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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Charles Bunch » 23 Jul 2002 14:13

Well, I can't know if Blaha is lying anymore than I can experience God for myself. I can only deal in probabilities, and underscore the penchant for political trials to rely upon convenient lies/untruths, and/or liars.
Mr. Smith begins his retreat!!

He's now going to treat us to an ill-informed treatise on whether we can know things. The fact of the matter is, probabilities are weighed based on evidence, not a predisposition to deny history, which is what animates Smith. He made a statement he couldn't support, and now that he's been caught, he wants to pretend it's impossible to prove. If something is impossible to prove, why would someone present it as fact in a discussion of history?

Furthermore, far from running away, I think skepticism is a quite reasonable and logical position.
You ran away from it for a couple of days, uttering some nonsense about proving a negative, and now you're backpedalling.

David Hume wrote:It is a general maxim worthy of our attention that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. (1758)
Tossing babies into fires is not a miracle. No miracles are under discussion here.

So, tell me Hans, is it more probable or more "miraculous" that your bonfired babies are truth or falsehood? Which story would be more miraculous--that the Nazis tossed babies into ovens and bonfires like in a Teutonophobic Eisenstein movie, or that they did not?
Well, a reasonable person would consult the evidence, rather than making a childish misapplication of a philosopher one doesn't even understand.

But Smith doesn't want to bother with that. He prefers uttering the lies deniers have been used for a long time, and then when caught, pretend his claims are somehow not subject to evidence and proof.

User avatar
HaEn
In memoriam
Posts: 1911
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 00:58
Location: Portland OR U.S.A.

testimonies

Post by HaEn » 23 Jul 2002 15:14

During the years, I have been an "expert witness" in a number of health and safety courtcases. It struck me then as it strikes me now, that there is nothing more fickle than "some" people's recollection of so called facts.
No court in its right mind would allow "iffy" witnessess to testify. Which reminds me of the little "joke": There was an accident; many people gathered; one man comes running up after the ambulance takes the victims away; he says: "What happened ? I'm a witness". Which does NOT mean that all witnesses lie under oath; only that many people's recall is often tainted by what they have heard from "others". I remember one man testifying in a forklift accident case that he distinctively had heard the "Varoom varoom" sound of the roaring engine of the speeding truck, and under cross examination strongly stuck to his guns. Problem?? the truck had no "varoom varoom" engine, it was electric; which would have at most made a "whining" noise. So what does this mean ? Memory of people may be very selective. Just two cents. Regards. H.N. (aka Dr.N.)

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

Post by Hebden » 23 Jul 2002 18:24

Leaving aside the matters of the Christmas tree affair and the unidentified gas chamber entrance, pending further enquiries, we move on to another noteworthy feature of the Mr. Vrba's testimony before the 1985 'False News' trial in Canada.

Witness the following exchange:
Q. Well, we will discuss that in a moment, but we will find in your book where it says and I am using page ten, but your book is slightly different I am just going to read it to you:

"For the machinery that sucked in 2,500,000 men, women and children in three years and puffed them out in harmless black smoke ...."

Was that what you said?

A. Which page is that?

Q. Mine was ten. Yours is around there in your hard cover.

A. Well, this is a very simple calculation, Mr Counsel, because when I escaped on April 7, 1944, the main message which I was carrying was that everything is prepared for the mass murder of Hungarian Jews. At that time there was one million Hungarian Jews, and as you can find from historical documentation which is presently available, in the time of July 15 to -- May 15, 1944 to July 7, 1944, not less than 437,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz, of which ninety percent were gassed at arrival.

Now, if you add to 1,765,000 those Hungarian Jews which were deported to Auschwitz immediately after my escape, plus as we know many thousands of Jews who were brought to Auschwitz for process of mass murder from the ghetto of Loge and from the ghetto of Theresine in the month after my escape, you will find that my figures are as true as possible or as close as possible to the historical records.



Q. So you are telling me about the facts that you gathered from other sources and you are

p. 1452

telling me that it is ---

A. Plus my judgment, with my accuracy, with trusting to what I have seen, and with knowing what happened in Hungary, because many of my relatives perished at the same time, and with knowing, studying the history of this period, I arrived at a figure of two and a half million dead in Auschwitz, saying that this figure is pretty close to the truth, but the truth cannot be established with my means better than with a maximum possible error of truth minus ten per cent. That is clearly stated at the end of this book. And in my affidavit, which I have put under oath, the Embassy of Israel 1960 the Eichmann trial, and if I am allowed to quote the exact ---

THE COURT: Not at the moment.

Q. MR. CHRISTIE: It was a simple question as to whether you estimated 2,500,000, and I think you said yes, and you've told us why. Maybe I will go on to another question unless there is something you want to say.

A. And you have got here everything how I came to the 2,500,000. You are confusing us here because the jury did not read the book, and therefore you are again pulling out things which I have to repeat and which are here on this page, and I can tell you on this page is written that I have seen only one million three quarters to die until April 7th, and I have also said that the figure two and a half million is made up by the addition of the final value of my statistics in April 1944 plus a known figure of 400,000 Hungarian Jews killed in May, June and July 1944, plus official figure

p. 1453

of about 350,000 registered prisoners who died in Auschwitz.

Thus, as far as I could recollect, according to my memory, observations and opinion, the number of victims in Auschwitz was two and a half million. Thus, my estimation of the death roll in Auschwitz and the estimation made by Rudolf Hoess, the commander of Auschwitz, made independently of each other and using different methods, were nevertheless in good agreement, and I declare by Almighty God that this is my name and signature and that the contents of my affidavit are true.

So you see what is the difference between you tearing out a statement and between presenting the statement in full as I suggested.

Q. I suppose the only difference is, you confirm that your figures now agree with those of Rudolf Hoess. Right?

A. As far as I could see. I read the figures of Rudolf Hoess and I arrived at the same conclusion as Rudolf Hoess. Also, Rudolf Hoess statistics, his method of observation is different than mine, and he came to the same figure. But I gave my figure in April 1944 when Rudolf Hoess was still commander in Auschwitz, and that figure was reached the President of the United States in November 1944, when Rudolf Hoess was still commander in Auschwitz, and it is therefore obvious that it is not likely that I copied my statement from Rudolf Hoess.

Q. No. I quite agree with you. But how do you explain the fact that the estimate given by

p. 1454

you coincided with a statement given by Hoess two years later?

A. Because Hoess knew the truth, and I knew the truth.

Q. How do you explain the fact that experts like Dr Raul Hilberg dispute that figure and say it is closer to one million, or, in Reitlinger's case, 800,000 at Birkenau?

A. It is not for me to explain the scholarships of Reitlinger or Hilberg, because they have different methods of scholarships. For them, if they do not have documents of considerable value and amount, which are very difficult to obtain, they prefer not to include that figure in their final calculation, because they are bound by historical discipline; whereas my figure is based on eye witness account.


Q. You claim that you then were an eye witness to the gassing of 1,765,000 people, right?

A. Right. And I think that in this respect both Hilberg and Reitlinger has made an under estimate. Similarly, both Hilberg and Reitlinger have stated that the number of Jews killed in Einsatzkommandos this means by shooting and not by gassing was 1,400,000, but three years ago I have written a new study by Professor Krowsnick from Germany, Professor in Cologne and Director of the Institute ................................... and this professor Krowsnick [Krausnick], on the basis of exclusivity, German documents, without investigating any of the survivors but investigating only the German officers and their correspondence about it, was able to reconstruct that it was not 1.4 million, but two and a quarter million

p. 1455

who were murdered by the Einsatzkommandos.

So you can see that in spite of the great effort which the Nazis have made to cover up the incredible crimes, modern scholarship is constantly improving with more than scientific methods the truth. The truth is not so simple. So you can ---

Q. Now, sir ---

A. So you can see it is not criticism of Hilberg and Reitlinger. It just shows that better scholars with better methods and better access to sources can give more exact figures and those figures are most close to mine, based on observation, than the figures close to scholars who spend their lives only in limited amount of libraries.

Q. So your experience, then, supersedes your knowledge on the basis of what you said.

A. This would be natural, because I was there.

Q. And you counted 1,765,000 going into the gas chamber.

A. That was told to you twice.
We should further like to quote from Mr. Vrba's affidavit, prepared in 1961 in connection with the trial of Mr. Eichmann. As it happens, the Israeli court apparently refused to accept the affidavit into evidence, on the grounds there was no excuse that the witness could not attend and testify in person. Given Mr. Vrba's performance in Toronto, this was probably for the best.
In summary, my statistics which were conveyed in April 1944 to the representatives of the Zionist Organisations in Slovakia were based on the following:-

a) On direct observation of the trains and the number of waggons.

b) By discussion with those members of the transports who were not killed immediately after the arrival but kept as prisoners in Auschwitz Camp.

c) By having access to data of the so-called Economical Department whihc dealt with the property of the killed people.

d) On the basis of reports of the registry office of the Quarantine Camp in Auschwitz, to which I had access.

e) All these figures were checked by direct information from prisoners who worked in the gas chambers and in the crematoriums in Auschwitz and knew the exact figures because they dealt with the bodies of the killed people.
Seeing that Mr. Vrba was unwilling to accept the scholarship of Mr. Hilberg and Mr. Reitlinger, we find little reason to suppose that he would now be willing to accept the authority of the later scholarly efforts of Dr. Piper and Mr. Jean-Claude Pressac. Despite Mr. Vrba's assurance that his figure of 1.76 million was accurate to within a margin of 10%, how can we account for the fact that his figure appears to be overestimated by a factor of somewhere between 300 and 500%?

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

Post by Roberto » 23 Jul 2002 18:54

Hebden wrote:Leaving aside the matters of the Christmas tree affair and the unidentified gas chamber entrance, pending further enquiries, we move on to another noteworthy feature of the Mr. Vrba's testimony before the 1985 'False News' trial in Canada.


Witness the following exchange:
Q. Well, we will discuss that in a moment, but we will find in your book where it says and I am using page ten, but your book is slightly different I am just going to read it to you:

"For the machinery that sucked in 2,500,000 men, women and children in three years and puffed them out in harmless black smoke ...."

Was that what you said?

A. Which page is that?

Q. Mine was ten. Yours is around there in your hard cover.

A. Well, this is a very simple calculation, Mr Counsel, because when I escaped on April 7, 1944, the main message which I was carrying was that everything is prepared for the mass murder of Hungarian Jews. At that time there was one million Hungarian Jews, and as you can find from historical documentation which is presently available, in the time of July 15 to -- May 15, 1944 to July 7, 1944, not less than 437,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz, of which ninety percent were gassed at arrival.

Now, if you add to 1,765,000 those Hungarian Jews which were deported to Auschwitz immediately after my escape, plus as we know many thousands of Jews who were brought to Auschwitz for process of mass murder from the ghetto of Loge and from the ghetto of Theresine in the month after my escape, you will find that my figures are as true as possible or as close as possible to the historical records.



Q. So you are telling me about the facts that you gathered from other sources and you are

p. 1452

telling me that it is ---

A. Plus my judgment, with my accuracy, with trusting to what I have seen, and with knowing what happened in Hungary, because many of my relatives perished at the same time, and with knowing, studying the history of this period, I arrived at a figure of two and a half million dead in Auschwitz, saying that this figure is pretty close to the truth, but the truth cannot be established with my means better than with a maximum possible error of truth minus ten per cent. That is clearly stated at the end of this book. And in my affidavit, which I have put under oath, the Embassy of Israel 1960 the Eichmann trial, and if I am allowed to quote the exact ---

THE COURT: Not at the moment.

Q. MR. CHRISTIE: It was a simple question as to whether you estimated 2,500,000, and I think you said yes, and you've told us why. Maybe I will go on to another question unless there is something you want to say.

A. And you have got here everything how I came to the 2,500,000. You are confusing us here because the jury did not read the book, and therefore you are again pulling out things which I have to repeat and which are here on this page, and I can tell you on this page is written that I have seen only one million three quarters to die until April 7th, and I have also said that the figure two and a half million is made up by the addition of the final value of my statistics in April 1944 plus a known figure of 400,000 Hungarian Jews killed in May, June and July 1944, plus official figure

p. 1453

of about 350,000 registered prisoners who died in Auschwitz.

Thus, as far as I could recollect, according to my memory, observations and opinion, the number of victims in Auschwitz was two and a half million. Thus, my estimation of the death roll in Auschwitz and the estimation made by Rudolf Hoess, the commander of Auschwitz, made independently of each other and using different methods, were nevertheless in good agreement, and I declare by Almighty God that this is my name and signature and that the contents of my affidavit are true.

So you see what is the difference between you tearing out a statement and between presenting the statement in full as I suggested.

Q. I suppose the only difference is, you confirm that your figures now agree with those of Rudolf Hoess. Right?

A. As far as I could see. I read the figures of Rudolf Hoess and I arrived at the same conclusion as Rudolf Hoess. Also, Rudolf Hoess statistics, his method of observation is different than mine, and he came to the same figure. But I gave my figure in April 1944 when Rudolf Hoess was still commander in Auschwitz, and that figure was reached the President of the United States in November 1944, when Rudolf Hoess was still commander in Auschwitz, and it is therefore obvious that it is not likely that I copied my statement from Rudolf Hoess.

Q. No. I quite agree with you. But how do you explain the fact that the estimate given by

p. 1454

you coincided with a statement given by Hoess two years later?

A. Because Hoess knew the truth, and I knew the truth.

Q. How do you explain the fact that experts like Dr Raul Hilberg dispute that figure and say it is closer to one million, or, in Reitlinger's case, 800,000 at Birkenau?

A. It is not for me to explain the scholarships of Reitlinger or Hilberg, because they have different methods of scholarships. For them, if they do not have documents of considerable value and amount, which are very difficult to obtain, they prefer not to include that figure in their final calculation, because they are bound by historical discipline; whereas my figure is based on eye witness account.


Q. You claim that you then were an eye witness to the gassing of 1,765,000 people, right?

A. Right. And I think that in this respect both Hilberg and Reitlinger has made an under estimate. Similarly, both Hilberg and Reitlinger have stated that the number of Jews killed in Einsatzkommandos this means by shooting and not by gassing was 1,400,000, but three years ago I have written a new study by Professor Krowsnick from Germany, Professor in Cologne and Director of the Institute ................................... and this professor Krowsnick [Krausnick], on the basis of exclusivity, German documents, without investigating any of the survivors but investigating only the German officers and their correspondence about it, was able to reconstruct that it was not 1.4 million, but two and a quarter million

p. 1455

who were murdered by the Einsatzkommandos.

So you can see that in spite of the great effort which the Nazis have made to cover up the incredible crimes, modern scholarship is constantly improving with more than scientific methods the truth. The truth is not so simple. So you can ---

Q. Now, sir ---

A. So you can see it is not criticism of Hilberg and Reitlinger. It just shows that better scholars with better methods and better access to sources can give more exact figures and those figures are most close to mine, based on observation, than the figures close to scholars who spend their lives only in limited amount of libraries.

Q. So your experience, then, supersedes your knowledge on the basis of what you said.

A. This would be natural, because I was there.

Q. And you counted 1,765,000 going into the gas chamber.

A. That was told to you twice.
We should further like to quote from Mr. Vrba's affidavit, prepared in 1961 in connection with the trial of Mr. Eichmann. As it happens, the Israeli court apparently refused to accept the affidavit into evidence, on the grounds there was no excuse that the witness could not attend and testify in person. Given Mr. Vrba's performance in Toronto, this was probably for the best.
In summary, my statistics which were conveyed in April 1944 to the representatives of the Zionist Organisations in Slovakia were based on the following:-

a) On direct observation of the trains and the number of waggons.

b) By discussion with those members of the transports who were not killed immediately after the arrival but kept as prisoners in Auschwitz Camp.

c) By having access to data of the so-called Economical Department whihc dealt with the property of the killed people.

d) On the basis of reports of the registry office of the Quarantine Camp in Auschwitz, to which I had access.

e) All these figures were checked by direct information from prisoners who worked in the gas chambers and in the crematoriums in Auschwitz and knew the exact figures because they dealt with the bodies of the killed people.
Seeing that Mr. Vrba was unwilling to accept the scholarship of Mr. Hilberg and Mr. Reitlinger, we find little reason to suppose that he would now be willing to accept the authority of the later scholarly efforts of Dr. Piper and Mr. Jean-Claude Pressac. Despite Mr. Vrba's assurance that his figure of 1.76 million was accurate to within a margin of 10%, how can we account for the fact that his figure appears to be overestimated by a factor of somewhere between 300 and 500%?
I don't quite understand what's the point of this hacking around on Mr. Vrba.

Does the author have some personal beef with the man?

Or is he trying to demonstrate that Mr. Vrba is an unreliable witness in order to challenge the substantial accuracy of his original report?

Is he taking the kind of approach that Zimmerman described as follows:
Deniers have been quick to point to certain inaccuracies in the report. Like many descriptions of the events under consideration there were some technical inaccuracies. However, deniers have had a difficult time refuting the above description of the gassing because it is consistent with other testimony given after the war and it describes the gassing procedure thoroughly. Therefore, the inaccuracies and verifiable information in the report must be examined to determine its overall probative value. Deniers never discuss those aspects of the report which are correct.
?

Or does he just enjoy a good chat about the sex of the angels?

Zimmerman’s Holocaust Denial contains an item-by-item assessment of the contents of Vrba’s 1944 report on hand of other evidence. Vrba’s figure on the death toll of Auschwitz-Birkenau is reasonably addressed as follows:
The report incorrectly stated that up to the time of the escape 1,765,000 people had been killed in Auschwitz. The escape occurred before the Hungarian operation of May-July 1944. The actual number killed at the time of the escape was about one-third of the amount stated in the report. However, as noted earlier, nearly all estimates of the amount killed at Auschwitz were incorrect. As noted in Chapter 4, the best available demographic evidence places the total killed during the camp’s 4 ½ year existence at about 1.1 million.
Zimmerman, as above, page 83

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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Scott Smith » 23 Jul 2002 21:42

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:Well, Chuck certainly does need some help here.
LOL! Typical Smith! It is clear Hans is trying to help you Scotty. He even provded you a list of options so you wouldn't be confused.
I'll let the readers decide who is treading-water here.
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:As I see it, he presents me with a false dilemma without wanting to admit it: Unless I can prove Blaha is a liar, then Blaha affirms the truth.
No such dilemma exists. If you call him a liar with respect to the statement you quoted you need evidence to support the claim. Absent evidence, you have nothing on which to make that statement, and the one feeble example you were able to offer of an eyewitness lying will be seen as a failure.
I'm willing to allow that Dr. Blaha actually believes his nonsense without calling it a lie, as HaEn noted. That's the most that I'll concede for you, Chuck. As Hebden notes, there is subtle difference between untruths and lies, and Blaha is certainly one or the other--unless you want to say that bonfired babies and UFO abductions and Santa Claus sliding through chimneys is LESS miraculous, prodigious or preternatural than these things NOT occuring. :P
But you're used to that, eh Scott!
You amuse me as much as the Guardian. Why don't you choose a appropriate nickname for yourself. Btw, I find nothing wrong with Scotty, which some of my friends use, and I hope you don't mind being called Chuck, but if this annoys you I will use something else.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 23 Jul 2002 22:04, edited 1 time in total.

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

Blaha Blah blah...

Post by Scott Smith » 23 Jul 2002 22:01

Roberto wrote:I see a lot of hollow blah-blah-blah about Mr. Blaha.

Much a do about nothing considering the very simple issue that Blaha was an unreliable witness and that his accounts were not confirmed by either other eyewitness accounts, defendants' confessions or other sources of evidence.

Blaha thus belongs in the category of "chaff" and has been considered as such by criminal justice and historiography. His deposition on the occurrence of homicidal gassings at Dachau, to which he was the only witness to testify, seems to have been dismissed already during the preliminary investigations for the trial against former staff of the Dachau camp held before a US military court between 15 November and 13 December 1945. The same seems to apply to his deposition about the burning of babies.
Which doesn't excuse why the court used him at all, nor why he is still used today. No, even more so.
The Guardian of Truth wrote:Which is not to say that the Nazis never burned people alive, of course. They did so on many occasions, if not at Dachau concentration camp.
Ah, yes, the story is simply too good as Greuelpropaganda to just be dropped outright--rather like the Human Soap and Human Lampshades.
:mrgreen:
Bertrand Russell wrote: No Carthaginian denied Moloch, because to do so would have required more courage than was required to face death in battle. (1950)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Charles Bunch » 23 Jul 2002 23:30

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:Well, Chuck certainly does need some help here.
LOL! Typical Smith! It is clear Hans is trying to help you Scotty. He even provded you a list of options so you wouldn't be confused.
I'll let the readers decide who is treading-water here.
Oh, you stopped treading long ago. Gurgle, gurgle, would be more like it.
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:As I see it, he presents me with a false dilemma without wanting to admit it: Unless I can prove Blaha is a liar, then Blaha affirms the truth.
No such dilemma exists. If you call him a liar with respect to the statement you quoted you need evidence to support the claim. Absent evidence, you have nothing on which to make that statement, and the one feeble example you were able to offer of an eyewitness lying will be seen as a failure.
I'm willing to allow that Dr. Blaha actually believes his nonsense without calling it a lie, as HaEn noted. That's the most that I'll concede for you, Chuck.
It's not a matter of conceding to me, it's a matter of being honest. It's not an issue of whether he believes it or not. A lie is telling a known falsehood. That's what you claimed, and you claimed it mindlessly because you had to come with an example of eyewitness lying.
As Hebden notes, there is subtle difference between untruths and lies, and Blaha is certainly one or the other--unless you want to say that bonfired babies and UFO abductions and Santa Claus sliding through chimneys is LESS miraculous, prodigious or preternatural than these things NOT occuring.
There is no subtle difference between untruths and lies. And more importantly Scotty, you have no evidence what Blaha said was either. You're just continuing to avoid your empty claim.

But thanks for representing the denier technique so, er, admirably!

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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Scott Smith » 24 Jul 2002 00:03

Charles Bunch wrote:It's not a matter of conceding to me, it's a matter of being honest. It's not an issue of whether he believes it or not. A lie is telling a known falsehood. That's what you claimed, and you claimed it mindlessly because you had to come with an example of eyewitness lying.
I was willing to let him off the hook on account of his tribal myths for your sake, Chuck. But basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a DUCK. Dr. Blaha is a liar, possibly a congenital liar--but that would show undue prejudice, and insensitivity to genuine victims, which, as you know, is not my goal.
:)

Do you still deny that Blaha was a bullshitter? Even Roberto doesn't do that.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Charles Bunch » 24 Jul 2002 00:44

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:It's not a matter of conceding to me, it's a matter of being honest. It's not an issue of whether he believes it or not. A lie is telling a known falsehood. That's what you claimed, and you claimed it mindlessly because you had to come with an example of eyewitness lying.
I was willing to let him off the hook on account of his tribal myths for your sake, Chuck. But basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a DUCK. Dr. Blaha is a liar, possibly a congenital liar--but that would show undue prejudice, and insensitivity to genuine victims, which, as you know, is not my goal.
So the poor fool repeats his idiocy, having already admitted he has no evidence, having tried to obfuscate the meaning of lie, having embarrassed himself with his Hume reference, and having already backpedalled once!

Such are the standards of those who mindlessly deny proven history.

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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Scott Smith » 24 Jul 2002 02:13

Charles Bunch wrote:Such are the standards of those who mindlessly deny proven history.
So, Chuck, after having blown you away with my employment of Hume against modern Greuelpropaganda, it is now your turn to justify your "proven historical facts"canon and answer my question. :mrgreen:

Do you think that Blaha is telling the truth?

Don't run away...
:wink:

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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Charles Bunch » 24 Jul 2002 03:43

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:Such are the standards of those who mindlessly deny proven history.
So, Chuck, after having blown you away with my employment of Hume against modern Greuelpropaganda, it is now your turn to justify your "proven historical facts"canon and answer my question
.

You don't have the first understanding of Hume, as your idiotic attempt to employ him in the discussion showed. Potato State slowing you down again.

But the fact is you haven't been able to support your contention about eyewitness lies.

You must revel in your impotence.

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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Scott Smith » 24 Jul 2002 05:23

Charles Bunch wrote:You don't have the first understanding of Hume, as your idiotic attempt to employ him in the discussion showed. Potato State slowing you down again.
I'm on the edge on my seat waiting for your academic lecture about Hume. Don't hide your light underneath a bushel, Chuck.
But the fact is you haven't been able to support your contention about eyewitness lies.
Haven't I? Even Roberto is a Denier. "Blaha thus belongs in the category of chaff," in the Guardian's own words.
You must revel in your impotence.
Now, Chuck, you are positively raging. Calm down and answer my question:

Was Blaha telling the truth about the living baby crematorium?
:monkee:

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

Post by Roberto » 24 Jul 2002 11:13

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:I see a lot of hollow blah-blah-blah about Mr. Blaha.

Much a do about nothing considering the very simple issue that Blaha was an unreliable witness and that his accounts were not confirmed by either other eyewitness accounts, defendants' confessions or other sources of evidence.

Blaha thus belongs in the category of "chaff" and has been considered as such by criminal justice and historiography. His deposition on the occurrence of homicidal gassings at Dachau, to which he was the only witness to testify, seems to have been dismissed already during the preliminary investigations for the trial against former staff of the Dachau camp held before a US military court between 15 November and 13 December 1945. The same seems to apply to his deposition about the burning of babies.
Scott Smith wrote:Which doesn't excuse why the court used him at all, nor why he is still used today. No, even more so.
Why, Reverend, was the court supposed to have a crystal ball allowing it to determine beforehand i) what Blaha would say and ii) that his statements would be somewhat less than credible and lack corroboration by other evidence?

As the quoted charges against former members of the Dachau staff suggest, Blaha’s accounts didn’t even make it past the pre-trial investigations.

And who is using them now, and for what? Show us, Reverend. All I’ve seen so far is “Revisionist” howlers trying to make a fuss out of the statements of a witness never taken seriously by criminal justice and historiography.
Roberto wrote:Which is not to say that the Nazis never burned people alive, of course. They did so on many occasions, if not at Dachau concentration camp.
Scott Smith wrote:Ah, yes, the story is simply too good as Greuelpropaganda to just be dropped outright--rather like the Human Soap and Human Lampshades.
Like so many atrocities that the True Believer would like to dismiss as “Greuelpropaganda”, the burning alive was a widely practiced killing method, especially during “anti-partisan” operations in Belorussia, which often saw entire villages wiped out and their inhabitants herded into churches or barns which were then set on fire. At least one Nazi official complained about such methods “not worthy of the German cause”:
A significant illustration of the measures actually applied occurs in the document which was sent in 1943 to the defendant Rosenberg by the Reich Commissar for Eastern Territories, who wrote:
" It should be possible to avoid atrocities and to bury those who have been liquidated. To lock men, women and children into barns and set fire to them does not appear to be a suitable method of combating bands, even if it is desired to exterminate the population. This method is not worthy of the German cause, and hurts our reputation severely."
From the IMT’s judgement at the Nuremberg Trial.

Source of quote:

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

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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Charles Bunch » 24 Jul 2002 14:18

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:You don't have the first understanding of Hume, as your idiotic attempt to employ him in the discussion showed. Potato State slowing you down again.
I'm on the edge on my seat waiting for your academic lecture about Hume. Don't hide your light underneath a bushel, Chuck.
That is where you should have placed your ramblings on the subject.

But the fact is you haven't been able to support your contention about eyewitness lies.
Haven't I? Even Roberto is a Denier. "Blaha thus belongs in the category of chaff," in the Guardian's own words.
Which has nothing to do with the particular statement you used in a desperate attempt to come up with an eyewitness lie. Roberto does not supply evidence that it is a lie. Unlike you, he doesn't make empty claims.

You must revel in your impotence.
Now, Chuck, you are positively raging. Calm down and answer my question:
No on is raging. Just describing your efforts.

I will answer your question the minute you show some honesty and admit you have no evidence Blaha's statement was a lie.

Don't run away now!

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

Re: REAL HISTORY...

Post by Scott Smith » 24 Jul 2002 21:40

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:You don't have the first understanding of Hume, as your idiotic attempt to employ him in the discussion showed. Potato State slowing you down again.
I'm on the edge on my seat waiting for your academic lecture about Hume. Don't hide your light underneath a bushel, Chuck.
That is where you should have placed your ramblings on the subject.
So do you know anything about Hume or not?
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:Calm down and answer my question:
No on is raging. Just describing your efforts.

I will answer your question the minute you show some honesty and admit you have no evidence Blaha's statement was a lie.
Well, I didn't cross examine him, as someone should have competently done so instead of feeding his bullshit to Life magazine. I apologize for any confusion but this still doesn't mean it was not a LIE, or an untruth, if you prefer.
:)

Was Blaha telling the truth about the living baby crematorium?

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”