1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:01 pm)

ASMarques wrote:Of course it was, given the (official) public domain.

But if one wishes to go into demographic questions, the material circulating within the public domain (in the sense of a ceremony held by the Pope) is not at all appropriate. One must there turn to the body of academic works, published documentation such as it is (being on the lookout for potentially suspicious documents of odd origin), demographic tables published yearly by Jewish organization themselves, and so on. The issue of what did the Pope say somewhere is totally irrelevant to any demographic arguments. But unfortunately too many people taking an amateur interest in Holocaust revisionism are misled down the path of thinking that the change in the Auschwitz plaque is somehow a key to demographic arguments. You'll find that error tossed around on this board in a number of places. I only cited the most recent example, but I've seen it show up here before. And it's not just raised in response to dull-witted fanatics of the Meir Kahane type either, as you try to imply. It arises from an actual misconception, among people who haven't thoroughly reviewed the literature, about the actual significance of the old Auschwitz plaque.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:19 pm)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:I thought that it was clear enough since your own quotes were included, but I've added the arrows this time just in case anyone is really slow.


Well, not to offend you, but the arrows look almost as silly as your "exactly 4 million Jews allegation, no more no less, regardless of any other mythical contexts, such as the 'overwhelming majority' myth" battle horse. As I said, please keep your quotes clear, i.e. don't quote me quoting yourself simply as if you were quoting my words --->(even if you keep the punctuation quotation marks)<---...

Example: avoid this:

ASMarques wrote:"[the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish] was not accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials and only began to slowly creep in by the 1970s, with full acceptance only after 1991."


...if you can do this:

ASMarques wrote:
PatrickSMcNally wrote:[the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish] was not accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials and only began to slowly creep in by the 1970s, with full acceptance only after 1991.


.. or (even better) this:

ASMarques wrote:what you yourself write, namely that "[the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish] was not accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials and only began to slowly creep in by the 1970s, with full acceptance only after 1991."


See you and thanks for the amusing na-na-na discussion. Your mental age reminds me of the good old days when I was five.
Last edited by ASMarques on Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thesaint
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: England

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Thesaint » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:39 pm)

The "revised" plaque at Auschwitz should say:
"The death toll at this death camp has previously been reduced by 3/4,but that has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the wider holocaust narrative".
"We didn't call survivors," says Lipstadt, "because first of all we didn't want to subject them to cross-examination by this guy. He (Irving) would have destroyed them."
- Jerusalem Post 6/16/00

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:55 pm)

Thesaint wrote:The "revised" plaque at Auschwitz should say:
"The death toll at this death camp has previously been reduced by 3/4, but that has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the wider holocaust narrative".


Quite so. It could even add:

"No crosses or nunneries allowed because of the overwhelming majority of the victims that continues to be unquestionably Jewish, as in 1979 and 1984, and no questions allowed as to why no fuss at all was raised over the 4 million allegation chiseled in stone by the crazy commies."
Last edited by ASMarques on Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby neugierig » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:25 pm)

Thanks for the information on the new Gilbert book, ASMarques. F. Berg send me this today, also about a new book, titled: “Holocaust: The Ignored Reality”, by Timothy Snyder.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22875

The latest Saul Friedman book, forget the title, also talks about killing in ditches in the east. There is definitively an other attempt made to move the “crime scene” further east, a further Ostwanderung. The first one took place when the “Gaskammern” of Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen were moved behind the iron curtain. Too many people taking a closer look at Auschwitz and the AR-Camps, not good for Shoa-Business.

Makes me wonder if the Berlin “Gaskammer Konferenz” of May 2008, attended by 200 scientists, was in reality a stab at trying to find a way to make this move possible. We still have no final report from this conference, promised for the 1st half of this year.

Regards
Wilf

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:17 pm)

Thesaint wrote:The "revised" plaque at Auschwitz should say:
"The death toll at this death camp has previously been reduced by 3/4,but that has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the wider holocaust narrative".

You love caricatures don't you? You've shifted the issue again from the specific question of whether or not one can rationally use the change at the plaque to demographically deduce a rational reduction in the 6 million commonly asserted in academia over to the issue of what "has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the wider holocaust narrative." Such a general statement changes the terms radically. One could, for example, argue that everything which Norman Finkelstien discusses in THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY has a "bearing on the veracity of the wider holocaust narrative." But Finkelstein never questions the veracity of Raul Hilberg. The phrase "wider holocaust narrative" is sufficiently broad and generic to allow us to say that Finhelstein has challenged certain parts of it, but that doesn't conflict with his general promotion of Hilberg. If it makes it easier for you, set out categories of what may be called Finkelstein Revisionism and Mattogno Revisionism. The debate about the plaque at Auschwitz belongs clearly in the first basket. There is no need for anyone to accept anything that would supercede Finkelstein in order to accept the change in the plaque.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby neugierig » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:27 pm)

I forgot to mention that this second Ostwanderung will of course be preceded by a new Spielberg movie about 4 year old Schmulchen Schievelbeiner (W. Busch) who, as a 4 year old, survived the Gaskammer by breathing through the keyhole. This happened three times. There will also be new Holo-Memorials build, just like what happened when the Auschwitz 4 million had to be reduced to 1.5.

And the masses will accept this newest charlatanry, as they accepted the Auschwitz shell game.

Armes Deutschland.

Regards
Wilf

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 8:35 pm)

ASMarques wrote:Quite so. It could even add:

"No crosses or nunneries

The fuss over nunneries had nothing either way to do with the 4 million number on the plaque.

and no questions allowed as to why no fuss at all was raised over the 4 million allegation chiseled in stone by the crazy commies."

Because people get more readily heated up about things which are of interest to them, obviously. If you like you're welcome to point to such hypocrisy, but that has no relevance to the very specific issue of whether or not one can legitimately make a demographic deduction in the alleged 6 million based upon the change of the plaque.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:14 pm)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
ASMarques wrote:Quite so. It could even add:

"No crosses or nunneries


The fuss over nunneries had nothing either way to do with the 4 million number on the plaque.


Oops, there you go again. You let the rest of the sentence slip away unnoticed: "No crosses or nunneries allowed because of the overwhelming majority of the victims that continues to be unquestionably Jewish, as in 1979 and 1984."

The relevance was to the "overwhelming majority" allegation, not the "4 million" allegation per se.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
ASMarques wrote:and no questions allowed as to why no fuss at all was raised over the 4 million allegation chiseled in stone by the crazy commies."


Because people get more readily heated up about things which are of interest to them, obviously.


You mean the alleged overwhelming majority of Jewish victims that sent Jews on the warpath over the disrespectful crosses and nunneries ceased to be of interest to Jews when it came to the disrespectful monuments that allegedly reduced the Jewish victims to a small minority?

Must go now. See you.

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:54 pm)

ASMarques wrote:The relevance was to the "overwhelming majority" allegation, not the "4 million" allegation per se.

But the "overwhelming majority claim" would not have been based upon the 4 million claim. It would have been based upon something like Hilberg, Poliakov or Reitlinger.

You mean the alleged overwhelming majority of Jewish victims that sent Jews on the warpath over the disrespectful crosses and nunneries ceased to be of interest to Jews when it came to the disrespectful monuments that allegedly reduced the Jewish victims to a small minority?

No, I mean the fact that the alleged overwhelming majority of Jewish victims was not claimed to be anywhere close to 4 million. Something like Poliakov's 2 million is the highest you're likely to find anywhere in print as an alleged number of Jewish victims at Auschwitz. What Jewish groups lacked interest in was protesting the 4 million plaque at Auschwitz when their own recognized sources such as Poliakov placed the overall total at 2.5 million, with perhaps around 2 million Jewish victims (Hilberg, of course, gives a lower number than Poliakov for both Jewish and non-Jewish victims at Auschwitz). That can be highlighted as an example of political hypocrisy by Jewish groups, but in a way that is completely compatible with Norman Finkelstein's approach and needn't carry us beyond that into any deeper revisionist realm.

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:16 am)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
ASMarques wrote:
PatrickSMcNally wrote:The fuss over nunneries had nothing either way to do with the 4 million number on the plaque.


Oops, there you go again. You let the rest of the sentence slip away unnoticed: "No crosses or nunneries allowed because of the overwhelming majority of the victims that continues to be unquestionably Jewish, as in 1979 and 1984."

The relevance was to the "overwhelming majority" allegation, not the "4 million" allegation per se.


But the "overwhelming majority claim" would not have been based upon the 4 million claim. It would have been based upon something like Hilberg, Poliakov or Reitlinger.


You still don't get it.

For the point I'm making it doesn't matter at all whether the claim that Jews constituted the "overwhelming majority of the victims" was based on anything, whether solid ground or thin air. What matters is that particular claim was what was supposed to give the Jews almost exclusive moral rights over any Auschwitz monuments, and that was the rationale behind the fuss raised against the crosses and nunneries, in 1979 and 1984.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
ASMarques wrote:You mean the alleged overwhelming majority of Jewish victims that sent Jews on the warpath over the disrespectful crosses and nunneries ceased to be of interest to Jews when it came to the disrespectful monuments that allegedly reduced the Jewish victims to a small minority?


No, I mean the fact that the alleged overwhelming majority of Jewish victims was not claimed to be anywhere close to 4 million.


Well, why then didn't the Jews raise, at any time or in any official capacity, any fuss over the 4 million that dwarfed the Jewish figures? Didn't they care at all about the godless non-Jewish martyrdom supremacist figure smack in the middle of the commemorative grounds, when they cared so much about a couple of symbols of Christian martyrdom in a small corner of the premises?

Keep trying. You'll eventually get the point.

Bye now.

Thesaint
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: England

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Thesaint » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sat Jul 04, 2009 12:49 am)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
Thesaint wrote:The "revised" plaque at Auschwitz should say:
"The death toll at this death camp has previously been reduced by 3/4,but that has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the wider holocaust narrative".

You love caricatures don't you?

Maybe the sarcasm was lost on you Patrick.I like the way you accuse me of going off topic but then insert the theoretical mumblings of Finkelstein into the debate.Then again,I may just be another "moron" or "dumb smart Alec" like poor old ASMarques eh Patrick?
"We didn't call survivors," says Lipstadt, "because first of all we didn't want to subject them to cross-examination by this guy. He (Irving) would have destroyed them."
- Jerusalem Post 6/16/00

Thesaint
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: England

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Thesaint » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sat Jul 04, 2009 1:28 am)

PatrickSMcNally wrote: If it makes it easier for you, set out categories of what may be called Finkelstein Revisionism and Mattogno Revisionism.

I`ll set out the category of what may be called PatrickSMcNally Revisionism:

The constant harping on about the significance of the fact that only 1 million Jews are alleged to have been gassed at Auschwitz by Hilberg and his merry band of "elite" hoaxsters,thereby excusing said hoaxsters from ever having to account for the previously alleged(ooohhhh,but not by them Patrick,not by THEM!) extra 3 million saved souls by shrugging them off as never-existing,non-important,non-dead Jews,that in no way interfere with the orthodox "theory" of how the alleged Auschwitz extermination machinery operated.
"We didn't call survivors," says Lipstadt, "because first of all we didn't want to subject them to cross-examination by this guy. He (Irving) would have destroyed them."
- Jerusalem Post 6/16/00

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:56 am)

ASMarques wrote:What matters is that particular claim was what was supposed to give the Jews almost exclusive moral rights over any Auschwitz monuments, and that was the rationale behind the fuss raised against the crosses and nunneries, in 1979 and 1984.

You still don't get it. The way that this little subthread developed was that another poster mentioned the 4 million number in the context of demographic questions having to do with possible immigration, and I had simply pointed out that the 4 million story has no meaningful relevance to this. You've shifted the goal posts way across into a debate over what "Jews almost exclusive moral rights over," which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the point at hand. Stay on topic.

Well, why then didn't the Jews raise, at any time or in any official capacity, any fuss over the 4 million that dwarfed the Jewish figures?

Ditto. You're simply shifting the topic over to the matter of political hypocrisy along the lines of what Finkelstein discusses in THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY. Jewish groups knew very well that the numbers claimed by their own representatives and what was on the plaque at Auschwitz were clearly inconsistent, but they got more easily riled up over a bunch of nuns. They were hypocrites, and that is fully consistent with Finkelstein's arguments. But you could never make any semi-serious demographic argument by pointing to the change of the plaque, and that is what this subthread began over.

Keep trying. You'll eventually get the point.
Last edited by PatrickSMcNally on Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:10 am)

Thesaint wrote:you accuse me of going off topic but then insert the theoretical mumblings of Finkelstein into the debate.

Because Finkelstein's mode of argument is exactly the line which ASMarques is trying to shift things to. The poster seeks to move the subthread away from the simply observation I had made that no serious demographic argument can be made by looking at the Auschwitz plaque saying 4 million in 1991 and then drawing upon the 1.1 million number (this was actually the number the original poster gave, not the 1.5 million number which they put on the plaque after 1991) which Hilberg had given back in the 1960s to argue for a reduction of 4 - 1.1 = 2.9 million. That is not a valid argument, it wouldn't even be valid if you replaced the 1.1 with the 1.5 that they actually put on the plaque. No real demographic arguments about world Jewish population can be based upon the plaque.

ASMarques has simply tried to shift the topic over to the question of political hypocrisy practiced by Jewish groups, in line with Finkelstein's mode of argument. It's ASMarques mumblings which have inserted that in here. Address your query in that direction: "ASMarques, what on earth does the hypocritical attitude of Jewish groups have to do with whether or not the change of the plaque allows a real demographic conclusion to be drawn about world Jewish population and immigration?" Maybe he'll give you an answer instead of trying to switch the subject like he does with me.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hektor and 14 guests