Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

[Anonymouse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

This is a pretty unintellectual position. "If one has not read Edward Gibbons, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire one simply cannot discuss the Roman Empire, as that is THE BIBLE of what we know about the Roman Empire."

This line of reasoning is simply means one is either afraid to engage in a discussion or one cannot. This is a thread and anyone can discuss anything. This is akin to when Fadix demanded credentials about me regarding the Race topic, when he himself didn't produce any. Moreover, if one has a formidable knowledge regarding World War II, and especially the Nuremberg Trials, one is therefore more than qualified to engage in this discussion. There are no rules on what requirements one must meet to engage in a debate, when anyone makes up rules as they go along to fit their ideas of what a discussions should be, be weary of that person and the arguments he defends, for such is the tactic of the cunning.

[dusken]

Uhh..uhhhuhuhuh...You said "cunning."

[anileve]

Edited by loseyourname: Again, everybody, please try to be constructive.

[Fadix]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Historicity of the Jewish Holocaust

Originally posted by Darorinag I have read many papers about holocaust claims. I have also read the book. One who hasn't read Hillberg's book but has read other books about the holocaust, and a collection of eyewitness accounts, qualifies for this debate. You are using intimidation tactics by making people who might want to participate in this discussion feel inferior to you.

If you actually have read the book you won't question my claim that anyone that did not read that book is in no position to deny the Shoah(I use the word I want). Beside that the only reason I call Shoah is that Jewish genocide is a too long term to type it every time, and "Holocaust" does not apply.

So since you have read the work, let discuss about it then.

What do you think of one of the special problems regarded as "The Thereisenstadt Jews" covered in the Volume 2 of the work ? What is your comment regarding Heydrich intention for creating that ghetto? Do you agree with the possible reasons given by Hilberg?

Let start with that one Dan, let see if you really know of what you are talking about.

[Fadix]

Originally posted by anileve A Brilliant thread for brilliant horseradishes to marinade in.

I envy your vocabulary.

[Darorinag]

A Brilliant thread for brilliant horseradishes to marinade in.

Let us not go off-topic. I challenge you to provide proof that the gas chambers existed. But of course, YOU KNOW they did, right?

If you actually have read the book you won't question my claim that anyone that did not read that book is in no position to deny the Shoah

So anyone who questions your points must not have read the book, eh? Typical reply. Again, I could similarly claim that you cannot argue against revisionists if you don't know their claims and the results of their studies. Have YOU read Rudolf's book? The Lueftel Report? Your "knowledge" seems to be extremely one-sided. Moreover, within the specific revisionist books, there are many many references to other "holocaust" books, and they address all their claims one by one.

Beside that the only reason I call Shoah is that Jewish genocide is a too long term to type it every time

Too long? Yet you capitalise the word "shoah" every time you type it? It takes longer to do that than it would take to type 4 more words that are in the same keyboard region. I know exactly why you (and countless anti-revisionists) use that word. But that's beyond the scope of this thread. But from now on, I shall refer to it as $hoax.

"Holocaust" does not apply.

It doesn't, does it...

What do you think of one of the special problems regarded as "The Thereisenstadt Jews" covered in the Volume 2 of the work ? What is your comment regarding Heydrich intention for creating that ghetto? Do you agree with the possible reasons given by Hilberg?

We are not talking about ghettos here. I am not denying the existence of ghettos. I am specifically talking about gas chambers, cremation, Zyklon B, HCN, burning pits, human soap, etc. Use Hillberg's book to prove that the gas chambers did indeed exist. Use any source. Fact is, you can't. I don't care if it's the bible about the "holocaust." It still doesn't prove much, does it?

Let start with that one Dan, let see if you really know of what you are talking about.

I already said I wasn't going to reply to your fallacious intimidations. At the beginning of the thread, I stated my position with regards to revisionism and which claims I think should be revised. I already stated that there were ghettos, concentration camps, deaths. You are stuck on this though. I am not denying the deportations. I am denying the reasons behind them. There is no proof that there were any plans for extermination. Hillberg's possible reasons are only that, POSSIBLE reasons. Not proofs. Like I said, I can TRY to interpret what was going on in Hitler's and Hoess' and Eichmann's minds, but I can't use that as "proof" because it simply doesn't qualify as one. Interpretation is one thing, evidence is another.

I am not here to test anyone or be tested on my knowledge. Your aim in all discussions seems to be about proving that you know more than me (or others). I am not interested in competing with anyone about anything. I am simply putting forward my points and backing them one by one, thereby disproving all the claims of gas chambers, mass-killings in camps, etc. THAT is the crux of revisionism. Revisionism is not denialism. It doesn't deny anything and everything that has to do with the "holocaust." It accepts some things as factual, it seeks to disprove other claims, and revise some others (number of victims, etc.) Moreover, more than anything else, the issue of the concentration camps and what happened there is the crux of revisionism.

I have no intention of "proving" that I know what I am talking about. I am putting forward my proofs. You're free to disprove me if you want or if you can. Go ahead. I am not going to turn this into another thread of who has the better source and whose claims are psychotic. If you continue with your intimidation, I will refuse to reply to you. The only reason I replied to you was because you asked a question, and I wanted to answer it. Unless you engage in posting behaviour that is fit for such discussion, I am simply going to ignore your posts, and I don't care if you don't care. So there.

Anyway, I'll go on with my posts. Note that I am not copying and pasting all that I'm posting in my threads, although I use some portions of quotations to demonstrate my point. All sources will be cited.

[Fadix]

But Dan, you claimed having read the book. No? What are you afraid of then? As for revisionist materials, you will hardly find one which I have not read, try me you would see Danny boy, on the other hand, what work regarding the Shoah you have read...? go ahead post them here, post those works so we might discuss about them, I don't care which one just one go ahead. You see Danny boy, I have never claimed to be expert of the other subject which we discussed about previously. But I do claim being an expert regarding war crimes like I always told. (the poor Turks would be the first to attest )

Danny boy, if you actually have read the book you would not make a comment such as: " I am not denying the existence of ghettos." That Ghetto in question is a particular one, one of the reasons why Hilberg placed it in the four "special problems." I am telling you what do you think about it, do you agree with Hilberg interpretation regarding Heydrich intentions ? Let discuss about that. If you have not read the book(actually not book but work with Volumes) just admit it I will understand. If you have read it, then give your comment. I don't care of the rest of your post, I just have asked you a simple question and expect answers here.

[Darorinag]

But Dan, you claimed having read the book. No? What are you afraid of then?

Jesus Christ. You do have a way of turning threads into competition, don't you? I am not afraid of anything. Start a new thread about it, and I will debate that with you in that thread. But NOT in this one. I already stated my intentions in this thread. Please respect them without intimidations.

As for revisionist materials, you will hardly find one which I have not read, try me you would see Danny boy, on the other hand, what work regarding the Shoah you have read...?

I am not playing this competition game. I have read what I have read. Let's get to discussing what we both know about the gas chambers, shall we?

go ahead post them here, post those works so we might discuss about them, I don't care which one just one go ahead.

Again, I am not playing the "who has read more" game. If you can prove that the "shoah" took place, go ahead. If not, you're wasting my (and others') time. Yours too, in fact.

You see Danny boy, I have never claimed to be expert of the other subject which we discussed about previously. But I do claim being an expert regarding war crimes like I always told.

Then disprove the Germar Rudolf findings. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

If you have not read the book(actually not book but work with Volumes) just admit it I will understand.

I've read the book. I have no need to lie in order to impress anyone.

If you have read it, then give your comment. I don't care of the rest of your post, I just have asked you a simple question and expect answers here.

Start a new thread. This is not about Hilberg's interpretations. This is about scientific evidence that disproves historical claims of the holocaust. There is not interpretative about that. From what I remember, and I don't have the book with me to double-check this, the issue with Theresienstadt was that people could buy their way into the camp. It was basically "transformed" into a camp of "privileged" people who bought their "survival." Are you referring to the theory that this was an "experiment" by the Reich, and the use of the International Commitee of the Red Cross report? And that the Nazis created Theresienstadt because they realized that they couldn't have possibly deport certain Jews, most of them old, and WWI veterans and otherwise important and privileged figures, because that would lead to protests against them? Unless I'm mixing different books...

Anyway, I don't see what's so significant about that... Is that what you're talking about? Or is there something I've missed? What exactly does that prove, Fadi?

Edit: As for me, I am going to bed now. Don't expect a reply till tomorrow.

[Anonymouse]

I would call this another underhanded tactic by Fadix, of course I might be wrong. He presents his own criteria of what a debate should be ( those that have read the book by Raul Hilberg ), and therefore the argument is not so much the historicity of the Holocaust in the context of history, but rather basing it all on one reading a book. This tactic is a intelligent one, as his position is that of defending the Holocaust, and thereby equating the defense of the Holocaust by having read a book, he creates an argument around that. When people are trapped into this argument, to the profane it would seem that "Oh the guy who defends the Holocaust wins", but in reality this is just not a nice discussion/debate approach in my opinion, because all this is doing is defending book smarts, i.e. whoever read the book and has a copy can therefore argue better as they have more knowledge of the book. The reader may ask the question does Raul Hilberg present physical evidence of gas chambers? It should be noted that Raul Hilberg doesn't believe in the Kabbalistic figure of 6 million Jews. How's that for a revisionist historian!

[Fadix]

Danny, was this thread about "Holocaust" ? Are you not here to disprove that there was an intention to destroy the European Jews?

You have trown many unretated things one after the other here like you usually do... this is an indication that you do not know of what you are talking about.

I proposed you fairly to talk about one thing at a time, you are refusing to do that.

So here, I ask you gently for the last time to give your opinion regarding what I asked you, it is one of the evidences of NAZI policy. Do you or do you not want me to show you there was such a policy? Danny boy, you ask for evidences, when I propose you to bring them you cry.

"Nazis created Theresienstadt because they realized that they couldn't have possibly deport certain Jews, most of them old, and WWI veterans and otherwise important and privileged figures, because that would lead to protests against them? Unless I'm mixing different books..."

This was the reason given by the NAZI to justify such a creation, I am asking you Hilbergs opinion and what you think about it.

Now Dan, let show you how you disprove the Shoah. You must disprove the hardest evidences brought, and THE evidences open to the public is mostly found in Hilbergs works, Hilberg is the Dadrian of the Shoah, it is like a Turkish denialist claiming that there is no evidences to "prove" the Armenian genocide when he has not read Dadrian works. In order for a Turk to claim the evidences are non-existant he must disprove what Dadrian brought in his works, no Turks were able to do that.

On the other hand, the Wetern negationalist material which "show" there was no Armenian genocide is brought Mostly by Shaws, McCarthy etc... in order to reject Turkish theses one must have read them... I have over a hundred page of critic regarding McCarthy which countain critic of EVERY book he has written and all his major essays.(have you done the same with Hilberg or other authors?)

This is how it works Danny boy, and this is why you can not divert the question here... you want me to show you that there was a Shoah, so it is obvious that I will be using the Dadrian of the Shoah.

As for the rest of your post, it is not what I asked you, your intimidations try them elsewhere.