I will argue the Auschwitz holocaust claims are unsubstantiated. I will prove the claims are impossible using engineering, chemistry and architectural concepts. I will provide video and periodical testimony of Jews who admitted to lying about Auschwitz. I will provide links and video of scientists who made these tests and their testimony of findings. I will provide interpretive arguments based on the existing evidence that are inductively stronger arguments than the Auschwitz Holocaust arguments.

I'm open to the standard set of rules, but I demand the arguments be structured with discipline or I will not waste my time arguing. If you don't have the energy or the discipline it takes to be formal with me, don't bother even trying to challenge me. I propose that written arguments themselves must follow these rules:

1. Each person must make an argument that declares the writer's position on the argument at hand.

2. Each argument must have a set of clearly defined premises that illustrate the argument's line of reasoning.

3. Each premise must be supported with evidence that validates the argument's premise.

4. Each argument must end in a conclusion that can be deductively drawn from the premises or end in an inductively strong conclusion that can be drawn from the premises.

steampunk can't hear you at the moment, he's hit the showers after a rough game.

YouTube comments show where Steampunk gets his argument from:




If you want to believe that the Nazis gassed people on mass then you've ever studied the evidence and choose to ignor, or your reading Bauar and Hilberg and watching too many documentaries and choose to believe ut, because it suits 'YOU!'

There are plenty of people on here who can provide you with the Auschwitz records, Belsen records, Nuremberg transcripts.

Your treating this like a religious doctrine. Does god exist..can't be proven, nor can homicidal gas chambers, as HIberg himself admitted

LeeHoxton1

You all place massive importance on the right to free speech.

I am not, as is well known, such an absolute proponent of same. Seventy years ago the world fought a war, not completely about this issue and not completely not: but it was certainly not fought, from the perspective of a non-American, so that all forms of evil could be spoken aloud or propounded on the walks and byways. It was not fought to let cockroaches scurry in the light. It was fought out of historical coincidence and the necessity of destroying evil. It was fought to destroy such cockroaches. I would remind the posters here that such evil was, in the first place, begun via such free speech, and that that evil came in not through the back door but through the ballot box.

Free speech is an absolute right - to those who go unharmed by it. When it strikes home with effect, philosophical duties change, by which point it may be too late.

Steampunk is naught but a troll.
http://benison.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/troll1.jpg

Originally Posted by steampunk
So, here I am. Where is the evidence? Why can't you provide it?
This is a logical fallacy, the specific name escapes me, for the moment. But this is directly analagous to asking for a definitive text proving modern tectonic theory or evolution, and then claiming victory when none is forthcoming. This is precisely the tactic that creationists use, including your unwilling to read through texts containing evidence, and your insistence on being spoonfed soundbytes.

Can't recall the name of that one, but more broadly, Steampunk is indulging in the fallacious fallacy, or the fallacist's fallacy (or something like that):

He keeps bringing up this "appeal to authority" nonsense, which I suggest is "nonsense" only insofar as the utmost gravity and determinancy he attributes to such "logical fallacies"--that is to say, the reasoning may not be the most formal or logically consistent, but that has absolutely NO bearing on the facticity of what is being argued or claimed.

IOW there is not one single person who does not accept many things AS FACT every single freakin' day of their lives "ON AUTHORITY."

I can easily conclude that the earth is not flat, but I cannot of my own means and devices determine that the earth IS roughly spherical--yet I accept it as fact, on the authority of others (and on the basis of "evidence" for which I do not have definitive verification of authenticity, i.e. photos of earth from space). Likewise for far too many things that I could possibly even name or identify...

I don't get it.

Holocaust denial = an invitation to debate the head honcho.

Calling someone an ass-kisser = ban.

Color me confusicated.

Simple: Wanting to debate a controversial topic is not against the rules...insulting another member is.

While Holocaust denial is associated with racism and anti-semitism....unless SP makes direct racist statements...then he's well within the rules of the board.

I actually agree with JDog. I prefer a little abuse over being completely illogical and not being factual...

And controversial is one thing, batshit crazy is another...

Simple: Wanting to debate a controversial topic is not against the rules...insulting another member is.

While Holocaust denial is associated with racism and anti-semitism....unless SP makes direct racist statements...then he's well within the rules of the board.

That's not the case at all. I've seen people banned for making jokes about certain religious figures. I've also seen people banned for associating Stalinist atrocities with atheism, so there's no merit to the idea that pimping disgusting ideas is "well within the rules of the board."

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. So far, SP has made no pro-nazi or anti-Semitic statements. He has just questioned the historical record of the Holocaust. It could be he's a "anti-Historian", who believes main stream historians are in on a conspiracy to re-write history according to how they want it to read. Racism and Nazism MAY have nothing to do with it. We don't know until he says something racist.

Personally, I would have no problem adding "Holocaust Denial" to the list of taboo subjects here on Sciforums....as these type of threads attract the dregs from all over.. like flies on shit.

You and Xotica are trying to trap with a well known logical fallacy that is Argument From Authority. In science, it is fair game to demand the reasoning process and evidence one uses come to their conclusion.
It is you who propound the fallacies. You and I were talking about admissibility of evidence. My statement, that court proceedings are admissible in subsequent proceedings, is generally true and widely practiced as a matter of rules of evidence. You can't overturn legal theory just by claiming this is an argument from authority. It's not, and to say so further paints you into a corner. In a minute you'll have yourself in deadlock, a trap of your own design and no one else's. By your own reasoning, every snippet of evidence you attempt to propound becomes automatically inadmissible under the banner of "argument from authority". Clearly you don't have a clue what admissibility means or else you're so wrapped up in fatal logic you don't know how to define it.

If you were standing on the right side of history you would thank Xotica for the thoughtful presentation of a compiled set of evidence neatly assembled and ready for you to dismantle. But you can't because you aren't.


In order to be taken serious by the scientific community you must be open with your testing method and the evidence used in your testing method.
No. You don't get to define what the community is or what it thinks. You only get to confront evidence. And you never get to suppress it. You brought the exotic claim, so the onus is on you to produce the mountain of facts that will be needed to rewrite history.

In order to move beyond mere theory and come to fact, your evidence and testing must be done by others and the same results must be produced.
No, I don't have to do diddly-squat. The burden of proof is on you. But if you don't even bother to address the evidence already in the public domain, such as Xotica's compilation, you can't pretend to operating under a guise of testing.

In order to do that in this specific case, we need very little info.
No, you have dismantle - corpse by corpse - the mountain of evidence that speaks for itself. "We" may need very little additional evidence to supplement our common understanding of the Holocaust. But you have a huge evidentiary burden, more than one person could marshal in a lifetime. In particular you would have to dismantle the proceedings Xotica referred to and/or any of the sources James R referred to, even to begin to support your claim.

We will need links to the information asked for in the questions below. With this small amount of info we can test the validity of the claims involving supposed gassing at Auschwitz.
Again, the burden of evidence is on you and you alone. Your evidence has to overturn the totality of evidence proving the Holocaust, or any subset that James R propounds.

Now if you refuse to provide that small amount of data so we could repeat the testing and come to identical finding, you have stepped out of the realm of science.
No, you don't dictate anything. The onus is on you and you alone. Furthermore, you are in no position to declare the boundaries of science, since you've already demonstrated a contempt for the scientific method.

Having said all of this, I recognize that my remarks are probably moot as far as debate proposal goes, since James R has now picked up the gauntlet. Nevertheless I would want to preserve "for the record" that your attempts to suppress genuine evidence are fundamentally illegal in any standard method of argument. As James R noted, this may form the basis of any subsequent debate issue.

I actually want to see this debate just to see James do this:

World's most one-sided fistfights (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTtHaGjwu0I)

:)

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. So far, SP has made no pro-nazi or anti-Semitic statements. He has just questioned the historical record of the Holocaust. It could be he's a "anti-Historian", who believes main stream historians are in on a conspiracy to re-write history according to how they want it to read. Racism and Nazism MAY have nothing to do with it. We don't know until he says something racist.

Personally, I would have no problem adding "Holocaust Denial" to the list of taboo subjects here on Sciforums....as these type of threads attract the dregs from all over.. like flies on shit.

I hear ya. He saved his Nazi apologetics for the other thread.

I actually want to see this debate just to see James do this:

I think we have already established that the debate wont last any more than a page.

James will present some documented transcripts of Nazi officer confessions...and then Steampunk will demand to see their death certificate, military record, dental records, x-rays, photographs of name tags, fingerprints, carbon dated hair samples matched with dna from their exhumed graves, handwriting analysis from three different non-jewish experts, etc, etc.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. So far, SP has made no pro-nazi or anti-Semitic statements. He has just questioned the historical record of the Holocaust. It could be he's a "anti-Historian", who believes main stream historians are in on a conspiracy to re-write history according to how they want it to read. Racism and Nazism MAY have nothing to do with it. We don't know until he says something racist.

Personally, I would have no problem adding "Holocaust Denial" to the list of taboo subjects here on Sciforums....as these type of threads attract the dregs from all over.. like flies on shit.

I would say the topic itself and it's inflammitory nature would count as that but what do I know.

You all place massive importance on the right to free speech.

I am not, as is well known, such an absolute proponent of same. Seventy years ago the world fought a war, not completely about this issue and not completely not: but it was certainly not fought, from the perspective of a non-American, so that all forms of evil could be spoken aloud or propounded on the walks and byways. It was not fought to let cockroaches scurry in the light. It was fought out of historical coincidence and the necessity of destroying evil. It was fought to destroy such cockroaches. I would remind the posters here that such evil was, in the first place, begun via such free speech, and that that evil came in not through the back door but through the ballot box.

Free speech is an absolute right - to those who go unharmed by it. When it strikes home with effect, philosophical duties change, by which point it may be too late.
Hitler's invasion of Poland had nothing to do with 'evil' - whatever that is - it was about acquiring land and resources, extending the lebensraum (living space) of the German people. Just like the British extended the lebensraum of their own people and in doing so created America, Australia and New Zealand. Other European countries did the same. It's a well known fact, for example, that Hitler admired the British Empire and modeled his concentration camps on those created by the British in South Africa.

Am I right in thinking, then, that as an Anglo-Saxon your painting of the Nazis as 'evil' is really the result of competitive envy, rather than them being representative in some absurd way of some disembodied, demonic force known to us via religious scriptures?

Hitler's invasion of Poland had nothing to do with 'evil' - whatever that is - it was about acquiring land and resources, extending the lebensraum (living space) of the German people. Just like the British extended the lebensraum of their own people and in doing so created America, Australia and New Zealand. Other European countries did the same. It's a well known fact, for example, that Hitler admired the British Empire and modeled his concentration camps on those created by the British in South Africa.

Yeah, he was just nation-building, and all that eugenics and genocide just sort of...happened...so equivocating Nazi expansionism with that of other European countries is totally fair.

Obviously.


Am I right in thinking, then, that as an Anglo-Saxon your painting of the Nazis as 'evil' is really the result of competitive envy, rather than them being representative in some absurd way of some disembodied, demonic force known to us via religious scriptures?

Competitive envy? Let's see, when the Allies were done with it, Germany was a smoldering ruin and its leader dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. What exactly would an Anglo-Saxon have to be envious of?

So not surprised that recidivist cannot recognize evil. Typical conservative.

Yeah, he was just nation-building, and all that eugenics and genocide just sort of...happened...so equivocating Nazi expansionism with that of other European countries is totally fair.

Obviously.
Well, there was the Native American genocide which according to some historians was larger and more protracted than 'the Holocaust' but for some reason doesn't get any where near as much air time? How about the African Holocaust? I know that one is on the back burner now that America has elected a black president, but just how long long can you go on fooling black people till they eventually wise up? Oh wait... I just checked their history... a long fucking time it seems. There's even the Aboriginal Holocaust (Tasmania) but they're so peripheral and distant and, quite frankly, irrelevant, that nobody gives a shit.

Throwing mud at your enemies, however, is definitely more fun.

So hell yeah... NAZIS ARE THE SPAWN OF SATAN!... just look at all those pictures of victimized, suffering Jews and EVIL Germans! (Thank fuck the camera wasn't around when when Anglo-Saxons were doing the same!).


Competitive envy? Let's see, when the Allies were done with it, Germany was a smoldering ruin and its leader dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. What exactly would an Anglo-Saxon have to be envious of?
I don't know... the methodical, machine-like efficiency of the Nazi war machine? Its superior technology and firepower? The selfless, dedicated nature of its citizenry? The readiness to die for a common cause? That the Nazis choose to invade the nations of people with a similar level of economic power rather than half-naked tribal nations with only bows and arrows and shields made out of sticks to defend themselves with against rifles and cannons?

Having read that last sentence, though, I now take back what I said. You're right. If anyone was going to be envious it would've been the Nazis. The Anglo-Saxons succeeded in a way the Germans could only dream of; America, as their most successful Reich, is 236 years old today.

Hitler's invasion of Poland had nothing to do with 'evil' - whatever that is - it was about acquiring land and resources, extending the lebensraum (living space) of the German people. Just like the British extended the lebensraum of their own people and in doing so created America, Australia and New Zealand. Other European countries did the same. It's a well known fact, for example, that Hitler admired the British Empire and modeled his concentration camps on those created by the British in South Africa.

Sure, those were evil also, particularly for North American natives.


Am I right in thinking, then, that as an Anglo-Saxon your painting of the Nazis as 'evil' is really the result of competitive envy, rather than them being representative in some absurd way of some disembodied, demonic force known to us via religious scriptures?

Ah, no. Nice sock. Also, evil requires religion?

BTW: this is a narrow point but Germans are Anglo-Saxons. Sort of the original model, if you follow me.

Well, there was the Native American genocide which according to some historians was larger and more protracted than 'the Holocaust' but for some reason doesn't get any where near as much air time? How about the African Holocaust? I know that one is on the back burner now that America has elected a black president, but just how long long can you go on fooling black people till they eventually wise up? Oh wait... I just checked their history... a long fucking time it seems. There's even the Aboriginal Holocaust (Tasmania) but they're so peripheral and distant and, quite frankly, irrelevant, that nobody gives a shit.


Who says nobody gives a shit?


Throwing mud at your enemies, however, is definitely more fun.
Well personally speaking I much prefer to drive a tank over Holocaust deniers, but I'm kind of funny that way...:o


So hell yeah... NAZIS ARE THE SPAWN OF SATAN!
Nope.

They are just sick murderous fuckers who all deserve to be jailed because their ideology led to the murders of over 11 million people, the horrors of concentration camps, the horrors of medical experiments on children and the disabled.. I could go on and on.. And those who support that ideology today and are attempting to push that ideology into the political arena should be dragged by their pubic hair to the concentration camps and made to be reminded of what their ideology can bring about. If they refuse to acknowledge the idiocy of their ways, they should be barred from the political arena and any violence their ideology supports or encourages? They should be blamed for that and jailed along with the people who commit said violence.


just look at all those pictures of victimized, suffering Jews and EVIL Germans!
Yes.

Maybe you should look at the pictures of the victimised Jews, Roma, children, disabled who were tortured and murdered en masse by the Nazis and then explain to me why such ideology should be allowed to roam free in society today.


(Thank fuck the camera wasn't around when when Anglo-Saxons were doing the same!).

No. They didn't have the technology back then. So they employed artists to capture it all anyway.


I don't know... the methodical, machine-like efficiency of the Nazi war machine? Its superior technology and firepower? The selfless, dedicated nature of its citizenry? The readiness to die for a common cause? That the Nazis choose to invade the nations of people with a similar level of economic power rather than half-naked tribal nations with only bows and arrows and shields made out of sticks to defend themselves with against rifles and cannons?
You must feel so proud when you think about it all..

recidivist:


Am I right in thinking, then, that as an Anglo-Saxon your painting of the Nazis as 'evil' is really the result of competitive envy, rather than them being representative in some absurd way of some disembodied, demonic force known to us via religious scriptures?

If the industrial, systematic killing of over 6 million people is not an example of "evil", I don't know what is. How do you define "evil"?


Well, there was the Native American genocide which according to some historians was larger and more protracted than 'the Holocaust' but for some reason doesn't get any where near as much air time? How about the African Holocaust? I know that one is on the back burner now that America has elected a black president, but just how long long can you go on fooling black people till they eventually wise up? Oh wait... I just checked their history... a long fucking time it seems. There's even the Aboriginal Holocaust (Tasmania) but they're so peripheral and distant and, quite frankly, irrelevant, that nobody gives a shit.

Do you think that two wrongs make a right?

What exactly are you arguing here? That we should ignore the holocaust of World War II because some other mass killings haven't received sufficient attention in your opinion? Should we not instead make sure that attention is paid to other gross violations of life and liberty?


So hell yeah... NAZIS ARE THE SPAWN OF SATAN!... just look at all those pictures of victimized, suffering Jews and EVIL Germans! (Thank fuck the camera wasn't around when when Anglo-Saxons were doing the same!).

When and where was that, exactly?

Hitler's invasion of Poland had nothing to do with 'evil' By that logic your home, your town, and all the innocent people in your vicinity are subject to invasion, destruction of property, kidnapping and mass murder - and it has nothing to do with evil?

'evil' - whatever that is
Well if it's not clear to you, then you should have no problem with being victimized.

- it was about acquiring land and resources, extending the lebensraum (living space) of the German people.
Bullshit. Hitler's designs were on the Rhineland, not for space, but out of a depraved sense of humiliation by the French.

Just like the British extended the lebensraum of their own people and in doing so created America, Australia and New Zealand. Other European countries did the same.
Blame-shifting is the mark of the pathological personality type.

It's a well known fact, for example, that Hitler admired the British Empire and modeled his concentration camps on those created by the British in South Africa.
It's a well known fact that Hitler was a psychopath. And your point is?

Am I right in thinking, then, that as an Anglo-Saxon
No, you are not right in your thinking, and you are not addressing people that could be distinguished as Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, or any other ancestry.

your painting of the Nazis as 'evil' is really the result of competitive envy, The Nazis not only painted themselves as evil, they left an indelible scar on the history of the world for which they alone are guilty. Your blame-shifting is characteristic of their criminal minds.

rather than them being representative in some absurd way of some disembodied, demonic force known to us via religious scriptures?
No, it has nothing to with religion, either, just mass murder and mayhem. There is no sense of a disembodied demonic force, since here the evil is understood to mean the deliberate guilty minds which perpetrated the worst crimes in history.

Well, there was the Native American genocide which according to some historians was larger and more protracted than 'the Holocaust' but for some reason doesn't get any where near as much air time? How about the African Holocaust? I know that one is on the back burner now that America has elected a black president, but just how long long can you go on fooling black people till they eventually wise up? Oh wait... I just checked their history... a long fucking time it seems. There's even the Aboriginal Holocaust (Tasmania) but they're so peripheral and distant and, quite frankly, irrelevant, that nobody gives a shit.

Throwing mud at your enemies, however, is definitely more fun.

So you have reached the conclusion that because the west does not "remember" similar atrocities committed, those committed by the Nazis are somehow less atrocious? This is a non-sequitur. A brutal act is not diminished just because someone else did it first.


So hell yeah... NAZIS ARE THE SPAWN OF SATAN!... just look at all those pictures of victimized, suffering Jews and EVIL Germans! (Thank fuck the camera wasn't around when when Anglo-Saxons were doing the same!).

You touched on it right there. Had cameras been around at the time, Hitler and his National Socialists would not be alone on the stage. (Not that they should be now, given what Stalin during the same era.) Cameras weren't around, sadly, but even if they were, it would not make the Nazis any less notorious.



I don't know... the methodical, machine-like efficiency of the Nazi war machine? Its superior technology and firepower? The selfless, dedicated nature of its citizenry? The readiness to die for a common cause? That the Nazis choose to invade the nations of people with a similar level of economic power rather than half-naked tribal nations with only bows and arrows and shields made out of sticks to defend themselves with against rifles and cannons?

Uh-oh. We have another Nazi apologist in our midst. You of course in this love letter to your Fuhrer and Fatherland are guilty of the very same thing you say you hate in the rest of us: selective memory. Sure, the Nazis were really good at what they did, but the Allied war effort was just as brave on the homefronts, just as dedicated, and just as efficient. But I know it would be impossible to get an old patriotische dog such as yourself to admit that the Germans were outmanned and outgunned, choosing instead to cling to the fantasy that the Nazis really were better than everyone else.


Having read that last sentence, though, I now take back what I said. You're right. If anyone was going to be envious it would've been the Nazis. The Anglo-Saxons succeeded in a way the Germans could only dream of; America, as their most successful Reich, is 236 years old today.

Oops! Looks like we found out who's really got a case of competitive envy!

BTW: this is a narrow point but Germans are Anglo-Saxons. Sort of the original model, if you follow me.
If we're speaking chronologically, then, you'd agree that the original model was the Britsh Empire? Or are we going back as far as the early invasions of Briton, during which Celts were subject to, yawn, ethnic cleansing?


Well personally speaking I much prefer to drive a tank over Holocaust deniers, but I'm kind of funny that way...

You don't seem to understand that a Holocaust denier is only as much of a hypocrite as your average Western liberal. But unfortunately for them they make the same mistake as the Nazis... by announcing their intentions. Better to keep quite about that, and instead conceal your goals behind feel-good rhetoric and advertizing representations of an idealized future.


And those who support that ideology today and are attempting to push that ideology into the political arena should be dragged by their pubic hair to the concentration camps and made to be reminded of what their ideology can bring about.
You mean like Americans?

116,000 civilian deaths in Iraq... is that enough to qualify as a holocaust?

What you're really upset about my dear is the fact that the Nazis lost. THAT was their greatest crime. Isn't that the same reason Hitler eventually disowned his own people... beleiving they should be condemned because of their failures?


If the industrial, systematic killing of over 6 million people is not an example of "evil", I don't know what is. How do you define "evil"?
I don't believe in such a thing as 'evil', as I do not believe in the existence of 'good', except as an immature and naive way of explaining human action. One can witness on this thread the pathetic hypocrisy it leads to.

As for the 'systematic killing' argument, it's arguable whether the Nazis showed greater humanity to their victims by using industrial methods than western colonists, who wiped out entire villages of American Indians and gave out blankets infected with deadly diseases and watched them suffer and perish over several centuries.

Perhaps the Nazis were acting quite humanely when they designed the gas chambers, encouraging people to think they were simply going for a shower rather than being executed, and so avoiding all the terror and trepidation that would normally accompany such an experience - allegedly. The same cannot be said, however, for the way the British and Spanish behaved in the New World.


Do you think that two wrongs make a right?

What exactly are you arguing here? That we should ignore the holocaust of World War II because some other mass killings haven't received sufficient attention in your opinion? Should we not instead make sure that attention is paid to other gross violations of life and liberty?There is no completely objective perspective from which to make claims or accusations regarding who is responsible for what atrocity. You, along with everyone else here, are as much steeped in blood and guilt as any Nazi of the Third Reich. It's only the chronological factors which prevent you from seeing this clearly, and the fact that today the minds of the sheeple are so dulled, so insensitive and lazy, that they must be conditioned with photographic imagery and primed with liberal dogma so that they can bleat "genocide!... Nazi!...terrorist!" on cue.

Consider, for example, a film crew following the early exploits of European settlers to Australasia, the treatment of the native inhabitants being met with howls of derision and incredulity by the liberals of Sci-Forums sitting on their asses in Europe, calls for NATO air strikes and ground intervention and a cessation to the colonization, resulting in Australia not existing as it does today. Not only can one not imagine it, but one wouldn't want it. Even die hard liberals such as yourself.

Why, though, is a question you would have to answer yourself. I'd be interested to hear the answer though.

So you have reached the conclusion that because the west does not "remember" similar atrocities committed, those committed by the Nazis are somehow less atrocious? This is a non-sequitur. A brutal act is not diminished just because someone else did it first.
My point is that the West is BUILT upon the very ideology that you decry as Nazism. It's only the language difference that allows you to treat what happened in Germany as something alien and perverse.

As I already explained, lebensraum simply means 'living space' in English.

Nazi is the common English short form of Nationalsozialismus, meaning 'National Socialist'.

Get over it.

So now we're equivocating the systematic murder of 6 million Jews to the collateral deaths of citizens in war?

Case closed.

My point is that the West is BUILT upon the very ideology that you decry as Nazism. It's only the language difference that allows you to treat what happened in Germany as something alien and perverse.

As I already explained, lebensraum simply means 'living space' in English.

Oh please. The west was built upon the ideals of democracy and equality, not expansionism. All cultures seek to increase their property and their wealth, so to say the west was built on that is no more accurate to say that Nazi Germany was. Clearly, there are very different ideologies at play here.

And we do not absolve ourselves of the horrors inflicted during that expansionism, but do not forget that we also recognize the difference between displacement and systematic murder--and that is not reducible to a difference in language.

Oh please. The west was built upon the ideals of democracy and equality, not expansionism.
Oh sure... and Pol Pot was only a gardener tending his plants.


All cultures seek to increase their property and their wealth, so to say the west was built on that is no more accurate to say that Nazi Germany was. Clearly, there are very different ideologies at play here.
No. The ideologies were identical, simply separated by slightly different languages and cultures and two groups in competition with each other... but from the same family tree.


And we do not absolve ourselves of the horrors inflicted during that expansionism, but do not forget that we also recognize the difference between displacement and systematic murder--and that is not reducible to a difference in language.
Calling what happened in the New World simply a 'displacement' is odious in the extreme... and in conflict with all the historical evidence. But I respect your right to do so. ;)

I'm not here to make absolute judgements about so-called good and evil humans... who have no existence outside of genetic and mimetic circumstances, unless you are a bible thumper of course.

Oh sure... and Pol Pot was only a gardener tending his plants.

But that's exactly your argument. According to you, Hitler was just expanding the Fatherland's resources.


No. The ideologies were identical, simply separated by slightly different languages and cultures and two groups in competition with each other... but from the same family tree.

You say that, but you don't demonstrate it. How is the Final Solution similar to the Iraq War, for example? You called it a holocaust before, so let's hear it.


Calling what happened in the New World simply a 'displacement' is odious in the extreme... and in conflict with all the historical evidence. But I respect your right to do so. ;)

It wasn't simply a displacement, but that was the core purpose of it. Contrast that to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, which was an orchestrated attempt at genocide, and you have an rotten apples-to-rotten-oranges comparison.


I'm not here to make absolute judgements about so-called good and evil humans... who have no existence outside of genetic and mimetic circumstances, unless you are a bible thumper of course.

Of course you are. You've absolved the Nazis for doing what you claim comes naturally, and vilified other cultures for their own, often lesser, crimes. This is Nazi apologist BS at its worst.

If we're speaking chronologically, then, you'd agree that the original model was the Britsh Empire? Or are we going back as far as the early invasions of Briton, during which Celts were subject to, yawn, ethnic cleansing?

Racial hatred exists and probably always will; Hitler picked Jews and others because of crazy insane. He might have modeled concentration camps off the British - I don't recall - but you can find earlier examples here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment): the Spanish in Cuba, specifically.

Not sure why the displacement of the Celts earned a yawn.

Moderator note: I see that once again there's a lot of off-topic discussion developing here. This material will be purged from the thread when I get to it.

Please bear in mind that the Formal Debates forum is strictly moderated.

Instead of purging...why not spilt the thread...and start a "Discussion" thread. If the formal debate doesn't happen..it can be moved to "conspiracies".

I would hate to see classic lines like "...Holocaust deniers should be dragged by their pubic hair to the concentration camps....." get sent to oblivion.

You don't seem to understand that a Holocaust denier is only as much of a hypocrite as your average Western liberal. But unfortunately for them they make the same mistake as the Nazis... by announcing their intentions. Better to keep quite about that, and instead conceal your goals behind feel-good rhetoric and advertizing representations of an idealized future.

I think people would have noticed that they had killed over 11 million people even if they hadn't announced their intentions and kept quiet about it..

Just saying..


You mean like Americans?

116,000 civilian deaths in Iraq... is that enough to qualify as a holocaust?
Psst..

I never supported that war either..


What you're really upset about my dear is the fact that the Nazis lost. THAT was their greatest crime. Isn't that the same reason Hitler eventually disowned his own people... beleiving they should be condemned because of their failures?

You think I am upset that they lost and did not get to complete their genocides?

And you think their greatest crime is that they lost?

I would say that their defeat was their best moment.


As for the 'systematic killing' argument, it's arguable whether the Nazis showed greater humanity to their victims by using industrial methods than western colonists, who wiped out entire villages of American Indians and gave out blankets infected with deadly diseases and watched them suffer and perish over several centuries.

Perhaps the Nazis were acting quite humanely when they designed the gas chambers, encouraging people to think they were simply going for a shower rather than being executed, and so avoiding all the terror and trepidation that would normally accompany such an experience - allegedly. The same cannot be said, however, for the way the British and Spanish behaved in the New World.
So you attribute their killing methods with their humanity?

Strange. Most people would view their actions as showing a distinct lack of humanity. But you seem to believe they showed humanity in slaughtering over 11 million people because of their religious beliefs, race, sexuality and physical and mental ability because they used a more modern method..

Do you believe killing people with modern weapons is more humane?

Because to me, and I would imagine to anyone who is not a sociopath, killing anyone and/or committing genocide is bad regardless of the methods used to achieve those ends..

Instead of purging...why not spilt the thread...and start a "Discussion" thread. If the formal debate doesn't happen..it can be moved to "conspiracies".

I would hate to see classic lines like "...Holocaust deniers should be dragged by their pubic hair to the concentration camps....." get sent to oblivion.

*Cough*

It was not my finest moment...:bawl:

*Cough*

It was not my finest moment...:bawl:

I disagree....it made me almost spit out my coffee this morning...and gave me a wonderful mental image of a dude in a Hitler moustache getting dragged by his pubes...kicking and screaming. Good times...good times.

While James may be the only one interested in a formal debate, others have shown an interest in regular ole informal debate. It's just why I suggested a split, instead of a purge, to give the informal debaters, and commentators a place to voice their opinion.

Moderator Note:

I've split a bunch of posts off from the proposal thread and established a discussion thread.

I've also moved a bunch of the posts that were deleted as 'Off topic' or 'Debating the topic'.

I'm not going to promise to have gotten all of the posts that should have been moved over here however.

Thanks for the split, Trippy.

recidivist:


You don't seem to understand that a Holocaust denier is only as much of a hypocrite as your average Western liberal.

In what way?


116,000 civilian deaths in Iraq... is that enough to qualify as a holocaust?

The holocaust involved the systematic, state sanctioned, deliberate murder of innocent civilians. Iraq is not comparable.


What you're really upset about my dear is the fact that the Nazis lost. THAT was their greatest crime.

If push came to shove, I'm sure you wouldn't like to live in a totalitarian state. So don't give us this crap and expect us to believe it.


I don't believe in such a thing as 'evil', as I do not believe in the existence of 'good', except as an immature and naive way of explaining human action.

I think we've already established that you're not too strong on the basics of morality.


As for the 'systematic killing' argument, it's arguable whether the Nazis showed greater humanity to their victims by using industrial methods than western colonists, who wiped out entire villages of American Indians and gave out blankets infected with deadly diseases and watched them suffer and perish over several centuries.

And again with the "two wrongs make a right" argument.

One massacre justifies another, does it? Killing one million people is ok as long as somebody else killed 2 million earlier?


Perhaps the Nazis were acting quite humanely when they designed the gas chambers....[snip]

Listen to yourself. You're trying to excuse mass murder. What's wrong with you?


There is no completely objective perspective from which to make claims or accusations regarding who is responsible for what atrocity.

I think there's no room to argue that anybody but the Nazis were responsible for the systematic slaughter of Jews in the gas chambers.


You, along with everyone else here, are as much steeped in blood and guilt as any Nazi of the Third Reich.

You're quite wrong. I have never killed anybody. Nor do I ever intend to.

There's something quite warped about the way you think, you know. You ought to get some help with your problem.


Consider, for example, a film crew following the early exploits of European settlers to Australasia, the treatment of the native inhabitants being met with howls of derision and incredulity by the liberals of Sci-Forums sitting on their asses in Europe, calls for NATO air strikes and ground intervention and a cessation to the colonization, resulting in Australia not existing as it does today. Not only can one not imagine it, but one wouldn't want it. Even die hard liberals such as yourself.

I'm not sure quite how you reached the conclusion that I support the modern Australian state on the basis of past wrongs done to Aboriginal people. I'll just tell you that again you're way off base, in some fantasy land of your own imagining on this.


My point is that the West is BUILT upon the very ideology that you decry as Nazism.

Nazism was a totalitarian regime. It was fascist and racist from its inception.

The "West", in general, has never been totalitarian, facist or racist at its roots.

But that's exactly your argument. According to you, Hitler was just expanding the Fatherland's resources.
That's precisely what he was doing, expanding German power and influence, eradicating Germany's enemies. That the eradication took a different form to what went on in the New World does not make it unique. The British and the Spanish were doing exactly the same thing.

http://ancientweb.org/images/explore/America_iroquois_with_captive.jpg

Is the above image of an Iriquois tribesman any different to that created by the Nazis, showing Jews as rats or money grabbing bankers?

Is there any truth to the image?


You say that, but you don't demonstrate it. How is the Final Solution similar to the Iraq War, for example? You called it a holocaust before, so let's hear it.
I asked if it was a Holocaust, I did not determine it as such. It is the arrogant liberals on this forum who think they are in a position to do that. Look at the broader picture... the expansion of Anglo-Saxon culture by war and economic mechanisms... their complete domination of the modern world... the largest Reich (empire) in history. Anyone with half a brain could have told you that there would be huge numbers of civilian casualties in that war, just as they could have told you of the phantom nature of WMD. That the West went ahead and invaded means they condemned those people to die, as sure as if they had herded them into gas chambers.

They could have stayed out and today 126,000 Iraqi people would still be alive.

126,000


It wasn't simply a displacement, but that was the core purpose of it. Contrast that to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, which was an orchestrated attempt at genocide, and you have an rotten apples-to-rotten-oranges comparison.Displace is simply a euphemism for exterminate, for mass murder. That you use this tactic in defence is no different whatsoever to the strategy of any Holocaust denier.

Consider:


In 1493, when Columbus returned to the Hispaniola, he quickly implemented policies of slavery and mass extermination of the Taino population of the Caribbean. Within three years, five million were dead. Las Casas, the primary historian of the Columbian era, writes of many accounts of the horrors that the Spanish colonists inflicted upon the indigenous population: hanging them en mass, hacking their children into pieces to be used as dog feed, and other horrid cruelties. The works of Las Casas are often omitted from popular American history books and courses because Columbus is considered a hero by many, even today.

Mass killing did not cease, however, after Columbus departed. Expansion of the European colonies led to similar genocides. "Indian Removal" policy was put into action to clear the land for white settlers. Methods for the removal included slaughter of villages by the military and also biological warfare. High death rates resulted from forced marches to relocate the Indians.

The Removal Act of 1830 set into motion a series of events which led to the "Trail of Tears" in 1838, a forced march of the Cherokees, resulting in the destruction of most of the Cherokee population." The concentration of American Indians in small geographic areas, and the scattering of them from their homelands, caused increased death, primarily because of associated military actions, disease, starvation, extremely harsh conditions during the moves, and the resulting destruction of ways of life.


Of course you are. You've absolved the Nazis for doing what you claim comes naturally, and vilified other cultures for their own, often lesser, crimes. This is Nazi apologist BS at its worst.
I've not absolved the Nazis of anything. Their major crime seems to have been, as already mentioned, being over efficient. If they had strung out the Holocaust over a few centuries, as the Anglo-Saxons did, no one would have batted an eyelid. In fact, Jews have been persecuted in Europe for thousands of years, and elsewhere, so nothing new there. The question is what's the big deal this time? The answer is the speed and quantity at which they were dispatched, and this is always the first thing liberals blurt out when going on a righteous rampage, that vitaly important six million figure.

Oh, and of course that the Nazis were the spawn of Satan. Let's not forget that, it's important to this discussion, possibly even more so than the numbers.


Not sure why the displacement of the Celts earned a yawn.
After x number of genocides, Holocausts, massacres and ethnic-cleansings, the whole thing becomes a little passe. Anyone with an axe to grind can find some atrocity to paint himself as the ultimate victim.


------------------------


The holocaust involved the systematic, state sanctioned, deliberate murder of innocent civilians. Iraq is not comparable.What if it was six million Iraqi civilians dead? Must it all be written down officially before you believe it?

What happened to all the American Indians? Oh, according to Dawg they were simply 'relocated'... to their graves.


If push came to shove, I'm sure you wouldn't like to live in a totalitarian state. So don't give us this crap and expect us to believe itYou're quite right, I wouldn't. Not all the time, at least. But who knows, you might like it. A totalitarian state needn't be oppressive for those it is designed to serve. Singapore is a model society.


I think we've already established that you're not too strong on the basics of morality.
I hold my hand up to ignorance of the subject. Whenever someone pontificates about it all I hear is hypocrisy and double-speak.


Listen to yourself. You're trying to excuse mass murder. What's wrong with you?
There's mass murder going on every moment of every day inside your body, without which you would, ironically, be dead. That's the situation you are being asked to face here. Without the colonization of Australia and the extermination of the Aborigines you would not exist. It is the policy of lebensraum which has given you, your family, and millions like you, life.
Is this not PRECISELY what Darwin observed amongst the animals... and are we not animals?

Would you deny Darwin's genius on this, a science forum, simply to pay lip service to a pathetic and corrupt political doctrine that has had its day?


I think there's no room to argue that anybody but the Nazis were responsible for the systematic slaughter of Jews in the gas chambers.
That's interesting, and somewhat nieve. The Jews also hold some responsibility for their destiny, regardless of the perceived outcome, just as the Native Americans do and the rest of us as well.

Why don't you apply the same emotional reasoning to the animal kingdom as you do to humanity? What do you think happened to all those extinct phenotypes... they simply vanished as a result of changing climate and geographical conditions? How perfectly comforting!


You're quite wrong. I have never killed anybody. Nor do I ever intend to.What people intend rarely happens the way they expect it. Reality does not conform to our wishes and desires, but we see on this thread many who wish it did.


Nazism was a totalitarian regime. It was fascist and racist from its inception.

The "West", in general, has never been totalitarian, facist or racist at its roots.
I love it.

You can go through your whole life never having to accept your involvement in anything. Whenever you're confronted by something uncomfortable or threatening, there's always that handy liberal reasoning, neither here nor there, standing on the sidelines, feigning indifference and aloofness, which absolves you of all responsibility.

We should shout it louder, and stamp our feet as we march down sunny boulevards with the fresh-faced youth... "fascists out!', 'fascists out!'. We are innocent and pure. The sheep must be protected... by the very same forces they decry.

How wonderfully childish.

(By the way, I love the fact this has been placed in the conspiracy theory section.).

Summary of previous post: I know you are but what am I?

No, I'm not...I suggested it. It's the only other place on the board, beside the cesspool that has enough ventilation to get rid of the stench.

http://red-pill.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/sheeple3.jpg

Is that easier for you both to digest?

recidivist:

No informed person here would deny the Trail of Tears, the Killing Fields or any other number of atrocities.

What seems so bizarre about your stance is that the topic here is the Holocaust, and only because steampunk opened a thread arguing that (in some way) it never happened.

So let's get one thing straight. Other atrocities also happened, most likely all of the ones you have in mind - and many more - and if we need to we can compile a list of them. However, here we are addressing Holocaust denial. So far all of your arguments appear to evade this.

As long as you continue to evade the topic, it amounts to flaming. What's the point? How does anything else that ever happened to anybody else address the claim that the Holocaust never happened?

Summary of previous post: I know you are but what am I?

Pretty much, yeah.

This is such a juicy thread, I am unable to withhold myself from it.

By the way if anyone noticed, Recidivist hasn't denied the Holocaust, he just has a different view on it...

This is such a juicy thread, I am unable to withhold myself from it.

By the way if anyone noticed, Recidivist hasn't denied the Holocaust, he just has a different view on it...

Dude...I'm still waiting here what that is...So far...all I've gotten is: "There were other genocides in human history...therefore Hilter's extermination of the Jews was just business as usual."

Please correct me if I'm wrong Recidivist.

recidivist:


What if it was six million Iraqi civilians dead? Must it all be written down officially before you believe it?

You haven't made a case that the US government or the US military deliberately set out to commit genocide in Iraq. If you wish to make such a case, go right ahead.


What happened to all the American Indians? Oh, according to Dawg they were simply 'relocated'... to their graves.

I don't recall defining Indian massacres at any point in our discussion.


A totalitarian state needn't be oppressive for those it is designed to serve. Singapore is a model society.

Totalitarian states are only designed to serve the Leader and his quislings.


There's mass murder going on every moment of every day inside your body, without which you would, ironically, be dead. That's the situation you are being asked to face here.

As I said before, you seem to have a mental disconnect in there somewhere. This is another bizarre example.

You equate the death of some cells or bacteria in my body to the mass murder of human beings? Really? Do you really think those are morally equivalent? Have you considered, for example, the matter of intent?


Without the colonization of Australia and the extermination of the Aborigines you would not exist. It is the policy of lebensraum which has given you, your family, and millions like you, life.

Without the invention of the bicycle, I might not exist. Who knows? It is incredibly unlikely that any individual will come to exist.

Also, you know nothing of how or when my family came to Australia. For that matter, you don't know that I'm not aboriginal myself.


Is this not PRECISELY what Darwin observed amongst the animals... and are we not animals?

Would you deny Darwin's genius on this, a science forum, simply to pay lip service to a pathetic and corrupt political doctrine that has had its day?

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here. Are you arguing that the holocaust was justifiable on the basis of social Darwinism, or something?


That's interesting, and somewhat nieve. The Jews also hold some responsibility for their destiny, regardless of the perceived outcome, just as the Native Americans do and the rest of us as well.

The Jews had it coming, did they?


Why don't you apply the same emotional reasoning to the animal kingdom as you do to humanity?

Emotional reasoning is an oxymoron.


What do you think happened to all those extinct phenotypes... they simply vanished as a result of changing climate and geographical conditions? How perfectly comforting!

If you want to discuss the ins and outs of biological extinction, I suggest you start a separate thread. How that is relevant to the deliberate mass murder of 6 million innocents in World War II is a mystery.


I love it.

You can go through your whole life never having to accept your involvement in anything. Whenever you're confronted by something uncomfortable or threatening, there's always that handy liberal reasoning, neither here nor there, standing on the sidelines, feigning indifference and aloofness, which absolves you of all responsibility.

We should shout it louder, and stamp our feet as we march down sunny boulevards with the fresh-faced youth... "fascists out!', 'fascists out!'. We are innocent and pure. The sheep must be protected... by the very same forces they decry.

How wonderfully childish.

This is contentless nonsense. All it tells me is that you like to label some people as "liberals" and you don't like those people.

Recall that it was you who started here by trying to absolve the Nazi's of responsibility. This isn't about those evil "liberals". It's about your rationalisations as to why the holocaust was really ok.


(By the way, I love the fact this has been placed in the conspiracy theory section.).

It was the closest fit. What category would you suggest?

recidivist has made a good point in the discussion. The hypocrisy here is that although the degree of evil has been surpassed in other historical events that they don't carry the same emotional charge. This should indicate to rational thinkers they may want to get on their hands an knees and beat their backs with whips and shout the mantra "Evil and Holocaust" while their teacher flips the pictures of wars that are not properly emotionally charged in their minds. I think people who are not attributing the 'epitome of evil' arguments to other wars are imbalanced emotionally in regards to the wars recidivist has gave you a chance to emotionally respond to.

Is not your imbalance not evidence that you are a victim of conditioning rather than a person who rationally considers historical events and as a result of that rational consideration has horrible emotions proportionate to the degree the terrible acts?

It seems nearly everyone just blows off the wars recidivist brings up like a socio-path, numbed to mass murder.

The hypocrisy here is that although the degree of evil has been surpassed in other historical events that they don't carry the same emotional charge

But you are not discussing "other" historical events, you are discussing the Holocaust aren't you?


This should indicate to rational thinkers they may want to get on their hands an knees and beat their backs with whips and shout the mantra "Evil and Holocaust" while their teacher flips the pictures of wars that are not properly emotionally charged in their minds

It should tell you to try and keep on topic instead of trying to inject other topics into your own thread that aren't on topic.



Is not your imbalance not evidence that you are a victim of conditioning rather than a person who rationally considers historical events

No, it isn't mine but yours. It seems you tend to be conditioned to create problems and stir the pot to churn up emotions rather than researching what the truth actually is. Have you ever talked to a survivor of the Holocaust, that would give you more insight to a eye witness but it seems that you have not.

This is ridiculous. The claim of empiricism will fall flat on its face; there is a plethora of evidence as to the Holocaust. It happened. Deal with it.

Have you ever talked to a survivor of the Holocaust, that would give you more insight to a eye witness but it seems that you have not.

So, far the eyewitness accounts haven't convinced me. Everytime I've seen their interviews, they make claims that contradict the evidence. Why do I need to talk to them when so many of them have been proven to make false claims about the gassing? Would you like to provide just one link to video where one doesn't describe the gassing in a way that doesn't contradict the evidence?

This is ridiculous. The claim of empiricism will fall flat on its face; there is a plethora of evidence as to the Holocaust. It happened. Deal with it.

I bet Geoff you can't provide one link, just one, that is the official scientific proof that the gassing occurred in Auschwitz. You see Geoff, you are just a believer. You never experienced a scientific argument of the gassings, you only imagine it's proven in your mind. That's why you will not provide a link, an official link, the link that diagrams and proves it all. If it is to be believed, this link would be easy to find. Someone who cares, would have put it all together for us after all these years, after all this speculation. But they didn't. And you will not provide one. It doesn't exist.

Better than links are books in black and white.

Trials of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg November 14, 1945 – October 1, 1946, Volume 1, Page 251

Got copy?


On September 3, 1941, deputy camp commandant SS-Hauptsturmführer Fritzsch experimented on 600 Russian POWs and 250 Polish inmates by gathering them in the basement of Block 11 and gassing them with Zyklon B, a highly lethal cyanide-based pesticide.[16] This paved the way for the use of Zyklon B as an instrument for extermination at Auschwitz, and a gas chamber and crematorium were constructed by converting a bunker. This gas chamber operated from 1941 to 1942, during which time some 60,000 people were killed therein; it was then converted into an air-raid shelter for the use of the SS. This gas chamber still exists, together with the associated crematorium, which was reconstructed after the war using the original components, which remained on-site.[17][18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp#cite_note-International_Military_Tribunal_1946.2C_Page_251-2

Look, the Nazis were so kind they even made a...what? Bread-making facility? - at Auschwitz I.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Aushwitz_I_crematoria_memorial.jpg

Macht gut, Oberst? There are plenty of other sites you can peddle your sickness. Why not try them?

So, far the eyewitness accounts haven't convinced me

That only tells me that you are very uneducated for anyone who talks with any of the thousands that survived would see that this happened. You must have had a very bad education if you can't be convinced by thousands of eyewitnesses to this happening. Again all you do is stir the pot to arouse emotions with your allegations but no substantiations.

Better than links are books in black and white.

Trials of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg November 14, 1945 – October 1, 1946, Volume 1, Page 251

Got copy?

How convenient, in the age of the Internet, all you have is physical book. Typical, make your argument out of reach so you can't be easily rebutted.


Look, the Nazis were so kind they even made a...what? Bread-making facility? - at Auschwitz I.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Aushwitz_I_crematoria_memorial.jpg

That is a picture of a oven to cremate the dead. There is nothing unusual about that. Cremation is normal part of our culture. That is not proof that 6 million Jews were gassed.

I was right, Geoff was unable to provide the link to the official proof.

Everyone realizes that no matter what evidence is presented, you will deny it's validity and say you're not satisfied.

Personally, I don't give a shit whether you're satisfied or not.

That only tells me that you are very uneducated for anyone who talks with any of the thousands that survived would see that this happened. You must have had a very bad education if you can't be convinced by thousands of eyewitnesses to this happening. Again all you do is stir the pot to arouse emotions with your allegations but no substantiations.

You say there are thousands of eyewitnesses. Provide one link to a survivor who is an eyewitness of gassing who is properly interviewed to express the facts surrounding the event. I will show you how they are confused or possibly lying.

Everyone realizes that no matter what evidence is presented, you will deny it's validity and say you're not satisfied.

Personally, I don't give a shit whether you're satisfied or not.

Why waste your time? Are you stupid and don't give a shit at the same time?

Hitler's invasion of Poland had nothing to do with 'evil' - whatever that is - it was about acquiring land and resources, extending the lebensraum (living space) of the German people. Just like the British extended the lebensraum of their own people and in doing so created America, Australia and New Zealand. Other European countries did the same. It's a well known fact, for example, that Hitler admired the British Empire and modeled his concentration camps on those created by the British in South Africa.


Totally incorrect. You want to look up why it was called the Third Reich. You'd do better to look at the history of the Holy Roman Empire and how it lost territories over time, especially due to the Napoleonic wars.

What Hitler was more likely doing was fantasising about reinstating the Holy Roman Empire with himself as Emperor. (Obviously that didn't work out so well for him, should of stuck to street painting.)



Am I right in thinking, then, that as an Anglo-Saxon your painting of the Nazis as 'evil' is really the result of competitive envy, rather than them being representative in some absurd way of some disembodied, demonic force known to us via religious scriptures?

You don't know much about the history of the country either do you? The Angle's weren't the only people to invade the lands prior, in fact the Roman empire was one of the worst invaders, removing indigenous people when they didn't see eye-to-eye. Just look how the supposed eradicate the Iceni [A Celt tribe] (doing so left the territory open to Angle's after the Romans has raided as much of the resources as they could afford)

Incidentally "Evil" isn't derived by how something looks, it's derived by what acts a person, group or country commits and might be deemed by a person, group or country with a counter perspective.

Nazi's weren't portrayed "Evil" because of just the holocaust, they did far worse things. For instance who do you think started the Battle of Britain with their bombing runs? (And incidentally not all of their targets were military bases, by the end of the war they were purposely aiming at population centres in an attempt to cripple peoples resistance) They used V1 rockets as well, while we might have retaliated with our own air raids we didn't use rockets in return, not necessarily down to our tech level being lesser, but our understanding of both how inaccurate they were and how civilian causalities would of been high.

The Gestapo also had a habit of rounding up anyone they thought was a collaborator, traitor or coward and shooting them. A fear tactic to make sure that people did as they told them. This meant that some of the people that fought for the Nazi's were actually press-ganged into it for fear that their families would be rounded up and killed if they refused. (The proof of this is I had two great uncles that had to fight on the Russian front or there sisters would be raped and their Austrian family's exterminated)

This is just Nazi operations to their own people, when you start looking towards people they weren't trying to have command over then their respect for human life became ever decreasing.

Can we bring the banhammer down yet? This is nauseating.

Can we bring the banhammer down yet? This is nauseating.

Unfortunately there is some very misinformed people out there that have a habit of spreading their misinformation while believing it's accurate. banning them will never get them to see sense, in fact all they'll end up doing is identifying the ban as being some sort of conspiracy to silence them rather than just being due there particular view being just so ridiculous.

Can we bring the banhammer down yet? This is nauseating.

Why don't you ban yourself from the topic? Some people here believe we have the right to hotly debate issues freely.

Why don't you ban yourself from the topic? Some people here believe we have the right to hotly debate issues freely.

A debate requires two counter positions, of which they are seen as neither being correct or incorrect.

It's hardly a debate in regards to the logic used for Holocaust denial, it's more to the point that its Correct that the Holocaust happened and intellectually dishonesty, blind-stupidity and ignorance merged with four measures of trolling about how it didn't.

Really it's one of those "Stop flogging a Dead Horse" topics.

This a response to Steampunk from the anti-semitism thread, which was closed:


I said logic or skeptic, not logic and skeptic. You need logic.

No--this is what you said:


Let suppose they have been taught the scientific method or scepticism in a previous logic course.


I guess you qualified yourself there. I'm reading you. You haven't schooled me on the issue. Where's your magic link to the golden egg? The scientific proof of the gassing in Auschwitz? You don't have that one link. So much for wherever you went to school or what you have accomplished afterward.

Don't know where that last part comes from, or what it has to do with anything--I am simply suggesting that you lack a coherent direction and you go about these things in a very haphazard fashion.

I'm not going to point you towards any "scientific proof," rather I'd simply suggest you look into pretty much any critique of Faurisson for what you seek. (Personally, I'd recommend Lyotard's The Differend for a slightly different sort of approach, but it ain't very "science-y") I think this will illuminate the absurdity of your questions.

How convenient, in the age of the Internet, all you have is physical book. Typical, make your argument out of reach so you can't be easily rebutted.

Sure. Print is so dead.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Aushwitz_I_crematoria_memorial.jpg

That is a picture of a oven to cremate the dead. There is nothing unusual about that. Cremation is normal part of our culture. That is not proof that 6 million Jews were gassed.

I was right, Geoff was unable to provide the link to the official proof.

Right, because shovels and earth were passe back then, too.

You say there are thousands of eyewitnesses. Provide one link to a survivor who is an eyewitness of gassing who is properly interviewed to express the facts surrounding the event. I will show you how they are confused or possibly lying.

Here's a couple then:


Former Auschwitz prisoner Karol Świętorzecki recalled the first Christmas Eve behind the camp barbed wire, on 24 December 1940, was also one of the most tragic. "The Nazis set up a Christmas tree, with electric lights, on the roll-call square. Beneath it, they placed the bodies of prisoners who had died while working or frozen to death at roll call. Lagerführer Karl Fritzsch referred to the corpses beneath the tree as “a present” for the living, and forbade the singing of Polish Christmas carols." According to Höss, it was also Fritzsch who first arrived at the idea of using Zyklon B gas for the purpose of mass murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_H%C3%B6ss
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Fritzsch

So why are they confused or possibly lying? I note the possibly.

I don't believe anyone is claiming that 6 million were gassed at Auschwitz. That was, afterall, just one stop on the world tour.

BTW - I can't provide empirical evidence that I had breakfast this morning. Yet, my stomach is full.

How convenient, in the age of the Internet, all you have is physical book. Typical, make your argument out of reach so you can't be easily rebutted.
It's called a library - look into it. :rolleyes:

So why are they confused or possibly lying? I note the possibly.

You know how this goes:

X saw them go into a room. X saw them removed from the room, in a non-living state. But X didn't see them being gassed.

And the only way for X to have witnessed anyone being gassed would be for X to have been there, being gassed as well. 'Course, then X couldn't testify to having seen anything.

Though this is kinda interesting:


Originally Posted by steampunk
You say there are thousands of eyewitnesses. Provide one link to a survivor who is an eyewitness of gassing who is properly interviewed to express the facts surrounding the event. I will show you how they are confused or possibly lying.

Lest you follow the usual formula (in my post above), I'm a trifle confused about your claim about believing nothing without empirical evidence.

I mean, suppose someone comes forward today and states that they witnessed the gassing first-hand, you seem awfully convinced that they are wrong--already--by stating that you will "show how they are confused or possibly lying."

So are you admitting to an irrational bias here?

You know how this goes:

X saw them go into a room. X saw them removed from the room, in a non-living state. But X didn't see them being gassed.

And the only way for X to have witnessed anyone being gassed would be for X to have been there, being gassed as well. 'Course, then X couldn't testify to having seen anything.

Precisely. Although you could have testimony of the use of gas - which we have (Hoss and Fritzsch, for example). It rapidly becomes an exercise in reductive silliness. You know what's going on. I know what's going on. Barring some enthusiastic affirmation from the subject, the point of the exercise seems pretty clear.

And the purpose thereof, of course, is barely adulterated evil. Is this why so many people died not so long ago? So that the cockroaches could scurry?

Instead of debating the obvious, we should ask, just what kind of "scientific evidence" would make him accept the truth...

If he really wants videotapes, hundreds of eyewitnesses and tons of DNAs for everything, then half of history never happened.* Nevertheless, there are still tons of the above mentioned type of evidences around for the Holocaust, so debating this topic is a wonderful exercise in FUTILITY....

*Did Genghis Khan really killed 40 million people? Maybe it was 4-5 only, a dozen tops....

P.S.: When wrestling with a pig, you seldom get an orgasm, or something like it.

P.S.S.: I have been to Dachau, so can I be called as an eyewitness???

Genghis Khan only killed two people, and one of them was a dog. I can prove all the rest were lying or maybe mistaken.

Precisely. Although you could have testimony of the use of gas - which we have (Hoss and Fritzsch, for example). It rapidly becomes an exercise in reductive silliness. You know what's going on. I know what's going on. Barring some enthusiastic affirmation from the subject, the point of the exercise seems pretty clear.

And the purpose thereof, of course, is barely adulterated evil. Is this why so many people died not so long ago? So that the cockroaches could scurry?


Originally Posted by Syzygys
Instead of debating the obvious, we should ask, just what kind of "scientific evidence" would make him accept the truth...

If he really wants videotapes, hundreds of eyewitnesses and tons of DNAs for everything, then half of history never happened.* Nevertheless, there are still tons of the above mentioned type of evidences around for the Holocaust, so debating this topic is a wonderful exercise in FUTILITY....

Yeah, this exercise is absurd on so many levels.

In the other thread, I remarked that Steampunk seems to be posturing himself as some sort of cross between a typical Jule's Verneian dilettante/Renaissance man and Borges's Funes, the memorious; but his bizarre contortions of what he considers "logic," along with his pseudoskepticism--which at one moment appears more a scientific, or empirical, skepticism, while at another appearing more akin to a philosophical skepticism--kinda remind me more of Werner Herzog's depiciton of Kaspar Hauser's "instructors":

A Problem of Logic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9uqPeIYMik)

The rules of one discipline do not always automatically transfer neatly to another discipline, and scoring rhetorical "points" is not the same attaining knowledge or establishing facticity. And a "scientific thinker" (which SP claims to be) does not have to "experience" absolutely everything with his "own senses" (SP's professed criteria for certainty in knowledge), lest everyone would be too busy re-inventing the wheel and "experimenting" with apples to even broach such topics as Auschwitz.

Unfortunately there is some very misinformed people out there that have a habit of spreading their misinformation while believing it's accurate. banning them will never get them to see sense, in fact all they'll end up doing is identifying the ban as being some sort of conspiracy to silence them rather than just being due there particular view being just so ridiculous.

I could give a damn what he takes from the experience! Who says this has to be a teaching tool? I want him gone so I don't have to say that a website I frequent is caters to Holocaust-denying Nazi apologists!

How about we stop worrying about educating the terminally ignorant and start protecting the site from garbage like this?

I could give a damn what he takes from the experience! Who says this has to be a teaching tool? I want him gone so I don't have to say that a website I frequent is caters to Holocaust-denying Nazi apologists!

How about we stop worrying about educating the terminally ignorant and start protecting the site from garbage like this?


"If you don't like it, stay out of it."

How convenient, in the age of the Internet, all you have is physical book. Typical, make your argument out of reach so you can't be easily rebutted.
If only there was a place where many books were gathered togther in one place, and accessable to the general public. Could such a thing exist? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Library)

A debate requires two counter positions, of which they are seen as neither being correct or incorrect.

It's hardly a debate in regards to the logic used for Holocaust denial, it's more to the point that its Correct that the Holocaust happened and intellectually dishonesty, blind-stupidity and ignorance merged with four measures of trolling about how it didn't.

Really it's one of those "Stop flogging a Dead Horse" topics.

The historical facts of the Holocaust have been revised several times due to provable inaccuracies and outrageous falsifications. Not just deniers have been behind the revisions, the people supporting the Holocaust have revised initial claims. More claims have been debunked, but not in the minds of those who practice blind, unquestioning support.


If he really wants videotapes, hundreds of eyewitnesses and tons of DNAs for everything, then half of history never happened.*

I didn't ask for DNA to prove the Holocaust, I asked for, but did not demand, DNA to be used to authenticate an alleged diary of the Auschwitz camp director. You are building arguments that never existed and attributing them to me. Take responsibility for your exaggerated paraphrasing intended to a build a strawman because the real argument is too tough for you.

Furthermore, you don't have one link to a survivor who is an eyewitness to the gassings that is properly interviewed about the gassings as to obtain a eyewitness proof the gassings occurred. I've been looking for these for a while now. I'm ready to believe, but you people have not produced.


And a "scientific thinker" (which SP claims to be) does not have to "experience" absolutely everything with his "own senses" (SP's professed criteria for certainty in knowledge), lest everyone would be too busy re-inventing the wheel and "experimenting" with apples to even broach such topics as Auschwitz.

If someone is studying to gain some expertise in Trigonometry, they don't blindly accept a calculators functions, they will be intrigued to learn how the original tables were built. They will get their hands dirty and rebuild the wheel of proof to corroborate what others have done. The are not trying to prove something, they are seeking a more authentic understanding. Expertise so-to-speak. The interesting thing is no scientific proof was ever offered of the gassing at Auschwitz, so no wheel is being re-invented. In fact, the model is being built slowly by revisionists (who seem to be the only one's concerned with accuracy). Models have took every effort to include even the most outrageous claims. Those outrageous ones have slowly dropped, but still models fails to support those popularly accepted claims because physical impossibilities of those claims. To prove this, you as well any here cannot provide a link to a scientific model demonstrating the science of the gassings at Auschwitz.


You know how this goes:

X saw them go into a room. X saw them removed from the room, in a non-living state. But X didn't see them being gassed.

And the only way for X to have witnessed anyone being gassed would be for X to have been there, being gassed as well. 'Course, then X couldn't testify to having seen anything.

That's not my argument. Strawman.

I have always been open to the many people claiming they were eyewitnesses to the gassing process. I've watched several videos of their eyewitness testimony. Where their stories fail is when they begin their details concerning the entire process. They all surprisingly say things that are physically impossible, which creates a situation where their testimonies are not acceptable as evidence. Perhaps you can provide just one proper interview that doesn't have these physically impossible claims.




I'm not going to point you towards any "scientific proof,"

You are not going to point to a scientific proof becuase you don't know what you are talking about and because one doesn't exist. A little childish game,

I know something you don't know, and I'm not going to show you



rather I'd simply suggest you look into pretty much any critique of Faurisson for what you seek. (Personally, I'd recommend Lyotard's The Differend for a slightly different sort of approach, but it ain't very "science-y") I think this will illuminate the absurdity of your questions.

Instead you offer admittedly non-sciency studies. Face it it, you have blindly accepted things, jumped on the bandwagon of belief and condemnation because you find it much more easy. When you are asked to establish one link to a scientific proof in the age of the Internet, you fail.

If only there was a place where many books were gathered togther in one place, and accessable to the general public. Could such a thing exist? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Library)

So the argument is, no one cared enough about the Holocaust to make a scientific proof in the age of the Internet accessible to all. Instead, we must read a library of books to reinvent this argument, each and every one of us, to come to a proof.

I don't believe anyone is claiming that 6 million were gassed at Auschwitz. That was, afterall, just one stop on the world tour.

Why do you think that is? Could be that people were lying and couldn't back up their claims? OH my God, Racists!!! Jew Haters!!! They proved a lie was being propagated! This number was debunked more than once, and it's still being proven to be false at it present figure.

So the argument is, no one cared enough about the Holocaust to make a scientific proof in the age of the Internet accessible to all. Instead, we must read a library of books to reinvent this argument, each and every one of us, to come to a proof.
Another example of reductio ad absurdum - and you're touching on the many questions fallacy.

The suggestion (I put forward no argument) is that:
1. Not every resource is available on the internet, and this is especially true for older publications.
2. There is a place that is publicly accessable within which you can find such publications, that real scientists are regular visitors to,

But what?

Are your fingers painted on?

Are you some kind of a vegetable?

Are you unable to copy the title of Grumpy's book, open up a second window (computers can multi task now, you know), go to google.com, paste the title of the book as the search item, and press the enter key?

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with concepts such as 'Copy', 'Paste', multi tasking, tabbed browsing and what they mean in relation to the internet.

How convenient, in the age of the Internet, all you have is physical book. Typical, make your argument out of reach so you can't be easily rebutted. It's called a library - look into it. :rolleyes:

Let me remind you, this is argument is not occurring in a library, it's on the Internet. This go find a book argument of theirs is just a way of saying they don't have links to a scientific proof of the gassing at Auschwitz.

Let me remind you, this is argument is not occurring in a library, it's on the Internet. This go find a book argument of theirs is just a way of saying they don't have links to a scientific proof of the gassing at Auschwitz.

No, the argument is that a book isn't out of reach, so your assertion that by referring to a book, rather than a website, Geoff P isn't "mak[ing] [his] argument out of reach so [he] can't be easily rebutted."

Another example of reductio ad absurdum - and you're touching on the many questions fallacy.

And you have the burden to prove this. What statement proves this?



The suggestion (I put forward no argument) is that:
1. Not every resource is available on the internet, and this is especially true for older publications.
2. There is a place that is publicly accessable within which you can find such publications, that real scientists are regular visitors to,


A scientific model in this day and age can be made by middle schoolers to represent the gassing claims. Yet, your stalling technique is to send me to a library of books to create this proof myself. Your ignorance is transparent.



Are you unable to copy the title of Grumpy's book, open up a second window (computers can multi task now, you know), go to google.com, paste the title of the book as the search item, and press the enter key?

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with concepts such as 'Copy', 'Paste', multi tasking, tabbed browsing and what they mean in relation to the internet.

Such great tech advances you question, I love copy and paste, but the argument you bolster has yet taken advantage of them?

Your statements imply: The proofs are hidden in a bunch of books and no one has taken the time to represent such a scientific models of the gassings online.

Pathetic. Out of reach nonsense argument.

So the argument is, no one cared enough about the Holocaust to make a scientific proof in the age of the Internet accessible to all.

Because nobody was stupid enough to ask, because all proof was already available???

What is this scientific you keep talking about?? What makes a proof scientific??

No, the argument is that a book isn't out of reach, so your assertion that by referring to a book, rather than a website, Geoff P isn't "mak[ing] [his] argument out of reach so [he] can't be easily rebutted."

The point is that the ideas in that book, if they form a scientific proof, can be easily transferred to a model which a middle schooler can create. But, you or no one else, seems to be able to provide a link to such a proof.

Why do you think that is?

Your lack of reading and math ability? Nobody claimed 6 million, but just for education, here is a top Nazi, he either remembered incorrectly or was exagerating:

"The camp's first commandant, Rudolf Höss, testified after the war at the Nuremberg Trials that up to three million people had died there (2.5 million gassed, and 500,000 from disease and starvation), a figure since revised to 1.3 million, around 90 percent of them Jewish."

That is about over a million Jews killed there...

Is a top Nazi's testimony scientific enough for you???

Because nobody was stupid enough to ask, because all proof was already available???

What is this scientific you keep talking about?? What makes a proof scientific??

Blind acceptance by a bunch of followers is the only proof you are offering and book chasing tactics.

You ask what proof scientific? No wonder you don't know what I mean by sending me a link.

Why don't don't just try one link, and I'lll debunk it for you.

And you have the burden to prove this. What statement proves this?
The proof is self evident.


A scientific model in this day and age can be made by middle schoolers to represent the gassing claims. Yet, your stalling technique is to send me to a library of books to create this proof myself. Your ignorance is transparent.
The only person stalling is you.


Such great tech advances you question, I love copy and paste, but the argument you bolster has yet taken advantage of them?
For someone who doesn't 'believe' things, you're awfully fond of making assumptions. Where is your emperical proof that I haven't? How do you know I don't currently have it open as a PDF on my other monitor?


Your statements imply: The proofs are hidden in a bunch of books and no one has taken the time to represent such a scientific models of the gassings online.
No, that's not what I said. However here you're reiterating a logical fallacy. And I know you know it's crap, because one of the sources you've linked to previously is one such repository of information. Other such repositories of information can be found in the footnotes and references sections of the wikipedia articles on Zyklon-B and Auschwitz Concentration Camp.

Your disingenuity in this matter is verging on ban-worthy.


Pathetic. Out of reach nonsense argument.
And here you are again reiterating that same bogus argument, and logical fallacy.

The point is that the ideas in that book, if they form a scientific proof, can be easily transferred to a model which a middle schooler can create. But, you or no one else, seems to be able to provide a link to such a proof.
No. The point is that the book is freely available to anybody interested enough to look for it.

What you want is to sit back and be spoonfed, meanwhile in your hubris you feel all superior because such spoonfeeding is not forthcoming, and seem to assume that because the spoonfeeding is not forthcoming, the proof is non-existent.

Which is total crap.

The irony of this is that he expects us to sit through 2 and a half hours of documentary based on ten years worth of research in order to extract his point, which he is unable to state cogently or succinctly. And he doesn't see the hypocrisy of that situation?

I have always been open to the many people claiming they were eyewitnesses to the gassing process. I've watched several videos of their eyewitness testimony. Where their stories fail is when they begin their details concerning the entire process. They all surprisingly say things that are physically impossible, which creates a situation where their testimonies are not acceptable as evidence. Perhaps you can provide just one proper interview that doesn't have these physically impossible claims.


You call this being "open"?


Originally Posted by steampunk
You say there are thousands of eyewitnesses. Provide one link to a survivor who is an eyewitness of gassing who is properly interviewed to express the facts surrounding the event. I will show you how they are confused or possibly lying.

So how is it that you already know that such a person will be "confused or possibly lying?" Might it have something to do with you already having your mind made up? How very scientific of you.

Your lack of reading and math ability? Nobody claimed 6 million, but just for education, here is a top Nazi, he either remembered incorrectly or was exagerating:

http://morris108.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/1919-the-crucifixion-of-6-million-jews-must-stop-the-american-hebrew/

You call this being "open"?

Yes. Provide a link.




So how is it that you already know that such a person will be "confused or possibly lying?" Might it have something to do with you already having your mind made up? How very scientific of you.

When a person makes statements that phsycially can't occur. THe so-called witness have made several of these remarks. Only if you study evidence would this be apparent. If you don't study the evidence it's amazing how easy it is to believe them.

I didn't ask for DNA to prove the Holocaust,

You might as well, DNA is science!!!


I asked for, but did not demand, DNA to be used to authenticate an alleged diary of the Auschwitz camp director.

You mean that after 70 years, fingerprints and fiber and such can be lifted from the diary? And what can we compare that to??? Do we still have the director's DNA??? Because if not, it is impossible to do the comparison.


a survivor who is an eyewitness to the gassings that is properly interviewed about the gassings

Excuse my French, but what the fuck is properly interviewed??? People asked them questions, and wrote books about their answers. How proper do you want to be??

Which is total crap.

What's total crap is that it easy to make a model these days of such argument claiming the gassings occurred. We can make entire worlds with physical models inside video games for kids that follow the laws of physics without errror, but no one has shown the scientific model proving the gassings. You think a book is going to do as good as modern science and cgi?

http://morris108.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/1919-the-crucifixion-of-6-million-jews-must-stop-the-american-hebrew/

You are quoting a newpaper from 1919 when talking about Auswitz????? You dumbfuck, idiot, should be castrated, and never born anyway mindfuck.

Moderators, seriously, ban this creep. I enjoy idiocy as much as the next guy, but there is a limit to stupidity.

After this link provided (what proved the mindset of steampunk) there is really no point in any discussion with you....

Oh yes, anybody is just as dumbfuck as you who still continues any intelligent discussion with you....

Excuse my French, but what the fuck is properly interviewed??? People asked them questions, and wrote books about their answers. How proper do you want to be??

How about careful request of explanation of the chronology of the event.

Ask questions about details involved when they are unclear in their explanation.

Do not ask leading questions.

That would be a good start.

You are quoting a newpaper from 1919 when talking about Auswitz????? You dumbfuck, idiot, should be castrated, and never born anyway mindfuck.


That 6 million figure was repeated several times and can be historically proven to be a repeated figure. How many times can 6 million Jews die? It's evidence of war propaganda which led to the abject beliefs propagated today.

What's total crap is that it easy to make a model these days of such argument claiming the gassings occurred. We can make entire worlds with physical models inside video games for kids that follow the laws of physics without errror, but no one has shown the scientific model proving the gassings. You think a book is going to do as good as modern science and cgi?
More of the same disingenuinity.

Your entire argument is in effect an argument from personal incredulity.

Mod Note: Quoted material stricken; post was withdrawn for being in the wrong thread.

He is a pro troll, simple as it is. Just ban his ass, I am begging you. By the way I already started the countdown in another thread...

There is nothing good coming out of this, just mud on the Forum....

http://morris108.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/1919-the-crucifixion-of-6-million-jews-must-stop-the-american-hebrew/
Idiot. :shrug:

Welcome to my ignore list.

How convenient, in the age of the Internet, all you have is physical book. Typical, make your argument out of reach so you can't be easily rebutted.


Are you incapable of going to a library?

How about google?

Thankfully, the Library of Congres has it on file (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/NT_major-war-criminals.html). Since you are too lazy to actually look up what GeoffP kindly provided to you, here it is:


The mas- sacres of Rowno and Dubno, of which the German engineer Graebe spoke, were examples of one method; the systematic extermination of Jews in concentration camps, was another. Part of the "final Solution" was the gathering of Jews from all German-occupied. Europe in concentration camps. Their physical condition was the test of life or death. All who were. fit to work were used as slave laborers in the concentration camps; all who were not fit to work were destroyed in gas chambers and their bodies burnt. Certain concentration camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz were set aside for this main purpose. With regard to Auschwitz, the Tribunal heard the evidence of Hoss, the commandant of the camp from 1May 1940. to 1 December 1943. He estimated that in the camp of Auschwitz
alone in that time 2,500,000 persons were exterminated, and that. a further 500,000 died from disease and starvation. Hoss described the screening for extermination by stating in evidence:


"We had two SS doctors on duty at Auschwitz to examine the incoming transports of prisoners. The prisoners would be marched by one of the doctors who would make spot decisions as they walked by. Those who were fit for work were sent into the camp. Others were sent immediately to the exterinination plants. Children of tender years were invariably exterminated since by reason of their youth they were unable to work. Still another improvement we made over Treblinka was that at Treblinka the victims almost always knew that they were to be exterminated and at ~uschwitz we endeavored to fool the victims into thinking that they were to go through a delousing process. Of course, frequently they realized our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and difficulties due to that fact. Very frequently women would hide their children under their clothes, but of course
' when we found them- we would 'send the children in t~ be
exterminated."


He described the actual killing by stating:


"It took from three to fifteen minutes to kill the people in the death chamber, depending upon climatic conditions. We knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped. We usually waited about one half-hour before we opened the doors and removed the bodies. After the bodies were removed our special commandos took off the rings and extracted the gold from the teeth of the corpses."

Beating, starvation, torture, and killing were The inmates were subjected to cruel experiments at Dachau in August 1942, victims were immersed in cold water until fheir body temperature was reduced to 28 O Centigrade, when they died immediately. Other experiments included high altitude experiments in pressure cham- bers, experiments to determine how long human beings could sur- vive in freezing. water, experiments with poison bullets, experiments with contagious diseases, and experiments dealing with sterilization of men and women by X-rays and other methods.

Evidence was given of the treatment of the inmates before and after their extermination. There was testimony that the hair of . women victims was cut off before they were killed, and shipped to Germany, there to be used in the manufacture of mattresses. The clothes, money, and 'valuables of the inmates were also salvaged and sent to the appropriate agencies for disposition. After the exter- mination the gold teeth and fillings were taken from the heads of the corpses and sent to the Reichsbank.

After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap. Special groups traveled through Europe to find Jews and subject them to the "final solution". German missions were sent to such satellite coun- tries as Hungary and Bulgaria, to arrange for the shipment of Jews to extermination camps and it is known that by.the end of 1944, 400,000 Jews from Hungary had been murdered at Auschwitz. Evidence has also been given of the evacuation of 110,000Jews from , part of Rumania for "liquidation". Adolf Eichmann, who had been ' put in charge of this program by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued resulted in the killing of 6 million Jews, of which 4 million were killed in the extermination institutions.



[Trials of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg November 14, 1945 – October 1, 1946, Volume 1, Page 251 - 253 (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Vol-I.pdf)]



So don't you dare accuse GeoffP of not providing any official proof.