Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

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).

Moderators: Budu Svanidze, Joe Future

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun » Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:46 pm

I was a number wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:43 pm
DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:48 am
I was a number wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:28 am
Odd there's no mention of "gas chambers."

"Systematised" is likely referring to the means of transportation.

The rest is the end result of a game of Chinese whispers.

Churchill was a parrot.

Odd that Churchill wouldn't mention gas chambers in his memoirs but then mention the murder of 6 to 7 million people in an opening about WW2. An OPENING, not a section, an OPENING. That he considered it to be worthy of mentioning in an opening of a series of Volumes shows that he thought of it significantly. Besides, find me where Churchill mentions Auschwitz in that quote, didn't exist if he didn't. :)


Even more odd that 'systematised' would refer to mere transportation but then be followed by the murder 6 to 7 million people. Gee, was Churchill schizophrenic or what?



I mean, if Churchill was a parrot, then what did he parrot?



Like, what is even your point?



I'm at a genuine loss.
You do appear to be at a loss.

It's very odd there's no mention of gas chambers (still a very valid point despite your avoidance). After all, gas chambers certainly seemed worthy of mention from every other proponent in every discussion about WWII since then and even until this day. Plus, we have to consider most of the people involved in these discussions understand it's the lack of mention of gas chambers and not a lack of mention of the Holocaust which you improperly used in your topic title.

Equally amusing is the request to find a mention of Auschwitz in that specific quote when no specific areas were mentioned at all. Last time I checked, no one was denying the existence or use of the actual location of Auschwitz.

"Systematised" is also a vague term. It's just another word for logistics, but "systematised" certainly has a nice ring of shock to it, especially after "wholesale massacre." The kind of shock a country's leader would be expected to show after leading his countrymen through a war. Schizophrenic? Perhaps, but I would say he was more trained and perched in front of a proverbial audience.

In conclusion, "what is my point?" has remained the same despite your attempts to minimalize it.

No mention of gas chambers.


I never avoided your point about gas chambers.


I, in fact, addressed it like this:


"Odd that Churchill wouldn't mention gas chambers in his memoirs but then mention the murder of 6 to 7 million people in an opening about WW2. An OPENING, not a section, an OPENING. That he considered it to be worthy of mentioning in an opening of a series of Volumes shows that he thought of it significantly. Besides, find me where Churchill mentions Auschwitz in that quote, didn't exist if he didn't. :)"



That Churchill didn't mention the murder weapon (in some cases) is irrelevant; the Holocaust wasn't exclusively perpetrated by Gas Chambers. Some 2.5 million Jews or so were shot by the Einsatzy. It means jack all that he didn't mention it, or are we to believe that not mentioning how the Armenians were killed from 1915 to 1917 constitutes some sort of denial, or that when the ADL[1] blasted Trump for not mentioning 6 million in particular (Jews), they denied the Holocaust as they didn't say that they were killed by gas chambers??? :roll:


The lack of mention of gas chambers is irrelevant considering that these are memoirs, although you could consider them historical works unto themselves.

That Churchill mentioned a massacre of 6 to 7 million men, women and children in the opening of these memoirs, proves that he thought them worthy of mentioning.




Auschwitz was referring to your apparent point, that if Churchill didn't mention it, it didn't happen. Auschwitz didn't happen guys, it was an inside job. See how fallacious this logic is? Churchill wasn't an Holocaust historian, he never said he was one. That 6 or 7 million people died is enough, nevermind the logistics, murder weapons, etc. Are you attempting to frame Churchill as a Holocaust denier or revisionist?

Systematised refers to this:


"The wholesale massacre by systematised processes of six or seven millions of men, women and children in the German execution camps exceeds in horror the rough-and-ready butcheries of Genghis Khan, and in scale




Move on, move on...


[1] “@Whitehouse statement on #HolocaustMemorialDay, misses that it was six million Jews who perished, not just 'innocent people',”



TFW the ADL denies the Holocaust. :lol:
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun » Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:50 pm

Huntinger wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:15 pm
DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:52 am
This is too easy guys, where's the fun in winning? I want to lose a debate, for once.
This is seriously off topic. You have won nothing. I have yet to see you say something valid.


Fair enough, but 2/3 of your sentences are factually incorrect.
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

rollo the ganger
Posts: 5697
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by rollo the ganger » Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:59 pm

DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:01 pm
rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:00 pm
Dabbing... , you copied my post here:

viewtopic.php?p=143358#p143358

But you had no comment on it.
The bold non-italics part is all I needed to add.
You've proven you can read at least. There had been claims of four, five, six millions Jews or more killed in concentration camps since the middle of the war and the author of this article was simply repeating that claim. There's a parallel here with the alleged disappearance and/or murder of Jews and that of Germans but there is at least one major difference.

I was a number
Posts: 447
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by I was a number » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:23 pm

DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:46 pm
That Churchill didn't mention the murder weapon (in some cases) is irrelevant

...


The lack of mention of gas chambers is irrelevant
There you have it, folks.

Gas chambers are irrelevant.
You heard it here first.


The rest was just repeating which was already addressed. Re-read previous response.
___________________________________________________________

:?: Have you found a photo of a Jew in an alleged gas chamber? :?:

Submit it HERE.

___________________________________________________________

A classic:
___________________________________________________________

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:25 pm

rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:59 pm
DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:01 pm
rollo the ganger wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:00 pm
Dabbing... , you copied my post here:

viewtopic.php?p=143358#p143358

But you had no comment on it.
The bold non-italics part is all I needed to add.
You've proven you can read at least. There had been claims of four, five, six millions Jews or more killed in concentration camps since the middle of the war and the author of this article was simply repeating that claim. There's a parallel here with the alleged disappearance and/or murder of Jews and that of Germans but there is at least one major difference.

Would it be really necessary to copy-paste the bold parts?


Also, proof or never happened. That is to say, a detailed link to each of your sources. Then, I'll address them.
Last edited by DabbingIsSoMuchFun on Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:33 pm

I was a number wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:23 pm
DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:46 pm
That Churchill didn't mention the murder weapon (in some cases) is irrelevant

...


The lack of mention of gas chambers is irrelevant
There you have it, folks.

Gas chambers are irrelevant.
You heard it here first.


The rest was just repeating which was already addressed. Re-read previous response.


Wow.



I never saw such a strawman in my life until now.


All I stated was that Churchill not mentioning gas chambers in his brief, introductory note to a series of volumes means jack all, and gave examples that are true and support my argument. You twisted that to insinuate that gas chambers are irrelevant, being dishonest. You didn't even address my other points. Just, wow... This is the type of behavior that made me turn away from revisionism. Calling others liars, while simultaneously lying yourself. Way to be intellectually honest with yourself, buddy. Quoting from select bits and pieces in order to construct a narrative, because you know that if you had actually quoted my whole post, you couldn't make such a point, and even that point isn't that good. Who said Churchill was an authority on the Holocaust or WW2? He was a political leader, read, not an historian. What he writes or thinks is irrelevant. So what if he didn't mention gas chambers in an opening note? Am I denying the Armenian Holocaust if I don't mention in an introductory note how the Ottomans murdered them? It would be incredibly dumb for Churchill to mention in an introductory note how exactly the Germans operated. If I write a book about WW1, it will only deal with the military aspect of the war, but I'll still mention the Armenian Genocide in the opening. I must be a serial Armenian Genocide Denier then!



The whole post, BTW:


"I never avoided your point about gas chambers.


I, in fact, addressed it like this:


"Odd that Churchill wouldn't mention gas chambers in his memoirs but then mention the murder of 6 to 7 million people in an opening about WW2. An OPENING, not a section, an OPENING. That he considered it to be worthy of mentioning in an opening of a series of Volumes shows that he thought of it significantly. Besides, find me where Churchill mentions Auschwitz in that quote, didn't exist if he didn't. "



That Churchill didn't mention the murder weapon (in some cases) is irrelevant; the Holocaust wasn't exclusively perpetrated by Gas Chambers. Some 2.5 million Jews or so were shot by the Einsatzy. It means jack all that he didn't mention it, or are we to believe that not mentioning how the Armenians were killed from 1915 to 1917 constitutes some sort of denial, or that when the ADL[1] blasted Trump for not mentioning 6 million in particular (Jews), they denied the Holocaust as they didn't say that they were killed by gas chambers???


The lack of mention of gas chambers is irrelevant considering that these are memoirs, although you could consider them historical works unto themselves.

That Churchill mentioned a massacre of 6 to 7 million men, women and children in the opening of these memoirs, proves that he thought them worthy of mentioning.




Auschwitz was referring to your apparent point, that if Churchill didn't mention it, it didn't happen. Auschwitz didn't happen guys, it was an inside job. See how fallacious this logic is? Churchill wasn't an Holocaust historian, he never said he was one. That 6 or 7 million people died is enough, nevermind the logistics, murder weapons, etc. Are you attempting to frame Churchill as a Holocaust denier or revisionist?

Systematised refers to this:


"The wholesale massacre by systematised processes of six or seven millions of men, women and children in the German execution camps exceeds in horror the rough-and-ready butcheries of Genghis Khan, and in scale




Move on, move on...


[1] “@Whitehouse statement on #HolocaustMemorialDay, misses that it was six million Jews who perished, not just 'innocent people',”



TFW the ADL denies the Holocaust."


No mention of gas chambers, okay. What about the mention of 6 to 7 millions of men, women and children killed? Which is more important? How does the lack of mention of gas chambers take away the mention of murder? What is even your point? That Churchill didn't mention them, so he believed in no Holocaust? Wtf is that logic?
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

User avatar
torus9
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by torus9 » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:04 pm

DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:38 pm
torus9 wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:41 pm
DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:45 pm

It absolutely does.



You're ranting about the etymology of a word as to prove something. Anything goes in that case.



People have referred to the genocide in Rwanda as a Holocaust. Where's the 'deification, the theological impulse' behind that? THE WHOLE POINT IS TO ILLUSTRATE AN UNPRECEDENTED MASSACRE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. THAT'S IT! THAT THE GREEKS USED IT AS A REFERENCE TO THEIR BURNT OFFERINGS TO THEIR GODS MEANS JACK ALL.
It absolutely does what?

I'm ranting? Ok, have it your way.

One Jewish author has referred to Auschwitz as, "the refutation of Christ." And there's that ol' time theological impulse yet again. You're ranting in ALL CAPS. when you denounce the Greeks. The precedent had been set regarding Holokaustos. They really display NO tact when they call it a holy fire.

User avatar
torus9
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by torus9 » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:10 pm

"Holokaustos, we are reminded, comes from the third century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament, signifying "the burnt sacrificial offering dedicated exclusively to God". As such, the designation of the massacre of European Jewry connoted an event of theological significance, and perhaps as well an event whose mysteries were not meant to be understood."
-Michael Marrus, The Holocaust in History

Gee, I wonder where I got the absurd notion of "theological impulse" from.

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:21 pm

torus9 wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:41 pm
DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:45 pm

It absolutely does.



You're ranting about the etymology of a word as to prove something. Anything goes in that case.



People have referred to the genocide in Rwanda as a Holocaust. Where's the 'deification, the theological impulse' behind that? THE WHOLE POINT IS TO ILLUSTRATE AN UNPRECEDENTED MASSACRE OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. THAT'S IT! THAT THE GREEKS USED IT AS A REFERENCE TO THEIR BURNT OFFERINGS TO THEIR GODS MEANS JACK ALL.
It absolutely does what?

I'm ranting? Ok, have it your way.

One Jewish author has referred to Auschwitz as, "the refutation of Christ." And there's that ol' time theological impulse yet again. You're ranting in ALL CAPS. when you denounce the Greeks. The precedent had been set regarding Holokaustos. They really display NO tact when they call it a holy fire.
Have to do with what?


Choice of words.


Guilt by association fallacy, although what she meant to say was that a true God wouldn't allow that to happen; not to be taken literally. Obviously a figure of speech. No one calls it 'holy fire,' what it means in Greek, means jack shit in English, or French, or Romanian, or whatever. I didn't 'denounce' the Greeks, I just illustrated that what they used the word for historically is insignificant to this topic. A dictionary called what happened in Rwanda a Holocaust. It's simple, Holocaust means suffering, usually by fire. That's it. Etymology is insignificant, as I gave 'exterminate' as an example, and I could also add 'potential' as well. There's nothing here that's out of the ordinary; people take words from other languages and make them their own. Are you implying that I can't refer to a great massacre as a Holocaust just because of what it meant originally? By contrast, the Swastika was originally a symbol of peace and good luck until...
Last edited by DabbingIsSoMuchFun on Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: Were there any mentions of the Holocaust in Churchill et al?

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:23 pm

torus9 wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:10 pm
"Holokaustos, we are reminded, comes from the third century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament, signifying "the burnt sacrificial offering dedicated exclusively to God". As such, the designation of the massacre of European Jewry connoted an event of theological significance, and perhaps as well an event whose mysteries were not meant to be understood."
-Michael Marrus, The Holocaust in History

Gee, I wonder where I got the absurd notion of "theological impulse" from.


Gee, I wonder why guilt by association is considered a logical fallacy...


Also, gee, why does exterminate mean destroy when it actually means driven out? Stupid people...


Finally, gee, why do people talk of sacrifices to Gods when speaking of a massacre? Stupid people, and dictionaries...
Last edited by DabbingIsSoMuchFun on Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests