Shermer

>>32500

You really think that garbage is good?

>Historians argue about the holocaust all the time, but these guys who argue against it happening are different (for some reason/because I say so).

 

METHODOLOGY OF HOLOCAUST DENIAL

>1

Where are examples of these weak points? From what I've read they attack everything. Pre-war, during the war, and post-war (e.g., Nuremberg). It is disingenuous to say that, but as it comes from Shermer, that's redundant. Also what does "rarely saying anything about their own position"? The position is simple: the Holocaust didn't happen.

>2

Yes, it has shrunk. It used be electric chairs, electric floors, masturbation machines, holocoasters, gas-ovens, diesel engines, etc. Of course, it's shrunk because those are all false. Gas chambers are false too.

>3

Unlike Nizkor right? Also which quotes exactly? There's a dearth of examples of quotes here.

>4

I think that's a lie. Holocaust historians may debate it, but that doesn't mean revisionists decided to debate it because of those historians. That's fucking retarded.

>5

See 1. And why shouldn't they focus on what isn't known if it is germane to the holocaust?

>thousands of accounts and documents

Which I'm assuming you'll never produce in this article. Also isn't that appeal to popularity fallacy essentially (a half, of course)? If eyewitnesses say it happened, then it happened.

>Nuremberg trials

Weber is right. Not only were (British) documents inserted into German documents to incriminate them (the paper was different from Germans and thus had a different color as they aged) but the Nazis were tortured or threatened to confess to "their" crimes.

>No one has proven their confessions were extorted

O rly? What about Hoess in his memoirs.

http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/hoess.htm

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html

More on torture

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=974

>Doesn't prove all were

The fact that false evidence was extracted at all doesn't strike you as odd, Mr. Shermer?

>Albert Speer

>December 20, 1946

I'm going to ask this: does he have any other diary entry, say, before the war ended? Also what is the original German? As it could be translated incorrectly like Vernichtung/vernicten and Ausrottung/ausrotten.

 

I've found this:

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8167&p=61316&hilit=Albert+Speer#p61316

>Speer spent 20 years in Spandau prison for using "slave labor", which of course was common practice by the Allies, Speer never admitted the existence of homicidal 'gas chambers'. After his release he was bound by Orwellian German law which prevented him from saying anything that went against any part of the impossible yet mandated 'holocaust' storyline.

 

CONVERGENCE OF EVIDENCE **KEK**

>The holocaust was thousands of events

What? The holocaust is usually defined as the extermination of Jews in the death camps of Nazi Germany. Inb4 Einsatzgruppen **I know it's coming as a replacement for the missing 3 or 4 million Jews**.

>minor inconsistencies and errors

>minor

No documents detailing the extermination, only "codewords". No evidence of gas chambers.

>Evolution

Yes, evolution is a theory. Is the Holocaust a theory? I'm not being tongue and cheek here. Is it? What makes it more than a hypothesis? Evidence that has sloughed off like rotten meat from a bone.

>Written documents

Like?

>Eyewitness testimony

Except, of course, those Nazis who deny the holocaust outright.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165&hilit=Spandau

>Photographs

Press and films were propaganda. The aerial photos of the camps he mentions show nothing (I've taken a look into that)

>Physical evidence

Like the bodies that are forbidden to be exhumed? Or the piles of human hair and shoes **how does that prove the extermination of Jews**? Or the chimneys built by the Soviets that lead nowhere? That kind of evidence?

>Demographics

Jews did die, but not from an extermination policy. Hell, there was a Polish pogrom of Jews AFTER the war. Then you have to ask this: are Jews considered a race or religion in those demographics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_violence_in_Poland,_1944–46

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom#After_World_War_II

There's also the fact that they emigrated to other countries, namely the US, USSR, and Israel.

>Holocaust deniers ignore this convergence of evidence. They pick what suits their theory and dismiss or avoid the rest. Historians and scientists do this too, but there's a difference. History and science have self-correcting mechanisms whereby one's errors are "revised" by one's colleagues in the true sense of the word.

So deniers are the self-correcting mechanism?

>Shouldn't be based political ideology, religious convictions, or other human emotions

>This double-think

Holy shit, his next several sentences. Historians are an exception to this, although they are emotionally resisting arguments of revisionists/deniers.

>One claims X, another claims 1.2X; therefore, it's true

How is that one testimony is considered nothing but x>100, x>1000 is considered something?

>rumors

He doesn't disprove this. Hitler, in one of his speeches, actually addresses the rumor that they were exterminating Jews.

>Nazi confession+torture

See above.

>Sonderkommando

Yes, because nothing says credible account as Jews who were imprisoned in labor camps.

>Nazis and the memoirs after the trial

Is that really an argument? There was an old women arrested for denying the Holocaust in Germany.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/13/germany-87-year-old-nazi-grandma-jailed-for-denying-holocaust/

Nazis would have been killed, imprisoned, or sent to Soviet Russia. Fuck this elementary arguments here.

>blueprints of gas chambers and crematoria

He's not going to present them, is he?

>All of this other shit

>"rooting out"

Yes, because that's what it means. Saying something sarcastically doesn't refute something.

>Hitler's speeches (a), Himmler's speeches (b), Hans Frank (c), Goebbels (d)

For (a), present it in German; for (b) you mean the Posen speeches? If so, here

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=372&hilit=Posen+speeches

For (c) and (d), what/which speeches?

>Hasn't the German government confessed

Wait. Oh, you mean the OCCUPIED German government whose people were subjected to psychological brainwashing by the Allies and Alfred Hitchcock's propaganda films?

>Eichmann

I'll see you and raise you this:

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9052&p=69064&hilit=Eichmann#p69064

This

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8033

This

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4351

And this

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=733

>What about the missing ppl?

Jews did die there, but it was no holocaust. How hard is it—oh… oh… that's what this must be the big ol' straw man. He still hasn't refuted their immigration to other countries. He hasn't refuted the fact that the Allies' bombing of supply lines did affect the camps; all he does is say it a smug way.

>belief system

Still goin' strong with that double think.

>post hoc rationalizations

[DOUBLETHINK INTENSIFIES]

Seriously though, what about those holes in the roofs and the introductions events? And the use of Zyklon B to gas Jews. Aren't those post hoc rationalizations?

"There's all this Zyklon B; and there are fewer Jews around—gasp— y-you think that the Nazis gassed those Jews?"

>every piece prove independently

Excuse, Mr. Shermer, when has any denier claimed that?

 

INTENTIONALITY

1. ADOLF HITLER

>Liquidation

I don’t think you understand that liquidation doesn’t mean what you think it does. Vid related is Czech PM (?) saying that they didn’t mean kill Germans when they said, “liquidate them”. Liquidation can mean killing, yes, but this video clearly shows that there was another usage at the time. Here’s some stuff on, well, liquidation and this very thing, I believe:

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2143&p=73930&hilit=liquidate#p73930

>His order to stop it proves he knew about it

No, Hitler could have learned about it in his bunker before the letter was sent, and reprimanded Himmler for what he had done clandestinely. I was in a thread a while ago where it was claimed that Himmler hid information pertaining to the death camps from Hitler. So which is true, Mr. Shermer?

>There’s no need for an order when we’ve got beliefs

Regardless of Hitler’s involvement in all minutiae Judaica, you still can’t provide a single document corroborating the notion that there was a plan to exterminate the Jews.

>Hitler hates Jews

No shit. Only one of those showed intent to exterminate and even then, and ever since I learned about the mistranslations of German words, I find that one suspect.

>annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe

There’s my favorite mistranslation! The original German word Vernichtung doesn’t mean that. It has been noted by an American historian that in 1904 it meant what pic related describes.

>How many quotes

How about you fucking cough up that order for their extermination, you dirty sophist?

1.2 AUSROTTEN

>Soviet Union quote

How does that prove it doesn’t mean rooting out? Because I read it just like that and it made sense. Either could work.

>“to ausrotten them division by division”

>I can find a quote that shows that this word CAN mean “to kill”; therefore, all its uses must mean “to kill”

>Provides another instance

What is polysemy for $100, Alex? Words can have different meanings depending on context? WHAT?

>Hans Frank

Okay, this one deserves better scrutiny

>MAJOR JONES: You know, do you not, that Hans Frank himself was in favor of a policy of extermination of the Jewish people?

 

>LAMMERS: I do not know whether he held this view. He told me exactly the opposite, and as a witness I can only tell you what he said to me and not what he said elsewhere.

 

>MAJOR JONES: You see, this Tribunal has had read to it extracts from Frank's diary in which he says that, "My attitude towards the Jews. . ."-and this is found at Page 12 of the German copy-"My attitude towards the Jews is such that I expect them all to disappear." And he says, as to the 31/2 minion Jews in the Government General, that, "One cannot shoot them or poison them, but we will be able to take steps in order to successfully annihilate them. The Government General must become as free of Jews as the Reich is."

 

>Are you saying that Frank did not express similar views to you?

 

>LAMMERS: If Frank made these entries in his diary and if he actually did say that, then it contradicts what he told me. That is all I have to say on that point.

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165&p=61364&hilit=We+cannot+shoot+them%2C+poison+them#p61364

From the same source, here’s this gem, relevant to Hitler:

>MAJOR JONES: Are you, as the head of the Reich Chancellery, the man who knew all the secrets of the Third Reich, saying to this Tribunal that you had no knowledge of the murder of millions and millions who were murdered under the Nazi regime?

 

>LAMMERS: I mean to say that I knew nothing about it until the moment of the collapse, that is, the end of April 1945 or the beginning of May, when I heard such reports from foreign broadcasting stations. I did not believe them at the time, and only later on I found further material here, in the newspapers. If we are speaking now of the elimination of a harmful influence that is far from meaning annihilation. The Fuehrer did not say a word about murder; no mention was ever made of such a plan.

 

>Goebbels’ Diary

>August 8, 1941

I don’t dispute the use of liquidate here, but will note the “should”. I’ve read that Goebbels was very anti-Semitic.

>August 19, 1941

>annihilation

There’s that word again!

>Himmler quote

Yes, ausrotten is polysemous word. So what?

>Himmler informing Hoess

>The same Hoess who was tortured

 

>Posen speeches

See above.

 

>Irving vs. Shermer

I can’t find anything on that, except the oh-so reliable Nizkor. I also doubt Irving said that.

 

>Einsatzgruppen

There it is! I’ve heard the number of Jews killed stated in the reports are seen by regular historians as exaggerated.

 

INTENTIONALIST-FUNCTIONALIST CONTROVERSY

>Wansee Conference

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1647&hilit=Wansee+Conference

>Feedback loop

Can he even substantiate that? It seems like a hypothesis more than anything.

 

GAS CHAMBERS AND CREMATORIA

>Facilities still exist

You mean the reconstructions? Oh, yeah, there were some still around, if I recall correctly. However, hasn’t one of the six death camps been retracted from being a so-called death camp, thus leaving five?

>Mayer Quote

>We have no evidence; therefore, they destroyed it

That’s a leap of logic for fuck’s sake. Furthermore, on the destruction of those facilities, here you go, faggot (Shermer):

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8355&hilit=Nazis+destroy+Auschwitz

>Deniers claim this

No, they claim that they died from primarily starvation and the numerous typhus/typhoid fever epidemics (in Auschwitz) that swept through the camp.

>Official Nazi documents

>Zyklon B orders

Holy shit, this guy is a retard.

>Blueprints

Let’s see ‘em then.

>Eyewitnesses

>Photographs

I’ve already been over these.

>The camps themselves

That’s bullshit and he knows it.

>eyewitness accounts of SS men and Nazi doctors

You mean like Mengele who denied doing what they claimed he did.

>Filip Muller

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5881&p=40326&hilit=Filip+Muller#p40326

>So why when a search of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Archives database is performed for prisoner number 29236 does Muller's record not appear?

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9041&p=69022&hilit=Pery+Broad#p69022

>Here it will suffice to note Pressac's opinion of this witness: "Filip Müller is an important witness, but in choosing to describe material and precise facts in a book and in 1979 (1st German edition) he has accumulated errors, thus making his account historically dubious" (p. 181).

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7638&hilit=Pery+Broad

>Mueller Eyewitness Auschwitz, pp 116-118. Mueller actually says on page 117 that "Many had turned blue, and many faces were disfigured beyond recognition." There is no mention in the Mueller text anywhere of corpses being pink, or red, or with green spots.

>Pery Broad

ibid above

>One day corpses of Russian prisoners of war were dragged out of a dark cell. As they lay in the yard they looked strangely bloated and had a bluish tinge, though they were relatively fresh. Several older prisoners who had been through World War One remembered seeing corpses like that. Suddenly they understood …. Gas.

From the lips of Raul Hillberg on Pery Broad (source ibid):

>Historically, this account is not exploitable in its present version despite its “true” and all too “striking”, atmosphere, since it has been rewritten by and for the Poles and diffused exclusively by them.

>After assessing its reliability, no consciencious historian will be able to use it unless and until the "declaration" has been stripped of the Polish influence, or in other words until the original is published.

 

>Kremer

 

 

>Greek Jew taking a photograph

I thought all their belongings were taken from them? This is a contradiction. Even if he did have a camera, how does this prove that they were gassed?

 

>John Ball

Why is he talking about one guy as if his position represents every denier/revisionist/what-the-fuck-ever; that’s disingenuous bullshit. The aerial photos show nothing (pic related):

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7100&hilit=aerial+photos&start=75

>Those aerial photos were obviously altered. Here we see one where it claims 'Jews are being marched to the gas chambers'. Of course the big problem is that the cheesy drawn in "Jews" are marching on top of a roof!

>Aerial photographs

>This other guy and I analyzed these photos and, hey, just believe what we tell you

Both of those photos show nothing. He claims the first shows people; all I can make out is blotches, which could be anything. The second photo, again, I can’t tell how he can be so sure that that was “an underground gas chamber protruding a few feet above the ground”. It’s too indistinct. Furthermore, let’s assume it is some structure; does that prove that it was used for gassings? No, it’s putting the cart before the horse in my opinion.

>Figure 25

What in God’s green Earth am I even looking at? It’s just a gigantic blob. Even if I give him benefit of the doubt and this does show “prisoners being marched into the Kremas”, I can’t even comment on it. Seriously if anyone sucked this presentation of the article and some of its arguments, they are veritable morons.