|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 04/11/2010 : 11:55:13 [Permalink]
|
Treblinka was a Reinhardt camp as was Belzec and Sobibor, and you are full of shit, just like this creep:
Coincidentally, I briefly met Rockwell back in the early '60s, He was in Norfolk, VA trying to get the membership roster up and, having nothing better to do that Saturday, a few of us took in his act.
Just another Nazi scumbag. -
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2010 : 12:13:12 [Permalink]
|
News item:
Nazi camp Buchenwald marks 65 years since liberation
(AFP) – 7 hours ago
BUCHENWALD, Germany — Survivors and dignitaries marked on Sunday 65 years since the US army liberated Buchenwald, one of the largest and most notorious Nazi concentration camps on German soil in World War II.
"The majority of my comrades are dead, they are no longer with us," said Guenther Pappenheim, 84, one of around 90 survivors from the camp near Weimar in central Germany who came to take part in a solemn ceremony.
"But we have the great wish, the great request, that the memory of the victims of fascist terror, that the comrades who lost their lives in Buchenwald, live on our hearts ... and are never forgotten."
Although technically not an extermination camp, all of which were in German-occupied Eastern Europe like Auschwitz in Poland, Buchenwald, high on a wooded hill called the Ettersberg, was still a place of immense suffering.
An estimated 56,000 people from all over Europe died between 1937 and 1945, starved and worked to death in horrendous conditions, killed in medical experiments or summarily executed.
They included some 8,000 Soviet prisoners of war killed by "Genickschuss" -- a bullet in the back of the neck. Others prisoners were sent eastwards to the gas chambers or perished in "death marches" in the final weeks of the war.
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2010 : 15:15:59 [Permalink]
|
[Shifting the goalposts: the original goal was to find evidence of mass murder, but now you've shifted it to be evidence of mass murder in a Reinhard camp. ]
Lord love a duck  ... the topic was the disposal of bodies at Treblinka as an explanation of why there are no mass graves now.
You cited Wisliceny as evidence.
I noted that all we have from him is an affidavit he probably couldn't read, that he had exactly zero firsthand knowledge of the camps according to his own testimony, and that in court they did not even mention the Reinhard camps, much less the disposal of bodies.
That dispensed with, I went on to discuss the testimony of one of the most respected holocaust witnesses, Yankel Wiernik. Wiernik's book was cited repeatedly by the dean of holocaust historians, Raul Hilberg. Wiernik claims to be an eyewitness to the disposal of bodies at Treblinka.
Even you can see that Wiernik is completely unreliable at best, and, at worst he is a degenerate liar, this is the norm in holocaust testimony. If that were not the case, Wiernik would be regarded as the freak he is, not repeatedly cited by 'scholars' like Hilberg.
[The online version:
One of the Germans, a man named Sepp, was a vile and savage beast, who took special delight in torturing children. When he pushed women around and they begged him to stop because they had children with them, he would frequently snatch a child from the woman's arms and either tear the child in half or grab it by the legs, smash its head against a wall and throw the body away.]
The book:
A German named Zopf was a vile a savage beast, who took special delight in abusing children. When he pushed women around and they begged him to desist because of the children, he frequently snatched a child out of a woman's arms and tore it in half.
They tried some fellow as Zopf/Sepp, and there was testimony that he bashed in babies heads at the train station ... so I hypothesize they tweaked this text to accommodate that history. I'd also be surprised if an original Polish(?) text exists. The book was published in English in 1945 and hasn't been reprinted to my knowledge.
Well, what next  |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/11/2010 15:34:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/11/2010 : 16:26:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[Shifting the goalposts: the original goal was to find evidence of mass murder, but now you've shifted it to be evidence of mass murder in a Reinhard camp. ]
Lord love a duck ... the topic was the disposal of bodies at Treblinka as an explanation of why there are no mass graves now.
You cited Wisliceny as evidence.
I noted that all we have from him is an affidavit he probably couldn't read, that he had exactly zero firsthand knowledge of the camps according to his own testimony, and that in court they did not even mention the Reinhard camps, much less the disposal of bodies. |
And you still refuse to justify your use of the word "probably," so it looks for all the world like you're just desperately grasping at straws with which to bat away the evidence.Except you haven't dispensed with anything, you've just waved your hands at it vigorously, applying Rule 4 like crazy....I went on to discuss the testimony of one of the most respected holocaust witnesses, Yankel Wiernik. Wiernik's book was cited repeatedly by the dean of holocaust historians, Raul Hilberg. Wiernik claims to be an eyewitness to the disposal of bodies at Treblinka.
Even you can see that Wiernik is completely unreliable at best... |
And that makes his book nothing more than a distraction, one which you insist that we all look at even though you know it's worthless. Once again, you are fully in compliance with Rule 1 (ignore the topic) and 4 (be aggressively stupid), Rudolfo.| Well, what next |
How about presenting some evidence (or at least an argument) that Wisliceny "probably" couldn't read English? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2010 : 06:43:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And how about Nikolai Malagon, speaking specifically about Treblinka?The dead were then thrown into special pits and later burnt on pyres.
|
Great Scott! That settles it  The case is closed. Why didn't you tell me you had a card up your sleeve
That's a great link, and I learned something - apparently it was commonplace for the prisoners arriving at Treblinka to be armed, and to hit the offloading dock lobbing grenades 
"When one of the prisoners on the unloading area threw a grenade, one of the guards was killed. The other guards standing in cordon formation immediately retaliated against the prisoners who had thrown the grenade, that is they shot them then and there. Who of the guards participated in this action and was Fedorenko among them I do not know."
Originally posted by Dave W.
How about presenting some evidence (or at least an argument) that Wisliceny "probably" couldn't read English?
|
The whole thing is absurd from the get go. Why wasn't the statement written in German? Because a native English speaker wrote it. Why didn't the statement say that Wisliceny was fluent in English? Because he wasn't. Exactly the same situation with the Hoess affidavit. Finally, if Wisliceny's affidavit wasn't absurd on its face, it might be worth investigating, for anyone interested in the minutia, his command or lack of command of English, but since he has no firsthand knowledge of anything in the camps, and is obviously willing to say anything, he saw the orders while chatting with Eichmann in Berlin, etc., to save his own skin, it's not interesting to me.
|
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/12/2010 06:54:08 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2010 : 07:13:27 [Permalink]
|
Dieter Wisliceny
[Affidavit of Dieter Wisliceny]
Source: Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. Volume VIII. USGPO, Washington, 1946/pp.606-619.
[This affidavit is substantially the same as the testimony given by Wisliceny on direct examination before the International Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, 3 January 1946.]
|
<snip>
I understand written English and have made the foregoing statements and attached Appendix A-I and II voluntarily and under oath. [signed] DIETER WISLICENY
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of November 1946 at Nurnberg, Germany.
[signed] SMITH W. BROOKHART, JR. Lt. Col. IGD
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2010 : 08:02:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
The whole thing is absurd from the get go. Why wasn't the statement written in German? Because a native English speaker wrote it. Why didn't the statement say that Wisliceny was fluent in English? Because he wasn't. Exactly the same situation with the Hoess affidavit. |
Wisliceny wouldn't have to be fluent in english. The only thing necessary would be for the examination to be held with a translator, written down in english and Wisliceny understanding written english enough to be able to tell whether this was a fair representation of his testimony.
I can't speak french or german fluently. I can read both languages perfectly. If someone would talk to me with a translator and write down what I said in french or german, I would be able to check whether his write-up is accurate.
| Finally, if Wisliceny's affidavit wasn't absurd on its face, it might be worth investigating, for anyone interested in the minutia, his command or lack of command of English, but since he has no firsthand knowledge of anything in the camps, and is obviously willing to say anything, he saw the orders while chatting with Eichmann in Berlin, etc., to save his own skin, it's not interesting to me. |
Yes, it doesn't fit your preconceptions and therefore you feel free to ignore it. If someone in high command gives orders, those orders are generally executed. It adds to the evidence in favor of the evidence for the holocaust, in this case to the evidence that it was not an isolated incident by some German soldiers, but that it was a systematic operation planned and ordered by the German high command.
But do continue your vigorous handwaving. At least the wind coming from it will cool you down.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2010 : 08:13:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
Great Scott! That settles it The case is closed. Why didn't you tell me you had a card up your sleeve |
Rule 1.| That's a great link, and I learned something - apparently it was commonplace for the prisoners arriving at Treblinka to be armed, and to hit the offloading dock lobbing grenades |
Rule 1 and 4.Originally posted by Dave W.
How about presenting some evidence (or at least an argument) that Wisliceny "probably" couldn't read English? |
|
Hey, you figured out quoting!| The whole thing is absurd from the get go. Why wasn't the statement written in German? Because a native English speaker wrote it. Why didn't the statement say that Wisliceny was fluent in English? Because he wasn't. |
What part of "I understand written English and have made the foregoing statements and attached Appendix A-I and II voluntarily and under oath" do you not understand? Is this some sort of Rule 4 semantic argument that because the word "fluent" doesn't appear, it's all a lie? Brookhart testified that Wisliceny understood English just fine, and that Wisliceny hand-wrote Appendix II of his affidavit in English.| Exactly the same situation with the Hoess affidavit. |
And?| Finally, if Wisliceny's affidavit wasn't absurd on its face, it might be worth investigating, for anyone interested in the minutia, his command or lack of command of English, but since he has no firsthand knowledge of anything in the camps, and is obviously willing to say anything, he saw the orders while chatting with Eichmann in Berlin, etc., to save his own skin, it's not interesting to me. |
Where is the evidence that he was saying anything "to save his own skin?" You noted yourself that Wisliceny wasn't on trial at Nuremburg, he was a prosecution witness.
But this is all just more hand-waving. When presented with the evidence you asked for, first you claimed that he couldn't read English so someone else must have been lying on his behalf. We didn't buy that unevidenced conspiracy excuse, so you've made up a new unsupported excuse, that Wisliceny was lying to save himself. We're not buying that one, either. For someone who's ranted about proper skepticism, you really suck at it when it's your position that's being examined.
But hey, thanks for the reference. Good stuff in there. I'll assume you think that Höss couldn't read English, or even if he could he was lying to save himself. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2010 : 08:48:26 [Permalink]
|
Rudolfo lives in a world of dark conspiracies supported by hunches and speculations. And he actually thinks his hunches and speculations rise to some kind of complete picture. And indeed it does. It rises to the level of confirming to Rudolfo's his own narrative that the holocaust didn't happen. And that's all it does. It must be nice to be so unencumbered by actual evidence to support his claims. Hunches will do. I don't think I have ever seen so much hand waving from a single conspiracy theorist on this site, ever.
And yeah, he learned how to use the quote feature. At least there is that. Will wonders never cease... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2010 : 14:04:03 [Permalink]
|
[Where is the evidence that he was saying anything "to save his own skin?" You noted yourself that Wisliceny wasn't on trial at Nuremburg, he was a prosecution witness.]
Apparently 'skeptics' are like newborns, and even common knowledge must be patiently explained. A standard prosecution tactic in any trial is to make a deal with a co-conspirator in order to gain testimony against other conspirators. Some of the Dachau trials preceded the IMT, and Wisliceny must have known that guards in western camps were being sentenced to death en mass for no crime whatever. So, to deny that Hoess and Wisliceny hoped to avoid prosecution by cooperating with the court is not naive, it's idiotic. 
And, you're right, I don't take Wisliceny seriously, and apparently neither does anyone else. In particular, his affidavit 'testimony' about the Reihnard camps was not even mentioned in the trial testimony. He was not cross examined. It was a perfunctory run through.
And, we can continue. Wisliceny testifies in the affidavit (and the court?) about the order to exterminate the Jews, and explains, lest any doubt remain, that it meant biological extermination, and yet, no such order is a part of the holocaust narrative today. So, at the Zundel trial Hilberg, dean of holocaust 'scholars' had to admit there was no order, and any references to an order were removed from his book 'The Destruction of the European Jews'.
And, on top of all that, he was never in the camps. So, his testimony regarding the disposal of bodies is by any reasonable account, worthless.
Now, Nikolai Malagon is another story altogether. I completely believe that the Jews hit the offloading dock at Treblinka lobbing grenades.
The only 'witness' to the body disposal at Treblinka the holocaust establishment respects mentioned thusfar is Yankel Wiernik. |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/12/2010 14:05:58 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2010 : 15:02:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[Where is the evidence that he was saying anything "to save his own skin?" You noted yourself that Wisliceny wasn't on trial at Nuremburg, he was a prosecution witness.] |
And the quoting skill is lost as quickly as it was found.  | Apparently 'skeptics' are like newborns, and even common knowledge must be patiently explained. A standard prosecution tactic in any trial is to make a deal with a co-conspirator in order to gain testimony against other conspirators. Some of the Dachau trials preceded the IMT, and Wisliceny must have known that guards in western camps were being sentenced to death en mass for no crime whatever. So, to deny that Hoess and Wisliceny hoped to avoid prosecution by cooperating with the court is not naive, it's idiotic. |
No, I understand all that just fine. I want to see the evidence that either one of them were offered such a deal. Neither one escaped prosecution or the death penalty. Neither was given immunity from further charges or from extradition. If you're going to suggest that Höss and Wisliceny lied in order to reap some benefit, as part of some alleged deal with the prosecution, you're going to have to demonstrate that they actually might have reaped some benefit, which history shows they did not. Was Höss' autobiography a continuation of that "deal," even while he already had the death penalty laid on him? This is just more Rule 4 hand-waving from you, isn't it?| And, you're right, I don't take Wisliceny seriously, and apparently neither does anyone else. |
Argumentum ad populum, therefore Rule 4.| In particular, his affidavit 'testimony' about the Reihnard camps was not even mentioned in the trial testimony. |
Did his testimony disagree with his affidavit?| He was not cross examined. It was a perfunctory run through. |
For someone who thinks he can lecture on court proceedings, you have a lot to learn, Rudolfo. If the defense thought his answers would bolster the prosecution's case, then asking the questions would be the opposite of what the defense would want, since the cross would simply re-state the the evidence in favor of the prosecution, for free. What do you think the defense should have asked?| And, we can continue. Wisliceny testifies in the affidavit (and the court?)... |
A question mark? I thought you'd read this stuff.| ...about the order to exterminate the Jews, and explains, lest any doubt remain, that it meant biological extermination, and yet, no such order is a part of the holocaust narrative today. |
Himmler's order absolutely is part of the narrative. Don't you pay attention?| So, at the Zundel trial Hilberg, dean of holocaust 'scholars' had to admit there was no order, and any references to an order were removed from his book 'The Destruction of the European Jews'. |
Where is the evidence to support these ideas?| And, on top of all that, he was never in the camps. So, his testimony regarding the disposal of bodies is by any reasonable account, worthless. |
Hearsay evidence is absolutely allowed and reasonable where no other documentation exists. The answer to it is to impeach the witness, and the defense at Nuremberg obviously thought it best to not even try that tactic with Wisliceny.| Now, Nikolai Malagon is another story altogether. I completely believe that the Jews hit the offloading dock at Treblinka lobbing grenades. |
Rule 4, still. As soon as you pluralize the noun "grenade," you've being aggressively stupid.| The only 'witness' to the body disposal at Treblinka the holocaust establishment respects mentioned thusfar is Yankel Wiernik. |
Rule 4. You're a big fan of that rule, aren't you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 05:59:04 [Permalink]
|
[Argumentum ad populum, therefore Rule 4.]
No, Rule 4 is ..... ahh, you had me worried a minute here  , and I thought the Rules would need a fix .... but ... they're good ... you just need to re-read them....
Rule 4 is aggressive stupidity. Rule 3 is the Grand Principle, argument by consensus. And, had you used the right rule, you would be bang on ! The rules are gold !
And there is nothing wrong with argument by consensus, but it is used by 'skeptics', present company excepted, to the exclusion of all other arguments and as the final arbiter. Then, it becomes the formula for blind obedience, as we see with the 'skeptics' in spades.
[Rule 4, still. As soon as you pluralize the noun "grenade," you've being aggressively stupid.]
You don't really understand the rules. Aggressive stupidity is really aggressive stupidity, not a debatable point, or even a mistake. The text refers to 'them' that threw the 'grenade'. So, there is a disconnect as a grenade is thrown by one person, and I chose to go with the 'them'. And, as this was being offered as an example, so, even if only one incident was being referred to, it was not indicated that it was unique, and therefore I think there is reason to believe similar instances occurred. Ok, it ain't the strongest argument, but it doesn't invoke Rule 4. |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/13/2010 06:04:41 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 06:14:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[Argumentum ad populum, therefore Rule 4.]
No, Rule 4 is ..... ahh, you had me worried a minute here , and I thought the Rules would need a fix .... but ... they're good ... you just need to re-read them....
Rule 4 is aggressive stupidity. Rule 3 is the Grand Principle, argument by consensus. And, had you used the right rule, you would be bang on ! The rules are gold !
And there is nothing wrong with argument by consensus, but it is used by 'skeptics', present company excepted, to the exclusion of all other arguments and as the final arbiter. Then, it becomes the formula for blind obedience, as we see with the 'skeptics' in spades.
[Rule 4, still. As soon as you pluralize the noun "grenade," you've being aggressively stupid.]
You don't really understand the rules. Aggressive stupidity is really aggressive stupidity, not a debatable point, or even a mistake. The text refers to 'them' that threw the 'grenade'. So, there is a disconnect as a grenade is thrown by one person, and I chose to go with the 'them'. And, as this was being offered as an example, so, even if only one incident was being referred to, it was not indicated that it was unique, and therefore I think there is reason to believe similar instances occurred. Ok, it ain't the strongest argument, but it doesn't invoke Rule 4.
|
"When one of the prisoners on the unloading area threw a grenade".
For the reading impaired (ie, Rudolfo), one of the people there managed to smuggle a grenade with him. When he was unloaded he threw it. Subsequently, guards opened fire on the group that included the person throwing the grenade.
What part of this sequence of events is impossible or even improbable? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2010 : 06:39:29 [Permalink]
|
[What part of this sequence of events is impossible or even improbable?]
Hey, I'm sure it happened everyday. But you gotta admit, it's a new twist on the story. |
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/13/2010 06:41:47 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A literal Jewish conspiracy
