller]

Don't click on it then. It's been a ongoing row for a while, between a handful of people, and exists for the comedic value of laughing at the Deniers, who have yet to come up with anything other than bullshit, and not even orginal bullshit. think of it as a another Genn Miller thread, one you only read because it's slow elsewhere.

Oh hi, Radekike. Thanks for the invite to this discussion.

(1) Now tell us your spin on the Auschwitz plaque being changed from "4.2 million killed by the Germans there, to "1.5" million. And do you think it calls for any modification of the figure of "6 million jews murdered by Germans during WWII"??

(2) And explain how any sane person can be expected to believe "The Holocaust" by Germans actually happened, in view of the fact it's a criminal offense for Germans to question it publicly, much less deny it.

[Starr]

(2) And explain how any sane person can be expected to believe "The Holocaust" by Germans actually happened, in view of the fact it's a criminal offense for Germans to question it publicly, much less deny it.

I think it is much more of a power trip thing with the Jews. I personally don't think they are all the scared, at this time, of what the revisionists have to say. They know that the vast majority of people believe every word that is handed to them in regards to the holocaust and write the revisionists off as nuts, anyway without bothering to pay any attention to what they have to say. I would guess that the jews like the revisionists more than you know since when they pop up here and there it breaths new life into the tale and gives the poor victimized jews more enemies to play their endless sad violin song about.

However, throwing people in jail for holocaust denial creates an interest in what they are saying that may not have been there before, because of what you have said here and also to a lesser extent because some people are likely to take an interest in something they have been told is evil or bad. Making something a criminal offense is a sure way to do this. Criminalizing it is a stupid move for the jews.

[A. Radek]

Oh hi, Radekike. Thanks for the invite to this discussion.

(1) Now tell us your spin on the Auschwitz plaque being changed from "4.2 million killed by the Germans there, to "1.5" million. And do you think it calls for any modification of the figure of "6 million jews murdered by Germans during WWII"??

(2) And explain how any sane person can be expected to believe "The Holocaust" by Germans actually happened, in view of the fact it's a criminal offense for Germans to question it publicly, much less deny it.

Never mind all that, Miller. Let's keep that tour around the Middle East with you in a cage on the back of a flatbed foremost in your mind, hear? That's where the freakin' money is. We could sell 200 videos of it here at the Phora alone.

[Donny the Punk]

I expect to be beginning my Treblinka thread very shortly. As stated earlier, I must absolutely insist upon two conditions (moderators/admins take note):

1. Every post must somehow relate to the Treblinka concentration camp
2. All replies must advance some explanation of what occurred at the camp as part of their criticism.

If any want to sign up beforehand, now is your chance. If none do, I'll be starting the debate anyway and those who choose to join in MUST ABIDE BY THE ABOVE RULES or their posts will be deleted. No exceptions, and I expect this to be stringently enforced.

[Basil Fawlty]

I expect to be beginning my Treblinka thread very shortly. As stated earlier, I must absolutely insist upon two conditions (moderators/admins take note):

1. Every post must somehow relate to the Treblinka concentration camp
2. All replies must advance some explanation of what occurred at the camp as part of their criticism.

If any want to sign up beforehand, now is your chance. If none do, I'll be starting the debate anyway and those who choose to join in MUST ABIDE BY THE ABOVE RULES or their posts will be deleted. No exceptions, and I expect this to be stringently enforced.You don't seriously expect anyone to take part under your unilaterally declared rules, do you?

[Sulla the Dictator]

You don't seriously expect anyone to take part under your unilaterally declared rules, do you?

What is wrong with those rules?

[Empress Cheesatine]

My mistake, steam chambers. Vacuum chambers is another equally ludicrous allegation that was made.

As well as electric floors, bear pits and soap factories.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Please, spare us finally threads that have to do with the Holocaust.

I'm really sick and tired of it.

I think the need to address the holohoax is of great importance for a number of reasons. The sooner the rubbish is debunked and Germans are no longer robbed and slandered, the better.

[Basil Fawlty]

What is wrong with those rules?Its not the rules as such but the "unlitaterally declared" part. Ruels should be agreed by all parties.

[cerberus]

You don't seriously expect anyone to take part under your unilaterally declared rules, do you?

Given some of the ideas from Irving , Zundel , Faurrison Berg , etc taking things seriously seems to be a problem from the outset.

[Basil Fawlty]

As well as electric floors, bear pits and soap factories.Not forgetting the Lufthammer, the pedal-driven brain bashing machine, the electrocution chamber and other assorted absurdities.

[Donny the Punk]

You see something unreasonable about them? :p I can imagine it would be difficult for someone with nothing to say to post about what happened at Treblinka in a thread about Treblinka. :p

[Basil Fawlty]

You see something unreasonable about them?There is something grossly unreasonable about someone setting up the rules of a debate which they are then taking part in.

[cerberus]

There would have to be some "joint ownership" of any "rules".

[Basil Fawlty]

There would have to be some "joint ownership" of any "rules".Exactly, they have to be mutually agreed by the discusants and then supervised by a third party.

[Donny the Punk]

Well, Dan has counted himself out and I don't see anyone else chomping at the bit. I'm not going to let the timorousness of some internet Nazis derail a good debate before it's even begun, so I am hoping that someone will find such proposals acceptable. How about you, Basil?

[Basil Fawlty]

Well, Dan has counted himself out and I don't see anyone else chomping at the bit. I'm not going to let the timorousness of some internet Nazis derail a good debate before it's even begun, so I am hoping that someone will find such proposals acceptable. How about you, Basil?I am agreeable to any formal debate that is founded on mutually agreed rules and procedures.

[Donny the Punk]

Well then, what do you propose?

[A. Radek]

I am agreeable to any formal debate that is founded on mutually agreed rules and procedures.
Today 10:49 AM

In other words, you're just wasting everybody's time, and have no real intentions of debating, which is all Dan was doing as well. Anybody can read Mattogno's pile of spam, innuendo, and distortions for themselves, anyway, which is where you will get your argument almost verbatim, just as in the Treblinka thread. It's free for downloading at VHO.

[cerberus]

There you have it , proximity talks over ?

[Basil Fawlty]

Well then, what do you propose?I believe the rules thing was already dealt with earlier on by others.

[Glenn Miller]

Never mind all that, Miller. Let's keep that tour around the Middle East with you in a cage on the back of a flatbed foremost in your mind, hear? That's where the freakin' money is. We could sell 200 videos of it here at the Phora alone.

You hooked-nosed dwarfs can't "never mind" holy hoax exposes any more, Radekike. That bullshit is hitting "fans" all over the world now, and the stink is spreading in all directions from Iran and elsewhere.

(Hitler 1933): "The jews used to laugh at us, but they aren't laughing NOW.")

Where will you hide next time, in a glassy parking lot in former Tel Aviv ?? LOL.

[Glenn Miller]

Oh hi, Radekike. Thanks for the invite to this discussion.

(1) Now tell us your spin on the Auschwitz plaque being changed from "4.2 million killed by the Germans there, to "1.5" million. And do you think it calls for any modification of the figure of "6 million jews murdered by Germans during WWII"??

(2) And explain how any sane person can be expected to believe "The Holocaust" by Germans actually happened, in view of the fact it's a criminal offense for Germans to question it publicly, much less deny it.

C'mon Radekike, give it a spin. If you can't debunk this old, high school dropout redneck, what'll you say to "The Big Boys" when they come after yo, lying, yiddish, holy hoaxing ass ?? Eh ?? Then it'll be you, not me, who'll be caged and in the streets of Kabul, Baghdad, Dresden, Auschwitz, Moscow, and/or Palestine. Prior to The Holocaust, that is.

[A. Radek]

Genn, a scrawny little twit like yourself really shouldn't be running around calling anybody a 'dwarf', but, all that aside, I've lined up a supplier in China who will give us a discount on little imitation GI Joe dolls. The only catch is, you'll have to paint the lil mustaches on them and stick the lil confederate flags on the toothpicks. How many should I send you? We got to get this tour on the road ASAP. Can you paint while you're drunk? Hui wants to know.

[Glenn Miller]

Oh hi, Radekike. Thanks for the invite to this discussion.

(1) Now tell us your spin on the Auschwitz plaque being changed from "4.2 million killed by the Germans there, to "1.5" million. And do you think it calls for any modification of the figure of "6 million jews murdered by Germans during WWII"??

(2) And explain how any sane person can be expected to believe "The Holocaust" by Germans actually happened, in view of the fact it's a criminal offense for Germans to question it publicly, much less deny it.

To you yiddish, in-bred midgets, I'm Goliath at 6' 1", 191 lbs.

Now, for the third time I've asked, answer the above charges before I round up some "holocaust survivors", and make them clean my street with tooth brushes.

(Bet that'll rattle his memory bank, eh ?)

[Glenn Miller]

I believe the rules thing was already dealt with earlier on by others.

My God, the kikes and koons have been waging war against us for 60 years, and these crypto White men can't decide on rules to covertly talk the enemy to death from their keyboards, while simultaneously wondering why we're not winning.

Hell of a war, ain't it ??

[Trojan]

As if you don't know the answer - in the hopes it may stop the trolling.

Oh hi, Radekike. Thanks for the invite to this discussion.

(1) Now tell us your spin on the Auschwitz plaque being changed from "4.2 million killed by the Germans there, to "1.5" million. And do you think it calls for any modification of the figure of "6 million jews murdered by Germans during WWII"??

The 4 million number was a communist number, never accepted by western scholars. The change came about with the fall of the iron curtain - which demonstrates that the holocaust is subject to change and will change if evidence properly demands the change.


(2) And explain how any sane person can be expected to believe "The Holocaust" by Germans actually happened, in view of the fact it's a criminal offense for Germans to question it publicly, much less deny it.


Why does the existence of Holocaust laws mean that the Holocaust is a fable? There is no correlation between the two. I do not support those laws, but I can see why Germany and Austria have a desire to keep their past horrors from revisiting. Since both are democratic countries, when the populace demands a change there will be a change.

[il ragno]

Since both are democratic countries, when the populace demands a change there will be a change.

Oh, please. I guess that explains all the Turks then.

There's a reason Oberon invited Miller onboard here, and that's to have him to point to as The Typical Denier in case it got hairy and Dan/Basil were ahead on points.

[Starr]

There is no correlation between the two. I do not support those laws, but I can see why Germany and Austria have a desire to keep their past horrors from revisiting

are you saying that allowing critique of the holocaust story could bring about "holocaust II":D If anything could do it, it would more likely be these increasing thought crime laws and forced political correctness.


Since both are democratic countries, when the populace demands a change there will be a change.

Fat chance of anything near that happening anytime soon with all of the holocaust guilt instilled in people. Instead of the question on whether the holocaust occured as told or not, what people need to break away from is this holy atmosphere that is all around it and the idea that it is the greatest crime in the history of the world, almost like a great sin that everyone must repent for. And one of the ways they do this is by adopting the "love everyone" idealogy that is destroying us. After all, if you object to the brown hordes, or multi culturalism, in general, you are a hater, a nazi. Attitudes like yours are responsible for the death of the angelic 6 million.:nono: They use that well to their advantage.

[Trojan]

Oh, please. I guess that explains all the Turks then.



Can someone translate this ...:confused:

[Trojan]

are you saying that allowing critique of the holocaust story could bring about "holocaust II":D If anything could do it, it would more likely be these increasing thought crime laws and forced political correctness.

Again - I do not support these laws. But the fear, be it justified or not, at least in part is that to allow the 'crimes' would be to risk a revivial of the old race hatred, etc.


Fat chance of anything near that happening anytime soon with all of the holocaust guilt instilled in people. Instead of the question on whether the holocaust occured as told or not, what people need to break away from is this holy atmosphere that is all around it and the idea that it is the greatest crime in the history of the world, almost like a great sin that everyone must repent for. And one of the ways they do this is by adopting the "love everyone" idealogy that is destroying us. After all, if you object to the brown hordes, or multi culturalism, in general, you are a hater, a nazi. Attitudes like yours are responsible for the death of the angelic 6 million.:nono: They use that well to their advantage.

Strawman

The fact remains, there are mechanisms available to the citizens of these countries to change the laws. The ball is in there court, so to speak.

[Sulla the Dictator]

There's a reason Oberon invited Miller onboard here, and that's to have him to point to as The Typical Denier in case it got hairy and Dan/Basil were ahead on points.

LOL Another Holocaust related conspiracy. Five more and you've got your own Da Vinci code, il ragno.

[cerberus]

Sulla , don't you know that it was a Polish Jew who sold the Enigma code machines and systems to the OKH / OKW.:D
Told them it was "Kosher" and fool proof , the master race fell for it. :)

[il ragno]

LOL Another Holocaust related conspiracy. Five more and you've got your own Da Vinci code, il ragno.

Well, let's see. Originally, Oberon was taking cheap shots at Dan Dare and Fawlty, as the terms of the Treblinka 'debate' were still being thrashed out. (This was just prior to Potyondi haughtily informing me that my sort of low-grade Jukian Kallikakery was not at all the sort of thing to pass muster here in the hallowed halls of the Debate Forum.) This is followed by Oberon exending an invitation to Glenn Miller to hang around and kibitz the proceedings.

It's hardly a conspiracy theory to suggest that linkage of any reasonable-sounding contra argument to a backwoods simian spewing inane drool about the "GD kikes" was pretty much exactly what Oberon had in mind. In fact, I can't think of another reason why "Ariel Sharon's nephew" would give "Uncle Sam's Nazi" a heads-up in the first place.....can you?

[Glenn Miller]

As if you don't know the answer - in the hopes it may stop the trolling.


The 4 million number was a communist number, never accepted by western scholars. The change came about with the fall of the iron curtain - which demonstrates that the holocaust is subject to change and will change if evidence properly demands the change.

ROUNDER: Never accepted by western scholars, my ass. Not one of them denied the 4.2 million figure shown on the plaque at Auschwitz for 45 freakin years. And every GD one of them preached the 6 million jew lie before and after the plaque was changed to read "1.5 million people killled, mostly jews". The only reason the figures were changed is that they became hilariously absurd with the opening of Russian archives. And how can "evidence change "the holocaust", when it's a criminal offense to even question "the holocaust", much less investigate it freely/extensively, in most countries, and results in ruin to those in others ?? Are you a kike, a kike-alike, or just a plain ole idiot ??



Why does the existence of Holocaust laws mean that the Holocaust is a fable? There is no correlation between the two. I do not support those laws, but I can see why Germany and Austria have a desire to keep their past horrors from revisiting. Since both are democratic countries, when the populace demands a change there will be a change.

ROUNDER: Do you mean to say you see nothing wrong with people believing an alleged historical event that's a criminal offense to question, debate, or deny ??? What the hell's the matter with you ?? Have you checked to see if there's some Congo Hottentot in your family tree ?? The German and Austrian ZOGs not only lack the desire to keep "the holocaust" from "revisiting", hell they've been on their knees begging world jewry for mercy before the world's media, for more than half a century, and erecting memorials to the GD dead kikes, all over both countries, including downtown Berlin. Your last sentence is so void of real world reasoning, I feel no need to point it out.

So which are ya - kike, kike-alike, or an escapee from Hoosegow Looney Toon ???

[Glenn Miller]

Again - I do not support these laws. But the fear, be it justified or not, at least in part is that to allow the 'crimes' would be to risk a revivial of the old race hatred, etc.

ROUNDER: What about the "race hatred" preached against Germans by Hollywood, the jewsmedia, and in every school, college and university in the West for the past half century ?? You never "feared" any of that "revival of the old race hatreds", now did you ??



Strawman

The fact remains, there are mechanisms available to the citizens of these countries to change the laws. The ball is in there court, so to speak.


ROUNDER: Ha ha ha ha he he he he ....aawwwfffhhhggrrrfffffff. . ha ha he h he he he he he he !!!!!!!! "mechanisms available to the citizens of Germany". . ha ha ha he he he he he he he he.

Hey Fade, in which Haire Karishna Kabutz did you find this kosherized nut case ??

[Glenn Miller]

Oh, please. I guess that explains all the Turks then.

There's a reason Oberon invited Miller onboard here, and that's to have him to point to as The Typical Denier in case it got hairy and Dan/Basil were ahead on points.

Being a faggot-hating alpha male, I'm starting to get a lil aggitated at your demonstrated fixation with me in every single posting you make. Go flirt with somebody else.

[Trojan]

ROUNDER: Do you mean to say you see nothing wrong with people believing an alleged historical event that's a criminal offense to question, debate, or deny ??? What the hell's the matter with you ?? Have you checked to see if there's some Congo Hottentot in your family tree ?? The German and Austrian ZOGs not only lack the desire to keep "the holocaust" from "revisiting", hell they've been on their knees begging world jewry for mercy before the world's media, for more than half a century, and erecting memorials to the GD dead kikes, all over both countries, including downtown Berlin. Your last sentence is so void of real world reasoning, I feel no need to point it out.

So which are ya - kike, kike-alike, or an escapee from Hoosegow Looney Toon ???


Well I gave you the courtesy of a reply and you respond like an ass ...

[il ragno]

Being a faggot-hating alpha male, I'm starting to get a lil aggitated at your demonstrated fixation with me in every single posting you make. Go flirt with somebody else.

Knowing how to eat with a knife and fork as I do, I've been annoyed for some time at your slope-browed, sub-imbecilic snake-oil pitch.

You may be Alex's very favoritest chore monkey and comedy relief, but to me you'd need the assistance of a crane to reach the Lindstedt Plateau. Most people reading your lager-logged wit and wisdom for the first time assume you're a put-on, as in nobody could ever be that offensively stupid in real life.

Suffice it to say if you'd actually been around during NS Germany, Hitler himself would've thrown you to Rohm as a last meal.

[Basil Fawlty]

My God, the kikes and koons have been waging war against us for 60 years, and these crypto White men can't decide on rules to covertly talk the enemy to death from their keyboards, while simultaneously wondering why we're not winning.

Hell of a war, ain't it ??Hell of a bore, ain't ya??

[Hugh Jorgen]

Well, let's see. Originally, Oberon was taking cheap shots at Dan Dare and Fawlty, as the terms of the Treblinka 'debate' were still being thrashed out. (This was just prior to Potyondi haughtily informing me that my sort of low-grade Jukian Kallikakery was not at all the sort of thing to pass muster here in the hallowed halls of the Debate Forum.) This is followed by Oberon exending an invitation to Glenn Miller to hang around and kibitz the proceedings.

It's hardly a conspiracy theory to suggest that linkage of any reasonable-sounding contra argument to a backwoods simian spewing inane drool about the "GD kikes" was pretty much exactly what Oberon had in mind. In fact, I can't think of another reason why "Ariel Sharon's nephew" would give "Uncle Sam's Nazi" a heads-up in the first place.....can you?

Perfectly rational and prescient, il ragno

This whole thread "debate" thingie here is just a setup to sell us leftovers, yesterday's meal.
The desperation of this absurd Danish cartoon and the Irving and Zundel witchhunt hitting the global airwaves lately is a revelation that the yhiddies too can see their coming apocalypse. The Holocaust is not history, it is prophecy.

[A. Radek]

Oh, please. I guess that explains all the Turks then.

There's a reason Oberon invited Miller onboard here, and that's to have him to point to as The Typical Denier in case it got hairy and Dan/Basil were ahead on points.


:rofl: I didn't invite Gin Miller anywhere, Edith. That's just your psycho opinion.

The odds of Dan or Basil ever 'getting ahead on points' is below zero.

[A. Radek]

Can someone translate this ...:confused:

He's jumping up and down, stamping his feet, and grinning, while having 'I'm An Idiot!' tattoed on his forehead. Just ignore him; eventually his nurse will come in and feed him some more pills.

[il ragno]

:rofl: I didn't invite Gin Miller anywhere, Edith. That's just your psycho opinion.

The odds of Dan or Basil ever 'getting ahead on points' is below zero.

Originally Posted by Glenn Miller
Oh hi, Radekike. Thanks for the invite to this discussion.


"Radek is lying."
"How can you tell?"
"His lips are moving."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan
Can someone translate this ...

He's jumping up and down, stamping his feet, and grinning, while having 'I'm An Idiot!' tattoed on his forehead. Just ignore him; eventually his nurse will come in and feed him some more pills.

If you require a concordance when someone says, "Since both Germany and Austria are democratic countries, when the populace demands a change there will be a change", and I respond, "I guess that explains all the Turks then", then - as Potyondi would put it - maybe you'd be better off in the Lounge than here, where the Great Throbbing Brains Of Tomorrow wrestle with the really big concepts, like Nazies R Evull.

[Donny the Punk]

"Radek is lying."
"How can you tell?"
"His lips are moving."


You're taking Glenn Miller rhetoric at face value, now?

[il ragno]

In this case? Sure.

First of all, it's not "rhetoric". Secondly, Radek responded almost immediately and never bothered denying it. Third, Miller himself usually stays in the Lounge - venturing outside it is not his style. Fourth, it's completely consistent with Oberon's perverse troll sensibility.

[A. Radek]

First of all, it's not "rhetoric". Secondly, Radek responded almost immediately and never bothered denying it. Third, Miller himself usually stays in the Lounge - venturing outside it is not his style. Fourth, it's completely consistent with Oberon's perverse troll sensibility.

Well, let's see ...

:rofl: I didn't invite Gin Miller anywhere, Edith. That's just your psycho opinion.

[il ragno]

You must be off your corn flakes today, Oberon, if you think I'm even going to waste the keystrokes on that one.

[A. Radek]

Well, the mods/admins here are perfectly free to verify if I have sent any PM's to Miller, or received any from him, Edith. I've sent 3 messages the entire time I've been registered here, a response to a welcome from a moderator, and two to a poster whom I like in the history forum who showed up.

Sorry all this took valuable time away from the Lounge and your gossiping about this and that and having to post your raving lunatic theories here, ill.:rofl:

[Helios Panoptes]

I don't have time to read 17 pages to figure out what's going on. Can anyone tell me whether there's going to be a debate or not? Who are the participants and when will it begin?

[Glenn Miller]

Knowing how to eat with a knife and fork as I do, I've been annoyed for some time at your slope-browed, sub-imbecilic snake-oil pitch.

You may be Alex's very favoritest chore monkey and comedy relief, but to me you'd need the assistance of a crane to reach the Lindstedt Plateau. Most people reading your lager-logged wit and wisdom for the first time assume you're a put-on, as in nobody could ever be that offensively stupid in real life.

Suffice it to say if you'd actually been around during NS Germany, Hitler himself would've thrown you to Rohm as a last meal.

But as most of us were taught by 3rd grade, "saying it's so don't make it so", El Rag On.

You're in such pain from my ass-kickins, here you are now accusing a jew of inviting me here to kick yo ass smo.

Send me some money and I'll lighten up. (he he he he)

[il ragno]

I don't have time to read 17 pages to figure out what's going on. Can anyone tell me whether there's going to be a debate or not? Who are the participants and when will it begin?

Not happening. Debate called on account of procedural tantrum.

[il ragno]

But as most of us were taught by 3rd grade, "saying it's so don't make it so", El Rag On.

You're in such pain from my ass-kickins, here you are now accusing a jew of inviting me here to kick yo ass smo.

Send me some money and I'll lighten up. (he he he he)

So you're a liar as well as a traitor, a paid informant, a deadbeat dad, a drunk, a boor and a buffoon. You ought to retitle your autobiography CAUTION: OPEN SEWER NEXT 65 YEARS.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I don't have time to read 17 pages to figure out what's going on. Can anyone tell me whether there's going to be a debate or not? Who are the participants and when will it begin?

Myself, Potyondi, Dan Dare, and Basil. Dan is currently working on his opposition statement.

[achtung circus]

Placeholder for notification,

just in case anything gets said.

In the interim, back to Ali G.

[A. Radek]

It’s somewhat evident that Potty is a major fan of the “convergence of evidence” school of argumentation popularised by noted ‘historian’ Robert J. van Pelt during the Lipstadt trial in 2000. However it is equally clear that, like many other aficianados of that school, Potty is very picky when selecting items of evidence on which to converge. There being so many sources to draw on, it is only natural to want to settle only on those points in a statement or document where they each conveniently converge, and to ignore those where they inconveniently diverge. Part of our task here will be to perform a ‘gap analysis’ to use a good old marketeering buzzword, drawing the two strands together as it were.

Dan means he has no rebutting evidence at all that warrants a revision of Potyondi's evidence, and therefore will just pull stuff out of his ass for the rest of the post ....

In the interests of brevity, I have truncated quite a lot of Potty’s original material, but hopefully have left sufficient trace so that interested readers may refer back to the correct section in the original post, as necessary. If I have been too aggressive in that, I apologise in advance.

Dan is saying he hopes nobody will notice him shifting contexts and his total dependence on innuendo for his faux 'rebuttal', and we should just ignore his lack of any evidence countervailing the established events ...

Quote:
As part of the greater Nazi effort to exterminate the Jews of Europe, the Treblinka concentration camp was second only the the more famous Auschwitz-Birkenau in terms of deadliness. /quote

I’m assuming this is intended as part of a ‘scene-setting’ introduction rather than an expression of strict numerical accuracy, but still we need to view it more as a matter of your own personal supposition unless, that is, you can provide an approved official tally listing Jewish deaths by location. What’s that you say? There are many ‘official tallies’. Indeed there are. Michael Tregenza, for example, continues to maintain that Belzec was responsible for more than one million deaths, and yet others maintain that the Einsatzgruppen finished off many more than that. That would place both ‘events’ higher up the list even than Treblinka. But let’s pass over that for now.

Dan prefers name dropping and anecdotes to a real response. Again, absolutely no evidence at all here to counter the established estimates, or any countervailing evidence to dispute the established view of what happened at Treblinka ...

Quote:
All this we know from what remains of eyewitness testimony and physical evidence despite Nazi efforts to destroy both, and most especially train schedules whose 'final destination' declarations take on a macabre connotation with the understanding of what really occurred at the end of the line. /quote

I hope that in due course you will be able to show us exactly what these train schedules demonstrate and will provide a source where we can inspect the documents for ourselves. We can then better judge whether the documents have any macabre connotations.

As a general point going forward, I’d suggest it is more instructive to have any document in its original form and language, wherever possible. I have noted that many of your source references are in translations kindly provided by Yad Vashem, the Holo-History project, Nizkor, or deathcamps.org, and that many references either terminate at those organisations or at books and reports that are either difficult to obtain, or are not in the public domain. In the case of the latter it does kind of beg the question as to how you managed to (a) come across them in the first or (b) were able to satisfy yourself that what you are quoting actually appears in the place that you are citing. But let’s pass over that for now.

In short, Dan has no evidence whatsoever to dispute any of Potyondi's sources, and is now merely trying to lawyer his way along, hoping nobody notices that he has yet to produce any coutervailing evidence of any kind that warrants a legitimate revision of the established view of what went on at Treblinka.

Quote:
Before continuing, it must be noted that this paper is not intended to be an exhaustive exegesis of Treblinka. I have written it to demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that Treblinka was an extermination camp devoted to the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews within the framework of the Final Solution. Any shortcomings of detail, therefore, must needs be remedied by other treatises. /quote

The Communist Polish Commission’s 1945 report notwithstanding, the complete absence of any forensic evidence from the alleged site of the murder of 800,000 human beings when all such evidence, even according to the exterminationist argument, remains in situ awaiting discovery is far more than a mere shortcoming of detail.

This is analogous to a police murder investigation focusing exclusively on the business of taking witness statements and extracting confessions from the alleged perpetrators while ignoring the presence of the victim’s remains that all the witnesses and even some of the perpetrators insist are still present at the crime scene.

What Dan means here is just because the Poles found it, it doesn't count at all, so he hoipes we can just take his word for it that there is no evidence, since the Polish Government won't let people swarm over these sites with bulldozers and shovels every weekend.

By extension, we can say the Battle of Gettysburg didn't happen because the battlefield is being guarded as an historical park by the U.S. Government, and they won't let people go digging around in it with shovels or bulldozers. Therefore, the government is hiding something, and we should doubt such a battle ever took place.

Again, Dan has no evidence to offer, just the same old inneundo.

Quote:
Massive and systematic executions at the Treblinka camp fell under the aegis of Aktion Reinhard (alternatively 'Einsatz Reinhard' and 'Aktion Reinhardt'), a facet of the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question' (Endlösung der Judenfrage) devoted to physically exterminating the Jews of the Generalgouvernement of former Poland.
…
<snip>
…
It was at some point very soon after this, in either the late summer or autumn of 1941 that the order to begin Aktion Reinhard(t) was received. No official document containing such an order has ever been recovered; however, its inception may be inferred circumstantially. /quote

It is certainly correct AFAIK to state that no contemporary German document has been found that characterises Einsatz/Aktion Reinhard(t) as a scheme to exterminate all the Jews in the G-G, or anywhere else for that matter. Circumstantial inferences are all that can be made. There still seems to be considerable debate even among mainstream historians as to exactly what ER/AR was intended to accomplish; whether it was designed principally as a scheme for mass extortion engineered by the WVHA, or one for mass extermination as is frequently attributed to the RfSS, or as some combination of the two. Nor is really clear precisely who was really in charge or even who, if anybody, it was named after.

Nothing here, as usual. No evidence rebutting a single point, not one, so far, in his entire response ...

Quote:
…. An entry from Reich Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels on 27 March 1942 illustrates all the implications of the Aktion.13
Quote:
Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor /quote

This is actually quite an important quote, since it tells us that the party leadership was evidently not thinking in terms of immediate, total liquidation of the Jews in the G-G.

Actually, it's proof they intended to liquidate them, and would try to liquidate most of them ASAP, and they also were conscious of the fact they were to keep mention of it in writing to a minimum. Dan is merely grasping at a very thin straw here ...

Well, more later. Dan calls this a 'response' ??? This is just the same kind of BS he usually posts. LOL

[eggheadbanga]

It'd be unfair to comment too extensively on Dan's piece, but I think the following 'small points' should be answered.

And was Brack really on such close terms with HH as to sign his correspondence “ihr” Viktor Brack – well I suppose at least it wasn’t “dein”?

fairly standard for correspondence between SS generals and Himmler to sign off 'ihr'.

To satisfy myself about Graf and Mattogno’s assertion, I consulted Martin’s book in the 1993 hardback edition. Here then is one of the maps taken almost at random from the dozens that deal with deportations to Treblinka, in this case for deportations from the Radom District in the second half of August, 1942.

But not from Bialystok district. Apples and oranges.:nono:

Perhaps another way to view this seemingly baffling anomaly is by means of a present-day analogy.

seemingly baffling only if one assumes that Treblinka was a transit camp, which deniers have yet to prove.:nono:

And now on to what we might consider the Main Event, the “Höfle Telegram”... To me one of the more curious aspects of the report is that, although the telegram is quite clearly identified as being a fortnightly update (14-tägige Meldung) this is the only such report that has emerged so far. It follows then that, if this is indeed a periodic report on AR activities, there would have been 25 or more other, similar fortnightly reports compiled by Globocnik’s office. What do we suppose is the most likely explanation for their absence from the Bletchley Park intercept files?
...The correspondence between Höfle and Korherr is indeed most serendipitous.

Check the dates again, and have a think about it. ;)

It is doubly auspicious that its full implications were first explored by its diligent discoverers in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, a journal of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

That would be the normal place to publish a discovery of this kind at short notice. Yad Vashem Studies only comes out once a year.

Did Majdanek actually have any purpose-built ‘extermination facilities’ to speak of? I didn’t think even establishment historians make that claim anymore. And Belzec at least was not that far-away.

Thomas Kranz points to gas chambers, in his recent article reducing the Majdanek death toll to 78,000 (59,000 Jews and 19,000 Poles/Soviet civilians). :rolleyes:

[WFHermans]

By extension, we can say the Battle of Gettysburg didn't happen because the battlefield is being guarded as an historical park by the U.S. Government, and they won't let people go digging around in it with shovels or bulldozers. Therefore, the government is hiding something, and we should doubt such a battle ever took place.If the US government would claim that the Confederates killed 1.1 million yankees at Gettysburg, and would lock up in jail everyone who didn't believe that, then the quoted example would be a reasonable analogy.

[eggheadbanga]

If the US government would claim that the Condfederates killed 1.1 million yankees at Gettysburg, and would lock up in jail everyone who didn't believe that, then the quoted example would be a reasonable analogy.

No. Read it again and don't be so selective in your quoting:

Originally Posted by Radek
What Dan means here is just because the Poles found it, it doesn't count at all, so he hopes we can just take his word for it that there is no evidence, since the Polish Government won't let people swarm over these sites with bulldozers and shovels every weekend.

By extension, we can say the Battle of Gettysburg didn't happen because the battlefield is being guarded as an historical park by the U.S. Government, and they won't let people go digging around in it with shovels or bulldozers. Therefore, the government is hiding something, and we should doubt such a battle ever took place.

This is an entirely valid analogy. People have made the same point regarding Boot Hill, Dresden and a myriad of other sites.

as for locking 'up in jail everyone who didn't believe that', you're perfectly entitled to believe what the hell you want, and not go to jail. You only might run into a few problems if your insistence on your beliefs is accompanied by politically problematic comments, in a handful of European countries.

[WFHermans]

It's not a valid analogy. It would be valid if there would be a claim that the Confederates murdered 1.1 million yankees at Gettysburg.

[eggheadbanga]

It's not a valid analogy. It would be valid if there would be a claim that the Confederates murdered 1.1 million yankees at Gettysburg.

nope, you're missing Radek's point, which referred to access to a historic site to engage in archaeology.

why 1.1 million anyway?

[WFHermans]

I thought that 1.1 miilion was the number du jour of the number of jews murdered at Auschwitz, but I don't keep track of it. I should, because expressing your belief in the wrong number will land you in jail in Europe.

No one is doubting there was a concentration camp at Auschwitz, neither does anyone doubt there was a battle at Gettysburg. But many people doubt there were 1.1 million people deliberately murdered at either of those places.

Another correct analogy: Suppose the US government made it impossible for people with confederate sympathies just to enter the battleground, whereas yankees could freely visit it.

[eggheadbanga]

I thought that 1.1 miilion was the number du jour of the number of jews murdered at Auschwitz, but I don't keep track of it. I should, because expressing your belief in the wrong number will land you in jail in Europe.QUOTE]

The thread above is about Treblinka, mainly. If you can bring yourself to read the debate, you'll see that the number of Jews who were murdered there is 800,000.

Plenty of people believe in a different number regarding Auschwitz without landing in jail. German historians Christian Gerlach and Goetz Aly proved it was no more than a million. The German journalist Fritjof Meyer claimed only half a million and all he suffered was being shouted at for engaging in ridiculously stupid mathematical exercises.

[QUOTE]No one is doubting there was a concentration camp at Auschwitz, neither does anyone doubt there was a battle at Gettysburg. But many people doubt there were 1.1 million people deliberately murdered at either of those places.

You can change 'many people' to 'the entire world' regarding Gettysburg.

So where did 1 million people go to, if they weren't murdered at Auschwitz?

Another correct analogy: Suppose the US government made it impossible for people with confederate sympathies just to enter the battleground, whereas yankees could freely visit it.

Oh, neo-Nazis can wander into all the camp memorials they like, they might however be ill-advised to turn up dressed in the ol' Hugo Boss-designed uniforms.

Anyway, the original point was about access to historic sites to conduct archaeology. Remember?

[WFHermans]

There's another seperate Treblinka (http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4520) thread. In the posts above I see Majdanek mentioned.

[achtung circus]

I thought that 1.1 miilion was the number du jour of the number of jews murdered at Auschwitz, but I don't keep track of it. I should, because expressing your belief in the wrong number will land you in jail in Europe.


Not true. The number is being fine tuned all the time by historical research.

No one is doubting there was a concentration camp at Auschwitz, neither does anyone doubt there was a battle at Gettysburg. But many people doubt there were 1.1 million people deliberately murdered at either of those places.

Yeah, right. Many doubt the exist of anything but a series of holiday camps established soley due to the magnamity of the Third Reich.

Another correct analogy: Suppose the US government made it impossible for people with confederate sympathies just to enter the battleground, whereas yankees could freely visit it.

Wrong. Almost anyone can visit either of these places. What they cannot do is waltz in with shovels and begin digging.

Those excluded from Auschwitz are not historians, but doctinaire believers in some alternative reality they seem unwilling to explain.

Where did the missing people go?? And no, "Jews went where Jews are" doesn't cut it.

[eggheadbanga]

There's another seperate Treblinka (http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4520) thread. In the posts above I see Majdanek mentioned.

Nope, look back at Radek's thread from which you copied and you'll see the context was Treblinka.

[WFHermans]

Yes, you're right. Better discuss the extermination camps seperately. I myself am an expert on exterminationcamp Wolzek.

I would like to know what the Holocaust is.
And then what a Holocaust Denier is.

A meaningful debate is only possible if we agree on the meaning of the terms. I am perfectly willing to accept the definitions of the Holocaust Believers and go from there.

[Basil Fawlty]

I myself am an expert on exterminationcamp Wolzek.Nice one. ;)

[cerberus]

Transit camp to where ?
A transit camp to death perhaps ?
WFH - no mirrors ?

[eggheadbanga]

Yes, you're right. Better discuss the extermination camps seperately. I myself am an expert on exterminationcamp Wolzek.

I would like to know what the Holocaust is.
And then what a Holocaust Denier is.

A meaningful debate is only possible if we agree on the meaning of the terms. I am perfectly willing to accept the definitions of the Holocaust Believers and go from there.

Let me ask you a question, WFHermans, since your previous posts show some dislike of Jews. Which of the following propositions most agrees with your views.

a) I don't like the Jews, and I'm glad the Nazis murdered so many of them in places like Auschwitz.

b) I don't like the Jews, and I'm glad the Nazis murdered so many of them, but I'll pretend that the Nazis didn't murder them at sites like Auschwitz because it'll annoy them further.

c) I don't like the Jews, and the Nazis never mass-murdered them in sites like Auschwitz at all.

d) I don't like the Jews, and I don't like this 'Holocaust' sob-story they insist on, therefore I doubt the story can be true.

e) something else.

You can take these as a starting-point for a debate. :D

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Posters here make sure we will never be able to debate anything with some objectivity with all that name calling. When all I see is fine ways to slander the other side it becomes just a waste of time even reading.

[achtung circus]

Posters here make sure we will never be able to debate anything with some objectivity with all that name calling. When all I see is fine ways to slander the other side it becomes just a waste of time even reading.

And this (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=53276&postcount=31)

Jews made telling the truth illegal.

Jesus was right, they are the sons of the devil.

Only a kike would ever dream to make it against the law to tell the truth.

is an example of a debate? No name calling there.

[WFHermans]

Source for claimed killing of 4 million jews at Auschwitz:

Nuremberg document 008-USSR. IMT blue series, Vol. 39, pp. 241, 261.; NC
and A red series, vol. 1, p. 35

C.L. Sulzberger, "Oswiecim Killings Placed at 4,000,000," New York Times, May 8, 1945, and, New York Times, Jan. 31, 1986

http://www.rense.com/general62/meth.htm

This means it is illegal in countries like France to publicly declare that 3,999,999 or less jews were killed at Auschwitz, because the "holocaust denial" laws there are based on the Nuremberg trial gospel.

[WFHermans]

I don't like the Jews, and the Nazis never mass-murdered them in sites like Auschwitz at all, unless it is illegal to say so.

[eggheadbanga]

I don't like the Jews, and the Nazis never mass-murdered them in sites like Auschwitz at all, unless it is illegal to say so.

Hey, WFHermans, thanks for answering my question.

[achtung circus]

Source for claimed killing of 4 million jews at Auschwitz:

Puhleez, not that old chestnut.

10. Fun With Math -- Charge the anti-revisionists with playing numbers games while engaging in them yourself. For example, argue that the "holohoaxers" have changed the estimated number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million. When it's pointed out to you that the 4 million figure was supplied by the Soviets and refers to the total number of victims, not just Jews, and has always been considered ridiculously inflated by non-Soviet historians who have never varied from the 1 million figure for Jews, just repeat that the holohaoxers have changed the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million and that the Holocaust is therefore a hoax.

How to be a Holocaust Scholar (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4666)

[eggheadbanga]

Source for claimed killing of 4 million jews at Auschwitz:

Nuremberg document 008-USSR. IMT blue series, Vol. 39, pp. 241, 261.; NC
and A red series, vol. 1, p. 35

C.L. Sulzberger, "Oswiecim Killings Placed at 4,000,000," New York Times, May 8, 1945, and, New York Times, Jan. 31, 1986

http://www.rense.com/general62/meth.htm

This means it is illegal in countries like France to publicly declare that 3,999,999 or less jews were killed at Auschwitz, because the "holocaust denial" laws there are based on the Nuremberg trial gospel.

what does it say in the judgement? That, as far as I understand it, is what the French law is based on.

[cerberus]

Source for claimed killing of 4 million jews at Auschwitz
Are you not glad for historical review which has been able to provide a revised figure.
Still when you hang a bastard like Kaltenbruner or Hoess for killing about 900,000 odd it does not change what murder was.

[WFHermans]

I don't know what numbers, if any, were mentioned in the judgement.

What are the minimum numbers we have to believe in and aren't allowed to doubt?

[eggheadbanga]

I don't know what numbers, if any, were mentioned in the judgement.

What are the minimum numbers we have to believe in and aren't allowed to doubt?

Doubt away. This is an internet forum, nobody's threatening you with jail here.

[WFHermans]

I wish the zionist governments of Europe would take the same position.

[cerberus]

Come to the Uk and speak all you want.

[cerberus]

Come to the Uk and speak all you want.
Numbers would you settle for one person ?

[WFHermans]

One murdered person is one too many.

However, one murdered person is not the same as 6,000,000 murdered persons.

[cerberus]

I agree one person too many , and all the others simply went on an extended holiday all expense paid for via the "Health through Joy" or whatever they called it .:rolleyes:
"Strength through Joy"

[cerberus]

Rule 7 , has a time limit been set ?

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I´m not even seeing "wait for my reply" type of posts...maybe Dan has conceded?

[Dan Dare]

Conceded what?

[Ambrosio Spinola]

The Treblinka thread? Is it over after Sulla replied?

[Dan Dare]

I thought we were still awaiting the concluding part of Sulla's magnum opus. It was my understanding that Basil would then be taking a turn.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Oh, I thought Sulla had finished...did not know that. Basil has been away for over a week now. Dunno...lets wait I guess.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I forgot to post that third part. Sorry. Posted.

[Basil Fawlty]

Oh, I thought Sulla had finished...did not know that. Basil has been away for over a week now. Dunno...lets wait I guess.I'm sorry about this, the last while has seen me much busier with real world stuff than I had anticipated. There is no light at the end of this particular tunnel for at least a fortnight so I can't see me making a susbtantial contribution to this debate for a while.

Btw, Rudolf Vrba has joined the great fabulators in the sky, aged 81.

[cerberus]

Btw, Rudolf Vrba has joined the great fabulators in the sky, aged 81.
I do trust that Mr. Faurrisson won't join him before he has time to look for the missing millions.:rolleyes:
(As he said he would).

[Basil Fawlty]

I do trust that Mr. Faurrisson won't join him before he has time to look for the missing millions.:rolleyes:
(As he said he would).What are you talking about?

[cerberus]

In the Zundel trial he was asked where the missing Jews had gone , in view of his assertion that they had not been gassed .
He asked that Jewish surivors give him details of their missing relatives and he would make attempts to trace them.
Speaks for itself.:rofl:
BTW Welcome back Basil .

[Basil Fawlty]

In the Zundel trial he was asked where the missing Jews had gone , in view of his assertion that they had not been gassed .
He asked that Jewish surivors give him details of their missing relatives and he would make attempts to trace them.
Speaks for itself.:rofl:
BTW Welcome back Basil .Would you mind providing a link to that. We only have your interpretation of it and that is hardly satisfactory.

[cerberus]

"Denying the Holocaust" - taken from the trial record.
Hope this will be satisfactory , unles it was made up or inserted later - you just can't trust the Jews.

[Basil Fawlty]

"Denying the Holocaust" - taken from the trial record.
Hope this will be satisfactory , unles it was made up or inserted later - you just can't trust the Jews.Its you I'm worried about.:p Now, how about providing a proper source for your claim?

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Is the formal Teblinka debate finished? I think it was your turn now Basil.

[Basil Fawlty]

Is the formal Teblinka debate finished? I think it was your turn now Basil.http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=71429&postcount=208

[cerberus]

Basil , watch what you do with that bloody gnome.
:p
From Lipstadt's " Denying the Holocaust- The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory".
Page 161.
"Faurisson who testified as a witness as an expert witness for the defense during the first trial, was asked by the Crown to explain the missing 6 million Jewish vistims of the Holocaust. Faurisson acknowledged that he did not know what happened to them but urged surivoring Jews to give him the names of family members they had lost so he could try and locate them."

When he admitts he did not know what happened them it does suggest that something did - he is after all "an expert witness".

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Ah well....Lets see if Dan is up to the task then. Real life is a bitch sometimes :p

[Hugh Jorgen]

Wow ...just got caught up here ... sure is good to see Basil win this debate despite the ganging of the Sullanistists. :jew:
Thanks buddy!

[cerberus]

Wow ...just got caught up here ... sure is good to see Basil win this debate despite the ganging of the Sullanistists.

As you can see Basil has not made any reply , as yet.
Sullanistists.
People can think for themselves and are not led by Sulla.

I think it fair to say that this debate is over. ( dated 25/05/06)

[Trojan]

Its a shame none of the newbies would be willing to take up the slack. Seven months and no movement.

[Kriger]

I would say it has to do with the fact that the debates are being conducted in the Revisionism forum.

[jimbo]

did this 'debate' ever actually get off the ground?

i went AFA pg 15 on the thread....but they still seemed to be arguing abt 'Rules of Engagement' :confused: ......lost interest after that!

whether or not 'the Holocaust' actually occurred is an important question because much of post-World War II history is clearly predicated on it.

the actual n° of jews purportedly killed is not really that large: when compared to the n° of White Russians killed in the USSR, the n° of Cambodians killed under Pol Pot, the n° of Chinese killed during the insane excesses of 'the Cultural Revolution', the n° of German civilians killed immediately after World War II or, even, the n° of Armenians killed during the so-called 'Armenian Genocide' 100 or so yrs ago....how-ever: the alleged deed has assumed an importance out of all proportion to its scope!

why is this so?

for me: and these are just some 'preliminary pointers', the major questions apropos the truth or falsity of the commonly accepted scenario are:

i/what is Zyklon B?

ii/is it possible to kill large n°s of people quickly with it?

iii/if so: how?

iv/how many jews were actually in the area(s) controlled by the Third Recih?

v/what evidence exists that, if there were several million jews in the German occupied territories, that they were actually transported to 'death camps'?

vi/what were and where were the death camps?

vii/if millions were killed in death camps: where are their bodies?

viii/if the bodies of millions were disposed of: how was this done?
(and: are the commonly accepted explanations for this feasible?)

ix/what documentary evidence exists to prove the official version of 'the Holocaust'?
(amongst the hundreds of tonnes of captured Third Reich documents)

x/how come the Allies were supposedly un-aware of the alleged events?
(weren't the British monitoring all secret German military communications: re: ENIGMA?)

...those are just some very 'rough' drafts of tentative queries...AFA 'court-room scenarios' go: the ideal reference, for me, would be: 'The Holocaust on Trial' by Robert Lenski, Reporter Press, 1989: basically a blow-by-blow account of the Ernst Zundel trial in Toronto, Canada, 1988.

for more scientific studies: i would also be referring to 'Dissecting the Holocaust' by Germar Rudolf....probably the most reliable reference re: the technical aspects of Holocaust 'revisionism'


(jimbo)

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q197/__jimbo__/Klasse11.jpg

[Kriger]

Hello, jimbo.

Go to the History>Historical Revisionism subforum. It's an on-going thing there.

:welcome:

[cerberus]

Off the ground- yes it got off the ground - the revisionists made no impression.

[Commander]

re; cerberus

What's your dog's name?

[Sulla the Dictator]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Blue"]did this 'debate' ever actually get off the ground?

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4511

[Trojan]

[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Blue"]

i/what is Zyklon B?

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

Zyklon B (IPA: [tsykloːn ˈbeː], also spelled Cyclon B) was the tradename of a cyanide-based insecticide notorious for its use by Nazi Germany to kill over one million people in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek during the Holocaust. It consisted of hydrocyanic acid (prussic acid), a stabilizer, and a warning odorant that were impregnated onto various substrates, typically small absorbent pellets, fiber discs, or diatomaceous earth. It was stored in airtight containers; when exposed to air, the substrates evolved gaseous hydrogen cyanide (HCN).

ii/is it possible to kill large n°s of people quickly with it?

Yes

iii/if so: how?

See OSHA PEL's

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/hydrogencyanide/recognition.html

"A recent study reports an estimated LC(50) in humans of 3,404 ppm for a 1-minute exposure; other sources report that 270 ppm is fatal after 6 to 8 minutes, 181 ppm after 10 minutes and 135 ppm after 30 minutes"

iv/how many jews were actually in the area(s) controlled by the Third Recih?

http://www.remember.org/wannsee.html

v/what evidence exists that, if there were several million jews in the German occupied territories, that they were actually transported to 'death camps'?

Tons

vi/what were and where were the death camps?

http://www.deathcamps.info/

vii/if millions were killed in death camps: where are their bodies?

Cremated

viii/if the bodies of millions were disposed of: how was this done?
(and: are the commonly accepted explanations for this feasible?)

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/03/carlo-mattogno-and-interrogations-of.html

ix/what documentary evidence exists to prove the official version of 'the Holocaust'?
(amongst the hundreds of tonnes of captured Third Reich documents)

hundreds of tonnes

x/how come the Allies were supposedly un-aware of the alleged events?
(weren't the British monitoring all secret German military communications: re: ENIGMA?)

long story - do some research

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q197/__jimbo__/Klasse11.jpg

You have plenty of reading to do ...

[Conservationist]

For WFHermans:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/images/graemlins/lolocaust.gif

[Stick to the Facts]

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4511

That debate simply ended abruptly with your post on 4-3-06. No winner was declared?

Is it OK to assume that if the revisionist side can't come up with a rebuttal by the 1 year anniversary, one month from today, that you and Donny win?

[Winston]

That wouldn't be a safe assumption, and besides, what does winning this achieve? This tedious subject just keeps going. It's got it's own sub-forum since this debate.

[Stick to the Facts]

That wouldn't be a safe assumption, and besides, what does winning this achieve? This tedious subject just keeps going. It's got it's own sub-forum since this debate.

Well, if it is not a safe assumption that failing to rebut Sulla's last post after a full year indicates a win, then what exactly does? You all have a month. Heck, an extension of time can be arranged if you want - one year is just a suggestion. Does anyone think a year is unreasonable? I'd just like someone to either acknowledge the victor or express an intent to follow up.

What does winning it achieve? Ask the people who wanted a debate in the first place, they evidently thought there was some significance.

The challenge was presented by a revisionist, BTW.

[Sulla the Dictator]

That debate simply ended abruptly with your post on 4-3-06. No winner was declared?

Is it OK to assume that if the revisionist side can't come up with a rebuttal by the 1 year anniversary, one month from today, that you and Donny win?

It was a safe assumption that we won at the 6 month mark. :D

[Sulla the Dictator]

That wouldn't be a safe assumption,


Sure it would be. This was a formal debate, with open challenges and acceptances, and one side taking part and the other quitting. This isn't one of those threads that goes on for months with hundreds of posts.

[cerberus]

Integ.
That wouldn't be a safe assumption, and besides, what does winning this achieve? This tedious subject just keeps going. It's got it's own sub-forum since this debate.
Winning achieves nothing simply because you can deny that you ever lost.
How often is the wheel going to have to be reinvented before some folks see it as being round.

[Empress Cheesatine]

For WFHermans:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/images/graemlins/lolocaust.gif

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c176/lagergeld/lollercaust.gif

[Rakhmetov]

I don't accept the interpretation that there was a genocide committed against Jews during World War II. The war unleashed by the fascists was a genocide against working men of all countries. While millions of Jews probably were killed, almost all of these Jews came from Russia and Poland where tens of millions of gentiles also suffered. The human toll in the 1941-45 period was an unprecendented catastrophe and it is disrespectful to disproportionatley focus on a few million Jews from Russia and Poland.

It should be worth noting that if the mainstream narrative is to believed then close to half of all dead Jews were killed in a conventional manner by the Einsatzgruppen. Just how was the massacre of Jews in Odessa so special? In Leningrad alone 1 million starved during the siege yet this is not nearly as well known as the "Holocaust".

What is bothersome is that when Croatians white wash Jasenovac, there is not an uproar about "Holocaust denial". Yet when the exact same is done towards Jews, there is hysterical international coverage.

[Sulla the Dictator]

LOL I've always been exasperated by the idiocy of Nazis, but the stupidity of Communists is beyond belief. Especially since the ideology rests on the pretention of 'intellectualism'.

What interest does a Communist have in denying the Holocaust? People like Basil or Hadding or Dan Dare atleast are trying to rehabilitate Nazism. Why does a Communist want to pretend the Nazis didn't kill millions of people? :rofl:

[Empress Cheesatine]

What is bothersome is that when Croatians white wash Jasenovac, there is not an uproar about "Holocaust denial". Yet when the exact same is done towards Jews, there is hysterical international coverage.

The answer isn't obvious?

BTW I think the alleged numbers of dead at Jasenovac are exaggerated, too. And if you're Serb I'd like to know if there are books there that say anything about German kidnappings of Serbian children to "Germanize" them.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The answer isn't obvious?


You mean, that people don't pay attention to whatever Croat denies certain massacres because Croatia is a very small place and Serbia only slightly larger?

I'm curious how the Marxist's argument works, too. He's mad because Russians don't get enough attention for their losses, having lost more people than Jews, and yet he wants Serbs to recieve more attention despite the fact that they lost far fewer people than Jews.

LOL I think its amusing that you think these Nazi atrocities need to be highlighted more, considering you claim to be the spawn of some sort of Nazi.

[Zubenelgenubi]

LOL I've always been exasperated by the idiocy of Nazis, but the stupidity of Communists is beyond belief. Especially since the ideology rests on the pretention of 'intellectualism'.

What interest does a Communist have in denying the Holocaust? People like Basil or Hadding or Dan Dare atleast are trying to rehabilitate Nazism. Why does a Communist want to pretend the Nazis didn't kill millions of people? :rofl:

I don't think Spark's reasons have to do with communism, but more to do with his vitriolic hatred for Jews, which goes beyond the usual Marxist response to the Jewish question. And which he openly discusses at every possible opportunity, so I'm not ADLing it up or anything.

[Rakhmetov]

and yet he wants Serbs to recieve more attention despite the fact that they lost far fewer people than Jews.

Proportionately Serbs in "Independent State of Croatia" suffered just as much as Jews of any country. Serbs were murdered in extermination camps yet no one has ever heard of the word Jasenovac. No one has heard of Pavelić.

What interest does a Communist have in denying the Holocaust?

I deny that the Holocaust has a place in the historiography of World War II but I don't deny that millions of Jews were killed.

Why does a Communist want to pretend the Nazis didn't kill millions of people?

Can you read? I never tried to deny that Nazis killed millions of people.

[eggheadbanga]

Proportionately Serbs in "Independent State of Croatia" suffered just as much as Jews of any country. Serbs were murdered in extermination camps yet no one has ever heard of the word Jasenovac. No one has heard of Pavelić.

You can say that 'proportionately', Poles in Volhynia suffered as much as Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina during WWII. That makes their suffering ethnic cleansing, not genocide. The Germans did the killing of Serbs in Serbia proper, not the Ustashe.

Jasenovac is well known thanks to the Yugoslav wars of the early 1990s.

Pavelic is also not unknown to anyone who reads a good book on WWII that is comprehensive about the whole of occupied/Axis Europe.

[Empress Cheesatine]

You can say that 'proportionately', Poles in Volhynia suffered as much as Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina during WWII. That makes their suffering ethnic cleansing, not genocide. The Germans did the killing of Serbs in Serbia proper, not the Ustashe.

Jasenovac is well known thanks to the Yugoslav wars of the early 1990s.

Pavelic is also not unknown to anyone who reads a good book on WWII that is comprehensive about the whole of occupied/Axis Europe.

Its known, but obviously in the west the focus in going to be on Jews, after all, Serbs aren't all over U.S. media like a cheap suit.

I've heard numbers regarding Jasenovac around 700,000 and I personally don't go for it. I consider wildly high numbers like that to be nothing but Red partisan propaganda.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Proportionately Serbs in "Independent State of Croatia" suffered just as much as Jews of any country. Serbs were murdered in extermination camps yet no one has ever heard of the word Jasenovac. No one has heard of Pavelić.


So is the idea that the Germans were trying to kill all the Serbs? Were these people killed for being Serbs or Soviet-allied Partisans?

[Ixtab]

So is the idea that the Germans were trying to kill all the Serbs? Were these people killed for being Serbs or Soviet-allied Partisans?Why are you always defending the Germans?

[Arrow Cross]

Why are you always defending the Germans?
Because her ancestors were German?


And why are you always defending the Jews?

Because your ancestors were...?

[UkraineTimbershewolf]

Because her ancestors were German?


And why are you always defending the Jews?

Because your ancestors were...?

Nice. :hitler:

[Kriger]

Germans have been demonized while others have been given sainthood status. Just as the Germans are not demons, so too the others are not saints.

[Empress Cheesatine]

You mean, that people don't pay attention to whatever Croat denies certain massacres because Croatia is a very small place and Serbia only slightly larger?

I'm curious how the Marxist's argument works, too. He's mad because Russians don't get enough attention for their losses, having lost more people than Jews, and yet he wants Serbs to recieve more attention despite the fact that they lost far fewer people than Jews.

LOL I think its amusing that you think these Nazi atrocities need to be highlighted more, considering you claim to be the spawn of some sort of Nazi.

MMmnnn no... I mean that the western media has many loud and influential Jewish voices and no Serbian ones so the story we are going to be given is going to contain a predictable ethnic bias, having no relation to history. Likewise, media in Serbia are obviously going to highlight and quite possibly offer inflated death tolls regarding Serbian losses in WWII, hence the topic of Jasenovac.

I dont know why you think that I believe Nazi atrocities should be "highlighted" more. I was referring to media spin based on the ethnic background of the journalists reporting the story and their country of origin. I am not a "spawn" of some sort of Nazi. My mother's oldest brother volunteered for the German military and died fighting somewhere inside the Soviet Union in 1942.