I agree. I don’t think that Chen019 is arguing in good faith. He has demonstrated a pattern of returning to this thread and bumping it after several days/weeks of inactivity, making more false assertions, and ignoring the factual rebuttals of his arguments by other posters.
I think this thread dies in only one of two ways: 1) it’s locked, or 2) it’s transferred to the BBQ Pit. The second way would be far more satisfying to some of us here…
You are free to open a Pit thread any time you wish.
As long as this thread continues to provide documented refutations of nonsense like the Institute for Historical Review and similar anti-semitic sites and anachronistic quotations such as the attempt to use Justice Brandeis to defend Holocaust denial, it will stay here. Moving it to the Pit simply allows deniers the opportunity to claim that we can’t handle the truth and that we are trying to bury the truth under invective.
Of course, one has to point out that it is clear that the Holocaust deniers are the ones that are not handling the truth here.
Hmm. I missed this.
With a vague notion of a statute of limitations, here, you will avoid a Warning, this time. However, any further insults will result in a Warning.
Further, I note that Fuji’s assessment of your bumping pattern seems accurate. Unless you come up with an actual bit of documented evidence for your nonsense, you are not to bump this thread, again.
[ /Moderating ]
Invent?
Survivors from many different camps, many who never knew nor ever met the others, providing similar recounts? but it’s invented?
And one is to believe that this is mass conspiracy?
And just how was that pulled off? over secret radio provide by Jacob the Liar?
That’s about how much sense this makes 
Chen019 has taken a line from the IfHR and is trying to make a case that is not supported by facts. Buchenwald and Dachau were not used as gassing locations. (There were tens of thousands of murders, but gas chambers were not used in either location.) At the Nuremberg trials, there were a couple of occasions where someone lumped together all the locations where the Nazis murdered people and mentioned gassing in the same statement. No evidence has been presented that anyone on trial at Nuremberg was charged with gassing people at those camps. Based on those trial summations that included references to gassing in the context of the mass murders, the IfHR makes the claim that the Nazis were accused of gassing people at those locations. (Following the IfHR, Chen019 makes the same erroneous claim that there was a deliberate and false effort to accuse the Nazis of gassing people at Buchenwald and Dachau.) The IfHR (and Chen019) then claims that any later comments noting that gas was not used at Buchenwald and Dachau are examples of “officials” “changing the story” which they then conclude provides some sort of reason to believe that the actual testimony (as opposed to court summaries) regarding gas being used at Auschwitz, Treblinka, and other locations are suspect.
This is silly casuistry, but it the best that they can provide. (Aside from lies by various deniers that there were no extermination gas chambers at the camps where gas was used.)
When responding to Chen019 (or any Holocaust denier), it is important to note what they are actually saying–and not saying–rather than get dragged into vague arguments based on shifting language.
In this case, he is claiming that since there were no gas chambers at Buchenwald and Dachau (which there were not, a fact irrelevant to the overall topic), then, despite the fact that there is no official claim that there were gas chambers there, that is a reason to refuse to believe the evidence that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz.
tomndebb,
Apologies if this counts as bumping (?) I have been away for work, but this warrants a response. Yes, it’s possible claims regarding gas were mixed up, but the claims were still quite clear that there were mass extermination programmes in place at the likes of Buchenwald & other German camps. That has been contradicted by the evidence of medics like Dr Charles Larson & Dr Russell Barton who visited these camps and found disease and starvation to have been the cause of death.
And claims of gas chambers in German camps certainly were made. In relation to Buchenwald David Rousset’s The Other Kingdom (New York, 1947); Abbe Jean-Paul Renard, Chaines et Lumieres. That is what prompted Paul Rassinier to investigate the claims as he was also a Buchenwald inmate and never saw evidence of systematic extermination. And sure enough it turned out the authors evidence for the claims was hearsay or fantasy.
It’s not a simple case of twisting a few words here and there.
Also, I note you haven’t acknowledged that you were wrong about Germar Rudolf not inspecting the camps for his cyanide testing?
Except they don’t. There are also Auschwitz survivors who report deaths due to disease not systematic extermination. Esther Grossman, Maria Van Herwaarden, Marika Frank.
As far as I know the one time witnesses making claims about mass-extermination, like Arnold Friedman, concede that they were going on hearsay. In the second Zundel trial no witnesses were prepared to give evidence.
This seems similar to me to the pattern observed with some of the witness claims about camps like Buchenwald, noted above.
That’s why I think people should be more open minded about what Revisionists are saying. And look at things like the British Intelligence reports, the pathology reports, or evidence from cyanide testing that I’ve discussed through the threat.
Anyway, I’ve probably gone on enough. Apologies for the late reply.
Chen019, what do you think about the Jews? Do you think Jews, on average, have goals at odds with the interests of non Jewish white people?
I’ve asked you this multiple times. Why are you afraid to answer this question?
And it’s been pointed out to be incorrect throughout the thread.
And yet, this question remains unanswered:
Chen019: - What do you hope to achieve with your continued counterfactual holocaust denial efforts?
I needed to pit Holocaust deniers. others have read through chen’s posts and keep reminding us his “points” are nonsense and far, far from simply wrong.
they are deliberate and they are evil, as is chen, whether he believes them or not.
Are you referring to this Esther Grossman?
*"Auschwitz: The Beginning, June 1944
"The trip ended—we arrived on at Auschwitz on Shavuos. We heard “aussteigen aussteigen!”. (Get out! Get out!) It was night. It was like a burning hell, not bodies, but piles and piles of luggage that had been confiscated from the Jews. We saw people in striped uniforms—who were they? The men in uniforms pulled everyone off the train. Young people to the right, men to the left, older people straight ahead. I wanted to follow our mother and grandmother, but a prisoner made me go to the right—“you’ll be better off” he said.
We five sisters hid our father, so they wouldn’t take him away from us with the men. But the prisoners saw him and pulled him out—they knew we were hiding someone. He went with the men. The people who worked in the crematorium told us that the people in the new transports were sent immediately to the gas chamber and then cremated. Our father was 62 years old, our mother was 61, and our grandmother was 93.
In Auschwitz, we were brought to special barracks [probably Camp C]. In Esther’s voice: I volunteered to take the dead people into the camp to see if I could find our parents. A girlfriend and I carried a body in the ambulance, to see if I could find them. There was nobody there. This was the Vernichtungs (extermination) camp—I think it was in Birkenau. Dr. Mengele came there every week to do the selection…
Dr. Mengele would point at the people in the line, as if to say “You and you go to the left side, go burn a little bit.” Once thousands of kids came in from Lódz, Poland, and some girls were hiding under our bunk. Mengele took something out of his pocket, and hit the four girls. All four of them died—what a monster he was. One day, he befriended a little gypsy boy and dressed him like his own son—dressed him up in a Nazi uniform—and the next day he threw the boy into the gas chamber alive; that’s what Mengele did."*
You have failed to provide any citation to such a claim made as part prosecution of a particular crime.
Pointing to one line in a summary simply does not make your point. Lots of people believe all sorts of things that are misreported or misunderstood in the fog of war. That is no reason to maliciously deny the actual events in the Holocaust because a few separate statements are misspoken or misreported.
So what? A couple of erroneous claims should be refuted on there own points–as you have already noted that genuine historians and Holocaust survivors have, themselves, done. If Elie Wiesel corrected that error, why do you believe and propagate the lies of others about totally different camps?
Are you not reading the thread? What I did was point out that after he was challenged about accepting the lies of others and went in to steal samples from the walls, he then sent those stolen samples to a lab to be examined without explaining their source and nature. The lab crushed the sample together (since they were not told that the sample should only have the surface tested to a depth of a couple of millimeters) and reported low levels of contamination for the samples that included a lot of extraneous mass. Rudolf then published those false, corrupted results as though they had any meaning. Publishing false reports of improperly examined material hardly counts as “inspecting” the camps.
(And, if we are talking about things that people have not acknowledged, you have repeated the deniers’ lie that the gas chambers had lightweight doors on more than one occasion after I and others have pointed out the evidence that that is not true.)
Bait and switch. Auschwitz had multiple camps. It was possible for an inmate at one camp to not understand what occurred at a different camp. Your citations of Van Herwaarden and Frank were already refuted many pages ago, along with pointing out how their actual claims have been distorted by malicious Holocaust deniers, yet you continue to act as though their testimony supports your claims.
You have gone on long enough. Each of the points that you mention in this paragraph have been refuted with evidence, yet you repeat them without evidence. Just stop it. You are not persuading anyone with your multiply refuted claims.
Briefly: for me the easiest answer to your question is the intense hot button issue nature of the Holocaust and, as if this needs mentioning, genocide generally. In other words, there’s bound to be a highly emotional response, even outrage, from the other side. It’s as certain as the sunrise, as witness the extreme outrage/approval over using the face of Donald Trump in the stage production of Julius Caesar, as in “cue the boos” over here, “cut to applause” over there. This may seem like a trivial comparison but for what a psychologist might describe as “the acting out factor”, which is to say calculated response. The Holocaust deniers are sort of testing the water, as it were, as to who is going to approve of that they’re saying, who is going to be outraged. It’s like a game for them.
I haven’t answered it because I’ve got limited time (hence the lag in replies) and have been focussing on claims about gas chambers in camps & responses to those points.
What on earth are the interests of white people?
This might be the case for some. Although, I doubt it was a game to Professor Paul Rassinier, who was a Buchenwald inmate & is seen as the father of Holocaust revisionism or what you would term denial. For someone like ex-Max Planck chemist Germar Rudolf it was a determination to test the claims of Rassinier & the findings of Fred Lechter. Joel Hayward did his Masters thesis to review revisionist literature & see if there was anything to it.
Some people just find the evidence contradictory & more consistent with atrocity propaganda which was also spread during WWI.
Sadly, whatever the motivation it seems that the universal response is to attribute this to bad faith, or malice (as you can see with some of the comments in this thread). It’s very effective as people are social creatures so accusing someone of being a heretic or Nazi sympathiser is generally more effective than engaging in argument.
When the Holocaust denier just so happens to routinely make white supremacist posts as well (which is usually the case), we start to consider that this probably isn’t a coincidence.
I referred to the claims by the Prosecution and evidence in relation to gas chambers at Dachau. I referred to British Prosecutor Shawcross’s comments in his closing address:
I also pointed to this report submitted to the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal by the French prosecution:
Generally if a witness provides inconsistent evidence then you treat their evidence as unreliable. If there is a pattern of propaganda about atrocities, backed by witnesses which get contradicted by forensics, then you have reason to be skeptical about some of the atrocity claims.
You’re suggesting there is a clear line where the events “misreported or misunderstood in the fog of war” exists. The problem is that you’re relying on the same dubious eye-witness evidence. As noted earlier, when tested under cross-examination in the Zundel trial these claims were clearly quite shaky. For example, Arnold Friedman, who had claimed he saw thousands being herded towards crematoria, conceded that this was actually based on hearsay.
There are also basic things like bodies NOT being described as cherry red, even though this is apparently the color that tends to result from carbon-monoxide or cyanide poisoning.
Or the reality that The British Intelligence decrypts report the same kinds of causes of death as those reported in the German camps - mainly disease, no reference to gas.
And you’re suggesting that it is “malicious” to question any of this?!
Maybe I’ve misinterpreted your posts, but you initially said Rudolf didn’t actually examine the claimed gas chambers, then made the above criticism in relation to the Leuchter samples that Rudolf apparently relied on. Do you have a source for the criticism above?
Point taken about the doors - I missed your comment on those.
You can type all that but you don’t have the time to say whether you think Jews are just like normal people. I doubt your sincerity.
If you don’t have time, I take it that you have pretty significant thoughts about the Jews. I’d love to hear those thoughts.
I don’t know for your last question. I thought you might have thoughts on this, based on your posts in other threads about the inherent genetic intellectual inferiority of black people.
I think human bio-diversity is pretty interesting. It doesn’t support white supremacy though. See a recent postby Steve Hsu discussing a paper on alleles linked to education.
In any case, my point is that ad-hominem attacks seem the first reaction to those who question this historical taboo. I mean in general. It’s basically like trying to debate religion.
When I said I didn’t have time to answer your question I mean that I’m trying to address the substantive points people have raised, not ad-hominem type arguments.