WWII Photo of Little Boy With Hands Raised Fraud

[Budly]

It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/little_boy_photo.jpg


Here is an essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) that asserts it's a fraud, for the following reasons:
1) It's Not A Photo A General Would Choose.
2) They Wouldn't Duplicate It That Way
3) The Caption Doesn't Fit The Photo
4) It's Part Of A Larger Fraudulent Work

Gullibility to believe a photo's authenticity is strong. The famous Robert Capa photo of the falling Spanish Loyalist soldier is now believed by many to be staged. While the Little Boy photo isn't staged, it is taken out of context. It's taken in front of the Hotel Polski in Warsaw, not in the Warsaw Ghetto. That would explain why the boy is dressed nicely. Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

[Wolfman]

Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?I honestly can't think of a situation when I would dress like that...

;)

[timhau]

What would you be wearing when you're hiding from the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

[Wolfman]

What would you be wearing when you're hiding from the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?Sounds like a question for "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy".

[arthwollipot]

It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud.Well, considering that it's the first time I've ever seen the photo, I would dispute the claim that it's "the most well-known document of the holocaust". I'll accept "a well-known document" because it could just be my personal experience causing my lack of knowledge.

Now, in regards to the claim, so what?

It's one photo. This photo is not the entirity of the documentation for the holocaust. If for some reason it was claimed that this photo was the only proof of the holocaust, then yes - demonstrating that it was not what it purported to be would cast serious doubt. But it ain't. Not by a long shot.

And the boy's outfit looks fairly typical of early-40s schoolboy attire for pretty much most of Europe, but I'm not an expert. Nothing about his outfit suggests to me that it couldn't be what it is supposed to be.

[Lonewulf]

Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

I didn't realize they had changing rooms in every other street.

What would they be wearing, exactly?

[Darat]

Well obviously they are all queuing for the bus that the authorities have so kindly provided to take them for a nice ride to the country, and they are just holding their hands up to make sure the bus stops for them. The nice men in the smart uniforms are bus conductors, and whilst it looks like they are holding guns that's just a trick of perspective, they are actually ticket machines and they are just making sure that everyone gets a ticket. They really don't want anyone to miss the bus.

[ddt]

It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/little_boy_photo.jpg


Here is an essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) that asserts it's a fraud, for the following reasons:
1) It's Not A Photo A General Would Choose.
2) They Wouldn't Duplicate It That Way
3) The Caption Doesn't Fit The Photo
4) It's Part Of A Larger Fraudulent Work

Gullibility to believe a photo's authenticity is strong. The famous Robert Capa photo of the falling Spanish Loyalist soldier is now believed by many to be staged. While the Little Boy photo isn't staged, it is taken out of context. It's taken in front of the Hotel Polski in Warsaw, not in the Warsaw Ghetto. That would explain why the boy is dressed nicely. Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

Why don't you explain your reasons here, instead of inviting us to read someone else's essay at a Holocaust denial site. I'm not even clicking on your link - make your point here.

Do you deny that this photo was taken during the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto?
Do you deny the photo was part of the Stroop report?
Do you deny that the SD man on the right is Josef Blösche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Bl%C3%B6sche)? The German wiki page shows the photo and has some more info.

Here's another page (http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/gunpoint.html) identifying some of the people in the photo.

[Caustic Logic]

The essay is Budly's own link - no one needs to click it. Is the Stroop report fake? Who cares? Is the photo fake? No, Budly says, just taken out of context, a photo of a photo, and a photo a Nazi general wouldn't have picked for his scrapbook. Why?

Would a German general choose such an un-chivalric, bullying photo for a commemorative book? To grasp the unlikelihood, try to imagine the United States forces doing that: General Patton sends General Eisenhower a commemorative book about victory in Germany, with the pompous title "We Beat Them!" that includes a photo of an American soldier herding 8-year old German children at gunpoint into some enclosure. 8 year olds with the look of injustice and fear on their faces. It's not the kind of photo that would be chosen.

A Nazi general would not want to use a real photo showing real Nazi-imposed injustice on such an innocent face, so the report must be fake, and therefore the whole holocaust, so this kid must have been acting which means it was staged after all! Is that about it then?

[Fishstick]

Ah yes this clearly proves the holocaust was a lie. Thank you for your eye opening efforts.

[DuckOnWarpath]

Well obviously they are all queuing for the bus that the authorities have so kindly provided to take them for a nice ride to the country, and they are just holding their hands up to make sure the bus stops for them. The nice men in the smart uniforms are bus conductors, and whilst it looks like they are holding guns that's just a trick of perspective, they are actually ticket machines and they are just making sure that everyone gets a ticket. They really don't want anyone to miss the bus.

Nah, they were doing the YMCA dance, it's just that due to the poor quality of the photograph they seem distressed ~ they were just having fun!

On a slightly more serious note when someone is being led at gunpoint to leave his house, I'd call it forcibly led even if not a single of his hair had been touched.

Also I'm afraid neither the OP, nor the authors of this "essay" ever fired a pistol (Firing pistols with both hands is something from movies, but a relatively dumb move in real urban combat).

I could go on, but hey if the OP believes the holocaust never happened, I really can't say much.

...And seriously when the evidence of the holocaust is overwhelming, I can think of only one reason the OP would deny it, and it's not a pretty one.

EDIT: And after searching a bit it has been debunked before on the holocaustcontroversies blog.

[Caustic Logic]

Also, real holocaust deniers don't introduce themselves with "hi, I'm a holocaust denier." It's just what you ARE. What you say, and put up front, is more cautious "revisionism." Heck, there's a tiny need even for legitimate revisionism of any little myths that prevail. Budly here starts off with attempts of this sort but also says, first post first line:

I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.

Whooo, open! So is a sewer drain, doesn't mean it pays any attention to what just flows through it.

[oggiesnr]

So just why were they all taking a pleasant stroll with their hands waving merrily at the nice men pointing flowers at them? Where were they going as they so merrily went on their way?

Steve

[HansMustermann]

Also I'm afraid neither the OP, nor the authors of this "essay" ever fired a pistol (Firing pistols with both hands is something from movies, but a relatively dumb move in real urban combat).

Well, then our unit must have missed that memo. I was definitely taught to hold the pistol with both hands in the army.

[DC]

:confused:

what the ****?

[Big Les]

Well, then our unit must have missed that memo. I was definitely taught to hold the pistol with both hands in the army.

If he's somehow from the past (see 'Shooting to Live'), it's a valid comment ;)

[Cainkane1]

It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/little_boy_photo.jpg


Here is an essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) that asserts it's a fraud, for the following reasons:
1) It's Not A Photo A General Would Choose.
2) They Wouldn't Duplicate It That Way
3) The Caption Doesn't Fit The Photo
4) It's Part Of A Larger Fraudulent Work

Gullibility to believe a photo's authenticity is strong. The famous Robert Capa photo of the falling Spanish Loyalist soldier is now believed by many to be staged. While the Little Boy photo isn't staged, it is taken out of context. It's taken in front of the Hotel Polski in Warsaw, not in the Warsaw Ghetto. That would explain why the boy is dressed nicely. Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?
Looks legitimate to me. Some poor little frightened Jewish boy with his hands up while a group of armed nazi goons march them off to their deaths.

[Darat]

Looks legitimate to me. Some poor little frightened Jewish boy with his hands up while a group of armed nazi goons march them off to their deaths.

You are missing the big picture - the photo is meant to have been taken in location X but it may have been taken in location Y therefore the holocaust never happened.

[HansMustermann]

Well, that's what confuses me about the whole argument.

So he says the photo was genuine, i.e., that some frightened civilians including children _were_ marched at gun point out of their homes. Which seems to me like the only things that matter there.

The rest of the objections like "maybe it was at location Y instead of X" or "why would a general choose that for his scrapbook?" seem to me fully irrelevant. As long as the photo is genuine, who cares about such irrelevant details?

[timhau]

Sounds like a question for "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy".

Is that why the sharply-dressed man with the submachine gun looks familiar?

[Darat]

...snip...

The rest of the objections like "maybe it was at location Y instead of X" or "why would a general choose that for his scrapbook?" seem to me fully irrelevant. As long as the photo is genuine, who cares about such irrelevant details?

Holocaust deniers and usually an academic whose work will be misrepresented by Holocaust deniers. Oh and guess what that is exactly what has happened here, from the linked-to article:


...snip....

Many of the discoveries about the photo come from Richard Raskin's book "A Child At Gunpoint" (Aarhus University Press 2004.) Raskin is an American Jewish professor living in Denmark who believes the standard story of the photo, but puzzles over aspects of it.

...snip....

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't realize they had changing rooms in every other street.

What would they be wearing, exactly?

Or is the question who are they wearing more appropraite?

[ponderingturtle]

Also I'm afraid neither the OP, nor the authors of this "essay" ever fired a pistol (Firing pistols with both hands is something from movies, but a relatively dumb move in real urban combat).

Training techniques on how to shoot a pistol vary and have changed over time.

[Cainkane1]

You are missing the big picture - the photo is meant to have been taken in location X but it may have been taken in location Y therefore the holocaust never happened.
Even if this is a posed fake picture I'm sure those Jewish folks are doing it under duress. I believe the holocost happened because I have a choice to believe the Jews or some stinking low life Nazi sympathiser. I choose to believe the jews. I'm certain that theres more proof that it did happen than proof that it didn't. My father was an MP who saw at least one death camp.

[ddt]

Even if this is a posed fake picture I'm sure those Jewish folks are doing it under duress. I believe the holocost happened because I have a choice to believe the Jews or some stinking low life Nazi sympathiser. I choose to believe the jews. I'm certain that theres more proof that it did happen than proof that it didn't. My father was an MP who saw at least one death camp.

It's not only the Jews who claim the Holocaust happened. It's also that 100% of the scholars out there say it happened. The closest to a scholar the denier crowd has is David Irving, who in the beginning of his career had the semblance of a scholar. When he chose to sue Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, he got his ass handed by the preponderance of evidence Lipstadt and Penguin brought. So let's not even get started about the rest of them, like Leuchter, Zündel, Weber, etc.

[sleepy_lioness]

I'd never seen that photo before. It's certainly not "the most well-known document of the Holocaust". But now I have seen it it makes me sad.

[HansMustermann]

Holocaust deniers and usually an academics whose work will be misrepresented by Holocaust deniers. Oh and guess what that is exactly what has happened here, from the linked-to article:

Well, ok, my phrasing was ambiguous, so lemme rephrase it: who cares about such details, for the purpose of establishing whether the holocaust as a whole is true or false?

I mean, ok, historians... that's their job, after all. And other people are interested in history or details anyway.

But for the purpose of supporting holocaust denial... it seems to me stupid to point at a picture of a scared family with children being driven out of their home with their hands up, at gun point, and go, baiscally, "Yeah, it's genuine, but it happened three blocks away from where you thought! And it was from a soldier's scrapbook, not a general's! And why is the boy wearing that ugly outfit? So the holocaust didn't happen!"

I mean, geesh, talk about a Chewbacca defense...

[MortFurd]

It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/little_boy_photo.jpg


Here is an essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) that asserts it's a fraud, for the following reasons:
1) It's Not A Photo A General Would Choose.
2) They Wouldn't Duplicate It That Way
3) The Caption Doesn't Fit The Photo
4) It's Part Of A Larger Fraudulent Work

Gullibility to believe a photo's authenticity is strong. The famous Robert Capa photo of the falling Spanish Loyalist soldier is now believed by many to be staged. While the Little Boy photo isn't staged, it is taken out of context. It's taken in front of the Hotel Polski in Warsaw, not in the Warsaw Ghetto. That would explain why the boy is dressed nicely. Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?
Actually, yes, you would. Do you assume that that was somehow "sunday best" to be worn only for special occasions? It wasn't.

[Darat]

Well, ok, my phrasing was ambiguous, so lemme rephrase it: who cares about such details, for the purpose of establishing whether the holocaust as a whole is true or false?

I mean, ok, historians... that's their job, after all. And other people are interested in history or details anyway.

But for the purpose of supporting holocaust denial... it seems to me stupid to point at a picture of a scared family with children being driven out of their home with their hands up, at gun point, and go, baiscally, "Yeah, it's genuine, but it happened three blocks away from where you thought! And it was from a soldier's scrapbook, not a general's! And why is the boy wearing that ugly outfit? So the holocaust didn't happen!"

I mean, geesh, talk about a Chewbacca defense...

It's all they have.

"Holocaust denial" is simply an expression of the underlying adherence to the ideology of the Nazis. (Or rather the expressed ideology of Nazism, the "party line" was nothing but a smokescreen for the leaders to gain as much personal power as possible.)

[ddt]

I'd never seen that photo before. It's certainly not "the most well-known document of the Holocaust".
It depends on your perspective. In the Netherlands, I'd say, this photo (http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/settela.html) is the most well-known one, of a gypsy girl on a train just before it leaves camp Westerbork.

[Red3]

It doesn't make scrap of difference if this photo is fake or not. There are plenty of fake or staged photos from every war. How does this in any way nullify the bags of indisputable evidence surrounding the holocaust?


On face value, what impression does this photo give you? That it's not very nice for a grown man to point a gun in the direction of a little boy and make him put his hands up?


He doesn't even look like he's pointing the gun at the boy; it looks as though the gun's pointed at the ground. As though he's nonchalantly carrying out duties while listening to someone out of shot.

[Darat]

It depends on your perspective. In the Netherlands, I'd say, this photo (http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/settela.html) is the most well-known one, of a gypsy girl on a train just before it leaves camp Westerbork.

Goodness me - I remember reading a couple of books that had that image in it, I never realized someone had actually identified her. I know it will seem weird but I find it even more poignant now knowing that she was mis-identified for all these years.

[ddt]

It doesn't make scrap of difference if this photo is fake or not. There are plenty of fake or staged photos from every war. How does this in any way nullify the bags of indisputable evidence surrounding the holocaust?

You have to understand the mindset of a denier. They think that if you somehow prove one tiny piece to be false, that the whole Holocaust magically disappears. Never mind that, e.g., Elie Wiesel, a popular target of them, isn't taken serious by any scholar. And never mind that their other "proofs" are false and only based on grave distortions.

Under the line, it always comes out that the tenet of a denier is: "The Holocaust never happened, but the Jews deserved it anyway".

[ddt]

Goodness me - I remember reading a couple of books that had that image in it, I never realized someone had actually identified her. I know it will seem weird but I find it even more poignant now knowing that she was mis-identified for all these years.

Yes, it was only in 1992 that the journalist, Wagenaar, searched for it and found her identity. The misidentification was quite logical. Around 100,000 Dutch Jews were sent to the death camps, and only a couple of thousands Roma and Sinti, so what are the odds?

Jewish Virtual Library has a good writeup (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/ChildHolo.html) too.

[geni]

1) It's Not A Photo A General Would Choose.


Since we don't actualy know who took it that doesn't mean much.


In any case the germans took a fairly large number of pics. Are you going to argue that all these pics are photos a general would chose:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Deutsches_Bundesarchiv_pictures_by_Vack

As for it's use in a report in a report to himmler are you that worried about PR?


2) They Wouldn't Duplicate It That Way


Aparently the author is not aware that higher quality copies exist:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06.jpg

In any case Photos of photos are quite a standard technique if you are in a hurry or have managed to lose the original negative.


3) The Caption Doesn't Fit The Photo


Depends how you define force. Since point a gun and people and demanding they leave counts as force the caption doesn't create a problem.


4) It's Part Of A Larger Fraudulent Work


Not it wasn't.

But then the author appears to think that there are only two coppies in existance. Not so. There is also a copy in the German Federal Archives. Quite a trick to get a fraudulent document created by the jewish resistance into those no?

[HansMustermann]

Actually, while it's hard to interpolate a 3D line in a 2D photo, the way I follow the barrel of the SMG, it points roughly at the kid's knees.

But really it doesn't matter the exact angle. It matters that the guns are in their hands, ready for use, and pointed in the general direction of those people. It would take less than half a second to level that gun and let it rip. Even if those soldiers aren't expecting it to be probable to have to use those guns, it tells me (and probably those people with their hands up too) that they _are_ ready to use them. The implicit threat is there and actually very clear.

In effect, for the purpose of that threat, that gun could just as well be pointed at the kid's head. The threat is the exact same.

That's not a posture of, say, some soldiers helping evacuate some people from a front area, in which case the weapons would be on their back or some other non-threatening position.

[Geezer]

It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/little_boy_photo.jpg


Here is an essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) that asserts it's a fraud, for the following reasons:
1) It's Not A Photo A General Would Choose.
2) They Wouldn't Duplicate It That Way
3) The Caption Doesn't Fit The Photo
4) It's Part Of A Larger Fraudulent Work

Gullibility to believe a photo's authenticity is strong. The famous Robert Capa photo of the falling Spanish Loyalist soldier is now believed by many to be staged. While the Little Boy photo isn't staged, it is taken out of context. It's taken in front of the Hotel Polski in Warsaw, not in the Warsaw Ghetto. That would explain why the boy is dressed nicely. Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

1) Says who?
2)Says who?
3)Never read caption but there are known photos with inaccurate caption that still show real events
4)Says who?

As to the socks yes that's impossible, it's not like people actually dressed in that way at the time /sarcasm off

[Thunder]

It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/little_boy_photo.jpg


Here is an essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) that asserts it's a fraud, for the following reasons:
1) It's Not A Photo A General Would Choose.
2) They Wouldn't Duplicate It That Way
3) The Caption Doesn't Fit The Photo
4) It's Part Of A Larger Fraudulent Work


where did the missing 6 million Jews go?

do you hate Jewish people?

[Ian Osborne]

You have to understand the mindset of a denier. They think that if you somehow prove one tiny piece to be false, that the whole Holocaust magically disappears.

And they're right. After all, didn't the World Trade Center rebuilt itself as soon as Rob Lancaster exposed Kaz as a liar?

[DuckOnWarpath]

Err guys the excerpt in the parentheses comes directly from the essay, what I meant was that the safer way to avoid recoil is to actually shoot with both hands. Stances may differ, I was even taught the "rambo stance" in the army, however that doesn't make it the most accurate ever.

[Foolmewunz]

This is really rather pathetic, Budly.

Is this a sample of your vaunted Denial pages? Because there's not a lick of actual evidence, just reams of conjecture.

Because a general wouldn't choose it? Give me a break! Because Himmler wouldn't have approved? Are we talking about the same Heinrich Himmler? I seem to have lost my copy of The Warm and Witty Side of Heinrich Himmler.

That's the problem with you "but he loved his dog" sorts. You just don't get it. Himmler would've been tickled pink with that picture!

[MRC_Hans]

It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/little_boy_photo.jpg


Here is an essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) that asserts it's a fraud, for the following reasons:
1) It's Not A Photo A General Would Choose.
2) They Wouldn't Duplicate It That Way
3) The Caption Doesn't Fit The Photo
4) It's Part Of A Larger Fraudulent Work

Gullibility to believe a photo's authenticity is strong. The famous Robert Capa photo of the falling Spanish Loyalist soldier is now believed by many to be staged. While the Little Boy photo isn't staged, it is taken out of context. It's taken in front of the Hotel Polski in Warsaw, not in the Warsaw Ghetto. That would explain why the boy is dressed nicely. Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

re your points:

1) Opinion. Remember that this general considered Jews to be subhuman. The fish proudly held up by sports fishermen in photos also look sad to animal lovers.

2) They would if the negative was unavailable. Some film materials of the time were of poor quality and quickly deteriorated. Or he may never have had it. It was not unusual for developers to retain the negatives.

3) In the general's warped mind it did.

4) Yes, it was a work of propaganda. Remember, your claim of its propaganda-like character works the opposite way, also.

Hans

[timhau]

"It's not a photo a general would choose" is a wonderful argument, by the way. It can be applied to any photo that makes the Nazis look bad, so any photo that makes the Nazis look bad is actually proof that there was no Holocaust.

Budly, you really wouldn't have had much fun in Stalingrad.

[headscratcher4]

All the photos are lies.
All of the witnessess are liars.
All of the documents are forged.

Only a few people really appreciate how noble the German cause was.

Only a few are treated to the vision necessary to read beyond the photos, lying witnesses and mountains of documents to see the deeper truth and the purity of German action and ambition.

It is all so tiring and sad.

EDT: another faked picture: Ukrainian jews dying of Typhoid due to conditions created by allied over-reaction to German good-will military manouvers in the early 1940s.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/untoldstories/img/homepage1_s.jpg

[Alt+F4]

Here is an essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) that asserts it's a fraud, for the following reasons

Before even clicking on the link how did I know it was a Holocaust denial site?

[HansMustermann]

Before even clicking on the link how did I know it was a Holocaust denial site?

You hovered the mouse over it and read the bottom bar? :p

[ddt]

You hovered the mouse over it and read the bottom bar? :p

Nobody claimed that Holocaust deniers are intelligent. :rolleyes:

[quarky]

The poor, misunderstood Nazi. Its no cake-walk, trying to conquer the world.

[RobRoy]

Err guys the excerpt in the parentheses comes directly from the essay, what I meant was that the safer way to avoid recoil is to actually shoot with both hands. Stances may differ, I was even taught the "rambo stance" in the army, however that doesn't make it the most accurate ever.

Sorry, what's the "rambo stance"?

[Trojan]

This is such a stupid revisionist argument.

Jews were gathered from Warsaw and forcibly tranported to other locations. The photo shows the action underway.

Regardless of any caption, the photo is genuine.

Next

[headscratcher4]

Actually it shows how sneaky jews used women and children to trick German soldiers into thinking they were giving in. It shows them just seconds before they turned on their captors and viciously killed them.

This picture, for example, has been cleverly edited to make it look like the Jews were being lead to their execution. Someone has replaced the germans with scruffy looking Jews (you can tell, they're not dressed appropriately for people about to be murdered). Also note the obvious placement of an armed German soldier into the photo...when everyone knows that the Germans very rarely carried weapons ....

http://www1.yadvashem.org/untoldstories/gallery/photos/photo_3_large.jpg

[Budly]

Well, then our unit must have missed that memo. I was definitely taught to hold the pistol with both hands in the army.

In the Stroop Report, which this photo is a part of, the forger admires the the Warsaw Ghetto Jewish resistance for holding two guns with two hands. One in each hand and firing at the same time. Are you going to tell me that was an acceptable way of firing in your unit?

[Budly]

"Holocaust denial" is simply an expression of the underlying adherence to the ideology of the Nazis.

"Holocaust denial" is simply an expression opposition of the underlying adherence to the ideology of the Nazis. European Jewish colonialism in the Mideast.

[Skeptic]

Nah, they were doing the YMCA dance, it's just that due to the poor quality of the photograph they seem distressed ~ they were just having fun!

I thought that was the way people were supposed to look on the way to a YMCA -- er, I mean, YMJA -- dance... clearly you've never been to one... talk about torture.

But I like the logic -- Himmler wouldn't have liked that picture because it shows innocent Jews about to be killed. Yeah, he would strongly object to that, wont he?

[Budly]

Most of the photos in the Stroop Report have a handwritten calligraphy caption underneath. The famous little boy photo has the caption "Pulled from the bunkers by force." The problem is the boy appears too dressed up for that:

Richard Raskin writes in his book A Child At Gunpoint:

There is no sign of any kind – such as disheveled or dust-covered clothing – to indicate that the captives in the photo of the boy with his hands raised were 'pulled by force' from anything that might rightfully be called a 'bunker.' (pg. 17)

Or take the woman next to the boy: She was pulled from a bunker by force but not before she could swing a large purse over her elbow and a handbag around her right fingers?

Not to mention that many of the faces in the photo don't look all that scared. When the photo is displayed in textbooks or in media around the world, the caption is rarely included since it doesn't fit the photo. But as black propaganda, the caption is understandable. The goal was to make the scene seem as terrible as possible.

The notion of soldiers being brutal to kids has been an effective propaganda theme since World War I, where it was instrumental in getting America to send troops to Europe, when presented in a three page propaganda spread in the New York Times titled "The Bryce Committee's Report on Deliberate Slaughter of Belgian Non-Combatants." 5 The NYT readers thought it was real news but it turned out it was British propaganda and false. The theme continued up through the 1991 when the New York Times repeated the propaganda story that Iraqi soldiers were pulling babies off incubators in Kuwait. 6 The famous little boy photo, which is probably in most every grade school, middle school, and high school textbook chapter dealing with World War II, is actually a propaganda photo in this vein.

[Yoink]

"Holocaust denial" is simply an expression opposition of the underlying adherence to the ideology of the Nazis. European Jewish colonialism in the Mideast.

Wow. You don't often find liars saying right out "here's why it's important for me to lie about this."

It's a plausible argument to say that Israel has drawn upon sympathy/guilt surrounding the holocaust to muster support for its positions.

It is not a plausible argument to say that because you dislike Israel and its policies, therefore the Holocaust never happened.

[HansMustermann]

So basically instead of being pulled from bunkers, they were merely rounded up to be sent to the concentration camps. Does that make it any better?

[HansMustermann]

"Holocaust denial" is simply an expression opposition of the underlying adherence to the ideology of the Nazis. European Jewish colonialism in the Mideast.

So basically you're opposing it with lies and bullcrap about something else? Well, gee, that soo makes it more palatable ;)

[headscratcher4]

How are you supposed to dress when you're being rounded up? I'd like to know the rules so that I can be appropriately attired if and when the time comes.

[Yoink]

How are you supposed to dress when you're being rounded up? I'd like to know the rules so that I can be appropriately attired if and when the time comes.

Apparently the crucial thing is not to wear socks.

[Safe-Keeper]

What would you be wearing when you're hiding from the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto? Camouflage, body armour, a Norwegian-Polish phrase book, and lots of ammo for my Sten gun.

Apparently the crucial thing is not to wear socks. That depends entirely on what message the socks' colours send to the various ghetto gangs.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com..._boy_photo.jpg (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/little_boy_photo.jpg)SEE?! Even the Bush-hired stooges must see that's not a commercial airliner-- oh, wait, wrong conspiracy theory.

[DuckOnWarpath]

Sorry, what's the "rambo stance"?
English is not my native tongue and military nomenclature is hardly an asset of mine in it. I mean the stance when the weapon is fired from the hip ~ we weren't that awesome to do it one-handed though!

[dudalb]

It's all they have.

"Holocaust denial" is simply an expression of the underlying adherence to the ideology of the Nazis. (Or rather the expressed ideology of Nazism, the "party line" was nothing but a smokescreen for the leaders to gain as much personal power as possible.)

I disagree with the last; I think Anti Semitic part of Nazi Ideology was firmly believed by most Nazi Leadership, as was their desire to dominate the world. Everything else might have been delibertate nonsense to fool the suckers, but at those two items I think the Leadership was sincere.
And that is NOT meant as a compliment in any way.

[Budly]

How are you supposed to dress when you're being rounded up? I'd like to know the rules so that I can be appropriately attired if and when the time comes.

Well if you were "pulled from a bunker by force." as the caption states, you probably wouldn't have a pair of shorts on, and high socks and a fancy hat. Rather you might look dirty, unkept and disheveled.

Darat points out the inhumaneness of the Jews being forced to raise their hands. I agree, but that was also to hedge against the Jews conducting guerrilla warfare against the Germans. You can find plenty of Jewish accounts where Jews brag of doing guerrilla warfare against the Germans in Warsaw. Samuel Wilenberg's book Treblinka for instance, or Adolf Berman's testimony at the Eichman trial where he talks about smuggling handguns into the Warsaw ghetto.

[timhau]

Darat points out the inhumaneness of the Jews being forced to raise their hands. I agree, but that was also to hedge against the Jews conducting guerrilla warfare against the Germans. You can find plenty of Jewish accounts where Jews brag of doing guerrilla warfare against the Germans in Warsaw. Samuel Wilenberg's book Treblinka for instance, or Adolf Berman's testimony at the Eichman trial where he talks about smuggling handguns into the Warsaw ghetto.

So... now the argument is that there was no holocaust, and those damn Jews even fought back?

[Lonewulf]

So there wasn't a Holocaust, the Jews just decided to attack people randomly.

[Yoink]

Well if you were "pulled from a bunker by force." as the caption states, you probably wouldn't have a pair of shorts on, and high socks and a fancy hat. Rather you might look dirty, unkept and disheveled.

Darat points out the inhumaneness of the Jews being forced to raise their hands. I agree, but that was also to hedge against the Jews conducting guerrilla warfare against the Germans. You can find plenty of Jewish accounts where Jews brag of doing guerrilla warfare against the Germans in Warsaw. Samuel Wilenberg's book Treblinka for instance, or Adolf Berman's testimony at the Eichman trial where he talks about smuggling handguns into the Warsaw ghetto.

If your secret mission here is to discredit holocaust deniers by making them look like complete and utter lunatics, then all I can say is you're doing a bang-up job.

[sleepy_lioness]

If your secret mission here is to discredit holocaust deniers <snip>

I'm not sure that's actually possible, but I take your point ...

[Safe-Keeper]

This photo is staged, too. I suppose this means that in Budly's world, the Americans never took Iwo Jima.
http://www.shapesoftime.net/FileSystem/upfile/j00013/iwo-jima-flag-raising-l.jpg

Or that 9/11 never took place.
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/4930/image002587yf5.jpg

So basically, if someone, somewhere, stage a photo, the event depicted by the photo seizes to exist. What an odd world to live in.

[Budly]

So there wasn't a Holocaust, the Jews just decided to attack people randomly.

The Jewish leaders wanted the Jews to resist deportation to labor camps. One way they did this was to start deathcamp rumours within the Jewish population. Before this became a Jewish leadership strategy, 300,000 Jews left the Warsaw ghetto with no resistance and with the help of the Judenrat, the Jewish leadership body.

[Yoink]

Well if you were "pulled from a bunker by force." as the caption states, you probably wouldn't have a pair of shorts on, and high socks and a fancy hat. Rather you might look dirty, unkept and disheveled.
"Hervorgeholt" doesn't mean "pulled" in the sense of "grabbed by the hair and physically dragged out"--it means simply "brought out." As for the bunkers, here's what the Stroop report says about them:
The bunkers were furnished for entire families and equipped with washing and bathing facilities, toilets, storage rooms for arms and ammunition, and food supplies sufficient for several months.
Care to explain why people wouldn't emerge from such hiding places wearing the perfectly ordinary clothes seen in the photograph?

[HansMustermann]

Well, to get back on topic:

1. There were no proper "bunkers" in the Warsaw uprising. So don't expect those people to come up out of a pillbox or similar military front-line installation. Like in all urban fighting, the houses, cellars, ruins, etc, served as "bunkers" too. When a house actually had an actual bunker (yes, some were built like that apparently), it would be just a reinforced cellar or bathroom that hopefully would protect you from the bombs unless it took a direct hit.

So, yes, you could be "pulled out of the bunkers" via the front door of a house.

2. I'm not sure what you expected to see there anyway. A bunker in or under a house, would still have access to the house's bathroom or to a well, so I'm not sure where you got the silly idea that they'd have to be dirty when they came out. And they'd still have access to the wardrobe, and the women would still have their handbags.

3. The SS actually made a point of telling the people it rounded up that they're only relocated something else, and to take whatever they think they'll need. For a start, it made people less likely to fight if they thought they're not going to be murdered. Second, it made it easier to rob them, because they took the most valuable stuff with them.

So in a sense, if all they had was their clothes and a handbag each, it actually looks to me pretty believable that it was an arrest from the uprising. The hands up thing also fits that image. Otherwise, they'd have been with their hands full of luggage instead of them up. They'd have been encouraged to take all the luggage they can carry, and given time to do so.

[Safe-Keeper]

The Jewish leaders wanted the Jews to resist deportation to labor camps. One way they did this was to start deathcamp rumours within the Jewish population.They made it really believable, too. I love how they actually, in German territory, managed to build the camps, starve people to death, gas countless more in gas chambers, performed horrific medical experiments, and made all of it look like it was done by the Germans... without anyone stopping them. Wow.


1. There were no proper "bunkers" in the Warsaw uprising. Please, Budly needs that strawman. Kindly do not take it from him.

[headscratcher4]

Well if you were "pulled from a bunker by force." as the caption states, you probably wouldn't have a pair of shorts on,

Small boys wore shorts in the 30s and 40s. I'd have been more suprised if a child that age were in long pants. Stock photo of school class of the 1930s/early 40s. Notice how many boys wearing shorts.

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_G/0_groups_and_outings_trinity_academy_school_class_ 1939-40.jpg

This is a stupid argument. You realize that don't you?

[sleepy_lioness]

My father was a schoolboy in the 1940s and he tells of wearing shorts all winter, and how he and his brother would rub margarine into their kneecaps to stop the skin getting chapped in the cold wind.

[ddt]

So basically instead of being pulled from bunkers, they were merely rounded up to be sent to the concentration camps. Does that make it any better?

Of course not. It makes it sound less heroic. "Bunkers" sounds like there was a full-scale battle going on. Not like a well-equipped army took on a couple of hundreds poorly armed civilians.

See, there's the explanation of the caption.

[Yoink]

Small boys wore shorts in the 30s and 40s. I'd have been more suprised if a child that age were in long pants. Stock photo of school class of the 1930s/early 40s. Notice how many boys wearing shorts.

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_G/0_groups_and_outings_trinity_academy_school_class_ 1939-40.jpg

This is a stupid argument. You realize that don't you?

Clearly faked by Israeli apologists. What's really amazing is that they've managed to sneak into every single book published before the 1950s and replace the references to the kids wearing Levis (which, duh, everyone knows they did) and described them as wearing shorts. One suspects that they must be in league with invisible Bigfoot and the Reverse Vampires.

[headscratcher4]

Maybe their hands were raised because they were getting ready to ride a roller coster. Yes, that must be it. The guys with guns are merely crowd control at a play land.

[LTC8K6]

The bunker they would have been in for protection would probably have been on the inside, possibly in a basement.

However, the building itself fits the generic definition of a bunker. I have no problem with the term bunker in the caption.

The Nazis wanted their possessions as well and likely made certain that they carried their belongings out with them.

[Ian Osborne]

"Holocaust denial" is simply an expression opposition of the underlying adherence to the ideology of the Nazis. European Jewish colonialism in the Mideast.

So you freely admit it's got nothing to do with history?

[LTC8K6]

One in each hand and firing at the same time. Are you going to tell me that was an acceptable way of firing in your unit?

Yep, if you happened to have 2 guns and needed more volume of fire. I can't think of any other way to do it.

[kookbreaker]

This photo is staged, too. I suppose this means that in Budly's world, the Americans never took Iwo Jima.
http://www.shapesoftime.net/FileSystem/upfile/j00013/iwo-jima-flag-raising-l.jpg


The second flag raising at Iwo Jima was not exactly what I would call 'staged'.

[LTC8K6]

In combat, you sometimes fire without the intent of hitting a particular target, but merely for the effect the firing has on the other guys.

[LTC8K6]

The second flag raising at Iwo Jima was not exactly what I would call 'staged'.

Budly clearly would, though. So it's a great example.

The flag was actually just to let the ships know that the burgers were done...

[ddt]

The notion of soldiers being brutal to kids has been an effective propaganda theme since World War I, where it was instrumental in getting America to send troops to Europe, when presented in a three page propaganda spread in the New York Times titled "The Bryce Committee's Report on Deliberate Slaughter of Belgian Non-Combatants." 5 The NYT readers thought it was real news but it turned out it was British propaganda and false.
You're even worse at WW1 than WW2, aren't you?

The Bryce Committee's Report was basically correct. You want one instance of German brutality in WW1 in Belgium? Take the medieval town of Leuven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuven):
In the 20th century, both World Wars inflicted major damage to the city. Upon German entry in World War I, the town was heavily damaged due to the German Schrecklichkeit policy. The Germans shot the mayor, university rector and all the city's police officers. The university library was deliberately destroyed by the German army on August 25, 1914, using petrol and incendiary pastilles. Hundreds of thousands of irreplaceable volumes and Gothic and Renaissance manuscripts were lost. The world was outraged over this and the library was completely rebuilt after World War I with American charity funds and German war indemnities.

[Yoink]

Well if you were "pulled from a bunker by force." as the caption states, you probably wouldn't have a pair of shorts on, and high socks and a fancy hat. Rather you might look dirty, unkept and disheveled.

Re shorts as standard children's wear in the early C20th. Have a look at this advertisement (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=22&dat=19200127&id=u1sZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4SQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1861,2721541).

[MortFurd]

Well if you were "pulled from a bunker by force." as the caption states, you probably wouldn't have a pair of shorts on, and high socks and a fancy hat. Rather you might look dirty, unkept and disheveled.

Darat points out the inhumaneness of the Jews being forced to raise their hands. I agree, but that was also to hedge against the Jews conducting guerrilla warfare against the Germans. You can find plenty of Jewish accounts where Jews brag of doing guerrilla warfare against the Germans in Warsaw. Samuel Wilenberg's book Treblinka for instance, or Adolf Berman's testimony at the Eichman trial where he talks about smuggling handguns into the Warsaw ghetto.
Right. You wouldn't be wearing shorts and socks. You have to be buck naked and filthy if you're in a bunker. :rolleyes:

[Yoink]

Well if you were "pulled from a bunker by force." as the caption states, you probably wouldn't have a pair of shorts on, and high socks and a fancy hat. Rather you might look dirty, unkept and disheveled.

Sorry, the stupid is so dense in this post that I can't seem to let it go. Have a look at a high quality reproduction (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg)of this image. Now, tell me: what on earth makes you think that the hat that that kid is wearing is "fancy"? It's a standard cloth cap which almost all working class men of the era would have worn. Have a look at the photos in this blog (http://oldgit.wordpress.com/2007/03/16/cloth-cap-class/), for example.

[timhau]

Maybe their hands were raised because they were getting ready to ride a roller coster. Yes, that must be it. The guys with guns are merely crowd control at a play land.

I think it's actually a soccer game. The Kazimierz Wanderers have just scored and lead 1-0 against F.C. Goyim.

[geni]

Most of the photos in the Stroop Report have a handwritten calligraphy caption underneath.


No it's just the Sütterlin script. Not much used these days but thats what it looked like.

[Budly]

No it's just the Sütterlin script. Not much used these days but thats what it looked like.

It does look like Sütterlin. That's interesting, though the "W" didn't match. Thanks for that info.

[Ian Osborne]

So you freely admit it's got nothing to do with history?

Care to answer this, Budly?

[Budly]

Care to answer this, Budly?

I'd rather stay on topic, but I'll respond

Well Israel is called "The Jewish State" but it's not a state at all. It's a country. The "state" word is used to somehow make it seem meek and less than a country so that it doesn't seem like taking people's land and creating a country based on that solid piece of historical foundation known as the bible.

The other historical foundation for the justification of European Jewish colonialism in the mideast is the holocaust. The holocaust is a myth, and truly good people think it's a terrible thing to say that, but in reality it's terrible to believe in this lie since it directly equals the justification of why Palestinians are living in apartheid right now in the Middle East.

People here have said that the Nazis were so evil that they'd gladly use a photo of a soldier pointing a gun near a little boy. Compare with how Cowboys and Indians are portrayed in American movies: Cowboys are portrayed as the best of people. That's how conquerors, land grabbers what have you, portray themselves. The Nazis aren't portrayed that way in that photo, because that photo doesn't come from them. It comes from the Warsaw Jewish Underground.

The purpose of the photo is to make the Germans look bad. And they were bad, they shouldn't have been in Warsaw, but that's not the same topic as the authenticity of the photo.

[Lonewulf]

Well if you were "pulled from a bunker by force." as the caption states, you probably wouldn't have a pair of shorts on, and high socks and a fancy hat. Rather you might look dirty, unkept and disheveled.

"Fancy hat"?

How much do you think a hat like that cost, or how rare do you assume it to be? Cite your sources, please.

[RobRoy]

"Fancy hat"?

How much do you think a hat like that cost, or how rare do you assume it to be? Cite your sources, please.

It all depends on if these are rich evil Jews we're dealing with, or the poor, evil Jews. It's hard to tell from the photo, but they do appear to be the poorer type. You can tell by the pale expression, meaning have to shun the sun and never make it to the beach like their rich counterparts.

Definately a fake.

[headscratcher4]

So...German brutality is just a myth created by the Jews. Why do non-Jew Europeans hate the germans? Talk to most any Dane, Dutchman, Belgian, Pole, Slav, Check, Ukranian, Latt, Lett, Italians, Greeks etc. from that period and they all describe a brutal and bloody occupation, and they weren't even being rounded up for "re-settlement" east. The history of brutal german actions exists well and beyond simple "jewish myth-making."

It is terrible that the Germans have been so mistakenly libled and their otherwise friendly tour through Europe distorted and misunderstood.

[Ian Osborne]

I'd rather stay on topic, but I'll respond

Well Israel is called "The Jewish State" but it's not a state at all. It's a country. The "state" word is used to somehow make it seem meek and less than a country so that it doesn't seem like taking people's land and creating a country based on that solid piece of historical foundation known as the bible.

The other historical foundation for the justification of European Jewish colonialism in the mideast is the holocaust. The holocaust is a myth, and truly good people think it's a terrible thing to say that, but in reality it's terrible to believe in this lie since it directly equals the justification of why Palestinians are living in apartheid right now in the Middle East.

People here have said that the Nazis were so evil that they'd gladly use a photo of a soldier pointing a gun near a little boy. Compare with how Cowboys and Indians are portrayed in American movies: Cowboys are portrayed as the best of people. That's how conquerors, land grabbers what have you, portray themselves. The Nazis aren't portrayed that way in that photo, because that photo doesn't come from them. It comes from the Warsaw Jewish Underground.

The purpose of the photo is to make the Germans look bad. And they were bad, they shouldn't have been in Warsaw, but that's not the same topic as the authenticity of the photo.

So you're not seeking the facts about history, but pursuing a political agenda. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Red3]

Why all the holocaust denial all of a sudden anyway? It seems to be cropping up quite a lot at the moment.

So you're not seeking the facts about history, but pursuing a political agenda. Thanks for clearing that up.

As they all are; it's a waste of time even replying to the threads.

[Thunder]

The other historical foundation for the justification of European Jewish colonialism in the mideast is the holocaust. The holocaust is a myth

1/3rd of Israeli Jews are from the Middle East and North Africa.

Please tell me where the missing 5 million or so Jews went. Mars perhaps?

Maybe the moon? Secret German space program to send the Jews to space?

[ddt]

Well Israel is called "The Jewish State" but it's not a state at all. It's a country. The "state" word is used to somehow make it seem meek and less than a country so that it doesn't seem like taking people's land and creating a country based on that solid piece of historical foundation known as the bible.
This doesn't make sense at all. Each state is a country; the reverse is not true. A state is a sovereign entity, while a country need not be. Examples of countries not being states are Scotland - being part of the UK - and the Netherlands Antilles, being part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Israel clearly is a state: it is recognized by the UN and the great majority of other states around the world.


The other historical foundation for the justification of European Jewish colonialism in the mideast is the holocaust. The holocaust is a myth, and truly good people think it's a terrible thing to say that, but in reality it's terrible to believe in this lie since it directly equals the justification of why Palestinians are living in apartheid right now in the Middle East.
More bollocks. Jewish immigration into the Holy Land preceded the Holocaust, and started in considerable numbers around 1890. Your pretended empathy for the Palestinian cause won't fool anyone around here.


People here have said that the Nazis were so evil that they'd gladly use a photo of a soldier pointing a gun near a little boy. Compare with how Cowboys and Indians are portrayed in American movies: Cowboys are portrayed as the best of people. That's how conquerors, land grabbers what have you, portray themselves. The Nazis aren't portrayed that way in that photo, because that photo doesn't come from them. It comes from the Warsaw Jewish Underground.
The photo from the OP is from Stroop's report of the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto. Everyone agrees on that. You haven't presented a shred of evidence otherwise. The evidence that the Nazis were evil is overwhelming. You're really ridiculing yourself with this. You couldn't even recognize the German script from the time, or the way of dressing. All your thin arguments have been torn to shreds.

[catbasket]

"Holocaust denial" is simply an expression opposition of the underlying adherence to the ideology of the Nazis. European Jewish colonialism in the Mideast.
That really is a stupid comment - admitting it's got nothing to do with how many people were murdered by the Nazis.

Have an infinite number of laughing dogs ...
<snipped for brevity>

[Red3]

Maybe the moon? Secret German space program to send the Jews to space?

Didn't you know? That's why they faked the moon landings; if they really landed on there they'd have exposed the Zionist hiding place. Those pesky Jews flew there and hid so the Nazis would get the blame for killing em and so have an excuse to form Israel. ;)

It's all down to the zionist NWO. Simple when you think about it.

[RobRoy]

Didn't you know? That's why they faked the moon landings; if they really landed on there they'd have exposed the Zionist hiding place. Those pesky Jews flew there and hid so the Nazis would get the blame for killing em and so have an excuse to form Israel. ;)

It's all down to the zionist NWO. Simple when you think about it.

That's actually a pretty clever plot twist for a science fiction novel! What would it take to get 5 million people to the moon? Makes sense why the Germans were pursuing their rocket programs.

[Red3]

I'd rather stay on topic, but I'll respond

Well Israel is called "The Jewish State" but it's not a state at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_%28polity%29

[ddt]

Why all the holocaust denial all of a sudden anyway? It seems to be cropping up quite a lot at the moment.
It's like with migratory birds. They assemble for the great trek. Unlike birds, though, they don't migrate South but they migrate East, and they start exactly September 1st.

You should check your local library for the hunting regulations, though.

(sorry for the bad joke)

[Uzzy]

The purpose of the photo is to make the Germans look bad. And they were bad, they shouldn't have been in Warsaw, but that's not the same topic as the authenticity of the photo.

The Nazis looked bad due to invading countries and trying to exterminate entire peoples. This photo, even if it were a 'fraud', wouldn't change those facts.

Now then, why do you hate Jews, Budly?

[HansMustermann]

People here have said that the Nazis were so evil that they'd gladly use a photo of a soldier pointing a gun near a little boy. Compare with how Cowboys and Indians are portrayed in American movies: Cowboys are portrayed as the best of people. That's how conquerors, land grabbers what have you, portray themselves. The Nazis aren't portrayed that way in that photo, because that photo doesn't come from them. It comes from the Warsaw Jewish Underground.

It depends on who you're presenting it to.

If you're presenting it to a bunch of Joe Average and Mandy Housewife, you portray yourself as the good and nice guys. The Nazis did the same. They pretended to just resettle the Jews, to the normal population.

But when you report to your superior who personally ordered the liquidation of the gheto or some other atrocity, you don't try to look nice at all. The same applies to the Jews as to the colonists in the cowboys-vs-indians scenario.

E.g., in colonial Virginia in 1755, Lord Jeffrey Amherst writing to Col. Bouqet wrote the following urge to genocide against the indians: "You will do well to try to spread smallpox by means of blankets and by every other means which might help exterminate that abominable race."

Note how in the communication between Lord Amherst and the good colonel, there was no pretense of being nice or noble. They were planning a genocide and were discussing just that: hopefully exterminating a race.

So what kind of confusion of the mind makes you believe that in an official communication between Stroop and Himmler they'd try to pretend they're noble and nice? Himmler had ordered the liquidation of the ghetto, and SS General Jürgen Stroop was just reporting the execution of that order.

The army doesn't use pretenses and euphemisms when giving orders and reporting their execution, dummy. Ok, so the SS wasn't exactly army, but they were a paramilitary organization with an army-like structure. It would still be based on orders and reports.

But again: it was a military operation and a military report, not a Hollywood propaganda movie. Himmler didn't want to hear a nice reassuring lie about how the Germans are all nice and noble, he wanted to know how his orders were executed.

[grunion]

Why all the holocaust denial all of a sudden anyway? It seems to be cropping up quite a lot at the moment.I've been considering that question myself. It really seems to be ramping up over the past two or three years. And I don't think that engaging in honest debate (or parody for that matter) helps the cause of truth one iota.

I am speculating that as the survivors of the Holocaust age and die, somehow the deniers assume that the reality of the Holocaust will age and die with them. No more first-hand accounts. All hearsay. That all the reams of documents and photos and recordings are "just documents" and they have documents too. It is far easier to pick at a single piece of evidence in the mountains of proof of the Nazi Holocaust than to state anything affirmatively, so we see tactics exactly like those in the OP (and those used in all the other denier threads on this forum).

It turns my stomach. I can't participate in lighthearted banter about a photo documenting the real horror that the Nazis wrought upon innocents, even in the cause of mockery of the denier agenda. Fine if people want to respond to every nit that some anti-semite wants to raise in his effort to undermine Israel (the hat, ferchrissakes?) but I think that engaging him is just feeding the monster.

[Foolmewunz]

Of course not. It makes it sound less heroic. "Bunkers" sounds like there was a full-scale battle going on. Not like a well-equipped army took on a couple of hundreds poorly armed civilians.

See, there's the explanation of the caption.

Bingo!

The caption, if read from the p.o.v. of a tinhorn general trying to make his rounding up of middle class Jews into a heroic act, makes much more sense.

[Wowbagger]

Let's play Spot the Contradiction:

WWII Photo of Little Boy With Hands Raised Fraud

While the Little Boy photo isn't staged, it is taken out of context.

I suspect this thread's caption is taking the claim out of context.

[themusicteacher]

It depends on who you're presenting it to.

If you're presenting it to a bunch of Joe Average and Mandy Housewife, you portray yourself as the good and nice guys. The Nazis did the same. They pretended to just resettle the Jews, to the normal population.

But when you report to your superior who personally ordered the liquidation of the gheto or some other atrocity, you don't try to look nice at all. The same applies to the Jews as to the colonists in the cowboys-vs-indians scenario.

E.g., in colonial Virginia in 1755, Lord Jeffrey Amherst writing to Col. Bouqet wrote the following urge to genocide against the indians: "You will do well to try to spread smallpox by means of blankets and by every other means which might help exterminate that abominable race."

Note how in the communication between Lord Amherst and the good colonel, there was no pretense of being nice or noble. They were planning a genocide and were discussing just that: hopefully exterminating a race.

So what kind of confusion of the mind makes you believe that in an official communication between Stroop and Himmler they'd try to pretend they're noble and nice? Himmler had ordered the liquidation of the ghetto, and SS General Jürgen Stroop was just reporting the execution of that order.

The army doesn't use pretenses and euphemisms when giving orders and reporting their execution, dummy. Ok, so the SS wasn't exactly army, but they were a paramilitary organization with an army-like structure. It would still be based on orders and reports.

But again: it was a military operation and a military report, not a Hollywood propaganda movie. Himmler didn't want to hear a nice reassuring lie about how the Germans are all nice and noble, he wanted to know how his orders were executed.

They don't use niceties because they have nothing to say that would be nice. The implication in any sort of communication that fails to disguise any sort of "wrongness" to an action is that they do not believe the action to be wrong[I]. The colonizers never thought of exterminating the natives as wrong just as the Nazi's never thought of exterminating the Jews as wrong. Quite the contrary, in fact. They had thoroughly justified their plans to themselves as making the world a better place for they and their brethren. In their minds, they were [I]just and right in doing what they did. Therefore, it was not a wrong thing to do so why should they speak in hushed tones?

Holocaust denial is an extension of this type of thinking. They are simply justifying their hate for Jews. It really doesn't matter to this type of person if the Holocaust happened or not. If they could be convinced that it did (which they couldn't), they would just move the goalposts and say it was the Jews own fault. What matters is that the world should know that these slimy, dirty, hook-nosed kikes are still trying to rule the world. Feigning sympathy for the Palestinians is a smokescreen, Holocaust denial is a smokescreen, being "interested" in 9/11 is a smokescreen. These people have no interest in the truth.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud.

http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/little_boy_photo.jpg


Here is an essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) that asserts it's a fraud, for the following reasons:
1) It's Not A Photo A General Would Choose.
2) They Wouldn't Duplicate It That Way
3) The Caption Doesn't Fit The Photo
4) It's Part Of A Larger Fraudulent Work

Gullibility to believe a photo's authenticity is strong. The famous Robert Capa photo of the falling Spanish Loyalist soldier is now believed by many to be staged. While the Little Boy photo isn't staged, it is taken out of context. It's taken in front of the Hotel Polski in Warsaw, not in the Warsaw Ghetto. That would explain why the boy is dressed nicely. Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

I've heard from numerous sources that the Holocaust never happened. Is that true?

[quarky]

Well, one thing is certain. There's a lot of missing Nazis.

Maybe the Jews killed them?

[Skeptic]

Like most holocaust deniers, first he denies the holocaust, then he claims a holocaust of the evil, scheming Jews (in Israel, at least) is long overdue.

Yeah, I know, I know -- logic isn't their strong point.

[Thunder]

I've heard from numerous sources that the Holocaust never happened. Is that true?

Yes, it is true. You have indeed heard from numerous sources that the Holocaust never happened.

:)

[Uninvolved]

The Bryce Committee's Report was basically correct. You want one instance of German brutality in WW1 in Belgium? Take the medieval town of Leuven


This one deserves an answer, for it is characteristic. Following is from Arthur Ponsonby's Falsehood In War Time:

Report on 1914-08-29:

The intellectual metropolis of the Low Countries since the fifteenth century is now no more than a heap of ash

Louvain has ceased to exist

As a matter of fact, it was estimated that about an eight of the town had suffered.


The Belgien representatives claimed in Paris, 1919, at the peace conference, two pictures in compensation for the famous altar-piece from Louvain, a valuable work of art which they declared had been thrown into the flames of the burning library by a German officier. Their story was accepted and the requested pictures transferred.

The New Statesman of 1924-04-12 gives the facts:

The Dietrick Bouts altar piece was not thrown into the fames by the Germans or by anyone else. The pictuire is still in existence at Louvain, perfectly intact, and the Germans were not its destroyers but its preservers. A German officier saved it from the flames and gave it to the burgomaster, who had taken it for safe custody to the vaults of the Town Hall and walled in there. It has been duly unwalled.

Ponsonby treats the Bryce report as well, which was nothing but a compilation of lies.

[Uzzy]

So exaggerations were used in wartime propaganda. So what. That doesn't change the facts that Louvain suffered during WW1. The University Library was burnt down, along with thousands of priceless manuscripts. Summary executions were carried out, along with, most surprisingly, an artillery bombardment. This was due to the Germany policy of Schrecklichkeit, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions which they had signed.

Nitpicking at minor, unimportant things does not change history.

[Foolmewunz]

Well, one thing is certain. There's a lot of missing Nazis.

Maybe the Jews killed them?

Funny, I don't miss them at all.

[Uninvolved]

So exaggerations were used in wartime propaganda


The inventiveness of the English during WWI was unparalleled, surpassed only by the inventiveness of the Jews later.

So what.


A few thousand people were killed extra. So what.

Both (the lies and the deterrance by execution etc.) were used to influence the progress of the war. The English liars convinced the Americans, that humanity's faith is at stake.

That doesn't change the facts that Louvain suffered during WW1


Many cities suffered; this was a war, ever heard about that?

However, I see quite a difference between burning down a town to ashes and damaging one eigths of it.

Furthermore, these were the lesser lies. The English created stories of inhuman behaviour - have not you heard of babies on bayonetts, cricified people (usually Canadians), distilling glycerine from the dead bodies, breasts cut off of nurses, etc.?

Summary executions were carried out, along with, most surprisingly, an artillery bombardment. This was due to the Germany policy of Schrecklichkeit, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions which they had signed


Those snipers (partisans) violated the convention. I am sure you call Palestinian, Afghan, Iraqui partisans terrorists, don't you? That's what I call hypocrite.

[timhau]

The inventiveness of the English during WWI was unparalleled, surpassed only by the inventiveness of the Jews later.

... and then by Nazi apologists.

[Darat]

"Holocaust denial" is simply an expression opposition of the underlying adherence to the ideology of the Nazis. European Jewish colonialism in the Mideast.

Well thanks for confirming what I stated.

[Darat]

The Jewish leaders wanted the Jews to resist deportation to labor camps.

...snip...

Those Jewish leaders, imagine wanting people to resist being deported and being sent to labour camps!

[Darat]

The bunker they would have been in for protection would probably have been on the inside, possibly in a basement.

However, the building itself fits the generic definition of a bunker. I have no problem with the term bunker in the caption.

The Nazis wanted their possessions as well and likely made certain that they carried their belongings out with them.

And "bunker" is just a rather generic term that would have applied to any shelter people were using.

[MaGZ]

It's not only the Jews who claim the Holocaust happened. It's also that 100% of the scholars out there say it happened. The closest to a scholar the denier crowd has is David Irving, who in the beginning of his career had the semblance of a scholar. When he chose to sue Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, he got his ass handed by the preponderance of evidence Lipstadt and Penguin brought. So let's not even get started about the rest of them, like Leuchter, Zündel, Weber, etc.



I would consider Arthur Butz's book "Hoax of the Twentieth Century" to be scholarly.

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/

his references
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/24.html

[Darat]

...snip...

Both (the lies and the deterrance by execution etc.) were used to influence the progress of the war. The English liars convinced the Americans, that humanity's faith is at stake.


...snip...

I think you mean British not English, that aside obviously the British were not that great at lying to the Americans given when the USA actually entered the war and the reasons for the USA to enter the war...

[MaGZ]

This is such a stupid revisionist argument.

Jews were gathered from Warsaw and forcibly tranported to other locations. The photo shows the action underway.

Regardless of any caption, the photo is genuine.

Next

Just because Jews were rounded up and relocated does not imply they were later exterminated. Revisionists claim as I do they were relocated to the east to be eventually resettled in the conquered territories.

[MaGZ]

So basically instead of being pulled from bunkers, they were merely rounded up to be sent to the concentration camps. Does that make it any better?

That is what American soldiers did to people of Japanese ancestry in California.

[Foolmewunz]

I would consider Arthur Butz's book "Hoax of the Twentieth Century" to be scholarly.

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/

his references
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/24.html

Yeah, but you consider a Joe Bazooka comic to be scholarly.

Willis Carto dot Com doesn't seem to think so. They describe it as

However, upon closer examination, Butz's book is shown to be replete with distortions, fabrications, half-truths and antisemitic propaganda.

http://www.williscarto.com/butz.html

[Lonewulf]

That is what American soldiers did to people of Japanese ancestry in California.

1) This is not generally considered a proud moment of our history.

2) The conditions of the Japanese internment camps were far far better than the conditions of concentration camps made available, much less the death camps.

[MaGZ]

I disagree with the last; I think Anti Semitic part of Nazi Ideology was firmly believed by most Nazi Leadership, as was their desire to dominate the world. Everything else might have been delibertate nonsense to fool the suckers, but at those two items I think the Leadership was sincere.
And that is NOT meant as a compliment in any way.

That is an interesting thought.
What level of anti-Semitism existed in the NS leadership?
I doubt if Hitler would have been at the very top. Perhaps Hiter would have rated medium to high. Some like Speer probably would have rated very low on the scale.
This would make an interesting new thread.

[MaGZ]

Yeah, but you consider a Joe Bazooka comic to be scholarly.

Willis Carto dot Com doesn't seem to think so. They describe it as



http://www.williscarto.com/butz.html

The site you referenced is apparently a Jewish religious page (I'm judging this by the ads) and has no association with Willis Carto. They apparently just stole his name to make a site to bash revisionists.

If you can come up with something that actually rebuts Butz's scholarship I will look at it.

[Aepervius]

Well thanks for confirming what I stated.

Just a nitpick but sometimes the action of Israel make me shudder, especially with respect to the gaza band and the way they took territory strip by strip. So whereas I do not care whether they are jewish arabic or christian, they certainly seem a tad bit colonialist in that region or at least quite oppressive with respect for gaza. I do not think this is fully justifiable with the current or past Israeli rethoric vs gaza band.

That said, I have yet to understand why the action of the current Israeli government has anything to do with the terrible criminal action undertaken by nazis germany, as in systematic extermination of millions of jew and non jew, or even how the op come from a single photo and determine all other evidence for the systematic extermination was faked. That boggle the mind.

[gtc]

1) This is not generally considered a proud moment of our history.

2) The conditions of the Japanese internment camps were far far better than the conditions of concentration camps made available, much less the death camps.

Quite and the same goes for the Australians with our internment camps. In fact the men who led the Cowra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowra_breakout) breakout are generally respected in Australia.

[MaGZ]

1) This is not generally considered a proud moment of our history.

2) The conditions of the Japanese internment camps were far far better than the conditions of concentration camps made available, much less the death camps.

I think initially the conditions for both the American camps and the German camps were essentially the same. Remember there were Red Cross inspections of the German camps. Did they do the same for the America camps? Of course things changed as the Germans began to loose the war meaning they could not adequately supply the camps with food and health care.

[gtc]

I think initially the conditions for both the American camps and the German camps were essentially the same.

Where is your evidence for this? You have rejected as forgeries all the documentary evidence about the Nazis purposes in building all these camps so you can't rely on that same evidence to support your claim here.

Remember there were Red Cross inspections of the German camps. Did they do the same for the America camps?

You are supposed to be the researcher, why don't you find the answer?


Of course things changed as the Germans began to loose the war meaning they could not adequately supply the camps with food and health care.

As has already been pointed out, the photos of locals being shown around the camps after they were liberated show a great difference between the standard of health of the locals and the camp inmates. Same with the people who ran the camps.

[MaGZ]

And they think that this somehow means that the Nazis bore no responsibility for the millions of deaths.

I doubt if millions died in the camps as result of diseases, perhaps a few hundred thousand. However equally responsible for the deaths would have be the Allies since they were waging war causing destruction to the Reich's infrastructure.

[gtc]

I doubt if millions died in the camps as result of diseases, perhaps a few hundred thousand. However equally responsible for the deaths would have be the Allies since they were waging war causing destruction to the Reich's infrastructure.

Even deniers have to admit that the death rates in those camps far exceeded the death rates of ordinary civilians so that doesn't wash. Not to mention the fact that the allies wouldn't have been attacking German infrastructure if the Germans hadn't been waging a multifront war against them.

[Foolmewunz]

The site you referenced is apparently a Jewish religious page (I'm judging this by the ads) and has no association with Willis Carto. They apparently just stole his name to make a site to bash revisionists.

If you can come up with something that actually rebuts Butz's scholarship I will look at it.

Really? Well, I'm shocked; shocked I tell you! Someone would take over the good name of brother Willis and use it to spread non-falsehoods! How dare they!
(Yeah, I discovered that a while ago and was waiting to have a use for it to see how you guys would react. I think it's so cool that someone co-opted the name of one of the most notorious neo-nazi scumbags and used it for a site that debunks Nazi Deniers.)

Oh, and no... you won't look at something that rebuts Butz. You will ignore it or twist it like you do everything else.

[gtc]

Really? Well, I'm shocked; shocked I tell you! Someone would take over the good name of brother Willis and use it to spread non-falsehoods! How dare they!

Those mean, mean Jews picking on those innocent nazis.

[Vermonter]

Of course, the Nazis only wanted to make their country pure and were oh-so generous and willing to relocate the Jews and everyone else that wasn't pure into freshly conquered territory. :rolleyes:

[MaGZ]

Really? Well, I'm shocked; shocked I tell you! Someone would take over the good name of brother Willis and use it to spread non-falsehoods! How dare they!
(Yeah, I discovered that a while ago and was waiting to have a use for it to see how you guys would react. I think it's so cool that someone co-opted the name of one of the most notorious neo-nazi scumbags and used it for a site that debunks Nazi Deniers.)

Oh, and no... you won't look at something that rebuts Butz. You will ignore it or twist it like you do everything else.

Actually I would look at a point by point review of Butz's work.

[Darat]

Just because Jews were rounded up and relocated does not imply they were later exterminated. ...snip...

Of course it doesn't, but since the reason we think they were exterminated is because that is what happened pointing out a problem in a logical argument has no relevance as to how, and why we know people were systemically exterminated by the Germans.

[MaGZ]

Of course it doesn't, but since the reason we think they were exterminated is because that is what happened pointing out a problem in a logical argument has no relevance as to how, and why we know people were systemically exterminated by the Germans.

You do realize that extermination means intentional death? Why bother to put them in the camps at all if the Reich wanted extermination? The plan for the Jews was resettlement.

[ddt]

This one deserves an answer, for it is characteristic. Following is from Arthur Ponsonby's Falsehood In War Time:

Report on 1914-08-29:

The intellectual metropolis of the Low Countries since the fifteenth century is now no more than a heap of ash

Louvain has ceased to exist

As a matter of fact, it was estimated that about an eight of the town had suffered.


The Belgien representatives claimed in Paris, 1919, at the peace conference, two pictures in compensation for the famous altar-piece from Louvain, a valuable work of art which they declared had been thrown into the flames of the burning library by a German officier. Their story was accepted and the requested pictures transferred.

The New Statesman of 1924-04-12 gives the facts:

The Dietrick Bouts altar piece was not thrown into the fames by the Germans or by anyone else. The pictuire is still in existence at Louvain, perfectly intact, and the Germans were not its destroyers but its preservers. A German officier saved it from the flames and gave it to the burgomaster, who had taken it for safe custody to the vaults of the Town Hall and walled in there. It has been duly unwalled.

Ponsonby treats the Bryce report as well, which was nothing but a compilation of lies.

Are you trying to set up a strawman? By reacting this way to my post, you suggest as if I had claimed the above.

The above quotes are not from the Bryce report (http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/brycereport.htm), which you can find online. Nor does the Bryce report claim that Louvain was completely destroyed. The destruction of part of Louvain, including the university library, bore no relation to the fighting, and was an act of terror on the civilian population.

If you just want to claim that exaggerations occurred, say so. And I'd then say: welcome to the real world. They happen in all wars, and in all tracts of life, by anyone. But the above claims you quote are not an answer to my post.

[Darat]

You do realize that extermination means intentional death? Why bother to put them in the camps at all if the Reich wanted extermination? The plan for the Jews was resettlement.

Yes.

As to why - I would suggest you read the Nazi literature from the time, whilst it is irrational it explains the reasons they adopted for their rationalisations of their extermination plans for millions of people.

[MaGZ]

Yes.

As to why - I would suggest you read the Nazi literature from the time, whilst it is irrational it explains the reasons they adopted for their rationalisations of their extermination plans for millions of people.

The most anti-Semitic publication at the time in Germany was Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer which was kept under control and suppressed at times. When he ran his Jewish Ritual Murder issue the government confiscated the copies.

[ponderingturtle]

This photo is staged, too. I suppose this means that in Budly's world, the Americans never took Iwo Jima.
http://www.shapesoftime.net/FileSystem/upfile/j00013/iwo-jima-flag-raising-l.jpg

The Iwo Jima picture is not exactly staged, it was the second flag raised sure not the first one, but it was a quick photo snaped as the photographer saw they started to raise the flag. There was a staged photo of them in front of it later.

[ponderingturtle]

I'd rather stay on topic, but I'll respond

Well Israel is called "The Jewish State" but it's not a state at all. It's a country. The "state" word is used to somehow make it seem meek and less than a country so that it doesn't seem like taking people's land and creating a country based on that solid piece of historical foundation known as the bible.

The stupid it BURNS!

[Darat]

The most anti-Semitic publication at the time in Germany was Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer which was kept under control and suppressed at times. When he ran his Jewish Ritual Murder issue the government confiscated the copies.

That could well be true but it has nothing to do with what I posted.

[ddt]

The most anti-Semitic publication at the time in Germany was Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer which was kept under control and suppressed at times. When he ran his Jewish Ritual Murder issue the government confiscated the copies.

And why was that number banned?
The issue actually got banned by the Nazis after it had been out for a while, not because of anti-Semitic content, but because it compared alleged Jewish ritual murder with the Christian sacrament of communion.

(link (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm))

Do you have other examples of Der Stürmer being "kept under control"? :rolleyes:

[gtc]

Why bother to put them in the camps at all if the Reich wanted extermination?

Because they wanted to get work out of some of them and it was easier to corale then kill the others.

All the evidence is there in the documents the nazis wrote themselves.

[MaGZ]

And why was that number banned?

(link (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm))

Do you have other examples of Der Stürmer being "kept under control"? :rolleyes:

So they considered the issue anti-Christian, interesting. This proves the government did not want of offend Catholics or there be any sectarian strife in the Third Reich.

[Darat]

Folks back to the topic of this thread - which is the photograph...

[zooterkin]

Re shorts as standard children's wear in the early C20th. Have a look at this advertisement (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=22&dat=19200127&id=u1sZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4SQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1861,2721541).

Never mind the early C20th, it was still standard in the UK in the 1960s. I didn't start wearing long trousers regularly until I was 11, in 1971.

[Travis]

Color me unimpressed with this attempt at rewriting history.

Color me unsurprised that Budly wrongly thinks that Israel is illegitimate.

[LTC8K6]

I'd rather stay on topic, but I'll respond

Well Israel is called "The Jewish State" but it's not a state at all.

http://www.state.gov/

http://www.state.gov/secretary/

[Damien Evans]

Quite and the same goes for the Australians with our internment camps. In fact the men who led the Cowra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowra_breakout) breakout are generally respected in Australia.

That was a prisoner of war camp, not an internment camp for non-combatants.

Also, I've never heard of anyone respecting the cowra escapees, in fact I'd be disgusted if they did.

[headscratcher4]

1) This is not generally considered a proud moment of our history.

2) The conditions of the Japanese internment camps were far far better than the conditions of concentration camps made available, much less the death camps.

It was disgraceful, and we as a country, have tried to come to grips with it...though not always successfully. There is a monument/park, for example, in Washington in memory of the suffering of Japanese Americans and the injustice of their internment.

I once had an assistant who had spent four years as a child in one of the camps. It was hard and unfair and very ugly.

However, we know where the Japanese Americans went. More importantly, they came out of the camps and many of them returned to their old life and communities (or, at least tried to).

When the deniers use words like "relocation" they hope that we will think "relocation" like what was done to the Japanese Americans -- an unfortunate reality of the war. But, they ultimately can not explain where the populations went. Magz says they were "relocated" to the east and probably stayed there. For someone so interested in the "facts" of the holocaust and why they are wrong, he exhibits the typical insincerity of his kind by being so obliviously credulous, or a knowing out-right liar. By this I mean, he holds all other witnesses, documents, photos, trials etc. to a standard of proof that he doesn't apply to his own assertions (because, of course, they are rediculous).

He says the jews were relocated east and survived and went on to live there or go to Isreal. It would seem that this would be easilly provable, both by living Isralies if not from the vast new Jewish populations of the east (ah, of course, but for the "conspiracy of silence" that the jews have so systematically enforced in orfer to mythologize the holocaust). He promotes this theory...but he provides no documnetation (witness statements, documents, photos). But this fanciful claim, he suggests, has more logic to it than the mountains of evidence -- mostly from the German's own meticulous recrod keeping -- that completely contradicts this sorry, preposterous assertion.

Of course, Magz has never pretended to be logical, reasonable or coherent and proudly parades his anti-semitism or his love of all things Nazi. That, disgusting as it is, is at least re-reshing compared to the creepy, smarmyness of someone like budly who wants to pretend they are just thoughtful people coming to different conclusions about evidence, but who when you scratch the sufface bleed-out all of the ugly anti-semitism, parinoia and mystical crapola of your average un-reconstructed Nazi.

[ddt]

Taking Darat's cue we should get back to the photo, some aspects of the OP haven't been discussed yet. Budly wrote there:

It's taken in front of the Hotel Polski in Warsaw, not in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Do you have any convincing evidence that it was taken there? In fact, the essay you link to only mentions it as a possible site, but doesn't give any convincing arguments. Do you have arguments to bring to the table, Budly?

[marksman]

To elaborate on LTC8K6's refutation that Israel is not a "state", let's look at the dictionary definitions of "state (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state)"
Main Entry: 1state
Pronunciation: \ˈstāt\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English stat, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French estat, from Latin status, from stare to stand — more at stand
Date: 13th century
1 a : mode or condition of being <a state of readiness> b (1) : condition of mind or temperament <in a highly nervous state> (2) : a condition of abnormal tension or excitement
2 a : a condition or stage in the physical being of something <insects in the larval state> <the gaseous state of water> b : any of various conditions characterized by definite quantities (as of energy, angular momentum, or magnetic moment) in which an atomic system may exist
3 a : social position; especially : high rank b (1) : elaborate or luxurious style of living (2) : formal dignity : pomp —usually used with in
4 a : a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : estate 3 b plural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative body c obsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)
5 a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign b : the political organization of such a body of people c : a government or politically organized society having a particular character <a police state> <the welfare state>
6 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country
7 a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal government <the fifty states> b plural capitalized : The United States of America
8 : the territory of a state

It seems to me that Israel fits definition 5, 6, and 8 quite well (and possibly 4). As does every nation in the world. Israel is a State. To the extent that it is a majority Jewish, it can legitimately call itself the "Jewish State" under definition 5c.

[quarky]

Mel Brooks has a nice way with Nazis. Bring on the dancing Nazis!

[Uninvolved]

Are you trying to set up a strawman? By reacting this way to my post, you suggest as if I had claimed the above.

The above quotes are not from the Bryce report (http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/brycereport.htm), which you can find online. Nor does the Bryce report claim that Louvain was completely destroyed. The destruction of part of Louvain, including the university library, bore no relation to the fighting, and was an act of terror on the civilian population


You wrote

The Bryce Committee's Report was basically correct. You want one instance of German brutality in WW1 in Belgium? Take the medieval town of Leuven:
...The Germans shot the mayor, university rector and all the city's police officers...

I.e. you made the misleading connection between the Bryce report and Leuven, citing the unmitigated lies (are you allergic to the truth?). In fact neither the mayor nor the rector have been shot; do I have to go after each police officier?

As you mentioned the Bryce report, I wrote

Ponsonby treats the Bryce report as well, which was nothing but a compilation of lies

Got the connection?

If you just want to claim that exaggerations occurred, say so


LOL, exaggerations, that's good. Stating, that an officier destroyed a picture intentionally, when in fact he saved it, is an exaggeration. Stating repeatedly that Germans cut off the breasts of women, mutilated little children, etc. is an exaggeration, right?

Later investigations tried to substantiate such claims without success; in fact, often it could be proven, that the claims were English fabrications.

the above claims you quote are not an answer to my post.


You have shown quite a few times, that you are challenged by following the discussion. Notwithstanding that: my goal was not to prove you a liar but to show, that those claims are lies.

[Yoink]

Just because Jews were rounded up and relocated does not imply they were later exterminated. Revisionists claim as I do they were relocated to the east to be eventually resettled in the conquered territories.

No one is arguing "because this photograph is genuine, therefore the Jews were deliberately exterminated" (the Jews were deliberately exterminated by the Nazis, but the evidence for that is elsewhere). Budly, however, is claiming that he has proven that this photograph is faked and that that disproves the claim that the Nazis deliberately exterminated millions of Jews.

I take it you agree that the photograph is A) not fake and B) that even if it were, Budly's argument would be absurd?

[Skeptic]

Don't bother, folks... it's not as if you can reason with these idiots.

[headscratcher4]

No one is arguing "because this photograph is genuine, therefore the Jews were deliberately exterminated" (the Jews were deliberately exterminated by the Nazis, but the evidence for that is elsewhere). Budly, however, is claiming that he has proven that this photograph is faked and that that disproves the claim that the Nazis deliberately exterminated millions of Jews.

I take it you agree that the photograph is A) not fake and B) that even if it were, Budly's argument would be absurd?

Clearly, IF they found a faked photograph the entire holocaust myth house of cards would come tumbling down. On the other hand, one faked photograph or wartime story about German behavior latter proved true IS all that is all the proof necessary to completely and totally absolve the Germans -- and the NAZIs even more so -- of any responsibility for their actions in WWII. Heads they win, Tails your "relocated." See how it works?

[zooterkin]

Just because Jews were rounded up and relocated does not imply they were later exterminated. Revisionists claim as I do they were relocated to the east to be eventually resettled in the conquered territories.
So, where did they go, since they were not resettled?

[Ian Osborne]

Don't bother, folks... it's not as if you can reason with these idiots.

So true. :(

[Uninvolved]

It was disgraceful, and we as a country, have tried to come to grips with it...though not always successfully


Before you get too emotional about that: compare the deportation of the Japanese in the US with that in Canada; you will feel much better. The Canadian government used the occasion to rob the Japanese of their belongings, and then send them to working camps under harsh conditions. The war was only a convenient excuse.

[Lonewulf]

Before you get too emotional about that: compare the deportation of the Japanese in the US with that in Canada; you will feel much better. The Canadian government used the occasion to rob the Japanese of their belongings, and then send them to working camps under harsh conditions. The war was only a convenient excuse.

Uhm, I'm kind of amused here. If you want to compare to the bad guys, the Nazis are right over there. Just because Canada did worse than us, doesn't exempt us of guilt, no less than the Nazis did.

Still, I think you mostly phrased it that way to bring up Canada than to exempt the US, I just want to say that the phrasing amused me.

[NoZed Avenger]

So, where did they go, since they were not resettled?

They've been craftily hiding so as to throw false suspicion and blame on the otherwise innocent Nazi leadership, of course.

[Budly]

Well if it's a photo taken by the Nazis, do you really think they'd lose the negative so that they'd have to take a "photo of a photo?" to put it into the 2nd existing copy? That's a shoddy way to duplicate a photo. It's explained by this: the Warsaw Jewish Underground had limited resources/skills.

How do you explain George Kadish having a glass printing plate of the photo? If hardly anyone except SS men and Nuremberg prosecutors knew about the photo until it was in the film Nuit Et Bruillard (Night and Fog) in the mid 1950's, (and indeed the printing plate is old technology) then how did George Kadish have this printing plate of the photo, which he claimed he found in the late 40's. He had it because he took the photo and that's why it was in a collection of Nazi atrocity photos which he donated to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum around the time of his death. He is a propaganda photographer. I'm sure people here will have a simple explanation eventhough the Jewish author of the book A Child At Gunpoint Richard Raskin couldn't explain why he had it.

And what about Tsvi Nussbaum? He says it's at the Hotel Polski, so Richard Raskin visits Warsaw and finds that the former Hotel Polski has a similar background to the photo. I think the explanation is George Kadish took a photo of Jews leaving the Hotel Polski and the Warsaw Jewish Underground obtained the photo and put it in the Stroop Report with an erroneous title of "Pulled from the bunkers by force."

[RobRoy]

I think the explanation is George Kadish took a photo of Jews leaving the Hotel Polski and the Warsaw Jewish Underground obtained the photo and put it in the Stroop Report with an erroneous title of "Pulled from the bunkers by force."

Ok, and the "Jews leaving the Hotel" at gunpoint does what to refute the historical fact of genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people?

[Uzzy]

I wouldn't mind knowing that too. Even if this photo was a fraud, how does that change the fact of the destruction of the Jewish people by the Nazis?

[Simon39759]

Well if it's a photo taken by the Nazis, do you really think they'd lose the negative so that they'd have to take a "photo of a photo?" to put it into the 2nd existing copy? That's a shoddy way to duplicate a photo. It's explained by this: the Warsaw Jewish Underground had limited resources/skills.


I don't know.
We lost the footages of Armstrong's walk on the moon, the only thing we have is a footage of the screen where it was displayed.
So, if it can happen for a very obviously historical document in the well controlled conditions of the NASA, I can believe it happening for what seemed like a very insignificant picture in the chaos of the insurrection and following invasion by the Soviet, especially if the film's owner would have considered it potentially incriminating evidence against himself...

[headscratcher4]

Many of Brady's glass negatives of Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War were turned into panes for a greenhouse before anyone realized their historical/artistic value. Stuff like that happens all of the times. Even world renowned German obsession with filing would have been under great pressure at the end of the war as the country collapsed. There isn't anything particularly troubling about any of the issues you raise...and, more importantly, as has been pointed out, even IF this photo were a fake, it does nothing to under mine the historical record of the holocaust. As you point out, it wasn't generally known until the 1950s, but the fact of the holocaust was well established by that time and by a mountain of well-tested and uncontrovertable evidence. This photo, to use the words of the scum-bag Le Pen is a mere "detail" of history, it is essentially meaningless save for the emotion it invokes.

[headscratcher4]

Indeed, the more I think about your assertion, given the logic you employ, it would be rediculous for Holocaust myth makers to leave so potent an image out of their arsonal for so long...it is too powerful a picture, ergo, we must assume it is legitimate becasue it was essentially unknown by the public until well after the facts of the holocaust had already been made abundantly clear. Seriously, if you're going to fake and mischarachterize pictures of dead bodies in concentration camps and have those shown at trials and newsreals, etc. why hold off on trotting this out? It just isn't good conspiracy mythmaking IMO.

[Budly]

headscratcher4 wrote: even IF this photo were a fake, it does nothing to undermine the historical record of the holocaust.

I never said that. But it is the most well-known document of the holocaust. Saying "it does nothing to under mine the historical record of the holocaust" doesn't atone for not being able to discuss the authenticity of the photo.

Headscratcher4 wrote:
Many of Brady's glass negatives of Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War were turned into panes for a greenhouse before anyone realized their historical/artistic value.

But this isn't an appropriate analogy since the Stroop Report was made in the middle of the war, not years later.

[RobRoy]

I never said that.

"It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5041590&postcount=1) [emphasis added]

But it is the most well-known document of the holocaust.

No it's not. I've never even heard of this photo before, and I'm reasonably familiar with the history of the holocaust. I would say either of these is easily more well-known (I will refrain from posting the dead baby picture, as it always hurts my heart):

http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00841/HOLOCAUST/holocaust%20pics/holocaust_israel_survivors.jpg

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/holocaust00_1.jpg

Saying "it does nothing to under mine the historical record of the holocaust" doesn't atone for not being able to discuss the authenticity of the photo.

Fine, so what's your point?

[Uzzy]

But it is the most well-known document of the holocaust.

Says who? Just as a straw poll, I looked at the Wikipedia page on the Holocaust. It's there, one of many pictures and not at all prominent. Anne Frank's Diary, Schindler's List, the Wannsee Conference.. those are documents that come to mind when the holocaust is mentioned. Picture wise, places like the main gate at Auschwitz II, or the infamous Arbeit macht frei signs at the gates into Concentration Camps.

This photo is irrelevant in the factual sense of proving or disproving the Holocaust. The fact that every person in that photo was probably killed by the Nazis makes it a tragic reminder that people are behind the horrific numbers.

[woolfe99]

What "Budly" means by "the most well-known document of the Holocaust" is beyond me.

Anyway, a thorough demolition of Denier Bud's claim that the Stroop report is a forgery can be found here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-1.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-2.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-3.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-4.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/10/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-5.html

Incidentally, some deniers claim the Stroop report is a forgery because it identifies Treblinka as an extermination camp. Hence, the need to discredit the report.

Part 3 of the blog addresses the photograph that is the subject of this thread.

- woolfe

[RobRoy]

Incidentally, some deniers claim the Stroop report is a forgery because it identifies Treblinka as an extermination camp. Hence, the need to discredit the report.

Was it not? I thought the commandant, when he was tried, admitted to the exterminations, but stated his conscience was clear as he was "just doing my duty"?

[Simon39759]

"It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5041590&postcount=1) [emphasis added]

No it's not. I've never even heard of this photo before, and I'm reasonably familiar with the history of the holocaust. I would say either of these is easily more well-known (I will refrain from posting the dead baby picture, as it always hurts my heart):


Really? It might be a cultural thing as it is, indeed, very, very well known back home. It is even on the covert of a punk-rock album (http://multimedia.fnac.com/multimedia/images_produits/ZoomPE/5/1/1/3700226407115.jpg).

[woolfe99]

Was it not? I thought the commandant, when he was tried, admitted to the exterminations, but stated his conscience was clear as he was "just doing my duty"?

Yes, it was, and the Stroop report identifies it as such, which is why deniers want to call the authenticity of the report into question.

- Dave

[RobRoy]

Really? It might be a cultural thing as it is, indeed, very, very well known back home. It is even on the covert of a punk-rock album (http://multimedia.fnac.com/multimedia/images_produits/ZoomPE/5/1/1/3700226407115.jpg).

Could be cultural. I'm an American, and gather you're not.

Would you say it's the "most well known document of the holocaust"? I would still contend that the images of the prisoners, skinny and alive, or dead and in heaps, is far more well known.

ETA: Uzzy also provided a list of documents that seem better known to me in regards to the holocaust, the Diary of Anne Franke being quite more well known.

[Yoink]

What "Budly" means by "the most well-known document of the Holocaust" is beyond me.

Anyway, a thorough demolition of Denier Bud's claim that the Stroop report is a forgery can be found here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-1.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-2.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-3.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-4.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/10/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-5.html

Incidentally, some deniers claim the Stroop report is a forgery because it identifies Treblinka as an extermination camp. Hence, the need to discredit the report.

Part 3 of the blog addresses the photograph that is the subject of this thread.

- woolfe

Ouch. Just how painful is it to have your pathetic efforts demolished so thoroughly, denierbudly?

[MaGZ]

No one is arguing "because this photograph is genuine, therefore the Jews were deliberately exterminated" (the Jews were deliberately exterminated by the Nazis, but the evidence for that is elsewhere). Budly, however, is claiming that he has proven that this photograph is faked and that that disproves the claim that the Nazis deliberately exterminated millions of Jews.

I take it you agree that the photograph is A) not fake and B) that even if it were, Budly's argument would be absurd?

I would think delousing chambers and the few crematoria ovens at the camps are better arguments against Holocaust claims than this photograph.

[woolfe99]

Was it not? I thought the commandant, when he was tried, admitted to the exterminations, but stated his conscience was clear as he was "just doing my duty"?

I would think delousing chambers and the few crematoria ovens at the camps are better arguments against Holocaust claims than this photograph.

Which camp had "few crematoria ovens?" There were 52 total built at Auschwitz.

And why is the presence of delousing chambers evidence against the presence of homicidal gas chambers?

- Dave

[MaGZ]

So, where did they go, since they were not resettled?

Read the book.

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL3194799M/dissolution-of-Eastern-European-Jewry

[Thunder]

Read the book.

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL3194799M/dissolution-of-Eastern-European-Jewry

you know, its funny, cause if you add up all the Jews who left Europe for the USA and Israel after WW2..and all the Jews who remained in Europe...you still have at least 5 million Jews.

how did that happen???

there were 3.3 million Jews in Poland in 1938..and 300,000 after 1945. 250,000 Polish Jews were evacuated east by the Soviets. So where did the missing 3 million Polish Jews go?

hmmmmm??????

[ddt]

And what about Tsvi Nussbaum? He says it's at the Hotel Polski, so Richard Raskin visits Warsaw and finds that the former Hotel Polski has a similar background to the photo.
Yes, what about Tsvi Nussbaum? Do you think he's the boy in the photo? But then what about the earlobes - the boy in the photo has attached earlobes, Nussbaum has not. That's an unalterable genetic trait. And while Nussbaum has said he was in a similar scene - before Hotel Polski, two months after the ghetto was liquidated - he also said that there were thousands of Jewish boys in similar circumstances.

Now what about your claim from the OP:
"It's taken in front of the Hotel Polski in Warsaw, not in the Warsaw Ghetto."
That sounds definitive. Where's your evidence?


I think the explanation is George Kadish took a photo of Jews leaving the Hotel Polski and the Warsaw Jewish Underground obtained the photo and put it in the Stroop Report with an erroneous title of "Pulled from the bunkers by force."
You're still harping about that title? I thought that one was settled. It's a perfectly appropriate title for a general who has to justify how much trouble it cost him to subdue a couple of hundreds poorly armed enemies.

And now about Kadish. He lived in Kaunas, in Lithuania. How did he get to Warsaw? And how did he manage to sneak one of his photos in a photo-album of an SS general? And for what? In other words: give means, opportunity and motive.

[MaGZ]

Uhm, I'm kind of amused here. If you want to compare to the bad guys, the Nazis are right over there. Just because Canada did worse than us, doesn't exempt us of guilt, no less than the Nazis did.

Still, I think you mostly phrased it that way to bring up Canada than to exempt the US, I just want to say that the phrasing amused me.

One of American's largest concentration camps during the war was in Crystal City, Texas--your home state!

[dudalb]

I would consider Arthur Butz's book "Hoax of the Twentieth Century" to be scholarly.

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/

his references
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/24.html




As someone who has begun work on his thesis for his Master's Degree in History I can only say in regard to Butz's work as "Scholarly":

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:

[Marduk]

What would you be wearing when you're hiding from the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

camouflage

[dudalb]

Anybody else waiting for our Resident Nazi Lovers to have a melt down over "Inglorious Bestards"?

Not a huge Tarantino fan myself, and was not overall impressed with the film, but the reaction it will get from the Neo Nazis will be amusing.

[Stellafane]

Read the book.

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL3194799M/dissolution-of-Eastern-European-Jewry

DC got himself a yellow card for saying exactly what I was thinking, only expressed more eloquently than I have the guts to do. I have a spotless record here in the JREF forums, you see: over 3000 posts and not so much as a single infraction. I'd like to keep it that way. I've done this by following the old adage "attack the argument, not the arguer."

And yet, and yet...there are times when the argument is so odious, so repulsive, so utterly devoid of any merit or logic or reason, that it becomes more or less intertwined with the person making it. When that happens, otherwise calm and self-possessed people may for a moment forsake their normal natures and react viscerally. Not only because it feels good to release righteous anger once in a while, but also because there may be a chance (however small) that a strong rejection may make the person promoting the argument hesitate a bit next time. And then maybe one person in the future will be spared from hearing it. Thus such an emotional, angry response can perhaps be forgiven, even justified.

Of course, neo-Nazis in general rely on good people keeping their composure, don't they? Because if good people did what their emotions told them to do, neo-Nazis would be banned from forums everywhere and their heinous filth confined to those sites that cater to such sewage. And "freedom of speech" doesn't apply here; there are plenty of neo-Nazi sites where they can freely sling their feces to their hearts (assuming they have any) content.

Another thing neo-Nazis rely on is the fact that they're so small in number. Since they're generally perceived as a handful of sick, disgusting vermin, too few and insignificant to matter, many people choose not to respond to them, because it just gives them the attention they crave. Thus, the fact that they're so pathetic actually creates a small, dim space in which they can survive, like scraggly rats in an abandoned corner of a dark and fetid subway.

Still, sitting in silence doesn't feel quite right, does it? Sort of like that queasy, disquieting feeling you get after a night of sleeping with your head in an awkward position. Perhaps it's because in the demented rantings of the neo-Nazis you can, if you listen hard enough, hear the long-lost echoes they are parroting, echoes from a time when these words were not so easily ignored, when doing nothing was precisely the wrong course of action. In those moments it's easy to feel, at least fleetingly, a sense of outrage so overwhelming and powerful that its expression cannot be healthily denied. In that light, DC's words, yellow card and all, become understandable, even admirable. He said he was willing to be banned if it meant countering this neo-Nazi argument, and personally I can respect that, because it means he was actually willing to risk something.

Attack the argument, not the arguer -- OK then, the neo-Nazi argument is, in my view, the product of the most diseased minds, possessed by the lowest products of modern society, unable to come to terms with their own limitations and failures and thus seeking the most unoriginal of explanations: it must be someone else's fault. Such an argument is borne of stupidity and nurtured by hate. And although it is (thankfully) very uncommon, the stench it produces can still provoke disgust in good people everywhere. Of course, that's only a very brief description; to fully express what I think of the neo-Nazi argument would take thousands of words, not one of which would be remotely complimentary. As for what I think of neo-Nazis themselves...well, I'll leave that to the imagination.

[Budly]

Well we're discussing a photo, and the background of this photo resembles the Hotel Polski arch. The way they're dressed makes more sense for a hotel than a bunker. Some people here have said the little boy's shorts and high socks is normal wear of the period, like for British schoolchildren, but might that be because schools had some formality?

George Kadish had a copy of the photo. The essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) shows other George Kadish photos of little kids in the Kovno ghetto, taken for propaganda purposes.--Circumstantial evidence that he's the photographer of the famous photo.

People here have explained how maybe it's possible that the Germans in making a photo album and with having lost a negative, might have just "taken a photo of a photo." But a photo of the caption also?

Take a photo of a photo, but crop the top of the photo so that you can include the handwritten caption below it, so that you don't have to go to all that work of writing the caption all over again in the copy.--please, this is shoddy workmanship.

[Uninvolved]

As someone who has begun work on his thesis for his Master's Degree in History I can only say in regard to Butz's work as "Scholarly"


Which books on the actual topic do you regard as truly scholarly?

[Lonewulf]

One of American's largest concentration camps during the war was in Crystal City, Texas--your home state!

No, that is not my "home state". I was born in Germany, even though I am an American citizen.

[Carnivore]

http://www.ushmm.org/photos/26/26543.jpg

So on the Axis History forum, the woman looking over her shoulder is identified as Chana Zeilinwarger, the little girl behind her as Hanka Lamet, beside her, her mother Matylda Lamet Goldfinger. The boy with the sack is identified as Leo Kartuzinsky, the soldier holding the submachine gun as SS- Rottenfuhrer Joseph Bloesch (executed in 1969).

The boy in the foreground has been variously identified as Arthur Domb Semiontek, Tsvi Nussbaum, Issrael Rondel or Levi Zeilinwarger.


I believe the picture itself is a famous image, I've certainly seen it several times before, originally in high school as part of my 4th form history curriculum. I've also seen it on TV as part of a documentary about the Holocaust museum in Israel. Some visitors to the museum encountered the photo and claimed the little boy was a relative of theirs, however I don't now recall the details. (By the way the Yad Vashem website contains a photo archive of the Warsaw ghetto (http://www6.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3hPMyNHM09LYwP_YEdnAy Mvx7DQwFBTAwNnY6B8JG55E3MCusNB9uFW4W2OX94EKm-AAzga6Pt55Oem6hfkRhhkBqQrAgBq_ZB-/dl2/d1/L0lDU0NTQ2xJSkpna0tDbEUvb0dvUUFBSVFKQUFNWXBDbU1NWm lIQlNGTGdnIS9ZQkpKdzQ1X0Y0NTAtNU40a3N1eWp3ISEvN19J NjJBNkk5MzBHRDRDMDJKRVQ4VTcwMzAwMS9ub3JtYWwvSjVyX1 8xNjQvbGlzdFJlc3VsdA!!/), with hundreds of pictures very similar to the one in the OP. In fact, the very first photo shows smiling Nazis arresting (well dressed) Jews they have discovered in a (clearly visible) bunker. In the uprising these bunkers were used as fighting positions, before and after, they were often hiding places.) The photo archive is fascinating, recording years of daily life in a surreal environment.

[ddt]

Well we're discussing a photo, and the background of this photo resembles the Hotel Polski arch.
But it could be anywhere in Warsaw. There's nothing really distinguishing on the buildings, to my eye. You claim it resembles the arch of Hotel Polski. I see not much of an arch in the picture, looks more like a rectangular door. Care to dig up a photo of Hotel Polski so we can compare?


The way they're dressed makes more sense for a hotel than a bunker.
We've already gone over the word "bunker".

Some people here have said the little boy's shorts and high socks is normal wear of the period, like for British schoolchildren, but might that be because schools had some formality?
Grasping at straws? That dress was common all over Europe. And no, most countries didn't have school uniforms.

Care to actually address the responses given to your posts?

[gtc]

That was a prisoner of war camp, not an internment camp for non-combatants.

My understanding is that there was a mixture of both.

Also, I've never heard of anyone respecting the cowra escapees, in fact I'd be disgusted if they did.

Really? There is a Japanese memorial garden built in the community.

[Stray Cat]

Some background research into the photo already been done here.
http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/gunpoint.html

[Stray Cat]

Is this what's left of the Hotel Polski?
http://www.sephardicstudies.org/images/hotel-polski-window-view-of.jpg
Doesn't look like the same place as in the photo to me.

[dudalb]

Which books on the actual topic do you regard as truly scholarly?

Raul Hilberg "The Destruction of the European Jews".
Martin GIlbert "The Holocaust"
Lucy Dawidowicz "The War Against The Jews"
Yehuda Bauer "A History of the Holocaust"
Mark Marzower "Hitler's Empire:How Hitler Ruled Europe".

And that is just scratching the surface.

All are trainedand respected historians, unlike Butz, who has little historical training. Yes, he is a professor of Engineering, but Northwestern University considers him a embarassment, the President of Northwest regrets that because of Tenure he cannot fire him, and 60..almost all ..of his collegues at Northwestern's Engineering department have called on him to resign and stop trading on Northwestern's reputation for excellence. Not exactly a ringing endorsement from his peers.

[Uzzy]

Oh, and regarding the clothing issue.. This boy lived in the Warsaw Ghetto, persecuted by the Nazis during the middle of a total war between two ideological enemies. I think his mother (or whoever was looking after him at the time) would have dressed him in whatever they could scavenge together, and have been grateful that he had that.

[Uninvolved]

Raul Hilberg "The Destruction of the European Jews".
Martin GIlbert "The Holocaust"
Lucy Dawidowicz "The War Against The Jews"
Yehuda Bauer "A History of the Holocaust"
Mark Marzower "Hitler's Empire:How Hitler Ruled Europe"


Thanks. What do you think of Arno Mayer?

All are trainedand respected historians


Particularly Hilberg, a lawyer.

unlike Butz, who has little historical training. Yes, he is a professor of Engineering, but Northwestern University considers him a embarassment, the President of Northwest regrets that because of Tenure he cannot fire him, and 60..almost all ..of his collegues at Northwestern's Engineering department have called on him to resign and stop trading on Northwestern's reputation for excellence. Not exactly a ringing endorsement from his peers.


What is the reason for his being an embarassment to the university and for his being disliked by his peers?

[Damien Evans]

My understanding is that there was a mixture of both.



Really? There is a Japanese memorial garden built in the community.

Sorry, but while I admire their restraint in not going after civilians, killing some of your guards, running around the NSW bush for 10 days then either getting killed, re-captured or committing suicide isn't something I respect.

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, but while I admire their restraint in not going after civilians, killing some of your guards, running around the NSW bush for 10 days then either getting killed, re-captured or committing suicide isn't something I respect.

Death before Dishonor.

[gtc]

Sorry, but while I admire their restraint in not going after civilians, killing some of your guards, running around the NSW bush for 10 days then either getting killed, re-captured or committing suicide isn't something I respect.

Just to make it clear, I'm not saying you should.

[Madouc]

Budly, what do you propose was ordinary wear for school-aged Polish city boys in the 40s? Please provide evidence.

[grunion]

"It's the most well-known document of the holocaust and it's a fraud." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5041590&postcount=1) [emphasis added]



No it's not. I've never even heard of this photo before, and I'm reasonably familiar with the history of the holocaust. I would say either of these is easily more well-known (I will refrain from posting the dead baby picture, as it always hurts my heart):

http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00841/HOLOCAUST/holocaust%20pics/holocaust_israel_survivors.jpg

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/holocaust00_1.jpg



Fine, so what's your point?Dammit, I just knew this thread would once again turn into someone posting Denier Porn. Folks, they just LOVE the chance to look at these photos once again, and it's certainly not going to change their minds, so why do it?

[Budly]

Budly, what do you propose was ordinary wear for school-aged Polish city boys in the 40s? Please provide evidence.

Well here's some footage (http://resources.ushmm.org/film/display/main.php?search=simple&dquery=warsaw+ghetto+color&cache_file=uia_ulvSyn&total_recs=5&page_len=25&page=1&rec=4&file_num=4911) from the USHMM of the Warsaw Jewish quarter in 1939, and the beginning shows a kid in shorts. So perhaps my assertion of high socks and shorts isn't a strong point, however the kid here doesn't look particularly nicely dressed in comparison to the boy in the famous photo.

I might add that the Jewish author of the book A Child At Gunpoint wrote,

There is no sign of any kind – such as disheveled or dust-covered clothing – to indicate that the captives in the photo of the boy with his hands raised were "pulled by force" from anything that might rightfully be called a "bunker." (pg. 17)

[Lonewulf]

You mean civilian resistance didn't have the resources to make 10' thick concrete bunkers?!

I am surprised!

[Budly]

They built air raid shelters against Soviet Air attacks. The Stroop Report is part of the little boy photo forgery, but for what it may or may not reflect about the real situation, here's a quote from it from Section II: (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/howitzer_images/stroop_report_comment.html)

While pretending to build air raid shelters they had been erecting dug-outs within the former Ghetto ever since the autumn of 1942. These were intended to conceal every Jew during the new evacuation action, which they had expected for quite a time, and to enable them to resist the invaders in a concerted action.

[David Wong]

I know there's nothing funny about this subject, either the Holoscaust or neo-Nazis, but I can't help but laugh at the idea that this photo is our only evidence of the Holocaust.

Like the Holocaust is a UFO or bigfoot, some fleeting sighting that only a dozen people claim to have witnessed, with this as their only evidence.

I know it's tragic and I know that things have to have gone seriously wrong in a person's life to twist reality to this degree, but still. I can't stop laughing. It's just so bizarre and out of left field that I can't muster any other response.

"As you know, this YouTube video is the best evidence that Barack Obama exists. Now, if you look carefully at the 1:34 mark..."

[gtc]

I must admit that I have never seen that photo either.

However, my school uniform in the 1980s was shorts and long socks and I believe this remains the same to this day. I wonder if this proves that I have never existed.

[zooterkin]

Well we're discussing a photo, and the background of this photo resembles the Hotel Polski arch. The way they're dressed makes more sense for a hotel than a bunker. Some people here have said the little boy's shorts and high socks is normal wear of the period, like for British schoolchildren, but might that be because schools had some formality?

George Kadish had a copy of the photo. The essay (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) shows other George Kadish photos of little kids in the Kovno ghetto, taken for propaganda purposes.--Circumstantial evidence that he's the photographer of the famous photo.

People here have explained how maybe it's possible that the Germans in making a photo album and with having lost a negative, might have just "taken a photo of a photo." But a photo of the caption also?

Take a photo of a photo, but crop the top of the photo so that you can include the handwritten caption below it, so that you don't have to go to all that work of writing the caption all over again in the copy.--please, this is shoddy workmanship.

So your argument is that Germans are methodical and precise, and would never make mistakes, so this must by a forgery by Jews?

[Darat]

Another reminder folks - keep to the topic of the photo, I've split one of the many derails to another thread without any moderation action but any further derails will result in further moderation action.

ETA: Split thread is here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152221

[Matthew Cline]

Clearly, IF they found a faked photograph the entire holocaust myth house of cards would come tumbling down.

If the Holocaust had actually happened, it would have generated a Field of Truth which would have prevented any lies from ever being told about it. However, obviously, some lies have been told about the Holocaust. Therefore, there was no Field of Truth. Therefore, the Holocaust never happened. Q.E.D.

(This is rather the impression I sometimes get when reading the arguments of Holocaust deniers)

[Matthew Cline]

Just because Jews were rounded up and relocated does not imply they were later exterminated. [emphasis added]

But the photo that is being "debunked" is one of them being rounded up. It makes no sense to say "This photo of Jews being rounded up is fake, therefore the Holocaust is fake", unless you want to argue that the Nazis never rounded up any Jews, and if they were never rounded up they could never have been sent to the concentration camps to be killed.

But it is the most well-known document of the holocaust.

It might be the most well-known document of Jews being rounded up, but that's not the same thing as the Holocaust.

[ddt]

Particularly Hilberg, a lawyer.
Really? When did he do his bar exam? And in which state?

[Eddie Dane]

I was a Holocaust believer until Budly posted a thread about sock selection in 1940's Warsaw.

It opened my eyes.

[Carnivore]

Well here's some footage (http://resources.ushmm.org/film/display/main.php?search=simple&dquery=warsaw+ghetto+color&cache_file=uia_ulvSyn&total_recs=5&page_len=25&page=1&rec=4&file_num=4911) from the USHMM of the Warsaw Jewish quarter in 1939, and the beginning shows a kid in shorts. So perhaps my assertion of high socks and shorts isn't a strong point, however the kid here doesn't look particularly nicely dressed in comparison to the boy in the famous photo.


As I mentioned earlier, this photo is hardly the only one from the years of the Warsaw Ghetto. Here (again) are a thousand or so more (http://www6.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/c1/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3hPMyNHM09LYwP_YEdnAy Mvx7DQwFBTAwNnY6B8JG55E3MCusNB9uFW4W2OX94EKm-AAzga6Pt55Oem6kfqR5kjTHF3MQGZ4hpiEWpuYGxgYKgflpdfl Av0bYh-pJN-QW6EQWZARiYAeRsKhw!!/dl2/d1/L0lDU0lKSmhtL0lGU0FDSWlNeUNKQXlFb2tESWchL1lBNDU0NT AtNUZ3IS83X0k2MkE2STkzMEdENEMwMkpFVDhVNzAzMDAxL0tf X19fMg!!/).

As I and Stray Cat pointed out, at least 6 of the people in the OPs photo have been identified and the photo itself was used to identify Joseph Bloesch in Germany after the war. It was used in evidence at his trial. This photo does not exist in isolation and attempting to denounce it as a fake also requires you to dismiss the personal testimony of the people depictied in the photograph, all of the (abundant) primary sources from the time, and the entire historical context of the time in which the photo was taken.

This of course is your goal. Just as a Creationist will cherry pick the minutest gap in current knowledge of biology or geology in order to claim it proves that evolution is wrong and that somehow that means Creationism must be true, you seem to be quibbling over the most trivial details of this one photo in order to draw a broad conclusion that the facts don't support, to say the very least.

In fact your methodology reminds me of those conspiracy theorists who say the photos of the moon landings prove no moon landings took place. Except you are going further and attempting to prove there is no moon.


http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/shoah/n2.jpg

Here are some well dressed people being deported by the Nazis. The perfidious Jews probably staged the burning city behind them.


http://www.zwoje-scrolls.com/shoah/g73j.jpg

Here is the interior of a residential bunker in the Warsaw Ghetto. The person in this photo seems to be dressed in quite a similar way to the boy in the OP, doesn't he?

[HansMustermann]

Lemme sum it up:

ladies and gentlemen of this supposed forum, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a jewish boy with his hands up. Jews wear funny little hats. But this boy wears long socks. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a jewish boy want to wear long socks in a bunker? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a holocaust denier defending the nazis, and I'm talkin' about socks! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that forum thread deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If this jewish boy wears long socks, you must acquit! The defense rests

[Fiona]

http://images.google.co.uk/images?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-GBGB291GB303&sourceid=chrome&q=school%20photos%201950's%20uk&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

School photos: boys in shorts.

I can't believe anyone can claim to read or think about history at all if they don't bother to do simple checks

[Khonshu]

Hans, thanks for the laugh. I think you summed it up nicely...

[timhau]

http://images.google.co.uk/images?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-GBGB291GB303&sourceid=chrome&q=school%20photos%201950's%20uk&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

School photos: boys in shorts.

I can't believe anyone can claim to read or think about history at all if they don't bother to do simple checks

Would he be a holocaust denier if he did?

[aggle-rithm]

What would you be wearing when you're hiding from the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

I've tried to track down my 1941 copies of Gentleman's Quarterly (Polish edition) for some clues on how to answer this question. I think they're probably in the attic somewhere.

[aggle-rithm]

Another reminder folks - keep to the topic of the photo, I've split one of the many derails to another thread without any moderation action but any further derails will result in further moderation action.

ETA: Split thread is here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152221

How could there be further moderation action if there wasn't any moderation action to start with? ;)

[Red3]

Why the issue with how they were dressed? I don't understand... Or do I understand perfectly and there is no issue?

[DC]

Why the issue with how they were dressed? I don't understand... Or do I understand perfectly and there is no issue?

no issue?

Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

i mean really, he is wearing SOCKS! how much more obvious evidence do you need to see what a huge Hoax this "Holocaust" is?

honestly, His socks pretty much exposed the whole hoax.

really :D

[Red3]

no issue?

Would you wear high socks and shorts if you hiding from Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto?

i mean really, he is wearing SOCKS! how much more obvious evidence do you need to see what a huge Hoax this "Holocaust" is?

honestly, His socks pretty much exposed the whole hoax.

really :D

Of course...How stupid of me! It's that obvious I overlooked it. It's that sort of hidden in plain sight evidence that gets you every time. ;)

[MarkCorrigan]

I'd rather stay on topic, but I'll respond

Well Israel is called "The Jewish State" but it's not a state at all. It's a country.

I know this was a long time ago (comparatively), I haven't read the whole thread so someone might have pointed it out, it's kind of off topic and noone pays attention to me anyway (/emo) but I just have to respond to this so it can be noted that political theory is something else that Budly fails at.

I will just laugh quietly to myself about this facepalm worthy comment.

[CptColumbo]

Well obviously they are all queuing for the bus that the authorities have so kindly provided to take them for a nice ride to the country, and they are just holding their hands up to make sure the bus stops for them. The nice men in the smart uniforms are bus conductors, and whilst it looks like they are holding guns that's just a trick of perspective, they are actually ticket machines and they are just making sure that everyone gets a ticket. They really don't want anyone to miss the bus.Perhaps they are so happy that the Nazis are there that they are giving a DOUBLE NAZI SALUTE.

[Foolmewunz]

What "Budly" means by "the most well-known document of the Holocaust" is beyond me.

Anyway, a thorough demolition of Denier Bud's claim that the Stroop report is a forgery can be found here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-1.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-2.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-3.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/09/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-4.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2007/10/stroop-report-is-forgery-part-5.html

Incidentally, some deniers claim the Stroop report is a forgery because it identifies Treblinka as an extermination camp. Hence, the need to discredit the report.

Part 3 of the blog addresses the photograph that is the subject of this thread.

- woolfe

Bump. Most significant post in this thread. Do not assume that DenierBudly is a stumbling dunderhead. This insignificant hair-splitting is as silly, on the surface, as Killtown finding messages in the smoke at the WTC on 9/11, but there's a deeper motive. As you'll note in other of his posts, he's working towards deeper doo-doo, and insists there's no proof that Treblinka, e.g., was an extermination camp.

How inconvenient to have a German general referring to it as one, then? That's the motive in trying to make this into a document of dubious pedigree. He wants to discredit it on petty grounds so that he can poison the whole thing.

[headscratcher4]

I've said it before, these so-called controversies are essentially drive-by pissings. Budly puts this photo up, claims it is the most well-known document/photo of the holocaust (an absurd position from the get-go), than proceeds to "de-bunk" it using specious experts.

I am reminded of how every denirer gets around to dropping Leuchter and his "report" into a conversation, hoping that you don't know enough to understand the Leuchter was (like most of their alleged experts) much less than he seems (i.e. a complete fraud). Than, when you call them on it, they back away and pretend that they knew all along that it wasn't a real issue, the expert wasn't an expert, etc.

This is a "controversy" of minutia -- what Perot in a political context used to call "monkey dust" -- it has no real meaning and is posited specifically to obscure the larger picture.

[NoZed Avenger]

Perhaps they are so happy that the Nazis are there that they are giving a DOUBLE NAZI SALUTE.


You win the thread. And WWII.

Please take a medal out of petty cash.

[RobRoy]

Dammit, I just knew this thread would once again turn into someone posting Denier Porn. Folks, they just LOVE the chance to look at these photos once again, and it's certainly not going to change their minds, so why do it?

I'm new to the whole concept of "Denier Porn", but I thought we argued against evil and lies wherever we find them, and not just when it's convenient or when we know we'll win. <shrug>

Disproving the basic premise, that this particular photo, whether fradulent, mislabeled or both, undermines the entire argument. Budly may not see that, but there is always hope that a ray of truth will shine on the darker recesses of his brain.

[Simon39759]

Could be cultural. I'm an American, and gather you're not.

Would you say it's the "most well known document of the holocaust"? I would still contend that the images of the prisoners, skinny and alive, or dead and in heaps, is far more well known.

ETA: Uzzy also provided a list of documents that seem better known to me in regards to the holocaust, the Diary of Anne Franke being quite more well known.


I don't know, actually.

The diary of Ann Franck is certainly very famous, perhaps, indeed, the most famous.

As for pictures specifically, the thing is, we have so many of them that they are 'competing' with each others.
Indeed, as you say, the images of prisoners standing like ghosts in the camps, the body piles, even the loaded trains are very iconic. But we have several pictures of each and so, it is difficult to say that one is more famous than the other.

On the other hand, we only have one, easily identifiable, picture of this scene.


I think part of what happen is the fact that there is many pictures of the horror camps rather than a single individual one that would stand up.
But that's probably no the intent of the OP...

[SpitfireIX]

As someone who has begun work on his thesis for his Master's Degree in History I can only say in regard to Butz's work as "Scholarly":

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:


BA (4-year degree) in American and European history here (courses included Modern Germany, The Second World War, Hitler and 20th-Century Germany, and Nazi War Crimes). Seconded.

[Yoink]

I might add that the Jewish author of the book A Child At Gunpoint wrote,There is no sign of any kind – such as disheveled or dust-covered clothing – to indicate that the captives in the photo of the boy with his hands raised were "pulled by force" from anything that might rightfully be called a "bunker." (pg. 17)



Yes, he did write that. His point, however, was that the photo caption was formulaic; there are many of the Stroop Report photos that bear the same caption. Clearly whoever captioned those photographs wasn't concerned with providing very specific details for each image, but rather giving a sense of what kind of activity was taking place in each one.

Given that the report itself (as I've shown before) defines "bunker" very loosely, Raskin is wrong to talk about what "might rightfully be called a 'bunker.'" He's also wrong to put so much stress on the English translation of the caption ("pulled by force"). The original German (which Budly obviously can't read) might be better translated as "Forced out of bunkers." The "mit Gewalt" ("with force") doesn't imply a direct "hands on" forcing (which that "pulled" in English does). "Herausgeholt" (which is being translated as "pulled") means simply "brought out"; it's often used quite metaphorically (one can say that ideas or memories were "herausgeholt" in a conversation for example). There's no necessary implication of physically "forcing" or "pulling." The "mit Gewalt" just refers to the fact that they're being evicted ("brought forth") at gunpoint--forcibly.

Budly has absolutely nothing, nothing at all to suggest that this photograph is a fake. Of course, like all conspiracy nuts, he doesn't really care. If this thread were to go on long enough he'd probably end up saying "o.k. o.k., maybe there's nothing suspicious about this photo"--and then he'd just move on to the next absurd item in his loony phantasmagoria of conspiracy nutjobbery. That's the problem with conspiracy nuts--there's never real basis for their belief, so there's ultimately nothing there to argue with. You can't reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

Please do not change member names.

[Budly]

Well people have an "ad hominem laff riot" in most every post eventhough they've likely never read the Stroop Report (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/howitzer_images/stroop_report_comment.html) or fully read the essay about the photo being a fraud. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) Thus their way to participate is by making jokes about the socks.

You can talk about German detail, you can talk about German exactness and precision, but when the Stroop Report authors can't even center a title? When they can't even get clean pages to type on? When they duplicate photos by clicking the camera button twice or taking a photo of a photo? When there's photo in the report of a man caught mid-air falling to his death? When the text of the Report has Inglourious Basterds "action scenes" where a bullet hits a German soldiers hand grenade while still in his hand, causing it to blow up and kill him?

In other words, one of the biggest reasons the Little Boy photo is a fraud is because the Stroop Report is a forgery. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/stroop_report.html)

[Carnivore]

Well people have an "ad hominem laff riot" in most every post eventhough they've likely never read the Stroop Report (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/howitzer_images/stroop_report_comment.html) or fully read the essay about the photo being a fraud. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) Thus their way to participate is by making jokes about the socks.

You can talk about German detail, you can talk about German exactness and precision, but when the Stroop Report authors can't even center a title? When they can't even get clean pages to type on? When they duplicate photos by clicking the camera button twice or taking a photo of a photo? When there's photo in the report of a man caught mid-air falling to his death? When the text of the Report has Inglourious Basterds "action scenes" where a bullet hits a German soldiers hand grenade while still in his hand, causing it to blow up and kill him?

In other words, one of the biggest reasons the Little Boy photo is a fraud is because the Stroop Report is a forgery. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/stroop_report.html)


What about the thousands of other photos of the Warsaw ghetto, including many of Jewish people being rounded up that are very similar to the little boy photo? (I posted one in in this thread in post 200) What about the photos of dust free residential "bunkers" What about the thousands of photos of daily life in the ghetto, the uprising and it's aftermath?

Like Yoink suggests, you seem to be trying to distract us from the forest by focusing on a leaf.

[Stray Cat]

In other words, one of the biggest reasons the Little Boy photo is a fraud is because the Stroop Report is a forgery. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/stroop_report.html)
That's great news... Hitler never existed then because his diaries were discovered to be a forgery!!!

That's a whole dark era we can pass over then... is it OK if I mention passover? :rolleyes:

[Yoink]

Well people have an "ad hominem laff riot" in most every post eventhough they've likely never read the Stroop Report (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/howitzer_images/stroop_report_comment.html) or fully read the essay about the photo being a fraud. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) Thus their way to participate is by making jokes about the socks.

You can talk about German detail, you can talk about German exactness and precision, but when the Stroop Report authors can't even center a title? When they can't even get clean pages to type on? When they duplicate photos by clicking the camera button twice or taking a photo of a photo? When there's photo in the report of a man caught mid-air falling to his death? When the text of the Report has Inglourious Basterds "action scenes" where a bullet hits a German soldiers hand grenade while still in his hand, causing it to blow up and kill him?

In other words, one of the biggest reasons the Little Boy photo is a fraud is because the Stroop Report is a forgery. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/stroop_report.html)

You began with the claim that you could prove that the Stroop Report was a forgery because you could show that the photo was a fraud. Now you're saying that you know you can't prove that the photo is a fraud but we should believe it was because the Stroop Report is a forgery.

All this from someone who doesn't read German, doesn't have any special (or even general) knowledge about 1930s and 1940s history or customs, doesn't have any special or general knowledge about 1930s photographic techniques or printing techniques, who can't even recognize a standard form of German cursive script from the period etc. etc. etc.

You're completely and utterly unqualified to make the assertions you're making, DenierBudly. You're the exact equivalent of the 9/11 Truthers who ramble on about the properties of thermite when they wouldn't be able to recognize thermite if they were drowning in it, or the Moon Landing Hoaxers who don't even understand the parallax effect. You are simply laughably ignorant about the subject you're trying to educate the world on. Why don't you go and actually study history, study bibliography, study photography, study any of the subjects which you so have so obviously failed to master and every single one of which you need to understand before being qualified to advance the claims you are trying to advance here?

ETA: Oh, and before you say it: no, reading lots of other denialist websites is not the same thing as "studying" a subject. You're all just passing the same fraudulent claims around to each other in a tedious circlejerk. As long as the conclusion is "The Holocaust never happened" then it doesn't matter how tendentious the argument or how debunked the premises of the argument are, it will be reverently accepted and repeated. Try learning how real historians treat documents, what a real historian accepts as adequate standards of proof etc.

[HansMustermann]

And now we're diving head first into outright lunacy territory:

You can talk about German detail, you can talk about German exactness and precision, but when the Stroop Report authors can't even center a title?

You do realize that they didn't have text processing software in the 40's, right? Or that the only proto-computers they had were Zuse's clunky machines, which were calculating wings not typesetting reports?

Plus, it seems to me like an even more retarded objection than even the socks one. So your big proof is that the title page was right justified instead of centered? WTH?

When they can't even get clean pages to type on?

Hmm? Are you implying that the paper would remain in pristine condition for years, or wth?

When they duplicate photos by clicking the camera button twice or taking a photo of a photo?

Which was standard procedure in that age, whenever needed. Remember, the cameras back then weren't storing on USB stick.

[quote]When there's photo in the report of a man caught mid-air falling to his death?

Hmm? I can't remember that exact photo, but... so? Exactly what is the problem there? Do you think they didn't have the technology for that, although they could shoot 24 frames per second for a movie? Or wth?

When the text of the Report has Inglourious Basterds "action scenes" where a bullet hits a German soldiers hand grenade while still in his hand, causing it to blow up and kill him?

Hmm? While the probability is somewhat small, it's entirely possible actually. The German stick grenades actually offered quite a large target outside the hand. They were not the modern kind of egg-shaped grenades.

[Lonewulf]

Hahaha! Reading the linked website:

You might wonder: "Maybe the Jews didn't have weapons." Except during those 5 days the Germans captured 10 kilograms of explosives, 100 hand grenades, ammunition, 25 pistols, and 5 rifles. And these are just the weapons that were found.

Yes, what an arsenal! 25 pistols and 5 rifles found amongst tens of thousands of Jews? Truly a danger to the Third Reich!

Also:

The real author wanted sympathy for the Jews, so she had Jews killed in awful ways, but it either didn't occur to her to have enough Germans killed, or she omitted that since it didn't work with her Jewish sympathy goal.

Why the assumption that this alleged "faker" must be a woman?

[Yoink]

You can talk about German detail, you can talk about German exactness and precision, but when the Stroop Report authors can't even center a title?

So we're to believe in a fiendishly well organized Jewish resistance movement that was able to get hold of German uniforms and weapons, waltz around the Ghetto staging scenes of false German soldiers 'arresting' fake Jewish 'victims'; were able to get the German High Command to place this fake report in its own archives; were able to hypnotize Stroop so that when he was on trial and the report was used in evidence against him he never once bothered to claim that it was a forgery etc. etc. etc.--but that the one thing they were unable to do was to justify a title--and that this is the Achilles heel that proves that the work is a forgery. Because Jews are known, I assume, to have no interest in book design, whereas noble Aryans are all fetishists of center justification. Stick with socks DenierBudly.

When they can't even get clean pages to type on?
WTF?

When they duplicate photos by clicking the camera button twice or taking a photo of a photo?
Yeah! Everyone knows that they would have gone around to the local Kinkos and photocopied it! (Again, you are positing a vast and extremely well-equipped Jewish conspiracy...if this vast and well-equipped conspiracy, which supposedly took all the photos and had all the negatives chose this method of reproduction, why wouldn't the poor underfunded Nazis have done so?).

When there's photo in the report of a man caught mid-air falling to his death?

You're saying that it's more likely that the Jewish conspirators deliberately pushed a man to his death so as to photograph it than that the German photographer got a dramatic photograph?

When the text of the Report has Inglourious Basterds "action scenes" where a bullet hits a German soldiers hand grenade while still in his hand, causing it to blow up and kill him?

I agree that it's more likely that the grenade just exploded prematurely. I can't see that the Jewish conspirators putting this supposed 'forgery' together have any particular reason to try to make the German soldier less inept or German armaments more reliable, however. If you come back and say "but that's just the sort of thing a Nazi would write!" my answer is "yes, exactly."

In other words, one of the biggest reasons the Little Boy photo is a fraud is because the Stroop Report is a forgery. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/stroop_report.html)

"The thing I can't prove must be true because of this other thing I can't prove!"

[Carnivore]

Well people have an "ad hominem laff riot" in most every post eventhough they've likely never read the Stroop Report (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/howitzer_images/stroop_report_comment.html) or fully read the essay about the photo being a fraud. (http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/littleboy/index.html) Thus their way to participate is by making jokes about the socks.

[/URL]

I have fully read the essay about the photo being a fraud. The essay falls down rather badly because of the fact that, as mentioned several times now, WE KNOW WHO MANY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH ARE AND CAN THUS CONFIRM THE PHOTOGRAPHS VERACITY FROM MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT SOURCES.

The soldier holding the submachine gun is not a fake, as mentioned, he is SS- Rottenfuhrer Josef Blosche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Bl%C3%B6sche) a thouroughly nasty character who was executed in Poland in 1969.

[Yoink]

The real author wanted sympathy for the Jews, so she had Jews killed in awful ways, but it either didn't occur to her to have enough Germans killed, or she omitted that since it didn't work with her Jewish sympathy goal.

Well, I have to admit that one has me stumped. I mean, I can't think of a single reason on earth why a Nazi commander sending a report back to his superiors would want to minimize casualties on his side while maximizing those on the other--can you? I mean, it's not as if he is serving an ideology premised upon the inherent racial superiority of his soldiers to the Jews or anything. Why, that would be almost as absurd as a child in the 1930s wearing shorts!