Treblinka Split

[Basil Fawlty]

Well I have to say you have been very busy. I find it remarkable that someone who has clearly put a lot of effort into this production has not, apparently, heard of the steam chamber allegations in respect of Treblinka. Most odd.

[Trojan]

Well I have to say you have been very busy. I find it remarkable that someone who has clearly put a lot of effort into this production has not, apparently, heard of the steam chamber allegations in respect of Treblinka. Most odd.

With all that in front of you all you can do is poke fun at a report that is no longer accepted? Piss poor performance thus far - is that the revisionist formal reply?

[Basil Fawlty]

With all that in front of you all you can do is poke fun at a report that is no longer accepted? Piss poor performance thus far - is that the revisionist formal reply?Oh come on now. So between 8.47 p.m and 9.39, one is supposed to have an equally detailed response ready?

I have acknowledged that a lot has gone into this and expressed surprise that he had not heard of the steam chambers of Treblinka. Trojan, I know you have heard of them.

[Dan Dare]

Well I have to say you have been very busy. I find it remarkable that someone who has clearly put a lot of effort into this production has not, apparently, heard of the steam chamber allegations in respect of Treblinka. Most odd.

Or the Friseursalon du Treblinka, conveniently located within your local gaschamber.

[Basil Fawlty]

Or the Friseursalon du Treblinka, conveniently located within your local gaschamber.Attended by that great artiste, Monsieur Bomba. Followed up by steam treatments and full body massage. After which the guests can enjoy a barbecue put on by master chef Herbert Floss whilst the post prandial entertainments consist of the remarkable spectacle of excavators performing a ballet which concludes with said machines giving a rousing set of Sieg Heils accompanied by many prosts with an assortment of complimentary schnapps and champagne. Then the guests were all sent on their merry way into Ostland.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Regardless of what I might think personally but this thread is great work and dedication. My hat off to you Potyondi for this.

Now I need Scott Smith here with his studies about how Diesel chambers could not have worked with that T-34 engine :D


Btw....There are some rules set up for posting on this section of the forum. Those rules are quite clear for anyone who wants to part take here. So....I would ask Basil and Dan to follow them too. There are enough Holocaust threads out there for such lowbrow comments IMHO.

[A. Radek]

Good work, Pot. Neither Dan nor Basil will have anything in the way of a response, of course, and will try to slip some sort of distortion and lie by.

Now I need Scott Smith here with his studies about how Diesel chambers could not have worked with that T-34 engine


I will be glad to lock Scott in a room and feed him some fumes from diesel engine of his choice, while you time how long it takes him to pass out. Have him name a time and place. It would better if we could fill a whole room up with deniers who really think nothing will happen.

[Basil Fawlty]

Regardless of what I might think personally but this thread is great work and dedication. My hat off to you Potyondi for this.

Now I need Scott Smith here with his studies about how Diesel chambers could not have worked with that T-34 engine :D


Btw....There are some rules set up for posting on this section of the forum. Those rules are quite clear for anyone who wants to part take here. So....I would ask Basil and Dan to follow them too. There are enough Holocaust threads out there for such lowbrow comments IMHO.O.k., I must admit I did not notice the subforum location when I posted initially.

Some questions for Fade, Ebu, or any other mod/facilitator of this debate:

What are the rules of this debate, who has agreed them and what is the proposition?

Last I heard Poty had unilaterally declared rules and stipulations. Of course that is totally unacceptable for obvious reasons. Could someone clarify the situation, s'il vous plait?

[Dan Dare]

Yes I have to agree with Basil on this, Potty earlier declined to agree to the proposed terms for the debate he was trying to launch, so I viewed his posting above as more of an extended monologue, which as such was fair game for pot shots and general amusement.

I hadn't noticed it was posted in the official "Formal Debates" forum which was surely not intended for such purposes.

[Kodos]

Yes I have to agree with Basil on this, Potty earlier declined to agree to the proposed terms for the debate he was trying to launch, so I viewed his posting above as more of an extended monologue, which as such was fair game for pot shots and general amusement.

Dan on a side not you are too smart to believe in this "they all died of typhus" er "they all went to Israel and the US" shit. Everyone but you on the entire fucking internet is a retarded humourless fanatic.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Well...regarding Rules and such...I will have to defer to Fade who began this great idea of the Debate forums. I thought you had already agreed on the basics.

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes I have to agree with Basil on this, Potty earlier declined to agree to the proposed terms for the debate he was trying to launch, so I viewed his posting above as more of an extended monologue, which as such was fair game for pot shots and general amusement.

I hadn't noticed it was posted in the official "Formal Debates" forum which was surely not intended for such purposes.That's a very good point. If Poty's latest contribution is not a submission in an mutually agreed format debate, then what is it? Without responses of the kind "pot shots and general amusement" and falling short of being a submission to a formal debate, it can only stand as a kind of frozen monument to Poty's great industry.

[Trojan]

Ok, what happened to the original post on this thread?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Well, if no native Phoranese will take up the gauntlet, I'll invite Scott Smith. :D

[Fade the Butcher]

I haven't been following the other thread. I figured that after a hundred something posts you guys would have decided on a basic framework.

[Fade the Butcher]

Can someone please give me a summary? What points are still in dispute about the format? The topic is Treblinka, right?

[Basil Fawlty]

Well, if no native Phoranese will take up the gauntlet, I'll invite Scott Smith. :DWhat gauntlet? There has been no agreement on format, rules etc. There's just a massive post by Poty the status of which is quite unclear.
By all means invite Scott Smith.

[cerberus]

Certainly a lot of effort has gone into a sound and well written presentation on Treblinka and the grim purpose it served , 713,000 people killed and their property taken by the servants of the Hitler Goverment.

I look forward to the reply , Fade I have a feeling you might be as well to post up the rules which will govern this debate - the initial reply was not to question Pot's content but to ask for clarification of rules.

Excellent ground work.

[Basil Fawlty]

Can someone please give me a summary? What points are still in dispute about the format? The topic is Treblinka, right?The topic is Treblinka but what is the proposition? What are the rules, format etc, etc?

[Fade the Butcher]

1) The topic of the debate. The Holocaust
2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue. Potyondi & Sulla, Dan Dare & Basil Fawlty
3) The scope of the debate. It would probably be a good idea to start with Treblinka, see how that goes, and then move onto other issues if all parties agree.
4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds. How about an initial submission from side followed by three rebuttals each?
5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first. In turns. Potyondi has already made his submission.
6) The maximum length of each statement. N/A
7) The time limit between statements. N/A
8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed. Use quotes only where they are essential; unlimited references.
9) The starting date of the debate. Today
10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe. Just keep things civil and academic; no chanting or ad hominem

[A. Radek]

Well, if no native Phoranese will take up the gauntlet, I'll invite Scott Smith. :D

It would be best. Dan is just a troll, and Basil is too stupid, and dimly knows it.

[Basil Fawlty]

There is no proposition - so its not a formal debate (in that sense) - and Poty's submission is marked as a 'provisional draft' so what are we supposed to be debating and will his piece be edited a la carte? Or will then each refuted point (and there will be many) be disowned as "merely provisional?"

So on those bases I will assume that Dan and I should just move in the wrecking crew and dismantle the article as per usual?

When it comes to holocaustianity the whole really is the sum of its parts.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Can someone please give me a summary? What points are still in dispute about the format? The topic is Treblinka, right?


Potyondi only established these rules:

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.

I assume they object, though I can't imagine to what.

[Sulla the Dictator]

There is no proposition - so its not a formal debate (in that sense) - and Poty's submission is marked as a 'provisional draft' so what are we supposed to be debating and will his piece be edited a la carte? Or will then each refuted point (and there will be many) be disowned as "merely provisional?"


Well, thats not really how the system is structured. One of you must make your poposition in your first post, rather than just attack Potyondi's post.

[Sulla the Dictator]

1) The topic of the debate. The Holocaust
2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue. Potyondi & Sulla, Dan Dare & Basil Fawlty
3) The scope of the debate. It would probably be a good idea to start with Treblinka, see how that goes, and then move onto other issues if all parties agree.
4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds. How about an initial submission from side followed by three rebuttals each?
5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first. In turns. Potyondi has already made his submission.
6) The maximum length of each statement. N/A
7) The time limit between statements. N/A
8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed. Use quotes only where they are essential; unlimited references.
9) The starting date of the debate. Today
10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe. Just keep things civil and academic; no chanting or ad hominem


These strike me as legitimate rules.

[Basil Fawlty]

Potyondi only established these rules:

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.

I assume they object, though I can't imagine to what.This has already been dealt with, as well you know. A disputant cannot dictate the rules and stipulate in this unilateral fashion.

[il ragno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator
Well, if no native Phoranese will take up the gauntlet, I'll invite Scott Smith.

It would be best. Dan is just a troll, and Basil is too stupid, and dimly knows it.

If Oberon isn't part of this debate, why is he allowed to poke his nose in and spit at selected particpants (as per usual)?

[Sulla the Dictator]

This has already been dealt with, as well you know. A disputant cannot dictate the rules and stipulate in this unilateral fashion.

Thats fine. But what about those rules do you object to?

[Fade the Butcher]

Is this unreasonable?

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

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.).

[Basil Fawlty]

Well, thats not really how the system is structured. One of you must make your poposition in your first post, rather than just attack Potyondi's post.No. The proposition is to be defended by one side and attacked by the other and it must be mutually agreeable as to what it is that we are all attacking/defending.

[Sulla the Dictator]

If Oberon isn't part of this debate, why is he allowed to poke his nose in and spit at selected particpants (as per usual)?

This split doesn't count as the debate thread. "Formal Debate Proposals" is just like any other topic.

[Sulla the Dictator]

No. The proposition is to be defended by one side and attacked by the other and it must be mutually agreeable as to what it is that we are all attacking/defending.

Actually, you're opening statement is AGAINST the proposition, not the post. My point is that your first post is not a 'rebuttal' of Potyondi's post, but a response to the proposition.

[Fade the Butcher]

Basil,

What additional rules do you propose? What proposition are you wanting to address?

[Basil Fawlty]

Actually, you're opening statement is AGAINST the proposition, not the post. My point is that your first post is not a 'rebuttal' of Potyondi's post, but a response to the proposition.But what is the proposition? I don't remember ever discussing this.


Fade has now suggested one which I will respond to shortly.

[Sulla the Dictator]

But what is the proposition? I don't remember ever discussing this.


Potyondi's proposition was that Treblinka was a death camp, one would assume. Hence "Treblinka" as the topic, as an aspect of the Holocaust.

[Dan Dare]

Sulla - look at it this way for a moment.

Let's assume a debate is proposed on the motion that "It is desirable that Turkey should be admitted as a full member of the EU".

Now the two sides in the debate assemble to defend or attack the motion. In order for the attacking side to prevail it is sufficient for them merely to convince a majority of the audience (or judges) that the defenders have failed to make their case. It is not incumbent upon the attackers to construct an alternative political solution for Turkey's economic and social problems.

This is why Potty's insistence that the revisionists describe an alternative universe in which the Jews of Treblinka lived happily after is not in accord with the customary rules of debating.

[Basil Fawlty]

Basil,

What additional rules do you propose? What proposition are you wanting to address?I would suggest something along the lines that Dan and the others were considering a few days back, something specific, along the lines of "This house believes that 800,000 Jews (figure to be settled by the proponents) were done to death in Treblinka in gas chambers and other means"

The rules would follow from this:
Announcment of the propostion
Opening post arguing for the proposition
Rebuttal of the proposition
Rebuttal of the rebuttal and so on for a fixed number of exchanges.
Items on your list a few posts back could be incorporated into the rules by mutual agreement of all active parties.

Exclusion of non-discusants from the debate thread, especially one obnoxious little rodent who will remain nameless. He can spit to his heart's content from the sidelines.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Sulla - look at it this way for a moment.

Let's assume a debate is proposed on the motion that "It is desirable that Turkey should be admitted as a full member of the EU".

Now the two sides in the debate assemble to defend or attack the motion. In order for the attacking side to prevail it is sufficient for them merely to convince a majority of the audience (or judges) that the defenders have failed to make their case. It is not incumbent upon the attackers to construct an alternative political solution for Turkey's economic and social problems.

No, its not. But it IS the attackers responsibility to state the alternative for the EU, which is in this example to disalow Turkey from becoming a full member of the EU and defend that position. Those against the proposition must make position statement, not simply rebutt the position statement of his opposition. Thats what your rebuttal statement is for.

[Ahknaton]

I propose a formal debate to establish the formal debating rules.

[Basil Fawlty]

Potyondi's proposition was that Treblinka was a death camp, one would assume. Hence "Treblinka" as the topic, as an aspect of the Holocaust.Great, now we are getting somewhere. So now you guys should formulate that more specifically, like time-frame, methods, numbers and the like, whatever. You see 'death camp' alone is a bit slippery. Someone might say that people who died whilst working in the quarries as focred labour etc could be considered as having been murdered (i.e. worked to death) which may indeed be a valid argument if the evidence supports such a contention but does not express the essence of Treblinka according to the believer account.

On that view Treblinka (T-II) was a camp, the sole purpose of which, was to do to death Jews who were sent there. This was done by diesel fumes from engines and in numbers (I leave that up to you to decide). That in short is the believer position, yes?

[cerberus]

Exclusion of non-discusants from the debate thread, especially one obnoxious little rodent who will remain nameless. He can spit to his heart's content from the sidelines
Now Basil , do I get paranoid at this point or do I not.:rofl:
You may as well think it as say it.

[Basil Fawlty]

No, its not. But it IS the attackers responsibility to state the alternative for the EU, which is in this example to disalow Turkey from becoming a full member of the EU and defend that position. Those against the proposition must make position statement, not simply rebutt the position statement of his opposition. Thats what your rebuttal statement is for.No, no, no. Have you ever been in a formal debate? That's not how it goes at all. All th opposition are obliged to do is argue against the proposition.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Great, now we are getting somewhere. So now you guys should formulate that more specifically, like time-frame, methods, numbers and the like, whatever. You see 'death camp' alone is a bit slippery. Someone might say that people who died whilst working in the quarries as focred labour etc could be considered as having been murdered (i.e. worked to death) which may indeed be a valid argument if the evidence supports such a contention but does not express the essence of Treblinka according to the believer account.


Potyondi said:

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.


That counter proposal is a part of parliamentary debate format in any case.

[il ragno]

I just finished reading Poty's post there and I suspect this was a school paper or treatise, but it's a thorny item to build a debate from. For one thing, in fairness you'd have to allow Dan/Basil at least two weeks to assemble and present similarly researched and annotated responses. I mean, it doesnt seem like a debate when only one side has maps, photos and a hundred footnotes bolstering its argument.

For another, it's odd in that Poty has fired all his bullets in his opening 'argument'. If he's challenged on the reliability of one aspect of his data, what can he do to 'respond', except to repeat/restate?

If this is going to be a honest debate, it should be tabled until Dan and/or Basil have completed crafting opposing arguments they're satisfied with - given the sheer mixed-media tonnage of Poty's 'assertion' (lol), I'd say that should be two weeks minimum, if not longer.

[Basil Fawlty]

Now Basil , do I get paranoid at this point or do I not.:rofl:
You may as well think it as say it.Heavens no! I would never dream of calling you a rodent. No, you're a Brit bollox! :p :D

[Sulla the Dictator]

No, no, no. Have you ever been in a formal debate?


Yes. Defending genocide, in fact. :p


That's not how it goes at all. All th opposition are obliged to do is argue against the proposition.

Apparently there are different rules between college, formal debating societies, as well as British, and American. We had to make a statement of fact, even in opposing the proposition. In this case, that would be "Treblinka was a (blank), not a (blank)."

In your case, your opening statement would defend the blank you endorse, attack the blank you oppose. Then begins the rebuttal to the previous statements.

[Trojan]

For educational benefits - Rodoh had a similar debate regarding

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23

"Resolved, at Auschwitz/Birkenau between 1941 and 1944, a) people were killed in homicidal gas chambers employing Zyklon B, and b) this killing claimed hundreds of thousands of victims."

You need an impartial moderator(s) - or atleast an equal amount of moderators from either side.

I'd suggest that a seperate thread be created for "viewing public" comments. You may want to expand the teams, this tends to start of well, but can get tedious once the fighting breaks out (and there will be fighting).

[Basil Fawlty]

Potyondi said:

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."Wow! 100% difference. Oh well, what ever you like.

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.No, this is completely irregular. The proposition is contained in 1., our task is to argue against it. Now it may be that we might propose alternative explanatory hypotheses but are not obliged to. If not, you may make something of that in your rebuttals, people might be impressed by that and vote for your side.

We would argue (assuming Dan is agreeable to this; I don't wish to speak for him or to give the impression that I am) that the evidence advanced for T-II as an extermination facility cannot stand up to critical scrutiny. Our burden is to show in detail why this is the case by carrying out the critique (not a burden really).

That counter proposal is a part of parliamentary debate format in any case.Never heard of it (one side stipulating what the other must prove) and never came across it any formal debate I've ever been involved with.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The proposition team must affirm the resolution by presenting and defending a sufficient case for that resolution. The opposition team must oppose the resolution and/or the proposition team’s case. If, at the end of the debate, the judge believes that the proposition team has supported and successfully defended the resolution, they will be declared the winner, otherwise the opposition will be declared the winner.

When they say that the opposition team must oppose the resolution they mean oppose the proposition that "Turkey be made a full member of the EU", not the proposition's argument. Hence:

Format of the debate
First Proposition Constructive: 7 minutes
First Opposition Constructive: 8 minutes
Second Proposition Constructive: 8 minutes
Second Opposition Constructive: 8 minutes
Opposition Rebuttal: 4 minutes
Proposition Rebuttal: 5 minutes


http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/npdarules.html

[Basil Fawlty]

For educational benefits - Rodoh had a similar debate regarding

http://p102.ezboard.com/frodohforumfrm23

"Resolved, at Auschwitz/Birkenau between 1941 and 1944, a) people were killed in homicidal gas chambers employing Zyklon B, and b) this killing claimed hundreds of thousands of victims."

You need an impartial moderator(s) - or atleast an equal amount of moderators from either side.

I'd suggest that a seperate thread be created for "viewing public" comments. You may want to expand the teams, this tends to start of well, but can get tedious once the fighting breaks out (and there will be fighting).These are good suggestions, I especially like the specificity of the proposition.

[Sulla the Dictator]

The duty of the opposition is to provide clash, promoting a choice between the proposal advanced by the proposition team and some other course of action or position. The Opposition should make clear why the motion before the house should be defeated.

http://debate.uvm.edu/meanyparli.html

[Basil Fawlty]

Yes. Defending genocide, in fact. :pReally? How did that go?
Apparently there are different rules between college, formal debating societies, as well as British, and American. We had to make a statement of fact, even in opposing the proposition. In this case, that would be "Treblinka was a (blank), not a (blank)."

In your case, your opening statement would defend the blank you endorse, attack the blank you oppose. Then begins the rebuttal to the previous statements.I don't see where the debate is then, its just two groups arguing across each other. Even the RODOH A-B debate takes the format I have suggested.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Really? How did that go?


I won, actually, by dropping the bomb that the Bosnians, Croats and Albanians were Nazi sympathizers. :p


I don't see where the debate is then, its just two groups arguing across each other. Even the RODOH A-B debate takes the format I have suggested.

The debate comes in the rebuttal after the proposition/opposition resolution. In Dan's example, you don't think that your opposition to the resolution requires you to say WHY you think Turkey shouldn't be allowed into the EU?

[Basil Fawlty]

I won, actually, by dropping the bomb that the Bosnians, Croats and Albanians were Nazi sympathizers. :pHaha! This is somewhat akin (not quite, really) to what Leo Strauss called the reductio ad Hitlerum argument.



The debate comes in the rebuttal after the proposition/opposition resolution. In Dan's example, you don't think that your opposition to the resolution requires you to say WHY you think Turkey shouldn't be allowed into the EU?Og of course you would have to argue that but Dan's point by analogy was different; "It is not incumbent upon the attackers to construct an alternative political solution for Turkey's economic and social problems."

[Trojan]

Well, if no native Phoranese will take up the gauntlet, I'll invite Scott Smith. :D

I don't know if Scott will have the time, he's pretty dedicated to RODOH (its his forum, more or less).

Jetblast would most likely take up the gauntlet, but he's not much on substance.

[cerberus]

you're a Brit bollox!
A " well intentioned one" I trust.:)

[Basil Fawlty]

A " well intentioned one" I trust.:)Most of the time, except when the discussion swings around to the period 1939-45. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

Haha! This is somewhat akin (not quite, really) to what Leo Strauss called the reductio ad Hitlerum argument.


Somewhat. Though since its one of the more obscure arguments given by the Serbs, not really. :p


Og of course you would have to argue that but Dan's point by analogy was different; "It is not incumbent upon the attackers to construct an alternative political solution for Turkey's economic and social problems."

Becaus Turkey is a secondary issue, while the EU and who it admits is the primary issue. Your job in your statement is to expand on your position, that the EU should not allow Turkey to enter. You elaborate on why, why it would hurt the EU, and if you choose, Turkey. If you criticize the proposition without an alternative, the house has little choice but to approve of it.

[Dan Dare]

I just finished reading Poty's post there and I suspect this was a school paper or treatise, but it's a thorny item to build a debate from. For one thing, in fairness you'd have to allow Dan/Basil at least two weeks to assemble and present similarly researched and annotated responses. I mean, it doesnt seem like a debate when only one side has maps, photos and a hundred footnotes bolstering its argument.

Well actually Potty has been buffing and polishing his thesis for rather longer than two weeks, in fact close to three years or perhaps longer as a quick dekko on the Axis History Forum will confirm.

Nevertheless, I don't think that more than a few days should be necessary to build an opposing case, as long as he is not permitted to trundle the goalposts back and forth once we get underway.

I think the key thing is to have a succinct and understandable proposition that encapsulates the case being presented, and that no unreasonable demands are made on the opponents to construct alternative scenarios out of thin air.

[Kodos]

and that no unreasonable demands are made on the opponents to construct alternative scenarios out of thin air.

Why is constructing and establishing an alternative scenario as the most likely explanation unreasonable?

[Dan Dare]

Because very little historiography exists on the alternative scenarios.

That is not to say there are not plausible alternative scenarios that might indeed be touched upon in the course of the debate, but the fact remains that revisionists have not had the same opportunity for archival access nor accorded facilities to conduct site-specific research as have historians who have aligned themselves with the standard account.

It can't have escaped your notice that many prominent revisionists are either in exile, awaiting trial, or already in jail.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Because very little historiography exists on the alternative scenarios.


Which coincides with the fact that the Holocaust happened. :rolleyes:


It can't have escaped your notice that many prominent revisionists are either in exile, awaiting trial, or already in jail.

That happens a lot in the United States. :rolleyes:

[Dan Dare]

...That happens a lot in the United States. :rolleyes:

There are only a few revisionists of note presently active in the United States.

[Donny the Punk]

Well I have to say you have been very busy. I find it remarkable that someone who has clearly put a lot of effort into this production has not, apparently, heard of the steam chamber allegations in respect of Treblinka. Most odd.
I thought it was vacuum chambers. :confused:
There is no proposition - so its not a formal debate (in that sense) - and Poty's submission is marked as a 'provisional draft' so what are we supposed to be debating and will his piece be edited a la carte? Or will then each refuted point (and there will be many) be disowned as "merely provisional?"
I put that there because I'm not satisfied with its completion (a set of documents I was expecting today got derailed and won't arrive for another week at least). Another part of it has to do with formatting, sentence structure, etc. Regardless, I have confidence in all the assertions I've made and won't change a single word of it - you can check for yourself that it won't have been edited. I have no qualms, however, about adding to or embellishing aspects of what I've written should I learn something new.

1) The topic of the debate. The Holocaust
2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue. Potyondi & Sulla, Dan Dare & Basil Fawlty
3) The scope of the debate. It would probably be a good idea to start with Treblinka, see how that goes, and then move onto other issues if all parties agree.
4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds. How about an initial submission from side followed by three rebuttals each?
5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first. In turns. Potyondi has already made his submission.
6) The maximum length of each statement. N/A
7) The time limit between statements. N/A
8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed. Use quotes only where they are essential; unlimited references.
9) The starting date of the debate. Today
10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe. Just keep things civil and academic; no chanting or ad hominem

[...]

Is this unreasonable?

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

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.).
Very fine, all round, and more or less what I was saying before anyway.

This is why Potty's insistence that the revisionists describe an alternative universe in which the Jews of Treblinka lived happily after is not in accord with the customary rules of debating.
I insisted upon no such thing. I simply stated that it was par for the course in a historical debate to give some explanation for a historical event; otherwise, there's no point. This is a truism and I don't see why you're still moaning about it. You can say whatever you want about what happened at Treblinka.

I just finished reading Poty's post there and I suspect this was a school paper or treatise, but it's a thorny item to build a debate from.
It's standard form, and I haven't been in school since last April. :p

For one thing, in fairness you'd have to allow Dan/Basil at least two weeks to assemble and present similarly researched and annotated responses. I mean, it doesnt seem like a debate when only one side has maps, photos and a hundred footnotes bolstering its argument.
Much of the point of making a giant list of footnotes was to give everyone access to the same resourses I used. This is sounding like "It's not fair that the other side knows what it's talking about :(."
For another, it's odd in that Poty has fired all his bullets in his opening 'argument'. If he's challenged on the reliability of one aspect of his data, what can he do to 'respond', except to repeat/restate?
I have nothing to gain from concealing arguments or sources when everything I've written is ecumenical to begin with. That's how the truth works.

Well actually Potty has been buffing and polishing his thesis for rather longer than two weeks, in fact close to three years or perhaps longer as a quick dekko on the Axis History Forum will confirm.
Research off and on for the last week and two days of writing did it. What little knowledge I had about Treblinka two years ago is reflected in the space it occupies in the footnotes.
Nevertheless, I don't think that more than a few days should be necessary to build an opposing case, as long as he is not permitted to trundle the goalposts back and forth once we get underway.
What a spiteful assumption. What would make you think I'd do such a thing? I'm the only one in this debate demonstrating any willingness to commit to a position, after all.


I think the key thing is to have a succinct and understandable proposition that encapsulates the case being presented, and that no unreasonable demands are made on the opponents to construct alternative scenarios out of thin air.
We're only asking you to construct scenarios out of the evidence at hand. This is unreasonable... how? That you worry so much about the former tells me that you fear your inability to do either.

[il ragno]

That's how the truth works.


Believe it or not I didn't have a dog in this fight, but your insufferable donning of the Raiments of Righteousness just nudged me into a rooting interest. The way the truth works is you can knock it off in two days. Hmm. I never knew that.

Go Dan and Basil!

[Dan Dare]

Sorry Mrs. Dare has just sounded the gong for Tiffin.

Cauliflower cheese and bacon. Yummy!

Catch you later.

[Donny the Punk]

Believe it or not I didn't have a dog in this fight, but your insufferable donning of the Raiments of Righteousness just nudged me into a rooting interest. The way the truth works is you can knock it off in two days. Hmm. I never knew that.

Go Dan and Basil!
Your solipsism may win you fans in the lounge, but in this arena smart mouths don't count for much. :) And yes, the truth works via full disclosure; spin it however you like, with as many obscure allusions to 1970s American pop culture as you want, nothing changes the fact. Enjoy the accompanying rep points which are sure to come from your daring stand for Basil 'vacuum chamber' Fawlty and Dan 'nothing-happened-in-1942' Dare. :p

[il ragno]

Your solipsism may win you fans in the lounge, but in this arena, smart mouths don't count for much. And yes, the truth works via full disclosure; spin it however you like, with as many obscure allusions to 1970s American pop culture as you want, nothing changes the fact. Enjoy the accompanying rep points which are sure to come from your daring stand for Basil 'vacuum chamber' Fawlty and Dan 'nothing-happened-in-1942' Dare.

You're actually seething with resentment. Christ Almighty, look at that paragraph! That dank, rat-negotiating-a-maze, information-cataloguing 'Canadian intellectual' brain of yours has just been burning with fevered animosity towards me for a long time, huh? And what's more berserk is, you actually believe it's resentment for an inferior. Hilarious. You actually believe your Grave Sense of Purpose trumps my Mere Glibness. Scratch an anti-Nazi, find an alternative Nazi, I guess. I'll surely keep an eye out for that statue of you from the window of my tin-roofed shack, my friend.

Now.

Just for the record, I pointed out that if you're going to present an end-of-term paper for your opening argument - complete with maps, graphs, photos and dozens of footnotes - the only fair way for this to proceed would be to give Dan and Basil adequate time to craft their responses in kind. Uh, wait a minute: Laverne and Shirley. There. (My solipsism just don't run right without genuine obscure 70s pop-culture allusions, as you well know.) Wherein did I speak wrong by saying that?

You will note I ask you this here - where the fine, single-malt minds are fermenting in elegant segregation from the Lounge, which is unworthy of your electrifying thought synapses.

[Donny the Punk]

Seething with mirth, more like. :p If I took myself as seriously as you expect to be, I, too, would be writing paragraphs of strongly worded caustic complete with sanctimonious italics whenever I got my hackles up from a little gentle ribbing. :p

Now.

Just for the record, what I wrote was compiled almost exclusively in the past week or so. I have no problem with giving Dan whatever time he wants to take to reply; make it a month, if he needs it. My only condition was that he actually say something concerning the events at Treblinka, to which he has so far refused to commit.

[il ragno]

Italics, however they may irk you, are clearly the Thinking Man's choice over multiple use of haw-haw smileys.

Where do you think you are, anyway...the Lounge?

And don't bother making it 'mirth' now; that was a snarl, not a smile.

[Donny the Punk]

http://home.comcast.net/~k_laster/orly.jpeg

[il ragno]

Ah, yes. Well, you warned me that smart-mouthing would avail me not here in the Fortress of Powerful Minds, but I didn't realize it was because you're pre-verbal.

But I'm keeping you from your appointed rounds. Surely you have more postwar confessions kicked out of captured Nazi officers to catalogue as 'proof'...don't let me keep you.

[Donny the Punk]

My my, what partisan perspectives you have grandma, especially for someone with no dog in this fight. ;) But we could hardly have expected anything less. All it takes with you types is to get your blood up a little and you'll tell all, no matter who's listening. Your inability to handle the issues never seems to stop you from commenting on them, though; why is that? :D

[il ragno]

My my, what partisan perspectives you have grandma, especially for someone with no dog in this fight.

I didn't. Until you began your moral posturing early.

I'm not a it-never-happened'er, I'm more of a they-had-it-coming'er.:222:

Your inability to handle the issues never seems to stop you from commenting on them, though; why is that?

There's an issue here? Where? Which one? "Treblinka was an honest-to-goodness death camp, so help me God"? I think that's a generally-accepted notion, whether correct or not, but anyway somebody already beat you to that claim, Sparky.

The last time I looked, no "issue" had yet been ultimately determined on the outcome of an Internet debate, but perhaps, given your keen depth of perception and your black belt in Smiley Fu, you'll set that elusive precedent in this upcoming battle royal.

[Donny the Punk]

While you were spending the better part of an hour grasping for lacklustre material to bash me over the head with, I was 'making my appointed rounds' of watching movies and eating ice cream; I think you need to reevaluate the way you're spending your nights. :p And all the while, Nazis and their sympathisers are taking advantage of the distraction your soapbox shenanigans provide to shy away from agreeing to any kind of meaningful discourse.

If you were here, I'd still put my spare change in your hat, though. :D

[il ragno]

While you were spending the better part of an hour grasping for lacklustre material to bash me over the head with, I was 'making my appointed rounds' of watching movies and eating ice cream; I think you need to reevaluate the way you're spending your nights.

The day it takes me longer than 30 seconds to decide what to bash you over the head with will dawn only during the reign of Queen Dick.

And superintellects like yourself, who spend a week composing monographs on death-camps for the purpose of vanquishing Internet foes in Internet debates, ought not lecture others on finding better use of their free time.

And all the while, Nazis and their sympathisers are taking advantage of the distraction your soapbox shenanigans provide to shy away from agreeing to any kind of meaningful discourse.

Yeah, whole provinces in Paraguay and Argentina are even now looking the other way and pretending they don't fear your footnotes. Sorry about that, Chief!

You called out Dan Dare and Basil Fawlty, and I feel confident they will answer your challenge in time. But nice try anyway - attacking me from your first appearance here and crying foul at the same time. Multiculturalism certainly has a valiant champion in you.

[Donny the Punk]

The day it takes me longer than 30 seconds to decide what to bash you over the head with will dawn only during the reign of Queen Dick.
I'm sure that made sense to someone. :confused:

And superintellects like yourself, who spend a week composing monographs on death-camps for the purpose of vanquishing Internet foes in Internet debates, ought not lecture others on finding better use of their free time.

Ah well. We can't all be futile old men blaming 'the Jooz' for our problems to a bunch of starry-eyed teenage sycophants all day long, glorious as it is. When some of us turn a phrase, we're determined to give it purpose. ;)


Yeah, whole provinces in Paraguay and Argentina are even now looking the other way and pretending they don't fear your footnotes. Sorry about that, Chief!
No problem, Skipper! All the good ones got a short drop and a quick stop ages ago, though. Now all we have to deal with is this internet refuse.

You called out Dan Dare and Basil Fawlty, and I feel confident they will answer your challenge in time. But nice try anyway - attacking me from your first appearance here and crying foul at the same time.
As I recall, you didn't show up on my radar until one of il ragno's trademark hollow quips ("thank you, thank you, that'll be twenty-five cents, thanks folks") about Canadian intellectuals reared its ugly head in my thread about German wiggers. :confused:

Multiculturalism certainly has a valiant champion in you.
This has what to do with multiculturalism, now? :p Best to quit while you're ahead, friend, though I can see that failing to get the last word in accompanied by a dash of the cape and mischevious but knowing waggle of the eyebrow (with one eye on the audience the whole time) simply galls you. Galls you to the point of italics, Christ Almighty. Simply tragic. :( Oops, was that more 'smiley fu'?

Happily, being the blithe and imperturbable sort that I am, I can play this game all night. :D Tell me, ragno, does it ache to wear a smirk all day long? :P

[il ragno]

Ah well. We can't all be futile old men blaming 'the Jooz' for our problems to a bunch of starry-eyed teenage sycophants all day long, glorious as it is.

True. Some of us have to make do with being futile young men blaming dead Nazis for all our problems.

When some of us turn a phrase, we're determined to give it purpose.

You be sure to alert the media the first time you do so.

As I recall, you didn't show up on my radar until one of il ragno's trademark hollow quips (thank you, thank you, that'll be twenty-five cents, thanks folks) about Canadian intellectuals reared its ugly head.

You're one up on me then - you have yet to show up on my radar. And if it weren't for your simultaneously tossing doo-doo at me while whining about the tone of this thread declining, I'd've forgotten you already.

Best to quit while you're ahead, friend, though I can see that failing to get the last word in accompanied by a dash of the cape and mischevious but knowing waggle of the eyebrow (with one eye on the audience the whole time) simply galls you. Galls you to the point of italics.

Well, according to you I'm not ahead, so I think I'll stick it out.

Happily, being the blithe and imperturbable sort that I am, I can play this game all night. Tell me, ragno, does it ache to wear a smirk all day long?

Listen, I'm not smirking: seriously, I think it sucks that you don't have any friends.

[Dan Dare]

My word that were scrumptious!

So have we made any forward progress recently? It would appear not, so let’s attempt to put this all to bed with a devastatingly simple plan.

The motion – That Treblinka was a purpose-built extermination centre, at which the Nazis murdered over 800,000 Jews principally through poisoning with the exhaust from diesel motors.

For the motion (the proposing team) – Sulla and Potty

Against the motion (the opposing team) – Basil and Dan

The adjudicators – four judges, one chosen by each particpant

The moderator – Fade the Butcher, who shall also have the casting vote

The format:

- A member of the proposing team shall state the case for the motion

- A member of the opposing team shall state the case against the motion

- A member of the proposing team shall rebut the opposing team’s opening statement

- A member of the opposing team shall rebut the proposing team’s opening statement

- A member of the proposing team shall sum up for the motion

- A member of the opposing team shall sum up against the motion

The adjudicators shall adjudicate, following which all participants shall repair to the bar for a good old piss-up!

Now what could be fairer than that?

[Donny the Punk]

True. Some of us have to make do with being futile young men blaming dead Nazis for all our problems.
I have no problems, save how to spend tomorrow's paycheque and whether I should get up to grab more food from the kitchen. :p When you uncover evidence for the international conspiracy of hanged and suicided Nazis which controls my government and all the world's corporations, do let me know. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising though. Nazis invented National Socialism so they could destroy it, thereby leaving whites to ivory tower college campus socialism and evil multiculturalism, the extremes of which aroused them sufficiently that they could easily implement their FINAL PHASE OF TERROR AKA GLENN MILLER. :rofl:

You're one up on me then - you have yet to show up on my radar. And if it weren't for your simultaneously tossing doo-doo at me while whining about the tone of this thread declining, I'd've forgotten you already.

Look out, il rango, you'll burn your fingers typing blistering retorts like this one all night long!

Listen, I'm not smirking: seriously, I think it sucks that you don't have any friends.
No, not smirking anymore, just smiling through broken teeth.

[il ragno]

Go, Champion of Justice: the shades of 800,000 toes-up Talmudists are counting on you.

[Donny the Punk]

My word that were scrumptious!

So have we made any forward progress recently? It would appear not, so let’s attempt to put this all to bed with a devastatingly simple plan.

The motion – That Treblinka was a purpose-built extermination centre, at which the Nazis murdered over 800,000 Jews principally through poisoning with the exhaust from diesel motors.

For the motion (the proposing team) – Sulla and Potty

Against the motion (the opposing team) – Basil and Dan

The adjudicators – four judges, one chosen by each particpant

The moderator – Fade the Butcher, who shall also have the casting vote

The format:

- A member of the proposing team shall state the case for the motion

- A member of the opposing team shall state the case against the motion

- A member of the proposing team shall rebut the opposing team’s opening statement

- A member of the opposing team shall rebut the proposing team’s opening statement

- A member of the proposing team shall sum up for the motion

- A member of the opposing team shall sum up against the motion

The adjudicators shall adjudicate, following which all participants shall repair to the bar for a good old piss-up!

Now what could be fairer than that?

Seems very fine to me (if a bit short), with one question: I hope that "A member of the opposing team shall state the case against the motion" will contain some assertive exposition regarding what happened, if not the motion. Is that the case?

[Sulla the Dictator]

My word that were scrumptious!

So have we made any forward progress recently? It would appear not, so let’s attempt to put this all to bed with a devastatingly simple plan.

The motion – That Treblinka was a purpose-built extermination centre, at which the Nazis murdered over 800,000 Jews principally through poisoning with the exhaust from diesel motors.

For the motion (the proposing team) – Sulla and Potty

Against the motion (the opposing team) – Basil and Dan

The adjudicators – four judges, one chosen by each particpant

The moderator – Fade the Butcher, who shall also have the casting vote

The format:

- A member of the proposing team shall state the case for the motion

- A member of the opposing team shall state the case against the motion

- A member of the proposing team shall rebut the opposing team’s opening statement

- A member of the opposing team shall rebut the proposing team’s opening statement

- A member of the proposing team shall sum up for the motion

- A member of the opposing team shall sum up against the motion

The adjudicators shall adjudicate, following which all participants shall repair to the bar for a good old piss-up!

Now what could be fairer than that?

I find this acceptable, with the revision that "The Nazi's slaughtered over 700,000".

[Sulla the Dictator]

Seems very fine to me (if a bit short), with one question: I hope that "A member of the opposing team shall state the case against the motion" will contain some assertive exposition regarding what happened, if not the motion. Is that the case?

If it doesn't then the proposition must be accepted before the House because its the ONLY statement. Unless, of course, their opposition to the motion includes a denial of the existance of Treblinka, period. :p

[Dan Dare]

Seems very fine to me (if a bit short), with one question: I hope that "A member of the opposing team shall state the case against the motion" will contain some assertive exposition regarding what happened, if not the motion. Is that the case?

It's not quite clear why the proposing team should need to have an involvement in constructing the opposing team's argument. Could you please expound on the rationale for this?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Potyondi, get on Yahoo. :p

[Dan Dare]

Potty - I meant to add that if you feel another round is called for, I would have no objection to that.

BTW, of course all of this is subject to Basil's ratification when he comes back on line.

[Donny the Punk]

It's not quite clear why the proposing team should need to have an involvement in constructing the opposing team's argument. Could you please expound on the rationale for this?
Sulla nailed it. Because this is not a matter of opinion, i.e. 'yes or no, should abortion be illegal.' It's a historical inquiry, which necessitates active exegesis. I don't care what you say about Treblinka, so long as it's something to do with what happened there. To deny any and every history is not a tenable position.

As for aught else, I nominate Ebus for 'my' judge, if he'll accept.

I am on yahoo, as 'mrpotyondi'. You're nowhere to be seen. :p

[Dan Dare]

I find this acceptable, with the revision that "The Nazi's slaughtered over 700,000".

700,000 is at the low end of the range, and has been since the 1965 Duesseldorf trial. The West German court upped its tally to 900,000 at the 1971 Stangl trial so I think 800,000 is a 'happy medium' particularly since Arad puts the total at 881,390.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Some ideas for neutral judges:

Ebusitanus
Ironweed
Jack
Sinclair

...If they're interested of course.

[Donny the Punk]

Dan - since it's teams of two, it makes sense to have, for each side:

1. motion
2. rebuttal
3. second rebuttal
4. conclusion

That way there is an even division of labour.

[Dan Dare]

Sulla nailed it. Because this is not a matter of opinion, i.e. 'yes or no, should abortion be illegal.' It's a historical inquiry, which necessitates active exegesis. I don't care what you say about Treblinka, so long as it's something to do with what happened there. To deny any and every history is not a tenable position.

Well of course everything in life really boils down to a matter of opinion, even a murder inquiry which is really what this is. It's just that some opinions are more learned than others.

But since this is ipso facto an attempt at reaching a reasoned judgment on an alleged crime, the possible outcomes are guilty, innocent, or case dismissed for lack of evidence.

[Dan Dare]

Dan - since it's teams of two, it makes sense to have, for each side:

1. motion
2. rebuttal
3. second rebuttal
4. conclusion

That way there is an even division of labour.

Fine by me, let's see what Basil has to say.

[Dan Dare]

Some ideas for neutral judges:

Ebusitanus
Ironweed
Jack
Sinclair

...If they're interested of course.

Sulla, you seem extraordinarily anxious to stick your oar into the opposition's business, please desist.

[Donny the Punk]

Well of course everything in life really boils down to a matter of opinion, even a murder inquiry which is really what this is. It's just that some opinions are more learned than others.
Incorrect, because opinion can neither contravene nor ignore salient evidence, especially in a murder inquiry. It must conform to it in every possible respect.

But since this is ipso facto an attempt at reaching a reasoned judgment on an alleged crime, the possible outcomes are guilty, innocent, or case dismissed for lack of evidence.
As this is an inquiry, and not a trial, guilt is less germane than the dead body. Unless you're suggesting someone other than the Nazis was running Treblinka? I have yet to meet the defence attorney whose argument to acquit his client is that no murder took place at all. Sorry, but this analogy isn't cutting it, Dan. Quit prancing around and just make a statement.

[Donny the Punk]

Go, Champion of Justice: the shades of 800,000 toes-up Talmudists are counting on you.
Not as much fun to mince words without your gaggle of cheerleaders at hand, is it? :p

[cerberus]

See "Stalingrad" thread Basil.

[Basil Fawlty]

Somewhat. Though since its one of the more obscure arguments given by the Serbs, not really. :pSo you got stuck in the middle of one of those awful Balkan squabbles that make our H arguments look like kumbayiah-singing love-ins!? Lol!
Becaus Turkey is a secondary issue, while the EU and who it admits is the primary issue. Your job in your statement is to expand on your position, that the EU should not allow Turkey to enter. You elaborate on why, why it would hurt the EU, and if you choose, Turkey. If you criticize the proposition without an alternative, the house has little choice but to approve of it.The alternative in this case is merely to not admit Turkey into the EU, i.e. maintain the status quo. You are not obliged to then propose alternative scenarios for the Turks.

[Donny the Punk]

Since the status quo in this case is the accepted historical version of the Treblinka story, it would seem you would have to give us some compelling reason to consider an alternative.

[Kodos]

Since the status quo in this case is the accepted historical version of the Treblinka story, it would seem you would have to give us some compelling reason to consider an alternative.

Yep mos majorum takes precedence, despite the erroneous claim that "you can't prove a negative"( not true).

[Basil Fawlty]

Incorrect, because opinion can neither contravene nor ignore salient evidence, especially in a murder inquiry. It must conform to it in every possible respect.You have done a very good job of that in the manner in which you ignore the steam chamber evidence. So good in fact that you deny having ever heard of it! If so, then I seriously doubt your competence at dealing with matters Treblinka.

[Basil Fawlty]

Potty - I meant to add that if you feel another round is called for, I would have no objection to that.

BTW, of course all of this is subject to Basil's ratification when he comes back on line.I'm pretty much out of things until tomorrow (wed) on account of work so I am happy with whatever you decide in this respect.

[Donny the Punk]

You have done a very good job of that in the manner in which you ignore the steam chamber evidence. So good in fact that you deny having ever heard of it! If so, then I seriously doubt your competence at dealing with matters Treblinka.
I thought it was hair salon chambers, or was it giant vacuum cleaners? :p Save your preening, we'll see who's competent or not in the thread, and it won't be you deciding. How do you feel about the rules, then?

EDIT: answered above

[Basil Fawlty]

I thought it was hair salon chambers, or was it giant vacuum cleaners? :p Which is all part of the evidence, evidence that you wish to ignore.

[Donny the Punk]

Blah blah blah. If you're going to be out of commission, pick a judge now, or perhaps several candidates in case some are unwilling/unable.

Dan - Although I only mentioned it long ago, I hope it is understood that this isn't to become a copy and paste war between IHR, Nizkor, CODOH, et. al. Primary documents are to take absolute precedence to the exclusion of all others. Hopefully, we are all capable enough to draw our own conclusions.

[Basil Fawlty]

Blah blah blah. If you're going to be out of commission, pick a judge now, or perhaps several candidates in case some are unwilling/unable.I'll get back on to this tonight, c. 23.00 GMT.

[Anarch]

Which coincides with the fact that the Holocaust happened. :rolleyes:

http://thephora.net/forum/adminsignatures/tastelesslampshade.jpg

[Basil Fawlty]

A " well intentioned one" I trust.:)Of course, you ought to remember that 'good intentions' are not enough, you know, that material of which the road to hell is paved?

[Basil Fawlty]

http://thephora.net/forum/adminsignatures/tastelesslampshade.jpgI see that one of the impartial judges have arrived. :D

[Anarch]

I see that one of the impartial judges have arrived. :D
Of course. I mean, that's not 'partial' in any sense. It's art. Like, postmodernism and stuff.








Shit, it makes a better political statement than the 'Piss Christ'...

[Basil Fawlty]

Of course. I mean, that's not 'partial' in any sense. It's art. Like, postmodernism and stuff.I normally dislike the genre but in this case it is a very fine piece indeed. I do hope the text was written in with a pen that did not exist at the time when these lampshades were suposedly being made? That would be the ultimate Postmodernist touch.

Shit, it makes a better political statement than the 'Piss Christ'...What's good for the goose . . .

[Ambrosio Spinola]

I feel honored to be considered "impartial" enough for such a high endevour...yet I must confess that my knowledge about the Holocaust and Treblinka in particular are next to nothing when compared with the champions that have gathered here. What does a Judge have to do to begin with? I would have thought Fade, who set all this up, should by all means be there.

LOL @ Jack´s stuff


PS: Threads like this one make being at the Phora really worthwhile. I really feel tempted to split that Potyondy-Il Ragno mano a mano for a own thread. It was quite a pleasure to read that back and forth. Cudos to both of ya.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I feel honored to be considered "impartial" enough for such a high endevour...yet I must confess that my knowledge about the Holocaust and Treblinka in particular are next to nothing when compared with the champions that have gathered here. What does a Judge have to do to begin with? I would have thought Fade, who set all this up, should by all means be there.


You'll be judging the merits of both arguments, rather than deciding anything about Treblinka. Indeed, its better that you're unfamiliar with the subject. For the purposes of judging, it doesn't matter if the Holocaust 'happened' or it didn't. It matters who makes the most convincing and thorough argument.

Dan's analogy to a murder trial was a bit off. Its much more like a civil trial. No life and death, just the merits of the case. The party which you feel has won 51% of the argument with a combination of evidence, well argued points, style, and thoroughness is the winner. :)

[Sulla the Dictator]

I would have thought Fade, who set all this up, should by all means be there.


I believe Fade is going to be the moderator for this particular debate, with the tie breaking vote if there is a tie. I assumed that since this will be our first stab at a formal debate and his moderation will set the parameters for these two forums.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I presume this is the order:

Potyondi-Proposition in favor of the resolution
Dan-Opposition to the resolution
Sulla-Rebuttal to the Opposition of the resolution
Basil-Rebuttal to the Proposition in favor
Potyondi-2nd rebuttal for the proposition
Dan-2nd Rebuttal for the opposition
Sulla-Summation for the proposition
Basil-Summation for the opposition

Sound good?

[Basil Fawlty]

You'll be judging the merits of both arguments, rather than deciding anything about Treblinka. Indeed, its better that you're unfamiliar with the subject. For the purposes of judging, it doesn't matter if the Holocaust 'happened' or it didn't. It matters who makes the most convincing and thorough argument. Yes, I agree with that. Its an advantage not to be familiar with the substantive matter.

[ironweed]

Yes, I agree with that. Its an advantage not to be familiar with the substantive matter.

Which makes it incumbent upon the party presenting their side to make their case. And since there is no censorship at this site, those who believe in the Holocaust cannot complain about Revforum-like tactics, and those opposed to it cannot complain about not being granted a chance to state their case.

I'm assuming the case against Treblinka as death camp is being feverishly hammered out by someone as I write this? We've got a defined topic, and objective moderation to keep the extraneous out. One would assume the Revisionist camp would take to this debate like ducks to water, assuming they've got historical truth on their side.

[il ragno]

PS: Threads like this one make being at the Phora really worthwhile. I really feel tempted to split that Potyondy-Il Ragno mano a mano for a own thread. It was quite a pleasure to read that back and forth. Cudos to both of ya.

We're available for regular bookings as well as benefits, corporate events, private parties and Holocaust Museum grand openings.

[Thomas777]

I would be happy to present an appropriate rebuttal, but I will not have time to do so until this weekend...that is, assuming you guys still want this debate to go forward.

[Anarch]

I normally dislike the genre but in this case it is a very fine piece indeed. I do hope the text was written in with a pen that did not exist at the time when these lampshades were suposedly being made? That would be the ultimate Postmodernist touch.

I've done one better. The text was done in Photoshop :rofl:

[Trojan]

Who are the moderators for this debate?

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Who are the moderators for this debate?

I believe it would be Fade who would Mod it. Judges aside for the final "objective" determination of the "winner".

[Basil Fawlty]

So now what is the status of Poty's immense post at http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50516&postcount=1
in respect of this formal debate we are shaping up here?

[edit] That post was made before we had come to our deliberations concerning a formal debate on Treblinka so it can hardly count as being part of any such debate unless its proponents wish to repost it when the debate actually kicks off.

[Trojan]

So now what is the status of Poty's immense post at http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=50516&postcount=1
in respect of this formal debate we are shaping up here?

[edit] That post was made before we had come to our deliberations concerning a formal debate on Treblinka so it can hardly count as being part of any such debate unless its proponents wish to repost it when the debate actually kicks off.

I think Poty's post is a great start. You could build a debate on the subject - and he lays out the pro position in complete detail.

Why not kick this thing off?

[A. Radek]

You have done a very good job of that in the manner in which you ignore the steam chamber evidence. So good in fact that you deny having ever heard of it! If so, then I seriously doubt your competence at dealing with matters Treblinka.

Go ahead and prattle on about your stupid steam chamber stories if you want. Nobody will stop you, if you insist on looking even dumber than you do now.

Just because legitimate revisionists have already addressed that almost 60 frigging years ago is no reason for you just toss out all you know about this topic.

[A. Radek]

I think Poty's post is a great start. You could build a debate on the subject - and he lays out the pro position in complete detail.

Why not kick this thing off?

It's already kicked off, by Potyondi. The Denial Twins are merely dodging around and aren't really serious.

[Trojan]

Did I mention that I predict the revisionist position will be one in which they set themselves up as the judges of the evidence rather than as a presenter. :nono:

[eggheadbanga]

The ducking and weaving has already started. I like the way that Dan Dare responds to a point about Bialystok with a map of a region further west.:nono:

[cerberus]

Dan , you forget that the figures quoted by Poly came from the SS themselves.
They reported that ( to the date of the report) that they had killed 713,000 people at Treblinka.
How do you count 713,000 when they have been reduced to ash and bone fragements ?
If this figure is to be discounted you will have to be able to prove that the decrypt from which this came was a frogery.
Can you do that ?

[Basil Fawlty]

Did I mention that I predict the revisionist position will be one in which they set themselves up as the judges of the evidence rather than as a presenter. :nono:Evidence is never just presented. It is selected, interpreted, evaluated, analysed etc. If evidence was just presented, then the evidence for say a study on the Vietnam War would have to include every document, every artifact, every photo, film clip, the testimony of everyone involved and so on, in short a vast mountain of material beyond the powers of anyone to deal with. Historians always make selections. The method and criteria by which they make such selections are all important, and constitute the craft of the historian.

And while we are about it, I would still like to know why the steam chamber report has been falsified by Arad.
[a question to everyone and no-one]

[Basil Fawlty]

Dan , you forget that the figures quoted by Poly came from the SS themselves.
They reported that ( to the date of the report) that they had killed 713,000 people at Treblinka.
How do you count 713,000 when they have been reduced to ash and bone fragements ?
If this figure is to be discounted you will have to be able to prove that the decrypt from which this came was a frogery.
Can you do that ?Even if and when he does, you will still deny it. What then is your function on these threads other than white noise?

[eggheadbanga]

Evidence is never just presented. It is selected, interpreted, evaluated, analysed etc. If evidence was just presented, then the evidence for say a study on the Vietnam War would have to include every document, every artifact, every photo, film clip, the testimony of everyone involved and so on, in short a vast mountain of material beyond the powers of anyone to deal with. Historians always make selections. The method and criteria by which they make such selections are all important, and constitute the craft of the historian.

all true, but precisely why revisionists make such lousy historians. Over-selective citation and ignoring other evidence that presents too much of a challenge is pretty much the norm.

And while we are about it, I would still like to know why the steam chamber report has been falsified by Arad.

wasn't that asked and answered elsewhere?

[Basil Fawlty]

all true, but precisely why revisionists make such lousy historians. Over-selective citation and ignoring other evidence that presents too much of a challenge is pretty much the norm.Actually that would be the court historians you're talking about.
Perhaps you could explain why Arad falsifies the Polish report when he states that it reports on gas chambers when in fact it reports on steam chambers?
wasn't that asked and answered elsewhere?No, it was either ignored (by the wiser and more circumspect believers) or shouted down by the more reptillian and shameless.

[eggheadbanga]

Actually that would be the court historians you're talking about.

I love this phrase, court historians. I can just picture Aly or Gerlach sitting at a throne, saying yes, your majesty, as they are told what to write. :rofl:

Perhaps you could explain why Arad falsifies the Polish report when he states that it reports on gas chambers when in fact it reports on steam chambers?
No, it was either ignored (by the wiser and more circumspect believers) or shouted down by the more reptillian and shameless.

I seem to remember someone pointing out that he was combining evidence from several sources.

so what gets you off more, lovingly poring over the descriptions of all those murders of people you don't like, or pretending it never happened?:222:

[Basil Fawlty]

I seem to remember someone pointing out that he was combining evidence from several sources.Which is false. He goes through a number of sources one after the other. He falsifes the Polish report. I scanned the page in question so there is no excuse for this evasiveness.
so what gets you off more, lovingly poring over the descriptions of all those murders of people you don't like, or pretending it never happened?:222:Don't be so vulgar and cheap.

[eggheadbanga]

Which is false. He goes through a number of sources one after the other. He falsifes the Polish report. I scanned the page in question so there is no excuse for this evasiveness.

Post the scan. I don't have a copy of Arad to hand.

Don't be so vulgar and cheap.

Just voicing my long-held suspicion that revisionists like to have their cake and eat it. ;)

[Basil Fawlty]

Post the scan. I don't have a copy of Arad to hand. I have already posted it.

http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45549&postcount=144
and the IMT transcript where steam chambers are entered into evidence as the method http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/12-14-45.htm

Just voicing my long-held suspicion that revisionists like to have their cake and eat it. ;)You mean displaying vulgarity.

[cerberus]

Even if and when he does, you will still deny it. What then is your function on these threads other than white noise?

Define "White Noise" ?
I raised the point of this document earlier, Poly has provided proof of it and a source for it.
the document cannot be denied and it is not a forgery.
Tough Basil - you would deny your own mother if it meant preserving your own delusional beliefs.

[Basil Fawlty]

Define "White Noise" ?
I raised the point of this document earlier, Poly has provided proof of it and a source for it.
the document cannot be denied and it is not a forgery.He has provided nothing of the sort.
Tough Basil - you would deny your own mother if it meant preserving your own delusional beliefs.I see, well now the gloves are off.

[eggheadbanga]

I have already posted it.

link, please.

You mean displaying vulgarity.

Who's the proud madam. No, I mean what I said. It strikes me as implausible that a certain percentage of deniers do not, in fact, secretly relish the stories they are reading about the mass murder of a people they evidently, from remarks elsewhere in their writings online and in books, dislike intensely. The obsessiveness with which deniers fixate on the death camps to the exclusion of almost all other aspects of the persecution and murder of European Jews also speaks volumes.

On the other hand, there are evidently some revisionists, call them the useful idiots of the neo-Nazi movement if you will, who perhaps possess less basely antisemitic motives in their denial, perhaps because they relish the intellectual challenge of un-inventing an exceedingly well-documented and -witnessed collection of historical events.

So let me rephrase. Are you an antisemite or a logician-gymnast?

[cerberus]

see, well now the gloves are off.
Basil - I considered your remarks rude and uncalled for - seems that you only understand being talked "at" , in the same way.
It appears to me that the gloves were never really "on".
He has provided nothing of the sort
He gave a source - he does not have to prove anything - I refer you to "eggheadbangas" "how to be a revisionist" it could have been written for you.
Do me a favour Basil and do the "ignore" bit again.

[Basil Fawlty]

Basil - I considered your remarks rude and uncalled for - seems that you only understand being talked "at" , in the same way.
It appears to me that the gloves were never really "on".Saying that someone generates white noise - which you do on this topic - is quite nothing compared to mother stuff.
He gave a source - he does not have to prove anythingYes he does if he expects the evidence to be taken as true.
I refer you to "eggheadbangas" "how to be a revisionist" it could have been written for you.I know that idiotic piece, I even know who wrote it, its been around for years.
Do me a favour Basil and do the "ignore" bit again.No problem. But you will get a truly bloodynose if you cross my path after those remarks.

[A. Radek]

You have provided a number of references to the 1946 report of Polish Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, including in your footnote 38. Interestingly both Arad and the Commission arrive at roughly the same totals for numbers transported to Treblinka although they use significantly different methodologies, and seem at times to be counting different things.

Arad, for example lists only two transports arriving from Bialystok in August 1943, with a total of 7,600 Jews, while the Commission quotes a Gedob Fahrplanordnung that apparently lists seven transports to Treblinka for the same period, with a total of 26,600 deportees.

I’m guessing that most believers in the standard account these days would tend to put more weight on Arad’s figures, since he has apparently had access to documents not available to the Commission in 1946. But then what are Arad’s sources? Well, in a secondary link he attributes a number of sources which are more or less nebulous and probably a this point in time unverifiable, Judenrat censuses, for example. One source that he does not cite however is the one mentioned by Graf and Mattogno in Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (available for free download at vho.org, or hard copy ISBN 1 59148 000 0), as outlined on pp 103-4:

Really? Arad states his sources quite clearly:

(6)YVA, TR-10/1107, Band 3, Ganzenmuller's trial, the transport order no. 290 of August 17, 1943, issued by the Directorate of the German Railways in Konigsberg; Zabecki, p. 96.

The next camp to be liquidated was Treblinka. The last transports to this camp, before its closing, came from the Bialystok ghetto, where over 25,000 Jews had lived until the second half of August, 1943. All these Jews, according to the deportation plan, had to be sent to Treblinka in five train transports.(6) The transports, which included 76 freight cars, arrived in Treblinka on August 18 and 19. The other three transports passed through Treblinka, but continued on. One went to Majdanjek; one to Auschwitz; and one with children to Theresienstadt.

Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka- Yitzhak Arad, 1987, page 372

Dan really should actually read the book, instead of just mouthing what he reads in Mattogno's garbage. That way he wouldn't look quite as big of a liar and/or fool as Basil in his attempts to bomb us with bullshit. The rest of his 'scholarship' is no doubt of the same caliber, and not worth reading. He still has yet to post a single piece of evidence that refutes the established one yet, of course.

[Dan Dare]

Although it pains me to do it, I have to give credit where it's due and say Oberon, I stand corrected (mostly)

Your references to Arad are correct.

However you are incorrect in two respects.

First, in respect to the Bialystok transports for August, my source was not Mattogno, but Potty's footnote # 38 in his original post, which is as follows:

38. Raul Hilberg, Sonderzüge nach Auschwitz (Mainz, 1981), p. 183-86, 198-202, 208-212, 216-17, 222-23, 228. See also: Biuletyn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego (Bulletin of the Jewish Historical Institute), Warsaw, No. 3/1952, No. 21/1957, No. 3/1959, No. 59/1966, No. 61/1967.; "Luach Hashoa (Holocaust Calendar) of Polish Jewry" prepared by Rabbi Israel Schepansky and published by "Or Harnizrach," New York, 1974.; Pinkas Hakehillot (Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities), Poland, Vol. 11, Eastern Galicia, and Vol. III, Western Galicia, published by Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, in 1980 and 1984. Available online at: http://www.holocaust-info.dk/treblin...portations.htm ; German Crimes in Poland. Volume I. Published by the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. Warsaw, 1946. p. 102-04. (“The average number of wagons in a transport was 50 through sometimes, as the railway records showed, it was as many as 58.
The total number of wagon-loads of victims from August 1, 1942, to May 15, 1943, may be taken, with some certainty, to have been 7,550.
In the later period, from the railway records; the list of the wagons for August 17, 1943; a telegram of August 18, 1943; and a document entitled Fahrplanordnung Nr. 290 sent from Treblinka station by the Reichsbahndirektion Königsberg, the number of train-loads could be established quite accurately.
In the above-mentioned Fahrplanordnung we read among other things: Zur Abbeförderung von Aussledlern verkehren folgende Sonderzüge von Bialystok nach Malkinia. Ziel Treblinka, from which it may be concluded that after the revolt the following train-loads, were brought in: on Aug. 27, 1943, 41 wagons; on Aug. 19, 35 wagons; on Aug. 21, two transports of 38 wagons each; on Aug. 22, two transports of 39 wagons each; and on Aug. 23, one transport of 38 wagons; i. e. a total of 266 wagons.
As an average number of persons per wagon we may take 100 (the majority of witnesses deposed that it was more than 150).
According to this calculation the number of victims murdered at Treblinka amounts to at least 731,600.”)

Following the link provided brings you to what is effectively an extract from Arad's book, namely the Table 4 in Appendix A. That lists, as I noted, the 7,600 Jews deported to Treblinka on August 18/19, 1943.

The seven transports that I stated were listed on the Gedob Fahrplanordnung are derived from Potty's footnote above.

You are correct in that on p. 372, Arad does state that, in addition to the two that apparently did arrive at Treblinka, three further transports originally intended for that destination were diverted to Majdanek, Auschwitz, and Theriesienstadt. That still leaves two transports unaccounted for so there still appears to a discrepancy between Arad and the Central Commission, if Potty's footnote reference is accurate.

So, I plead mea culpa in not scouring Arad for details for the missing transports, but you will need to take it up with Potty about the source for his assertion that seven transports left Bialystok since only five appear to have been accounted for.

Whoever was at fault, it definitely wasn't Mattogno.

[Donny the Punk]

I've since discovered that the charts are incomplete (web site's fault, not Arad's), and I've revised accordingly. Still, one less thing for Sulla to worry about, not that he has much now. ;)

[Dan Dare]

I've since discovered that the charts are incomplete (web site's fault, not Arad's), and I've revised accordingly. Still, one less thing for Sulla to worry about, not that he has much now. ;)

Well, I hope you're counseling Sulla to kick the excavator fetish, that was getting a little tiresome.

[Basil Fawlty]

I shall be ready by before the weekend - heavily buried under work at the moment.

[Donny the Punk]

Even though the rules have been somewhat slackened, I think we should still take turns for the sake of clarity.

[cerberus]

Yes he does if he expects the evidence to be taken as true.
Its the old prove the world is round issue again , providing the actual piece of paper , having it dated by an expert , would that be enough ?
be reasonable for god's sake.
You would think coming from you that Treblinka was a made up fairy tale.

Basil - I didn't actually mean .....do you know .........forget it Basil - you think like a bag of blue circle cement.
The comment was on your totally blinkered commitment to the revisionist cause - of course it was not aimed at your relationship with your mother.
Let me put it this way - you would deny the earth was round if it meant preserving your own delusional beliefs.
Please feel free to disregard the previous remark which was born of frustration.
This might not sound like an apology but it is.


Transport figures.

That Treblinka was just a station for killing lice before people moved onwards.
Given the figures of people who arrived at the camp , 76,000 is one figure quoted and that is but a fraction of the total number - this seems to be a very unreasonable way to deal with lice alone.
Treating the people before they got into the cattle trucks would seem to have been a better way - as the people were concentrated there before departure it would seem reasonable.
The location of the camp - why have it so out of the way for such an innocent purpose ?
After all the Allies managed to treat prisoners in concentration camps , without having to build new camps and rail heads.
It was done easily and quickly with DDT.

The number of lice killed must have been truely amazing as local people could smell their decaying flesh.
Am I to take it that the numbers reported on the decrypt which Poly noted refer not to human beings but to lice ?

The gentleman who first commanded at Treblinka - he was replaced beacuse he could not kill enought lice - or was it beacuse he could not kill the lice in secret , his lice killing was done so badly that the local people knew about it .

This idea that Treblinka existed just to kill lice is a nonsense. I refuse to believe that a camp was built with a rail line serving it just to facilitate the killing of lice.
They must have been huge when earth moving equipment of that size was needed to cover the remains - which then had to be exumed and burnt.

It is interesting to note that this camp like others which served the same purpose were completely destroyed and the killing equipment removed and the site levelled. As per Himmlers wishes.
Odd that such lengths were gone to when the only victims were lice ?
And where did these clean refreshed and well cared for people relocate to ?
Since Heydrich before his "tragic" and "untimely" death had stated that they could go to the east to die building roads , the question of lice would really seem to be neither here nor there.
Unless the lice were to help build the roads , ah yes - forget that - the lice had to be killed, in special camps built in secret , in isolted areas servered by their own rail lines , no expense or effort spared to free Jews of their lice.
If all this sounds a little :rolleyes: :rolleyes: its beacuse its meant to be.
Too much white noise Basil ?
I learnt it from your revisonist noise - a sincere form of you know what , get it.

[cerberus]

I shall be ready by before the weekend - heavily buried under work at the moment.

" In thunder and earth quake is he coming , like a Jove".
I look forward Basil , it amazes me that with such expertise to demolish the objective work of historians that this "Holohoax" has remainded intact for so long.
The beauty of being deluded is that you actually believe , you truely believe , you passionately believe what say.
Believeing it is one thing proving it is another , but when you are deluded that does not really matter.
Look forward to seeing your input Basil , a little white noise might follow it if you are lucky.;)
But as I have told you before - the Holocaust is not my "chosen people" , its yours , that you don't actually know anything about it which is factual is hardly the fault of Sulla , Potyondi, Trojan, Eggheadbanga , Auctung Circus , or even me the little white noise machine.:p

[A. Radek]

Although it pains me to do it, I have to give credit where it's due and say Oberon, I stand corrected (mostly)

Your references to Arad are correct.

However you are incorrect in two respects.

First, in respect to the Bialystok transports for August, my source was not Mattogno, but Potty's footnote # 38 in his original post, which is as follows:



Following the link provided brings you to what is effectively an extract from Arad's book, namely the Table 4 in Appendix A. That lists, as I noted, the 7,600 Jews deported to Treblinka on August 18/19, 1943.

The seven transports that I stated were listed on the Gedob Fahrplanordnung are derived from Potty's footnote above.

You are correct in that on p. 372, Arad does state that, in addition to the two that apparently did arrive at Treblinka, three further transports originally intended for that destination were diverted to Majdanek, Auschwitz, and Theriesienstadt. That still leaves two transports unaccounted for so there still appears to a discrepancy between Arad and the Central Commission, if Potty's footnote reference is accurate.

So, I plead mea culpa in not scouring Arad for details for the missing transports, but you will need to take it up with Potty about the source for his assertion that seven transports left Bialystok since only five appear to have been accounted for.

Whoever was at fault, it definitely wasn't Mattogno.

That's why I bolded the part I did, and I also left what was said before and after to keep it in some kind of context.

I don't have the other source listed, but there may have indeed been 7 transports originally; for all I know they are referring to transports heading elsewhere or supply trains. Or, it was an error on their part, of course.

I also note Arad is using the lesser of 100 per frieght car instead of the max of 150, as estimated in other places, i.e. the 7,600. While Arad speculates on higher numbers, he consistently errs to the lower end of the numbers throughout most if his book. This is why the references to the 'exact' number of '881,390' often cited is misleading, also.

[Donny the Punk]

Basil's turn now, I suppose.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Basil's turn now, I suppose.

Not quite done. I'm still transfering part III to BB text (Notepad messes up the structure). Pain in the ass. Should be done tomorrow.

[cerberus]

Does it look like Basil is going to reply at all ?
If he was serious you would have thought that a two minute line to a moderator to say " I will return" or to update on progress and intentions would have been possible.
Not meaning to be hard on him but its unfair on the others who made the effort.

[Basil Fawlty]

Does it look like Basil is going to reply at all ?
If he was serious you would have thought that a two minute line to a moderator to say " I will return" or to update on progress and intentions would have been possible.
Not meaning to be hard on him but its unfair on the others who made the effort.I beg your pardon, I actually did that two months or so ago. I addressed a post to Ebusitanus in the other thread on this very matter.

I have not been at the Phora for quite a while now. The last few months of "real world" commitments have made it very difficult for me to set aside the kind of time necessary to do this topic justice. I said this a number of times back then so why do you need to stir up trouble? I don't see anyone else here making a big song and dance about it so why should you? Its not like you are actually part if it or anything.

*****

I would like to get back to this debate but I would need a sufficient period to devote to researching and putting together a contribution. That is unlikely this side of the latter part of July, at the soonest.

[Fade the Butcher]

Welcome back, Basil.

[Basil Fawlty]

Welcome back, Basil.:) Thanks Fade. I can't say I will be back to full working order yet, but I will try and drop in more often.

[Fade the Butcher]

Illusions has been carrying on the flame in the Holocaust debates.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Illusions has been carrying on the flame in the Holocaust debates.

Which means that the Holocaust Deniers need you to get back to work ASAP, considering Illusion seems to be adding aliens to the list of weird Holocaust denier theories. :D

[Basil Fawlty]

Which means that the Holocaust Deniers need you to get back to work ASAP, considering Illusion seems to be adding aliens to the list of weird Holocaust denier theories. :DOh dear! What's been happening since I've been away?

[cerberus]

Bout time Basil.
You got stuffed on the formal debate.:bbbat: :p

[IlluSionS667]

Oh dear! What's been happening since I've been away?

I just made a comparison between the (poor) arguments for alien abductions and UFOs on one hand and the (equally poor) arguments for the holocaust™.

Somehow, people like Sulla seem to completely misunderstand the point of the thread or didn't want to see it, because they started implying that I actually believed this whole UFO nonsense, which I obviously didn't. I guess they must be too ignorant to get the point of an analogy.

Nevertheless, the thread in question can be found here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8395). Sulla decided to relocate it to the miscellaneous section. The other "holocaust" threads can be found in the history section if Sulla didn't relocate them too. I hope you can take them over for me pretty soon, because some of these fools are seriously starting to annoy me with their trolling.

[Basil Fawlty]

I just made a comparison between the (poor) arguments for alien abductions and UFOs on one hand and the (equally poor) arguments for the holocaust™.I see. Well yes, of course, they are epistemologically identical.

Somehow, people like Sulla seem to completely misunderstand the point of the thread or didn't want to see it, because they started implying that I actually believed this whole UFO nonsense, which I obviously didn't. I guess they must be too ignorant to get the point of an analogy.Yes, the poor man seems to be suffering from a chronic case of Strawmanitis. But then if you were defending something as threadbare as the holocaust™ you would probably do the same.
Nevertheless, the thread in question can be found here (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8395). Sulla decided to relocate it to the miscellaneous section. The other "holocaust" threads can be found in the history section if Sulla didn't relocate them too. I hope you can take them over for me pretty soon, because some of these fools are seriously starting to annoy me with their trolling.But that's the whole point! The idea is that eventually the one representing revisionism is driven mad by their incessant nonsense and just gives up. Anti-revisionism is political and has nothing to do with historical accuracy and everything to do with preserving the power of a myth.

[Basil Fawlty]

Bout time Basil.
You got stuffed on the formal debate.:bbbat: :pIf that's how you interpret your puerile side comments. Otherwise dream on.

[Trojan]

If that's how you interpret your puerile side comments. Otherwise dream on.

What ever the reason, it is good to see you back on the forum.

[IlluSionS667]

Anti-revisionism is political and has nothing to do with historical accuracy and everything to do with preserving the power of a myth.

I'm willing to believe that in the case of Egghead. He seems intelligent enough to know the truth, and he also seems to be very skillful at dodging bullets and other propaganda tricks.

Most of the others are probably too ignorant, though. They're the kind of people that would still follow Bush after the whole world had learnt the truth about 9/11 and 7/7 and the US dollar has plummeted, because the FOX network told them that's all just Eurotrash lies and that Iran is the real enemy of mankind.

"Our history books can't all be wrong, can they?"
"If you are right, why don't the folks on television say the same?"
"We're right. Anyone who disagree with us, is a vicuous antisemitic liar!"

That's the kind of rhetoric they use. These people would have burnt Copernicus or Newton on a stake if these people had been living in their times.

[Basil Fawlty]

What ever the reason, it is good to see you back on the forum.Thanks, and good to see you too. The civilised end of anti-revisionism.

[IlluSionS667]

Thanks, and good to see you too. The civilised end of anti-revisionism.

I doubt it's his end. He's probably just taking a deep breath and greeting his oponent, as they do in a boxing ring or on a judo mat ;)

[Trojan]

... after the whole world had learnt the truth about 9/11 ...



What truth would that be?

[eggheadbanga]

I'm willing to believe that in the case of Egghead. He seems intelligent enough to know the truth, and he also seems to be very skillful at dodging bullets and other propaganda tricks.


when all your bullets are nothing but propaganda tricks and pieces of cheap rhetoric derived from stale revisionist spam, they're easy to swat away.

I'm continually amazed at the faith-conform nature of revisionism. I've yet to meet a single self-styled revisionist on the internet who has so much as set foot in an archive, and most seem grossly unaware of the recent literature on the subjects from the past 15 years. Language knowledge is poor, with often limited German, knowledge of Yiddish or East European languages is uniformly nonexistent.

Hardly any revisionists I have encountered have been educated in the humanities or social sciences, but instead seem to be a motley crew of computer programmers, natural science and maths graduates, leavened by those with a technical education or training of some kind. This extends to many self-styled 'sceptics' and fence-sitters as well, who haunt places such as Axis History Forum H&WC section.

They are usually self-educated in history, which enables them, so they think, to free themselves from the alleged shackles of orthodoxy, but in fact renders them usually incapable of making a coherent analysis. Thus their arguments tend to display all the classic symptoms of conspiracy theory, especially an obsession with minutiae and trivia which somehow are meant to 'disprove' the whole, because 'it doesn't add up'. When confronted by the evidence, revisionists scream forgery, coercion and lying as a routine fall-back, or simply ignore the point you have made.

Indeed, the more one encounters 'revisionists' on the internet, the more one realises just how closely they resemble the satire posted more than a decade ago on Usenet:

How To Be A Revisionist Scholar

Author: Michael Philips [topcat@igc.apc.org] First-Published: January 3, 1996 (alt.revisionism)

Hey lurkers! After browsing through alt.revisionism posts for awhile, you may already have figured out how to become a Holocaust revisionist. It's easy. For those of you considering such a move, be assured that it requires no preparation or scholarly research. Simply follow the guidelines below, as the revisionists on this newsgroup have done, and you'll quickly be on the road to deluding yourself that someone out there takes you seriously, and that you are valiantly fighting the evil forces of some undefined, implausible conspiracy.
1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

2. Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose -- Demand that all evidence for the Holocaust be proved genuine (dodging any discussion of what that proof would consist of), and also demand that all your unsubstantiated assertions be proved false. That way, you never bear any burden of proof. (originally posted by Mike Stein)

3. Hello, I'm a Cremation Expert -- Claim that the 52 Auschwitz furnaces could not have had the capacity to burn 4,756 corpses per day because modern commercial crematoriums don't have such a capacity. When its pointed out to you that there's no comparison between ordinary commercial crematoriums and those built in the camps, for a variety of reasons -- e.g. coffins were not used, one can cremate more than one corpse in a single retort, etc. -- ignore this and repeat the claim.

4. And I'm a Chemist too! -- Express a series of doubts and claims about the properties of Zyklon-B, the gas used to kill people in Auschwitz gas chambers. For example, claim that Zyklon-B is not an ideal agent for mass gassing, and therefore the Nazis shouldn't have used it and thus they *didn't* use it.

Even better, claim that they *couldn't* have used it because the gas lingering in the chamber after the murders would have killed anyone trying to enter the chambers to remove the corpses. When someone explains to you (countless times) that some of the gas chambers had powerful ventilation systems to remove the gas and in other cases people entering wore gas masks, argue that despite the ventilation there would still somehow be enough residual gas in the chambers to kill people.

Keep waving a DuPont brochure around in an attempt to ward off those who know more about chemistry than you do. Also claim that ventilating the gas would cause problems to individuals downwind. When someone explains to you that the gas is lighter than air, just quietly go away for awhile or change the subject or complain about a mean word they may have used.

5. Sticks and Stones -- If you're being wiped out with evidence and reasoning you cannot refute, you can always take refuge in complaining about the language being used by your adversaries. For example, if they say, "I've already explained that it takes less gas to kill people than lice, and therefore there are fewer cyanide residues remaining on the gas chamber walls than on the delousing chamber walls, you moron," you can respond by complaining about their use of the word "moron."

You can actually evade quite a bit of serious discussion by spending a lot of time condescendingly lecturing the newsgroup about their use of trashy language. But this approach doesn't work very well in building credibility. You may view yourself as an arbiter of social discourse but you'll actually come off like a den-mother scurrying around excoriating the little Cub Scouts to behave themselves.

6. Oh Sorry, I Ate the Last One -- Claim that Jews and other prisoners were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation policy, and that if there is no piece of paper with a written order to starve people, then no starvation occurred.

7. The "What's It Mean?" Spiral of Infinity -- Try to keep your opponents off balance by constantly shifting or questioning the definitions of words. For example, if your opponent states that historians generally agree that 1 million Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz during the Holocaust, you can ask, what do you mean by "historian" or what do you mean by "Jew" or what do you mean by "agree?"

Alternatively, when confronted with the evidence that Himmler called for the "ausrotten" of the Jews, argue that ausrotten doesn't really mean extermination. When proof of that definition is provided by German dictionaries and German speakers on the newsgroup, just ignore it.

8. Now You See It, Now You Don't -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because they are not still standing. Of course, by this logic, the Mayflower, Carthage, Jimmy Hoffa, and large portions of the Great Wall never existed. When this is pointed out to you, ignore it.

9. Kafka Was Here -- Argue that the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos or drawings of them. When you are presented with photos and drawings, state that they could not possibly be actual photos/drawings of gas chambers because the gas chambers never existed because there are no photos/drawings of them because they never existed because . . .

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.

The point of this tactic, of course, is to try to make ALL the death figures questionable. If 4 million is unreliable, then 1 million is likewise unreliable, and you just keep revising the numbers downward until you reach zero, and then - poof! - no Holocaust!

11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.

12. But I'm Not Anti-Semitic -- Try to find examples of misdeeds by an individual Jewish person, then imply that this makes all Jews look bad. When you are asked why you think one Jew represents all Jews but that one Christian doesn't represent all Christians, ignore the question.

13. Grab Bag of Idiocy -- Here are a few quick claims you can easily make, although be forewarned that they will immediately make you look like an imbecile: a) Claim that "the Jews" declared war on Hitler (whatever that means), and that anything he did to them was an act of self-defense; b) With absolutely zero supporting evidence, claim that the corpses in the Auschwitz furnaces would have exploded, damaging the furnaces and thereby bringing the corpse cremation figures into question; c) Argue that because the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC has a small model of a gas chamber and not a full-scale model, this somehow proves that gas chambers did not exist during WWII; d) Argue that the existence of a brothel in Auschwitz means there could not have been gas chambers there.

14. If you don't want to look like a total buffoon, there's always the pseudo-academic, above-the-fray approach. With a huge dose of arrogance and superiority, explain that you are neither a revisionist nor any other "label", merely someone with a healthy skepticism about everything, including Holocaust history (ALL of it), and that you are conducting your own research to determine for yourself whether certain Holocaust incidents actually took place. Pretend to be totally impartial (despite the avalanche of Holocaust evidence you would encounter the minute you actually began any legitimate research), but in your posts only question the Holocaust historians' statements, not revisionists' statements.

15. Alternatively claim that: a) the Jews in the camps died as a result of allied bombing; b) the Jews weren't killed in the camps but were sent to Russia; and c) the Jews never even went to the camps because the railroad capacity was insufficient. When someone points out that these are mutually exclusive, and that it would be a neat trick for allied bombs in 1944 to result in the deaths of Jews in 1942, ignore it.

16. As for the motive behind the Holocaust "hoax", claim that the Holocaust was invented near the end of WWII by people who foresaw the establishment of the state of Israel, and also foresaw that Israel would face years of conflict with its neighbors, and also foresaw the consequent need for U.S. military and financial aid to Israel, and also foresaw possible public opposition to such aid, and so they invented a huge hoax with thousands of phony witnesses and documents so that those who might oppose the aid to Israel would feel sorry for Jews and wouldn't oppose the aid. When someone points out to you that this is sheer idiocy and that acts of genocide do not automatically turn on the aid spigot to the victims, ignore them.

17. Although all of your arguments will be consistently blown to smithereens, just wait a few days or weeks and then re-post them.

18. Remember that the revisionist community is peopled mainly by racists, white-supremacists, Israel-bashers, and Nazis. This means that everyone except these kinds of people will dismiss you. But don't let that stop you. Don't let your Fellini-esque, internally inconsistent, un-researched, hypocritical distortions and lies prevent you from continuing to post. After all, you're fighting for the truth (as you'd like it to be).

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/revisionism.html

There's a classic example of 15 (a) who has been knuckle-dragging on the 3,300 post long 'Prove the Holocaust Was All A Lie' thread at Stormfront. Celtic Patriot has almost reached demigod status among aficionados of sheer stupidity.

We look forward to seeing Basil back in Treblinka action in a couple of months.:rofl:

[IlluSionS667]

I'm continually amazed at the faith-conform nature of revisionism. I've yet to meet a single self-styled revisionist on the internet who has so much as set foot in an archive

Didn't Graf and Mattogno visit several archives?
Many archives are only accessible for those who can present them as historians, though. When you're a known revisionist, it's even harder to get in. I wonder why ;)

and most seem grossly unaware of the recent literature on the subjects from the past 15 years.

You seem to imply that the last 15 years a lot was uncovered from former Sovjet archives. Until so far, I haven't seen any credible evidence from you.

Language knowledge is poor, with often limited German, knowledge of Yiddish or East European languages is uniformly nonexistent.

I can't speak of others, but I can :
- write and speak Dutch/Flemish fluently - understand it perfectly
- write and speak English fluently - understand it perfectly
- write and speak some French - understand it moderately
- write and speak poor German - understand it moderately
- translate some Latin to English/Dutch

I also know a few words of Polish, but I'll leave that out because it's too marginal. I would love to learn some Russian and Japanese the next few years if and when I find the time.

Hardly any revisionists I have encountered have been educated in the humanities or social sciences, but instead seem to be a motley crew of computer programmers, natural science and maths graduates, leavened by those with a technical education or training of some kind.

Basically, it are mostly people who are trained in thinking logically. After all, programming, maths and physics are nothing but pure logics. Don't you find it peculiar that exactly people with great logical skills are into revisionism?!?

They are usually self-educated in history, which enables them, so they think, to free themselves from the alleged shackles of orthodoxy, but in fact renders them usually incapable of making a coherent analysis.

Says who? Again, programming, maths and physics are nothing but pure logics. If anyone should be best at logical deduction and analysis of evidence, it's people with such an education.

When confronted by the evidence, revisionists scream forgery, coercion and lying as a routine fall-back, or simply ignore the point you have made.

The only evidence you have, is as reliable as the alienocaust evidence. Why should be not complain about it?

Indeed, the more one encounters 'revisionists' on the internet, the more one realises just how closely they resemble the satire posted more than a decade ago on Usenet:

A satire which contains many flaws. In example :
Claim that Jews and other prisoners were not intentionally starved, that they were victims of food shortages just like everybody else. When it is pointed out that neither the camp guards nor people living in the vicinity of the camps starved to death, just claim that this does not prove there was an intentional starvation policy

Two remarks on this one :
- Capos and SS men had better access to food than inmates. This is described wonderfully in Art Spiegelman's "Maus" (a graphic novel on his father's experiences that just happens to be in line with revisionist history)
- I've seen pictures from Dachau guards, and they looked pretty skinny to me.

There's a classic example of 15 (a) who has been knuckle-dragging on the 3,300 post long 'Prove the Holocaust Was All A Lie' thread at Stormfront. Celtic Patriot has almost reached demigod status among aficionados of sheer stupidity.

In the Dutch-Flemish section of Stormfront, pretty much ever "holocaust" debate is won by a guy named "King Arthur", a revisionist who wrong a very lengthy article on the topic in Dutch. His knowlege of "holocaust" history appears to be to be better than those of Dan Dare, Basil and me combined. If you want the best of the best to compete with, check him out. I've also heard that k0nsul and Reinhold Elstner from the CODOH forum are pretty decent, but I don't know them myself.

[Basil Fawlty]

I'm willing to believe that in the case of Egghead. He seems intelligent enough to know the truth, and he also seems to be very skillful at dodging bullets and other propaganda tricks.

Most of the others are probably too ignorant, though. They're the kind of people that would still follow Bush after the whole world had learnt the truth about 9/11 and 7/7 and the US dollar has plummeted, because the FOX network told them that's all just Eurotrash lies and that Iran is the real enemy of mankind.

"Our history books can't all be wrong, can they?"
"If you are right, why don't the folks on television say the same?"
"We're right. Anyone who disagree with us, is a vicuous antisemitic liar!"

That's the kind of rhetoric they use. These people would have burnt Copernicus or Newton on a stake if these people had been living in their times.There are broadly two classes of person here. The ordinary Joe Public who will believe anything he's told by the talking heads on the box, and, those who are directly involved in shoring up the holocost story. My comments were directed at the latter rather than the former.

Now I am willing to grant that there are people who concern themselves with holo-defence who sincerely believe that they are doing the right thing. This is my hypothesis about what motivates the sincere anti-revisionist.
At some level they must know there are serious problems with the story but somehow can't or won't admit this to themselves even, because in their minds it would open the floodgates to Neo-Nazidom or anti-semitism. So perhaps they reason that it is better to preserve the lie (a lesser evil) than stand back and allow these forces to be unleashed (the greater evil).

Now, I'm only talking about the sincere ones here rather than the messers or those who profit financially or politically from the story. Unfortunately there is no sure-fire way of knowing with certainty which is which. Some are obviously just messers or ethno-supremacists like Lipstadt, some are motivated by ends other than proft of one kind or another.

About the sincere ones, and this is only a hypothesis. I understand this line of reasoning and it would be a bit rash to dismiss it out of hand as paranoia or cyncial self-justification. It is indisputable that the findings of holocaust revisionism do attract Neonazis and antisemites who use it to bash their favourite enemy. Equally there is no doubt that what used to be called Organised Jewry does exist and does behave in ways that generate a lot of gentile hostility and which substantiates much criticism of Jews. But we should be cautious not to blame all Jews for the behaviour of those. Every people has its rotten elites who lie and exploit without limit.

The uses and absues of revisionism for political purposes is something that angers a lot of revisionist historians who naturally do not like to see their work being used in such a way. Of course the loathesome ethno-supremacist types like Lipstadt want to portray revisionism as nothing but a Neonazi project, a vast conspiracy of Neonazis and antisemites intent on suppresing the terrible truth of the Holocaust so that they can regain power and finish off the job. In other words, they have to slander everyone who holds revisionist views in order to preserve the lie, and tell a whole load of new ones into the bargain. In order to defend the holocaust lie (the lesser evil on this view) they must employ other lies, and still more lies, until the sense of truth and falsity is entirely lost and we wake up in a phantasmagoria of mutually supporting lies and fictions. In fact I believe that for the most part, the modern world is just such a phantasmagoria and not just the holocaust story.

All this starts with the fallacious reasoning that a greater evil can be combatted with a lesser evil. I hold firm to the view that all lies are toxic
and we must never hesitate to expose them as such no matter what the consequences, in this I agree with Faurisson. I don't believe for a moment that the exposure of the holocaust lie will result in a sudden resurgence of Neonazism or explosions of anti-semitism. If there is anger - and that's a big if in the age of the 3 minute attention spans - it will be directed at the guilty parties - the holohuxsters who have milked billions, the professional liars who have sustained and spun out this story for all its worth, and the Zionists and their horrid little neo-colonialist state which is built on the lie. But I doubt even this would come to pass. The villains of history no matter who they are have always escaped justice. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the holocaust lobby itself that blows the whistle on the lie eventually. Once they see which way the wind is blowing, they will want to claim credit for exposing it and thereby deflect attention away from themselves.

[Basil Fawlty]

I'm continually amazed at the faith-conform nature of revisionism. I've yet to meet a single self-styled revisionist on the internet who has so much as set foot in an archive,Does a research library with relevant published primary sources count?
and most seem grossly unaware of the recent literature on the subjects from the past 15 years.My personal library of H material is well stocked wtih standard accounts.
Language knowledge is poor, with often limited German, knowledge of Yiddish or East European languages is uniformly nonexistent.
I read German. But I am not claiming to be involved in original research or publication. I confine myself to published primary sources and secondary literature of both sides. I have gone on record here many times on insisting that any taking up this topic must work with all three. So far no defender of the story has agreed with me except Trojan. It is or at least was a hobby which has become less and less engaging for me.
The publishing revisionists have competency in these things. Mattogno learned Polish so he could read all that stuff. But then that is normal expectation for any scholar who wants to publish in a specific area. Hardly any revisionists I have encountered have been educated in the humanities or social sciences, but instead seem to be a motley crew of computer programmers, natural science and maths graduates, leavened by those with a technical education or training of some kind.That may very well be true and thank goodness for that because a great deal of this rests on techno-scientific questions so it is good that such people are engaged with it. I have yet to read a mainstream holo-historian who shows the least awareness of a even a need for technical analysis let alone the competency for it.
They are usually self-educated in history. . .My minor subject for my primary degree was history, the major was a historical discipline as well. The rest of my education was also in the humanities. That's why I tend to confine myself to the study of the various texts (esp. Nuremberg material) rather than the intricacies of diesel engine technology.

[Fade the Butcher]

We are thinking about opening up a "Revisionism" subforum.

[IlluSionS667]

We are thinking about opening up a "Revisionism" subforum.

Why? I mean... why seperate revisionism and history? What kind of discussions would be left for the history forum? Cleopatra's lovelife? Ceasar's pimples? Whether it were the Christians or the Muslems that were to blame for the crusades? Whether the American civil war was about slavery or not?

IMO, such a subforum would make the history section rather obselete. After all, ALL dissident forms of history would be considered "revisionist".

A "WW2" subforum or a "20th century history" subforum might be a good idea, though. A revisionist subforum, on the other hand, seems a bad idea IMO.

[eggheadbanga]

Didn't Graf and Mattogno visit several archives?
Many archives are only accessible for those who can present them as historians, though. When you're a known revisionist, it's even harder to get in. I wonder why ;)


I was referring to internet types, not the 'professionals'.

You seem to imply that the last 15 years a lot was uncovered from former Sovjet archives. Until so far, I haven't seen any credible evidence from you.

Have you read Christian Gerlach's Kalkulierte Morde yet?

Did you comment on the Slutsk document yet?


I can't speak of others, but I can :
- write and speak Dutch/Flemish fluently - understand it perfectly
- write and speak English fluently - understand it perfectly
- write and speak some French - understand it moderately
- write and speak poor German - understand it moderately
- translate some Latin to English/Dutch
I also know a few words of Polish, but I'll leave that out because it's too marginal. I would love to learn some Russian and Japanese the next few years if and when I find the time.

A good illustration of my point. The critical languages are German, plus Slavic and Semitic languages.

Basically, it are mostly people who are trained in thinking logically. After all, programming, maths and physics are nothing but pure logics. Don't you find it peculiar that exactly people with great logical skills are into revisionism?!?
Says who? Again, programming, maths and physics are nothing but pure logics. If anyone should be best at logical deduction and analysis of evidence, it's people with such an education.

Yet somehow these 'master logicians' never consider the key factors such as time and space in their 'deductions'. I keep on hearing about how it was at the end of the war, but never really hear what happened between 1942 and 1944. I hear lots about the camps and how impossible they must have been, but nothing very much in detail about the process of moving people to them and, allegedly, out of them. Chronology and geography are tedious empirical things, but the complete inability of revisionism to understand them and present them properly is rather telling. Nor is it terribly hot on organisation theory. Historical context and a comparative framework are almost totally lacking or selectively drawn. It doesn't possess much of a working sense of how political and economic factors interact, as is evinced by the continued drooling insistence that the survival of a single Jew anywhere under German control 'must' disprove the murder of any other Jew. Revisionists are seemingly wholly unaware that a raging debate about the relation between labour and annihilation has existed among historians since the 1980s if not earlier. Ulrich Herbert, Christopher Browning, Goetz Aly, Susanne Heim, Christian Gerlach and many others are the key names, almost all their writings are translated into English if they weren't written in that language originally.

If revisionism amounts to anything, it's a very narrow sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-genre of history called 'concentration camp studies'. Yet nothing has been produced to rival the sober, clear political-organisational history of the camp system that has been written by Karin Orth. Considering that revisionists allegedly don't deny that bad things went on in the concentration camps, they've done little to present a balanced overview of the whole system.

The only evidence you have, is as reliable as the alienocaust evidence. Why should be not complain about it?

I don't consider documents that have been leaked up to forty years after the fact to be reliable. To repeat, leaked, not files opened for access after secrecy restrictions have been removed, when one can check a document alongside other documents and even count the 1940s paginations.

A satire which contains many flaws. In example :

Two remarks on this one :
- Capos and SS men had better access to food than inmates. This is described wonderfully in Art Spiegelman's "Maus" (a graphic novel on his father's experiences that just happens to be in line with revisionist history)
- I've seen pictures from Dachau guards, and they looked pretty skinny to me.

A satire which is all too painfully accurate. You for example dredged up the Auschwitz brothel, alongside the swimming pool, the theatre, the orchestra, without really stopping to ask - how does this logically interact with what is contested? By this logic one could query poverty in Brooklyn because they have a wonderful opera house downtown in New York a few miles away.

Funny how skinny Dachau guards are always mentioned and not Fatboy Kremer at Belsen.

In the Dutch-Flemish section of Stormfront, pretty much ever "holocaust" debate is won by a guy named "King Arthur", a revisionist who wrong a very lengthy article on the topic in Dutch. His knowlege of "holocaust" history appears to be to be better than those of Dan Dare, Basil and me combined. If you want the best of the best to compete with, check him out. I've also heard that k0nsul and Reinhold Elstner from the CODOH forum are pretty decent, but I don't know them myself.

No, k0nsl is actually an incredibly poor debater. We're quite familiar with him from RODOH, where he ranks among the biggest antisemites on the board. His 'tactics' consist of infinite-regress show-mes, combined with sweeping statements and the usual rag-bag of flat assertions. He's unusually not that interested in the usual canards (Dachau, 'soap', et cetera - you guys are so predictable).

Most of the CODOHites are morons, most especially including Hannover.

[Basil Fawlty]

Why? I mean... why seperate revisionism and history? What kind of discussions would be left for the history forum? Cleopatra's lovelife? Ceasar's pimples? Whether it were the Christians or the Muslems that were to blame for the crusades? Whether the American civil war was about slavery or not?

IMO, such a subforum would make the history section rather obselete. After all, ALL dissident forms of history would be considered "revisionist".

A "WW2" subforum or a "20th century history" subforum might be a good idea, though. A revisionist subforum, on the other hand, seems a bad idea IMO.There could always be a subforum in the history section simply entitled 'Holocaust.'

[Fade the Butcher]

That reminds me. Someone reinvite k0nsl to The Phora. He used to post here.

[eggheadbanga]

Does a research library with relevant published primary sources count?
My personal library of H material is well stocked wtih standard accounts.

My minor subject for my primary degree was history, the major was a historical discipline as well. The rest of my education was also in the humanities. That's why I tend to confine myself to the study of the various texts (esp. Nuremberg material) rather than the intricacies of diesel engine technology.


Then you are considerably up on many of your confreres. Yet you may well be falling behind in the arms race. Nuremberg seems very alluring and comprehensive (especially to those who wish to 'comprehensively debunk' it), but it was only one of 40 major trials in the immediate postwar period and one of up to 1000 trials over the next sixty years.

I read German. But I am not claiming to be involved in original research or publication. It is or at least was a hobby which has become less and less engaging for me.
The publishing revisionists have competency in these things. Mattogno learned Polish so he could read all that stuff. But then that is normal expectation for any scholar who wants to publish in a specific area.

The publishing revisionists do and don't have the relevant languages and/or reading. I find it incredible that Walter Sanning managed to avoid citing a single text in Polish when one of the key concerns of his argument was Poland. I also find it incredible that Mattogno, who as I have stated repeatedly, is the closest to a proper historian that revisionism has, manages to ignore the work of Dieter Pohl in any of his books on the Polish camps. We are constantly lectured by revisionists on what the supposed official orthodoxy is but they seem remarkably unfamiliar with it sometimes.

That may very well be true and thank goodness for that because a great deal of this rests on techno-scientific questions so it is good that such people are engaged with it. I have yet to read a mainstream holo-historian who shows the least awareness of a even a need for technical analysis let alone the competency for it.

I will say this much, which is that there is a ships-passing-in-the-night quality to the contrast between revisionism and orthodox historiography. Most historians aren't that interested in the camps or in writing about them. There is more written about Auschwitz from a revisionist perspective than the other way around. Meanwhile revisionists are completely inept at dealing with the mass shootings, only 9 entries in the VHO search engine correspond to this whereas the orthodox literature is several hundred recent texts in size, that is after throwing away the older works as superseded. No studies of ghettos, labour camps, regional studies or institutional studies have been attempted by revisionists, whereas all these things have been exhaustively examined by orthodox historians.

What is the effect of 'attacking' what revisionists think is the fulcrum-point of the whole story, the camps and the gas chambers? Nothing. Because even if you can advance a convincing technical-scientific explanation of why they did not exist, which has yet to happen (Leuchter - blown out of the water, Rudolf - flayed alive, Lueftl - clinically braindead), then what are you left with? The need to re-enter historiography and explain what happened to the Jews that have been un-killed.

Thus, natural science eg chemistry in no way 'trumps' history on some hierarchical scale of pre-eminence, because sooner or later you are back to historiographical questions, the answers to which have been ineptly fumbled by revisionists. 'So where did they go?' is not just a legitimate question to ask of revisionism, but the question. Inability to answer it coherently, at length, to a reasonable level of proof, means all that is left is negationism. This might be fine from a hobby point of view and to entertain various WNs, national socialists, antisemites and conspiracy nuts, but it doesn't cut it in the real world.

[eggheadbanga]

That reminds me. Someone reinvite k0nsl to The Phora. He used to post here.

Someone not invite k0nsl to the Phora. He's pondlife.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I see. Well yes, of course, they are epistemologically identical.

Yes, the poor man seems to be suffering from a chronic case of Strawmanitis. But then if you were defending something as threadbare as the holocaust™ you would probably do the same.


Uh oh Basil, you're getting a little ahead of yourself. Maybe it would be a good idea to take a look at your Holocaust denial replacement! :D

Illusion on the German moon bases:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8122

Illusion on Nazi magic:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8134

Illusion on the KGB's UFOs:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8125

Illusion's Lord of the Ring's sourced article on how God is a demon:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8118

Illusion's theory that Hitler escaped to the Center of the Earth:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8119

Illusion's belief in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8151

Illusion's secret group of Zionist bankers that run the world:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8160

Illusion's belief in the Illuminati:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8159

Illusion's tour of Illuminati London:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8145

[Fade the Butcher]

The Holocaust Revisionism forum would be a subforum of History. The topic gets so much discussion here that it is starting to overshadow other historical topics. It's just an idea at the moment. We thought we would get some feedback from the revisionists and anti-revisionists before opening it.

[Trojan]

The Holocaust Revisionism forum would be a subforum of History. The topic gets so much discussion here that it is starting to overshadow other historical topics. It's just an idea at the moment. We thought we would get some feedback from the revisionists and anti-revisionists before opening it.

I don't see a problem with a sub forum.

[A. Radek]

We are thinking about opening up a "Revisionism" subforum.

Since it has zero to do with real history, that would be a very wise idea. It's merely dishonest crap. Moving the silly nonsense out of the History Forum would further your goal of sneaking up on white people and siezing the reins of power before Glenn Miller does.

You could call it Moonbase Himmler.

[eggheadbanga]

The Holocaust Revisionism forum would be a subforum of History. The topic gets so much discussion here that it is starting to overshadow other historical topics. It's just an idea at the moment. We thought we would get some feedback from the revisionists and anti-revisionists before opening it.

It would make sense, especially in order to free up the rest of the history forum for those interested in other periods.

I would however suggest that a moratorium on spam be declared. Everyone is perfectly familiar with how to search VHO and I think it would enforce some debating discipline. This wouldn't apply to news items, documents, excerpts, scans etc. But I really don't see the point in reprising verbatim cut and pastes of the IHR's '66 Questions' to which one can reply with more than 1 counter, not just Nizkor's. It's not as if people don't know how to use Google.

I'd be happy to compile a bibliography and links bibliography covering both sides. I have most of the materials on both sides bookmarked or typed up. One thread each would be fine. This isn't CODOH or RODOH so it doesn't make sense to 'build up an archive', but links won't hurt.

[IlluSionS667]

The Holocaust Revisionism forum would be a subforum of History. The topic gets so much discussion here that it is starting to overshadow other historical topics. It's just an idea at the moment. We thought we would get some feedback from the revisionists and anti-revisionists before opening it.

Like Basil and I suggested, a "WW2" or "holocaust" section would probably more appropriate than a "revisionist" section.

Illusion on the German moon bases:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8122

[...]

Illusion on the KGB's UFOs:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8125

[...]

Illusion's theory that Hitler escaped to the Center of the Earth:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8119

Again - as I told you - you should learn the concept of thought experiments. I never took any of these threads serious, though I do like to contemplate about them to a certain degree.

Illusion on Nazi magic:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8134

So religion and magic are the same thing, now?!

David Myatt is one of the most intelligent and spiritual national socialists out there. I seriously respect and admire him, and his views make far more sense than any post of yours I've seen so far. Perhaps you should try to actually read what he has to say.

Illusion's Lord of the Ring's sourced article on how God is a demon:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8118

Another thought experiment, however I do take this serious do some [minor] degree.

Illusion's belief in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8151

The author of the quoted article clearly states he does NOT believe the Protocols are genuine. I guess thos shows you didn't even took the time to read it.

I do tend to believe the Protocols are genuine, though, especially since the "proof" for them being a forgery isn't really convincing and since - as Henry Ford said about 85 years ago - they fit history since they were written.

Illusion's secret group of Zionist bankers that run the world:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8160

Illusion's belief in the Illuminati:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8159

So I believe in the existence of an NWO/ZOG/Illuminati (what's in a name)conspiracy. If you would actually have done any openminded research, you would have found out that this is not as crazy is it might seem at first sight. There are numerous sources going back deep into the 19th century that confirm the existence of a vast conspiracy whoes ultimate aim is "One World Government" as some like to call it. Of course, you prefer to just deny the evidence, because that's more convenient for you.

So be it. :nopity:

Illusion's tour of Illuminati London:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8145

All facts obtained from wikipedia. I guess the people ate wikipedia are a bunch of nutty conspiracy theorists, right?!?

[Fade the Butcher]

Like Basil and I suggested, a "WW2" or "holocaust" section would probably more appropriate than a "revisionist" section.

Same thing. The name of the forum would be left up to the participants. "The Holocaust" is more neutral.

[eggheadbanga]

It should be billed as WW2 or Holocaust, agreed.

It would be interesting to move the relevant past threads into the sub-forum and see what is left of the history section. More than might be thought, since there are plenty of threads relating to other periods and continents, but still, not to have to wade back through so many pages to reprise some of the 'original' debates between Basil and Sulla...

[eggheadbanga]

The Holocaust. Nobody actually likes the term on either side, but we're all stuck with it.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I think Revisionism should be the title. Holocaust denial has opened my eyes to some other historical myths, such as the Stalinist purges and WWII. I've recently uncovered some evidence that should blow a hole through these myths.

[eggheadbanga]

Will Aule and Sulla continue to moderate both the main history forum and the sub-forum?

[A. Radek]

I think Revisionism should be the title. Holocaust denial has opened my eyes to some other historical myths, such as the Stalinist purges and WWII. I've recently uncovered some evidence that should blow a hole through these myths.

Yes, the 'Revisionists' have set off a firestorm of new research in history. I've discovered the Civil War never really happened, using the advanced research techniques I've learned from Basil and Dan.

[eggheadbanga]

Yes, the 'Revisionists' have set off a firestorm of new research in history. I've discovered the Civil War never really happened, using the advanced research techniques I've learned from Basil and Dan.

I joked with a friend about setting up 'Rev U', so that deniers could become certified revisionists. You know, like Zundel's Revisionism 101, 201, 301, except he forgot to broaden the curriculum. So here were some suggestions:


i) Military, economical or other blunders that seem incomprehensible, to see how our friends handle the "this is so absurd that ..." or "are we asked to believe that so-and-so would be so stupid as to ..." - stance when it comes to subjects other than the "hoax". For instance, they might argue that the sinking of the battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse by Japanese dive-bombers in late 1941 or early 1942 must be a Japanese myth because Churchill would never have been so stupid as to send battleships without air cover to the Pacific in the era of naval air power. If they don't, that would be bad "Revisionism".

ii) Misconceptions, myths and exaggerations that accompany all historical events, to see if they come up with the argument that such misconceptions or myths cast suspicion on the reality of the whole event they relate to. For instance, they might argue that the myth of the "bayonet trench" at Verdun, or the fact that this battle's death toll was long stated to be 600,000, 700,000 or even more, when now it is held to be below 200,000, casts doubt on whether there ever was a battle of Verdun. If they don't, that would be bad "Revisionism".

iii) Mass crimes committed by others than the Nazis, preferably the Soviets or the Western Allies, to see if they apply the same unfulfillable standards of evidence to such crimes that they apply to the crimes committed by their beloved Nazis. For instance, they might argue it's a myth that Red Army soldiers killed tens of thousands of German civilians and raped hundreds of thousands of women when the Red Army invaded Germany in 1945, because there is no physical evidence and all we have are the tales of "lie-witnesses" bent on making the hated Russians look bad, or because there was never an "independent investigation". If they don't, that would be lousy "Revisionism".

[Sulla the Dictator]

Yes, the 'Revisionists' have set off a firestorm of new research in history. I've discovered the Civil War never really happened, using the advanced research techniques I've learned from Basil and Dan.

Why are Nevadans paying tax dollars to support museums and monuments to this Civil War hoax?!?

[Winston]

Revisionists are few in number to begin with. That they are also persecuted, denied access to archives and imprisoned makes it little wonder that their work isn't as complete as it could be. Again and again anti-revs find faults with revisionists which exist because of the circumstances forced upon them. But since revisionists have done such a great job at debunking the holocaust fundamentals, I expect that if given their freedom and the time required they would do a good job of dealing with the other things, and free of fear I imagine many more would join them in the task.

[eggheadbanga]

Why are Nevadans paying tax dollars to support museums and monuments to this Civil War hoax?!?

Slavery never happened! It's just a gigantic hoax perpetrated by white liberals to keep both whites and blacks down, make Southerners feel guilty and extort tax payments from the Sunbelt.

[eggheadbanga]

Revisionists are few in number to begin with. That they are also persecuted, denied access to archives and imprisoned makes it little wonder that their work isn't as complete as it could be. Again and again anti-revs find faults with revisionists which exist because of the circumstances forced upon them. But since revisionists have done such a great job at debunking the holocaust fundamentals, I expect that if given their freedom and the time required they would do a good job of dealing with the other things, and free of fear I imagine many more would join them in the task.

In a word, bullshit. Since holocaust denial is not illegal in the US, there's nothing to stop someone from visiting the National Archives and Library of Congress and doing loads of research. Heck, you can order books via interlibrary loan and you can buy microfilm reels for $40 a pop and read them in the comfort of your local library or home if you get a reader. It isn't that complex a task to find out the relevant information.

You can also manage to do plenty of research in Europe via proxies or incognito if you use pseudonyms when publishing. Poland doesn't have a law against HD as far as I am aware, and sure as hell Russia doesn't.

You're presuming that revisionists have debunked the 'fundamentals', which is also bullshit.

[A. Radek]

There are no laws against historical revisionism anywhere in the world, except probably Red China, and the latter's laws aren't related to holocaust revisionism; not a single country in Europe has any such laws against holocaust revisionism. No revisionist has ever been imprisoned. It's just a nonsense assertion by Nazis and their sympathizers.

[Basil Fawlty]

Then you are considerably up on many of your confreres. Yet you may well be falling behind in the arms race. Nuremberg seems very alluring and comprehensive (especially to those who wish to 'comprehensively debunk' it), but it was only one of 40 major trials in the immediate postwar period and one of up to 1000 trials over the next sixty years.I have the CD ROM set for the Auschwitz trials (recent acquisition) but I haven't really looked at them at all, life is short!
I continue to be fascinated by Nuremberg for a number of reasons. The entirety of the proceedings are yet to be comprehensively reviewed let alone 'comprehensively debunked'. This is where the essentials of the story are fixed and fixed with a specific purpose.
"One of the primary purposes of the trial of the major war criminals
is to document and dramatize for contemporary consumption and for
history the means and methods employed by the leading Nazis in their
plan to dominate the world and to wage an aggressive war"
(Gordon Dean to Robert Jackson, 11 August 1945)I have become more and more interested in the way that history is for the most part myth making and Nuremberg is a near perfect self-contained exemplar of this process in action. The old saying about the victor's writing the history and Orwell's over-quoted line about control of the past etc. The other aspect to this is the way in which 'The Holocaust' functions in the post-war culture. Many different interests profit from this tale, some are very well known, Zionism and the 'Holocaust Industry', but what more interests me now, because it is relatively neglected, is the way the H functions as a moral foundation for the post-war world order.

What I'm talking about here is really the cultural, social, and political function of 'The Holocaust', even the philosophical and theological (ab)uses to which it is put. For reasons I have hinted at in the previous post, this is of far more interest to me now than the capacity of diesel engines or the alleged burning rates at Auschwitz, crucially important as these things are.

Let's try a little thought experiment for a moment. Take away the gas chambers and all the uniquely nasty stuff that is laid at the door of the NS regime. Let us at the same time allow all the normal nasty stuff to stand, the kind of stuff everyone is guilty of. Without the extreme stuff, the allied justification for this massively destructive war becomes simply unsustainable. The moral crusade, which it is often depicted as being, becomes hollowed out pretty quickly. The question of allied (co)responsibility for this war then comes to the fore and suddenly we are no longer reading an edifying fairy tale of good vs evil, black and white, but of various tones of grey, which is in fact how the world largely is and always has been. I could go on at greater length developing this point but I'll keep it brief for now.
The publishing revisionists do and don't have the relevant languages and/or reading.As you will find in any discipline or sub-discipline. I am continually astonished at how scholars (mainly in America and the English-speaking world in general) cheerfully publish works on various topics who clearly can not access the material outside of translations. I wouldn't single out revisionists here. I think it is perfectly possible to publish works on Nuremberg, the German trials, gas chamber questions without knowing Polish or Yiddish. German is essential but most of them have it, so the point is moot. I readily grant however, that if someone is doing a monograph on the Polish trials then they had better have Polish, equally if they are working on the internal governance of ghettos they need Yiddish (and whatever else is relevant).

I find it incredible that Walter Sanning managed to avoid citing a single text in Polish when one of the key concerns of his argument was Poland. I also find it incredible that Mattogno, who as I have stated repeatedly, is the closest to a proper historian that revisionism has, manages to ignore the work of Dieter Pohl in any of his books on the Polish camps. We are constantly lectured by revisionists on what the supposed official orthodoxy is but they seem remarkably unfamiliar with it sometimes.The first seems on the face of it, the way you present it, to be remiss but I would want to look at that closely before agreeing with you. As for the Pohl question, perhaps it is not relevant to Mattogno's work, again I would need to look at that closely.
I will say this much, which is that there is a ships-passing-in-the-night quality to the contrast between revisionism and orthodox historiography. Most historians aren't that interested in the camps or in writing about them. There is more written about Auschwitz from a revisionist perspective than the other way around.But this is a very serious problem. Many of these historians just assume the gassing/burning scenario and interpret their own area against that backdrop. There is a fatal blindness here - we don't need to impugn anyone at this level - they just assume that everything is as it is alleged and proceed from there. That's how I and many people took it prior to actually looking at the details. I studied some aspects of 3rd Reich history as an undergraduate and it never occurred to me that one would need to establish that gassings took place. I took it for granted, I mean the thought that all may not be what it seems never crossed my mind.
Meanwhile revisionists are completely inept at dealing with the mass shootings, only 9 entries in the VHO search engine correspond to thisIts not that they are inept, its just they haven't done it. I think that is very understandable. They work with very limited resources and under very trying and stressful conditions and the priority has been the gassing stories as you acknowledge above. They have acknowledged this shortcoming and there have been calls for people to take up these inquiries. But there are so few who would be in a position to do this, less and less as the various governments seem intent on locking up anyone who doesn't accept the basic, mandatory assumptions. Your criticisms may be literally correct but they are unfair insofar as you ignore these important contextual considerations.

whereas the orthodox literature is several hundred recent texts in size, that is after throwing away the older works as superseded. No studies of ghettos, labour camps, regional studies or institutional studies have been attempted by revisionists, whereas all these things have been exhaustively examined by orthodox historians.
These things do not generally bear on the main focus of revisionist attention which are the gas chamber stories. Many of those studies you mention are relatively unobjectionable and valuable in their own right. Why replicate them with the limited resources that are available to revisionists?
What is the effect of 'attacking' what revisionists think is the fulcrum-point of the whole story, the camps and the gas chambers? Nothing.No, everything. No gas chambers, no Holocaust in any meaningful sense. We are no longer talking about systematic mass murder but rather systematic mass persecution. Now, in all seriousness that's bad enough but it is in a wholly different moral universe to the conventional story of programmatic mass extermination.
Because even if you can advance a convincing technical-scientific explanation of why they did not exist, which has yet to happen (Leuchter - blown out of the water, Rudolf - flayed alive, Lueftl - clinically braindead), then what are you left with? The need to re-enter historiography and explain what happened to the Jews that have been un-killed. Rudolf "flayed alive"? I must have missed that. I'm not moved by the bravura of your claims.

Look, there is a simple logical fallacy at work here.

That gas chambers existed or did not exist is not in any way dependent on whether or not one can account for the Jewish population of Europe in 1945.
Thus, natural science eg chemistry in no way 'trumps' history on some hierarchical scale of pre-eminence, because sooner or later you are back to historiographical questions, the answers to which have been ineptly fumbled by revisionists. It certainly does trump history when the veracity or not of a claim is settled on whether or not this is in accordance with the known laws of physics. If specific claim X is contra natura then it did not happen because it could not happen. Or rather if it did happen then it was a miracle, but then that would entail an unspeakable blasphemy.
'So where did they go?' is not just a legitimate question to ask of revisionism, but the question. Inability to answer it coherently, at length, to a reasonable level of proof, means all that is left is negationism.It is a question but it is a question that rests on a number of undemonstrated assumptions. It also in no way prejudices the exposure of the gas chambers as mythical.

Let's put it this way. If it were definitively proved that 6 million Jews were missing with no possibility of accounting for them short of positing a mass disappearance into thin air or else mass extermination, we would still be justified in not accepting the gas chamber stories. We would now have two new problems. How then were they done in (the murder weapon), assuming that they were, and, what are we to make of that little nest of liars who have fabulated at length about gassings that they personally witnessed?

[A. Radek]

I joked with a friend about setting up 'Rev U', so that deniers could become certified revisionists. You know, like Zundel's Revisionism 101, 201, 301, except he forgot to broaden the curriculum. So here were some suggestions:


i) Military, economical or other blunders that seem incomprehensible, to see how our friends handle the "this is so absurd that ..." or "are we asked to believe that so-and-so would be so stupid as to ..." - stance when it comes to subjects other than the "hoax". For instance, they might argue that the sinking of the battleships Prince of Wales and Repulse by Japanese dive-bombers in late 1941 or early 1942 must be a Japanese myth because Churchill would never have been so stupid as to send battleships without air cover to the Pacific in the era of naval air power. If they don't, that would be bad "Revisionism".

ii) Misconceptions, myths and exaggerations that accompany all historical events, to see if they come up with the argument that such misconceptions or myths cast suspicion on the reality of the whole event they relate to. For instance, they might argue that the myth of the "bayonet trench" at Verdun, or the fact that this battle's death toll was long stated to be 600,000, 700,000 or even more, when now it is held to be below 200,000, casts doubt on whether there ever was a battle of Verdun. If they don't, that would be bad "Revisionism".

iii) Mass crimes committed by others than the Nazis, preferably the Soviets or the Western Allies, to see if they apply the same unfulfillable standards of evidence to such crimes that they apply to the crimes committed by their beloved Nazis. For instance, they might argue it's a myth that Red Army soldiers killed tens of thousands of German civilians and raped hundreds of thousands of women when the Red Army invaded Germany in 1945, because there is no physical evidence and all we have are the tales of "lie-witnesses" bent on making the hated Russians look bad, or because there was never an "independent investigation". If they don't, that would be lousy "Revisionism".


Indeed. Excellent idea. The Phora could sponsor an Institute or something.

[A. Radek]

Slavery never happened! It's just a gigantic hoax perpetrated by white liberals to keep both whites and blacks down, make Southerners feel guilty and extort tax payments from the Sunbelt.

Yes, not to mention those ridiculous slanders of the North by Southerners, especially that ludicrous whining about the fictional 'Sherman's March'.

[NeoNietzsche]

What is the effect of 'attacking' what revisionists think is the fulcrum-point of the whole story, the camps and the gas chambers? Nothing. Because even if you can advance a convincing technical-scientific explanation of why they did not exist, which has yet to happen (Leuchter - blown out of the water, Rudolf - flayed alive, Lueftl - clinically braindead),...
Rudolph effectively, summarily, relied upon Ball to photographically show the non-existence of the Zyklon introduction chimneys of orthodox account - a convincing t-s explanation of the non-existence of the gas chambers as such.



...then what are you left with?
Exposure of the pearl at the center of that layered onion of lies which is our regnant egalitarianist/anti-racist belief system and the collaborative Hollywood History of the Second World War myth structure/morality play.



The need to re-enter historiography and explain what happened to the Jews that have been un-killed.
Un-killed Jews: MIA.



Thus, natural science eg chemistry in no way 'trumps' history on some hierarchical scale of pre-eminence,...
Hard science tends to trump soft science in the "real" world whenever actions have consequences, as in courts of law and in commercial negotiations. The hard question of whether one is alive or dead has priority over the soft question of where one might be alive.



...because sooner or later you are back to historiographical questions, the answers to which have been ineptly fumbled by revisionists.
Not merely fumbled, but ineptly fumbled.



'So where did they go?' is not just a legitimate question to ask of revisionism, but the question. Inability to answer it coherently, at length, to a reasonable level of proof, means all that is left is negationism.
With an impermissible anti-Semitic aftertaste.



This might be fine from a hobby point of view and to entertain various WNs, national socialists, antisemites and conspiracy nuts, but it doesn't cut it in the real world.
That "real" world of ideologically untainted scholarship of the self-congratulatory imaginings of those in whom the theocracy has confidence as to their properly cultivated orthodoxy, one suspects.

[Dan Dare]

Yes, the 'Revisionists' have set off a firestorm of new research in history. I've discovered the Civil War never really happened, using the advanced research techniques I've learned from Basil and Dan.

If I were you I'd focus first on mastering the advanced Kut 'n' Paste techniques as perfected here by Potty and his acolytes before getting into the grown-up stuff.

The more obscure and untraceable footnotes you can cite the better the chances of getting your name up in lights on Nizkor or THHP, particularly if it's obvious that you've (a) never actually seen or read the citations yourself, and/or (b) couldn't understand them if you had.

[eggheadbanga]

I have the CD ROM set for the Auschwitz trials (recent acquisition) but I haven't really looked at them at all, life is short!
I continue to be fascinated by Nuremberg for a number of reasons. The entirety of the proceedings are yet to be comprehensively reviewed let alone 'comprehensively debunked'. This is where the essentials of the story are fixed and fixed with a specific purpose.


No, they weren't. This is presuming that the revelations had come as bolts from the blue. Moral opposition to Nazism was already prevalent but not dominant before the outbreak of war and grew steadily through it. Other revelations played a key role in determining post-1945 views of the Third Reich. In Britain, Belsen was more important than Auschwitz until well into the 1980s as a touchstone.

I have become more and more interested in the way that history is for the most part myth making and Nuremberg is a near perfect self-contained exemplar of this process in action. The old saying about the victor's writing the history and Orwell's over-quoted line about control of the past etc.

Yet this too is nonsense, as even the slimmest knowledge of how the military history of WWII was written. It was essentially dictated to British and American audiences by captured German generals. Franz Halder orchestrated the entire postwar historiography of the European conflict. This contributed massively to the weird love-hate relationship between Anglo-American history audiences and the Third Reich. WWII is one of the few conflicts where the vanquished actually wrote more of the history than did the victors.

The other aspect to this is the way in which 'The Holocaust' functions in the post-war culture. Many different interests profit from this tale, some are very well known, Zionism and the 'Holocaust Industry', but what more interests me now, because it is relatively neglected, is the way the H functions as a moral foundation for the post-war world order.

There is something to this, in that the Hitler standard is continually invoked to justify this or that action. Yet Godwin's Law works against this contention. Moreover, it is false to claim that the Holocaust led directly to the foundation of Israel, was the dominant factor in the US geopolitical decicision to fund Israel and Egypt as part of its Middle Eastern policy, or that the Holocaust has even been used to extort larger amounts of cash for compensation and memorialisation than were paid out to compensate for and commemorate the other crimes of the NS regime.

What I'm talking about here is really the cultural, social, and political function of 'The Holocaust', even the philosophical and theological (ab)uses to which it is put. For reasons I have hinted at in the previous post, this is of far more interest to me now than the capacity of diesel engines or the alleged burning rates at Auschwitz, crucially important as these things are.

There's no doubt that there has been an instrumental use of this history, but criticising these abuses doesn't actually cut to the historical core of the issue at all.

By the way, forget diesels. They're a revisionist red herring.

Let's try a little thought experiment for a moment. Take away the gas chambers and all the uniquely nasty stuff that is laid at the door of the NS regime. Let us at the same time allow all the normal nasty stuff to stand, the kind of stuff everyone is guilty of. Without the extreme stuff, the allied justification for this massively destructive war becomes simply unsustainable.

If there had been no Jews in Europe to slaughter, the only defendant who would have been spared the rope at Nuremberg was Streicher. I think you underestimate considerably the hatred with which the Nazis were held by the majority of non-Jewish Europeans by 1945. The regime had plundered the entire continent, deported more than 7 million non-Jews to work in varying degrees of forced labour conditions, executed hundreds of thousands of resistance fighters, euthanised up to a quarter of a million of its own citizens....

The moral crusade, which it is often depicted as being, becomes hollowed out pretty quickly.

Yet neither Britain nor the US entered what could have been regional conflicts with the aim of fighting on the Jews' behalf, nor were their motivations primarily moral. Realpolitik played a huge role.

The question of allied (co)responsibility for this war then comes to the fore and suddenly we are no longer reading an edifying fairy tale of good vs evil, black and white, but of various tones of grey, which is in fact how the world largely is and always has been. I could go on at greater length developing this point but I'll keep it brief for now.

Your contentions are based on a strange reading of the diplomatic and military moves prior to September 1939. Take away the gas chambers and you're still left with an unparalleled record of annexations and invasions. This alone was more than enough to damn the Nazis in the eyes of the postwar order.

Moreover, there are enough greys concerning WWII, its run-up and its aftermath already. Hiroshima, Dresden, the ineptness of Versailles... these things have formed part of a wider discourse within Anglo-American society for a very long time indeed. They are not automatically trumped or negated by 'Hitler', especially since the arguably worst instances were inflicted in Asia, in the course of the Pacific War, in a context which had nothing to do with Hitler at all.

Subsequent geopoliticking has completely undermined the momentary illusion of moral supremacy that might have clung to the United States briefly circa May 1945 if indeed it ever did. The Vietnam conflict is more than sufficient to damn US government policy for all time should one wish to do so. Indeed it may simply be a generational thing that we now seem so much more concerned with WWII than the 1960s generation were with Vietnam. Iraq isn't even vaguely on the scale of the destruction wrought in Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 1970s.

It may well be that the growing discourse on the Holocaust from the end of the 1970s onwards was in part a reaction to Vietnam, part of a struggle to recapture lost certainties. The irony is that the enshrinement of it in physical form on the Mall coincided with Rwanda, Srebrenica and subsequently, Darfur and Iraq. There are manifold hypocrisies involved, many of which have been brilliantly outlined in Samantha Power's 'A Problem From Hell'. Never again is clearly a meaningless term.

As you will find in any discipline or sub-discipline. I am continually astonished at how scholars (mainly in America and the English-speaking world in general) cheerfully publish works on various topics who clearly can not access the material outside of translations. I wouldn't single out revisionists here. I think it is perfectly possible to publish works on Nuremberg, the German trials, gas chamber questions without knowing Polish or Yiddish. German is essential but most of them have it, so the point is moot. I readily grant however, that if someone is doing a monograph on the Polish trials then they had better have Polish, equally if they are working on the internal governance of ghettos they need Yiddish (and whatever else is relevant).

You're right to point to the many English-speaking academics who will parasitically present an analysis based on the conclusions of those who do coalface work. THis is typical of many social science disciplines and sadly also of 'popular' history too.

But the field is changing, and if you want to compete in the inner circle you're screwed unless you have multiple languages. It's barely possible now to research anything in Eastern Europe with only German, you have to have another language and be familiar with the Polish/Russian literature, whereas 15 years ago this wasn't the case. The increased professionalisation of 'Holocaust Studies' has come about not by codifying itself in separate departments, but because trained and competent historians have taken an interest, whereas in the past the field was left open for a more select group of pioneers and even amateurs.

The first seems on the face of it, the way you present it, to be remiss but I would want to look at that closely before agreeing with you.

I will be writing a detailed refutation of Sanning before the end of the year. His book has already been flayed by others, but I intend to take it to pieces completely. He is a useless historian, a lousy statistician and a sorry excuse for a demographer. If it had been submitted as a German MA thesis it would have been failed, not for political content, but on methodological grounds. Whoever the bastard really is, I hope he rots in hell for writing such a miserable book.

As for the Pohl question, perhaps it is not relevant to Mattogno's work, again I would need to look at that closely.

No, if one is writing on the Generalgouvernement in any way, shape or form then one needs to know Dieter Pohl's work. Mattogno cited Sandkuehler, who wrote another study of the Galicia district, but ignored Pohl. It's typical of M's style, which is also easily neutralised by anyone who is professionally familiar with the sources, literature and subject matter. It's just my colleagues tend not to bother.

But this is a very serious problem. Many of these historians just assume the gassing/burning scenario and interpret their own area against that backdrop. There is a fatal blindness here - we don't need to impugn anyone at this level - they just assume that everything is as it is alleged and proceed from there. That's how I and many people took it prior to actually looking at the details. I studied some aspects of 3rd Reich history as an undergraduate and it never occurred to me that one would need to establish that gassings took place. I took it for granted, I mean the thought that all may not be what it seems never crossed my mind.

To the extent that revisionism has forced some historians to re-present the evidence and explore further, then it achieved something even if not necessarily what it wanted. Certainly Pressac and Pelt would not have written their works had it not been for revisionism, while the various other summaries that exist of the other camps and gassing facilities might also have been left to one side. But this process has been ongoing since the 1970s, prompted by the very early efforts at denial.

Its not that they are inept, its just they haven't done it. I think that is very understandable. They work with very limited resources and under very trying and stressful conditions and the priority has been the gassing stories as you acknowledge above. They have acknowledged this shortcoming and there have been calls for people to take up these inquiries. But there are so few who would be in a position to do this, less and less as the various governments seem intent on locking up anyone who doesn't accept the basic, mandatory assumptions. Your criticisms may be literally correct but they are unfair insofar as you ignore these important contextual considerations.

No, the lack of attention paid to the mass shootings punctures revisionism below the waterline. If orthodox historiography has been able to present a fairly complete picture of almost every region in which there were mass shootings, with multiple studies, proving them beyond a shadow of a doubt, incorporating forensic evidence (exhumation reports, recent forensic archaeology), then there is no question: a genocide of more than 2 million Jews took place in Poland, the Soviet Union, Romania and Serbia. It took place in the context of a massive population reduction to the tune of many millions more, of which another 2 million Slavs were also shot. It might have been possible to argue otherwise from ignorance during the Cold War, but the fact is that Nazi Germany raped Eastern Europe so badly that it reaffirmed the legitimacy of communist rule for another two generations.

Revisionism would have us believe the popular misconception that all Jews died in concentration camps and most especially that they died in Auschwitz. This is false. Therefore revisionism is tilting at a strawman caricature. Only around 50% of Holocaust victims were gassed.

These things do not generally bear on the main focus of revisionist attention which are the gas chamber stories. Many of those studies you mention are relatively unobjectionable and valuable in their own right. Why replicate them with the limited resources that are available to revisionists?

Because it would show good faith instead of bad faith. The glossing over of these phenomena tends to confirm the widely raised reproach that revisionism is only interested in readjusting the moral goalposts so that it can excoriate the Allies and rehabilitate Hitler.

No, everything. No gas chambers, no Holocaust in any meaningful sense. We are no longer talking about systematic mass murder but rather systematic mass persecution. Now, in all seriousness that's bad enough but it is in a wholly different moral universe to the conventional story of programmatic mass extermination.

You are clearly batty if you think that it is only the gas chambers that converted 'persecution' into mass murder. Technical means were not necessary, rifle fire sufficed to slaughter millions.

Rudolf "flayed alive"? I must have missed that. I'm not moved by the bravura of your claims.

Anyone who resorts to citing himself under a pseudonym is not worth taking seriously as a scholar. The non-submission of the Rudolf report at the Irving trial appeal spoke volumes. Richard Green's submissions have seriously challenged the claims made by Rudolf, as have any number of amateur critiques. I simply disagree that Rudolf or any other revisionist has offered serious technical criticisms of either the gassing or the cremation processes which have taken into account all possible variations.

Yes, more could be done on the other side to ram the points home. One thing that has rarely been factored into the chemical equations is the actual historical data. The numbers of unregistered deportees arriving at Auschwitz and who consensus claims were gassed are precisely known to within a comparatively tight margin of error. Yet this data is comparatively ignored by both sides. It is no use arguing in a hypothetical vacuum when there is historical data available.


Look, there is a simple logical fallacy at work here.

That gas chambers existed or did not exist is not in any way dependent on whether or not one can account for the Jewish population of Europe in 1945.

There is a logical fallacy, but it does not work as you claim it does. Gas chambers reduced the Jewish population of Europe by several millions. They did not bring about the entire population reduction. Attacking the existence of the gas chambers cannot be done independently of the entire phenomenon known now as the Holocaust.

It especially cannot be done independently of the flow of transports to the camps. This immediately multiplies the volume of evidence that has to be dealt with by a factor of several hundred. It is no good 'stipulating' to the deportations, they are an integral part of the process. The gas chambers do not exist independently from their historical context.

It certainly does trump history when the veracity or not of a claim is settled on whether or not this is in accordance with the known laws of physics. If specific claim X is contra natura then it did not happen because it could not happen. Or rather if it did happen then it was a miracle, but then that would entail an unspeakable blasphemy.

You continue to labour under the illusion that there were specific technical barriers to mass murder and body disposal. There weren't. Auschwitz performed under capacity for most of its lifespan, the technical aspects of the other camps are minimal. I find the arguments about Zyklon toxicity to be ludicrous.

Body disposal was virtually one of the easiest aspects of the whole affair. There is a whole host of _scientific_ factors which relate to body disposal that have been completely ignored by revisionist arguments. Earlier you said that orthodox historians don't pay enough attention to technical factors, well, that may well be true for most, but I've learnt more than I ever wanted to about the biological, physical and chemical processes involved.

It is a question but it is a question that rests on a number of undemonstrated assumptions. It also in no way prejudices the exposure of the gas chambers as mythical.

False. The simple fact is that there is no way more than 2 million Jews, indeed by the end of 1942 alone more than 1.5 million Jews, could have migrated through supposed 'transit camps', not been gassed and then mysteriously disappeared from the documentary, eyewitness and forensic record.

Taken together, which is the only fair and logical way to gauge these things, there are in all many hundreds of pieces of evidence for the various gas chambers. Much more than is known about by revisionists. Much more than I knew about before I started taking an interest in these matters.

By contrast, the best efforts of revisionists have turfed up.... essentially nothing to indicate where the missing Jews went. Oh, they've tried. But if the gas chambers rested on sources as shoddy as the ones revisionists have offered to 'prove' that Jews survived to go on somewhere else, then nobody would have ever believed the story. This indicates a massive evidentiary double standard.

Let's put it this way. If it were definitively proved that 6 million Jews were missing with no possibility of accounting for them short of positing a mass disappearance into thin air or else mass extermination, we would still be justified in not accepting the gas chamber stories. We would now have two new problems. How then were they done in (the murder weapon), assuming that they were, and, what are we to make of that little nest of liars who have fabulated at length about gassings that they personally witnessed?

The only way that revisionism could validate its arguments is to account for the missing Jews. Unlike deniers, the world wouldn't demand every missing person to be named, but for a coherent, plausible explanation of what actually happened to be offered. This could involve unearthing hitherto untapped sources which detail and describe the mass starvation of Jews in a variety of hitherto unknown resettlement camps, or locating the unit records of hitherto unknown police battalions which mowed them down. Or it could involve finding out how more than 2 million Jews survived, sans property, somewhere in Eastern Europe, this number beginning to accumulate with the first disappearences in December 1941 and ending with May 1945, and where they migrated to after the war.

I somehow doubt that revisionism will seriously argue that the Holocaust was in fact the Jewish Holodomor and was all carried out by starvation and shooting, it seems much more the thing to deny that millions died, which would imply that revisionists would prefer to locate the missing Jews alive rather than as emaciated corpses in mass graves somewhere in Belarus or Poland.

But make no mistake, as long as a coherent alternative explanation is not offered by revisionism, it is an intellectually bankrupt enterprise.

[Donny the Punk]

If I were you I'd focus first on mastering the advanced Kut 'n' Paste techniques as perfected here by Potty and his acolytes before getting into the grown-up stuff.

The more obscure and untraceable footnotes you can cite the better the chances of getting your name up in lights on Nizkor or THHP, particularly if it's obvious that you've (a) never actually seen or read the citations yourself, and/or (b) couldn't understand them if you had.
More sour grapes from whiny-girl Dan. Checking over my references, there are only four out of eighty that are not reproduced in books I had read beforehand, all of which are listed in the bibliography and are easily obtainable from any decent university library. Those four were referred to by Christopher Browning in his action report, and I asked a professor of German history at my university to furnish me with reproductions and his own translations of those particular documents from his private collection, which he gladly did. So in the end, I both saw and read them all.

Did you seriously expect me to fly to Berlin or Tel Aviv in order to appease a group of internet white trash, Dan? You put about 15 minutes into your reply, so you're not one to crow about 'grown-up' stuff.

[eggheadbanga]

Rudolph effectively, summarily, relied upon Ball to photographically show the non-existence of the Zyklon introduction chimneys of orthodox account - a convincing t-s explanation of the non-existence of the gas chambers as such.


Rudolf showed no such thing. Funny how deniers always seem to skip over the 1943 photos showing the zyklon introduction holes on the top of the crematoria, never mind the contemporary pics of the holes found in the ruins.

Hard science tends to trump soft science in the "real" world whenever actions have consequences, as in courts of law and in commercial negotiations. The hard question of whether one is alive or dead has priority over the soft question of where one might be alive.

Another tech-head continues to labour under the delusion that a failed chemist is more qualified than anyone else to write history. Just a small example: the number of transports to Auschwitz is precisely known, from historical records. The number of passengers who got off and were not registered is also known. Therefore the number of gassings required can be precisely worked out. Yet this was never done by Rudolf, in his fancy calculations about Prussian Blue. Therefore he failed to take account of empirical evidence which might have helped prove or disprove his argument.

Even Rudolf conceded that 'chemistry is not the science' which will answer the questions raised by revisionism.

[wintermute]

The Holocaust. Nobody actually likes the term on either side, but we're all stuck with it.

This is false, doubly so on a forum like this one.

"WWII" with a subforum for "Treatment of Jews" or "Jewish internment camps" is MUCH more neutral. "The Holocaust", in addition to its falsely earned emotional charge, dependant - as even supporters of that interpretation admit - on Jewish predomiance in media and jail, loss of livelihood, or intense social stigma up to and including physical attack for those who question is in addition a religious claim, and a very specific religious claim at that.

It is a religious offering to the gods, specifically a burnt offering.

The implied claim that Nazis engaged in human sacrifice, or that persecution of Jews amounts to the ultimate evil in human history, rest on precisely this kind of manipulation of language.

So egghead thinks we're "stuck" with a term because some marketing boychik acted quickly - in the 1970s - to capitalize on the publically un-debateable claims then being made that Jews were thrown alive into ovens, that regular German citizens were aware of this and could hear the screams, yet went about their daily business, and that the "skies darkened" from all the smoke and human ash. I know this was the dominant version of events in the 1970s becase the above is what I was taught as fact in grade school.

Given the one-sidedness of publicity and publishing on the topic (hey, where's my hard copy of Irving's Goebbels book?), Jews could have claimed that Nazis were drinking Jewish corpses dry of their blood and no-one would have disbelieved it - probably to this day. "The Holocaust" is like Satanic Abuse Hysteria or the Witch Trials - and regarding the first, I would point out that the McMartins are still in jail. You'll remember the McMartin's, of course. In a vast nest of tunnels burrowed under their daycare center, they forced children to have sex with animals, including elephants. The similarities to the "Dachau" tall-tales are instructive. However, the McMartins were trapped in a vortex of hysteria from which there was no escape. While the rest of the world watched on, horrified by the 'confessions' extracted from children by mentally deranged Christians, even local journalists who questioned the presence of elephants were physically attacked.

At any rate, egg is - per his usual - wrong in assuming we are "stuck" with something that has only been around since the 70s.

We have overcome feathered hair, spaghetti strap dresses, folk masses and Joe Namath in pantyhose. We shall overcome the "Holocaust" as well.

Proposed sub forums of "WWII", related to "The Holocaust":

*War in the East
*The Camp System
*The Extermination Claim
*Displaced Persons (Emigration, Forced Marches, Zionist co-operation, Migration, MIAs, etc.)

Naturally, the need for new sub-forae will arise as time goes on - we learn by doing. Probably a "Prelude to War" forum, dealing with Britain, Poland, and the United States wille eventually be necessary, as will a "German War Aims" and "Post War" sub forum.

To summarize: Use of the term "The Holocaust" implies too much: the preset emotional assumptions every modern Westerner brings to the table as a result of a lifetime of propaganda, that it is not subject to debate, that it is unique, that it is uniquely evil, that it is religious in nature, that it consists of sacrifice, all of which obtains in an already over-emotionalized and over-politicized atmosphere.

What we have rather are a series of questions, that should be treated as plainly as possible:

What was the Nazi attitude towards the Jews?
Was there a plan for Extermination?
Were there gas chambers?
Were there gas vans?
What were the circumstances of the War in the East?
How many Jews died and from what causes during the war?

Now it's no secret that many people think there was no order or intent to Exterminate, no gas chambers, and no six million dead. Egg keeps bringing up the War in the East -even going so far to say that gas chambers 'don't interest him so much'. He's wise to put himself in a position to jump, should the good ship "gas chambers" sink beneath the waves. If he hopes to sustain a narrative of unique Nazi evil in the War in the East, I would like to go on record saying he will nothing there but unpleasant surprises, more on which later.

No reason why both topics shouldn't be covered by those who are interested in them. Egg has to get the numbers back up, so he's throwing around numbers - 28 million Russians killed! - as if this is a surprise to anyone, or if there is 'revision' on this score (I bracket the actual fine tuning of numbers). I don't think you could be more Revisionist than I am, but the material he's constantly presenting regarding the War in the East - as if they were a surprise - are irrelevant to me. If anything, I wish more Russians were killed if it had meant Bolshevism would have been strangled in its cradle, which it would have been, save for quick action on the part of Britian and America.

And now, as the ultimate payment for such criminal insanity, our race will be exterminated, slowly and horribly, from the face of the Earth.

"There will always be an England" - I suppose this has some truth, from a geological standpoint. As they say, even the blind pig finds a truffle from time to time.

Wintermute

[A. Radek]

Dan had trouble reading and citing a book he claimed he had in his possession, written in plain English, so it's not like his ankle-biting is actually worth serious consideration.

Both him and Basil ran away from a real debate on the subject, so I don't think they have much an audience here any more, anyway.

[Dan Dare]

Rudolf showed no such thing. Funny how deniers always seem to skip over the 1943 photos showing the zyklon introduction holes on the top of the crematoria, never mind the contemporary pics of the holes found in the ruins.....

Debbie’s not-so-excellent day out in Auschwitz:

… As Rampton’s questions grew more aggressive, I became decidedly uncomfortable. He seemed to be demanding that Robert Jan [van Pelt] prove that people were murdered in the gas chambers. [Ed. The very idea!] Finally, Rampton asked impatiently, “Isn’t it time trustworthy experts [emphasis added] did an extensive scientific study of this place?” I was stunned by Rampton’s apparent conviction that we needed a scientific study to “prove’ the gas chambers were killing factories. Unable to contain myself, I burst out “ Why do we need scientific studies, we have the evidence”…

Deborah Lipstadt, History on Trial, Harper-Collins 2005 (p. 62) - available for next-to-nothing on remainder tables everywhere.

Quite so. Out of the mouths of babes and lawyers, as it were.

[eggheadbanga]

This is false, doubly so on a forum like this one.

wafflewafflewafflewaffle :cuss: waffle :cuss: waffle :cuss: waffle


I can see how the term Holocaust might upset some people's most cherished prejudices, that's why I often try to refer to the mass murder of European Jews just to piss deniers off, because that's what it was.

[Dan Dare]

Dan had trouble reading and citing a book he claimed he had in his possession, written in plain English, so it's not like his ankle-biting is actually worth serious consideration.

Both him and Basil ran away from a real debate on the subject, so I don't think they have much an audience here any more, anyway.

How's your Gilbert coming along then Obie?

For the benefit of newer readers, Oberon is the self-styled authority who was caught with his pants down when he he was forced to confess he had never heard of Sir Martin Gilbert.

That's one of the reasons he keeps changing his moniker, hoping we'll all forget about it.

[eggheadbanga]

Debbie’s not-so-excellent day out in Auschwitz:



Deborah Lipstadt, History on Trial, Harper-Collins 2005 (p. 62) - available for next-to-nothing on remainder tables everywhere.

Quite so. Out of the mouths of babes and lawyers, as it were.

and the rest of your selective citation? where is it?

[Fade the Butcher]

Debbie’s not-so-excellent day out in Auschwitz:Deborah Lipstadt, History on Trial, Harper-Collins 2005 (p. 62) - available for next-to-nothing on remainder tables everywhere. Quite so. Out of the mouths of babes and lawyers, as it were.

I once tried to study the Holocaust to learn why the subject so fascinates you guys. The book I checked out of the library was Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. I made it about twenty pages into the book before asking myself: this doesn't really interest me, why bother with this crap?

[Dan Dare]

and the rest of your selective citation? where is it?

Bloody Hell! What a nerve. The master of selective quotes from Soviet-era "archives" that nobody else has any real inkling even exist never mind contain anything truthful wants me to do a Sulla and Kut 'n' Paste even more rubbish from Debbie's Day in Court.

Don't be such a cheapskate. You can get your own copy for 50p tops down the market.

[cerberus]

Basil / Ming/ Reinhold.If that's how you interpret your puerile side comments. Otherwise dream on.
Well Basil , welcome back. Lost none of your warm endearing personality.
So I take it the Holocaust never happened and you are not antisemetic , so apart from his what is new ?

[wintermute]

that's why I often try to refer to the mass murder of European Jews just to piss deniers off, because that's what it was.

Please use this phrase more often.

If you cannot see the difference between the mass murder of European Jews (as opposed to the effects of typhus, carpet bombing, emigration, etc.) and the intended Extermination of the whole Jewish Race with Gas Chambers that resulted in 6 Million dead, it's clear we're not even talking about the same topic.

For instance, your phrase, 'the mass murder of European Jews', doesn't bother me in the slightest. To my mind, it could not be farther removed - not by a millimeter! - from the witch-hunt hysteria monstrosity "The Holocaust". They are entirely separate claims.

My only quibble with the 'mass death of European Jews' is that I think the reputable reports we have are consistent with earlier experiences with concentration camps, especially Andersenville and those used in the Boer War. The aggravated emaciation preceding death is indicative of typhus, not "gas chambers". The use of Zyklon-B strengthens the typhus hypothesis, especially as we know that if there were an Extermination intent, starvation would have been far less expensive. Especially since we know, following your writings on the subject, that the Germans were not above shooting Jews when the need arose. I would simply argue that the need in the East was pressing from a military standpoint, not one of racial extermination.

Also inconsistent with the Exterminationist hypotheis are the various court-maritals of Nazis by Nazis for the kinds of enormities that always attend on modern warfare. It is impossible to concieve of this kind of discipline co-existing with a serious attempt at Extermination. Why kill the men who are following your orders, coded and secret though they may be? To fool Russian and British intelligence, who knew nothing of the "Holocaust"? Or perhaps to fool the Red Cross, who was fooled into thinking that Jewish internees were fairly treated according to the Geneva Convention? (Again, in the West. The SU was very plain about its plans to comply with the Geneva Convention, and I think the Nazi decision to not play by 'gentlemen's rules' there was a wise one, if not an absolute necessity, forced on them by Stalin's unimaginable ruthlessness. This, however, is a discussion for another time.)

I am sorry your phrase 'the mass murder of European Jews' doesn't 'piss me off'. I do hope you will not stop using it on my account.

Wintermute

[NeoNietzsche]

Rudolf showed no such thing. Funny how deniers always seem to skip over the 1943 photos showing the zyklon introduction holes on the top of the crematoria, never mind the contemporary pics of the holes found in the ruins.
Chimneys are absent from the photos - Rudolf/Ball showed exactly that.

What identifies a mere "hole" as a "zyklon introduction hole" when that chimney which one would expect to be its superstructure, and was thus imaginatively invented as such, never existed? Rank ideological prejudice and technical ignorance, of course, since this putative identity is discredited by the photographic evidence of the absence of the chimneys as falsely testified to out of necessity for imagining something other than mere raw open holes for the purpose of forming gas chambers. Obviously.



Another tech-head continues to labour under the delusion that a failed chemist is more qualified than anyone else to write history. Just a small example: the number of transports to Auschwitz is precisely known, from historical records. The number of passengers who got off and were not registered is also known. Therefore the number of gassings required can be precisely worked out.
From documents previously processed by the IMT/NMT Show Trials.



Yet this was never done by Rudolf, in his fancy calculations about Prussian Blue. Therefore he failed to take account of empirical evidence which might have helped prove or disprove his argument.
You assume that which was to be mooted, i.e., the alleged gassing of those "who got off and were not registered". Butz had satisfactorily addressed the question of the absence of recorded departures which you fail to mention toward reproach of Rudolf. But even this does not logically or empirically imply or evidence gassings, and thus leaves room for the question of the physical/chemical realizability of such as dealt with by Rudolf and Green.



Even Rudolf conceded that 'chemistry is not the science' which will answer the questions raised by revisionism.
And he ultimately and properly relied upon Ball to settle the argument. No Chimneys - no Holocaust.

[wintermute]

“ Why do we need scientific studies, we have the evidence"

Debbie's good turn of phrase deserves another. From Elie Weisel:

"Some things are true even though they never happened."

WM

[A. Radek]

How's your Gilbert coming along then Obie?

For the benefit of newer readers, Oberon is the self-styled authority who was caught with his pants down when he he was forced to confess he had never heard of Sir Martin Gilbert.

That's one of the reasons he keeps changing his moniker, hoping we'll all forget about it.

I think Fade said there are archives available somewhere? Let's look up your claims, shall we?

No doubt you and Basil are glad the Phora kept crashing; you can keep repeating BS over and over the more often it does, eh?:rofl:

[Fade the Butcher]

I was browsing through the Internet Wayback Machine earlier today. You might be able to turn up some indexed pages in the Google cache.

[A. Radek]

I once tried to study the Holocaust to learn why the subject so fascinates you guys.

Dan, Basil, nor any of the other Holocaust Deniers have ever actually studied it either, so I don't know why you would want to. Just cut and paste crap from Mattogno, Zundel, et al. That's all there is to it.

[Dan Dare]

Checking over my references, there are only four out of eighty that are not reproduced in books I had read beforehand, all of which are listed in the bibliography and are easily obtainable from any decent university library.

It’s hard to compete when the other side has the complete resources of the University of Medicine Hat at its disposal.

But in reflecting on this unfairly neglected post (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=96652&postcount=87
), is it safe to assume that among the sources consulted were Schöne Zeiten; Meine Errinerungen beim Kokskommando des Vernichtungslagers Treblinka, Aerial Reconnaisance for the Visually Impaired, and The Metric System for Dummies, Eh?

So in the end, I both saw and read them all.

Including “Exterminajca”? In Polish?

You put about 15 minutes into your reply, so you're not one to crow about 'grown-up' stuff.

*Sob*

This is a gratuitiously hateful slur. I distinctly remember composing my response while watching the weekend omnibus edition of Coronation Street, which is on for at least an hour.

[eggheadbanga]

Originally Posted by eggheadbanga

Rudolf showed no such thing. Funny how deniers always seem to skip over the 1943 photos showing the zyklon introduction holes on the top of the crematoria, never mind the contemporary pics of the holes found in the ruins.

Chimneys are absent from the photos - Rudolf/Ball showed exactly that.


Do you actually mean the chimney or the introduction holes? If the former then you are batshit crazy. Not even Mattogno denies that the crematoria worked as crematoria.

What identifies a mere "hole" as a "zyklon introduction hole" when that chimney which one would expect to be its superstructure, and was thus imaginatively invented as such, never existed? Rank ideological prejudice and technical ignorance, of course, since this putative identity is discredited by the photographic evidence of the absence of the chimneys as falsely testified to out of necessity for imagining something other than mere raw open holes for the purpose of forming gas chambers. Obviously.

The introduction columns are visible on photos taken from a horizontal perspective and from the air photos vertically. The latter have been examined repeatedly and no evidence of tampering uncovered.



Quote:
Originally Posted by eggheadbanga

Another tech-head continues to labour under the delusion that a failed chemist is more qualified than anyone else to write history. Just a small example: the number of transports to Auschwitz is precisely known, from historical records. The number of passengers who got off and were not registered is also known. Therefore the number of gassings required can be precisely worked out.

From documents previously processed by the IMT/NMT Show Trials.

You just revealed how little you know about the evidence. In fact none of the transport lists were introduced into the immediate postwar trials. Alleging forgery of these transport lists is even more asinine than the usual revisionist nonsense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eggheadbanga

Yet this was never done by Rudolf, in his fancy calculations about Prussian Blue. Therefore he failed to take account of empirical evidence which might have helped prove or disprove his argument.

You assume that which was to be mooted, i.e., the alleged gassing of those "who got off and were not registered". Butz had satisfactorily addressed the question of the absence of recorded departures which you fail to mention toward reproach of Rudolf. But even this does not logically or empirically imply or evidence gassings, and thus leaves room for the question of the physical/chemical realizability of such as dealt with by Rudolf and Green.

No, Butz has offered a vague conjecture for what happened to the unregistered deportees, a vague conjecture taken up by Graf and all the other pondlife. The physical gap between what was witnessed by those who were registered and the marching off of the unregistered was very small. If the whole purpose of selection was to pick out fit inmates for Auschwitz and send other inmates elsewhere then why did they move the process inside Birkenau by 1944? This makes no sense from a logistic movement point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eggheadbanga

Even Rudolf conceded that 'chemistry is not the science' which will answer the questions raised by revisionism.

And he ultimately and properly relied upon Ball to settle the argument. No Chimneys - no Holocaust.

Since you're one of the moonbats that believes Ball is a genius, I think you're beyond help.

[Basil Fawlty]

You just revealed how little you know about the evidence. In fact none of the transport lists were introduced into the immediate postwar trials. Alleging forgery of these transport lists is even more asinine than the usual revisionist nonsense.But this is just standard Exterminationist strawmanology. The real question that I have yet to see even acknowledged by your lot concerns the transport departure records from the various camps.

[IlluSionS667]

Slavery never happened! It's just a gigantic hoax perpetrated by white liberals to keep both whites and blacks down, make Southerners feel guilty and extort tax payments from the Sunbelt.

Actually, it did happen, but it was not as bad as we're supposed to believe. Sure, some slave owners mistreated their slaves. I sincerely doubt this was the majority.

It is the same for the treatment of women throughout history. Post-'60s feminist propaganda is making us believe that men were brutal monsters who abused their women all the time, until the '60s. When I look at my grandmother's generation, I see just as strong women as when I look today, though. In fact, they're actually stronger.

Or what about the old arristocracy? We're supposed to believe they were all tyrants who treated their plebs like dirt, while they were living in richess and ultimate decadent freedom. Somehow, I doubt it too if this was the majority rule.

History is always told in a way our masters want it to be told. We're told the "nazis" were evil monsters, communism was horrible, the traditional family outdated and anti-woman, traditional monarchies exploitative and democracy a wonderful haven of freedom and joy.... while the streets of Paris and New York have many homeless (unlike in Hitler's Germany or communist Russia) and people in Germany can be put in jail for singing songs with the "wrong" lyrics or doing research and coming up with the "wrong" conclusions. Orwell, eat your heart out ! ! !

Poland doesn't have a law against HD as far as I am aware

They do have such law (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7930) since 1998.

You're presuming that revisionists have debunked the 'fundamentals', which is also bullshit.

It's not bullshit.

There are no laws against historical revisionism anywhere in the world, except probably Red China, and the latter's laws aren't related to holocaust revisionism; not a single country in Europe has any such laws against holocaust revisionism. No revisionist has ever been imprisoned.

What world are you living in? There are exactly 10 countries in Europe where it is illegal. I know by heart at least 4 people who are/have been in jail for this (Zuendel, Irving, Rudolf and Verbeke).

I find it incredible that Walter Sanning managed to avoid citing a single text in Polish when one of the key concerns of his argument was Poland. I also find it incredible that Mattogno, who as I have stated repeatedly, is the closest to a proper historian that revisionism has, manages to ignore the work of Dieter Pohl in any of his books on the Polish camps. We are constantly lectured by revisionists on what the supposed official orthodoxy is but they seem remarkably unfamiliar with it sometimes.

Aren't revisionist works pretty much ignored by default by orthodoxy? Why should any revisionist quote from a book that makes the wrong conclusion and is based on distortions?

What matters is the authentic evidence : physical structures, testimonies, documents, forensic evidence, ... Any conclusion should be based on those and those only and not one how some other historian interprets it. If you can point out evidence ignored (which is not the same as proven fake) by revisionists, you would have a point. Pointing out them ignoring book by other historians, however, is a bit silly, since orthodoxy ignore far more findings from revisionists than revisionists ignore from orthodoxy.

No, everything. No gas chambers, no Holocaust in any meaningful sense. We are no longer talking about systematic mass murder but rather systematic mass persecution. Now, in all seriousness that's bad enough but it is in a wholly different moral universe to the conventional story of programmatic mass extermination.

If the "gas chamber" and "gas van" myths disappear, our eggheaded friend would just continue claiming that people were deliberately starved in the camps and that the Einsatzgruppen did were also ethnic cleansing units. These people will just continue making "holocaust" claims and ignoring all the evidence, as long as they can wave with a few forged documents and with witnesses claiming to have seen geisers of blood or to have personally removed bodies from gas chambers without any protective clothing. :rofl:

Moral opposition to Nazism was already prevalent but not dominant before the outbreak of war and grew steadily through it. Other revelations played a key role in determining post-1945 views of the Third Reich

The current dominant view on the Third Reich is almost entirely based on propaganda. This becomes especially obvious when reading (critical) pre-war material on the Third Reich and by reading their own literature. The current dominent view on the Third Reich is nothing but an Orwellian distortian of the truth.

@Egghead : did you ever read "The house that Hitler built" (Stephen Henry Roberts, 1937)?!?

Yet this too is nonsense, as even the slimmest knowledge of how the military history of WWII was written. It was essentially dictated to British and American audiences by captured German generals. Franz Halder orchestrated the entire postwar historiography of the European conflict.

I'm pretty sure Basil wasn't talking about military history. As far as I know, no one is doubting the accuracy of the military aspects of WW2.

it is false to claim that the Holocaust led directly to the foundation of Israel, was the dominant factor in the US geopolitical decicision to fund Israel and Egypt as part of its Middle Eastern policy, or that the Holocaust has even been used to extort larger amounts of cash for compensation and memorialisation than were paid out to compensate for and commemorate the other crimes of the NS regime.

- earlier attempts to create a jewish state in Palestine were unsuccessful so far
- people just having been interned in work camps and having died from unintentional starvation would not have caused enough outrage for people to accept all these compensations
- the "holocaust" is still being used to this day as a justification of the existence of the state of Israel
- the "holocaust" also makes national socialism undiscussable as an ideology for most people, hence making it impossible for the biggest enemy of the judeo-capitalist "democratic" system to rise up again as a mass movement
- the "holocaust" makes it almost impossible to criticise a jewish individual or organisation without being stigmatised with the worst possible label today : antisemite or "nazi"
- the "holocaust" puts a stigma on moderate forms of nationalism : "just look where nationalism lead to in the "40's" is the usual remark
- ....

Those are significant consequences of the "holocaust" stories. Real history would shed a very different light on all these issues, threatening the position of the current establishment. That's why they fear it and create laws in several countries to censor it.

I think you underestimate considerably the hatred with which the Nazis were held by the majority of non-Jewish Europeans by 1945. The regime had plundered the entire continent, deported more than 7 million non-Jews to work in varying degrees of forced labour conditions, executed hundreds of thousands of resistance fighters, euthanised up to a quarter of a million of its own citizens....

I think you overestimate considerable the hatred with which they were held by the majority of non-Jewish Europeans throughout the war. Most people just wanted to survive and didn't really care about politics. Others were divided in a pro-NS and an anti-NS camp and were pretty much fighting a civil war among one another. There was far from a united block against Germany in the occupied territories. That too is part of the myth.

Certainly Pressac and Pelt would not have written their works had it not been for revisionism, while the various other summaries that exist of the other camps and gassing facilities might also have been left to one side. But this process has been ongoing since the 1970s, prompted by the very early efforts at denial.

The sometimes very ackward claims made by Pressac and Pelt (who both ignore evidence and/or make unfounded claims to support their preconceived conclusions) only discredit orthodoxy and favors revisionism. At least revisionism makes sense.

the lack of attention paid to the mass shootings punctures revisionism below the waterline.

The fact is that mass shootings are irrelevant to the "holocaust" unless you can prove people were shot as part of an extermination policy. No serious revisionist denies that many thousands of jews were shot in the East. It's all a matter of "why" and "how many".

Revisionism would have us believe the popular misconception that all Jews died in concentration camps and most especially that they died in Auschwitz.

That's nonsense. It is, however, the concentration camps that are the key of the holy-hoax. Without them (and the supposed gas vans), you only end up with mass shootings, which are not proof for an extermination policy whatsoever. somehow, you do not wish to see that.

Technical means were not necessary, rifle fire sufficed to slaughter millions.

Civilians and resistance figthers were rifled down on all sides of the front, jewish as well as non-jewish. They don't prove ANYTHING WHATSOEVER concerning the existence of an extermination policy.

There is a logical fallacy, but it does not work as you claim it does. Gas chambers reduced the Jewish population of Europe by several millions. They did not bring about the entire population reduction. Attacking the existence of the gas chambers cannot be done independently of the entire phenomenon known now as the Holocaust.

Why not? If you know for a fact that 300,000 jews or more died in a concentration camp (something both sides seem to agree on), the question would just remain HOW these people died.
Revisionists says : starvation, disease, an occasional killing by fire squad due to criminal activities, being gunned down for trying to excape, ...
Orthodoxy says : gas chambers, disease, an occasional killing by fire squad due to criminal activities, being gunned down for trying to excape, ...

Since there seems to be an agreement on the other causes of death, the only thing that remains is the following :
- proof that the disease and starvation were (un)intentional (revisionists have pretty good arguments here)
- proof that the gas chambers were used (revisionists again have pretty good arguments here)
- statistical issues : how many people died in which camp, from what cause, ... possibly broken down by religion, race and nationallity (this is something there doesn't seem to be much agreement on on either side)

Auschwitz performed under capacity for most of its lifespan

Based on whoes calculations?

I find the arguments about Zyklon toxicity to be ludicrous.

Why?

Body disposal was virtually one of the easiest aspects of the whole affair.

Tell that to the former guards at Bergen-Belsen and Dachau. They had so many dead they didn't know what to do with them.

there are in all many hundreds of pieces of evidence for the various gas chambers. Much more than is known about by revisionists. Much more than I knew about before I started taking an interest in these matters.

How many of them cannot be explained alternatively. In example, Mattogno claims to have found documents in the Russian archives that referred to a desinfectation facility having been placed next to the crematorium in Auschwitz I due to the insufficiency of such facilities when the typhoid epidemic became rampant. If these documents are indeed genuine, this would dismiss quite a lot of your "evidence" in the blink of an eye.

By contrast, the best efforts of revisionists have turfed up.... essentially nothing to indicate where the missing Jews went.

What exactly happened to them, is irrelevant. What matters, is whether or not they were killed as part of an extermination policy. You have so far failed to prove that.

Even if they did all die, that doesn't mean they were killed. Unintentional starvation and disease are a perfectly plausible alternative. There is also the possibility of fleeing jews being murdered by the Russians. etc. As long as we don't know what happened to them, the only thing left is assumptions. Your focus on the "missing jews" hence is but a strawman argument.

[eggheadbanga]

But this is just standard Exterminationist strawmanology. The real question that I have yet to see even acknowledged by your lot concerns the transport departure records from the various camps.

How do you explain the round-robin transports to and from Treblinka? Pendelzuege is the technical German term. There is no evidence that people were taken away from Treblinka and returned to Bialystok etc. This would have been pointless, unless one is seriously arguing that Treblinka was a sort of early Disneyland to which the Germans brought large numbers of Polish Jews for daytrips and then returned them to their ghetto homes, from where they seem to have later mysteriously vanished.

[Basil Fawlty]

How do you explain the round-robin transports to and from Treblinka? Pendelzuege is the technical German term. There is no evidence that people were taken away from Treblinka and returned to Bialystok etc. This would have been pointless, unless one is seriously arguing that Treblinka was a sort of early Disneyland to which the Germans brought large numbers of Polish Jews for daytrips and then returned them to their ghetto homes, from where they seem to have later mysteriously vanished.Which would be as plausible as the mendacious farrago of steam cum diesel chamber exterminations. I recall seeing a map recently showing railway guage changes which happen to coincide with the location of the Reinhard camps, hmm . . .

The point, which you too are ignoring, is that there is no evidential material avaliable for the departures (hidden away in some closed archive no doubt). However, there can be no doubt that such records were made. I, and many others, would like to know where they are and more importantly, have them studied

[Sulla the Dictator]

Which would be as plausible as the mendacious farrago of steam cum diesel chamber exterminations. I recall seeing a map recently showing railway guage changes which happen to coincide with the location of the Reinhard camps, hmm . . .


I'm sorry, so you don't even believe the Reinhardt camps existed?

[NeoNietzsche]

Do you actually mean the chimney or the introduction holes? If the former then you are batshit crazy. Not even Mattogno denies that the crematoria worked as crematoria.

I mean, of course, the structures alleged to have risen above the flat roofs of the morgues.



The introduction columns are visible on photos taken from a horizontal perspective and from the air photos vertically. The latter have been examined repeatedly and no evidence of tampering uncovered.
No tampering need be alleged. The aerial photos conclusively show an absence of structures, hence your orthodox resort to the horizontal photos which in fact show irregularly sized, placed, and spaced stacks of building materials such as also appear on the roof of the crematorium itself. The structureless and correspondingly irregular smudges on the aerial photos are the wind-and-rain-driven residue of the worked-down stacks of frangible building materials such as those with which I am familiar from personal experience.



You just revealed how little you know about the evidence. In fact none of the transport lists were introduced into the immediate postwar trials. Alleging forgery of these transport lists is even more asinine than the usual revisionist nonsense.
I did not and need not allege such forgery - merely the selective survival of documents in the public domain, as Butz sensibly suggested would have been expected of the Show Trial enterprise.



No, Butz has offered a vague conjecture for what happened to the unregistered deportees, a vague conjecture taken up by Graf and all the other pondlife.
Butz offered a quite sensible conjecture, as mentioned above, and a specific example of a community of Jews first housed at A. and whose survival in the East subsequently had not been evidenced in surviving documents as to departures.



The physical gap between what was witnessed by those who were registered and the marching off of the unregistered was very small. If the whole purpose of selection was to pick out fit inmates for Auschwitz and send other inmates elsewhere then why did they move the process inside Birkenau by 1944? This makes no sense from a logistic movement point of view.
Nevertheless, this was done.



Since you're one of the moonbats that believes Ball is a genius, I think you're beyond help.
Please quote me to this effect, that I might not suspect that you are less than a genius.

[Basil Fawlty]

I'm sorry, so you don't even believe the Reinhardt camps existed?:rofl: What are you smoking?

Meaning the camps were built at the points where the guage changes.

[eggheadbanga]

History is always told in a way our masters want it to be told. We're told the "nazis" were evil monsters, communism was horrible, the traditional family outdated and anti-woman, traditional monarchies exploitative and democracy a wonderful haven of freedom and joy.... while the streets of Paris and New York have many homeless (unlike in Hitler's Germany or communist Russia) and people in Germany can be put in jail for singing songs with the "wrong" lyrics or doing research and coming up with the "wrong" conclusions. Orwell, eat your heart out ! ! !

Yet this contention must then explain socialist historians of the working class such as E.P. Thompson... oh, sorry, forgot, conspiracy theorists always assume that any oppositional voice is a puppet of the Masters. :nuts:

Quote:
Poland doesn't have a law against HD as far as I am aware

They do have such law since 1998.

Then I stand corrected, but it still doesn't preclude someone researching under one name and publishing under another.

Quote:
You're presuming that revisionists have debunked the 'fundamentals', which is also bullshit.

It's not bullshit.

Oh, the fond and fervent wish of the faith-conform true-believer.

Quote:
I find it incredible that Walter Sanning managed to avoid citing a single text in Polish when one of the key concerns of his argument was Poland. I also find it incredible that Mattogno, who as I have stated repeatedly, is the closest to a proper historian that revisionism has, manages to ignore the work of Dieter Pohl in any of his books on the Polish camps. We are constantly lectured by revisionists on what the supposed official orthodoxy is but they seem remarkably unfamiliar with it sometimes.

Aren't revisionist works pretty much ignored by default by orthodoxy? Why should any revisionist quote from a book that makes the wrong conclusion and is based on distortions?

They have to, otherwise they end up attacking a caricature 'official historiography' that doesn't exist anywhere outside revisionist imaginations. The same can be said for Lueftl citing 'witness accounts' saying xy or z but never naming who the witnesses are or where these accounts can be found. It's called making your sources clear, and it is basic methodology in any science. Lueftl failed to do this, so his work goes in the bin straight away.

What matters is the authentic evidence : physical structures, testimonies, documents, forensic evidence, ... Any conclusion should be based on those and those only and not one how some other historian interprets it. If you can point out evidence ignored (which is not the same as proven fake) by revisionists, you would have a point.


In the case of Sanning, since he uses yearbooks and other processed encyclopedia style information without references to where the figures are calculated from, he has no excuse that he can just skip over secondary literature, especially when the secondary literature will indicate where the primary sources are to be found. Sanning also ignored contemporary (pre-1939) government publications, which count as a primary source by virtue of their vintage and provenance. He selectively cited primary documents from the Wehrmacht, while ignoring large amounts of other documentation. No reason was offered for why he did this, so he cannot even advance to Revisionist Claim 101, namely that the documents he doesn't like 'must have been' forged.

Pointing out them ignoring book by other historians, however, is a bit silly, since orthodoxy ignore far more findings from revisionists than revisionists ignore from orthodoxy.

Yet a simple read of Dieter Pohl's 1993 book proves that Mattogno's contention in his Majdanek book about the volume of surviving eywitness evidence for 'Erntefest' is false. If revisionists read more widely, they'd not make so many rookie mistakes like this.

If the "gas chamber" and "gas van" myths disappear, our eggheaded friend would just continue claiming that people were deliberately starved in the camps and that the Einsatzgruppen did were also ethnic cleansing units. These people will just continue making "holocaust" claims and ignoring all the evidence, as long as they can wave with a few forged documents and with witnesses claiming to have seen geisers of blood or to have personally removed bodies from gas chambers without any protective clothing.

I've pointed out the origins of the geysers of blood story repeatedly. Don't make me repeat myself again.

Your eagerness to believe revisionist contentions that the bodies must have been completely toxic with Zyklon residue shows you aren't actually studying the situation scientifically.

Here's a few references turfed up via Google


In high concentrations, hydrogen cyanide is absorbed
through the skin; therefore complete reliance cannot
be placed on a gas mask. After 1 hour exposure, 100
to 250 ppm of HCN are dangerous."
[from: Elkins, Hervey B. _The Chemistry of Toxicology_.
(New York: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.) 2nd (c) 1959, p 94.]

Now, cyanide will absorb through the skin, but the text
explicity mentions a one _hour_ exposure time. For absorption
through the skin to have been a real danger, the Sonderkommando
at Auschwitz would have to work in cyanide concentrations of
100 to 250 ppm or higher for an hour or more.

Furthermore, accordiing to the July 1993 issue of _American
Family Physician_, cyanide poisoning through the skin is
quite rare:

" Cyanide is absorbed through the lungs, gastrointestinal
tract, and skin. Symptoms can occur within seconds of HCN
[cyanide gas] inhalation; ....Cyanide is readily absorbed
through the mucous membranes and the eyes. Clinical cases of
cyanide poisoning after dermal exposure are rare and most
often have involved burns with molten cyanide salts or
immersion in cyanide solutions."

[from: "Cyanide Toxicity". Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
in _American Family Physician_, Vol. 48, no 1, July 1993.]

Lastly, the Degesch manual does not treat absorbtion through
the skin as a major problem. In fact, only lists a gas mask
as the major agent of protection for workers:

2) Protection against gas.
"Each member must at all times carry with him:
1. his own gas mask
2. at least 2 special filter inserts against Zyklon
Prussic acid [for use in gas mask]
3. The leaflet 'First aid for prussic acid poisoning'
4. work order
5. Authorization certificate

Each disinfestation[sic] squad must at all times carry:
1. at least 3 special inserts as extra stock.
2. one gas detector
3. 1 instrument for injecting Lobelin.
4. Cardiazol, Voriazol tablets
5. 1 lever or pickhammer for opening cans of Zyklon
[etc.. warning signs, material to reseal cans]"

No mention of special protective clothing, no
metion of cyanide quickly seeping through the skin
and incapacitating the workers.

Let's step back for a moment and just assume, for
the sake of argument, that HCN is highly explosive
and is readily absorbed by the skin.
Also remember that Zyklon-B was commonly used to
eliminate vermin from all sorts of structures,
including ships and wharehouses.
If cyanide was so ornery to manage, than it would
be useless both as a fumigant and as a weapon of
mass murder.


I've yet to see a convincing explanation that there were more than 100-250ppm left in a gas chamber by the time a Sonderkommando arrived to clear out the bodies.

I'd say the above references indicate that there is sufficient contrary evidence that revisionist contentions regarding Zyklon toxicity are not to be taken as incontrovertible, but in fact all look rather silly.

I find it hilarious that online revisionists think they've reinvented the wheel every time they repeat a denier meme, when they've been debunked continually for more than a decade.

Quote:
Moral opposition to Nazism was already prevalent but not dominant before the outbreak of war and grew steadily through it. Other revelations played a key role in determining post-1945 views of the Third Reich

The current dominant view on the Third Reich is almost entirely based on propaganda. This becomes especially obvious when reading (critical) pre-war material on the Third Reich and by reading their own literature. The current dominent view on the Third Reich is nothing but an Orwellian distortian of the truth.


Have you thought about personal and family experiences? I know you Flemings were comparatively well-treated and racially privileged but that did not hold true for the rest of Europe.

@Egghead : did you ever read "The house that Hitler built" (Stephen Henry Roberts, 1937)?!?

Years ago. Did you ever read Herbert Backe's Um die Nahrungsfreiheit Europas? Or perhaps Karl Weber, Litzmannstadt. Geschichte und Probleme eines Wirtschaftszentrums im deutschen Osten? Or Peter-Heinz Seraphim, Das Judentum im osteuropäischen Raum? All published from 1939-1943 inside Germany.

Quote:
Yet this too is nonsense, as even the slimmest knowledge of how the military history of WWII was written. It was essentially dictated to British and American audiences by captured German generals. Franz Halder orchestrated the entire postwar historiography of the European conflict.

I'm pretty sure Basil wasn't talking about military history. As far as I know, no one is doubting the accuracy of the military aspects of WW2.

It seems necessary to remind my illustrious friends that the vanquished actually massively influenced the historiography of the conflict in many aspects. As Cerberus and other board members will affirm, the greatest interest in the Third Reich is in its military history. Tanks, uniforms, battles, generals and medal winners all form the chief objects of fascination with the regime and its achievements.

Moreover, the pace has been set in the study of the political, economic and social history of the Third Reich by _German_ historians, not by American or British historians. You'll of course offer proof that the Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte, whose staff you are so eager to quote in other contexts, were paid tools of NWO propaganda.

Quote:
it is false to claim that the Holocaust led directly to the foundation of Israel, was the dominant factor in the US geopolitical decicision to fund Israel and Egypt as part of its Middle Eastern policy, or that the Holocaust has even been used to extort larger amounts of cash for compensation and memorialisation than were paid out to compensate for and commemorate the other crimes of the NS regime.

- earlier attempts to create a jewish state in Palestine were unsuccessful so far

:nuts: The Balfour Declaration was only made in 1917; the British Mandate began shortly thereafter. Have you even read anything on the Mandate period? Do you know the twisted history of commissions, recommendations, one-state and two-state solutions that were being discussed in the 1930s, at a time when nobody knew what would transpire in the 1940s? The political process of state formation was well underway before 1939. I'd suggest you read Tom Segev's One Palestine, Complete, for a very sober assessment of the Mandate period by an Israeli historian who is regarded as a post-Zionist.

- people just having been interned in work camps and having died from unintentional starvation would not have caused enough outrage for people to accept all these compensations

Then why did they pay out to French, Polish and Russian inmates of KZs? You seem to be deluding yourself again that only Jews suffered. It's a remarkable mirroring of Jewish nationalist attitudes. More Frenchmen than French Jews were deported to KZs. Indeed, more native Frenchmen than native French Jews died in KZs.

- the "holocaust" is still being used to this day as a justification of the existence of the state of Israel

Israel exists, it's a done deal. It will only be un-invented by the use of nuclear weapons, which will be preceded by or follow on from the use of nuclear weapons by the state of Israel in a repeat of Samson's bringing down of the temple on top of him. Really, for someone who professes to be seeing through the deceptions of the NWO, you seem grotesquely unaware of how the world actually is.

- the "holocaust" also makes national socialism undiscussable as an ideology for most people, hence making it impossible for the biggest enemy of the judeo-capitalist "democratic" system to rise up again as a mass movement

wherein we come to the real reason for your denials. Don't think I've forgotten that you are not a neutrally motivated discussion partner in this matter. You are not a 'sceptic', or 'disinterested', or 'concerned with the truth', you are actively seeking to spread rhetoric which calls into question the historical fact of mass murder and thereby, you hope, lift the moral stain on a political ideology you believe is worth applying in the present day.

- the "holocaust" makes it almost impossible to criticise a jewish individual or organisation without being stigmatised with the worst possible label today : antisemite or "nazi"

Since you call yourself a national socialist, you have nothing to complain about if someone calls you a nazi. Should you insinuate that there is a Jewish conspiracy involved in the 'hoax', then it is a factual statement to call you antisemitic.

If you're referring to the wider use of the Holocaust as a political club by Jewish organisations, then you have a minor point, but one that is undermined by the behaviour of the state of Israel. Most people in Europe seem to be able to see through the excuses offered by Israel for the treatment of the Palestinians without droning on endlessly about the holohoax.

- the "holocaust" puts a stigma on moderate forms of nationalism : "just look where nationalism lead to in the "40's" is the usual remark
- ....

Then the onus is on moderate nationalists to show that they are indeed moderates.

Those are significant consequences of the "holocaust" stories. Real history would shed a very different light on all these issues, threatening the position of the current establishment. That's why they fear it and create laws in several countries to censor it.

The consensus in many European societies is that these societies do not wish to tolerate hate-speech against ethnic minorities. I don't see any transfer of resources to Germany, Belgium, France etc as a thank you for enforcing a Zionist/NWO cover-up. I see continental societies enacting their own laws because they were sick and tired of lunatics. These laws have always been counterproductive because they create martyrs and because of free speech concerns. That's why I oppose criminalisation of holocaust denial. I don't, however, think that any establishment is quaking in its boots because of Germar Rudolf et al.

Quote:
I think you underestimate considerably the hatred with which the Nazis were held by the majority of non-Jewish Europeans by 1945. The regime had plundered the entire continent, deported more than 7 million non-Jews to work in varying degrees of forced labour conditions, executed hundreds of thousands of resistance fighters, euthanised up to a quarter of a million of its own citizens....

I think you overestimate considerable the hatred with which they were held by the majority of non-Jewish Europeans throughout the war. Most people just wanted to survive and didn't really care about politics. Others were divided in a pro-NS and an anti-NS camp and were pretty much fighting a civil war among one another. There was far from a united block against Germany in the occupied territories. That too is part of the myth.

There is a vast literature on collaboration, and a general awareness that most European societies were teetering on the brink of civil war. Indeed there were civil wars in the immediate aftermath, eg Greece, as well as conflicts between nationalist former collaborators and the incoming Soviet regime in the Baltic states and the Ukraine. The political conflicts set in motion by the war have run throughout much of the postwar era, as even the most cursory look at the legacy of Vichy in France indicates.

None of this does away with the fact that a society like France was impoverished, stripped of its menfolk for labour, scourged by reprisals, and became a battleground twice. Strenuous efforts were made to bring about a rapprochement between French and German societies after the war, to the point where there is very little of the hatred left. These efforts encompassed the formation of what we now call the EU, a project which was explicitly designed to lock France and Germany together economically, in order to prevent war.

This effort towards reconciliation has however gone hand in hand with a precise memorialisation of the events. Have you ever looked around Google for French websites on the occupation? There are hundreds. Name lists, deportation details for political prisoners and others alike, a small army of genealogical and amateur historians at work. This is not the work of someone pulling the strings from above, this meets a genuine cultural need to make sense of events in the past. The content of the sites is factual, without unnecessary rancour, is not accompanied by grotesque anti-German propaganda, and cannot be denied except by a complete imbecile.

Quote:
Certainly Pressac and Pelt would not have written their works had it not been for revisionism, while the various other summaries that exist of the other camps and gassing facilities might also have been left to one side. But this process has been ongoing since the 1970s, prompted by the very early efforts at denial.

The sometimes very ackward claims made by Pressac and Pelt (who both ignore evidence and/or make unfounded claims to support their preconceived conclusions) only discredit orthodoxy and favors revisionism. At least revisionism makes sense.

Have you actually read Pressac and Pelt yet? I'd like confirmation that you're not just talking out of your ass as usual.

Quote:
the lack of attention paid to the mass shootings punctures revisionism below the waterline.

The fact is that mass shootings are irrelevant to the "holocaust" unless you can prove people were shot as part of an extermination policy. No serious revisionist denies that many thousands of jews were shot in the East. It's all a matter of "why" and "how many".

Most serious revisionists deny that many hundreds of thousands of Jews adding up to several million were shot in the east.

Orthodox historiography has proven that this was part of a systematic extermination program to make the relevant territories 'judenfrei', a term which keeps on recurring again and again and again in the documents.

Since the mass shootings were a firm part of the totality of the mass murder, and are generally understood to be such by people other than morons plucked off the street and asked what 'the Holocaust' was, you have a serious problem. Think of it like a set of scales. Every proven execution by mass shooting only increases the likelihood that the rest of it happened. If revisionists could prove that mass executions didn't take place, they would be on much firmer evidentiary ground for their claims about the gas chambers.

But instead, revisionists have taken what they think is the easy way out and attacked only one side of the scales. They think the rest will fall into place if only they can take out the 'keystone' of the story.

Yet these attacks have taken place at a time when historiography and popular awareness has come to focus more and more on the mass shootings, as the success of the books by Browning and Goldhagen bears out, and as the great interest evoked in the Wehrmachtausstellung in Germany in the 1990s indicates.

Contrary to revisionist insinuations, this change in emphasis is not a retreat or a concession, but has developed organically of its own accord. As I have pointed out before, mainstream historiography follows its own concerns and doesn't take part in a debate which it regards as pointless. There is simply a better understanding among historians of the whole complex of events than was the case in the 1940s and 1950s. That is to be expected with an event of the complexity and magnitude of the Holocaust let alone WWII as a whole.

Quote:
Revisionism would have us believe the popular misconception that all Jews died in concentration camps and most especially that they died in Auschwitz.

That's nonsense. It is, however, the concentration camps that are the key of the holy-hoax. Without them (and the supposed gas vans), you only end up with mass shootings, which are not proof for an extermination policy whatsoever. somehow, you do not wish to see that.

As I said to Basil, you are batshit crazy if you think that the mass execution of more than 2 million people by shooting does not constitute an extermination policy and genocide.

Quote:
Technical means were not necessary, rifle fire sufficed to slaughter millions.

Civilians and resistance figthers were rifled down on all sides of the front, jewish as well as non-jewish. They don't prove ANYTHING WHATSOEVER concerning the existence of an extermination policy.

When the entirety of the relevant population has been exterminated from the region in question, extermination is a fact. When the process is accompanied by directives and orders laying down who is to be killed when, and by reports declaring regions 'judenfrei', there is really very little room for doubt on this.

Quote:
There is a logical fallacy, but it does not work as you claim it does. Gas chambers reduced the Jewish population of Europe by several millions. They did not bring about the entire population reduction. Attacking the existence of the gas chambers cannot be done independently of the entire phenomenon known now as the Holocaust.

Why not? If you know for a fact that 300,000 jews or more died in a concentration camp (something both sides seem to agree on), the question would just remain HOW these people died.
Revisionists says : starvation, disease, an occasional killing by fire squad due to criminal activities, being gunned down for trying to excape, ...
Orthodoxy says : gas chambers, disease, an occasional killing by fire squad due to criminal activities, being gunned down for trying to excape, ...

Since there seems to be an agreement on the other causes of death, the only thing that remains is the following :

There's next to no agreement in the presentations offered. One side minimises everything, the other side strives to present the whole story.

- proof that the disease and starvation were (un)intentional (revisionists have pretty good arguments here)

No you don't. Ethnically targeted rations, orders to lock up specific ethnic populations in ghettos and then decree that people escaping from them be shot, thereby corralling the Jews in the ghettos, amount to a quite intentional policy of decimation.

- proof that the gas chambers were used (revisionists again have pretty good arguments here)

No you don't.

- statistical issues : how many people died in which camp, from what cause, ... possibly broken down by religion, race and nationallity (this is something there doesn't seem to be much agreement on on either side)

And this is something where orthodox historians are infinitely more advanced in their research than revisionists.

Quote:
Auschwitz performed under capacity for most of its lifespan

Based on whoes calculations?

Pelt, Pressac, Piper, Allen, my own.

Quote:
I find the arguments about Zyklon toxicity to be ludicrous.

Why?

See above. If I can find two explicit references within a couple of minutes countering revisionist screeds about how people must have been poisoned through skin contact, then clearly not very much thinking has gone into revisionist contentions.

Quote:
Body disposal was virtually one of the easiest aspects of the whole affair.

Tell that to the former guards at Bergen-Belsen and Dachau. They had so many dead they didn't know what to do with them.

Had Belsen and Dachau not been liberated for many more months, the problem would have been solved. You're not thinking chronologically again. How does Belsen in April 1945 relate to Belzec in December 1942?

Quote:
there are in all many hundreds of pieces of evidence for the various gas chambers. Much more than is known about by revisionists. Much more than I knew about before I started taking an interest in these matters.

How many of them cannot be explained alternatively. In example, Mattogno claims to have found documents in the Russian archives that referred to a desinfectation facility having been placed next to the crematorium in Auschwitz I due to the insufficiency of such facilities when the typhoid epidemic became rampant. If these documents are indeed genuine, this would dismiss quite a lot of your "evidence" in the blink of an eye.

No it wouldn't. It would not, for example, explain away the HCN traces inside the ruins of the four crematoria in Birkenau. In fact, it rather counters it, since the existence of disinfection facilities like the Central Sauna suggests that delousing and disinfection was more naturally coupled with laundries and the like than it would be with morgues.

Moreover, asserting that there 'must have been' delousing facilities in the morgues or fumigations of the morgues runs up against an evidentiary problem, namely you haven't got any.

Quote:
By contrast, the best efforts of revisionists have turfed up.... essentially nothing to indicate where the missing Jews went.

What exactly happened to them, is irrelevant. What matters, is whether or not they were killed as part of an extermination policy. You have so far failed to prove that.

Even if they did all die, that doesn't mean they were killed. Unintentional starvation and disease are a perfectly plausible alternative. There is also the possibility of fleeing jews being murdered by the Russians. etc. [B]As long as we don't know what happened to them, the only thing left is assumptions.[/B] Your focus on the "missing jews" hence is but a strawman argument.

I see you are parrotting Basil's 'strawman' allegation. No, my illustrious friend, this question is absolutely central. If all you have are assumptions and presumptions about the fate of the missing Jews, then logically we can dismiss them, since you have no evidence of their subsequent fate.

If all you have are a few witnesses whose words have been reinterpreted, as is the case with the feeble attempts by Mattogno et al to 'argue' that the camps were transit camps, then you are into an evidentiary double-standard, because there are more than a few witnesses to the gas chambers, plus documents, plus physical evidence.

Why should this question, of where the Jews migrated to, not be amenable to forensic methods just the same as the question of the gas chambers is amenable? You have no evidence. Isn't that what you keep on telling us about the orthodox position? Yet the volume of evidence for the gas chambers is far more considerable than the volume of evidence for an alleged migration of live Jews after 1942.

Why is revisionism suddenly immune from requests for evidence? Is it because its professional practitioners are either lying or stupid, and because its internet practioners haven't thought through the problem logically?

I've encountered many an online revisionist who will say things like 'I have no interest in demographics, I'm only interested in the gas chambers'. This is the same as a military historian saying 'I am not interested in battles, I am only interested in tanks'. People who are only interested in tanks are monomaniacal bores. The same has to be said for revisionists who are only interested in gas chambers.

Once again, it is all rather simple. A sane assessment of the logical problem would view the two competing theories as two sides of a scale. Each item would be weighed up and placed on the respective dish. Then the volume of evidence can be compared.

This means that it's up to you to provide evidence that the Jews survived, and to expect to have your evidence challenged for type, content, coherence, provenance, plausibility, the implications that can be drawn from it, and so on. Just as revisionists do with the gas chamber evidence.

Should revisionism eventually provide more evidence that there was a mass migration than there is for the collectivity of the gas chambers, and should this evidence be plausible, coherent, then its contentions - which are disputed, and which have not won general acceptance - will become much more convincing.

Should, however, revisionism fail to provide plausible, coherent evidence for the survival of Jews past the camps, then its contentions about the gas chambers become infinitely less convincing.

One last thing - saying that all the evidence needed to prove your case, that it's been destroyed, covered up or hidden away is no different to a schoolkid saying the dog ate my homework. You simply don't lose all the evidence for the survival of more than 2 million human beings (i.e. the camp deportees), you simply can't cover it up.

SO WHERE DID THEY GO?

If you can't answer this in your own words citing proper evidence, then there is no point even continuing this discussion. I'm not entertaining another request for proof for my side until you outline your coherent explanation of the fate of European Jews from 1939 to 1945 from your side.

[eggheadbanga]

:rofl: What are you smoking?

Meaning the camps were built at the points where the guage changes.

Absolutely untrue for 1942. By then, in the wake of 'Barbarorssa', the rail lines had been regauged all the way to Rostov. This denier canard is one of the most laughable pieces of nonsense I have ever heard. I never even see a single citation to prove it. The Germans didn't even capture very much Russian-gauge rolling stock let alone sufficient locomotives to haul supplies and the various deportees.

Oh dear, Basil, you walked into a door just then.

Can you please name me the authors who have written on the German railways in Eastern Europe? There are several. If you are unfamiliar with their names and their works, I can only conclude you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[Trojan]

Absolutely untrue for 1942. By then, in the wake of 'Barbarorssa', the rail lines had been regauged all the way to Rostov. This denier canard is one of the most laughable pieces of nonsense I have ever heard. I never even see a single citation to prove it. The Germans didn't even capture very much Russian-gauge rolling stock let alone sufficient locomotives to haul supplies and the various deportees.

Oh dear, Basil, you walked into a door just then.

Can you please name me the authors who have written on the German railways in Eastern Europe? There are several. If you are unfamiliar with their names and their works, I can only conclude you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Its just one of the standard answers, I swear there is a revisionist play book that they read from.

[eggheadbanga]

Its just one of the standard answers, I swear there is a revisionist play book that they read from.

The funny thing is I don't recall reading it in Mattogno. Maybe Butz claimed this? If so it shows how much the engineer knew about practical engineering.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Basil Fawlty]

Absolutely untrue for 1942. By then, in the wake of 'Barbarorssa', the rail lines had been regauged all the way to Rostov. This denier canard is one of the most laughable pieces of nonsense I have ever heard. I never even see a single citation to prove it.Forgive me if I don't take your word for that, but all I said was that I had seen this map recently. I will hunt down the source of it and we can take it from there.

Now, can you shed any light on the location of the departure records from the various camps?

[NeoNietzsche]

SO WHERE DID THEY GO?

If you can't answer this in your own words citing proper evidence, then there is no point even continuing this discussion. I'm not entertaining another request for proof for my side until you outline your coherent explanation of the fate of European Jews from 1939 to 1945 from your side.

These may suggest some of the basis of the difficulty:

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/groups/g_5480771/b567/__sr_/8aea.jpg?grwaukEB_c2Dmfl8

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/groups/g_5480771/b567/__sr_/3d7f.jpg?grwaukEBAgCCNeo0

[eggheadbanga]

Forgive me if I don't take your word for that, but all I said was that I had seen this map recently. I will hunt down the source of it and we can take it from there.


Nota bene, a map from 1940 or even May 1941 says nothing about what ensued thereafter. I wish you luck finding this illustrious source, and advise that you also cite the source of the source and then further check the source of the source. Because you know what revisionists are like, don't you?

Now, can you shed any light on the location of the departure records from the various camps?

Already done. Or weren't you paying attention to the documents Poty and Sulla posted in the formal debate?

I'm pretty much done here. I don't see the point in antagonising the true believers further. I've learnt as much as I'm going to about the inanity of online revisionist arguments.

So I'll leave you with a classic instance of denier quote-mining and double standards, from that all-time classic, Mattogno and Graf's Treblinka:

Some former French prisoners of war, who had been interned in the front line POW camp Stalag 325 at Rawa-Ruska (17 km from Bełżec on the road to Lemberg/Lviv), were questioned by Belgian researcher Jean-Marie Boisdefeu. They claimed to have seen western, mainly French Jews in that zone.[773] As Boisdefeu stresses, declarations made by other prisoners of war in the year 1945 confirm this. Thus, a Paul Roser testified at Nuremberg.[774]
"The Germans had transformed the area of Lemberg-Rawa Ruska into a giant ghetto."


But what does the original say?


ROSER: No, I should say that our stay at the punishment camp, Rawa-Ruska, involved one thing more awful than anything else we prisoners saw and suffered. We were horrified by what we knew was taking place all about us. The Germans had transformed the area of Lvov-Rawa-Ruska into a kind of immense ghetto. Into that area, where the Jews were already quite numerous, had been brought the Jews from all the countries of Europe. Every day for 5 months, except for an interruption of about six weeks in August and September 1942, we saw passing about 150 meters from our camp, one, two, and sometimes three convoys, made up of freight cars in which there were crowded men, women and children. One day a voice coming from one of these cars shouted: "I am from Paris. We are on our way to the slaughter." Quite frequently, comrades who went outside the camp to go to work found corpses along the railway track. We knew in a vague sort of way at that time that these trains stopped at Belcec, which was located about 17 kilometers from our camp; and at that point they executed these wretched people, by what means I do not know.
One night in July 1942 we heard shots of submachine guns, throughout the entire night and the moans of women and children. The following morning bands of German soldiers were going through the fields of rye on the very edge of our camp, their bayonets pointed downward, seeking people hiding in the fields. Those of our comrades who went out that day to go to their work told us that they saw corpses everywhere in the town, in the gutters, in the barns, in the houses. Later some of our guards, who had participated in this operation, quite good-humoredly explained to us that 2,000 Jews had been killed that night under the pretext that two SS men had been murdered in the region.
Later on, in 1943, during the first week of June, there occurred a pogrom which in Lvov caused the death of 30,000 Jews.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/01-29-46.htm

Do revisionists still want Roser as a witness to their argument? I suspect not.

[eggheadbanga]

SO WHERE DID THEY GO?

If you can't answer this in your own words citing proper evidence, then there is no point even continuing this discussion. I'm not entertaining another request for proof for my side until you outline your coherent explanation of the fate of European Jews from 1939 to 1945 from your side.

These may suggest some of the basis of the difficulty:

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/groups/g_5480771/b567/__sr_/8aea.jpg?grwaukEB_c2Dmfl8

http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/groups/g_5480771/b567/__sr_/3d7f.jpg?grwaukEBAgCCNeo0

So much for the coherent explanation from revisionism.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Nota bene, a map from 1940 or even May 1941 says nothing about what ensued thereafter. I wish you luck finding this illustrious source, and advise that you also cite the source of the source and then further check the source of the source. Because you know what revisionists are like, don't you?



Already done. Or weren't you paying attention to the documents Poty and Sulla posted in the formal debate?

I'm pretty much done here. I don't see the point in antagonising the true believers further. I've learnt as much as I'm going to about the inanity of online revisionist arguments.

So I'll leave you with a classic instance of denier quote-mining and double standards, from that all-time classic, Mattogno and Graf's Treblinka:




But what does the original say?



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/01-29-46.htm

Do revisionists still want Roser as a witness to their argument? I suspect not.


Its disgusting how Holocaust deniers can lie about things like this. They are utterly lacking in decency.

[IlluSionS667]

[...]One night in July 1942 we heard shots of submachine guns, throughout the entire night and the moans of women and children. The following morning bands of German soldiers were going through the fields of rye on the very edge of our camp, their bayonets pointed downward, seeking people hiding in the fields. Those of our comrades who went out that day to go to their work told us that they saw corpses everywhere in the town, in the gutters, in the barns, in the houses. Later some of our guards, who had participated in this operation, quite good-humoredly explained to us that 2,000 Jews had been killed that night under the pretext that two SS men had been murdered in the region.
Later on, in 1943, during the first week of June, there occurred a pogrom which in Lvov caused the death of 30,000 Jews.

Do revisionists still want Roser as a witness to their argument? I suspect not.

I don't see why not. The part in bold clearly illustrates we're dealing with retalliation actions. You may argue that 1000 dead jews for 1 dead SS officer is a lot, yet I'm pretty sure it's not that unusual. In fact, I've heard of jewish nationalists saying that 1000 Palestinians should be killed for every dead jew today in Israel.

Nevertheless, none of the things this eyewitness says contradicts revisionism. In example, what he knew about Bełżec was obviously just hearsay.

[A. Radek]

What world are you living in? There are exactly 10 countries in Europe where it is illegal. I know by heart at least 4 people who are/have been in jail for this (Zuendel, Irving, Rudolf and Verbeke).

Quote:

None of those people are in jail for revisionism. There are no laws against revisionism in any European country. You're just assuming there is, just because holocaust deniers and Nazis keep claiming that.

[Basil Fawlty]

Already done. Or weren't you paying attention to the documents Poty and Sulla posted in the formal debate? No it wasn't. One document was referenced. I have posed this question before and I'm yet to receive an answer. Very often its just ignored, sometimes someone waves that piece of paper.

What archive contains the departure records for the various camps?

[Basil Fawlty]

None of those people are in jail for revisionism. There are no laws against revisionism in any European country. You're just assuming there is, just because holocaust deniers and Nazis keep claiming that.Yes, of course. They are all in jail for not renewing their TV licences, everyone knows that.

I suppose you will tell us that the Fabius-Gayssot law and other comparable laws in Europe are a figment of the revisionist imagination, even though absoultely no one except you seems to deny their existence.

You should listen to yourself sometime.

[A. Radek]

Really? Then it should be easy enough for you grand 'scholars' to post the actual laws in their entirety.

Wonder why they hardly ever do ...

[Basil Fawlty]

Really? Then it should be easy enough for you grand 'scholars' to post the actual laws in their entirety.

Wonder why they hardly ever do ...What is the point? Its not as if any one except you denies their existence.

[eggheadbanga]

No it wasn't. One document was referenced. I have posed this question before and I'm yet to receive an answer. Very often its just ignored, sometimes someone waves that piece of paper.

What archive contains the departure records for the various camps?

The documents posted were Umlaufplaene, clearly showing the same trains moving to and from specific camps. Many were taken from a file to be found in the National Archives of the Republic of Belarus in Minsk, also copied in many western archives. I made it two or three documents that were posted as scans. I have the entire file photocopied. There is no indication that any departures of anything other than empty trains took place from the camps, the same trains however were sometimes then pressed into use for other population movements, e.g. moving Polish workers from Lublin district to Berlin after the train had doglegged from Berlin to Auschwitz to Lublin. All very much a closed loop I'm afraid.

Good luck finding departure records showing Jews leaving the camps. Good luck finding arrival records showing Jews reaching a new destination. Good luck finding any evidence at all for your batshit crazy contentions. Just remember, 'the dog ate my homework' is not an excuse for finding no evidence.

I'll see what you have come up with when the formal debate resumes.

[IlluSionS667]

Really? Then it should be easy enough for you grand 'scholars' to post the actual laws in their entirety.

I suggest you ask Charles Martel. He's a Belgian law student. I'm sure he can provide you the full text of the Belgian "negationism" law that makes holocaust revisionism illegal in Belgium.

[IlluSionS667]

Good luck finding departure records showing Jews leaving the camps. Good luck finding arrival records showing Jews reaching a new destination. Good luck finding any evidence at all for your batshit crazy contentions. Just remember, 'the dog ate my homework' is not an excuse for finding no evidence.

Since neither you not Basil has any proof for what happened to them, neither of you can know what really happened. Why do you insist revisionists need evidence for this, while you don't feel that need for yourself?!?

By the way, I just found a second bone laying around on Zamosc. One more, and I have proof that Zamosc was an extermination camp :p

[A. Radek]

What is the point? Its not as if any one except you denies their existence.

We know why you need to lie about this; it's not as if you would like facts interfering with your hobby.

[eggheadbanga]

Originally Posted by eggheadbanga
Quote:
[...]One night in July 1942 we heard shots of submachine guns, throughout the entire night and the moans of women and children. The following morning bands of German soldiers were going through the fields of rye on the very edge of our camp, their bayonets pointed downward, seeking people hiding in the fields. Those of our comrades who went out that day to go to their work told us that they saw corpses everywhere in the town, in the gutters, in the barns, in the houses. Later some of our guards, who had participated in this operation, quite good-humoredly explained to us that 2,000 Jews had been killed that night under the pretext that two SS men had been murdered in the region.
Later on, in 1943, during the first week of June, there occurred a pogrom which in Lvov caused the death of 30,000 Jews.


Do revisionists still want Roser as a witness to their argument? I suspect not.

I don't see why not. The part in bold clearly illustrates we're dealing with retalliation actions. You may argue that 1000 dead jews for 1 dead SS officer is a lot, yet I'm pretty sure it's not that unusual. In fact, I've heard of jewish nationalists saying that 1000 Palestinians should be killed for every dead jew today in Israel.

Nevertheless, none of the things this eyewitness says contradicts revisionism. In example, what he knew about Bełżec was obviously just hearsay.

I bolded a crucial statement that you elided over. You forget yet again that reprisals on this scale are illegal. When they are on such a scale they lose their quality as reprisals completely. Pretext means pretext. The chances were 99 to 1 that the Jewish community in question had nothing to do with any partisan action. You also have no way of knowing what the fate was of the neighbouring communities and why they were annihilated.

I'd suggest you read Dieter Pohl's or Thomas Sandkuehler's exhaustive histories of this region (Galicia), along with online sources such as the Katzmann report, Omer Bartov's online presentations about the shtetl of Buczacz and the pages at deathcamps.org about Belzec, most especially including the report of the deportations from Kolomea. You can also add Dieter Pohl's article in English on the Stanislawow Sicherheitspolizei which is available for free as a pdf at Yad Vashem's website to the list of things you can read. A very large number of communities were destroyed for no other reason than they were Jewish.

You cite without a source Jewish nationalists saying 1000 Palestinians should be killed for every Jew killed by terrorism; advocating such a thing is not only against international law but abhorrent. Anyone either advocating or carrying out 'reprisals' on such a scale is committing mass murder and sooner or later will cross over into genocide. 'He hurt me a little bit' is no excuse for mass murder. You think your legalese somehow excuses what happened or even vaguely negates the intent behind targeting Jews for reprisals to acts that had not been committed by Jews. This is Quatsch.

As for your attempted deconstruction, well, thank you for destroying the credibility of the source which Mattogno and Graf lean so heavily on in order to 'prove' that there were resettlements. Another witness they cited also discussed gas vans. How can you justify cherry-picking on this scale? What part of the term quote-mining is not in action here? How much more inane do you have to be? And this is the best that revisionism can come up with!!!


I'm saying my goodbyes now. I'm going back to inactive status. I'll check back in when Basil resumes the formal debate and to see how the new sub-forum develops, but I have better things to do with my time now. I've exhausted almost all the possibilities of seeing denier logic in action on this forum. I'm sure the revisionists can make themselves nicely at home in their new playpen, and I'm sure the opposition will continue to rile them up.

Thank you, IlluSionS667. Thank you, Basil. Thanks to Cerberus, Globus, A.Radek, Sulla and the others arguing the other side. And thanks to the neutrals for their occasional comments.

I'll be around again to check PMs but otherwise I am out of here.