Defending HItler

[Sarpedon]

QED

 

[Ford]

'
Defending Hitler I ask for the scientific evidence that those gas chambers were built in those buildings.

Their existence and use is already well established. What you'd have to do is provide evidence to support YOUR claim that building those gas chambers is scientifically impossible. So far you've just asserted that it is, and have provided nothing to back up that assertion.

 

[laughing dog]

It is pointless to engage with a holocaust denier. They deny all relevant evidence of their own sight, of witness testimony, of expert research and testimony and of official records.

 

[bilby]

It is pointless to engage with a holocaust denier. They deny all relevant evidence of their own sight, of witness testimony, of expert research and testimony and of official records.

It is pointless to engage with a reality denier. Holocaust deniers are just one of the many subsets of that superset, which also includes Moon landing deniers, Climate Change deniers, 9-11 truthers, anti-vaxers, anti nuclear power lobbyists, theists of many kinds, flat-earthers, advocates of 'trickle down' economics, opponents of the use of Glyphosate, anti-GMO activists, homeopaths, chiropractors, astrologers, acupuncturists, reflexologists, iridologists, and people who claim to have built perpetual motion machines (and that's far from an exhaustive list).

Once people cease to respect the existence of facts, you are wasting your time. It's OK to be wrong, particularly about subjects to which you are indifferent - But there's no excuse for being so fundamentally wrong about things that are extremely well evidenced, and about which you care deeply enough to engage in protracted discussions. When your position is founded on premises that are known to be false, and you persist in clinging to those false premises despite overwhelming evidence that you are wrong, you are no longer capable of reasoned debate, and engagement is pointless.

Reality exists. Facts exist. Opinions can always be overturned by facts, facts can never be overturned by opinions, and nobody is entitled to any respect for a counterfactual opinion.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't think Stalin believed Hitler would attack.

Crap. Everybody knew that Hitler would attack unless Stalin would attack Germany first. Cartoons were made about that when the ink on the non-aggression pact was barely dry.

Stalin failed to mobilize even when troops massed on the border and reconnaissance incursions commenced.

He considered Allied intelligence warnings a trick. Stalin was an idiot, he prevailed with Allied aid and massive losses of attrition. Casualty estimates run 20-30 million.

 

[steve_bank]

Hitler was a good politician. Inter war there were multiple political, military, and militia factions. He co opted and eliminated.

The military initially resisted war. After the initial successes they got on board.

Hitler was a good politician but a lousy strategist. If he let his staff prosecute the war the world might have been a different place today.

Hitler wrote that war is a natural human state.

Considering post war history, maybe he was right.

 

[bilby]

Hitler was a good politician. Inter war there were multiple political, military, and militia factions. He co opted and eliminated.

The military initially resisted war. After the initial successes they got on board.

Hitler was a good politician but a lousy strategist. If he let his staff prosecute the war the world might have been a different place today.

Hitler wrote that war is a natural human state.

Considering post war history, maybe he was right.

Considering pre-war history, and his personal experience, it is understandable why he thought that; but considering post war history, he was very clearly wrong. Armed conflict is increasingly rare, and decreasingly deadly, and that trend has been pretty constant since 1945. Of course, the amount of conflict in the news hasn't changed much; But that's a function of the biased way in which news is presented - if it bleeds, it leads; and footage of a big explosion always gets plenty of air-time.

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/

 

[Ford]

It is pointless to engage with a holocaust denier. They deny all relevant evidence of their own sight, of witness testimony, of expert research and testimony and of official records.

I'll admit it is frustrating, especially when the denier is so stuck on stupid they think gas chambers are physically impossible to construct, but I don't expect to change such a willful idiot's mind. Confronting and engaging with Nazi-apologist morons is meant for the audience. If you just let them say their piece and don't respond, people reading or watching might - if they're especially gullible - think that the denier actually has a point.

That might lead to the denier actually controlling the narrative...something that creationists, anti-vaxxers, and other idiots hope to accomplish. If Ken Ham or Jenny McCarthy or our local "gas chambers are scientifically impossible" idiot aren't challenged on their bullshit, uninformed people or folks on the fence could possibly look at the lack of response from reality and assume it means the deniers are right.

 

[humbleman]

'
Defending Hitler I ask for the scientific evidence that those gas chambers were built in those buildings.

Their existence and use is already well established. What you'd have to do is provide evidence to support YOUR claim that building those gas chambers is scientifically impossible. So far you've just asserted that it is, and have provided nothing to back up that assertion.

In science you don't have to prove a negative.

 

[humbleman]

It is pointless to engage with a holocaust denier. They deny all relevant evidence of their own sight, of witness testimony, of expert research and testimony and of official records.

At least give a link showing the construction of those gas chambers.

 

[Ford]

'
Defending Hitler I ask for the scientific evidence that those gas chambers were built in those buildings.

Their existence and use is already well established. What you'd have to do is provide evidence to support YOUR claim that building those gas chambers is scientifically impossible. So far you've just asserted that it is, and have provided nothing to back up that assertion.

In science you don't have to prove a negative.

The existence of the gas chambers has already been proven.

 

[laughing dog]

It is pointless to engage with a holocaust denier. They deny all relevant evidence of their own sight, of witness testimony, of expert research and testimony and of official records.

At least give a link showing the construction of those gas chambers.

https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/auschwitz_architecture/overview.asp which includes eye witness testimony from an SS officer.

Really, this is not hard. Read Martin Gilbert's Final Journey: The Fate of the Jews of Nazi Europe
or Auschwitz and the Allies or Atlas of the Holocaust or The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy. Or the many memoirs of survivors of the concentration camps. Or testimony from former guards at the camps (http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/columnists/ct-holocaust-trial-brotman-talk-0427-20150427-column.html).

 

[Ford]

'
Defending Hitler I ask for the scientific evidence that those gas chambers were built in those buildings.

Their existence and use is already well established. What you'd have to do is provide evidence to support YOUR claim that building those gas chambers is scientifically impossible. So far you've just asserted that it is, and have provided nothing to back up that assertion.

In science you don't have to prove a negative.

You have claimed to be able to do this. You have said that you have scientific proof that the gas chambers cannot exist.

Back up your claim.

 

[humbleman]

It is pointless to engage with a reality denier. Holocaust deniers are just one of the many subsets of that superset, which also includes Moon landing deniers, Climate Change deniers, 9-11 truthers, anti-vaxers, anti nuclear power lobbyists, theists of many kinds, flat-earthers, advocates of 'trickle down' economics, opponents of the use of Glyphosate, anti-GMO activists, homeopaths, chiropractors, astrologers, acupuncturists, reflexologists, iridologists, and people who claim to have built perpetual motion machines (and that's far from an exhaustive list).

Once people cease to respect the existence of facts, you are wasting your time. It's OK to be wrong, particularly about subjects to which you are indifferent - But there's no excuse for being so fundamentally wrong about things that are extremely well evidenced, and about which you care deeply enough to engage in protracted discussions. When your position is founded on premises that are known to be false, and you persist in clinging to those false premises despite overwhelming evidence that you are wrong, you are no longer capable of reasoned debate, and engagement is pointless.

Reality exists. Facts exist. Opinions can always be overturned by facts, facts can never be overturned by opinions, and nobody is entitled to any respect for a counterfactual opinion.

I think you better open a new topic "Defending the Holocaust".

In this topic I must be skeptical in order to defend my client, Mr. Hitler.

You just can't insult him by inertia of propaganda.

No.

The topic started by having Mr. Hitler in front of a judge, in order to defend himself about his actions in WW2.

I volunteer to help in his defense, because by law Mr. Hitler has the right of an attorney.

The plaintiff must present evidence demonstrating that Mr. Hitler, my client, was the author of those crimes which are input to him.

As an attorney I must review the evidence, I must verify it.

This is not about attacking a certain ethnic group but on the contrary, defending Mr. Hitler.

If the plaintiff quits demonstrating a valid evidence, then the defendant's reputation must be vindicated. As an attorney I will ask the court an apology to my client, because his name has been related to crimes of war he never committed.

Also, his defense includes the justification of the several actions of war initiated by him, and if Mr. Hitler was involve in actions defending his country, a review of the several wars made in different places of the world must be presented -including Iraq's invasions- to demonstrate that wars are sometimes necessary.

Attacking Mr. Hitler's attorney calling him a Holocaust denier goes against the rules of the court. The plaintiff has not proved yet with scientific evidence the existence of gas chambers, the mass murdering of detainees, and more.

Of course there is a lot of evidence that there were lots of dead bodies, furnaces to burn the bodies, people with several diseases and lack of food, etc.

There are pictures taken before the allies took control of the concentration camps.

The defense job is to find out why those pictures were taken in the first place.

Why the copyrights of those pictures have been transferred to persons other than the family of the photographer. Questions about the efforts made to identify the photographer, who's family must be the ones collecting any profit obtained from those pictures, as it is stipulated by the law.

All of these are the several additional cases which can be included in the defense of Mr. Hitler trying to demonstrate the possibility that the plaintiff has been illegally making profit at the cost of destroying the integrity of Mr. Hitler in front of the world.

You must understand that if someone really wants to make a case against Mr. Hitler in court, there are great possibilities that not only Mr. Hitler's integrity will be vindicated, but also several illegal actions committed by the plaintiff can be exposed.

Just check the case of the Russian collusion investigation, lots of heads are in trouble and obscure actions have been exposed, and no court case has been opened yet but people from Republican side and Democrat side are already compromised just by the investigation.

Everybody has the right of a good defense in court. It is the right thing to do.

Attacking me is not the right action. There is no disrespect when defending Mr. Hitler, and if you don't like the way the case in this topic is taken or leading to, you can give your reasons of your opposition to it without disrespecting others.

 

[Ford]

I think you better open a new topic "Defending the Holocaust".

In this topic I must be skeptical in order to defend my client, Mr. Hitler.

Maybe we should open up a discussion on whether obvious trolls should be banned.

 

[laughing dog]

Attacking Mr. Hitler's attorney calling him a Holocaust denier goes against the rules of the court....

No, it does not. It is a statement of plain fact. Just like stating that gas chambers existed is stating a fact. You, on the other hand, make claims without producing an iota of evidence, and literally make up excuses (people are lying, extrapolating from the Iraq war). It is truly pathetic.

 

[humbleman]

It is pointless to engage with a holocaust denier. They deny all relevant evidence of their own sight, of witness testimony, of expert research and testimony and of official records.

At least give a link showing the construction of those gas chambers.

https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/auschwitz_architecture/overview.asp which includes eye witness testimony from an SS officer.

Really, this is not hard. Read Martin Gilbert's Final Journey: The Fate of the Jews of Nazi Europe
or Auschwitz and the Allies or Atlas of the Holocaust or The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy. Or the many memoirs of survivors of the concentration camps. Or testimony from former guards at the camps (http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/columnists/ct-holocaust-trial-brotman-talk-0427-20150427-column.html).

https://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/auschwitz_architecture/overview.asp

Shortly after construction had begun at Birkenau, the decision was made to change its designation, and turn it into an extermination camp. The first experiments with gas were carried out in the main camp in the fall of 1941, and in the light of their success, the SS decided to build four permanent installations in Birkenau, for the specific purpose of gassing people to death. The construction began in 1942, directed by the Topf and Sons company, supervised by the SS. As a stopgap measure until the installations were completed, the Germans converted existing buildings to erect two makeshift gas chambers next to the camp.

The four extermination installations started operating in 1943. They each included an undressing room and a gas chamber, both underground, and a crematorium for incinerating the bodies of the murdered. These facilities made the murder of the Jews a far more efficient process.

SS man Perry Broad describes one instance of murder by gas that he witnessed:

“A number of victims noticed that the covers had been removed from the six holes in the ceiling (of the gas chamber). They screamed in terror when a head, covered in a gas-mask, appeared at one of the holes. The “disinfectors” went to work…. Using a hammer and chisel, they opened some innocuous-looking tins which bore the inscription "Zyklon, to be used against vermin. Attention, poison! To be opened by trained personnel only." As soon as the tins were opened, their contents were thrown through the holes, and the covers were replaced immediately… about two minutes later, the screams died down, and only muffled groans could be heard. Most of the victims had already lost consciousness. Two more minutes passed, and Grabner (one of the SS men) stopped looking at his watch. Absolute silence prevailed.”

The extermination reached its peak in the spring and summer of 1944, with the deportation of some 430,000 Hungarian Jews to the camp, and the subsequent murder of the majority of the deportees.

Evidence #1 is insufficient.

The narration is dictated by a third party with lack of the proper documentation to corroborate the claim that the building or partial of the structure was modified to built gas chambers.

The structures should show today, the changes made to accommodate the required machinery and instrumentation which a gas chamber needs to work.

A missing and important factor which is essential for a gas chamber is not present in the current structures and is not mentioned in the archives the plaintiff is showing as evidence. The evidence presented by the plaintiff don't even reach the level of circumstantial evidence.

Evidence #2

The legend of picture #11 presented as evidence it says the following:

"An early blueprint of Crematorium II, Birkenau, dated November 1941. The blueprint provides an overview of the structure's underground level, including the undressing chamber and the gas chamber. The two areas are collectively called the "Corpses Room" in the plan. The plan is signed by Oberführer Hans Kammler, Chief of Office Group C, the SS Construction Division.
Yad Vashem Archives"

The defense ask for nullify the assumed evidence by reasons of adding characteristics to a zone of the building which was labeled as "Corpses Room".

No direct identification of such a room as "gas chamber" is mentioned in the blue print. The pictorial evidence in invalid to demonstrate the existence of gas chambers in that building.

The defense ask the court to remove evidence #1 and evidence #2 by lack of credibility.

The article is very well dictated but the context is out of reality. My client Mr. Hitler was in need of free labor for his war machine, and there is no valid argument stating that my client tried to eliminate the free labor hands in moments when those were most in need.

The validity of the defense leans on the fact that logistics from the German army still was in great level for attack and defense thanks to the use of free labor obtained from detainees, exactly in the years when the plaintiff claim the German army was murdering their free labor detainees.

The environment in the filed discards the claims of the plaintiff assumptions, by having the allies a strong opposition from the German army by the continued support of the detainees working against their will but producing for the war machine of Germany. The rebuilt of factories, roads, hospitals, storage places, was a task where the hand work came from detainees.

My client, Mr. Hitler had never the single intention of destroying the source of labor for his war machine.

The claims of the plaintiff are absurd from the point of view of any expert in strategy of war.

 

[humbleman]

I think you better open a new topic "Defending the Holocaust".

In this topic I must be skeptical in order to defend my client, Mr. Hitler.

Maybe we should open up a discussion on whether obvious trolls should be banned.

In a topic opened to defend Mr. Hitler, the trolls are the ones who attack the topic and to the ones following it in accord to the first message idea.

If you continue attacking with sporadic messages insulting or inciting to chaos with the intention of perturbation, you might be the one acting as a troll.

What is causing you to reject a conversation of this level?

We are talking. We are playing a court case.

If the truth is on your side, you have no reason at all to be afraid of this conversation.

 

[Ford]

What is causing you to reject a conversation of this level?

Because you're actually arguing that it was scientifically impossible for the gas chambers to exist.

It is difficult to take anyone seriously when they make a claim like this, and then refuse to back it up with anything other than repeating the assertion.

 

[humbleman]

Attacking Mr. Hitler's attorney calling him a Holocaust denier goes against the rules of the court....

No, it does not. It is a statement of plain fact. Just like stating that gas chambers existed is stating a fact. You, on the other hand, make claims without producing an iota of evidence, and literally make up excuses (people are lying, extrapolating from the Iraq war). It is truly pathetic.

OK. You build a submarine.

You have the body, the instruments to control, the fuel, the radar, the periscope, some people taking care of the engine and the instruments. There you go, with people inside and the submarine floats very well but when you try to submerge the submarine still is located over the surface.

You forgot to include a mechanism acting for buoyancy. This is to say, a system which will fill up with water tanks surrounding the body of te submarine so it can submerge, and an air pressure system to push the water and fill the tanks with air so the submarine will come back afloat.

See? you just can't build a submarine without such a system to make it submerge and later to come afloat.

Same as well, gas chambers are not made just changing water pipes to carry poison gas or just opening holes in the ceiling of a room. Such is a complete nonsense.