No one to debate? [Rudolf vs Vann on Jake Shields]

[Nessie]

Right, because I asked that before you mentioned a specific ss officer.

I'm a clairvoyant, I knew that statement was coming so I asked ahead of time...

Please evidence a Nazi who was put on trial for his work at an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, who had his testicles crushed.

I was asking YOU.

again, I'm not a historian, I'm some dude on the internet.

Claims of testicle crushing is a lie, invented by dishonest Holocaust deniers, as they seek a way around the fact that every single Nazi who worked at an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, admits it as used for gassings.

Also, I wasn't saying the hoax was Soviet, I was saying the bonecrusher was. Look into the bonecrusher.

I have and I have linked you to a source for evidence of its use. Here is more for the cremains from the A-B ovens;

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/au ... -chambers/

"Bones that did not burn completely were ground to powder with pestles and then dumped, along with the ashes, in the rivers Soła and Vistula and in nearby ponds, or strewn in the fields as fertilizer, or used as landfill on uneven ground and in marshes."

[HansHill]

If Wiernik wrote a book about hundreds of thousands of people being transited through TII, on their way to be resettled in the east, you would believe it, because that is what you want to believe. Instead, you cannot find one single witness, from any camp, of that happening.

>"If Wiernik wrote a book about something credible, you would believe it"

Yes, that's how credibility works! Unfortunately, that's not how Wiernik works!

[Stubble]

You heard it here folks, damaged testicles are an elaborate hoax by time travelling revisionists posing as defense lawyers, red cross personnel etc.

Tomorrow's ruse today folks.

[Nessie]

If Wiernik wrote a book about hundreds of thousands of people being transited through TII, on their way to be resettled in the east, you would believe it, because that is what you want to believe. Instead, you cannot find one single witness, from any camp, of that happening.

>"If Wiernik wrote a book about something credible, you would believe it"

Yes, that's how credibility works! Unfortunately, that's not how Wiernik works!

Credibility is separate from lying. Someone can be credible and lying through their teeth, they are a very convincing liar. The best test for witnesses is not credibility, it is truthfulness. That is not to say credibility is unimportant. If someone is telling the truth, but they make constant mistakes, exaggerate, get emotional, mix hearsay with what they saw, repeat rumours, the details they give should be treated as suspect.

Elie Wiesel is the best example of such a witness. Wiernik gets emotional, he exaggerates and makes claims that cannot be correct, but his narrative of how TII functioned, its layout, who else worked there and the rebellion, are all corroborated. That corroboration establishes his truthfulness. Just take his story narrative and descriptions with a pinch of salt.

Your inexperience with and ignorance of witnesses, is why you are reduced to making pithy remarks, rather than contributing to the understanding of witness testimony.

[HansHill]

Credibility is separate from lying. Someone can be credible and lying through their teeth, they are a very convincing liar. The best test for witnesses is not credibility, it is truthfulness. That is not to say credibility is unimportant. If someone is telling the truth, but they make constant mistakes, exaggerate, get emotional, mix hearsay with what they saw, repeat rumours, the details they give should be treated as suspect.

Elie Wiesel is the best example of such a witness. Wiernik gets emotional, he exaggerates and makes claims that cannot be correct, but his narrative of how TII functioned, its layout, who else worked there and the rebellion, are all corroborated. That corroboration establishes his truthfulness. Just take his story narrative and descriptions with a pinch of salt.

Your inexperience with and ignorance of witnesses, is why you are reduced to making pithy remarks, rather than contributing to the understanding of witness testimony.

Two things can be true at once:

1) Wiernik is lying
2) Wiernik is not credible

Examples of why he is not credible: He has a clear ideological / personal / ethnic disdain for the Germans, calling them "satanic" on multiple counts, vile, amongst other things. These obvious ideological biases, along with his clear hyperbole, exaggerations, inconsistencies and impossible claims means that, unfortunately for you, however you want to dress it up - Wiernik is lying and far from credible.

[Nessie]

Credibility is separate from lying. Someone can be credible and lying through their teeth, they are a very convincing liar. The best test for witnesses is not credibility, it is truthfulness. That is not to say credibility is unimportant. If someone is telling the truth, but they make constant mistakes, exaggerate, get emotional, mix hearsay with what they saw, repeat rumours, the details they give should be treated as suspect.

Elie Wiesel is the best example of such a witness. Wiernik gets emotional, he exaggerates and makes claims that cannot be correct, but his narrative of how TII functioned, its layout, who else worked there and the rebellion, are all corroborated. That corroboration establishes his truthfulness. Just take his story narrative and descriptions with a pinch of salt.

Your inexperience with and ignorance of witnesses, is why you are reduced to making pithy remarks, rather than contributing to the understanding of witness testimony.

Two things can be true at once:

1) Wiernik is lying
2) Wiernik is not credible

If you knew more on the subject you would know that people can be credible and telling the truth, credible and lying, not credible and telling the truth and not credible and lying.

Examples of why he is not credible: He has a clear ideological / personal / ethnic disdain for the Germans, calling them "satanic" on multiple counts, vile, amongst other things. These obvious ideological biases, along with his clear hyperbole, exaggerations, inconsistencies and impossible claims means that, unfortunately for you, however you want to dress it up - Wiernik is lying and far from credible.

There are credibility issues. That is not as unfortunate for me as you think it is. It is to be expected that Wiernik would be anti-Nazi, after what happened to him. All the Jewish witnesses use hyperbole etc, whereas the Nazis are all more matter of fact and less emotive. That is explained by who is the victim and who is the perpetrator and that in this instance, the perpetrators had arguments that they were not doing anything illegal at that time, they were dealing with an enemy threat, and they were acting under orders.

You cannot prove he is lying that TII had gas chambers, mass graves and pyres. To do that, you need evidence, such as an admission from him, he is lying, or a witness who was there who states there were no gas chambers, or an archaeological survey that finds no buried cremated remains, or a document that records regular mass transports back out of the camp.

It is typical of denier ignorance of investigations and evidencing, that they think opinion on credibility is the same as evidence to prove lying.

[TlsMS93]

Credibility is separate from lying. Someone can be credible and lying through their teeth, they are a very convincing liar. The best test for witnesses is not credibility, it is truthfulness. That is not to say credibility is unimportant. If someone is telling the truth, but they make constant mistakes, exaggerate, get emotional, mix hearsay with what they saw, repeat rumours, the details they give should be treated as suspect.

Elie Wiesel is the best example of such a witness. Wiernik gets emotional, he exaggerates and makes claims that cannot be correct, but his narrative of how TII functioned, its layout, who else worked there and the rebellion, are all corroborated. That corroboration establishes his truthfulness. Just take his story narrative and descriptions with a pinch of salt.

Your inexperience with and ignorance of witnesses, is why you are reduced to making pithy remarks, rather than contributing to the understanding of witness testimony.

Two things can be true at once:

1) Wiernik is lying
2) Wiernik is not credible

If you knew more on the subject you would know that people can be credible and telling the truth, credible and lying, not credible and telling the truth and not credible and lying.

Examples of why he is not credible: He has a clear ideological / personal / ethnic disdain for the Germans, calling them "satanic" on multiple counts, vile, amongst other things. These obvious ideological biases, along with his clear hyperbole, exaggerations, inconsistencies and impossible claims means that, unfortunately for you, however you want to dress it up - Wiernik is lying and far from credible.

There are credibility issues. That is not as unfortunate for me as you think it is. It is to be expected that Wiernik would be anti-Nazi, after what happened to him. All the Jewish witnesses use hyperbole etc, whereas the Nazis are all more matter of fact and less emotive. That is explained by who is the victim and who is the perpetrator and that in this instance, the perpetrators had arguments that they were not doing anything illegal at that time, they were dealing with an enemy threat, and they were acting under orders.

You cannot prove he is lying that TII had gas chambers, mass graves and pyres. To do that, you need evidence, such as an admission from him, he is lying, or a witness who was there who states there were no gas chambers, or an archaeological survey that finds no buried cremated remains, or a document that records regular mass transports back out of the camp.

It is typical of denier ignorance of investigations and evidencing, that they think opinion on credibility is the same as evidence to prove lying.

The only thing that is not found is the gas chambers in TII under the excuse of Aktion 1005. In other words, these people found as remains of ashes are not clear about the scale of the massacre or the cause of death, but it was certainly by gas because someone said it was or said it because if they denied it, it would be worse for them.

[Hektor]

HH vol 19, subsections 10.1 - 10.5 give a credible accounting to the numbers, mechanisms, and (possible) fates of those deported through the Reinhardt network.

Regarding logical inconsistencies, to surmise they were choked to death with a Russian tank, burned on impossibly high funeral pyres fueled by the bodies of women, is more than a little leap of judgement!

What was it you said about evidence again? Can Wiernek's positive claim that women act as fuel be corroborated?

Hear me out, if our ancestors were correct about witches, and and jewesses were witches, this could 'possibly' be true.

But to believe it, you have to believe in witches, and you have to believe all jewesses are witches.

There is striking similarities between the witchcraft and the Holocaust Narrative.

But our ancestors weren't as wrong about witchcraft as people think. Just that the stories were obviously embellished as well as designed to entertain people.

[Nessie]

....

You cannot prove he is lying that TII had gas chambers, mass graves and pyres. To do that, you need evidence, such as an admission from him, he is lying, or a witness who was there who states there were no gas chambers, or an archaeological survey that finds no buried cremated remains, or a document that records regular mass transports back out of the camp.

It is typical of denier ignorance of investigations and evidencing, that they think opinion on credibility is the same as evidence to prove lying.

The only thing that is not found is the gas chambers in TII under the excuse of Aktion 1005. In other words, these people found as remains of ashes are not clear about the scale of the massacre or the cause of death, but it was certainly by gas because someone said it was or said it because if they denied it, it would be worse for them.

It would not have been worse for the Nazis, during the war, to deny the gassing allegations being made by the Polish Government in Exile and to show people around the AR camps and into the A-B Kremas. It would not have been worse for all the Nazis who worked in the AR camps, who all knew each other, to get together as a group and all deny the gassings, as that would be significant corroborating evidence. It would not have been worse for the West German government to accuse East Germany and the SU of perpetrating a hoax, or vice versa. It would not have been worse for the governments of the newly independent Baltic countries, to accuse the former SU of a hoax.

There are far too many examples of where it would not have been worse for people or governments to blow a gassing hoax.

[TlsMS93]

The farce was in the interests of both sides. Bonn Germany was very independent.

The Baltic states had bigger problems to deal with than exposing a farce that would not benefit them in any way and in which they had no influence whatsoever to change.

[Nessie]

The farce was in the interests of both sides. Bonn Germany was very independent.

The Baltic states had bigger problems to deal with than exposing a farce that would not benefit them in any way and in which they had no influence whatsoever to change.

I have been to Latvia. On the city bus tour, at the Ghetto Museum and the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia, the role of Latvians, assisting the Nazis and killing fellow Latvians, because they were Jewish, is admitted to with shame and remorse. It would have very much been the national government's interests to blow a Soviet hoax, or indeed any hoax, and be able to say that Latvians did not murder Latvians and instead the evil Soviets created a hoax. The Soviets are seen as a greater evil occupier of the country, than the brief few years the Nazis were in control.

Holocaust deniers have never really thought through the implications of the alleged hoax, and how for so many countries, who cooperated with the Nazis, it would be in their interests to show that they did not kill, or assist in the killing of their Jewish populations and it was a hoax.

[Hektor]

The farce was in the interests of both sides. Bonn Germany was very independent.

The Baltic states had bigger problems to deal with than exposing a farce that would not benefit them in any way and in which they had no influence whatsoever to change.

The Bonn-regime was essentially stooges of the Americans regardless what party was ruling there at the moment. The CDU came over conservative, while the SPD took the more progressive part.

There were revenge killings in the baltics states, since Jews cooperated with the Communists/Soviets in murdering/deporting their neighbours. That has been reinterpreted as "Holocaust" and also further embellished.

NS-gov as well as NS-figures rejected genocidal allegations at several occasions.

[HansHill]

You cannot prove he is lying that TII had gas chambers, mass graves and pyres. To do that, you need evidence, such as an admission from him, he is lying, or a witness who was there who states there were no gas chambers, or an archaeological survey that finds no buried cremated remains, or a document that records regular mass transports back out of the camp.

It is typical of denier ignorance of investigations and evidencing, that they think opinion on credibility is the same as evidence to prove lying.

Yes we can.

1) Gas chambers - Carbon Monoxide is not fatally toxic in the methods or concentration claimed. The mechanics of the suggested operation are not feasible. Additionally, there are no remains of these alleged gas chamber buildings - so yes, Wiernik is lying through his gills.

2) Mass graves - from reading A Year At Treblinka, Wiernik says the "mass graves" were some "300 meters" away. I can infer, he is saying much the same as Samuel Rajzman, who pointed out "where" the "mass graves" are located to examining judge Lukaszkiewicz, who led an excavation exactly where the witnesses said. He of course, found nothing.



Strike 2 of Wierniek (and his co-witnesses) lying through their gills

3) Pyres - Wiernik's claims of piling 3,000 soggy, waterlogged, semi-decayed corpses on top of each other and igniting them with the bodies of women is a downright fabrication.

Strike 3 of Wiernik lying through his teeth,

[TlsMS93]

The farce was in the interests of both sides. Bonn Germany was very independent.

The Baltic states had bigger problems to deal with than exposing a farce that would not benefit them in any way and in which they had no influence whatsoever to change.

The Bonn-regime was essentially stooges of the Americans regardless what party was ruling there at the moment. The CDU came over conservative, while the SPD took the more progressive part.

There were revenge killings in the baltics states, since Jews cooperated with the Communists/Soviets in murdering/deporting their neighbours. That has been reinterpreted as "Holocaust" and also further embellished.

NS-gov as well as NS-figures rejected genocidal allegations at several occasions.

The same goes for Poland. Nessie does not consider them a client state of the USSR and therefore their trials were completely without any interference from Moscow.

The Baltic states carried out their own pogroms, as did the Croatian Ustase, so they are a separate case. Anyone who says they were collaborators must be joking or trying to condemn as many people as possible for political purposes.

There were certainly many officials who denied the Holocaust, such as Thies Christophersen, Wilhelm Stäglich, Maria Van Herwaarden at the Zundel trial. All the defendants at Nuremberg pleaded not guilty when their admission could have resulted in reduced sentences to facilitate the conviction of others.

[Hektor]

The farce was in the interests of both sides. Bonn Germany was very independent.

The Baltic states had bigger problems to deal with than exposing a farce that would not benefit them in any way and in which they had no influence whatsoever to change.

The Bonn-regime was essentially stooges of the Americans regardless what party was ruling there at the moment. The CDU came over conservative, while the SPD took the more progressive part.

There were revenge killings in the baltics states, since Jews cooperated with the Communists/Soviets in murdering/deporting their neighbours. That has been reinterpreted as "Holocaust" and also further embellished.

NS-gov as well as NS-figures rejected genocidal allegations at several occasions.

The same goes for Poland. Nessie does not consider them a client state of the USSR and therefore their trials were completely without any interference from Moscow.

The Baltic states carried out their own pogroms, as did the Croatian Ustase, so they are a separate case. Anyone who says they were collaborators must be joking or trying to condemn as many people as possible for political purposes.

There were certainly many officials who denied the Holocaust, such as Thies Christophersen, Wilhelm Stäglich, Maria Van Herwaarden at the Zundel trial. All the defendants at Nuremberg pleaded not guilty when their admission could have resulted in reduced sentences to facilitate the conviction of others.

And they knew nothing about the Holocaust prior to them taken prisoner.

The post-war Polish-Regime was a total Moscow Stooge... Although with time, they were given a bit more license. That's why regimes like the GDR or Ceausescu in Romania weren't too eager to copy Glasnost, when this happened in the USSR.

The conflicts with Jews in Eastern Europe were more deep-rooted than in the West. And there is other reasons why things were milder in Western Europe than in the East.

It's essentially a semantic fraud.... Anti-Jewish Actions of any kind are reinterpreted as 'Holocaust'. And most people are too silly to look through it.