|
Post by Churchill on Aug 27, 2023 18:35:45 GMT
The problem with the deniers is it doesn't matter how much evidence you provide.
You give them photos, they can always say they're photoshopped.
You provide evidence for the age of the photographs, they could say the photos have been artificially made old.
Or, they could say the photograph depicts something else it clearly depicts.
You give them documents, same reasoning.
You give them witness testimonies from tens of thousands of people, they say the witnesses are all either lying (in that scale, yeah sure) or that anecdotes can't be trusted.
You give them testimonies from the nazis themselves that align with victim testimonies, documents and photographs, they can always say the nazis were tortured to give false confessions.
Then there's always the "how's". The deniers expect us to know every minute little detail about the cremations of humans for example. If we miss knowledge about one detail from a question they conjure up, then it automatically somehow means the cremations didn't happen.
Now if we put all of the above together, how does that look for the deniers?
Ridiculous.
|
|
𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸
🕵️
𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎
Posts: 1,621
|
Post by 𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸 on Aug 27, 2023 22:51:17 GMT
The problem with the deniers is it doesn't matter how much evidence you provide. You give them photos, they can always say they're photoshopped. due to the following evidence of fake propaganda. This image altered to this atrocity Nearly all of the witness statements are anecdotal, hearsay, rumours built on rumours. The ones like Marian Olszuk who saw nothing at Treblinka II, even though he passed there everyday talking to inmates and guards are conveniently ignored. The ones that knew the truth were hanged anyhow. (or Murdered). Hess was locked up in Spandau Prison in total isolation even though he committed no war crime. He flew to Scotland to attempt to negotiate peace. Not at all, the knowledge of cremation is scientific, it is known that bodies do not burn by themselves, a certain amount of heat energy is needed for cremation. The methods described do not work, they cannot work now, which is why pyres to burn cattle are vastly different to that described by people like Wiernik. There is also the minor issue of people like the spy Franciszek Zabecki, the station master of Treblinka, who took the following photo of Treblinka burning after the uprising. Prior to the uprising it is claimed that thousands upon thousands of bodies were burned on open pyres at the same site. Thousands a day. The logistics of getting enough dry wood to do this (freshly cut wood does not burn well), say 100 kg per person is more than problematic but even if it could be done, the smoke would be horrendous. I am sure that the Treblinka Station Master would have taken many photos of these events if they occurred. Instead he takes a lone photograph after the uprising of burning buildings. I would be convinced something foul occurred if this spy had taken photos of smoke plumes on other occasions, especially as he was convinced that something foul was going on over there. This is a history forum, exploring the holocaust. It is known that the trains to Treblinka stopped for extended periods at sites of Jewish Labour camps as well as railway junctions where other labour camps existed. Some camps had a few Jews while others had thousands. Even the Sobibor witnesses ended up at quite a few of these camps. The camps were private enterprise co-ordinated by the Labour Department, the SS only became involved when things went wrong as with Belzec labour camps. The SS had their own labour camps, but these were very much a minority, one being Treblinka 1 to which there were attached two Jewish Labour camps (one for men and one for women). Many of these camps were transit and brief, poorly guarded. They evaporated at wars end, the Jewish inmates simply walking out. There were over a thousand Jewish Labour camps that are currently known in Poland and 300 in Austria for Hungarian Jews alone. While people may have thought the transports ended up in Auschwitz they did not, though some did. There are claims that the Germans deliberately starved people to death, Mr Lantos being one of them; his son states in his memoirs that his father traded his food for cigarettes. That is conveniently ignored. Most people think that Anne Franke was gassed but in fact caught typhus and died from this horrible disease. Sobibor was very much a transit camp as evidenced by this letter translated from German. It are such as the information given above that are of interest. Many of these facts have come to light long after the murderous narrative was given. The reality of what happened would dignify Jews far more than some apparent fiction espoused by a few spies.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Aug 28, 2023 6:39:58 GMT
The problem with the deniers is it doesn't matter how much evidence you provide. Yes, I agree. That is the problem with people who are in a psychological state called ‘denial’. In my experience the irony is that every single person who I have come across who defends online the quasi-religious belief in what has come to be called ‘THE holocaust’ will ‘deny’ all the evidence that refutes that belief. And, as you have correctly pointed out, it “doesn't matter how much evidence you provide”. 🙂 This is a distortion of the revisionist argument. It is a deceitful or self-delusional tactic that uses the logical fallacy known as a ‘strawman’. The reality being deliberately misrepresented or misunderstood is that nobody is arguing that “cremations didn’t happen”. 🤦♂️🙄 If you go the beginning of this topic thread you will find a wealth of fairly recent documentary and filmed evidence regarding the difficulties involved first from i.) burying hundreds of sheep, pig and cow carcases, then ii.) in cremating them. Did you read that? Did you understand it and its relevance to the claims about open-air cremations at Babi Yar, Chelmno, Birkenau and Treblinka? What did you make of that evidence? Can you be honest and concede that this information is not about a.) ”missing knowledge about one detail from a question they conjure up”, nor does it b.) ”automatically somehow meaning that the cremations didn't happen”? I suggest to you that your first sentence therefore more appropriately appears to apply to YOU yourself. I.e. the problem with YOUR APPROACH appears to be you are in denial and therefore it doesn't matter how much evidence is provided to you. 🙂
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on Aug 28, 2023 8:04:40 GMT
The problem with the deniers is it doesn't matter how much evidence you provide. Yes, I agree. That is the problem with people who are in a psychological state called ‘denial’. In my experience the irony is that every single person who I have come across who defends online the quasi-religious belief in what has come to be called ‘THE holocaust’ will ‘deny’ all the evidence that refutes that belief. And, as you have correctly pointed out, it “doesn't matter how much evidence you provide”. 🙂 ..... Revisionists do not produce any evidence as to what did happen. Indeed, when you are asked to produce evidence of what happened, you claim that is a reversal of the burden of proof. Instead of providing evidence of what happened, which is how history is normally investigated, revisionists produce reasons to dismiss the evidence of gassings, graves and cremations. Evidence that refutes gassings, would be evidence such as a witness who worked inside a Krema who states what the building was being used for 1943-4, or a document recording mass transports of people out of Sobibor to other camps. Giving reasons for believing the witnesses to gassings are lying, is not evidence to refute gassings. A few revisionists have tried to investigate the Holocaust, as history is normally investigated, by suggested alternative meanings for the evidence, such as the Kremas were used for showering, delousing or bomb shelters. But they cannot find any evidence of that actually happening, so they are left with unevidenced theories. There have been attempts to claim the AR camps were transit/hygiene camps, where the majority of people arriving then left, but no evidence of mass departures has been produced, so again, that is an unevidenced theory.
|
|
|
Post by 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 on Aug 28, 2023 8:29:40 GMT
The thread has gone hopelessly off topic. The topic is to compare and contrast the holocaust narrative on open pyres to real mammal cremations.
Please stick to the topic.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on Aug 28, 2023 8:49:55 GMT
Comparing and contrasting animal cremations, for which we have a lot of information as to how they are done, to the cremation pyres used by the Nazis, for which information is limited to brief descriptions by witnesses given years, if not decades after they took place, is a pretty fruitless exercise.
In principle, putting corpses onto a metal grate, over wood, that is set on fire, will work. Anyone who has a BBQ knows that. It is very easy to set what is on the BBQ on fire. The heat generated by embers that burn the oxygen in the air drawn into the BBQ, is easily enough to set any meat on the grill on fire. Animal (and Hindu) pyres placed the corpse directly onto the wood, which also works, as enough heat is generated by the burning wood. Separating the corpse from the wood is just another way of setting a pyre.
That the witness descriptions are poor, does not therefore mean a pyre set like a BBQ will not work and all the witnesses lied. Giving reasons for believing the witnesses to cremations are lying, is not evidence to refute cremations.
Everyone here knows that I pick holes in the arguments being made by revisionists. Revisionists are convinced by their arguments from incredulity, about how they find reports of mass pyres too incredible to believe. I merely point out how their argument is flawed and that we will never know exactly how the pyres worked. Instead, we know from all the witnesses and the archaeological finds of large areas of cremated remains that they did work.
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Aug 28, 2023 9:25:44 GMT
In principle, putting corpses onto a metal grate, over wood, that is set on fire, will work. Anyone who has a BBQ knows that. It is very easy to set what is on the BBQ on fire. The heat generated by embers that burn the oxygen in the air drawn into the BBQ, is easily enough to set any meat on the grill on fire. Animal (and Hindu) pyres placed the corpse directly onto the wood, which also works, as enough heat is generated by the burning wood. Separating the corpse from the wood is just another way of setting a pyre. So you are claiming the victims were BBQed and not cremated. The Hindus use a vast quantity of wood per corpse as with the animals.
|
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,690
|
Post by Nessie on Aug 28, 2023 11:05:57 GMT
In principle, putting corpses onto a metal grate, over wood, that is set on fire, will work. Anyone who has a BBQ knows that. It is very easy to set what is on the BBQ on fire. The heat generated by embers that burn the oxygen in the air drawn into the BBQ, is easily enough to set any meat on the grill on fire. Animal (and Hindu) pyres placed the corpse directly onto the wood, which also works, as enough heat is generated by the burning wood. Separating the corpse from the wood is just another way of setting a pyre. So you are claiming the victims were BBQed and not cremated. The Hindus use a vast quantity of wood per corpse as with the animals. The witness descriptions of placing corpses on a metal grate made of rails, with wood underneath the rails, which was also seen in the pyres at Dresden and Ohrdruf, is a cremation using the same method as a BBQ, or a trench fire, where the fuel is under a grate or grill, drawing in air. The advantage of that when using wood, is, embers burn hotter and last longer. Keeping the wood separate from the corpses, is a more efficient method than placing the corpse on top of the wood. Hindus, for religious reasons, or tradition, or having no access to metal rails, placed the corpses directly onto the wood. The mass animal cremations also placed the corpses on to the wood, rather than building what would need to be huge grates. That was their choice and the reasons for that are with them.
|
|
|
Post by blake121666 on Aug 28, 2023 12:05:54 GMT
Sobibor was very much a transit camp as evidenced by this letter translated from German. Here is the German original of that letter for everyone's reference. And here is the full 4 page English tranlation of it. The term being translated as "transient camp" is "durchgangslager" - which means "transit camp" of course not "transient camp". The questioning of Pohl at NMT 4 which you can read here uses the term "transient camp" as well.
|
|
𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸
🕵️
𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎
Posts: 1,621
|
Post by 𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸 on Aug 30, 2023 22:14:41 GMT
The term being translated as "transient camp" is "durchgangslager" - which means "transit camp" of course not "transient camp". Thank you for this Blake. Here is a copy of the original SS document. I do not think the translators were being dishonest as they would not know the circumstances or context of the camp. The term transient means: lasting only for a short time; impermanent. (Oxford dictionary) If this was the meaning then it could be argued that Sobibor spent a small time as a death camp or whatever before being changed to a konzentrationslager. However, as pointed out durchgangslager (In German document) means "transit camp". Compare the meanings of the two other oxford entries. The meanings are identical.
|
|
|
Post by mrolonzo on Feb 16, 2024 19:01:12 GMT
The problem with the deniers is it doesn't matter how much evidence you provide. You give them photos, they can always say they're photoshopped. You provide evidence for the age of the photographs, they could say the photos have been artificially made old. Or, they could say the photograph depicts something else it clearly depicts. You give them documents, same reasoning. You give them witness testimonies from tens of thousands of people, they say the witnesses are all either lying (in that scale, yeah sure) or that anecdotes can't be trusted. You give them testimonies from the nazis themselves that align with victim testimonies, documents and photographs, they can always say the nazis were tortured to give false confessions. Then there's always the "how's". The deniers expect us to know every minute little detail about the cremations of humans for example. If we miss knowledge about one detail from a question they conjure up, then it automatically somehow means the cremations didn't happen. Now if we put all of the above together, how does that look for the deniers? Ridiculous. Stumbled across this today. How do you justify all this rubbish or do you simply not need to?
|
|
𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸
🕵️
𝕲𝖊𝖍𝖊𝖎𝖒𝖕𝖔𝖑𝖎𝖟𝖊𝖎
Posts: 1,621
|
Post by 𝝥𝝰𝘇𝗴𝝻𝝸 on Feb 16, 2024 22:01:18 GMT
The problem with the deniers is it doesn't matter how much evidence you provide. You give them photos, they can always say they're photoshopped. You provide evidence for the age of the photographs, they could say the photos have been artificially made old. Or, they could say the photograph depicts something else it clearly depicts. You give them documents, same reasoning. You give them witness testimonies from tens of thousands of people, they say the witnesses are all either lying (in that scale, yeah sure) or that anecdotes can't be trusted. You give them testimonies from the nazis themselves that align with victim testimonies, documents and photographs, they can always say the nazis were tortured to give false confessions. Then there's always the "how's". The deniers expect us to know every minute little detail about the cremations of humans for example. If we miss knowledge about one detail from a question they conjure up, then it automatically somehow means the cremations didn't happen. Now if we put all of the above together, how does that look for the deniers? Ridiculous. Stumbled across this today. How do you justify all this rubbish or do you simply not need to? The fact are that many atrocity photos of the era were photoshopped. The Soviets and Poles had extraordinary commissions to investigate war crimes against the Germans. They had a combined staff of over 11 million, backed by the Soviet Secret Police. These cops murdered at will anyone who stood in their way. They ruled by pure fear and terror. History was erased and a new version of history emerged.
|
|