Did the Nazis use prisoners as Christmas decorations?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 19 Jul 2002 14:32

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Geli wrote:Wait, does casting doubt on the "famous" Christmas Tree incident make me a Holocaust denier? :oops:
No. To be a denier you have to pick a folkloristic myth such as accompany any set of historical events - the Holocaust is no exception to the rule - and then cry "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", the classic "Revisionist" argument...
Scott Smith wrote:Well, you can't chose when you find a witness a liar and when he is credible because he happens to fit your agenda.
No, that would be a classical “Revisionist” approach. Historians and criminal justice sift the wheat from the chaff according to the extent to which the statements of an unreliable witness are corroborated by other evidence – other, more credible witnesses, defendants’ depositions, documents, etc. Big difference.
Scott Smith wrote:If he is a liar then ALL his testimony is suspect.
But not necessarily wrong. Corroboration by other sources of evidence, as explained above, may render one or the other piece of his testimony useful.
Scott Smith wrote:To establish these claims you have to build a foundation of evidence and not a house of cards.
Well, Reverend, a foundation of evidence is exactly what we have in regard to the main events that don’t fit into your ideological bubble, whether you like it or not.
Scott Smith wrote:When Belief is PC, doubt is especially appropriate.
I don’t see why. Belief starts where evidence ends, and it is suspect regardless of whether it is held by a majority or just by a lunatic fringe like Smith’s “Revisionists”.
Scott Smith wrote:Perhaps some understanding of historiography and revisionism (small r) as applied to other historical genres would be helpful for you, Roberto.
I dare say I have more understanding of both than the Reverend, who has so far shown pitifully little of the understanding he brags to possess.
Scott Smith wrote:Perhaps reading a textbook or two.
Serious textbooks that the Reverend never read or read but never understood, or the “Revisionist” toilet paper that his wisdom is obviously built on?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

GUARDING the TRUTH...

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Jul 2002 20:03

Roberto wrote:Belief starts where evidence ends...
Translation into English: If Roberto doesn't agree it is Belief; otherwise it is Fact.

Little more than Is-Too/Is-Not, Roberto. You'll have to do better than that. Perhaps you can expain to us, academically, how evidence is developed and how logical foundations are formed.
:)

Image

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Re: Did the Nazis use prisoners as Christmas decorations?

Post by Charles Bunch » 19 Jul 2002 20:14

Well, you can't chose when you find a witness a liar and when he is credible because he happens to fit your agenda. If he is a liar then ALL his testimony is suspect. Simple as that. Bogus breeds bogum.
Just what witnesses relied on by Holocaust historians have you shown to be liars?
To establish these claims you have to build a foundation of evidence and not a house of cards. Pretty simple in principle. When Belief is PC, doubt is especially appropriate. Perhaps some understanding of historiography and revisionism (small r) as applied to other historical genres would be helpful for you, Roberto. Perhaps reading a textbook or two. What's sauce for the goose...
It certainly is, and you don't appear to have read any textbooks on the Holocaust.

Perhaps you'd like to tell us how Holocaust historians for almost 60 years have failed to build a foundation of evidence in just the same manner all historians do for all historical events. I won't hold my breath!

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: GUARDING the TRUTH...

Post by Roberto » 19 Jul 2002 21:35

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:Belief starts where evidence ends...
Scott Smith wrote:Translation into English: If Roberto doesn't agree it is Belief; otherwise it is Fact.
I used to think there were limits to silliness even in the Reverend’s mind. Now I have no more illusions.
Scott Smith wrote:[Little more than Is-Too/Is-Not, Roberto.
Says the Reverend whenever he’s out of arguments. An old hat.
Scott Smith wrote:You'll have to do better than that.
I don’t see why. The Reverend is reduced to his staple mumbling already.
Scott Smith wrote:Perhaps you can expain to us, academically, how evidence is developed and how logical foundations are formed.
Academic explanation I leave to the self-proclaimed master of epistemology. I’ll be the skeptic who pulls the preacher's ears when the bull offends his critical mind.

Image

Just what I expected a “Revisionist” snout to look like.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: GUARDING the TRUTH...

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jul 2002 04:42

Roberto wrote: Image

Just what I expected a “Revisionist” snout to look like.
Yeah, but she calls Revisionists "Deniers" while she is vouchsafing the Truth for her fans.
:wink:

Image
Last edited by Scott Smith on 20 Jul 2002 04:52, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: Did the Nazis use prisoners as Christmas decorations?

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jul 2002 04:51

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:Well, you can't chose when you find a witness a liar and when he is credible because he happens to fit your agenda. If he is a liar then ALL his testimony is suspect. Simple as that. Bogus breeds bogum.
Just what witnesses relied on by Holocaust historians have you shown to be liars?
Well, Chuck, at Nuremberg Dr. Blaha testified that babies were thrown alive into ovens--and just tonight on the History Channel a documentary told us the same thing! Established at Nuremberg, you know. :mrgreen:
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:To establish these claims you have to build a foundation of evidence and not a house of cards. Pretty simple in principle. When Belief is PC, doubt is especially appropriate. Perhaps some understanding of historiography and revisionism (small r) as applied to other historical genres would be helpful for you, Roberto. Perhaps reading a textbook or two. What's sauce for the goose...
It certainly is, and you don't appear to have read any textbooks on the Holocaust.
Which ones would you suggest? Can you give me a canonical bibliography? :?
Charles wrote:Perhaps you'd like to tell us how Holocaust historians for almost 60 years have failed to build a foundation of evidence in just the same manner all historians do for all historical events. I won't hold my breath!
Well, how were the 875 thousand killed at Treblinka again? Any *evidence* for the murder-weapon, perhaps... And then there's those diesel gas-vans that are so troublesome to the standard story...
:aliengray

Image

User avatar
Geli
Member
Posts: 957
Joined: 09 Jul 2002 04:53
Location: USA

Post by Geli » 20 Jul 2002 04:58

Hey, who's the chick in the pic? Is that the infamous Ms. Lipstadt? I thought she was much older.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jul 2002 05:07

Geli wrote:Hey, who's the chick in the pic? Is that the infamous Ms. Lipstadt? I thought she was much older.
Yes, it's her. I'm not sure when the photo was taken. Here's another one (from the Irving trial, I think, ca. 2000).
:)

Image

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Re: Did the Nazis use prisoners as Christmas decorations?

Post by Charles Bunch » 20 Jul 2002 05:43

Smith
Well, you can't chose when you find a witness a liar and when he is credible because he happens to fit your agenda. If he is a liar then ALL his testimony is suspect. Simple as that. Bogus breeds bogum.
Bunch
Just what witnesses relied on by Holocaust historians have you shown to be liars?
Smith
Well, Chuck, at Nuremberg Dr. Blaha testified that babies were thrown alive into ovens--and just tonight on the History Channel a documentary told us the same thing! Established at Nuremberg, you know.
So Scotty? Your evidence this is a lie is what?

Smith
To establish these claims you have to build a foundation of evidence and not a house of cards. Pretty simple in principle. When Belief is PC, doubt is especially appropriate. Perhaps some understanding of historiography and revisionism (small r) as applied to other historical genres would be helpful for you, Roberto. Perhaps reading a textbook or two. What's sauce for the goose...
Bunch
It certainly is, and you don't appear to have read any textbooks on the Holocaust.
Smith
Which ones would you suggest? Can you give me a canonical bibliography? :?
Yes, but you wouldn't read it. You'd rather mouth nonsense you can't support.

Bunch
Perhaps you'd like to tell us how Holocaust historians for almost 60 years have failed to build a foundation of evidence in just the same manner all historians do for all historical events. I won't hold my breath.
Smith
Well, how were the 875 thousand killed at Treblinka again?
By the gas of an internal combustion engine.

Smith
Any *evidence* for the murder-weapon, perhaps...
Of course. The Nazis told us what the murder weapon was. Other witnessess confirmed it. Open and shut case.

Smith
And then there's those diesel gas-vans that are so troublesome to the standard story...
You associate your inane arguments about diesel as troublesome?

So Smith was unable to support his claims about lying witnesses or a lack of rigor in Holocaust historians methodology.

Par for the course with Smith, who talks a lot and says very little.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: Did the Nazis use prisoners as Christmas decorations?

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jul 2002 06:26

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:Well, you can't chose when you find a witness a liar and when he is credible because he happens to fit your agenda. If he is a liar then ALL his testimony is suspect. Simple as that. Bogus breeds bogum.
Just what witnesses relied on by Holocaust historians have you shown to be liars?
Well, Chuck, at Nuremberg Dr. Blaha testified that babies were thrown alive into ovens--and just tonight on the History Channel a documentary told us the same thing! Established at Nuremberg, you know.
So Scotty? Your evidence this is a lie is what?
Charles, are you saying that Blaha was actually telling the truth? Do you have any evidence supporting his claim?
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:To establish these claims you have to build a foundation of evidence and not a house of cards. Pretty simple in principle. When Belief is PC, doubt is especially appropriate. Perhaps some understanding of historiography and revisionism (small r) as applied to other historical genres would be helpful for you, Roberto. Perhaps reading a textbook or two. What's sauce for the goose...
It certainly is, and you don't appear to have read any textbooks on the Holocaust.
Which ones would you suggest? Can you give me a canonical bibliography? :?
Yes, but you wouldn't read it. You'd rather mouth nonsense you can't support.
Well, perhaps you should post your canonical Holocaust™ bibliography anyway--at least for the benefit of others.
:)

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Re: Did the Nazis use prisoners as Christmas decorations?

Post by Charles Bunch » 20 Jul 2002 15:30

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote: Just what witnesses relied on by Holocaust historians have you shown to be liars?
Well, Chuck, at Nuremberg Dr. Blaha testified that babies were thrown alive into ovens--and just tonight on the History Channel a documentary told us the same thing! Established at Nuremberg, you know.
So Scotty? Your evidence this is a lie is what?
Charles, are you saying that Blaha was actually telling the truth?
Ah Scott, you are claiming its a lie. But of course you don't have any evidence for your assertion, do you.? And that was your first example of your contention!!
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote: It certainly is, and you don't appear to have read any textbooks on the Holocaust.
Which ones would you suggest? Can you give me a canonical bibliography? :?
Yes, but you wouldn't read it. You'd rather mouth nonsense you can't support.
Well, perhaps you should post your canonical Holocaust™ bibliography anyway--at least for the benefit of others.
No.

So Smith was unable to support his claims about lying witnesses or a lack of rigor in Holocaust historians methodology.

Par for the course with Smith, who talks a lot and says very little.

Hebden
Member
Posts: 62
Joined: 18 May 2002 13:00
Location: Kent

Post by Hebden » 20 Jul 2002 17:26

Leaving aside the matter of the Christmas tree affair, pending further enquiries, let's examine another aspect of Vrba's testimony at the 1985 'False News' trial.

Consider this exchange between defence counsel Christie and the witness:
Q. I'm sorry, I don't think you've given me the answer to my question as to whether you were in Krematorium No. I in Auschwitz.

A. No, I was not in Krematoria -- oh, in Auschwitz.

Q. Yes.

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Were people being gassed there at the time?

A. No, they were not gassed, and there was a particular occasion when I went into that crematoria and ---

Q. I see.

A. There must have been a particular reason, because it was not a walking sort of distance.

Q. Mm-hmmm.

A. When I was working in Kanada, in November 1942, I have been taken to the dumping truck to Krematoria I in Auschwitz. The Krematoria I in Auschwitz was on yard -- that yard on the lefthand side had, to my recollection Krematorium I, and to the righthand side there was a hospital for S.S. The best would be, again, if I show it on a -- do I have permission?

Q. What I would really like to do is

p. 1475

deal with the diagram we have in our hands. This is Birkenau we are dealing with.

A. Yes.

Q. I asked you if you had been in Krema I in Auschwitz when people were being gassed, and I think the answer is no. Correct?

A. The answer is no. I went there for collecting their clothes from the gas chamber in Krematorium I.

Q. From the gas chamber?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you inside?

A. Yes.

Q. What did the gas chamber look like?

A. It was originally a garage which connected the S.S. barracks with that small crematorium.

Q. Mm-hmmm.

A. And there were garage doors.

Q. Mm-hmmm.

A. And the roof was reinforced with earth. The inside was dark. The door was opened ---

Q. How wide were the doors?

A. Like a good garage door, and two side opening to two sides.


Q. Mm-hmmm.

A. We went in under the pretext that we are collecting -- not under the pretext, under the order to collect the clothes which were there.

Consequently, as I understood, the people had to undress before they went into that gas chamber.

p. 1476

Q. You are telling us ---

A. Then they were gassed, and then, because there were clothes in the yard in front of the hospital, they were shoved in the gas chamber before they were taken out. So I understand that was my job at that time, so I collected the clothes.

Q. The clothes were in the gas chamber.

A. Right.
A look at the plan of the crematorium in the book Auschwitz 1270 to the Present shows that the gas chamber was originally designated as a morgue. Vrba's characterisation of it as a 'garage' defies obvious explanation. Furthermore, his description, apparently positing a third entrance to the room, does not accord with the original plan either.

Can anyone help resolve these apparent discrepancies?

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: GUARDING the TRUTH...

Post by Roberto » 20 Jul 2002 18:10

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote: Image

Just what I expected a “Revisionist” snout to look like.
Yeah, but she calls Revisionists "Deniers" while she is vouchsafing the Truth for her fans.
:wink:

Image
Wow, one of Smith's mortal enemies. And I thought it was a self-portrait of Reverend Smith ...

Which means that Smith still hasn't understood the meaning of the Stürmer caricature.

I'll give you a hint, Reverend:

It shows a mythical forerunner of the propaganda liars who call themselves "Revisionists" and pretend to be searching for the "Truth",
plus a number of those they hate, with the looks they attribute to them and in the poses in which they would like to see them.

By the way, I see you are dieseling about again, Reverend.

That being so, and aside from the potentialities of diesel exhaust for killing by CO2 narcosis (which your friend Miller wrote about on Codoh), suffocation or carbon monoxide poisoning that your "technical arguments" cannot rule out, especially when the engine is run "rich" through restriction of the air intake and/or increase of the fuel supply, have you already found one witness to the Treblinka gassings who expressly described the engine used there as a diesel engine?

And, more important, can you explain to this audience what the hell it matters if the engine in question was a diesel engine or a gasoline engine running on diesel fuel or gasoline, which is the most you can reasonably hope to demonstrate?

There are a number of questions of mine regarding the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence to the Treblinka killings that you have never managed to answer. Such as the question what 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 until 31.12.1942.

Would you care to give it another try, Reverend?

You see, providing convincing answers to those questions might get your True Believer stance somewhere.

But that repetitive hollow haggling about as irrelevant a detail as the specifics of a murder weapon never will.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

GUARDIAN of TRUTH...

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jul 2002 20:09

Nice try, Roberto, but we've already covered the "mass-murder by diesel" story. You'll have to do better than than. Perhaps UFO abductions or Death Rays next time. Anyway, send me your picture and I'll gladly put your head on the gladiator's body, so that you can properly smite the Truth and get the adulation you deserve from Lipstadt's delighted throngs. :mrgreen:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: Did the Nazis use prisoners as Christmas decorations?

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jul 2002 20:26

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote: Just what witnesses relied on by Holocaust historians have you shown to be liars?
NO? Well, Chuck, at Nuremberg Dr. Blaha testified that babies were thrown alive into ovens--and just tonight on the History Channel a documentary told us the same thing! Established at Nuremberg, you know.
So Scotty? Your evidence this is a lie is what?
Charles, are you saying that Blaha was actually telling the truth?
Ah Scott, you are claiming its a lie. But of course you don't have any evidence for your assertion, do you? And that was your first example of your contention!!
Charles, if it is your contention that Blaha was telling the truth, perhaps it is incumbent upon the accuser to prove his claims as fact in the first place. It is not incumbent upon the skeptic to prove that a fairy tale doesn't exist.
Charles wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote: It certainly is, and you don't appear to have read any textbooks on the Holocaust.
Which ones would you suggest? Can you give me a canonical bibliography? :?
Yes, but you wouldn't read it. You'd rather mouth nonsense you can't support.
Well, perhaps you should post your canonical Holocaust™ bibliography anyway--at least for the benefit of others.
No.

So Smith was unable to support his claims about lying witnesses or a lack of rigor in Holocaust historians methodology.

Par for the course with Smith, who talks a lot and says very little.
Well, that doesn't say much for your methodology, Chuck.

I WANT to Believe but can't and you just BELIEVE. Which of the two of us is the most intellectually challenged? The most vulnerable to mythology instead of reason?

Damage Control - Man the Pumps! :mrgreen:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”