John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Turnagain
Posts: 9554
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Turnagain »

Lindwasser spews some bullshit about pulling teeth from dead bodies. He gives no credible testimony about the physical camp. Nebulous "gas chambers" and "graves". You'll have to do better than that. BTW, when is CS-C going to return to T-II and locate those graves? She said that she would. Oh, and where are the photos and lab tested samples from Lukaskiewcz?

So far your so-called witnesses are selling bullshit. When are you going to produce that credible Jew eyewitness, Nessie?

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 9011
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh.Österreichisches Deutsch
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Huntinger »

Turnagain wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:19 pm
When are you going to produce that credible Jew eyewitness, Nessie?
He can't reply for a while due to his continual naughtiness. He might reflect on his iniquities and come back a changed man, :? but then again he might not. :o
Depth Check wrote:Nessie will be sitting in the dugout until 00:01hrs Jan 13th for insulting his opponents.


𝖀𝖒𝖆𝖗𝖒𝖊 𝖉𝖆𝖘 𝕷𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖓, 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙 𝖆𝖚𝖘𝖇𝖊𝖚𝖙𝖊𝖓.
Amt IV

Werd
Posts: 10714
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:20 am
Werd wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:15 pm
So for Pressac to point to say an August 13 1943 document with Bischoff in it mentioning special action DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE GASSING JEWS.
If that document was at the same time there were mass arrivals at Birkenau, without mass departures and all of the witnesses say there was mass gassing, then Pressac is correct.
Nessie refuses to pay attention:

If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!
So, why can Mattogno not find any supporting evidence from witnesses to back up his claims?
Why can he not find any references to numbers showered or clothing deloused?
They're in Mattogno's book which you haven't read. Don't worry. I'll post large extracts soon in a new topic just to embarrass you in front of the rest of the forum.
Why did the Nazis apply a code word to sanitation measures for Jews?
There we go, needlessly injecting the word "code" into the discussion. There was no code. Special treatment and special action had certain meanings that can be gleaned by checking surrounding documents in the same time frame. I've already explained this. If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!

You can't just say "Code" and therefore "gas chambers" because "code" presupposes "gas chambers." You are not permitted to sneak your conclusion into your premise and engage in circular reasoning.
Why can he find no documents about what happened to those Jews after they had supposedly showered and had their clothing deloused?
Irrelevant to an August 13 1943 document that has surrounding documents in the same week that clearly shows disinfestation was the special action. :lol: If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!
Since Mattogno takes these documents, puts them into the proper context by viewing OTHER DOCUMENTS
That is only a partial context. He ignores the evidence that does not suit him. That is not a methodology used by any historian or academic discipline. Ignoring evidence that does not suit is ridiculed in the academic community.
That's what you guys do when you hand wave away the other documents. If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30695
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:08 pm
Nessie wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:20 am
Werd wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 11:15 pm
So for Pressac to point to say an August 13 1943 document with Bischoff in it mentioning special action DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE GASSING JEWS.
If that document was at the same time there were mass arrivals at Birkenau, without mass departures and all of the witnesses say there was mass gassing, then Pressac is correct.
Nessie refuses to pay attention:

If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!
Non sequitur. Just because Mattogno finds some special treatment documents for August 1943 that are definitely about delousing, does not mean all of the special treatment documents that month are about delousing. For example;

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ce-on.html

Order of Hans Aumeier of 6 August 1943 on "the performed work on the occasion of the special action" [Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle, p. 320]

List of female prisoners of 21 August 1943 (signed by Maria Mandel), who were “specially lodged” (abbreviated G.U. in German) [Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, document 32, see also Auschwitz-Birkenau Selection List of 21 August 1943]

There is no mention of delousing of clothing there.
So, why can Mattogno not find any supporting evidence from witnesses to back up his claims?
Why can he not find any references to numbers showered or clothing deloused?
They're in Mattogno's book which you haven't read. Don't worry. I'll post large extracts soon in a new topic just to embarrass you in front of the rest of the forum.
I look forward to you posting original documents that specifically mention the words clothing/clothes, delousing/disinfestation and/or people showering.
Why did the Nazis apply a code word to sanitation measures for Jews?
There we go, needlessly injecting the word "code" into the discussion. There was no code. Special treatment and special action had certain meanings that can be gleaned by checking surrounding documents in the same time frame. I've already explained this. If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!

You can't just say "Code" and therefore "gas chambers" because "code" presupposes "gas chambers." You are not permitted to sneak your conclusion into your premise and engage in circular reasoning.
Why not use the standard German words for delousing, disinfestation, clothing and people showering? There is no need to call that "special". Indeed, delousing and showering was the opposite of special, it was routine.

The use of "special" makes sense for gassing people, because the Nazis would not want that openly referred to in documents. The use of the word gas or gassing was not so controversial, since, as you correctly note, a reference to a gas chamber or cellar does not prove people were gassed.
Why can he find no documents about what happened to those Jews after they had supposedly showered and had their clothing deloused?
Irrelevant to an August 13 1943 document that has surrounding documents in the same week that clearly shows disinfestation was the special action. :lol: If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!
You are dodging my point. For no month in 1943 or 1944, when the Kremas were operating, is there any evidence from any source, that those people sent to the Kremas then left Birkenau alive.
Since Mattogno takes these documents, puts them into the proper context by viewing OTHER DOCUMENTS
That is only a partial context. He ignores the evidence that does not suit him. That is not a methodology used by any historian or academic discipline. Ignoring evidence that does not suit is ridiculed in the academic community.
That's what you guys do when you hand wave away the other documents. If Pressac says special treatment in August 13 1943 document means gassing people, but Mattogno finds other August documents that clearly demonstrates that clothes and personal effects were being disinfested, then THAT DOCUMENT ABOUT THAT DAY IS NOT PROOF OF GASSING PEOPLE THAT DAY!
I will wait for you to produce those documents.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30695
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Nessie »

Werd continues to dodge that Mattogno's methodology of only looking at documents and ignoring the other evidence and what is not evidenced, is not used by any other academic discipline.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 10714
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:05 pm
Order of Hans Aumeier of 6 August 1943 on "the performed work on the occasion of the special action" [Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle, p. 320]

List of female prisoners of 21 August 1943 (signed by Maria Mandel), who were “specially lodged” (abbreviated G.U. in German) [Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, document 32, see also Auschwitz-Birkenau Selection List of 21 August 1943]

There is no mention of delousing of clothing there.
Are you going to examine those documents or show them or just throw up footnotes and do nothing? :lol:

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 30695
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear tackles Sonderkommando testimonies

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:19 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:05 pm
Order of Hans Aumeier of 6 August 1943 on "the performed work on the occasion of the special action" [Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle, p. 320]

List of female prisoners of 21 August 1943 (signed by Maria Mandel), who were “specially lodged” (abbreviated G.U. in German) [Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, document 32, see also Auschwitz-Birkenau Selection List of 21 August 1943]

There is no mention of delousing of clothing there.
Are you going to examine those documents or show them or just throw up footnotes and do nothing? :lol:
The first does not link to the actual document, the second links to a list of names. How do they prove delousing or showering?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 14 guests