Who executed bad camp commandant in Shindlers list

[Roberto]

Remember caution with disruptive oversized posts Roberto. If you don't want to reformat large photos to a smaller size you can always link to them. This is how you do it:

Smith's advice I can do without.

Considering the evidence and research behind my view of events on the one hand and Smith's on the other, that's not exactly an unreasonable conviction, is it? Just try to figure how many documents, witnesses, defendants and other sources of evidence would have had to be manipulated, and how many historians, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys would have had to become accomplices to some sinister "conspiracy", for Smith et al to have a point.

Hmmm, and I suppose it is not conceivable that the legerdemain of justice is no less a technology-of-control than a can of insecticide.

Everything is theoretically conceivable. Even the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But when we talk about i) probabilities and ii) evidence, the picture changes strongly to Smith's disadvantage.

I appreciate your [Xenon's] good intentions, but the fact is that I'm at peace with myself because I'm not only too critical to fall for "Revisionist" propaganda, but also eloquent enough to convey my criticism. I would be troubled if this were not so.

Wow, the Reverend has finally found a nickname to compete with the one I like to use on him. A rather inappropriate one at that, yet he's so happy about it that he doesn't mind a displaying a little more of his customary silliness.

"The lady doth protest too much methinks."

I neither know nor care about what the poet is trying to tell us, but the picture sure illustrates his understanding of "historical perspective". The utterly irrelevant "so-and-so-also-did" or "so-and-so-was-even-worse" - crap, you know.

[Scott Smith]

Remember caution with disruptive oversized posts Roberto. If you don't want to reformat large photos to a smaller size you can always link to them. This is how you do it:

Smith's advice I can do without.

I beg to differ but thanks for correcting the disruption anyway.

Hmmm, and I suppose it is not conceivable that the legerdemain of justice is no less a technology-of-control than a can of insecticide.

Everything is theoretically conceivable. Even the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But when we talk about i) probabilities and ii) evidence, the picture changes strongly to Smith's disadvantage.

The Protocols? Sounds kind of Spammy since that is hardly my thesis, which is simply the willingness to think outside of the box. Perhaps confusing my open-mindedness for someone else's conspiracy-theory. Tolerance and intellectual-curiosity is not exactly empirical or a matter of probability but more of a value or a philosophy.

"The lady doth protest too much methinks."

Skulls of Justice

I neither know nor care about what the poet is trying to tell us, but the picture sure illustrates his understanding of "historical perspective". The utterly irrelevant "so-and-so-also-did" or "so-and-so-was-even-worse" - crap, you know.

Again the Guardian misunderstands--babysteps, babysteps.

Let's backup a little, shall we...

If you believe that Smith is a "skeptic" in "search for the truth", I wouldn't be surprised if you also believed in the Pope's infallibility.

But it would seem that Roberto believes in the infallibility of the Nuremberg propaganda process...

Considering the evidence and research behind my view of events on the one hand and Smith's on the other, that's not exactly an unreasonable conviction, is it? Just try to figure how many documents, witnesses, defendants and other sources of evidence would have had to be manipulated, and how many historians, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys would have had to become accomplices to some sinister "conspiracy", for Smith et al to have a point.

Truth can be found a step at a time, and we can get as close to squaring the circle as we please, the closer we are able to look and measure and interpret. It is a gradual process of inquiry and observation, not a monolithic enchilda to be eaten whole and hammered home by the Inquistion. Or, to put it another way, there are more sides to the coin than one, and more than one coin to every side. Any other notion is based on Faith and Dogma, not the Art and Science of Historiography.

[Roberto]

But it would seem that Roberto believes in the infallibility of the Nuremberg propaganda process...

Smith knows better than that. As Walter Kaschner pointed out, criminal justice is as fallible as any other human endeavor. You can never rule out mistakes, only minimize the possibility thereof by making the trial as fair and defendant-friendly as possible. And alleging that Nuremberg was not a considerable achievement in this respect, as Mr. Kaschner also explained, simply blinks at the hard realities of the time.

The rest of Smith's post is just another boring regurgitation of his beaten propaganda phrases, so I'll just let the audience enjoy this crap uncommented. It says more about the Reverend than I possibly could.

[Scott Smith]

But it would seem that Roberto believes in the infallibility of the Nuremberg propaganda process...

Smith knows better than that. As Walter Kaschner pointed out, criminal justice is as fallible as any other human endeavor. You can never rule out mistakes, only minimize the possibility thereof by making the trial as fair and defendant-friendly as possible. And alleging that Nuremberg was not a considerable achievement in this respect, as Mr. Kaschner also explained, simply blinks at the hard realities of the time.

The rest of Smith's post is just another boring regurgitation of his beaten propaganda phrases, so I'll just let the audience enjoy this crap uncommented. It says more about the Reverend than I possibly could.

No, their conclusions were sweeping and unequivocal; they had no statutory jurisdiction, but were merely the victorious enemy generating historical propaganda, nothing more. If they, themselves had been on the dock they would have been convicted of each of the four charges just the same. All States are aggressors, conspirators, commit warcrimes (as agreed by international treaties), and "crimes" (for lack of a better word) against humanity.

Anybody with half a brain can see that the purpose of Nuremberg was to generate Allied propaganda for the victors to position for the Peace. I submit that anybody who doesn't see it just doesn't want to and is as naïve as those who tried to "outlaw war" in the 1920s because it was the "right thing to do."

And one is doubly naïve if he thinks that professional jurists can't be found to generate legalistic propaganda. But no conspiracy is necessary. Few conformists and conventional thinkers, and especially lofty idealists, are not influenced by the Zeitgeist. Lawyers are the quintessential prostitutes of professional society; why should they suddenly be above prostituting themselves for the Allied "royal" Court? The same holds true for establishment academicians. Anytime views become monolithic and dogmatic, without even conceding the possiblility of alternatives, one must pause for wonder. The unthinkable is precisely what we *should* think about.

Historiography by judicial-fiat is trebly absurd.

[Roberto]

But it would seem that Roberto believes in the infallibility of the Nuremberg propaganda process...

Smith knows better than that. As Walter Kaschner pointed out, criminal justice is as fallible as any other human endeavor. You can never rule out mistakes, only minimize the possibility thereof by making the trial as fair and defendant-friendly as possible. And alleging that Nuremberg was not a considerable achievement in this respect, as Mr. Kaschner also explained, simply blinks at the hard realities of the time.

The rest of Smith's post is just another boring regurgitation of his beaten propaganda phrases, so I'll just let the audience enjoy this crap uncommented. It says more about the Reverend than I possibly could.

No, their conclusions were sweeping and unequivocal;

Nonsense. Their conclusions were those warranted by the evidence they assessed.

they had no statutory jurisdiction,

I'd say their mutual agreements and charter, coupled with the fact that they were the ruling power in Germany, were enough to give them jurisdiction. Who if not they, Reverend? Preferably no one, so creatures like your beloved Nazi butchers can go scott-free, right?

but were merely the victorious enemy generating historical propaganda, nothing more.

Condemning organized and systematic state-ordered mass murder is hardly what I would call "historical propaganda". It takes a True Believer who sees whatever he doesn't like as "propaganda" to shoot such bull.

If they, themselves had been on the dock they would have been convicted of each of the four charges just the same.

Maybe so, but what does that matter?

All States are aggressors, conspirators, commit warcrimes (as agreed by international treaties), and "crimes" (for lack of a better word) against humanity.

To some extent, yes, and some much more than others. Unfortunately it usually takes total defeat in war for state criminals to be brought to trial.

Anybody with half a brain can see that the purpose of Nuremberg was to generate Allied propaganda for the victors to position for the Peace.

It sure takes half a brain, because a full brain will know better than to produce such nonsense. But then, as someone said, "Revisionists" are usually half-brained folks. At least when it comes to their articles of faith.

Anybody I submit that anybody who doesn't see it just doesn't want to and is as naïve as those who tried to "outlaw war" in the 1920s because it was the "right thing to do."

Unfortunate realities are one thing, attempts at improvement are another. Nuremberg was one such attempt. A first step in the right direction.

And one is doubly naïve if he thinks that professional jurists can't be found to generate legalistic propaganda.

Theoretically everything is possible. But when it comes to probabilities and evidence, the proponents of such wild theories become understandably mute.

But no conspiracy is necessary. Few conformists and conventional thinkers, and especially lofty idealists, are not influenced by the Zeitgeist. Lawyers are the quintessential prostitutes of professional society; why should they suddenly be above prostituting themselves for the Allied "royal" Court? The same holds true for establishment academicians. Anytime views become monolithic and dogmatic, without even conceding the possiblility of alternatives, one must pause for wonder. The unthinkable is precisely what we *should* think about.

With all due respect for a frustrated loser's understandable grudges against lawyers and "establishment academicians", I doubt the Reverend can demonstrate that a single one of those he howls against engaged in a manipulation of evidence to serve some dubious "Zeitgeist". And it would require all of them - hundreds, if not thousands all over the world, throughout a period of almost six decades - to have engaged in very unprofessional and dishonest manipulations for the contentions of certain morons to hold true. Which clearly shows the half-brained nature of such contentions.

Try to find that other half, Reverend. Maybe it's under one of the carpets you like to chew on ...

Historiography by judicial-fiat is trebly absurd.

Says a True Believer who feels uncomfortable at the significant contribution that criminal justice has made to documenting the facts that challenge his Faith.

[Scott Smith]

But it would seem that Roberto believes in the infallibility of the Nuremberg propaganda process...

Smith knows better than that. As Walter Kaschner pointed out, criminal justice is as fallible as any other human endeavor. You can never rule out mistakes, only minimize the possibility thereof by making the trial as fair and defendant-friendly as possible. And alleging that Nuremberg was not a considerable achievement in this respect, as Mr. Kaschner also explained, simply blinks at the hard realities of the time.

The rest of Smith's post is just another boring regurgitation of his beaten propaganda phrases, so I'll just let the audience enjoy this crap uncommented. It says more about the Reverend than I possibly could.

No, their conclusions were sweeping and unequivocal;

Nonsense. Their conclusions were those warranted by the evidence they assessed.

Yeah, including proof of gassings at Dachau. You either accept the standard or revised-orthodox story as it is--supported by Nuremberg-fiat, and disregarding all contradictions--or you're a Denier. Simple as that. The gods have spoken.

Historiography by judicial-fiat is trebly absurd.

Says a True Believer who feels uncomfortable at the significant contribution that criminal justice has made to documenting the facts that challenge his Faith.

Propaganda isn't documentation or historiography. Lies in Latin are still lies. But, most importantly, the notion of monolithic truth is the biggest lie of them all. Skepticism is warranted, and to say otherwise is absurd.

[Roberto]

Yeah, including proof of gassings at Dachau.

Was it considered proven at Nuremberg that gassings took place at Dachau?

Here's a transcription of the IMT's judgement:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judwarcr.htm

Show me the respective passage.

But even if the IMT had wrongly concluded that there were gassings at Dachau, this wouldn't mean that every other of their conclusions was wrong as well, would it?

Unless of course you apply that hilarious "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" thinking. For those not yet familiar with it:

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

Since, as this list shows, the amount of empirical evidence for the Holocaust is so overwhelming, the "revisionists" must throw in another dismissal trick. This has been called the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" condition (one thing mistaken equals all things mistaken). It means, for example, that if any single piece of survivor evidence can be shown to be wrong, all survivor evidence is wrong and is to be dismissed. If any Nazi official lied about an aspect of the Holocaust (on-topic or not), all Nazi officials lied, and anything Nazis said after the war is dismissed. If any Nazi can be shown to have been tortured or mistreated, they all were and anything they said is invalid.

From the article Why "Revisionism" Isn't, by Gordon McFee

Source of quote:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/revisionism-isnt/

You either accept the standard or revised-orthodox story as it is--supported by Nuremberg-fiat, and disregarding all contradictions--or you're a Denier. Simple as that. The gods have spoken.

No, my dear Sir. You are free challenge the "standard or revised-orthodox story", which is based on solid evidence, as long as you have evidence and sustainable arguments to support your contentions. A challenge based on distortion or misrepresentation of evidence or on the nonsensical dismissal thereof - such as unsubstantiated "forgery" allegations or the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - crap, however, warrants the suspicion of denial. If it is systematically directed at making the National Socialist system appear in a more favorable light and/or supporting a racist/anti-Semitic stance, that suspicion becomes a certainty.

8.1 The threshold question is whether Irving has denied the Holocaust and, if so, in what terms and how comprehensively? Irving has at no time sought to controvert the following facts:

that the Nazis established concentration (as opposed to extermination) camps throughout their territories;

that from about June 1941 when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union many thousands of Jews and others in the East were shot and killed by Nazi soldiers;

that from the end of 1941 onwards thousands of Jews were killed by gassing in the Reinhard death camps.

Irving did, however, challenge the proposition that there was a systematic programme, ordained at a high level, to exterminate European Jewry. He denied that there was mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews in gas chambers at Auschwitz.

8.2 That being in broad terms Irving's stance, it is necessary, in order to decide whether he is justifiably described by Lipstadt as a "Holocaust denier" to define precisely what is by that term. There has been some debate between the parties as to its meaning. In ordinary usage the word "holocaust" connotes complete destruction, especially of a large number of persons and usually by fire. Irving claimed that the term can be applied to the events of World War II as a whole. But I did not understand him to dispute that it is generally understood to have a narrower significance and that it is perceived to be specifically linked to the fate of Jews during the Third Reich (and not just during the war years).

8.3 Evans argued that the term is generally understood to denote "the attempt by Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, to exterminate the Jewish population in Europe, which attempt succeeded to the extent of murdering between 5 and 6 million Jews in a variety of ways, including mass gassings in camps built for the purpose". It follows that a "Holocaust denier" is someone who, for one reason or another or for a combination of reasons, repudiates the notion that the above definition of the Holocaust is apt to describe what was sought to be done to the European Jews by the Nazis during World War 2. Evans testified that a characteristic of Holocaust denial is that it involves a politically motivated falsification of history.

8.4 In the opinion of Evans, the views expressed by Holocaust deniers include the following:

that Jews were not killed in gas chambers or at least not on any significant scale;

that the Nazis had no policy and made no systematic attempt to exterminate European Jewry and that such deaths as did occur were the consequence of individual excesses unauthorised at senior level;

that the number of Jews murdered did not run into millions and that the true death toll was far lower;

that the Holocaust is largely or entirely a myth invented during the war by Allied propagandists and sustained after the war by Jews in order to obtain financial support for the newly-created state of Israel.

8.5 According to Evans, whilst the expression of those views is typical, Holocaust deniers do not necessarily subscribe to all of them and the views of some deniers may be more extreme than others. Irving made the point that it would be absurd to label a person a Holocaust denier merely because he or she questions the number of Jews killed under the Nazi regime.

From the judgement at the Irving-Lipstadt trial

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irv ... 08-01.html

Says a True Believer who feels uncomfortable at the significant contribution that criminal justice has made to documenting the facts that challenge his Faith.

Propaganda isn't documentation or historiography. Lies in Latin are still lies. But, most importantly, the notion of monolithic truth is the biggest lie of them all. Skepticism is warranted, and to say otherwise is absurd.

The following passage from Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness comes to my mind whenever I read the Reverend's hallowed rambling:

It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core. . . .

[Scott Smith]

Yeah, including proof of gassings at Dachau.

Was it considered proven at Nuremberg that gassings took place at Dachau?

Nothing was proved. That's the thing with shotgun-charges and why using Nuremberg propaganda for historical epistemology is so absurd.

Here's a transcription of the IMT's judgement:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judwarcr.htm

Show me the respective passage.

I see gassing at "certain camps" and Human Soap, as well as other Greuelpropaganda. And it hasn't been shown that anyone was gassed at Treblinka with a suitable murder-weapon.

But even if the IMT had wrongly concluded that there were gassings at Dachau, this wouldn't mean that every other of their conclusions was wrong as well, would it?

It would certainly justify some skepticism, wouldn't it?

Unless of course you apply that hilarious "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" thinking. For those not yet familiar with it:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/revisionism-isnt/

Hmmm, Gord McFee thinks that Revisionists are the only ones that use evidence selectively. Here's an essay by Paul Grubach. Apparently Richard Evans, the Holo-hired gun in the Irving-Lipstadt affair, does just that:

"Holocaust Revisionism vs. Richard Evans," by Paul Grubach. Part I.

"Holocaust Revisionism vs. Richard Evans," by Paul Grubach. Part II.

You either accept the standard or revised-orthodox story as it is--supported by Nuremberg-fiat, and disregarding all contradictions--or you're a Denier. Simple as that. The gods have spoken.

No, my dear Sir. You are free challenge the "standard or revised-orthodox story", which is based on solid evidence, as long as you have evidence and sustainable arguments to support your contentions. A challenge based on distortion or misrepresentation of evidence or on the nonsensical dismissal thereof - such as unsubstantiated "forgery" allegations or the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - crap, however, warrants the suspicion of denial. If it is systematically directed at making the National Socialist system appear in a more favorable light and/or supporting a racist/anti-Semitic stance, that suspicion becomes a certainty.

No, this is against the law almost everywhere except the United States, and it is very politically-incorrect elsewhere if not criminalized. Yes, examining history outside the box of orthodoxy warrants suspicion of denial. If it might make "the system of witchcraft appear in a more favorable light and/or supporting an immoral/demonic stance, that suspicion becomes a certainty." Indeed, the search for truth, wherever intellectually it might lead, becomes close-ended orthodox historiography with a mandated propaganda purpose.

God has spoken.

[Roberto]

Yeah, including proof of gassings at Dachau.

Was it considered proven at Nuremberg that gassings took place at Dachau?

Nothing was proved.

Except that the defendants were individually guilty of ordering or participating in the mass murder of prisoners of war and civilians on a rarely equaled scale, among other misdemeanors.

That's the thing with shotgun-charges

Whatever Smith considers "shotgun charges", mass murder is certainly not one of them.

and why using Nuremberg propaganda

What Smith calls "propaganda" was/is usually the exact opposite thereof (same for what he calls "truth").

for historical epistemology is so absurd.

And what Smith considers "absurd" is usually quite reasonable. Indeed reputable historians have acknowledged that the findings of criminal justice at the Nuremberg trials and subsequent trials before West German courts have been very helpful to historical research.

Here's a transcription of the IMT's judgement:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judwarcr.htm

Show me the respective passage.

I see gassing at "certain camps"

A proven fact. Gassing there was at the extermination camps Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Chelmno and, on a minor scale, at Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, Neuengamme, Ravensbrück, Stutthof and Natzweiler concentration camps. Also at the Aktion T4 sanatoriums Grafeneck, Brandenburg, Bernburg, Hartheim, Sonnenstein and Hadamar.

and Human Soap

Yeah, on a minor experimental scale, as borne out by evidence. Big deal.

, as well as other Greuelpropaganda.

What True Believers call "Greuelpropaganda" is usually the exact opposite thereof.

And it hasn't been shown that anyone was gassed at Treblinka with a suitable murder-weapon.

Oh yes it has been, though not at the Nuremberg Trial. But when hundreds of thousands of people disappear from the face of the earth behind the gates of a place where dozens of perpetrators, survivors and outside observers saw them being killed and disposed of, from which the stench of their dead bodies befouled the air for miles around and where huge amounts of human remains were found up to 7.5 meters deep all over an area of more than 20,000 square meters, the specifics of the killing device and eventual inaccuracies in the description thereof are hardly relevant.

But even if the IMT had wrongly concluded that there were gassings at Dachau, this wouldn't mean that every other of their conclusions was wrong as well, would it?

It would certainly justify some skepticism, wouldn't it?

No more so than any other mistake in judicial assessments of evidence. It would not justify the assumption that such mistakes were made in other cases, each of which would have to be examined by itself.

Unless of course you apply that hilarious "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" thinking. For those not yet familiar with it:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/revisionism-isnt/

Hmmm, Gord McFee thinks that Revisionists are the only ones that use evidence selectively. Here's an essay by Paul Grubach. Apparently Richard Evans, the Holo-hired gun in the Irving-Lipstadt affair, does just that:

What does he do, Reverend?

Does he sift the wheat from the chaff, like all historians do, explaining why he considers some sources wheat and others chaff?

Or does he sweep the wheat under the carpet, make a big bloody fuss about the chaff and try to make believe that the existence of some chaff invalidates the wheat?

In the latter case, he would make a good "Revisionist".

[url=http://www.codoh.org/revisionist/review/tr13evans.html]

Who do you expect to believe in your "skepticism" if you quote Codoh crap, Reverend?

You either accept the standard or revised-orthodox story as it is--supported by Nuremberg-fiat, and disregarding all contradictions--or you're a Denier. Simple as that. The gods have spoken.

No, my dear Sir. You are free challenge the "standard or revised-orthodox story", which is based on solid evidence, as long as you have evidence and sustainable arguments to support your contentions. A challenge based on distortion or misrepresentation of evidence or on the nonsensical dismissal thereof - such as unsubstantiated "forgery" allegations or the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - crap, however, warrants the suspicion of denial. If it is systematically directed at making the National Socialist system appear in a more favorable light and/or supporting a racist/anti-Semitic stance, that suspicion becomes a certainty.

No, this is against the law almost everywhere except the United States, and it is very politically-incorrect elsewhere if not criminalized.

There must be a reason for that. Probably the hate-speech context of such propaganda ...

Yes, examining history outside the box of orthodoxy warrants suspicion of denial.

Not outside, but inside, Reverend. There's no such thing as "orthodoxy" beside the articles of faith that "Revisionists" adhere to.

YIf it might make "the system of witchcraft appear in a more favorable light and/or supporting an immoral/demonic stance, that suspicion becomes a certainty."

Witchcraft and demonology are actually rather harmless phenomena compared to totalitarianism and its extreme forms of violence.

Indeed, the search for truth, wherever intellectually it might lead, becomes close-ended orthodox historiography with a mandated propaganda purpose.

The search for truth? Hardly so. Unless it is Smith's kind of "truth" that is being referred to - the Wahrheit written on the sword of the shining Aryan warrior in one of my favorite Stürmer cartoons:

[Scott Smith]

Yeah, including proof of gassings at Dachau.

Was it considered proven at Nuremberg that gassings took place at Dachau?

Nothing was proved.

Except that the defendants were individually guilty of ordering or participating in the mass murder of prisoners of war and civilians on a rarely equaled scale, among other misdemeanors.

Rarely equaled? Then why the propaganda campaign? And the presence of the Soviet Union in judgment makes the entire proceedings a farce.

That's the thing with shotgun-charges

Whatever Smith considers "shotgun charges", mass murder is certainly not one of them.

Yeah, if the murders can be proved. Piles of shoes, fake soap and lampshades, and even photographs of diseased bodies after a cataclysmic war are not quite proof.

for historical epistemology is so absurd.

And what Smith considers "absurd" is usually quite reasonable. Indeed reputable historians have acknowledged that the findings of criminal justice at the Nuremberg trials and subsequent trials before West German courts have been very helpful to historical research.

Yes, reputable. Perhaps they should be canonized. :roll:

and Human Soap

Yeah, on a minor experimental scale, as borne out by evidence. Big deal.

Not proved, and it hardly constitutes Genocide unless it was on a major scale. And as far as gold teeth, I know that if my country was short of precious metals in time of Total War, collection of dental work from the dead by authorities would be less ghoulish than a simple necessity. It would be a patriotic duty--like Cub Scouts collecting aluminum foil from gum wrappers.

And it hasn't been shown that anyone was gassed at Treblinka with a suitable murder-weapon.

Oh yes it has been, though not at the Nuremberg Trial. But when hundreds of thousands of people disappear from the face of the earth behind the gates of a place where dozens of perpetrators, survivors and outside observers saw them being killed and disposed of, from which the stench of their dead bodies befouled the air for miles around and where huge amounts of human remains were found up to 7.5 meters deep all over an area of more than 20,000 square meters, the specifics of the killing device and eventual inaccuracies in the description thereof are hardly relevant.

No, it hasn't been proved--nor that anyone disappeared behind the gates of Treblinka--nor that any bodies disposed of there were not DOA, as is supported by the eyewitness testimony. And unless some human remains are systematically discovered and quantified by the comprehensive methods of modern forensic archaeology, then there is zero corroboration for the mass-murder story. If remains are eventually discovered that are consistent with the claims, then we can consider the possibility of a gasoline engine gaschamber; otherwise we have to stick with some shootings, as is supported by testimony--unless somebody can demonstrate the practicality of a diesel gaschamber to murder animals on a massive scale.

To argue that the supposed remains just sublimated into outer space after the Communist Commission made its phony postwar report is absurd. Bodies are exhumed from the mass-graves of plague victims almost a thousand years after the fact. But here, with the Holo-truth, suddenly the physical universe no longer applies.

But even if the IMT had wrongly concluded that there were gassings at Dachau, this wouldn't mean that every other of their conclusions was wrong as well, would it?

It would certainly justify some skepticism, wouldn't it?

No more so than any other mistake in judicial assessments of evidence. It would not justify the assumption that such mistakes were made in other cases, each of which would have to be examined by itself.

Of course it would justify an assumption of doubt, because it is the same tissue of propaganda and outright lies.

Unless of course you apply that hilarious "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" thinking. For those not yet familiar with it:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/revisionism-isnt/

Hmmm, Gord McFee thinks that Revisionists are the only ones that use evidence selectively. Here's an essay by Paul Grubach. Apparently Richard Evans, the Holo-hired gun in the Irving-Lipstadt affair, does just that:

What does he do, Reverend?

Does he sift the wheat from the chaff, like all historians do, explaining why he considers some sources wheat and others chaff?

Or does he sweep the wheat under the carpet, make a big bloody fuss about the chaff and try to make believe that the existence of some chaff invalidates the wheat?

In the latter case, he would make a good "Revisionist".

Well, he sifts the wheat from the chaff as he sees it. And he seems to be more impressed by the wheat than by the clouds of chaff.

Who do you expect to believe in your "skepticism" if you quote Codoh crap, Reverend?

The pot calling the kettle black, I'm afraid. I merely presented another view. That it is diametrically opposed to something from a Holo-site is not anti-skepticism. Quite the reverse, actually. Nevertheless, it is for the reader's interest. True or not, reasonable or not, factual or not, I doubt if you will ever find opposing arguments convincing anyway, Roberto.

You either accept the standard or revised-orthodox story as it is--supported by Nuremberg-fiat, and disregarding all contradictions--or you're a Denier. Simple as that. The gods have spoken.

No, my dear Sir. You are free challenge the "standard or revised-orthodox story", which is based on solid evidence, as long as you have evidence and sustainable arguments to support your contentions. A challenge based on distortion or misrepresentation of evidence or on the nonsensical dismissal thereof - such as unsubstantiated "forgery" allegations or the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - crap, however, warrants the suspicion of denial. If it is systematically directed at making the National Socialist system appear in a more favorable light and/or supporting a racist/anti-Semitic stance, that suspicion becomes a certainty.

No, this is against the law almost everywhere except the United States, and it is very politically-incorrect elsewhere if not criminalized.

There must be a reason for that. Probably the hate-speech context of such propaganda ...

And who decides what is Hate, Guardian? Obviously, "Hate" is whatever someone who has the power to ban competing ideas would regard it as such, if not declare the authors outright Evil.

Yes, examining history outside the box of orthodoxy warrants suspicion of denial.

Not outside, but inside, Reverend. There's no such thing as "orthodoxy" beside the articles of faith that "Revisionists" adhere to.

I'm afraid there is. And this was in fact Lipstadt's thesis--that heretics should be shunned and silenced by all civil society. Anybody who contends that there is any such thing as monolithic "proven historical facts" is advancing an orthodox position. And yes, Revisionists of all stripes and genres take issue with such proprietary-histories.

If it might make "the system of witchcraft appear in a more favorable light and/or supporting an immoral/demonic stance, that suspicion becomes a certainty."

Witchcraft and demonology are actually rather harmless phenomena compared to totalitarianism and its extreme forms of violence.

We have a different set of demons in the 21st century, that's all. In the USA, the hue-and-cry is going up again over a kidnapping in Utah and a child-murder in California. Serious concerns, yes, but vastly overrated in terms of imminent danger. It is more likely that little Suzie will drown in a swimming pool or that Johnny will get run over by a school bus than be murdered by a Nazi or a pervert...

Indeed, the search for truth, wherever intellectually it might lead, becomes close-ended orthodox historiography with a mandated propaganda purpose.

The search for truth? Hardly so. Unless it is Smith's kind of "truth" that is being referred to - the Wahrheit written on the sword of the shining Aryan warrior in one of my favorite Stürmer cartoons:

I think I'm beginning to get your point, Roberto!

[Roberto]

Nothing was proved.

Except that the defendants were individually guilty of ordering or participating in the mass murder of prisoners of war and civilians on a rarely equaled scale, among other misdemeanors.

Rarely equaled?

Indeed.

Then why the propaganda campaign?

What propaganda campaign?

And the presence of the Soviet Union in judgment makes the entire proceedings a farce.

I don’t see why. Even a big gangster can give another big gangster a fair trial, provided that certain procedural rules are complied with. Especially if supervised by other, lesser gangsters.

Whatever Smith considers "shotgun charges", mass murder is certainly not one of them.

Yeah, if the murders can be proved.

They have been. Wake up, Reverend.

Piles of shoes, fake soap and lampshades, and even photographs of diseased bodies after a cataclysmic war are not quite proof.

The physical evidence mentioned – none of which is either “fake” nor the product of a “cataclysmic war”, whether the Reverend likes it or not – is only part of the vast evidence to the crimes of which the defendants were accused.

There’s also other physical evidence as well as very conclusive documentary and eyewitness evidence.

Can the Reverend tell us, for instance, what he thinks happened to the 713,555 Jews from the General Government who, according to Höfle’s report to Heim of 11 January 1943, were taken to Treblinka extermination camp until 31.12.1942?

Or why the Poles should have influenced Auschwitz commander Rudolf Höss into stating that the number of people killed at his camp was ca. 1,130,000, when the figure upheld by the Polish government at the time (and until 1992) was the four million estimate of a Soviet investigation commission?

And what Smith considers "absurd" is usually quite reasonable. Indeed reputable historians have acknowledged that the findings of criminal justice at the Nuremberg trials and subsequent trials before West German courts have been very helpful to historical research.

Yes, reputable. Perhaps they should be canonized.

The ones who appeal to Faith rather than reason are Smith’s “Revisionist” gurus, I would say.

and Human Soap

Yeah, on a minor experimental scale, as borne out by evidence. Big deal.

Not proved,

Whatever Smith doesn’t like is “not proved”. Never mind the existence of sworn affidavits, documentary and even physical evidence. Very instructive.

and it hardly constitutes Genocide unless it was on a major scale.

Who said it did? The experimental attempts to manufacture soap from human fat were a minor detail wholly unrepresentative of a killing program characterized by the rarity rather than the abundance of such folkloristic details. The IMT accordingly devoted no more than a single sentence to it:

After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilise the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.

Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/p ... ersecution

Emphasis is mine.

And as far as gold teeth, I know that if my country was short of precious metals in time of Total War, collection of dental work from the dead by authorities would be less ghoulish than a simple necessity. It would be a patriotic duty--like Cub Scouts collecting aluminum foil from gum wrappers.

Certainly so.

Especially if you take it only from the corpses of people murdered at extermination camps, right?

Or was any worthy Volkgenosse asked to have his golden teeth pulled out for the benefit of the Fatherland, Reverend?

And it hasn't been shown that anyone was gassed at Treblinka with a suitable murder-weapon.

Oh yes it has been, though not at the Nuremberg Trial. But when hundreds of thousands of people disappear from the face of the earth behind the gates of a place where dozens of perpetrators, survivors and outside observers saw them being killed and disposed of, from which the stench of their dead bodies befouled the air for miles around and where huge amounts of human remains were found up to 7.5 meters deep all over an area of more than 20,000 square meters, the specifics of the killing device and eventual inaccuracies in the description thereof are hardly relevant.

No, it hasn't been proved--nor that anyone disappeared behind the gates of Treblinka--nor that any bodies disposed of there were not DOA, as is supported by the eyewitness testimony.

Let’s have another look at the a.m. Höfle Report, as intercepted and translated by the British decoding service at Bletchley Park:

13/15. OLQ de OMQ 1005 83 234 250

State Secret!

To the Senior Commander of the Security Police [and the Security Service], for the attention of SS Obersturmbannfuhrer HEIM, CRACOW.

Subject: fortnightly report Einsatz REINHART.
Reference: radio telegram therefrom.


recorded arrivals until December 31, 42,

L [Lublin] 12,761,
B [Belzec] 0,
S [Sobibor] 515,
T [Treblinka] 10 335 [,]

together 23 611

sum total…[as per] December 31, 42,

L 24 733,
B 434 508,
S 101 370,
T 71 355, read: 713 555]

together 1 274 166

SS and Police Leader Lublin, HOFLE, Sturmbannfuhrer

Tell us, Reverend, what do you think happened to the 1 274 166 people mentioned in this document?

Where do you think they ended up?

Were they killed at their places of destination mentioned in the report?

Or were they all – bad enough – already dead when they arrived at their destinations, as Smith objects?

And unless some human remains are systematically discovered and quantified by the comprehensive methods of modern forensic archaeology, then there is zero corroboration for the mass-murder story.

Nonsense. If conclusive, documentary and/or eyewitness evidence, of which there is plenty, are sufficient by the standards of criminal justice and historiography to prove an occurrence of mass murder. Physical evidence contradicting the other sources of evidence may raise doubts as to their accuracy, but that’s not the case here. On the contrary, even the relatively sparse information on the physical evidence provided by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland is enough to see that the physical evidence corroborates rather than contradicts the documentary and eyewitness evidence in the case of Treblinka extermination camp:

There are also other traces. For example, in the north-eastern part, over a surface covering about 2 ha. (5 acres),
there are large quantities of ashes mixed with sand, among which are numerous human bones, often with the remains of decomposing tissues.

As a result of an examination made by an expert it was found that ashes were the remains of burnt human bones. The examination of numerous human skulls found in the camp has shown that they bear no traces of external injuries. Within a radius of several hundred yards from the camp site an unpleasant smell of burnt ash and decay is noticeable, growing stronger as one approaches.

From the report by the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. Warsaw, 1946

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm

In the area where the gas chambers were supposed to have been located, the commission's team of 30 excavation workers reportedly found human remains, partially in the process of decay, and an unspecified amount of ash. Untouched sandy soil was reached at 7.5 meters, at which point the digging was halted. An accompanying photograph of an excavated pit reveals some large bones. (note 63)

Poland's Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes
reported that large quantities of ashes mixed with sand, among which are numerous human bones, often with the remains of decomposing tissues, were found in the five acre (two hectare) burial area during an examination of the site shortly after the end of the war. (note 64)

The investigations by the Central Commission as referred to in an article by "Revionists" Mark Weber and Andrew Allen.

Source:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... linka.9605

How many whole dead bodies can you dispose of in pits 7.5 meters deep in an area of more than 20,000 square meters, Reverend?

And how many bodies incinerated and turned into ashes and other partial remains?

Regarding Belzec extermination camp, there was even a more recent and more detailed archaeological investigation. Excerpts from the report thereon can be read under the following links:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... enza_II.98

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... enza_VI.98

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/ftp ... lusions.98

If remains are eventually discovered that are consistent with the claims,

Unnecessary though that is, they have been. See above.

then we can consider the possibility of a gasoline engine gaschamber;

We can consider that with or without physical corroboration, Reverend. The documentary and eyewitness evidence are telling enough.

otherwise we have to stick with some shootings, as is supported by testimony--unless somebody can demonstrate the practicality of a diesel gaschamber to murder animals on a massive scale.

The outpourings of a rather weird mind. Elementary common sense tells us that, if it could not be demonstrated that diesel engines, as apparently mentioned by some witnesses, were a workable solution, then the engines in question must actually have been gasoline engines. Which makes Smith’s rather unconvincing “technical arguments” a pointless discussion about the sex of the angels, to his great distress.

To argue that the supposed remains just sublimated into outer space after the Communist Commission made its phony postwar report is absurd.

Nobody is doing that. The bodies were taken out of the mass graves with excavators and incinerated on huge grids, after which the leftovers were ground and scattered or returned to the pits alternated with layers of sand and earth. Thus the body disposal procedure was described by defendants and witnesses at several trials before West German courts, whose sometimes very detailed descriptions coincided with each other.

Bodies are exhumed from the mass-graves of plague victims almost a thousand years after the fact.

Also from the ground of the extermination camps, see above. Even though, Mr. Apples and Oranges, most of the bodies of those murdered there were converted into ashes and smaller bone fragments by incineration and grounding.

But here, with the Holo-truth, suddenly the physical universe no longer applies.

Of course it does, unlike “Revisionist” howlers would like us to believe.

But even if the IMT had wrongly concluded that there were gassings at Dachau, this wouldn't mean that every other of their conclusions was wrong as well, would it?

It would certainly justify some skepticism, wouldn't it?

No more so than any other mistake in judicial assessments of evidence. It would not justify the assumption that such mistakes were made in other cases, each of which would have to be examined by itself.

Of course it would justify an assumption of doubt, because it is the same tissue of propaganda and outright lies.

Doubt is meaningless unless substantiated. And an example of one, two or a few among thousands of cases is not what I would call substantiation.

Unless of course you apply that hilarious "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" thinking. For those not yet familiar with it:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/revisionism-isnt/

Hmmm, Gord McFee thinks that Revisionists are the only ones that use evidence selectively. Here's an essay by Paul Grubach. Apparently Richard Evans, the Holo-hired gun in the Irving-Lipstadt affair, does just that:

What does he do, Reverend?

Does he sift the wheat from the chaff, like all historians do, explaining why he considers some sources wheat and others chaff?

Or does he sweep the wheat under the carpet, make a big bloody fuss about the chaff and try to make believe that the existence of some chaff invalidates the wheat?

In the latter case, he would make a good "Revisionist".

Well, he sifts the wheat from the chaff as he sees it.

Which seems to have been acknowledged as reasonable, and the unreasonableness of which the howlers cannot convincingly demonstrate.

And he seems to be more impressed by the wheat than by the clouds of chaff.

Also a reasonable approach, even if there were “clouds” of chaff. Such “clouds”, of course, only exist in the clouded minds of “Revisionists”.

Who do you expect to believe in your "skepticism" if you quote Codoh crap, Reverend?

The pot calling the kettle black, I'm afraid. I merely presented another view.

Codoh is not “another view”, Reverend. Codoh is a pack of lies.

That it is diametrically opposed to something from a Holo-site is not anti-skepticism.

But it’s irrelevant, given that “Holo-sites” can show evidence supporting their contents, whereas “Revisionist” sites are not only short of but also at odds with the evidence. And even though they warrant much more skepticism than the “Holo-sites”, the Reverend enthusiastically and uncritically swallows everything they produce. Which clearly shows what his vaunted “skepticism” is worth.

Quite the reverse, actually. Nevertheless, it is for the reader's interest. True or not, reasonable or not, factual or not, I doubt if you will ever find opposing arguments convincing anyway, Roberto.

No, that’s not me. That’s my dear Reverend. Unlike him, I have no Articles of Faith to defend. I can afford to follow the evidence where it leads.

You either accept the standard or revised-orthodox story as it is--supported by Nuremberg-fiat, and disregarding all contradictions--or you're a Denier. Simple as that. The gods have spoken.

No, my dear Sir. You are free challenge the "standard or revised-orthodox story", which is based on solid evidence, as long as you have evidence and sustainable arguments to support your contentions. A challenge based on distortion or misrepresentation of evidence or on the nonsensical dismissal thereof - such as unsubstantiated "forgery" allegations or the falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - crap, however, warrants the suspicion of denial. If it is systematically directed at making the National Socialist system appear in a more favorable light and/or supporting a racist/anti-Semitic stance, that suspicion becomes a certainty.

No, this is against the law almost everywhere except the United States, and it is very politically-incorrect elsewhere if not criminalized.

There must be a reason for that. Probably the hate-speech context of such propaganda ...

And who decides what is Hate, Guardian?

Elementary common sense.

Obviously, "Hate" is whatever someone who has the power to ban competing ideas would regard it as such, if not declare the authors outright Evil.

Obviously it is everything other than that. Obviously it consists in verbal and/or physical aggression against others on account of ethnic and/or social differences.

Yes, examining history outside the box of orthodoxy warrants suspicion of denial.

Not outside, but inside, Reverend. There's no such thing as "orthodoxy" beside the articles of faith that "Revisionists" adhere to.

I'm afraid there is.

So am I. On Codoh, Zundelsite, IHR, Adelaide Institute, VHO …

And this was in fact Lipstadt's thesis--that heretics should be shunned and silenced by all civil society.

The term “heretics” is too much of an honor for propagandists who are the exact opposite of the heretics of old. The heretics contested nonsense on the basis of facts. “Revisionists”, on the other hand, contest facts on the basis of nonsense.

Anybody who contends that there is any such thing as monolithic "proven historical facts" is advancing an orthodox position.

I’d say he/she has just followed the evidence where it leads and assessed the probabilities as dictated by common sense.

And yes, Revisionists of all stripes and genres take issue with such proprietary-histories.

The only “proprietary-histories” I see are the articles of faith that “Revisionists” adhere to. The quasi-religious sectarianism they accuse others of is the hallmark of their own stance.

If it might make "the system of witchcraft appear in a more favorable light and/or supporting an immoral/demonic stance, that suspicion becomes a certainty."

Witchcraft and demonology are actually rather harmless phenomena compared to totalitarianism and its extreme forms of violence.

We have a different set of demons in the 21st century, that's all.

Real ones committing real crimes and constituting a real threat, that is. At least in the case of Smith’s beloved Nazis this was so.

Indeed, the search for truth, wherever intellectually it might lead, becomes close-ended orthodox historiography with a mandated propaganda purpose.

The search for truth? Hardly so. Unless it is Smith's kind of "truth" that is being referred to - the Wahrheit written on the sword of the shining Aryan warrior in one of my favorite Stürmer cartoons:

[quote="Scott Smith"I think I'm beginning to get your point, Roberto![/quote]

Only now, Reverend? A bit slow on the uptake, I would say. But that’s not surprising for a True Believer who has once again proven the accuracy of Stephen’s observation:

Its just that once a topic comes up that involves his personal biases it seems he is unable to resist the temptation to run the same points again and again, no matter how bad they are, he so desperately wants to believe certain things that he just turns his brain off.

Source of quote:

Stephen’s post # 47 (5/30/01 3:56:00 am) on the thread

American TV Dramatization of Wannsee Conference
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 21&stop=40



Wow, Smith has even heard of Fritz Lang. One of my favorite directors, in whose movies the Nazis recognized themselves so well that he had to emigrate to the US. As I once said, if Smith were not such a pain-in-the-ass True Believer, we might even be friends.