PDA

View Full Version : General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 02:27 AM
What were the synagogues used for, prior to Nazi invasion?
Why do Jewish cemeteries have few if any headstones added with dates after 1939 - while you can go back many generations by reading the older ones?
...?
You -collectively and individually - make no sense.

Well, these are certainly puzzlers at first. But not when you consider that Dogzilla didn't say that Jews never lived there, in Europe. What he wrote, word for word, is this: So there's the last scenario. This is the one that puts all the pieces of the puzzle together and, given the current state of knowledge, is the best:

3) Those people were never there. Whoops. Maybe Mr Moore has it better than Dogzilla, and these synagogues and cemeteries were "staged" in the theatrical sense? I'll bet these guys are really wishing LGR were still here to come up with something to get them out of the jam they've created for themselves. E.g., about now LGR would misquote or misdate a document, a technique that presumes one knows of a document, which, obviously, is beyond this duo.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 03:07 AM
^
that's a mere 456 words, summarising data which is all over the internet and written up in massive detail in thousands of books. Yet you'll complain the answer was too long, or ignore it, or change the subject.

Thanks, Nick, but you missed that this thread is no longer the HD thread. It's now a crappy comedy thread where we post one-liners and occasionally longer jokes. The punch line to yours is one of two that serve all purpose duty:

Forest fires?

In the 1940s how do you stop forest fires from burning everything in sight including the camps?

or

So there's the last scenario. This is the one that puts all the pieces of the puzzle together and, given the current state of knowledge, is the best:

3) Those people were never there.

For your post on deportations from France, which deals with mostly urban settings, I'd go with "Those people were never there." Your choice, of course.

When we get tired of goofing on each other, Dogzilla tells us about his favorite episodes of Gilligan's Island. Sure as heck beats reading a book on forced labor, anything that describes the fates of individual Jews, sounding out the words of the Jaeger report, or trying to follow what became of Jews in Nazi occupied cities.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 03:14 AM
Pity, because a functionalist, intentionalist discussion would be more interesting than pretending there were no Jews to find a solution for in the first place and then following ALL that entails.

Presuming he actually had one . . . it couldn't help being more interesting than the latest.

You've met your, "It was dated early September, it was not dated at all," moment Dogzilla.

Just wait til you see his case . . . which reminds me, we never did get to see the case against OSR 24, did we? Kind of like Dogzilla and . . . , er, everything.

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 03:22 AM
It would be either the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews or they did not want to kill all the Jews true dichotomy. Unfortunately for Team holocaust, the argument is that the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews except for the Jews they didn't want to kill. But they wanted to kill all the Jews. Trying to make that argument is one of the reasons you work yourself into a dizzy playing whack-a-mole with the facts and why your narrative sounds more and more Ptolemaic with the extermination of the Jews at the center of the universe.

If someone says that they want to own all the movies in the world on DVD, does that means that they don't really mean that or didn't complete their collection if they didn't succeed right away ?

Nessie
3rd July 2012, 03:23 AM
It would be either the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews or they did not want to kill all the Jews true dichotomy. Unfortunately for Team holocaust, the argument is that the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews except for the Jews they didn't want to kill. But they wanted to kill all the Jews. Trying to make that argument is one of the reasons you work yourself into a dizzy playing whack-a-mole with the facts and why your narrative sounds more and more Ptolemaic with the extermination of the Jews at the center of the universe.

The reality of what was wanted and what happened is way more complicated than your very simple argument.

Hitler and other National Socialists made it clear before the War that they did not want Jews in Germany and they had some pretty crazy ideas about what to do, such as Madagascar.

Once the War starts the Nazis are now in a position to start killing Jews as well as creating ghettos, work camps and in some extreme exceptions, with Hitler's approval exempting some. Why was that? Well we have the answer in that who was Jewish needed defining so some would survive if they were considered not be Jewish after all. It was recognised that some Jews were useful and loyal to the Nazis so they could survive. It was known that not all German's are anti-semities so we have the Nazis being careful to treat some Jews with a bit more respect than others, such as WWI Iron Cross veterans. We know that some countries under Nazi control were more inclined to protect their Jews than others, so we have discrepancies there.

I for one think that your descriptive of team Holocaust claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate.

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 03:25 AM
Er...OK. So you're saying that the missing Jews either 1) survived the war or 2) were murdered by the Nazis as part of their plan to exterminate the Jews is a false dichotomy.

The actual dichotomy is "survived or didn't". You made up a third option saying that they never existed, but it contradicts what we know, and doesn't explain some actual Jews we have today who had parents and grandparents.

Yet you believe it is somehow significant that if I don't know where the missing Jews went, then I can't know if they were murdered or not.

That's actually not what I'm saying. If you have no idea where they went, and you know that the Nazis said they wanted to kill them, said they did, and the survivors and tons of evidence, which you claim was fabricated, says they did, how does that mesh ? My point is: you don't have a shred of evidence to discount the evidence for the holocaust.

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 03:26 AM
Do the math. 3 million Jewish people arrived at the "camps" in 3 years to be gassed.

83,333 a month. Where were they staged?

Unfortunately this line of reasoning doesn't help you. First, demonstrate that the actual evidence is false.

Otherwise I'll use the same math-salad to prove that WWII didn't happen.

TSR
3rd July 2012, 03:58 AM
Team Holocaust's 13 year old star witness.


Wait. Wasn't Elie Wiesel the "Star Witness" just a few days agi?

Nessie
3rd July 2012, 04:27 AM
Here we have two very unimpressive deniers. The Sceptic forum has no active deniers at all. Where have they all gone?

TSR
3rd July 2012, 05:24 AM
Here we have two very unimpressive deniers. The Sceptic forum has no active deniers at all. Where have they all gone?

The Cesspit, AKA CODOH, where draconian moderation prevents any of their crap being challenged.

It's the only way they can pretend to be "winning".

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 06:51 AM
I for one think that your descriptive of team Holocaust claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate.

I, for two, agree with you. Dogzilla and Mr Moore have for a long time here tried to sell a vision of reality in which goals do not evolve, tactics do not change, actions do not take time, alliances need not be formed and participants do not need to be engaged, communication does not take time and logistics do not cause require steps and stages, resistance and obstacles are not encountered, suprises do not occur, and now Jews never existed. It is beyond daft.

As to your post above, the National Socialist selection principle, derived from a corrupted version of Darwinism and applied using racial and crude biological-criminal criteria to the whole of society, is a key concept, IMHO. Jews were selected out, as were other groups (as in the T4 program, the Asocial Aktion, actions against Zigeuner) for elimination. Strategies to effect elimination were tried, experimented with, put into use in different times and places until, in the case of the Jews, an overall approach took hold and was agreed. The prototype for selection of the Jews is, of course, the ramp at Birkenau. But selection always took many forms, in different times and places, even as the overall strategy of the Final Solution was implemented: Jewish victims were selected out from camps in 14f13 and shipped to euthanasia centers for liquidation; in Warsaw, Jews were selected in situ with those chosen for death taken first to the Umschlagplatz and those for labor packed into workshop-camps in the reduced ghetto; within Germany the selection principle - on account of factors you mention - and France - as Nick explained - was implemented differently to its implementation in the East; at Birkenau most Jews were selected for the gas chambers or labor on arrival; within the camps, Jews who could not work due to weakness, age, or illness were taken from hospitals and work sites for execution; along the DG-IV, workers who could not keep up were pulled off construction jobs and shot behind buildings or in wooded areas; in Vilna successive selections reduced the Jewish population which was first jammed into two ghettos and, when a major selection took place in fall 1941, most of the Jews in the non-working ghetto were selected for Ponar and death by shooting; German Jews were mistakenly selected at Kovno in fall 1941 and shot, at a time before Himmler thought it opportune to be slaughtering Reich Jews; in Lodz the Eldest of the Jews was forced to carry out selections of the old, the infirm, and the young for shipment to Chelmno - and he explained his predicament and reasoning to the ghetto population; and so on.

000063
3rd July 2012, 10:47 AM
Ah, so they just made up close relatives, fathers, mothers, etc. ? How were the kids of the dead born, exactly ?

You are so desperate to deny the Holocaust that you will erase an entire people from history.

Hey, you know who else tried to do that ?

The secret Jewish Carpenters must've snuck into the house and added Anne Frank's attic, without anyone being detected. Miep Gies, Bep Voskuijl, and Johannes Kleiman were all merely given powerful Jewish hallucinogens and brainwashed.

The same basic idea would later be used on a larger scale with 9/11.

000063
3rd July 2012, 10:55 AM
It would be either the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews or they did not want to kill all the Jews true dichotomy. Unfortunately for Team holocaust, the argument is that the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews except for the Jews they didn't want to kill. But they wanted to kill all the Jews. Trying to make that argument is one of the reasons you work yourself into a dizzy playing whack-a-mole with the facts and why your narrative sounds more and more Ptolemaic with the extermination of the Jews at the center of the universe.But if they provably spared certain Jews, that means, by definition, that they spared certain Jews. Literally no one here is accepting or proposing your straw man.

and that proves gas chambers or the mass graves at the AR camps how? Are you ever going to get around to explaining the relevance of Jaeger?

It has been explained. Several times. Are you ever going to get around to reading it? Or, heck, even admitting that you haven't and don't want to?

...
I don't think he's actually made any assertions about the report recently. The closest was the aforementioned fishing. I have no doubt that he will continue to not address and not read the report. Possibly trying to spin-off some minor aside into a whole new line of argument, possibly by using incredulity and no actual argument, Clayton style.

Clayton Moore
3rd July 2012, 11:01 AM
I, for two, agree with you. Dogzilla and Mr Moore have for a long time here tried to sell a vision of reality in which goals do not evolve, tactics do not change, actions do not take time, alliances need not be formed and participants do not need to be engaged, communication does not take time and logistics do not cause require steps and stages, resistance and obstacles are not encountered, suprises do not occur, and now Jews never existed. It is beyond daft.

As to your post above, the National Socialist selection principle, derived from a corrupted version of Darwinism and applied using racial and crude biological-criminal criteria to the whole of society, is a key concept, IMHO. Jews were selected out, as were other groups (as in the T4 program, the Asocial Aktion, actions against Zigeuner) for elimination. Strategies to effect elimination were tried, experimented with, put into use in different times and places until, in the case of the Jews, an overall approach took hold and was agreed. The prototype for selection of the Jews is, of course, the ramp at Birkenau. But selection always took many forms, in different times and places, even as the overall strategy of the Final Solution was implemented: Jewish victims were selected out from camps in 14f13 and shipped to euthanasia centers for liquidation; in Warsaw, Jews were selected in situ with those chosen for death taken first to the Umschlagplatz and those for labor packed into workshop-camps in the reduced ghetto; within Germany the selection principle - on account of factors you mention - and France - as Nick explained - was implemented differently to its implementation in the East; at Birkenau most Jews were selected for the gas chambers or labor on arrival; within the camps, Jews who could not work due to weakness, age, or illness were taken from hospitals and work sites for execution; along the DG-IV, workers who could not keep up were pulled off construction jobs and shot behind buildings or in wooded areas; in Vilna successive selections reduced the Jewish population which was first jammed into two ghettos and, when a major selection took place in fall 1941, most of the Jews in the non-working ghetto were selected for Ponar and death by shooting; German Jews were mistakenly selected at Kovno in fall 1941 and shot, at a time before Himmler thought it opportune to be slaughtering Reich Jews; in Lodz the Eldest of the Jews was forced to carry out selections of the old, the infirm, and the young for shipment to Chelmno - and he explained his predicament and reasoning to the ghetto population; and so on.

Really? Team Holocaust just lies and lies and lies. It amazing that they can function outside of forums.

I noticed that the Team Holocaust have sidestepped the video I linked too.

It seems that http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/ has been diddled with and is unavailable. I must have struck a serious nerve since it was available in June, 2012.
This is Google's cache of http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 30, 2012 09:59:15 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

thedopefishlives
3rd July 2012, 11:06 AM
Really? Team Holocaust just lies and lies and lies. It amazing that they can function outside of forums.

I noticed that the Team Holocaust have sidestepped the video I linked too.

It seems that http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/ has been diddled with and is unavailable. I must have struck a serious nerve since it was available in June, 2012.
This is Google's cache of http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 30, 2012 09:59:15 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

Yes, Clayton, the Jooz found out about your expert debunking of the Holohoax and decided that they had to exercise their control of the Interwebs and take immediate action. You're on to them now.

Cyrix686
3rd July 2012, 11:07 AM
Just in case anyone missed Dogzilla's third way when discussing the mysterious disappearance of between 5 and 6 million Jews in Europe under Nazis, I'm afraid I feel duty bound to repost it for those who haven't yet considered this solution to the Final Solution:

DZ:

So there's the last scenario. This is the one that puts all the pieces of the puzzle together and, given the current state of knowledge, is the best:

3) Those people were never there.

:D

000063
3rd July 2012, 11:09 AM
I don't find any authority in anything he Dogzilla writes either, he seems to be more interested in philosophy than in History.

He strikes me more as an art history major. Specifically, Dadaism.

...
^
that's a mere 456 words, summarising data which is all over the internet and written up in massive detail in thousands of books. Yet you'll complain the answer was too long, or ignore it, or change the subject.

I find it interesting that he proposed the same thing Doggie did, but he isn't actually responding to any of the discussion about it. From anyone.

If someone says that they want to own all the movies in the world on DVD, does that means that they don't really mean that or didn't complete their collection if they didn't succeed right away ?

And if they allegedly wanted to, say, conquer Europe, and they didn't manage to, would that mean they never really wanted to conquer the world?

Purely hypothetically, of course.

The reality of what was wanted and what happened is way more complicated than your very simple argument. ...

Oddly enough, this could apply to almost every single post Doggie makes.

Cyrix686
3rd July 2012, 11:11 AM
Have Jews - existent or non existent take your pick - taken down Clayton Moore's highly recommended scholarly videos?

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 11:19 AM
Really? Team Holocaust just lies and lies and lies. It amazing that they can function outside of forums.

Aside from continuing to label people in order to poison the well and call people liars while yourself lying, do you have so, you know, actual evidence ?

000063
3rd July 2012, 11:19 AM
Really? Team Holocaust just lies and lies and lies. It amazing that they can function outside of forums.Why? Don't they control the entirely of the historical record, including witness testimony and physical evidence, to such a degree that people who never met have stories that corroborate each other? Posting on forums is small potatoes, relatively speaking.

I noticed that the Team Holocaust have sidestepped the video I linked too.

It seems that http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/ has been diddled with and is unavailable. I must have struck a serious nerve since it was available in June, 2012.
This is Google's cache of http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 30, 2012 09:59:15 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/It's so cute that you think that you're worth two hoots to your imaginary Jewish Overwatch Conspiracy. If you're that big a threat, why haven't you been killed and your body disposed of by now? It's not that hard, as long as lye is kosher.

If you want to talk about ignoring things, why haven't you discussed the flaws in your enraged Jews theory? If they all (except for POWs) would've been driven instantly to murderous rage, heedless of their own safety, when were they finding time to tell other Jews? I certainly pointed several flaws out before you started posting links to HDV despite, as you insist, not being a denier, and you never addressed those either. People have, in fact, already linked to rebuttals of said videos, and you handwaved them.

Clayton Moore
3rd July 2012, 11:23 AM
The reality of what was wanted and what happened is way more complicated than your very simple argument.

Hitler and other National Socialists made it clear before the War that they did not want Jews in Germany and they had some pretty crazy ideas about what to do, such as Madagascar.

Once the War starts the Nazis are now in a position to start killing Jews as well as creating ghettos, work camps and in some extreme exceptions, with Hitler's approval exempting some. Why was that? Well we have the answer in that who was Jewish needed defining so some would survive if they were considered not be Jewish after all. It was recognised that some Jews were useful and loyal to the Nazis so they could survive. It was known that not all German's are anti-semities so we have the Nazis being careful to treat some Jews with a bit more respect than others, such as WWI Iron Cross veterans. We know that some countries under Nazi control were more inclined to protect their Jews than others, so we have discrepancies there.

I for one think that your descriptive of team Holocaust claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate.

Wake up. Once the war started the Germans were concerned with winning the war. The elaborate fabrications and machinations used to shore up the numbers are as insane as the "Holocaust Myth" itself.

000063
3rd July 2012, 11:33 AM
Oh, look, it's absolutely nothing!

Funny how you posted your one-liner non-response after I pointed out that you were avoiding discussing the holes in your claims. Curious how you suddenly decided to respond to a post the one I responded to, instead of any of the responses to your post. Weird how you don't actually mention or respond to any of the claims under discussion.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 11:36 AM
The reality of what was wanted and what happened is way more complicated than your very simple argument.

Hitler and other National Socialists made it clear before the War that they did not want Jews in Germany and they had some pretty crazy ideas about what to do, such as Madagascar.

Once the War starts the Nazis are now in a position to start killing Jews as well as creating ghettos, work camps and in some extreme exceptions, with Hitler's approval exempting some. Why was that? Well we have the answer in that who was Jewish needed defining so some would survive if they were considered not be Jewish after all. It was recognised that some Jews were useful and loyal to the Nazis so they could survive. It was known that not all German's are anti-semities so we have the Nazis being careful to treat some Jews with a bit more respect than others, such as WWI Iron Cross veterans. We know that some countries under Nazi control were more inclined to protect their Jews than others, so we have discrepancies there.

I for one think that your descriptive of team Holocaust claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate.

So the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? True or False?

TSR
3rd July 2012, 11:38 AM
Really? Team Holocaust just lies and lies and lies. It amazing that they can function outside of forums.

Who is this "Team Holocaust" you keep whining about? Because the lies that have actually bee documented here are all yours...

I noticed that the Team Holocaust have sidestepped the video I linked too.

Speaking of which, there's another.

It seems that http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/ has been diddled with and is unavailable. I must have struck a serious nerve since it was available in June, 2012.

And is available as of a few moments ago.

Now, can we get back to covering some of your more interesting recent lise - like the whole 94% effective thing?

TSR
3rd July 2012, 11:46 AM
Wake up. Once the war started the Germans were concerned with winning the war. The elaborate fabrications and machinations used to shore up the numbers are as insane as the "Holocaust Myth" itself.


Except for the teeny tiny issue that you have yet to actually *demonstrate* any such fabrications or machinations, nor any shoring up of numbers.

TSR
3rd July 2012, 11:50 AM
So the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? True or False?


The *Final* solution was exactly that. They just hadn't gotten around to wrapping things up quite yet.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Every professional sports teams' plan is to win every game. That they do not do so doesn't change the fact that that is their plan.

Using what you are trying to pass off as "logic", Germany never had a plan to win the war in Europe. True or False?

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 11:53 AM
You do understand that "staged" has at least three meanings in idiomatic American English, right?

"Staged" can mean "gathered prior to a movement."

"Staged" can also mean "faked up with paid actors."

(And "Staged" can also mean having stages, like a Saturn V stack, but that one is pretty unlikely in this context.)

Look at the context of the word and you can figure out which definition to use. It's not that tough.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 12:00 PM
Hi Clayton. Now that you are reaching high school you are naturally asking grown ups all kinds of questions before you read your first book (not issued by DC Comics) Let us help you...

Treblinka II had 713,555 executed in it before 30Dec1942 on it's own! The Germans themselves, wrote this in the Hofle Telegram. You may even read the answer to your really stupid question......in a book.....or just Wikipedia if that's your top skill level goal...

Before Operation Reinhard, over half a million Jews had been killed by the Einsatzgruppen, mobile extermination units, in territories conquered by the German army. It became evident, however, that they could not handle the millions of Jews that they had concentrated in the ghettos of occupied countries. So Treblinka, along with the other Operation Reinhard camps, were especially designed for the rapid elimination of the Jews in ghettos


Hi again Clayton. Well as the Allies warned the nasty Germans to stop knocking off Jews in November 1942 or face war crime trials, you can guess that the Jewish people, were aware before that date. Considering this has been discusses in detail many times in this thread you may want to practice reading for a bit longer before attempting to read a whole book.

Where did those bodies go?

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 12:04 PM
Your talent for failing to get the point never ceases to amaze me. Here is a rough summary of the 'conversation' as it has been repeated umpteen times since the summer of 2010 when you showed up here:

1. Accepted history: 5 to 6 million European Jews were murdered in a genocide by the Nazis and their allies by a combination of methods including gas chambers killing 2-3 million.

2. Dogzilla: no they weren't. Zisblatt blah blah there were no gas chambers.

3. Puzzled skeptic: so what happened to them then?

4. Dogzilla: I don't know.

5. Annoyed skeptic: sod off then.

As long as your answer in stage #4 is 'I don't know', then you have not laid a dent on stage #1, end of story.

Actually, IRL, as much as this forum is real life, we have a self-described skeptic posting these observations on the performance we've gotten from Dogzilla and Mr Moore:

I for one think that your descriptive of team Holocaust claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate.

Here we have two very unimpressive deniers.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 12:13 PM
Really? Team Holocaust just lies and lies and lies. It amazing that they can function outside of forums.

Explain one lie, Mr Moore. Prove a lie. You can't. So you will post one line quips and empty assertions. Still, I dare you. Try.

I noticed that the Team Holocaust have sidestepped the video I linked too.

You've been spamming that link, and your whining, for more than a week, yet . . . http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8400201&postcount=3031

It seems that http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/ has been diddled with and is unavailable. I must have struck a serious nerve since it was available in June, 2012.
This is Google's cache of http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 30, 2012 09:59:15 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

Cue "For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield . . .

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 12:16 PM
He strikes me more as an art history major. Specifically, Dadaism.

Puh-leeze. Dada made a lot more sense: here's Hugo Ball's (in)famous sound poem "Gadi Beri Bimba" as proof:

gadji beri bimba glandridi laula lonni cadori
gadjama gramma berida bimbala glandri galassassa laulitalomini
gadji beri bin blassa glassala laula lonni cadorsu sassala bim
gadjama tuffm i zimzalla binban gligla wowolimai bin beri ban
o katalominai rhinozerossola hopsamen laulitalomini hoooo
gadjama rhinozerossola hopsamen
bluku terullala blaulala loooo

zimzim urullala zimzim urullala zimzim zanzibar zimzalla zam
elifantolim brussala bulomen brussala bulomen tromtata
velo da bang band affalo purzamai affalo purzamai lengado tor
gadjama bimbalo glandridi glassala zingtata pimpalo ögrögöööö
viola laxato viola zimbrabim viola uli paluji malooo

tuffm im zimbrabim negramai bumbalo negramai bumbalo tuffm i zim
gadjama bimbala oo beri gadjama gaga di gadjama affalo pinx
gaga di bumbalo bumbalo gadjamen
gaga di bling blong
gaga blung

And more fun, too.

Border Reiver
3rd July 2012, 12:18 PM
Where did those bodies go?

Some cremated, some in mass graves, some probably left to rot, some may even have been buried properly.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 12:18 PM
So the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? True or False?

Sad.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 12:20 PM
Well, Clayton, if you actually knew anything about the history, then you'd know that in France, to take one example, Jews were arrested in large numbers in 1941 and interned in camps in France, then they began to be deported in the spring of 1942 to Auschwitz. At first they were registered 100% because the first transports to Auschwitz were used as labourers to build up the camps; these transports consisted of entirely able bodied men and women.

Then in July 1942 there were more mass roundups in Paris, with 1000s being held first in a sports stadium (the Vel d'Hiv), and then transferred to Drancy, which became the main transit camp in France. They were then deported to Auschwitz in a series of transports and selected on arrival, with the able bodied being registered into the camp, and tattooed, and those unfit for work being gassed.

By the end of 1942, the Korherr report (http://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/korherr/korherr-lang.php) tells us that a total of 41,911 Jews had been deported from France, out of an estimated population of 300,000. The remaining quarter of a million had largely gone to ground or were trying to flee across the Swiss and Spanish borders, or into the Italian-occupied zone of the south of France, since the Italians were not deporting Jews.

Over the course of 1943 and the first nine months of 1944, a further 35,000 or so Jews were caught in France, in what was a more slow-going process for the Nazis because the intended victims were indeed alert and suspicious, but the majority avoided capture. The 35,000 Jews, other than a few transports sent to Sobibor and Majdanek in early 1943, were deported to Auschwitz, where they were invariably selected on arrival, with the able bodied registered and the unfit gassed. Total, 75,000 deported. Of the deportees, only 2,000 returned at the end of the war. The rest died, either by being gassed on arrival, dying in concentration camps or being selected inside Auschwitz after registration for gassing if they had become too sick or too weak to work any more.

That is the accepted account of the Holocaust in France, one of more than 20 countries affected by Nazi policies towards Jews.

In the same time-frame, the Nazis also captured 86,000 members of the French resistance who were then deported to concentration camps in Germany. They also executed about 20,000 people in France, of whom more than 1,000 were Jews. They further conscripted nearly 1 million French workers and transferred 1.6 million French prisoners of war for work in Germany.

None of these Frenchmen and Frenchwomen wanted to be deported, and we find that, non-Jews were deported at a rate up to 35 times the number that Jews were deported.

^
that's a mere 456 words, summarising data which is all over the internet and written up in massive detail in thousands of books. Yet you'll complain the answer was too long, or ignore it, or change the subject.

Thank you for that succinct summary. Well written (as always) and informative. It's certainly more helpful than linking to a random page over at AHF I hope everybody read and remembers that non-Jews were deported at a rate up to thirty five times the number that Jews were deported. I assume you're speaking of the French Jewish/non-Jewish population and not all European nations as a whole. Even if you're talking about only the French population, that statistic should lay rest that ridiculous deportation=murder canard we see every once in a while around here. Although I expect somebody will try and say that "deported" takes on a different meaning when it's the Jews we're talking about. sigh!

Robrob
3rd July 2012, 12:21 PM
Wake up. Once the war started the Germans were concerned with winning the war. The elaborate fabrications and machinations used to shore up the numbers are as insane as the "Holocaust Myth" itself.

Ive noticed you make a lot of blanket claims you neglect to shore them up with actual facts or evidence. Why is that?

000063
3rd July 2012, 12:21 PM
Look at the context of the word and you can figure out which definition to use. It's not that tough.

This is Clayton we're talking about. He has a rather flexible view of language. And logic. And history. The fact that he will not clarify what he means on a simple question of word definition does not auger well for his intellectual rigor on the "big picture" questions. He could've used the term in either of the two more common uses, or both.

Where did those bodies go?

No. Back up. What affirmative evidence do you have that indicates that 6 million people never existed? Why have you refused to read the Jaeger report? I just read it in less time than it took to write this post. What debunker in this thread or its predecessors has ever outlined the options for the fate of the Jews as "keep in contact with everyone they ever knew" vs. "killed by Nazis"? And why are you suddenly so reluctant to discuss the matter?

Nessie
3rd July 2012, 12:22 PM
Really? Team Holocaust just lies and lies and lies. It amazing that they can function outside of forums.

I noticed that the Team Holocaust have sidestepped the video I linked too.

It seems that http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/ has been diddled with and is unavailable. I must have struck a serious nerve since it was available in June, 2012.
This is Google's cache of http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Jun 30, 2012 09:59:15 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/

Denial/revisionism has an odd definition of lying. It includes disagreeing with their point of view.

I watched and commented on the video. It showed exactly how it was possible to gas people at Krema II, but cast doubt on the numbers it could cope with.

I am sorry the video has disappeared, I would check with your ISP.

Nessie
3rd July 2012, 12:24 PM
Thank you for that succinct summary. Well written (as always) and informative. It's certainly more helpful than linking to a random page over at AHF I hope everybody read and remembers that non-Jews were deported at a rate up to thirty five times the number that Jews were deported. I assume you're speaking of the French Jewish/non-Jewish population and not all European nations as a whole. Even if you're talking about only the French population, that statistic should lay rest that ridiculous deportation=murder canard we see every once in a while around here. Although I expect somebody will try and say that "deported" takes on a different meaning when it's the Jews we're talking about. sigh!

Deportation does not equal murder. It is a component part of ethnic cleansing.

Moss
3rd July 2012, 12:27 PM
Holocaust deniers seem to be blind to the large scale human rights abuses in general. Except when the commies did it because that is useful to discredit them. Odd how that that never seems to work the same way for the likes of Remer and company.

TSR
3rd July 2012, 12:28 PM
Look at the context of the word and you can figure out which definition to use. It's not that tough.


When the poster in question has been known to use such constructs a "aver by omission", I would submit that asking cm to elaborate on what exactly *he* means in his usage is only prudent.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 12:29 PM
But if they provably spared certain Jews, that means, by definition, that they spared certain Jews. Literally no one here is accepting or proposing your straw man.



It has been explained. Several times. Are you ever going to get around to reading it? Or, heck, even admitting that you haven't and don't want to?




Evidently I missed it. Can you please provide a link to where the connection between the Jaeger Report and gas/plan/six is explained? Actually, because the skeptics are now saying that nobody ever claimed there was a plan to exterminate all the Jews, you just need to tie the Jaegar report to the gas chambers and the six million.

TSR
3rd July 2012, 12:31 PM
Where did those bodies go?

Depends on the camp in question: into the ground; into an oven and then the cremains into a river; into the ground, dug up, burned and the ashes reburied...

One thign we can be sure of in each case is that the bodies existed.

Border Reiver
3rd July 2012, 12:38 PM
Wake up. Once the war started the Germans were concerned with winning the war. The elaborate fabrications and machinations used to shore up the numbers are as insane as the "Holocaust Myth" itself.

If they were so concerned with winning the war why did they:

A. Not gear up the economy for sustained production of necessary war materiel vice continuing production of luxury goods;
B. allocating resources to projects that are ineffecient (development of super heavy tanks when medium tank production was low);
C. Diverting resources to a multiple front war instead of concentrating on winning one fight first;
D. Inefficiently mobilizing their own national manpower resources (no attempt to conscript for industrial or agricultural work, no efficient use of the adult female population, duplicate military organizations, etc); and
E. interference by politicians at strategic, operational and tactical levels.

Why, you'd almost think that the myth of a super organized and efficient was just that - a myth. Maybe, just maybe the Germans had a racist demo gouge in charge, who put ideology above practicality, didn't know when not to interfere and unlike at least the Western Allies, had no one next to him that was willing to say, "No"

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 12:40 PM
The *Final* solution was exactly that. They just hadn't gotten around to wrapping things up quite yet.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Every professional sports teams' plan is to win every game. That they do not do so doesn't change the fact that that is their plan.

Using what you are trying to pass off as "logic", Germany never had a plan to win the war in Europe. Trues or False?

I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question. Because I like watching you avoid intelligent debate like the plague so I'm going to try this again with different words: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 12:42 PM
Evidently I missed it. Can you please provide a link to where the connection between the Jaeger Report and gas/plan/six is explained? Actually, because the skeptics are now saying that nobody ever claimed there was a plan to exterminate all the Jews, you just need to tie the Jaegar report to the gas chambers and the six million.

But . . . you took a position on the Jaeger report and have been asked to explain and support it, whether or not it's relevant to your own personal view of things. You said that the Jaeger report dealt not with a series of extermination actions against Lithuanian Jews but with ethnic cleansing, or a rogue operation, or anti-partisan actions. Eh?

Also, the Holocaust is not viewed the way you define it, either in popular but serious literature or in specialist studies. Nick earlier quoted the Wikipedia definition as an example of a halfway decent, popular expression of what the Holocaust was:

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban,[3] from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory.[4] Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds perished.[5] In particular, over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.[6][7]

Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.[8] Using this definition, the total number of Holocaust victims is between 11 million and 17 million people.[9]

Nick's comments included: So we have 'approximately' six million Jews, although Hilbergians estimate 5.1 million, as is discussed later in the entry. And we have a dispute between scholars over whether to include non-Jews or not, which would take the total all the way up to 17 million on some calculations.

The opening preamble here defines the Holocaust as a genocide, making it comparable to other mass murders also defined as genocides, and describes the event as "a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory".

There is nothing in this definition about a Plan, or Gas Chambers, or 100% extermination, but there is a clear statement that the Holocaust was a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder.

The statement 'by Nazi Germany' is inaccurate because certain Axis allies like Romania and Croatia also carried out the systematic state-sponsored murder of Jews independently. The statement 'throughout Nazi-occupied territory' is vague but relatively accurate, since the Nazis killed on the spot or deported Jews to their deaths from every territory that they occupied. They also killed Jews deported from territories not under their direct occupation (eg Bulgarian-occupied Greece and Yugoslavia).


So you've learned nothing in months. You just keep repeating nonsense and attributing to those with whom you disagree viewpoints they don't hold.

Here's another popular view of what the Holocaust consisted of, from the USHMM, which differs from your trio, by a long shot, again not reducing the Holocaust to your description of it (gas chambers + 6 million + master plan) - but highlighting open-air mobile killing operations as a part of the Holocaust:

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. "Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community. . . .

WHAT WAS THE HOLOCAUST? 


In 1933, the Jewish population of Europe stood at over nine million. Most European Jews lived in countries that Nazi Germany would occupy or influence during World War II. By 1945, the Germans and their collaborators killed nearly two out of every three European Jews as part of the "Final Solution," the Nazi policy to murder the Jews of Europe. Although Jews, whom the Nazis deemed a priority danger to Germany, were the primary victims of Nazi racism, other victims included some 200,000 Roma (Gypsies). At least 200,000 mentally or physically disabled patients, mainly Germans, living in institutional settings, were murdered in the so-called Euthanasia Program. . . .

ADMINISTRATION OF THE "FINAL SOLUTION" 
 

In the early years of the Nazi regime, the National Socialist government established concentration camps to detain real and imagined political and ideological opponents. Increasingly in the years before the outbreak of war, SS and police officials incarcerated Jews, Roma, and other victims of ethnic and racial hatred in these camps. To concentrate and monitor the Jewish population as well as to facilitate later deportation of the Jews, the Germans and their collaborators created ghettos, transit camps, and forced-labor camps for Jews during the war years. The German authorities also established numerous forced-labor camps, both in the so-called Greater German Reich and in German-occupied territory, for non-Jews whose labor the Germans sought to exploit.

Following the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units) and, later, militarized battalions of Order Police officials, moved behind German lines to carry out mass-murder operations against Jews, Roma, and Soviet state and Communist Party officials. German SS and police units, supported by units of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS, murdered more than a million Jewish men, women, and children, and hundreds of thousands of others. Between 1941 and 1944, Nazi German authorities deported millions of Jews from Germany, from occupied territories, and from the countries of many of its Axis allies to ghettos and to killing centers, often called extermination camps, where they were murdered in specially developed gassing facilities.

THE END OF THE HOLOCAUST 
 

In the final months of the war, SS guards moved camp inmates by train or on forced marches, often called “death marches,” in an attempt to prevent the Allied liberation of large numbers of prisoners. As Allied forces moved across Europe in a series of offensives against Germany, they began to encounter and liberate concentration camp prisoners, as well as prisoners en route by forced march from one camp to another. The marches continued until May 7, 1945, the day the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally to the Allies. For the western Allies, World War II officially ended in Europe on the next day, May 8 (V-E Day), while Soviet forces announced their “Victory Day” on May 9, 1945. . . .

Further Reading

Bergen, Doris. War & Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003


Dawidowicz, Lucy S. The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1975.

Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1986.

Gutman, Israel, editor. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990.

Hilberg, Raul. The Destruction of the European Jews. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

Yahil, Leni. The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 12:51 PM
I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question. Because I like watching you avoid intelligent debate like the plague so I'm going to try this again with different words: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

How about you quote, in context, where you've read historians stating this case?

You have so many open tickets here that it is rather startling to hear you complain that others aren't hopping to their assignments. . . .

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 12:55 PM
Oh, look, it's absolutely nothing!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_60804ff34e2c9e7a2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=26509)

Clayton Moore
3rd July 2012, 12:55 PM
Why? Don't they control the entirely of the historical record, including witness testimony and physical evidence, to such a degree that people who never met have stories that corroborate each other? Posting on forums is small potatoes, relatively speaking.

It's so cute that you think that you're worth two hoots to your imaginary Jewish Overwatch Conspiracy. If you're that big a threat, why haven't you been killed and your body disposed of by now? It's not that hard, as long as lye is kosher.

If you want to talk about ignoring things, why haven't you discussed the flaws in your enraged Jews theory? If they all (except for POWs) would've been driven instantly to murderous rage, heedless of their own safety, when were they finding time to tell other Jews? I certainly pointed several flaws out before you started posting links to HDV despite, as you insist, not being a denier, and you never addressed those either. People have, in fact, already linked to rebuttals of said videos, and you handwaved them.

I discussed the enraged reality completely but you and Team Holocaust aren't reality centered.

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 12:56 PM
Where did those bodies go?

Dead or alive, where did they go ?

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 12:57 PM
I watched and commented on the video.

No you didn't. No one has. I know because Clayton keeps saying so.

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 12:58 PM
I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question.

I love how you guys always frame everything in terms of absolute dichotomies.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 01:02 PM
Some cremated, some in mass graves, some probably left to rot, some may even have been buried properly.

Oh, I'm sorry but that answer is incorrect! "Probably left to rot" isn't specific enough to know if that matches the eyewitness narratives. Tell us where you think they were left to rot and we might have answer. Your suggestion that some were properly interred in consecrated earth is mildly humorous by crediting the Nazis for respecting Jewish burial rites while simultaneously shooting them willy nilly and stapling their earlobes to walls and cutting off their genitals with swords, etc. while they are alive. But I have yet to see that appear in survivor testimonies so it must be idle speculation on your part. But you get partial credit for correctly identifying cremating and mass graves. To make a mass grave you need to dig a hole in the ground, right? How many people do you think were disposed of in mass graves?

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 01:03 PM
Sad.

Sad isn't one of the options. So the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? True or False?

Dcdrac
3rd July 2012, 01:06 PM
Oh, I'm sorry but that answer is incorrect! "Probably left to rot" isn't specific enough to know if that matches the eyewitness narratives. Tell us where you think they were left to rot and we might have answer. Your suggestion that some were properly interred in consecrated earth is mildly humorous by crediting the Nazis for respecting Jewish burial rites while simultaneously shooting them willy nilly and stapling their earlobes to walls and cutting off their genitals with swords, etc. while they are alive. But I have yet to see that appear in survivor testimonies so it must be idle speculation on your part. But you get partial credit for correctly identifying cremating and mass graves. To make a mass grave you need to dig a hole in the ground, right? How many people do you think were disposed of in mass graves?

You are not in a position to say if any of it is correct you have provided no evidence whatsoever for your position nor have you proved any of the evidence provided to back up the reality of the holocaust, is false.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 01:07 PM
I discussed the enraged reality completely but you and Team Holocaust aren't reality centered.

Refresh our memories, Mr Moore. This is the last I recall: Ostracizing and threats of death work well 99.44% of the time.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 01:09 PM
Sad isn't one of the options. So the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? True or False?

I don't dance to your simplistic orders, muppet. Sad was a comment on the quality of your thought and performance.

000063
3rd July 2012, 01:19 PM
Evidently I missed it. I doubt that.

Can you please provide a link to where the connection between the Jaeger Report and gas/plan/six is explained?I probably could, if I could be arsed to look up info for an intellectually dishonest sophist who will ignore it anyway.

(I'm referring to you, BTW.)

Actually, because the skeptics are now saying that nobody ever claimed there was a plan to exterminate all the Jews, you just need to tie the Jaegar report to the gas chambers and the six million.We are saying, as we have been saying for a while now (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8420214#post8420214), that even if the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews, that doesn't mean it was practical to kill them all at once. The fact that this is an actual long-running historical debate, with a Wikipedia article and everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism), should tell you something, as should the fact that none of the people debating it are deniers. As I pointed out, the Nazis wanted to conquer Europe, and weren't able to do so either. Does that mean they weren't planning to?

I can tell you're avoiding 3786, by the way, as well as Clay's posts. For two people supposedly on the same side, you rarely address each other's posts except for a round of backpatting, to put it politely.

I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question. Because I like watching you avoid intelligent debate like the plague so I'm going to try this again with different words: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

I count at least three strawmen in that one sentence.

Good job providing evidence of anyone at all in this thread stating your false dichotomy of "contact" vs "death" in any form whatsoev-no, wait, you've been running and back-pedaling ever since you made the Imaginary Jews assertion.

I discussed the enraged reality completely but you and Team Holocaust aren't reality centered.

Like many of your claims, you will never back this up. Considering that I have never, ever asked you when the Angry Jews would've thrown themselves at the Nazi Pigs and had time for a game of Telephone, you could not have addressed it before, and are manifestly mistaken or lying.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 01:25 PM
The fact that this is an actual long-running historical debate, with a Wikipedia article and everything, should tell you something,...

He is just playing games. This question - which has to do with the the goal of clearing Jews from Nazi-occupied areas, cumulative radicalization of Nazi Jewish policy, locally and centrally directed decisions and actions, escalation to a European-wide solution and policy - has been ventilated quite well in the previous HD thread, with Dogzilla refusing then as now to listen. Heck, in the past couple days, I've linked to or quoted from a number of posts from those earlier arguments. Dogzilla keeps repeating strawmen, unfazed.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 01:30 PM
I doubt that.

I probably could, if I could be arsed to look up info for an intellectually dishonest sophist who will ignore it anyway.

Remember, that with the Jaeger report Dogzilla's dishonesty and dodging reach monumental proportions. All his hot air and diversionary rhetoric can't cover up the fact that he advanced propositions to explain Jaeger's report - propositions unrelated to his simplistic definition of the Holocaust - propositions by which he tried to characterize the actions which Jaeger reported on as anti-partisan in aim, a rogue operation, or ethnic cleansing via population removal.

This - backing up his claims - is what he is running from and trying to cover up with his word salads on bad tangents.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 01:30 PM
Also, the Holocaust is not viewed the way you define it, either in popular but serious literature or in specialist studies. Nick earlier quoted the Wikipedia definition as an example of a halfway decent, popular expression of what the Holocaust was:


Nick's comments included:

So you've learned nothing in months. You just keep repeating nonsense and attributing to those with whom you disagree viewpoints they don't hold.

Here's another popular view of what the Holocaust consisted of, from the USHMM, which differs from your trio, by a long shot, again not reducing the Holocaust to your description of it (gas chambers + 6 million + master plan) - but highlighting open-air mobile killing operations as a part of the Holocaust:

First of all, I say there is not sufficient evidence for gas chambers, for the murder of six million Jews, and for a master plan. That's not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Even saying there is no evidence isn't the same as saying it's not true. But that's just nit picking semantics.

To make it easy, let's just assume that I do deny those three things. You say the popular definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things--not by a long shot. That's good. My definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things either.

So where do you get the idea that I'm denying the holocaust?

000063
3rd July 2012, 01:31 PM
He is just playing games. This question - which has to do with the the goal of clearing Jews from Nazi-occupied areas, cumulative radicalization of Nazi Jewish policy, locally and centrally directed decisions and actions, escalation to a European-wide solution and policy - has been ventilated quite well in the previous HD thread, with Dogzilla refusing then as now to listen. Heck, in the past couple days, I've linked to or quoted from a number of posts from those earlier arguments. Dogzilla keeps repeating strawmen, unfazed.

The common misspelling of that term is "unphased", and I think it would be quite apposite; his convictions and claims have certainly not advanced in any real way since I became a regular in this thread.

Dcdrac
3rd July 2012, 01:32 PM
First of all, I say there is not sufficient evidence for gas chambers, for the murder of six million Jews, and for a master plan. That's not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Even saying there is no evidence isn't the same as saying it's not true. But that's just nit picking semantics.

To make it easy, let's just assume that I do deny those three things. You say the popular definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things--not by a long shot. That's good. My definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things either.

So where do you get the idea that I'm denying the holocaust?
There is stacks of evidence for the Gas chambers and the murder of 6 million innocnet people.

You on the other hand have totally failed to disprove any of it

TSR
3rd July 2012, 01:36 PM
I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question. Because I like watching you avoid intelligent debate like the plague so I'm going to try this again with different words: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

That is false as stated. A simplification is not necessarily inaccurate.

Your turn: Germany never had a plan to win the war in Europe. True or False?

Nessie
3rd July 2012, 01:37 PM
I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question. Because I like watching you avoid intelligent debate like the plague so I'm going to try this again with different words: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

It is true.

TSR
3rd July 2012, 01:40 PM
I discussed the enraged reality completely but you and Team Holocaust aren't reality centered.

If by "discussed completely" you mean "ran away from", I suppose.

Or perhaps you can cite the post in which your complete discussion took place?

Nessie
3rd July 2012, 01:40 PM
Sad isn't one of the options. So the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? True or False?


False.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 01:40 PM
How about you quote, in context, where you've read historians stating this case?

You have so many open tickets here that it is rather startling to hear you complain that others aren't hopping to their assignments. . . .

How about you quote, in context, where I said historians have stated that case? I was quoting Nessie, not a historian.

What open tickets do I have? I have responded to every relevant question that hasn't needed clarification. You guys have been the ones who fear giving a straight up answer to anything.

I'm getting unclear and possibly contradictory statements from Nessie and TSR. I need clarity before I will proceed.

Let's try again: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

Nessie
3rd July 2012, 01:44 PM
First of all, I say there is not sufficient evidence for gas chambers, for the murder of six million Jews, and for a master plan. That's not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Even saying there is no evidence isn't the same as saying it's not true. But that's just nit picking semantics.

To make it easy, let's just assume that I do deny those three things. You say the popular definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things--not by a long shot. That's good. My definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things either.

So where do you get the idea that I'm denying the holocaust?

I had my doubts as well, but having read various links and arguments provided here, those doubts went. That was because the preponderance of evidence shows that there were homicidal gas chambers, millions of Jews were murdered and there was a plan to do so.

Any definition of The Holocaust, as in the name given specifically to the genocidal, ethnic cleansing action of the Nazis during WWII, includes those three elements.

Nessie
3rd July 2012, 01:48 PM
How about you quote, in context, where I said historians have stated that case? I was quoting Nessie, not a historian.

What open tickets do I have? I have responded to every relevant question that hasn't needed clarification. You guys have been the ones who fear giving a straight up answer to anything.

I'm getting unclear and possibly contradictory statements from Nessie and TSR. I need clarity before I will proceed.

Let's try again: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

If you quote me then make it clear you are doing so and show where the quote originally came from.

I have a history degree from one of the top Scottish Universities.

Your over simplistic questions are going to get over simplistic answers which will further confuse rather than clarify.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 01:52 PM
First of all, I say there is not sufficient evidence for gas chambers, for the murder of six million Jews, and for a master plan. That's not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Even saying there is no evidence isn't the same as saying it's not true. But that's just nit picking semantics.

To make it easy, let's just assume that I do deny those three things. You say the popular definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things--not by a long shot. That's good. My definition of the holocaust doesn't include those three things either.

So where do you get the idea that I'm denying the holocaust?

First of all, your pointless clarification about evidence/no evidence aside, my point was that your definition of the Holocaust is simplistic and reductionist - not useful in any discussion or research program I can imagine, except one investigating the pathologies, denial being one. My point as made here: Also, the Holocaust is not viewed the way you define it, either in popular but serious literature or in specialist studies,not a word on sufficiency of evidence.

If you're so hepped up to discuss the totality of evidence, let's hear your take on Jaeger's squad again or better yet on the evidence for what happened to Jews in Vilna, Warsaw, Lodz, Riga, and Kiev, a little matter you have dodged for months.

Second, given all that, it is rather amusing to see you confuse the word include and reduce. You took this sentence of mine Here's another popular view of what the Holocaust consisted of, from the USHMM, which differs from your trio, by a long shot, again not reducing the Holocaust to your description of it (gas chambers + 6 million + master plan) - but highlighting open-air mobile killing operations as a part of the Holocaust and replaced, through stupidity, extreme bias, or mendacity, the concept reducing to the concept including, entirely altering the meaning. Nowhere in what I wrote or quoted were gas vans or gas chambers excluded, for example. In fact, my definition of the Holocaust includes gas vans and gas chambers - but does not reduce to them. My definition includes goals, policies, plans, and tactics - but not, as I explained to you some time ago, a pre-existing master plan. And I have written over and over that I believe that the genocide claimed the lives of 5+ million Jews - and that Nazi extermination actions claimed many additional lives. These points are included - but, as I wrote, the Holocaust doesn't reduce to them any more than it reduces to open-air shootings, phenol injections, ghettoization, death marches, etc., all of which are also included.

Your basic illiteracy here is astonishing. Whether intentional and contrived or a problem you suffer from.

You missed this: But . . . you took a position on the Jaeger report and have been asked to explain and support it, whether or not it's relevant to your own personal view of things. You said that the Jaeger report dealt not with a series of extermination actions against Lithuanian Jews but with ethnic cleansing, or a rogue operation, or anti-partisan actions. Eh?


But of course you did.

Cyrix686
3rd July 2012, 01:52 PM
Good stuff:

If they were so concerned with winning the war why did they:

Why, you'd almost think that the myth of a super organized and efficient was just that - a myth. Maybe, just maybe the Germans had a racist demo gouge in charge, who put ideology above practicality, didn't know when not to interfere and unlike at least the Western Allies, had no one next to him that was willing to say, "No"

Regarding that. Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick in his memoirs wrote on the thing totally unexpected to the Foreign Office...of why Adolf attacked Russia and opened a Second Front with Britain undefeated,

"Hitler was not a reasonable man and the generals were not in control."

The Inner Circle, memoirs of Ivone Kirkpatrick. MacMillan London 1959. p154.

That's good enough for me too. A perfect little quote. Whilst IK didn't like Hitler and the Nazis from the time he spent in Berlin 1933-1938, I can't actually fault that succinct assessment.

His personal memoirs on the Hess landing in the Ducal grounds as "Captain Horn," are very memorable too.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 01:56 PM
How about you quote, in context, where I said historians have stated that case? I was quoting Nessie, not a historian.

Well, in the post I read, since you said "you guys," not "Nessie," I wondered where you got it. If you got it from Nessie, fine, you've answered the question. But stop attributing it to "you guys" then.

I do wonder who wrote this: the description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews

What open tickets do I have? I have responded to every relevant question that hasn't needed clarification. You guys have been the ones who fear giving a straight up answer to anything.

Oh my. I will simply let this crap pass. Except to remark that your put-on amnesia, which forces repetition, makes this discussion tedious beyond expression.

Anyone interested in reality can, of course, scan through posts from members of this forum - 00063's come immediately to mind - to see some of your open tickets.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 01:56 PM
I don't dance to your simplistic orders, muppet. Sad was a comment on the quality of your thought and performance.

So you don't want to be pinned down by acknowledging either that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews or that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews?

Is this because none of those myriad definitions of the holocaust you posted earlier include a mention of "a plan" so any discussion of a plan to exterminate the Jews is irrelevant here?

000063
3rd July 2012, 02:02 PM
How about you quote, in context, where I said historians have stated that case? I was quoting Nessie, not a historian.It's a premise of the statement, by my understanding, unless you phrased it poorly.

What open tickets do I have? I have responded to every relevant question that hasn't needed clarification. You guys have been the ones who fear giving a straight up answer to anything.You are terrible at deciding what is or isn't relevant. For example, I have literally never seen you correcting Clay, no matter how blatantly wrong he is. A "straight-up" answer is not the same as a correct answer. You have repeatedly ignored the question of what happened to 6 million Jews, despite being asked probably dozens of times, until you asserted that they never existed. And then promptly ran away from all attempts to discuss this claim with you. You have also repeatedly ignored my request to show where anyone made claims consistent with your contact/killed fale dichotomy. You cannot even answer the question of whether you read the Jaeger report.

I'm getting unclear and possibly contradictory statements from Nessie and TSR. I need clarity before I will proceed.

Let's try again: The descriptionBy who?

of historians claimingAgain, who is making this claim about historians?

the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth andHang on. Why not an "and/or"?
is not accurate.Why does it have to be both? It could be

Simplification / Accurate | Simplification / Inaccurate
Not a Simplification / Accurate | Not a Simplification / Inaccurate

Your question only allows for one of four possibilites as a "True" answer.
Is that statement true or false?It's a straw man and needlessly complex. Why not just say

""The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews." True/False?" ?

This is an entirely rhetorical question. I know why. Even going

"Historians have claimed that "The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews." True/False?"

Creates confusion as to which premise you are asking is true or false? Whether historians made the claim? Whether the claim itself is true? Whether both are true? What you are currently at is asking a question about a claim that "someone" has alleged historians have claimed about something else. You are three nested claims in.

I find it interesting that for all the claims you say people make, you never provide any evidence of such, IIRC. When someone asks you to provide such evidence, you just change the subject.

Nick Terry
3rd July 2012, 02:04 PM
There's a world of difference between wanting to kill all the Jews, and being able to do so. The Nazis quite clearly wanted to eradicate the Jewish race from Europe and that meant killing them. Historians are in fairly unanimous agreement about this, based on reading the Nazis' own words, which rather repetitively talk about destroying the Jews in Europe.

They were unable to kill them all, because there were military, diplomatic, political and economic barriers to doing so. Bulgaria, a Nazi ally, said 'no' to Nazi requests to deport all of their Jews, and only handed over Jews living in territories annexed from Greece and Yugoslavia. Jews living in core Bulgaria were not deported. The Nazis had to accept this during the war, because Bulgaria was an important military ally in the Balkans, something which outweighed the Nazis' desire to annihilate the Jews of Europe. So 50,000 Jews were saved. The Nazis also experienced disappointment with Romania, which had killed rather a lot of Jews single-handedly, but backed down from handing over Jews still living in core Romania despite conferences to draw up a deportation plan and railroad timetable to Belzec. Clearly the Nazis were disappointed, but could hardly do anything about this because Romania was the chief source of oil for the Axis and a major military ally.

On the other hand, there was no government in Poland allied to Nazi Germany so the Nazis made their own decision about what to do with Polish Jews. That decision was to wipe them out as far as possible. The sole barrier was economic necessity - some Jews needed to be kept alive as slave labourers since the occupation economy required it. Therefore, a small minority was kept alive for the time being, despite the manifest ideological wish of the senior leadership to kill 'em all.

Had the Nazis won the war, they were talking about eradicating 30 million Slavs from Eastern Europe. There is no question in the minds of historians that all Jews would have been killed once the war was over and the Nazis no longer had to worry about wartime exigiencies.

So yes, the Final Solution was certainly a plan to kill all Jews. If you say plan then many people might think of the Five Year Plans in the Soviet Union. Plans are not enacted instantaneously but in stages, as and when they become feasible. Killing most Jews was feasible, killing literally every single one in a single blow was not. The Final Solution began in earnest at the earliest in 1941 and wasn't adopted as policy until January 1942. The war ended in May 1945, a full 20 months before a five year plan would have been completed, with the Nazis defeated. That's why there were survivors.

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 02:05 PM
Let's try again: The description of historians claiming the Nazis wanted to kill all Jews is a simplification of the truth and is not accurate. Is that statement true or false?

I don't know, as I don't recall any historian (see upthread, sigh) arguing it this way - although the Nazis wanted to be rid of the Jews and if it took killing them, which they decided it would, they were willing to try to. As someone said today, having a goal and realizing it are different matters. Apparently, Nessie did put it this way, you say, I dont recall. But I haven't checked for this exact concept in major works by historians - they speak of the Nazis wanting to be rid of the Jews for various reasons - but they also imbed the discussion in those reasons and don't play semantic games with who was a Jew and the like. The way you express it is foreign to the way they discuss the Nazis' Jewish policy and the Final Solution. I think your gloss is such an oversimplification as to be fairly useless. But, the Nazis had a goal of exterminating the Jews of Europe, yes, although not from the start of the war. See, we get into qualifiers and distinctions, which your simple statement doesn't allow for.

As you know, I've posted at length on how I see National Socialist goals and the escalation to the Final Solution. Nothing I wrote, as far as I can recall, would suggest my interest in your simplification of a complex issue.

000063
3rd July 2012, 02:06 PM
If you quote me then make it clear you are doing so and show where the quote originally came from.

I have a history degree from one of the top Scottish Universities.

Your over simplistic questions are going to get over simplistic answers which will further confuse rather than clarify.

Doggie's managed to create some sort of strange oversimplified/overly complex superposition question. On one hand, it oversimplifies what people are actually claiming. On the other, it adds qualifiers so it can be plausibly deniable. What you end up with is basically 100% straw man.

000063
3rd July 2012, 02:13 PM
...
I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

It's not. It's merely difficult for him to accept.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 02:13 PM
So you don't want to be pinned down by acknowledging either that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews or that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews?

Is this because none of those myriad definitions of the holocaust you posted earlier include a mention of "a plan" so any discussion of a plan to exterminate the Jews is irrelevant here?

I don't? I never said that. It was a state-sponsored policy supported by a number of evolving plans aimed at realizing the destruction/mass extermination of the Jews of Europe - pursued in stages and even halting when it became impossible to complete. Your statements are just too simple to be useful. A policy differs to a plan, in the sense of a master plan, with all its angles thought out, which is why I say policy with evolving plans. This is really not that hard, and I've posted at length about it.

Note: Ok, after reading Nick's post, which uses the word plan, I can add that the connotation I want to avoid is that of a master plan, with fixed component parts, and as a plan somehow created at the outset. The policy and tactics to support the Nazi's goal - eliminating Jews from German territory - underwent evolution, and escalated into a policy of extermination, called the Final Solution, embracing actions already underway and driving actions in the future, which responded to the kinds of conditions and impasses that Nick cited. I think he and I are saying pretty much the same thing with different terminology. The result was mass murder - along with exploitation, brutalization, starvation and all that we've long discussed here - and 2 of 3 Jews who had lived in Europe dead as a result.

The other point is that the expression emphasizing desire – that the Nazis "wanted to kill the Jews" – is not quite right. I am sure some (Moll?) did, want to kill Jews, but the way I read the policy is that the Nazis came to the decision that to realize their racial and national goals, they had to kill the Jews, whether they wanted to or not. Himmler expressed this concept in talking about hard duty and maintaining decency and the special qualities of the SS in executing critical policy objectives.

000063
3rd July 2012, 02:19 PM
So you don't want to be pinned down by acknowledging either that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews or that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not a state sponsored plan to physically exterminate the Jews? ...Kids, this is a straw man. The nation of Doggiestan is one of the thread's top producers of them, exceeded only by the Moore Republic, which is the thread leader in incredulity.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 02:24 PM
Doggie's managed to create some sort of strange oversimplified/overly complex superposition question. On one hand, it oversimplifies what people are actually claiming. On the other, it adds qualifiers so it can be plausibly deniable. What you end up with is basically 100% straw man.

Thank you for more clearly stating what I was trying to express.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 02:25 PM
Kids, this is a straw man. The nation of Doggiestan is one of the thread's top producers of them, exceeded only by the Moore Republic, which is the thread leader in incredulity.

Especially when directed at someone whose arguments about this Dogzilla has read for months.

Cyrix686
3rd July 2012, 02:28 PM
Snipped...



I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

And neither do I, none of it as Nick Terry has posted, the constant references to doing so, would tend to make one think so too really. Unless one wanted to live in a fantasy world where history is what you want it to be instead of what it is.

There was an attempt to carry out the Endlösung der Judenfrage. Between five and six million souls lost their lives as a result of this policy. Mainly through, starvation, being worked to death, ill treatment, shooting and gassing. Now there's an end to it. If you want to believe Revisionist rubbish that's up to you. You are perfectly at liberty to do so but before you come out and try and argue against this, in which example after example after example can be given where this policy and all that it entailed is referred to, read something. Alternatively you can stop pretending that you haven't read anything.

Either one would be helpful in discussing your denial of the Holocaust.

000063
3rd July 2012, 02:44 PM
... Alternatively you can stop pretending that you haven't read anything....ftfy.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 04:08 PM
That is false as stated. A simplification is not necessarily inaccurate.

Nessie disagrees (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8422631&postcount=3814). There's no agreement as to whether Germany had planned to exterminate all the Jews or not. Some of you say that a plan to exterminate the Jews isn't even a salient feature of the holocaust. This is why Team holocaust appears to be confused and unable to articulate a coherent position. Your "arguments" are nothing more than disagreeing with anything a person you've labeled a "denier" says and blindly agreeing with everything a "skeptic" says.

Your turn: Germany never had a plan to win the war in Europe. True or False?

False.

TSR
3rd July 2012, 04:24 PM
Nessie disagrees (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8422631&postcount=3814).

Nessie is in the minority, and has stated that he has not studied this era.

There's no agreement as to whether Germany had planned to exterminate all the Jews or not.

Among those who *have* studied these events, there is no disagreement.

Some of you say that a plan to exterminate the Jews isn't even a salient feature of the holocaust.

Please cite the "some" to which you refer.

This is why Team holocaust appears to be confused and unable to articulate a coherent position.

It only appears that you really really want that to be the case, and are unafraid of posting lies and distortions to justify that particular article of faith.

Your "arguments" are nothing more than disagreeing with anything a person you've labeled a "denier" says and blindly agreeing with everything a "skeptic" says.

And yet you started this post highlighting the exact opposite.

How gave you managed to avoid having everything taste like gym socks, when you have your foot in your mouth so often?

False.

And for the same reasons your stated question was false.

000063
3rd July 2012, 04:31 PM
Please cite the "some" to which you refer.

Doggie will not respond to this question at all.

Also, the longer and more detailed a post rebutting him is, the shorter his actual response, to the point where he might not ever respond.

Also, Doggie will never explain what his criteria for "relevant" posts to respond to is, or provide evidence of people in this thread making the claims he says they make, even when directly asked for them.

Nor will he criticize the logical failings of his fellow deniers.

I want my million, Randi.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 04:49 PM
First of all, your pointless clarification about evidence/no evidence aside, my point was that your definition of the Holocaust is simplistic and reductionist - not useful in any discussion or research program I can imagine, except one investigating the pathologies, denial being one. My point as made here: not a word on sufficiency of evidence.

If you're so hepped up to discuss the totality of evidence, let's hear your take on Jaeger's squad again or better yet on the evidence for what happened to Jews in Vilna, Warsaw, Lodz, Riga, and Kiev, a little matter you have dodged for months.

I haven't dodged discussion of these for months. What is there to discuss? I reject the evidence for gas/plan/six. If you thinking Jaeger and Vilna are relevant to that, state your case.

Second, given all that, it is rather amusing to see you confuse the word include and reduce. You took this sentence of mine and replaced, through stupidity, extreme bias, or mendacity, the concept reducing to the concept including, entirely altering the meaning. Nowhere in what I wrote or quoted were gas vans or gas chambers excluded, for example. In fact, my definition of the Holocaust includes gas vans and gas chambers - but does not reduce to them. My definition includes goals, policies, plans, and tactics - but not, as I explained to you some time ago, a pre-existing master plan. And I have written over and over that I believe that the genocide claimed the lives of 5+ million Jews - and that Nazi extermination actions claimed many additional lives. These points are included - but, as I wrote, the Holocaust doesn't reduce to them any more than it reduces to open-air shootings, phenol injections, ghettoization, death marches, etc., all of which are also included.

Your basic illiteracy here is astonishing. Whether intentional and contrived or a problem you suffer from.

Then you would agree that denying gas/plan/six is a denial of three elements of the holocaust and not a denial of the holocaust? On the other hand, if denying the three elements of gas/plan/six is "denying the holocaust," how is the holocaust not reduced to those three elements?



You missed this:

But of course you did.

No I didn't miss it. I ignored it because it isn't relevant.

000063
3rd July 2012, 04:52 PM
it isn't relevant.

Pfft!

:dl:

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 05:03 PM
Sad isn't one of the options.

Have you stopped beating your wife ? Yes or no ?

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 05:05 PM
First of all, I say there is not sufficient evidence for gas chambers, for the murder of six million Jews, and for a master plan.

This is the problem with Holocaust deniers. You think that asserting things makes them true, all the while saying that the people who do have evidence for their claims are merely asserting.

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 05:08 PM
Nessie disagrees (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8422631&postcount=3814). There's no agreement as to whether Germany had planned to exterminate all the Jews or not.

If your definition of "agreement" is "everybody in the world agrees" you are bound to be dissapointed.

Belz...
3rd July 2012, 05:09 PM
I reject the evidence

You most certainly do.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 05:40 PM
It's a premise of the statement, by my understanding, unless you phrased it poorly.

You are terrible at deciding what is or isn't relevant. For example, I have literally never seen you correcting Clay, no matter how blatantly wrong he is. A "straight-up" answer is not the same as a correct answer. You have repeatedly ignored the question of what happened to 6 million Jews, despite being asked probably dozens of times, until you asserted that they never existed. And then promptly ran away from all attempts to discuss this claim with you. You have also repeatedly ignored my request to show where anyone made claims consistent with your contact/killed fale dichotomy. You cannot even answer the question of whether you read the Jaeger report.

I haven't avoided that question. I have said I don't know what happened to any missing Jews. I don't know what happened to any of the Jews period. What does that mean? There must be some relevance to you guys because it comes up all the time. But 'm not going to keep answering it if nobody can articulate any meaning from my answer.


By who?

Again, who is making this claim about historians?

Hang on. Why not an "and/or"?
Why does it have to be both? It could be

Simplification / Accurate | Simplification / Inaccurate
Not a Simplification / Accurate | Not a Simplification / Inaccurate

Your question only allows for one of four possibilites as a "True" answer.
It's a straw man and needlessly complex. Why not just say

""The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews." True/False?" ?

This is an entirely rhetorical question. I know why. Even going

"Historians have claimed that "The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews." True/False?"

Creates confusion as to which premise you are asking is true or false? Whether historians made the claim? Whether the claim itself is true? Whether both are true? What you are currently at is asking a question about a claim that "someone" has alleged historians have claimed about something else. You are three nested claims in.

I find it interesting that for all the claims you say people make, you never provide any evidence of such, IIRC. When someone asks you to provide such evidence, you just change the subject.

You're right. I was trying to use the words you guys have used and it does come out needlessly complex. It's a concept that is complex enough as it is. Saying that the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews isn't the same thing as saying they had a plan to kill all the Jews or that they had the means to kill all the Jews or that they tried to kill all the Jews or that they actually did kill all the Jews.

But it's made needlessly complex around here because nobody wants to be pinned down. It's not possible to discuss anything without people agreeing to something as simple as whether or not the Nazis intended to physically exterminate all the Jews in Europe.

pooshoodog
3rd July 2012, 06:02 PM
I apologize. I've been understanding the question as a false dichotomy of either survival or murder. What you're really saying is that Jews might've suffered any number of fates, but if Dogzilla doesn't know what that fate was, then they were murdered. OK. I get it now. That makes perfect sense.

No one should have a problem with Dogzilla not knowing the answer. It is most likely that Dogzilla doesn't know if his fly unzips north or south. The problem is that we know that Jews were shipped by the hundreds of thousands to Treblinka but no one knows where they subsequently went (other than normal, intelligent people who all hold to the self evident reality that these Jews were gassed at Treblinka just as Commandant Stangl, and all known German and Ukrainian guards have repeatedly asserted). None of the demented, neo-Nazi advocates of Holocaust denial have a plausible, or even a ridiculously implausible theory about where we might find the Jews transported to Treblinka.

If Dogzilla argued that they were taken by space aliens or turned into mushrooms by forest fairies, we would at least have an enjoyable bit of whimsy for entertainment's sake. But Dogzilla is boring me with his trolling. Hopefully someone new will appear to make this discourse amusing.

Cyrix686
3rd July 2012, 06:27 PM
Well perhaps Dogpoet would liven the proceedings up.

He was sighted on Amazon on a Thomas Dalton review...as smokennmirrors, I think that's the same guy.

I rather hope "Dogzilla" isn't actually dogpoet transmitting all along Pooshoodog. LOL.

Anyway back to the topic, as "Dogzilla" doesn't accept the evidence and has rejected it - and we haven't got any other evidence - I'm stumped as to what else we can do.

I suppose we could make some up for him that he won't reject?

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 06:50 PM
I haven't dodged discussion of these for months. What is there to discuss? I reject the evidence for gas/plan/six. If you thinking Jaeger and Vilna are relevant to that, state your case.

As you well know I have done so - what I asked you in return was to explain and support your viewpoint on Jaeger's activity. You've refused to do so.

That matter is separate to your definition of the Holocaust, which I've already also explained is not mine. I can link Jaeger's actions to the USHMM definition - and in fact have already laid out that case.

You are tiresome and boring. Your dodging, which you find cute, adds to the tedium you bring here.

Then you would agree that denying gas/plan/six is a denial of three elements of the holocaust and not a denial of the holocaust? On the other hand, if denying the three elements of gas/plan/six is "denying the holocaust," how is the holocaust not reduced to those three elements?

Since you won't explain your perspective - for example, you throw out a denial that Jaeger's actions constitute anti-Jewish extermination actions - how in the hell should I know where your denial stops? You have been known to generally accept a general statement about something general but deny specifics that put your heroes in hot water. Frankly, I don't know what you think because you dance all around and wind up expressing negationism or smug ignorance as your best position.

So we have gas vans, gas chambers, 5+ million murder victims, state-sponsored extermination policy, open-air shootings in Lithuania . . . you deny all these . . . what else?

You tell us.

No I didn't miss it. I ignored it because it isn't relevant.

No, you didn’t. You first denied it had to do with Jewish extermination actions. Then you ignored questions your denial raised because you couldn't answer them.

But if we are to determine all that you deny, or even what your views are about the Holocaust, the Jaeger report is highly relevant. Your saying that Jaeger's report is about anti-partisan actions, rogue operators, or population resettlement suggests you are a denier of the mobile killing operations - and your stonewalling underscores the suggestion.

To be clear, the reason you dodged this issue - that you toss out ignorant negationism about Jaeger too - isn't that you find it irrelevant, no, it's because you made mind-numbingly stupid claims that you haven't figured out how to support. And you wish the questions about your claims would simply go away.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 07:05 PM
Pfft!

:dl:

And the 2nd aspect to Dogzilla's weak "it isn't relevant" plea is actually quite simple: the major surveys of the Holocaust, specialist monographs and essays, online information from THHP and the USHMM, etc., all claim that the liquidation of the Jews in Lithuania during 1941, on which Jaeger reported is part of the Holocaust. Indeed, the mobile killing operations are treated by scholar after scholar as early cases of the mass extermination of the Jews. Hilberg's total of Jewish victims includes the murders carried out by Jaeger's squad and the other mobile killing units. A good example of all this - I won't cite more, for fear of boring those readers still awake after Dogzilla's tedious exercises - comes from the THHP Website: The Jaeger Report is not only authentic but stands as one of the most important documents about the Holocaust.http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/intro001.htm

I believe, forgetting all else, that the argument that historians, scholars, and others make that the Jaeger report is one of the most important documents about the Holocaust renders it not only relevant but begging for deniers to knock it down.

Yet Dogzilla runs away from the report.

Since Dogzilla has no answer for the questions we've asked him about his claims about the Jaeger report, he now mutters that the report isn't relevant to the Holocaust. Yet those who write on the Holocaust, and who argue the case he disagrees with, all include Jaeger's actions as part of the Holocaust. Astonishing. The lengths this one will go to avoid defending his propositions. The dodging. The inane attempts to divert. Which he expects reasonable people to accept!

One of the most important documents about the Holocaust. Isn't relevant. According to Dogzilla.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 07:46 PM
. . . I reject the evidence for . . .

I believe our work is done here. Thank you, Dogzilla.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 07:57 PM
If Dogzilla argued that they were taken by space aliens or turned into mushrooms by forest fairies, we would at least have an enjoyable bit of whimsy for entertainment's sake. But Dogzilla is boring me with his trolling. Hopefully someone new will appear to make this discourse amusing.

It has reached a certain state, hasn't it?

pooshoodog
3rd July 2012, 08:00 PM
Well perhaps Dogpoet would liven the proceedings up.

He was sighted on Amazon on a Thomas Dalton review...as smokennmirrors, I think that's the same guy.

I rather hope "Dogzilla" isn't actually dogpoet transmitting all along Pooshoodog. LOL.

Anyway back to the topic, as "Dogzilla" doesn't accept the evidence and has rejected it - and we haven't got any other evidence - I'm stumped as to what else we can do.

I suppose we could make some up for him that he won't reject?

Dogpoet is a generally insane, self obsessed, deluded fool with 6 or 7 more loyal internet followers than Dogzilla will ever assemble. Thus, Dogpoet would be an improvement and we could all amuse ourselves as he worked himself into a slobbering rant over the state of the planet and the Jews who control it.

Dogzilla could take a page out of Dogpoets notebook, and start to foam at the gills a little, before we all die of tedium.

LemmyCaution
3rd July 2012, 08:09 PM
Fish came and went. Is he coming back? Maybe Strembleton, licking his wounds, would put in an appearance here. VBG? Moose, may he rest in peace? Any other ideas? - and not Gertrud!

000063
3rd July 2012, 08:23 PM
I haven't avoided that question. I have said I don't know what happened to any missing Jews. I don't know what happened to any of the Jews period. What does that mean? There must be some relevance to you guys because it comes up all the time. But 'm not going to keep answering it if nobody can articulate any meaning from my answer.Because you cannot say the official story is wrong without advancing and supporting an alternative theory.

I assume you no longer believe in the "Imaginary Jews" theory?

You're right. I was trying to use the words you guys have used and it does come out needlessly complex. It's a concept that is complex enough as it is. Saying that the Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews isn't the same thing as saying they had a plan to kill all the Jews or that they had the means to kill all the Jews or that they tried to kill all the Jews or that they actually did kill all the Jews. He sees the light.

But it's made needlessly complex around here because nobody wants to be pinned down.And then it goes dark again. You misunderstood us. The error is on your end. We have literally been stating the difference between various ways of dealing with the Jews over and over and over again, and now you act like it's some great revelation?

The "pinning down" as you call it is a series of strawmen and false dichotomies. It's not "needlessly complex". You oversimplify people's arguments because you don't understand them, and then people don't agree with your distortions. It's really that simple.

What are the odds multiple people would be unable to deliver the same basic arguments in a form you could not understand, and the problem is on their end? The only commonality is the argument, and you. And a single person is automatically going to be more likely to be wrong than multiple people, when dealing with the same information.

It's not possible to discuss anything without people agreeing to something as simple as whether or not the Nazis intended to physically exterminate all the Jews in Europe.Yes it is. The answer is "eventually". It's the difference between "are you having a salad for lunch?" and "are you having a salad for lunch at any point in the rest of your life?".

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 09:44 PM
There's a world of difference between wanting to kill all the Jews, and being able to do so. The Nazis quite clearly wanted to eradicate the Jewish race from Europe and that meant killing them. Historians are in fairly unanimous agreement about this, based on reading the Nazis' own words, which rather repetitively talk about destroying the Jews in Europe.

They were unable to kill them all, because there were military, diplomatic, political and economic barriers to doing so. Bulgaria, a Nazi ally, said 'no' to Nazi requests to deport all of their Jews, and only handed over Jews living in territories annexed from Greece and Yugoslavia. Jews living in core Bulgaria were not deported. The Nazis had to accept this during the war, because Bulgaria was an important military ally in the Balkans, something which outweighed the Nazis' desire to annihilate the Jews of Europe. So 50,000 Jews were saved. The Nazis also experienced disappointment with Romania, which had killed rather a lot of Jews single-handedly, but backed down from handing over Jews still living in core Romania despite conferences to draw up a deportation plan and railroad timetable to Belzec. Clearly the Nazis were disappointed, but could hardly do anything about this because Romania was the chief source of oil for the Axis and a major military ally.

On the other hand, there was no government in Poland allied to Nazi Germany so the Nazis made their own decision about what to do with Polish Jews. That decision was to wipe them out as far as possible. The sole barrier was economic necessity - some Jews needed to be kept alive as slave labourers since the occupation economy required it. Therefore, a small minority was kept alive for the time being, despite the manifest ideological wish of the senior leadership to kill 'em all.

Had the Nazis won the war, they were talking about eradicating 30 million Slavs from Eastern Europe. There is no question in the minds of historians that all Jews would have been killed once the war was over and the Nazis no longer had to worry about wartime exigiencies.

So yes, the Final Solution was certainly a plan to kill all Jews. If you say plan then many people might think of the Five Year Plans in the Soviet Union. Plans are not enacted instantaneously but in stages, as and when they become feasible. Killing most Jews was feasible, killing literally every single one in a single blow was not. The Final Solution began in earnest at the earliest in 1941 and wasn't adopted as policy until January 1942. The war ended in May 1945, a full 20 months before a five year plan would have been completed, with the Nazis defeated. That's why there were survivors.

I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.

It's not difficult to understand. But as we've seen here, there is some confusion among those who profess an understanding and others who are not willing to take a stand. You don't help when you say on one hand that there is no doubt all Jews would have been killed once the war was over except for elderly Jews or WWI veterans. All Jews don't have to be killed all at once for there to be a plan to kill all the Jews. But if some Jews are never going to be killed you can't say there is a plan to kill all of them.

Of course, even if the Nazis did plan to kill all the Jews and did actually succeed in killing all the Jews, the only Jews they would kill would have been the people they defined as Jews. But that's a layer of complexity that very few people around here can actually understand. So, never mind.

Corsair 115
3rd July 2012, 10:11 PM
If they were so concerned with winning the war why did they:

A. Not gear up the economy for sustained production of necessary war materiel vice continuing production of luxury goods;
B. allocating resources to projects that are ineffecient (development of super heavy tanks when medium tank production was low);
C. Diverting resources to a multiple front war instead of concentrating on winning one fight first;
D. Inefficiently mobilizing their own national manpower resources (no attempt to conscript for industrial or agricultural work, no efficient use of the adult female population, duplicate military organizations, etc); and
E. interference by politicians at strategic, operational and tactical levels.


While I agree with your overall point, in the interests of accuracy I have to say that in regards to points (A) and (D) the comments are not entirely correct, based on some sources I have read.

I would say the biggest thing which doomed Germany during the war was its senior leadership. Göring, for example, was a disaster as head of the Luftwaffe.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 10:36 PM
And the 2nd aspect to Dogzilla's weak "it isn't relevant" plea is actually quite simple: the major surveys of the Holocaust, specialist monographs and essays, online information from THHP and the USHMM, etc., all claim that the liquidation of the Jews in Lithuania during 1941, on which Jaeger reported is part of the Holocaust. Indeed, the mobile killing operations are treated by scholar after scholar as early cases of the mass extermination of the Jews. Hilberg's total of Jewish victims includes the murders carried out by Jaeger's squad and the other mobile killing units. A good example of all this - I won't cite more, for fear of boring those readers still awake after Dogzilla's tedious exercises - comes from the THHP Website: http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/intro001.htm

I believe, forgetting all else, that the argument that historians, scholars, and others make that the Jaeger report is one of the most important documents about the Holocaust renders it not only relevant but begging for deniers to knock it down.

Yet Dogzilla runs away from the report.

Since Dogzilla has no answer for the questions we've asked him about his claims about the Jaeger report, he now mutters that the report isn't relevant to the Holocaust. Yet those who write on the Holocaust, and who argue the case he disagrees with, all include Jaeger's actions as part of the Holocaust. Astonishing. The lengths this one will go to avoid defending his propositions. The dodging. The inane attempts to divert. Which he expects reasonable people to accept!

One of the most important documents about the Holocaust. Isn't relevant. According to Dogzilla.

One of the most important documents about the holocaust you say? Let's test that using the Irrelevant Documents Test. You know, the test we apply to reject the relevance of any appearance of, say the Auschwitz four million or the Auschwitz four and a half million, in a trial transcript. When has the Jaeger Report been introduced into evidence in any court? Which specific defendant was convicted based upon which specific information found in the report? How did the Jaeger Report factor into a convicted criminal's sentence? Which specific information was cited specifically by the court as a factor in determining the guilt of and or the sentence of the convicted criminal? If any other evidence was submitted along with the Jaeger Report in any criminal trial, please explain the relative importance of the Jaeger Report vis-a-vis the other evidence and prove that the trier of fact believed that the facts in the Jaeger Report are in fact true.

Then you can tell me how this report is relevant to gas/plan/six--something you continually run away from doing.

Dogzilla
3rd July 2012, 10:47 PM
Yes it is. The answer is "eventually". It's the difference between "are you having a salad for lunch?" and "are you having a salad for lunch at any point in the rest of your life?".

If the answer is "yes, eventually" then the answer is "yes" If the answer is "yes, except for those who have been temporarily exempted" then the answer is "yes" If the answer is "yes, except for those who have been exempted" the answer is "no."

Nick Terry
4th July 2012, 12:29 AM
It's not difficult to understand. But as we've seen here, there is some confusion among those who profess an understanding and others who are not willing to take a stand. You don't help when you say on one hand that there is no doubt all Jews would have been killed once the war was over except for elderly Jews or WWI veterans. All Jews don't have to be killed all at once for there to be a plan to kill all the Jews. But if some Jews are never going to be killed you can't say there is a plan to kill all of them.

Of course, even if the Nazis did plan to kill all the Jews and did actually succeed in killing all the Jews, the only Jews they would kill would have been the people they defined as Jews. But that's a layer of complexity that very few people around here can actually understand. So, never mind.

Never mind indeed. You are of course dizzy from all the semantic plate-spinning.

Most people understand full well that confining elderly people into a massively overcrowded ghetto and undernourishing them is going to *kill* them.

The whole point was to engineer the demise of the Jewish race, right down to the elderly German Jews who had the quarter-Jewish grandchildren that caused Nazi racial theorists so many headaches. The elderly German Jews could have been left in peace to die out naturally, minus the younger generation. But they weren't. They were deported into a hell-hole, whereupon they dropped like flies. Therefore, they were murdered. A less direct form of murder than bullets or gas, but murder nonetheless. Which is why the Jews who died of natural causes in their own homes are not considered Holocaust victims, whereas the Theresienstadt victims are.

Most people who study this subject for longer than five minutes realise that the Nazis were racists on an epic scale, not just regarding Jews but regarding all European peoples and also regarding Germans. The simple fact is that none of the exceptions were applied to Polish Jews because Poles as a whole were one of the next peoples on the chopping block. The exceptions were applied only inside Germany and Austria, because separating out an entire people is always going to be a tricky exercise when they have been coexisting and intermarrying with you for several generations, as was very much the case in Germany.

55,000 German and Austrian Jews were sent to Theresienstadt. That's a smaller number than inhabited the Wilno ghetto you are so keen to avoid discussing. What happened to the Jews of the Wilno ghetto, Dogzilla?

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 01:56 AM
No one should have a problem with Dogzilla not knowing the answer. It is most likely that Dogzilla doesn't know if his fly unzips north or south. The problem is that we know that Jews were shipped by the hundreds of thousands to Treblinka but no one knows where they subsequently went (other than normal, intelligent people who all hold to the self evident reality that these Jews were gassed at Treblinka just as Commandant Stangl, and all known German and Ukrainian guards have repeatedly asserted). None of the demented, neo-Nazi advocates of Holocaust denial have a plausible, or even a ridiculously implausible theory about where we might find the Jews transported to Treblinka.

And their missing status proves the holocaust???? How?

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 02:07 AM
Never mind indeed. You are of course dizzy from all the semantic plate-spinning.

Most people understand full well that confining elderly people into a massively overcrowded ghetto and undernourishing them is going to *kill* them.

Good thing the Nazis didn't do that!

The whole point was to engineer the demise of the Jewish race, right down to the elderly German Jews who had the quarter-Jewish grandchildren that caused Nazi racial theorists so many headaches. The elderly German Jews could have been left in peace to die out naturally, minus the younger generation. But they weren't. They were deported into a hell-hole, whereupon they dropped like flies. Therefore, they were murdered. A less direct form of murder than bullets or gas, but murder nonetheless. Which is why the Jews who died of natural causes in their own homes are not considered Holocaust victims, whereas the Theresienstadt victims are.

If that is what you think that is what happened, why did you say they were "exempt" from the Final Solution? Shooting and gassing them is holocaust-bad but sticking them in hellholes where they drop like flies is just a little worse than not calling them on their birthday?

Most people who study this subject for longer than five minutes realise that the Nazis were racists on an epic scale, not just regarding Jews but regarding all European peoples and also regarding Germans. The simple fact is that none of the exceptions were applied to Polish Jews because Poles as a whole were one of the next peoples on the chopping block. The exceptions were applied only inside Germany and Austria, because separating out an entire people is always going to be a tricky exercise when they have been coexisting and intermarrying with you for several generations, as was very much the case in Germany.

55,000 German and Austrian Jews were sent to Theresienstadt. That's a smaller number than inhabited the Wilno ghetto you are so keen to avoid discussing. What happened to the Jews of the Wilno ghetto, Dogzilla?

I dunno. Were they shot by Germans into a pit? If that happen, I'm sure you can show me the pit and the forensic report. But how would that be evidence for gas chambers, for six million dead, or for a plan to exterminate all the Jews (except the ones who are exempt) anyway?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 02:53 AM
One of the most important documents about the holocaust you say?

That was THHP expressing things that way. Ronald Headland says that "this report is without equal" among reports about the killings of the mobile killing squads, which carried out he massacres of Jews in the East. Again, I won't pile up comments here but simply note that you somehow missed the point of my post: you say that the document is irrelevant, yet people who study and write about the Holocaust stress its relevancy. Leaving you looking like a dissembler and weasel, I'm afraid.

Let's test that using the Irrelevant Documents Test.

Another standard you are making up ad hoc?

You know, the test we apply to reject the relevance of any appearance of, say the Auschwitz four million or the Auschwitz four and a half million, in a trial transcript. When has the Jaeger Report been introduced into evidence in any court? Which specific defendant was convicted based upon which specific information found in the report? How did the Jaeger Report factor into a convicted criminal's sentence? Which specific information was cited specifically by the court as a factor in determining the guilt of and or the sentence of the convicted criminal? If any other evidence was submitted along with the Jaeger Report in any criminal trial, please explain the relative importance of the Jaeger Report vis-a-vis the other evidence and prove that the trier of fact believed that the facts in the Jaeger Report are in fact true.

1) The gold standard of a document's value in reconstructing the past is not its usefulness in a trial. 2) The document, in case a reader doesn't know this, was discovered subsequent to the Nuremberg proceedings, for example. 3) Nevertheless, the very THHP article to which I linked, and which you evidently ignored, just as you ignore questions about the claims you've made concerning Jaeger's report and about the fate of Jews in 5 German-occupied cities, said this the Jaeger Report has been used at several other legal proceedings in several countries including Germany, Canada, and the United States. The most recent use of the Jaeger Report was in "U.S. v. Stelmokas" 100 F.3rd 302 (3rd Cir.; 1996). . . . Its impact can be gauged by the statement of one of the appeals court judges who reviewed the document. "Colonel Jaeger reports the executions of thousands of Jews and hundreds of others in such an impersonal, matter-of-fact-manner and with such pride that his account leaves one in a horror-driven state of shock." (100 F.3rd 302, 325).


Then you can tell me how this report is relevant to gas/plan/six--something you continually run away from doing.

Leaving aside the "little" definitional problem you ignore, I have done this at length in posts I've linked to, posts from months ago. The document is an official report informing Jaeger's superior of the activity of Jaeger's squad in Lithuania in executing its assignments and itemizes the murders of over 130,000 Jews in summer and fall 1941, which constitute a portion of the 1.4 million Jews estimated by Hilberg to have been exterminated by the Germans and their helpers in mobile killing actions. The report states that the goal of the murders carried out by Jaeger's squad was to make Lithuania free of Jews, which applies the goal of German Jewish policy to a specific occupied area.

To remind you, you had claimed no documentation existed for extermination actions and specifically said you wouldn't accept a document that was oblique, that used fuzzy maths, or that discussed anti-partisan actions or reprisal shooting. I wrote that the Jaeger report rubbished your silliness on all grounds. To remind you what you asked for, here is what I was responding to when I offered the Jaeger report, among other documents, When asked for a document that unambiguously says "extermination," don't offer one that says "special treatment." . . . Don't say that the documentary evidence of a planned ethnic cleansing is evidence of an extermination. . . . Don't quote the opinion of a court that convicted members of the SS of treating Jews inhumanely as evidence that there was a policy of physically annihilating all the Jews. Don't offer a report that says X number of Jews were shot in retaliation for the murder of a German soldier as evidence that all the Jews were going to be killed."

To remind you, again, that I have never avoided the question how the report links to the Holocaust, here are some points I made during our first discussion of the report:

[The Jaeger Report] reflected a policy to exterminate Jews in Lithuania, unequivocally, and can be connected to other documents and actions to kill Jews throughout the East, even before the general European program was decided.

The early mass extermination actions targeting Jews, initiated by instructions to the Einsatzgruppen and then expanded by orders from Himmler and Heydrich in the summer of 1941, occurred in the East, with victims being Jews living in the occupied East. There are documents and other evidence that show this. One such document is the Jaeger Report.


[T]he intention to murder all of Europe's Jews developed over time, with input from regional activists as well as central orders.

The most obvious and glaring point is your steadfast refusal to give an explanation of your view that Colonel Jaeger's report doesn't discuss the extermination actions resulting in over 130,000 Jewish deaths but rather anti-partisan operations, rogue activity, or ethnic cleansing. If we could clear this up, we could then move on to Cyrix's requested discussion intentionalism/functionalism or to your sophistic presentation of what constitutes an action that's part of the Holocaust. But first things first - and you've been dodging a defense of your stated viewpoint for months.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 02:59 AM
Good thing the Nazis didn't do that!

The Nazis didn't confine elderly people into a massively overcrowded ghetto and undernourish them?

So now we have ghettos, gas vans, gas chambers, 5+ million murder victims, state-sponsored extermination policy, open-air shootings in Lithuania . . . you deny all these . . . what else?

You tell us.

As a reminder, in Hilberg's tally of Jews killed in the Holocaust, which he calls the destruction of the European Jews, the figure given for ghetto and aggravated deaths, of which the starvation deaths of the elderly Jews mentioned by Nick make up part, is 800,000. It is appearing to be increasingly irrelevant how you define the Holocaust, as you seem to deny the crimes of the Nazis whether they are included in your sophistic definition or not.

Belz...
4th July 2012, 03:25 AM
The Nazis didn't confine elderly people into a massively overcrowded ghetto and undernourish them?

Of course they didn't !! The Nazis were cuddly creatures with not an evil bone in them. They didn't kill a single human, but maybe a few Jews. There was no holocaust, but if there was, good for them !

Disgusting.

Multivac
4th July 2012, 03:25 AM
I'm having an image of a Nederlandsche SS in Amsterdam, waving a submachine gun -- "You there, with the yellow star! Do you have close friends or family? Okay, then -- on to the train with you!"

"But...I'm a branch manager at the Bank of the Netherlands -- my co-workers would wonder where I'd gone."

"Oh. Sorry then, sir. Don't tell anyone about this conversation, though, or we will have you....err....left in place and severely frowned at."

With John Cleese as the SS officer? Just because I can imagine him saying these lines in a Python sketch. He would then mutter "right, then!" and march off to annoy someone else.

Belz...
4th July 2012, 03:26 AM
And their missing status proves the holocaust???? How?

:hb:

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 03:28 AM
We bring you this as a public service announcement, reminding you of yet another claim made by Dogzilla which he is hoping to cover over in diversion, obfuscation, semantic quibbles, and sophistry:

So there's the last scenario. This is the one that puts all the pieces of the puzzle together and, given the current state of knowledge, is the best:

3) Those people were never there.

Multivac
4th July 2012, 03:30 AM
This is a very good point. If there was a policy of killing Jews, why Hitler exempt any of them?

Because he wanted them as slave labour before they were killed. Or as canon-fodder in the army.

The point is this: if there was no system in place for killing jews, there would be no need for Hitler to authorise excemptions. The fact that he was required to make occasion excemptions proves that the standard operation procedure was to kill Jews.

Multivac
4th July 2012, 04:04 AM
I love how you guys will never answer a straight up yes/no, true/false question.

My irony meter just exploded! How do I claim for a new one?

Nessie
4th July 2012, 04:11 AM
Nessie disagrees (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8422631&postcount=3814). There's no agreement as to whether Germany had planned to exterminate all the Jews or not. Some of you say that a plan to exterminate the Jews isn't even a salient feature of the holocaust. This is why Team holocaust appears to be confused and unable to articulate a coherent position. Your "arguments" are nothing more than disagreeing with anything a person you've labeled a "denier" says and blindly agreeing with everything a "skeptic" says.



.....

You are seriously clutching at straws if you are having to cite me in any shape or form to make an argument for your position :eye-poppi

However, I would say that if the Nazis had won and had total control of Europe, they may have still been Jewish survivors as plans are rarely 100% successful, not all Germans and others mentioned such as Bulgarians were anti-semitic.

That in no way disproves the Holocaust.

Nessie
4th July 2012, 04:16 AM
Re this

Originally Posted by Dogzilla
This is a very good point. If there was a policy of killing Jews, why Hitler exempt any of them?

Because whilst there was a policy of killing Jews, some were still considered to be of use to the Nazis. But the policy of killing Jews was so ingrained that it needed the authority of the top man, Hitler himself to be able to go against it.

There may be no written Hitler order to kill the Jews, but it appears we have them to be exempt from being killed. That strongly suggests Hitler knew and approved of the policy to kill the Jews as he wanted to be informed of and approve when there was a request not to kill them. That was not something trusted to anyone lower in the chain of command.

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 05:21 AM
Re this

Originally Posted by Dogzilla
This is a very good point. If there was a policy of killing Jews, why Hitler exempt any of them?

Because whilst there was a policy of killing Jews, some were still considered to be of use to the Nazis. But the policy of killing Jews was so ingrained that it needed the authority of the top man, Hitler himself to be able to go against it.

There may be no written Hitler order to kill the Jews, but it appears we have them to be exempt from being killed. That strongly suggests Hitler knew and approved of the policy to kill the Jews as he wanted to be informed of and approve when there was a request not to kill them. That was not something trusted to anyone lower in the chain of command.


Originally Posted by LemmyCaution View Post
And, a brief essay, on the question of Jewish soldiers in the Wehrmacht: http://books.google.com/books?id=jdR...jewish&f=false Chapter 9
Quote:
In light of how aggressively Hitler pursued the extermination of the Jews, it is surprising how much time he spent reviewing applications for exemptions from the racial laws submitted by Mischlinge. One can understand his careful analysis of the pros and cons of removing a Mischling general from his post, but to many to whom Hitler granted these coveted exemptions were common soldiers with the ranks of private or NCO. Hitler's exemptions and the actions of thousands of Ayran officers, including men close to Hitler, in support of Mishclinge contradicted the Nazis' Weltanschauung. What is particularly difficult to believe that the antisemite Hitler himself granted even one exemption from the racial laws. But he personally issued many. As Kershaw wrote, "Nothing was as it seemed in the Third Reich."




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


The procedures, most humbling for the (grand)mothers, who had to declare in court they had committed adultery, more often ended with the wished success, than the other way around. Success resulted from several reasons. First, some lawyers specialised in such procedures and prepared them professionally, also refusing hopeless cases. There was no danger in the procedures, because in case of failure, this did not downgrade the classification of the litigant. Second, usually all the family members - including the sometimes still living doubted (grand)father - co-operated. Usually very likely alternative fathers were named, who either appeared themselves in court confirming their most likely fatherhood or who were already dead, but known as good friends, neighbours or subtenants of the (grand)mother. Fourth, the included obligatory, and most humbling body examinations of doubted father and child especially searched for allegedly racial features of outward appearance as conceived among anti-Semites to be typically Jewish, besides the blood typing test etc. already usual in earlier regular paternity suits.

Especially when the doubted (grand)father was already dead, emigrated or deported (as after 1941), the examination concentrated on these supposedly abnormous outward features considered Jewish, to be found in the physiognomy of the descendant (child). Since the anti-Semitic clichés on Jewish outward appearance were so stereotyped, the usual litigant did not show features clearly indicating his Jewish descent in the eyes of the expert witnesses, so they often delivered in their medical evidences ambiguous results.[15] Fifth the judges then tended to believe the (grand)mothers, alternative fathers, doubted fathers and other witnesses, who paid such a high price publicly humbling themselves, and not recorded for earlier perjuring, and declared the prior paternity annulled, ensuing the status improvement for the litigant.[16]


Not even close Nessie.

Border Reiver
4th July 2012, 06:05 AM
While I agree with your overall point, in the interests of accuracy I have to say that in regards to points (A) and (D) the comments are not entirely correct, based on some sources I have read.

I would say the biggest thing which doomed Germany during the war was its senior leadership. Göring, for example, was a disaster as head of the Luftwaffe.

You are right, I simplified slightly to make a point. I drew most of this from a single source (James Lucas' "World War II Through German Eyes"), and general overview of the period.

The idea that the German economy was not rigged for a protracted war and planned it's war economy for short sharp campaigns with a startegic pause in between to rebuild stores for the next one is fairly sound when you start looking at the priorities for production - short to mid range tactical bombers, tanks that required a lot of precise machining and individual work (Panthers and Tigers), precisely machined small arms, etc. When the fighting got to the protracted war (essentially after June 1941, when the war became a two front job), the established factories were simply unable to keep up with the demand - which is why late war items tend to be far less well finished, and/or are easier to manufacture (for example the MG 42 is much simpler to manufacture than its predecessor MG34).

I will definitely agree that the nazi leadership was a huge reason they lost - and the inability of their subordinates to really be able to speak out against bad decisions made sure that any mistakes were amplified.

Dcdrac
4th July 2012, 06:38 AM
Clayton you are no more qualified to comment on this than Dogzilla is all you both betray is clear ignorance of what you are discussing in this and other threads we see your knoweldge is not based on any real research into the subject to hand and is entirely gleaned from the internet.

TSR
4th July 2012, 07:27 AM
Not even close Nessie.


The point you seem to miss, cm, is that Hitler was not ruling on their status as mishclinge, but rather whether or not this or that mishclinge wsa useful enough to warrant an exception to the laws which would otherwise apply.

These exemptions were very rarely granted to half- or full Jews (I can think of none that didn't involve official covering up of the Jewish heritage), so being declared mishclinge was a necessary but not sufficient step in the the process -- being mishclinge was no guarantee the exemption would be granted, but not being was basically a guarantee that it would not.

000063
4th July 2012, 07:58 AM
If the answer is "yes, eventually" then the answer is "yes" If the answer is "yes, except for those who have been temporarily exempted" then the answer is "yes" If the answer is "yes, except for those who have been exempted" the answer is "no."

Answer the question, Dogzilla;

I assume you no longer believe in the "Imaginary Jews" theory?

It is entirely relevant to the thread whether you still believe in the theory you advanced. Your comprehension of the arguments of others is also relevant. The only reason you think other's positions are "needlessly complex" is because you don't understand them. A qualified "yes" being the same as a "no" is only valid if you are trying to strip all detail and nuance from the debate, or are unable to understand same.

Plus, there's your entirely vague definition of "relevance", which seems to automatically exclude any point you don't want to address, curiously.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 08:07 AM
You are seriously clutching at straws if you are having to cite me in any shape or form to make an argument for your position :eye-poppi

However, I would say that if the Nazis had won and had total control of Europe, they may have still been Jewish survivors as plans are rarely 100% successful, not all Germans and others mentioned such as Bulgarians were anti-semitic.

That in no way disproves the Holocaust.

No fooling. And if there were just 22 survivors (5 in hiding in Berlin, 6 being either Mischlinge or Jews in mixed marriages who'd endured their time working for Organization Todt, 7 escapees of various shooting actions who hid with sympathetic peasants, and 4 Jewish children raised Catholic to conceal their identities), this handful would be touted by some loony-tune somewhere, maybe calling himself Dogzilla, as disproving the intention of the Germans to eliminate Jews from Europe and their conducting a multi-pronged mass extermination campaign to get it done. Because they didn't kill them all.

I have to say - having been through some horrifically stupid denier arguments - Dogzilla's performance in here is close to or at the bottom.

Speaking of which, has anyone nominated for a Stundie his assertion that the best concept to put together the pieces of what he imagines to be a puzzle is that Jews were never there, in Europe, in the first place? It deserves such a nod. His sophistry regarding his either/or and definition of the Holocaust, along with his persistent dodging defense of even his own claims, are just as mind boggling but lack the pith and pugnacious stupidity of Those people were never there.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 08:09 AM
Plus, there's your entirely vague definition of "relevance", which seems to automatically exclude any point you don't want to address, curiously.

Vague and dishonest, yes.

And which seems to have gotten him wandering into denial of anything uncomfortable to his heroes, even as he acts the stickler for his reductionist and dumbed-down definition of the Holocaust.

Nessie
4th July 2012, 08:29 AM
......


Not even close Nessie.

If there was no policy to exterminate the Jews that went all the way to the top, why did it need Hitler's approval to get an exemption?

Belz...
4th July 2012, 08:32 AM
If there was no policy to exterminate the Jews that went all the way to the top, why did it need Hitler's approval to get an exemption?

It's actually funny that they use the exemption thing as proof that there wasn't an actual extermination policy while in fact the very existence of exemptions proves the opposite.

Cyrix686
4th July 2012, 08:34 AM
Snipped...

I have to say - having been through some horrifically stupid denier arguments - Dogzilla's performance in here is close to or at the bottom.

Speaking of which, has anyone nominated for a Stundie his assertion that the best concept to put together the pieces of what he imagines to be a puzzle is that Jews were never there, in Europe, in the first place? It deserves such a nod. His sophistry regarding his either/or and definition of the Holocaust, along with his persistent dodging defense of even his own claims, are just as mind boggling but lack the pith and pugnacious stupidity of

Those people were never there.

Someone must perform this vital function forthwith to place this Dogzilla denier with the potential to, "knock-down bees" Stundie into the nominations bucket of stupid typings.

It'll surely follow Berg's crap about simply holding your breath in a gas chamber in order to survive and effortlessly, "win."

It's far worse than Berg's crap, so I don't see how it can't not assuredly race to the bottom of dumbass.

Cyrix686
4th July 2012, 08:41 AM
Dogzilla:

THOSE PEOPLE WERE NEVER THERE.

Nessie
4th July 2012, 09:13 AM
The issue of exemptions is very interesting. Apparently the exemption was a Deutschblütigkeitserklärung and here is an example

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/German_Blood_Certificate

A number of soldiers had them, researched by Bryan Rigg and published by the University Press of Kansas

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html

Then why the need for an Abstammungsnachweis or Ancestry Certificate which has a stamp stating not Jewish or of mixed blood?

http://www.usmbooks.com/aryan_proof.html

If there really was no issue with the Nazis about Jews as far as deniers are concerned, why the need for a German Blood Certificate?

Cyrix686
4th July 2012, 09:54 AM
I have found DZ some more non existent Jews, this time this group of figments of our imagination are being not rounded up prior to not being taken to somewhere he's not read about because he's not satisfied and rejects evidence he is never seen or read...

The VII fort at Kaunas.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/this_month/july/06.asp

000063
4th July 2012, 10:56 AM
Cyrix, evidence Doggie hasn't looked at clearly isn't relevant, no matter how many times people explain to him how it is.

Duh.

Dcdrac
4th July 2012, 11:07 AM
Evidence.......yes........

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 11:10 AM
If there really was no issue with the Nazis about Jews as far as deniers are concerned, why the need for a German Blood Certificate?

Nessie thinks there was no issue with the Nazis about the Jews??!?? Where would Nessie get the idea that anybody thinks that?!? Where's that stupid laughing dog slapping the ground animated gif when you need it?

Nessie
4th July 2012, 11:17 AM
Nessie thinks there was no issue with the Nazis about the Jews??!?? Where would Nessie get the idea that anybody thinks that?!? Where's that stupid laughing dog slapping the ground animated gif when you need it?

I think you are playing with semantics again.

Please answer the question, why did Hitler have to approve exemptions?

000063
4th July 2012, 11:36 AM
If there really was no issue with the Nazis about Jews as far as deniers are concerned...Nessie thinks there was no issue with the Nazis about the Jews??!?? Where would Nessie get the idea that anybody thinks that?!? Where's that stupid laughing dog slapping the ground animated gif when you need it?That's not actually an answer, or a denial, and we can all see that, as well as your quote-mining.

Tomtomkent
4th July 2012, 12:02 PM
That's not actually an answer, or a denial, and we can all see that, as well as your quote-mining.

Not even that. A failure to understand the word "if".

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 12:06 PM
That was THHP expressing things that way. Ronald Headland says that "this report is without equal" among reports about the killings of the mobile killing squads, which carried out he massacres of Jews in the East. Again, I won't pile up comments here but simply note that you somehow missed the point of my post: you say that the document is irrelevant, yet people who study and write about the Holocaust stress its relevancy. Leaving you looking like a dissembler and weasel, I'm afraid.



Another standard you are making up ad hoc?

No. That's one you guys made up ad hoc. It's among the more useless arguments you've made for rejecting evidence. But since you guys seem to think it has value I thought we should apply it here.


1) The gold standard of a document's value in reconstructing the past is not its usefulness in a trial.

So what is the gold standard of a document's value in reconstructing the past? Please explain how that gold standard has been applied to evidence for the holocaust that has been used in a trial. I mean, if there is any evidence for the holocaust that has also been used as evidence in a court of law.


2) The document, in case a reader doesn't know this, was discovered subsequent to the Nuremberg proceedings, for example. 3) Nevertheless, the very THHP article to which I linked, and which you evidently ignored, just as you ignore questions about the claims you've made concerning Jaeger's report and about the fate of Jews in 5 German-occupied cities, said this




Leaving aside the "little" definitional problem you ignore, I have done this at length in posts I've linked to, posts from months ago. The document is an official report informing Jaeger's superior of the activity of Jaeger's squad in Lithuania in executing its assignments and itemizes the murders of over 130,000 Jews in summer and fall 1941, which constitute a portion of the 1.4 million Jews estimated by Hilberg to have been exterminated by the Germans and their helpers in mobile killing actions. The report states that the goal of the murders carried out by Jaeger's squad was to make Lithuania free of Jews, which applies the goal of German Jewish policy to a specific occupied area.

Nothing you linked to on that hate site explains how anything specific to the Jaeger Report was used as specific evidence to convict any specific defendant and that the court believed that the evidence was true.

As an aside, why does that article insist that the Jaeger Report is authentic? Isn't a document that somebody uses as evidence assumed to be authentic? If I picked up my car from the valet, and the valet tells me that he didn't rifle through the glove compartment looking for money, I get a little suspicious. Was there any doubt about this document's authenticity? It looks like courts of law have accepted the document's authenticity but since usefulness in a court isn't the gold standard of a documents value for reconstructing the past, has it's authenticity been confirmed outside of a court of law? Please tell me that Karl Jaeger isn't a person who is known to us only through an entry in diary that was written by a dead guy who buried it right before he was shot.


To remind you, you had claimed no documentation existed for extermination actions and specifically said you wouldn't accept a document that was oblique, that used fuzzy maths, or that discussed anti-partisan actions or reprisal shooting. I wrote that the Jaeger report rubbished your silliness on all grounds. To remind you what you asked for, here is what I was responding to when I offered the Jaeger report, among other documents,

To remind you, again, that I have never avoided the question how the report links to the Holocaust, here are some points I made during our first discussion of the report:

The most obvious and glaring point is your steadfast refusal to give an explanation of your view that Colonel Jaeger's report doesn't discuss the extermination actions resulting in over 130,000 Jewish deaths but rather anti-partisan operations, rogue activity, or ethnic cleansing. If we could clear this up, we could then move on to Cyrix's requested discussion intentionalism/functionalism or to your sophistic presentation of what constitutes an action that's part of the Holocaust. But first things first - and you've been dodging a defense of your stated viewpoint for months.

Does the Jaeger Report document the shooting of anybody identified as a Communist? Yes or No?

Nessie
4th July 2012, 12:15 PM
.....


Does the Jaeger Report document the shooting of anybody identified as a Communist? Yes or No?

Yes

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/img002.htm

Now answer my question. Why did Hitler have to approve exemptions?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 12:16 PM
I haven't avoided that question. I have said I don't know what happened to any missing Jews. I don't know what happened to any of the Jews period. What does that mean? There must be some relevance to you guys because it comes up all the time. But 'm not going to keep answering it if nobody can articulate any meaning from my answer.


Historians argue that 5+ million Jews perished at the hands of the Nazis and their allies in a genocide during WWII. Dogzilla vacillates between saying he doesn't know what happened to these people, that he doesn't care what happened to them, and that he doesn't think they existed in the first place. He doesn't find it odd that someone who presumes to lecture others about the Holocaust should fail to have a clue about 5+ million missing people, about whose fate historians have expended great effort and accumulated vast amounts of evidence, and their whereabouts.

To get shy of his demographic waffle, he's been given 5 case studies of German occupied cities - with 840,000 give or take Jewish residents during the war years - and again, he hasn't a clue: I haven't dodged discussion of these for months. What is there to discuss? I reject the evidence . . .

What evidence he doesn't say. He just rejects it. Full negationist mode. Preemptive rejection of all the evidence.

So, by Dogzilla's standard and in his own words, deniers contribution to historical understanding of the Holocaust is to make claims, as he has done about the Jaeger report, that they cannot substantiate; to state their smug satisfaction at being ignorant about a demographic hole of 5+ million; and to declare that there is nothing to discuss regarding 800,000 Jews disappearing from five cities under German care.

Whatever deniers are interested in, as Dogzilla makes clear, it isn't historical knowledge or understanding.

Why would anyone take these clowns seriously?

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 12:21 PM
You are seriously clutching at straws if you are having to cite me in any shape or form to make an argument for your position :eye-poppi

I cite you as evidence that Team holocaust doesn't have the story straight. Isn't it you who once understood the potential problems that could arise when people are exposed to misinformation in schools or museums? You guys need to make up your minds about what somebody needs to "deny" before they can be called a holocaust "denier."

However, I would say that if the Nazis had won and had total control of Europe, they may have still been Jewish survivors as plans are rarely 100% successful, not all Germans and others mentioned such as Bulgarians were anti-semitic.

That in no way disproves the Holocaust.

You're making the assumption that there could possibly be one piece of evidence that disproves the holocaust. There isn't. No single piece of evidence can prove that something didn't happen.

And, btw, if the Nazis had won the war and successfully exterminated every single one of the Jews in the entire world, there would still be Jews because of the Nazi definition of Jew. But that's too complicated for people around here to understand so, never mind.

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 12:24 PM
If there was no policy to exterminate the Jews that went all the way to the top, why did it need Hitler's approval to get an exemption?

A court system in Germany that Jewish people could use to dispute German laws?
Another convoluted acquiescing process by the Germans.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Numbers_of_people_considered_Mischlinge

Requests for reclassification (e.g., Jew as Mischling of 1st degree, 1st degree as 2nd degree) or Aryanization (see German Blood Certificate) were personally reviewed by Adolf Hitler. Apparently, he considered the issue important enough to him that he found time to review a few thousand such files. A reclassification approved by the Nazi party chancery and Hitler was considered an act of mercy (Gnadenakt). Further de facto reclassifications, however, missing any official document, were privileges accorded certain artists and other experts by way of special protection by high-ranking Nazis.[12]

A second way of reclassification was by way of declaratory action in court. Usually the discriminated person took the action, doubting his genetical descent from the Jewish-classified man until then regarded the biological (grand)father.[13] Paternity suits aiming for reclassification (German: Abstammungsverfahren) appeared mostly with deceased, divorced or illegitimate (grand)fathers. They usually aimed at improving the discriminated and persecuted litigant's status from Jewish-classified to Mischling of first degree, or Mischling of first degree to second degree. The numbers of such suits soared when the Nazi government imposed new discriminations and persecutions (Nuremberg Laws 1935, November Pogrom 1938, and systematic deportations of Jewish Germans and Gentile Germans of Jewish descent to concentration camps, 1941).[14]


Yet another convoluted acquiescing process by the Germans.

Stop the clock for these Jewish husbands of non Jewish wives so they can continue to procreate.


The Rosenstrasse protest was a nonviolent protest in Rosenstraße ("Rose street") in Berlin in February and March 1943, carried out by the non-Jewish ("Aryan") wives and relatives of Jewish men who had been arrested for deportation. The protests escalated until the men were released. It was a significant instance of opposition to the events of the Holocaust.

000063
4th July 2012, 12:25 PM
...
As an aside, why does that article insist that the Jaeger Report is authentic? Isn't a document that somebody uses as evidence assumed to be authentic? If I picked up my car from the valet, and the valet tells me that he didn't rifle through the glove compartment looking for money, I get a little suspicious. Was there any doubt about this document's authenticity?What if you ask your valet if he did anything besides drive your car too and from the parking spot, and he says no? Because that's the equivalent here.

You really can't think of any sort of group with a vested interest in trying to discredit one of the most damning and unambiguous Holocaust documents?

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=12367
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t95930/
http://www.cwporter.com/goodold.htm
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4248

It looks like courts of law have accepted the document's authenticity but since usefulness in a court isn't the gold standard of a documents value for reconstructing the past, has it's authenticity been confirmed outside of a court of law?Yes. I'd go find the specific information, but you, lying sophist, you know how it is. For example, you will never get around to explaining why it shouldn't be considered authentic.

Please tell me that Karl Jaeger isn't a person who is known to us only through an entry in diary that was written by a dead guy who buried it right before he was shot.I love how you construct entire arguments out of incredulity over questions that could be answered in about thirty seconds each if you cared to actually look.

Suffice it to say, no. There are records of his service as a Nazi. There are even photos. I'm not sure who you think you're convincing here.

Does the Jaeger Report document the shooting of anybody identified as a Communist? Yes or No?Yes. I remember that from the minute or so I spent reading it. Then again, I'm a very fast reader.

What relevance does it have whether it does or not? Please explain. You already asked whether it said anything about killing non-Jews, and were told yes, despite your claim that no one answered. Now you're asking about Communists, specifically. I think I see where you're going with this, and no, it doesn't specifically say they killed anyone named Frank. I checked.

000063
4th July 2012, 12:26 PM
...
Why would anyone take these clowns seriously?

If you're one of them.

TSR
4th July 2012, 12:29 PM
No. That's one you guys made up ad hoc. It's among the more useless arguments you've made for rejecting evidence. But since you guys seem to think it has value I thought we should apply it here.

You can, of course, *cite* someone here making this argument?

So what is the gold standard of a document's value in reconstructing the past? Please explain how that gold standard has been applied to evidence for the holocaust that has been used in a trial. I mean, if there is any evidence for the holocaust that has also been used as evidence in a court of law.

New policy: I will only attempt substantive answers to substantive claims by dz.

it's questions are disingenuous, asked only in a desperate attempt to avoid having to admit it's fundamental ignorance of the evidence in question by looking for a way to distort the answer.

Hereinafter designated SOGOP.

Nothing you linked to on that hate site explains how anything specific to the Jaeger Report was used as specific evidence to convict any specific defendant and that the court believed that the evidence was true.

Please do cite this "hate" to which you refer? Perhaps you can also find the obvious lies cm claimed the site was "nothing but" while spectactuarly failing to to document even one.

As an aside, why does that article insist that the Jaeger Report is authentic?

SOGOP

Isn't a document that somebody uses as evidence assumed to be authentic?

No.

If I picked up my car from the valet, and the valet tells me that he didn't rifle through the glove compartment looking for money, I get a little suspicious.

Relevance?

Was there any doubt about this document's authenticity?

No less or more than any other document from that era.

It looks like courts of law have accepted the document's authenticity but since usefulness in a court isn't the gold standard of a documents value for reconstructing the past, has it's authenticity been confirmed outside of a court of law?

SOGOP

Please tell me that Karl Jaeger isn't a person who is known to us only through an entry in diary that was written by a dead guy who buried it right before he was shot.

No, he is not.

Does the Jaeger Report document the shooting of anybody identified as a Communist? Yes or No?

You know, you could read the d*mn thing yourself.

Everyone continues to point and laugh that you are so opposed to the very idea of learning about the history you so impotently insist is in error?

The Nazis themselves documented millions of Jews being killed outright or sent to camps in which they disappeared forever. Why would they lie about this?

Nessie
4th July 2012, 12:32 PM
I cite you as evidence that Team holocaust doesn't have the story straight. Isn't it you who once understood the potential problems that could arise when people are exposed to misinformation in schools or museums? You guys need to make up your minds about what somebody needs to "deny" before they can be called a holocaust "denier."



You're making the assumption that there could possibly be one piece of evidence that disproves the holocaust. There isn't. No single piece of evidence can prove that something didn't happen.

And, btw, if the Nazis had won the war and successfully exterminated every single one of the Jews in the entire world, there would still be Jews because of the Nazi definition of Jew. But that's too complicated for people around here to understand so, never mind.

You have failed to follow that my doubts about certain aspects of the Holocaust have been ended since joining this forum. You cannot really cite me as being part of Team Holocaust as I have no influence over Holocaust history.

I am not making any assumption about there being one piece of evidence.

Your last paragraph does not make sense.

Please answer the question you repeatedly dodge about why Hitler had to authorise exemptions.

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 12:32 PM
Clayton you are no more qualified to comment on this than Dogzilla is all you both betray is clear ignorance of what you are discussing in this and other threads we see your knoweldge is not based on any real research into the subject to hand and is entirely gleaned from the internet.

Why do you hate punctuation?

Nessie
4th July 2012, 12:33 PM
A court system in Germany that Jewish people could use to dispute German laws?
Another convoluted acquiescing process by the Germans.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Numbers_of_people_considered_Mischlinge




Yet another convoluted acquiescing process by the Germans.

Stop the clock for these Jewish husbands of non Jewish wives so they can continue to procreate.

Why did Hitler have to authorise exemptions?

Dcdrac
4th July 2012, 12:33 PM
Why do you hate punctuation?


It does not detract from the fact you know nothing about this subject.

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 12:35 PM
Clayton you are no more qualified to comment on this than Dogzilla is all you both betray is clear ignorance of what you are discussing in this and other threads we see your knoweldge is not based on any real research into the subject to hand and is entirely gleaned from the internet.

Yeah sure. Your knoweldge is ever so telling.

dafydd
4th July 2012, 12:37 PM
Your knoweldge is ever so telling.

You got one thing right. Knowledge.

TSR
4th July 2012, 12:37 PM
Why do you hate punctuation?

Really?

You're reduced to grammar lames?

Why don't you just *read* the report already?

000063
4th July 2012, 12:37 PM
Yeah sure. Your knoweldge is ever so telling.

As is the fact that you refuse to explain the need for exemptions.

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 12:39 PM
Why did Hitler have to authorise exemptions?

He didn't. The link I provided clearly states that.

dafydd
4th July 2012, 12:41 PM
He didn't. The link I provided clearly states that.

Did you actually read it?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 12:47 PM
No. That's one you guys made up ad hoc. It's among the more useless arguments you've made for rejecting evidence. But since you guys seem to think it has value I thought we should apply it here.

You guys? Me? What evidence am I rejecting and by what standard I've made up?

So what is the gold standard of a document's value in reconstructing the past?

You announced the gold standard of use in court; my point is that use in court cases is irrelevant to the value of a document in reconstructing historical events. I didn't announce a gold standard.

Please explain how that gold standard has been applied to evidence for the holocaust that has been used in a trial. I mean, if there is any evidence for the holocaust that has also been used as evidence in a court of law.

I don't follow you. The value of the Jaeger report is not wrapped up in its use in trials.

Nothing you linked to on that hate site explains how anything specific to the Jaeger Report was used as specific evidence to convict any specific defendant and that the court believed that the evidence was true.

Actually, I didn't link to a hate site, I linked to THHP.

That you wrote When has the Jaeger Report been introduced into evidence in any court? I assumed you didn't know the answer. Despite the link explaining this. Apparently, I was giving you too much credit, as trolling seems to be in your DNA. I don't know the particulars of the various cases, if that's what you're asking, only that a) that the Jaeger report has been introduced as evidence in a number of trials and b) that the link's reference to this fact, including a specific trial with a specific date, makes your asking when the document has been introduced as evidence come across either as disingenuous or stupid. (I hope you noticed how the Jaeger report was used in two proceeding against Stelmokas. At least the court seems to have read the document.)

As an aside, why does that article insist that the Jaeger Report is authentic? Isn't a document that somebody uses as evidence assumed to be authentic?

Is it? I wasn't aware that evidence isn't challenged, and authenticated, in court cases.

I didn't write the article so I can only guess. But since deniers, like your old friend LGR, have claimed that the report isn't authentic, and the THHP's purpose includes direct refutation of Holocaust-denial, it doesn't take more intelligence than that of a gnat for you to guess. Since IIRC Jurgen Graf claimed that the Jaeger report was a Soviet forgery, perhaps coming from bunny's Moscow Forgery Factory, that is what the author of the THHP article had in mind.

You yourself may recall that months ago I advised you thus: LGR has always thrown the forgery card to escape this trouble - or pulled tricks like mixing up Kovno and Vilna or dating undated documents or promising to make a case against the OSRs but getting busy with Libya or fictionalizing the provenance of Kruk's diary.

What will you do to explain the overwhelming evidence explaining the reduction of Vilna's Jewish population in summer and fall 1941?
and
(Note that Jaeger's Report lists Jews and Jewesses separate from Communists.)

Here is about when deniers, without any grounds, squeal "Forgery!"

You've been so backed into a corner over this matter I've wondered what has taken you so long.

If I picked up my car from the valet, and the valet tells me that he didn't rifle through the glove compartment looking for money, I get a little suspicious. Was there any doubt about this document's authenticity? It looks like courts of law have accepted the document's authenticity but since usefulness in a court isn't the gold standard of a documents value for reconstructing the past, has it's authenticity been confirmed outside of a court of law? Please tell me that Karl Jaeger isn't a person who is known to us only through an entry in diary that was written by a dead guy who buried it right before he was shot.

Grow up. Are you really as ignorant as you make out in this forum?


Does the Jaeger Report document the shooting of anybody identified as a Communist? Yes or No?

Oops, see above. By my count, Jaeger has 2,059 people he's identified as Communists being shot by his squad - against approximately 53,100 Jewish men, 48,300 Jewish women, and 29,300 Jewish children. You should remember that I've written about this previously, which calls into question why you keep trolling along these familiar lines of yours. Here is what I wrote in January of this year: Jaeger entered execution actions in list form, in roughly chronological order, noting the date, location, the number of people killed, and special comments. The entry for each execution action broke the victims into categories, by far the greatest number being Jews, who are almost always listed as Jews, Jewesses, or Jewish children. Other victim categories included Communists, active Communists, females Russian Communists, Communist functionaries, Russian Communists, Lithuanian Communists, Jewish Commnunists, politruks, Poles, mentally ill people, criminals, Lithuanian NKVD agents, Lithuanians, Latvians, Zigeuner (Gypsies), Russian POWs, superfluous Jews, German and Austrian Jews, terrorists, and partisans. Victims also included a convert to Judaism, a Russian guardsman, a mayor, a corpse robber, and an Armenian. Jaeger's report accounts for executions of about 137,000 people in Lithuania – 133,000 directly under Jaeger’s command. The victims were overwhelmingly Jews (~135,000) with a number of victims in the other categories (~2,000). The Jewish victims were mainly adult males before the third week in August. From late August on, more and more Jewish women were killed as well as large numbers of Jewish children – from 22 August to 1 December at least 47,000 women were executed and well over 30,000 children. In a number of entries, Jaeger's addition is off, with his total for the action not matching the totals listed in each category. Some entries represent killings over weeks rather than single execution actions. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7973269&postcount=9600

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you trying to make out that I haven't written about this previously?

Nessie
4th July 2012, 12:48 PM
He didn't. The link I provided clearly states that.

Yet in your post this quote

"In light of how aggressively Hitler pursued the extermination of the Jews, it is surprising how much time he spent reviewing applications for exemptions from the racial laws submitted by Mischlinge. One can understand his careful analysis of the pros and cons of removing a Mischling general from his post, but to many to whom Hitler granted these coveted exemptions were common soldiers with the ranks of private or NCO. Hitler's exemptions and the actions of thousands of Ayran officers, including men close to Hitler, in support of Mishclinge contradicted the Nazis' Weltanschauung. What is particularly difficult to believe that the antisemite Hitler himself granted even one exemption from the racial laws. But he personally issued many. As Kershaw wrote, "Nothing was as it seemed in the Third Reich."

and from the Wikipedia link

"Requests for reclassification (e.g., Jew as Mischling of 1st degree, 1st degree as 2nd degree) or Aryanization (see German Blood Certificate) were personally reviewed by Adolf Hitler. Apparently, he considered the issue important enough to him that he found time to review a few thousand such files."

Then there were the links to the study of Jews in the military and how Hitler's signature is on exemptions.

So Hitler did grant the exemptions. Why?

Dcdrac
4th July 2012, 12:50 PM
Clayton paert of my first degree had a history Major, I have been to Wanassee and seen with my own eyes the documents outlining the Final Solution, you might have heard of the Wanasee Conference?

I have lived and worked in Germany half my working life and can speak German.

I have read most of the major studies of the Nazis, the Holocaust and biographies of Hitler.

All I see from you is a selection of Internet droolings.

000063
4th July 2012, 12:50 PM
He didn't. The link I provided clearly states that.

Requests for reclassification (e.g., Jew as Mischling of 1st degree, 1st degree as 2nd degree) or Aryanization (see German Blood Certificate) were personally reviewed by Adolf Hitler. Apparently, he considered the issue important enough to him that he found time to review a few thousand such files.

are you insane

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 12:51 PM
No single piece of evidence can prove that something didn't happen.

Really? If someone says they killed me, and then I show up alive, that wouldn't show that the killing of me didn't happen?

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 12:53 PM
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations. Jewish people were large and in charge in the USSR Germany's most hated enemy. It was no different than the gathering up of the Japanese in the USA.

I doubt if there were courts in the USA where exemptions to the gathering were granted.

Nessie
4th July 2012, 12:56 PM
Clayton and Dogzilla, why did Hitler have to authorise the exemptions?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 12:57 PM
I cite you as evidence that Team holocaust doesn't have the story straight. Isn't it you who once understood the potential problems that could arise when people are exposed to misinformation in schools or museums? You guys need to make up your minds about what somebody needs to "deny" before they can be called a holocaust "denier."

Dishonest. You really should allow Nessie to speak for himself and not create a fictitious team onto which you place him as a member. I mean, I can understand why you feel the need to pull this crap, but it is childish and speaks very poorly for your ability to make an honest case and to address Nessie's honest questions.

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 01:01 PM
Clayton and Dogzilla, why did Hitler have to authorise the exemptions?

He obviously didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Numbers_of_people_considered_Mischlinge

Further de facto reclassifications, however, missing any official document, were privileges accorded certain artists and other experts by way of special protection by high-ranking Nazis.[12]

A second way of reclassification was by way of declaratory action in court. Usually the discriminated person took the action, doubting his genetical descent from the Jewish-classified man until then regarded the biological (grand)father.[13] Paternity suits aiming for reclassification (German: Abstammungsverfahren) appeared mostly with deceased, divorced or illegitimate (grand)fathers. They usually aimed at improving the discriminated and persecuted litigant's status from Jewish-classified to Mischling of first degree, or Mischling of first degree to second degree. The numbers of such suits soared when the Nazi government imposed new discriminations and persecutions (Nuremberg Laws 1935, November Pogrom 1938, and systematic deportations of Jewish Germans and Gentile Germans of Jewish descent to concentration camps, 1941).[14]

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 01:03 PM
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations. Jewish people were large and in charge in the USSR Germany's most hated enemy. It was no different than the gathering up of the Japanese in the USA.

I doubt if there were courts in the USA where exemptions to the gathering were granted.

Oh, now it is all clear, since you are recycling Nazi lies.

000063
4th July 2012, 01:04 PM
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations. Jewish people were large and in charge in the USSR Germany's most hated enemy. It was no different than the gathering up of the Japanese in the USA.

I doubt if there were courts in the USA where exemptions to the gathering were granted.

Weird. No complaints about people ignoring HDV? That's what you normally do at this point.

And, of course, no evidence of such. If they were being sent to camps for being communist, why doesn't the Jager report list them as "Communists"?

There are significant differences between the Japanese internment camps and the Nazi concentration camps. Most obviously, America did not kill Japanese in those camps on an industrial scale. However, no one with any sense denies that it is a shameful chapter in American history, just like no one with any sense seeks to excuse, downplay, and deny the actions of the Germans.

[SNIP]

Also, why the need for exceptions, as even the excerpt you quoted clearly states?

removed personal comments

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 01:05 PM
Answer the question, Dogzilla;



It is entirely relevant to the thread whether you still believe in the theory you advanced. Your comprehension of the arguments of others is also relevant. The only reason you think other's positions are "needlessly complex" is because you don't understand them. A qualified "yes" being the same as a "no" is only valid if you are trying to strip all detail and nuance from the debate, or are unable to understand same.

Plus, there's your entirely vague definition of "relevance", which seems to automatically exclude any point you don't want to address, curiously.

I would not call them "imaginary Jews" per se. But my answer to "where did they go?" is the same answer Team holocaust gives when I ask where did the 2.9 million victims go when Auschwitz lowered the death toll from 4 million to 1.1 million or so?

And don't try the "no scholar ever accepted that number" gambit. Maybe no scholar in the West accepted that number but those on the other side of the Iron Curtain didn't reject it. You guys have no problem accepting the reliability of Eastern bloc forensic reports when they say what you want so you can't reject what they said when it doesn't. Besides, any time the mass media in the West published a death toll for Auschwitz, that death toll was 4 million up until 1989. If holocaust scholars didn't believe that number then I guess that means holocaust scholars don't have much impact on our understanding of the holocaust.

000063
4th July 2012, 01:08 PM
He obviously didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Numbers_of_people_considered_Mischlinge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Reclassification_procedure

Requests for reclassification (e.g., Jew as Mischling of 1st degree, 1st degree as 2nd degree) or Aryanization (see German Blood Certificate) were personally reviewed by Adolf Hitler. Apparently, he considered the issue important enough to him that he found time to review a few thousand such files.

I note that you stopped quoting the part that specifically says that Hitler reviewed the requests for exception personally.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8425162#post8425162

This is another example of you putting your foot in it, just like your nonsense about Jewish POWs which no one asked you about and you haven't referred to since. You're self-debunking.

Nessie
4th July 2012, 01:12 PM
He obviously didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Numbers_of_people_considered_Mischlinge

That deals with one part of the Wikipedia article on Mischlinge and how people could challenge their classification. What about the part that discusses Hitler's role in exemptions?

Tomtomkent
4th July 2012, 01:18 PM
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations. Jewish people were large and in charge in the USSR Germany's most hated enemy. It was no different than the gathering up of the Japanese in the USA.

I doubt if there were courts in the USA where exemptions to the gathering were granted.

The Japanese residents of the US were not rounded up for "their affiliations". They were rounded up because of the inability to establish and verify political affiliations and a percieved risk of espionage or Xth columnists.

The affiliations of the jews rounded up for this "same" reason were known. In the cases where even viable. Odd that those with conservative right wing affiliations were rounded up too. Or those with no affiliations. Or those with no connections to the USSR or any other nation.

Amazingly, as wrong as the round-up in the US was, 3 million citizens were not lost in the US. Or used as slave labour. Etc

I am guessing you have evidence of the political affiliations of Anne Frank?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 01:23 PM
I would not call them "imaginary Jews" per se. But my answer to "where did they go?" is the same answer Team holocaust gives when I ask where did the 2.9 million victims go when Auschwitz lowered the death toll from 4 million to 1.1 million or so?

That you think there is parallelism here is staggering. Did you pass the 4th grade, then?

000063
4th July 2012, 01:24 PM
I would not call them "imaginary Jews" per se. But my answer to "where did they go?" is the same answer Team holocaust gives when I ask where did the 2.9 million victims go when Auschwitz lowered the death toll from 4 million to 1.1 million or so?1. Not actually an answer.
2. You're not positing "major historical error", you're positing that 6 million people never existed.
3. Tu quoque.
4. So you do, in fact, believe those 6 million never existed?

And don't try the "no scholar ever accepted that number" gambit.Has anyone in this thread tried such? Please link to such claims.

Maybe no scholar in the West accepted that number but those on the other side of the Iron Curtain didn't reject it.Actually, Soviet authorities explicitly claimed such. Authorities, I'd like to point out, not historians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz#Death_toll
Communist Polish and Soviet authorities maintained a figure "between 2.5 and 4 million",[78] and the Auschwitz State Museum itself displayed a figure of 4 million killed, but "[f]ew (if any) historians ever believed the Museum's four million figure".[79]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/four-million-01.html
Just keep clicking next.

You guys have no problem accepting the reliability of Eastern bloc forensic reports when they say what you want so you can't reject what they said when it doesn't.Wouldn't it make sense for Team Holocaust to use the higher number?
The USSR disagreed with the West on quite a lot of things, and was in agreement in other aspects. Have you ever heard of the Cold War? You didn't notice that the claim was revised when the USSR collapsed?

Besides, any time the mass media in the West published a death toll for Auschwitz, that death toll was 4 million up until 1989.Every time? Every single example? Can you prove this claim?

How much of historical understanding among actual historians is shaped by "the mass media"? The general public, as Nessie rightly pointed out, and I and others concurred, often believes a lot of "historical facts" that are completely wrong.

If holocaust scholars didn't believe that number then I guess that means holocaust scholars don't have much impact on our understanding of the holocaust.That doesn't follow. You're equivocating Western scholars, Soviet authorities, and Soviet historians, and post-Soviet historians. Soviet authorities lied about quite a lot of things; look up their space program.

In the case of Auschwitz, there was outright contradiction from those historians not behind the curtain. This also refutes Clayton's claim of Team Holocaust being able to threaten folks into the party line with 95% effectiveness.

Dcdrac
4th July 2012, 01:24 PM
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations. Jewish people were large and in charge in the USSR Germany's most hated enemy. It was no different than the gathering up of the Japanese in the USA.

I doubt if there were courts in the USA where exemptions to the gathering were granted.

Absoulute absurd fantasy where did you dig this rubbish up from?

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 01:24 PM
:hb:

You seem frustrated. I guess it is self-evident to you that missing Jews must've been killed and you can't understand why somebody can't understand that. Your frustration is certainly justifiable if it is true that after the war we would know where every Jew who survived could be located and if they could not be located (i.e., they were "missing"), they must've been murdered by the Nazis as part of the Final Solution. So do you believe that the only two possible fates for the Jews of Europe are 1) survive the war and able to be located or 2) murdered by the Nazis as part of their plan to exterminate all the Jews? Yes or No?

TSR
4th July 2012, 01:25 PM
He didn't. The link I provided clearly states that.


From you link -- the part you quoted even:

Requests for reclassification (e.g., Jew as Mischling of 1st degree, 1st degree as 2nd degree) or Aryanization (see German Blood Certificate) were personally reviewed by Adolf Hitler

Thank you for demonstrating once again that not only do you read citations by others, you don't even read your own.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 01:28 PM
Dogzilla wrote - but doesn't want to discuss - the following about the Jaeger report:

1) "[The Jaeger Report uses] the type of language we see when the overall Jewish policy of the German government is an ethnic cleansing"; "all that documentation clearly shows a policy of ethnic cleansing. Intending to make regions free of Jews does not prove an intent to kill the Jews."

2) "The Jaeger Report is evidence of anti-partisan actions. Some might say the anti-partisan actions were sometimes excessive but unfortunately excesses have always been a part of war."

3) "At best you might have something to support the David Irving notion of murdering innocent Jews being the result of local actions by a few Kraut Lynndie Englands and Charles Graners out in the field."

These are the three arguments he made about the Jaeger report and the mass murder of Jews in Lithuania in 1941.

Why doesn't Dogzilla find his claims relevant or worth discussing?

000063
4th July 2012, 01:30 PM
...So do you believe that the only two possible fates for the Jews of Europe are 1) survive the war and able to be located or 2) murdered by the Nazis as part of their plan to exterminate all the Jews? Yes or No?

Nice try. We can see you've modified your false dichotomy from "survive and keep in contact with everyone they knew" to "survive and were able to be located" (vs being killed by Nazis).

Would you care to address the fact that you consistently "simplify" people's points, yet constantly complain about the fact that they don't agree with your straw men?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 01:32 PM
The affiliations of the jews rounded up for this "same" reason were known. In the cases where even viable. Odd that those with conservative right wing affiliations were rounded up too. Or those with no affiliations. Or those with no connections to the USSR or any other nation.

Of course, this was explained at the Einsatzgruppen trial by defendant Adolf Ott (EK 7b) who, testifying in his own defense, tripped himslef up trying to argue that his Kommando shot only Jews who were proven to be engaged in partisan actions or sabotage, when he acknowledged under questioning that "every Jew who was apprehended had to be shot. Never mind whether he was a perpetrator or not."

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 01:40 PM
And by defendant Werner Braune, who headed EK11b, and jumped around, testifying at the same trial that there was a Fuhrer Order to murder Jews because "the vast majority [of Jews] supported Bolshevism" - but, uh, true, if the majority of Jews supported Bolshevism, a minority didn't - well, in his opinion the minority of Jews not supporting Bolshevism was "ten, twenty, or thirty percent" - and these Jewish non-supporters of Bolshevism were killed along with the supporters of Bolshevism because, when it came to saving them, "the possibility did not exist." The best he could argue with regard to Jews in the occupied USSR. And which estimates and self-serving statements, as tomtomkent says, are of no relevance whatsoever concerning the Jews of western Europe, the Reich, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria . . .

TSR
4th July 2012, 01:43 PM
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations.

Really? What evidence do you have that the little guy to my left had "Communist affiliations"?

Jewish people were large and in charge in the USSR Germany's most hated enemy.

Ummmm. No.

It was no different than the gathering up of the Japanese in the USA.

You mean other than the whole "none of them were killed in internment camps" thing?

Or the whole "no Japanese American in Hawaii was interned" thing?

Or the whole "no one had to lie about their ancestry in order to serve in the military" thing?

I doubt if there were courts in the USA where exemptions to the gathering were granted.

No, it didn't take a court. Just two questions on the draft form:

27) “Are you willing to serve in the armed forces of the United States on combat duty, wherever ordered?”

28) “Will you swear unqualified allegiance to the United States of America and faithfully defend the United States from any or all attack by foreign or domestic forces, and forswear any form of allegiance or obedience to the Japanese emperor, or any other foreign government, power or organization?"

I refer you to the 442nd Infantry Regiment.

TSR
4th July 2012, 01:46 PM
He obviously didn't.


Once again: "reclassification" != "exemption".

But do keep running from this little fact while vomiting up Nazi-era lies about the Jews.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 01:50 PM
Really? What evidence do you have that the little guy to my left had "Communist affiliations"?

I do appreciate it a bit when those with certain proclivities start channeling their heroes' lies . . .

TSR
4th July 2012, 01:51 PM
I would not call them "imaginary Jews" per se. But my answer to "where did they go?" is the same answer Team holocaust gives when I ask where did the 2.9 million victims go when Auschwitz lowered the death toll from 4 million to 1.1 million or so?

And don't try the "no scholar ever accepted that number" gambit. Maybe no scholar in the West accepted that number but those on the other side of the Iron Curtain didn't reject it.

Couldn't reject it.

You guys have no problem accepting the reliability of Eastern bloc forensic reports when they say what you want so you can't reject what they said when it doesn't.

On what forensic report was the four million based?

Besides, any time the mass media in the West published a death toll for Auschwitz, that death toll was 4 million up until 1989.

Only if once excludes actual history books as not being "media" -- you know, the ones that are supposed to be authoritative on such matters rather than the ones which are supposed to sell advertising space?

If holocaust scholars didn't believe that number then I guess that means holocaust scholars don't have much impact on our understanding of the holocaust.

*Your* understanding, perhaps.

Someone that actually cares about the truth you choose to distort for reasons you cannot be honest about, not so much.

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 01:59 PM
Of course, this was explained at the Einsatzgruppen trial by defendant Adolf Ott (EK 7b) who, testifying in his own defense, tripped himslef up trying to argue that his Kommando shot only Jews who were proven to be engaged in partisan actions or sabotage, when he acknowledged under questioning that "every Jew who was apprehended had to be shot. Never mind whether he was a perpetrator or not."

Commuted to life sentence; released 9 May 1958

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 02:00 PM
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations.

There was no mass extermination of Europe's Jews, and the by-and-large Communist-affiliated Jews deserved it.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 02:05 PM
Commuted to life sentence; released 9 May 1958

Sort of (according to Hilary Earl, Ott was sentenced to death, this sentence was commuted to life, and the defendant was released on parole in 1958) and I've written about that, too, before. Ott was one of 22 defendants convicted of mass murder in the Einsatzgruppen trial. The convictions of these 22 men were for 1 million unlawful killings. Of these victims, 95% were Jews. Between 1951 and 1958, under a policy of leniency and a mistaken notion of reconciliation, the Americans released 17 of these convicted mass murderers through clemency or by parole.

The postwar clemency and parole actions took place during the Cold War and had much to do with public opinion in Germany and nothing to do with the facts of the case itself. In fact, the rules around the clemency proceedings specifically said that the facts of the case were not to be reassessed in deciding on leniency. The point is that the releases were not based on anyone's doubting the killings or the roles of the convicted murderers but were based in other reasons.

Your point was?

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 02:16 PM
You have failed to follow that my doubts about certain aspects of the Holocaust have been ended since joining this forum. You cannot really cite me as being part of Team Holocaust as I have no influence over Holocaust history.

I am not making any assumption about there being one piece of evidence.

Your last paragraph does not make sense.

Please answer the question you repeatedly dodge about why Hitler had to authorise exemptions.

Nick doesn't seem to hold that book in very high regard. I thought the premise was intriguing but I haven't read it. I'm not going to comment on something I haven't read. I'm not going to assume that a one sentence summary of an idea that might be in the book is an accurate summary and respond to that. I'm not going to avoid answering a question by demanding ridiculous levels of proof that cannot be met nor am I going to simply disagree with whatever you're saying.

That said, why do I think Hitler had to authorize exemptions? Probably because Hitler's Zionist overlords told him that if he didn't, they would kill Eva Braun and her little dog, Toto. That's about as serious an answer you're going to get out of me.

Your turn: how is any of this evidence that there were hundreds of thousands of bodies buried at the AR camps?

Cyrix686
4th July 2012, 02:17 PM
'Zilla

Please tell me that Karl Jaeger isn't a person who is known to us only through an entry in diary that was written by a dead guy who buried it right before he was shot.

Why would anyone here apart from "Revisionists" be putting forward that as any kind of answer to Jaeger?

Clearly, the dimmest (and some) stuff can be left every time to the wild and febrile thoughts that power Holocaust denial.

:D

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 02:19 PM
Mr Moore forgot to mention what became of defendant Werner Braune, so I will help him out: Braune received a death sentence for his guilt in the Einsatzgruppen murders. He was executed, by hanging, 7 June 1951. Like Ott, Braune filed a clemency petition - in which he admitted his murders but argued that the court had ignored his inner moral objections to them (the court hadn't - it had found he made no effort to evade the orders). Lying through his teeth, Braune also claimed that evading a Hitler order would have brought certain death. The defendants' individual circumstances differing, High Commissioner McCloy denied Braune's petition, and Braune was hanged for mass murder.

And remember Ott's parole had not to do with the facts of the case and the judgment of his guilt. Is this what you meant to point out, Mr Moore?

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 02:33 PM
Really? If someone says they killed me, and then I show up alive, that wouldn't show that the killing of me didn't happen?

You're right. I stand corrected. That would be proof that the killing didn't happen. As long as you don't have a twin, have never been cloned and were not born in a barn to a Jewish virgin.

000063
4th July 2012, 02:37 PM
Commuted to life sentence; released 9 May 1958

And?

Belz...
4th July 2012, 02:38 PM
He didn't. The link I provided clearly states that.

So he DID want to kill them all, now ? This dance of yours is getting confusing.

Belz...
4th July 2012, 02:39 PM
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations.

Yeah, capitalism and socialism are so the same thing, it's amazing they're even different words.

Belz...
4th July 2012, 02:40 PM
I would not call them "imaginary Jews" per se. But my answer to "where did they go?" is the same answer Team holocaust gives when I ask where did the 2.9 million victims go when Auschwitz lowered the death toll from 4 million to 1.1 million or so?

Ah, equivocation. The tool of the creationist. It's so refreshing to see this used again, here.

Cyrix686
4th July 2012, 02:42 PM
Twins? Mistaken identity? Comedies of errors?

Oh come on. You're not writing a comic novel or a play. You're dealing with history.

Which is as far removed from an over cooked unoriginal little comic fantasy as can be got Dogzilla.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 02:45 PM
You're right. I stand corrected. That would be proof that the killing didn't happen. As long as you don't have a twin, have never been cloned and were not born in a barn to a Jewish virgin.

I don't, I haven't been, and no one ever was. So, yes, you were wrong, as is so often the case with your glib remarks.

Belz...
4th July 2012, 02:46 PM
You seem frustrated.

Sorry, it's a muscle spasm caused by my allergy to falsehoods. Could you try posting truth, from now on ? I'm asking you to do this as an act of compassion.

I guess it is self-evident to you that missing Jews must've been killed and you can't understand why somebody can't understand that.

Actually, no. It's not self-evident. It's a reasonable conclusion, and I'm trying to see if you have the intellectual honesty to admit that. But you are so ideologically set against the reality of the holocaust that you deny even the possibility.

Your frustration is certainly justifiable if it is true that after the war we would know where every Jew who survived could be located and if they could not be located

I understand that fighting men made of straw is easier but you must be getting tired of winning against them, by now. How about you try the real deal, instead ?

We're not talking about finding every single jew. We're talking about SIX MILLION missing PEOPLE. We know they existed before the war, and they were nowhere to be found after. I'm not looking for an exact count, but could you at least tell me of a reasonable alternative to their death at the hands of the only people who had them under their noses all this time ?

So do you believe that the only two possible fates for the Jews of Europe are 1) survive the war and able to be located or 2) murdered by the Nazis as part of their plan to exterminate all the Jews? Yes or No?

That's not what I said, so no.

Garrison
4th July 2012, 02:46 PM
I assume you're asking where they went if they weren't killed by the Nazis for a reason. As I've said, I don't know where they went. I don't know where any individual Jew went after the war. So what? If you have a point to make, make it.

Well how hard could it be? Unless you're suggesting that in addition to never contacting anyone they knew they also chose not to file lawsuits for lost property, failed to find jobs that paid taxes and thus never claimed any pensions or social security type benefits, then there should be a wealth of documentation. Surely one of your denier friends has researched such matters and found at least some of those six million?

000063
4th July 2012, 02:50 PM
...I'm not going to comment on something I haven't read. This explains so much. Specifically, why you refuse to read the Jager Report, yet keep implying things about it via disingenuous questions.

I'm not going to assume that a one sentence summary of an idea that might be in the book is an accurate summary and respond to that. I'm not going to avoid answering a question by demanding ridiculous levels of proof that cannot be metLiar. You have done precisely that several times.

nor am I going to simply disagree with whatever you're saying.Double liar. You feel no hesitation in questioning just about every point debunkers make, while you never exhibit the same level of skepticism towards other deniers.

That said, why do I think Hitler had to authorize exemptions? Probably because Hitler's Zionist overlords told him that if he didn't, they would kill Eva Braun and her little dog, Toto. That's about as serious an answer you're going to get out of me.

Let the record show that Dogzilla absolutely refuses to answer the question.

...Your turn: how is any of this evidence that there were hundreds of thousands of bodies buried at the AR camps? Why should anyone answer the question, when you've just admitted you won't take summaries? Let me see if I understand your logic;

1. Don't look for information on Holocaust.
2. Ask questions about Holocaust.
3. When those questions are answered, reject or question the answers because they're in sources you haven't seen because you chose not to.
4. "Simplify" your opponents arguments into what are totally not straw men.
4b. When your opponents say you've oversimplied their arguments, complain that they refuse to give a straight answer.
5. ???
5. Profit!

You've been repeatedly directed to information about the Holocaust, and keep asking questions which could be refuted with a few seconds of searching. The Jager report is literally only a few pages long, yet you still haven't read it. The only reasonable conclusion is that you don't actually want the answers to your questions, you're just trying to keep the ball in the air.

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 02:55 PM
There was no mass extermination of Europe's Jews, and the by-and-large Communist-affiliated Jews deserved it.


There was no mass extermination of Europe's Jews, and the by-and-large Communist-affiliated Jews deserved it.FTFY
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 02:56 PM
Let the record show that Dogzilla absolutely refuses to answer the question.


One could make a list, no, wait, one need only start reading this thread about a week or ten days ago and one will read the list.

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 02:57 PM
Weird. No complaints about people ignoring HDV? That's what you normally do at this point.

And, of course, no evidence of such. If they were being sent to camps for being communist, why doesn't the Jager report list them as "Communists"?

There are significant differences between the Japanese internment camps and the Nazi concentration camps. Most obviously, America did not kill Japanese in those camps on an industrial scale. However, no one with any sense denies that it is a shameful chapter in American history, just like no one with any sense seeks to excuse, downplay, and deny the actions of the Germans.

There is no substantial evidence that we didn't exterminate the Japanese. However, we have photographs of Japanese on cattle cars. We have pictures of camps where the Japanese were held. We have pictures of Japanese standing in lines. We have pictures of them standing behind barbed wire and guarded by gun towers. We have pictures of little old ladies walking with children. We have government documents proving that the Japanese were rounded up. We have every form of mass media spewing anti-Japanese propaganda during the war. The Nazis called the Jews "Jews." We called the Japanese "Japs" or "Nips." We have exterminationist rhetoric regarding the Japanese appearing in print throughout the war. We know American GIs would give the severed heads of the Japanese to their girlfriends as presents--and the girls loved it! fercryinoutloud!!

But smoking gun proof of our policy to exterminate the Japanese is: if they weren't exterminated, where did they go? We know where Japanese were living before the war. They weren't there after the war. Maybe some of them were but the survival of a few doesn't mean there was no policy to kill them all. So where are they??

This is an old discussion. Don't embarrass yourself by going down this road again.

000063
4th July 2012, 02:58 PM
There was no mass extermination of Europe's Jews, and the by-and-large Communist-affiliated Jews deserved it.FTFY
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations.Prove it.

I guess it's time to remind you that Hitler granted exemptions to certain Jews, as the very page you linked to and text you quoted clearly states.

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 03:01 PM
That you think there is parallelism here is staggering. Did you pass the 4th grade, then?

So you don't have a counter argument, do you?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 03:04 PM
There was no mass extermination of Europe's Jews, and the by-and-large Communist-affiliated Jews deserved it.FTFY
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations.

And I really like it when deniers of a certain persuasion repeat their channeling of Nazi lies.

In fact, in 1933 the Jews in Germany were sent to the earliest concentration camps on account of their presumed and actual political activity, usually KPD or SPD. But this pattern didn't last, and certainly after Kristallnacht, when 28,000 Jewish men were rounded up in the savage anti-Jewish riots sponsored by the Nazis - and sent to Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen - the selection principle had nothing to do with political connections or activity. Nothing whatsoever. The selection criterion was "Jewish." And that was a principle that operated thereafter, in the Reich and in occupied countries. The Nazis went so far as to round up Jews, utterly unconnected to anti-German actions, and kill them in reprisals for the oppositional actions carried out by others.

000063
4th July 2012, 03:08 PM
...
But smoking gun proof of our policy to exterminate the Japanese is: if they weren't exterminated, where did they go? We know where Japanese were living before the war. They weren't there after the war. Maybe some of them were but the survival of a few doesn't mean there was no policy to kill them all. So where are they??

This is an old discussion. Don't embarrass yourself by going down this road again.

Please stop trying to divert the thread away from the subject of these alleged communist ties which Moore has not provided evidence for. This is another example of your double standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment#Internment_ends

So, where are were the Jews suing for their stuff back? Germany was paying reparations after the war. If you want to draw equivalences, let's go all the way. When did the Jews bomb a major German military base unprovoked, without a declaration of war? Was Germany at war with the Jews?

000063
4th July 2012, 03:10 PM
And I really like it when deniers of a certain persuasion repeat their channeling of Nazi lies.

In fact, in 1933 the Jews in 1933 sent to the earliest concentration camps were sent there on account of their presumed and actual political activity, usually KPD or SPD. But this pattern didn't last, and certainly after Kristallnacht, when 28,000 Jewish men were rounded up in the savage anti-Jewish riots sponsored by the Nazis - and sent to Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen - the selection principle had nothing to do with political connections or activity. Nothing whatsoever. The selection criterion was "Jewish." And that was a principle that operated thereafter, in the Reich and in occupied countries. The Nazis went so far as to round up Jews, utterly unconnected to anti-German actions, and kill them in reprisals for the oppositional actions carried out by others.

What's that called? Blaming members of a group because other members of a group did something wrong? Tip of my tongue, starts with P...

000063
4th July 2012, 03:11 PM
So you don't have a counter argument, do you?

Others were more than happy to provide one. Why not address them?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8425414#post8425414
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8425326#post8425326

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 03:13 PM
And by defendant Werner Braune, who headed EK11b, and jumped around, testifying at the same trial that there was a Fuhrer Order to murder Jews because "the vast majority [of Jews] supported Bolshevism" - but, uh, true, if the majority of Jews supported Bolshevism, a minority didn't - well, in his opinion the minority of Jews not supporting Bolshevism was "ten, twenty, or thirty percent" - and these Jewish non-supporters of Bolshevism were killed along with the supporters of Bolshevism because, when it came to saving them, "the possibility did not exist." The best he could argue with regard to Jews in the occupied USSR. And which estimates and self-serving statements, as tomtomkent says, are of no relevance whatsoever concerning the Jews of western Europe, the Reich, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria . . .

A big problem with testimony from trials is that it's self-serving. That's why scholars don't usually rely on courtroom testimony to establish historical truths. Where can we find that sort of evidence for the holocaust? You know, evidence not produced for or produced by a criminal trial?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 03:13 PM
So you don't have a counter argument, do you?

Counter argument? To that gibberish? Seriously? You mean that I need to point out for you the stupidity of your comparing a mistaken postwar estimate of a death toll made by a Soviet State Commission, which has been demonstrated to be in error and the reasons for its error also explained, to generations of census, official, economic and financial, religious, press, and other records and a vast history of Jewish life in Europe, with all that entails - neighborhoods, businesses, religious institutions, personal biographies, relations with non-Jews, literature, cultural and scientific achievements, etc.? You have got to be kidding.

But, you know, other members have already commented Edited for civility.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 03:15 PM
A big problem with testimony from trials is that it's self-serving. That's why scholars don't usually rely on courtroom testimony to establish historical truths. Where can we find that sort of evidence for the holocaust? You know, evidence not produced for or produced by a criminal trial?

The Jaeger report.

Self-serving? Of course, sometimes, and that's why witnesses are examined and their testimony is weighed with other evidence like documents and with other testimony.

You are aware of what was the only evidence which the prosecution used against these defendants and their cohorts, aren’t you?

But the sort of testimony which I quoted, without accepting it on face value, is, in fact, useful. It isn't perfect, and I never said it was. It is indicative - and in the Einsatzgruppen trial the inability of these defendants to sustain the argument made by Mr Moore, which the defendants wished to make, is indicative of the problems with that argument. In the case of these two men, they were unable, under questioning, to construct a defense of their actions as directed at dealing with a Communist threat as opposed to carrying out a program of murder of Jews. So the court found. And so the documents you won’t discuss prove as well.

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 03:24 PM
I would not call them "imaginary Jews" per se. But my answer to "where did they go?" is the same answer Team holocaust gives when I ask where did the 2.9 million victims go when Auschwitz lowered the death toll from 4 million to 1.1 million or so?

And don't try the "no scholar ever accepted that number" gambit. Maybe no scholar in the West accepted that number but those on the other side of the Iron Curtain didn't reject it. You guys have no problem accepting the reliability of Eastern bloc forensic reports when they say what you want so you can't reject what they said when it doesn't. Besides, any time the mass media in the West published a death toll for Auschwitz, that death toll was 4 million up until 1989. If holocaust scholars didn't believe that number then I guess that means holocaust scholars don't have much impact on our understanding of the holocaust.

Team Holocaust goes with the lies and the liars as it suits their agenda.

They attempted to use the 6 million lost lie TWICE before WW2.

Auschwitz 4 million: Aside: We never believed that number but the Holocaust impressionable needed to be duped to solidify their imprinting.

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 03:25 PM
Well how hard could it be? Unless you're suggesting that in addition to never contacting anyone they knew they also chose not to file lawsuits for lost property, failed to find jobs that paid taxes and thus never claimed any pensions or social security type benefits, then there should be a wealth of documentation. Surely one of your denier friends has researched such matters and found at least some of those six million?

Jews never contacted anyone they knew? Jews never filed lawsuits? They never found jobs or paid taxes? They didn't make any claims for any benefits? There's no evidence of Jews engaging in any activity like this after the war? I don't think that's actually true.

If you're missing anybody, try looking wherever it is that you recovered the Auschwitz 2.9 million. That's where might be able to find some more.

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 03:29 PM
Counter argument? To that gibberish? Seriously? You mean that I need to point out for you the stupidity of your comparing a mistaken postwar estimate of a death toll made by a Soviet State Commission, which has been demonstrated to be in error and the reasons for its error also explained, to generations of census, official, economic and financial, religious, press, and other records and a vast history of Jewish life in Europe, with all that entails - neighborhoods, businesses, religious institutions, personal biographies, relations with non-Jews, literature, cultural and scientific achievements, etc.? You have got to be kidding.

But, you know, other members have already commented Edited for quote of modded post.

So how many Jews were there in Europe around the time of the Wannsee conference?

Robrob
4th July 2012, 03:31 PM
Jews never contacted anyone they knew? Jews never filed lawsuits? They never found jobs or paid taxes? They didn't make any claims for any benefits? There's no evidence of Jews engaging in any activity like this after the war? I don't think that's actually true.

Thanks for admitting they were never heard from again after the Holocaust.

A'isha
4th July 2012, 03:33 PM
So how many Jews were there in Europe around the time of the Wannsee conference?

Less than there were before the Nazis started murdering them a few years before, and more than there were before the Allied victory in Europe stopped the murders altogether a few years later.

Garrison
4th July 2012, 03:53 PM
Jews never contacted anyone they knew? Jews never filed lawsuits? They never found jobs or paid taxes? They didn't make any claims for any benefits? There's no evidence of Jews engaging in any activity like this after the war? I don't think that's actually true.

If you're missing anybody, try looking wherever it is that you recovered the Auschwitz 2.9 million. That's where might be able to find some more.

Desperate misrepresentation duly noted. I was, as I am sure you know perfectly well, referencing the six million you are so certain didn't die in the camps; where is the evidence for their postwar existence?

000063
4th July 2012, 03:56 PM
Team Holocaust goes with the lies and the liars as it suits their agenda.

They attempted to use the 6 million lost lie TWICE before WW2.

Auschwitz 4 million: Aside: We never believed that number but the Holocaust impressionable needed to be duped to solidify their imprinting.
I linked to a page discussing the discrepancy, which mentions a book which called out the figure as early as 1961. I also pointed out that the figure was openly contradicted by non-Soviets, and that no one at all used the incorrect numbers after the USSR dissolved.

The denier tactic of pretending that this number was widely accepted by everyone, when it was rejected by just about every historian, is a transparent lie. Also transparent is your complete lack of evidence for the Jews' Red connection, or even the Nazis alleging same. Gosh, if it were true (and it's not), it would make McCarthy look like Mary Poppins. I'm also betting you'll never show us "Team Holocaust" using the "6 million Jews lost lie" before WW2 at all.

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 03:59 PM
Thanks for admitting they were never heard from again after the Holocaust.

Wait a minute! I thought there were some survivors. Not many. But some. You're saying there weren't any Jews heard from after the holocaust? Who are all those people going to the synagogue?

Nick Terry
4th July 2012, 04:01 PM
A big problem with testimony from trials is that it's self-serving. That's why scholars don't usually rely on courtroom testimony to establish historical truths. Where can we find that sort of evidence for the holocaust? You know, evidence not produced for or produced by a criminal trial?

You wouldn't have a clue what scholars do and don't use to establish historical truths.

It also appears you're deeply confused about the Jaeger report, which is a contemporary Nazi document, and was neither produced for or by a trial. It was captured by the Soviets and sat in an archival file alongside many other archival files in the Special Archive in Moscow, one of many treasure troves of historical sources which historians can use to reconstruct what happened under Nazi rule. I took a copy of the document from this archive along with copies of many other documents in the same archive.

The fact that the Jaeger report was later on copied out of the same file for a late trial doesn't taint it, because the file was archived long before the subsequent trial. It's simply unsurprising that evidence of this kind would be used in a criminal trial because it, duh, deals with mass murder.

Nor is the Jaeger report the only source for the Holocaust in Lithuania. You have been familiarised with Herman Kruk's diary - that wasn't produced by or for a trial. You have been told about the diary of Kazimierz Sakowicz - nor was that produced for or by a trial. There are many contemporary Nazi documents from the Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei Litauen in the Lithuanian Central State Archive, including monthly reports and one off communications documenting and detailing the exhumation of corpses from Ponary and Fort VII outside Kaunas by Sonderkommando 1005.

So basically that's a whole series of denier arguments entirely frakked, because documents are the recognised standard bread and butter of writing history, and they exist to document the historical fact that the Nazis mass murdered Lithuanian Jews then exhumed and cremated their bodies.

Technically, the war crimes investigations after liberation also weren't produced by or for a trial, although they were certainly used in trials later on. Given the usual forensic fundamentalism of deniers it would be churlish to deny historians of the Holocaust in Lithuania like Christoph Dieckmann the right to use such sources. Which he does, in what is the current definitive account of this process, published last year by Wallstein Verlag in Germany as part of his exhaustive two volume study of the Nazi occupation of Lithuania.

There were certainly trials of the war criminals responsible for the genocide of Lithuanian Jews, and they're perfectly good sources alongside other materials. Indeed, the whole process of investigation, interrogation, comparison and cross-examination which takes place in a thorough criminal proceedings is an excellent way to arrive at the truth. It is not the only way, but it's a widely recognised method of achieving that goal.

How stupid would historians be if they ignored such voluminous bodies of evidence as can be found in a good trial? That's why colleagues of mine use trials as sources for countless topics. I can think of at least four other fellow members of my department who use trials as sources for modern history topics.

So not only are you flatly wrong in claiming that scholars don't use courtroom testimony to establish historical truths, you are doubly wrong because historians of the Holocaust use

- contemporary Nazi documents from all manner of agencies and ministries
- personnel files
- documents of Jewish councils and organisations like Oneg Shabes
- documents of underground resistance movements
- diaries of Nazis, bystanders and Jews
- contemporary private letters
- manuscripts produced by individuals during the war

along with
- manuscripts written immediately after the war found in various archives
- testimonies gathered by historical commissions in 1945
- published memoirs [which is standard in other fields too]
- interrogations of witnesses of all kinds taken outside the courtroom, under oath and not under oath
- forensic reports
- archaeological and scientific studies

and many more types of evidence.

You know this, of course, since you've been told this many times previously. Perhaps you might deign to show some awareness of the full range of evidence before you shoot your mouth off about what scholars do and don't use.

Otherwise people might think you were simply ignorant of the evidence, strawmanning it as the product of a handful of trials, and engaging in blatant well-poisoning by insinuating that somehow the fact that some of the evidence appeared at trials casts doubt on all the other evidence.

But hey, maybe you can tell us about your many months spent going through Nazi records and convince us that you know what you are talking about.

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 04:03 PM
Less than there were before the Nazis started murdering them a few years before, and more than there were before the Allied victory in Europe stopped the murders altogether a few years later.

That's as precise as you can be? The best data available from generations of census, official, economic and financial, religious, press, and other records and a vast history of Jewish life in Europe, with all that entails - neighborhoods, businesses, religious institutions, personal biographies, relations with non-Jews, literature, cultural and scientific achievements, etc. and you can't even come up with a number?

But when you say you're missing six million of them, this time I'm suppose to just believe you?

000063
4th July 2012, 04:11 PM
Say, Dogzilla, what's your criteria for relevance again? Do you actually have one that could be written down, on paper? Or is it something you feel in your gut?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 04:15 PM
So how many Jews were there in Europe around the time of the Wannsee conference?

According to Heydrich's protocol, there were 11 million Jews in Europe. This is a somewhat higher number than the usual estimate of 9.5 million in the 1930s. Leaving aside definitional and methodological issues in the counts, it is clear that 9 plus million Jews lived in Europe on the eve of the Holocaust. Holocaust historians usually say about 9 million, the low side of these estimates.

Drilling down a bit, the German census of June 1933 counted 505,000 Jews living in the Reich, the number somewhat reduced since the Nazi seizure of power. By 1939 only 214,000 Jews remained in the Reich. We could productively discuss what became of these people. Or rather, someone other than you could . . .

And I've asked for discussion of five occupied cities, in order to get a bottoms up view of what was happening to Jews during the war years. (This is the discussion you've avoided with such gems as What is there to discuss? I reject the evidence for gas/plan/six. . . . http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8417955&postcount=3672 . . . ): The 403d Security Division recorded 80,000 Jews living in Vilna when the German occupied the city, probably an overestimate by 10,000+, but a start. A January 1942 registration of Jews in Warsaw ghetto put their number at 368,902, a figure corresponding to estimates made by Jewish relief organizations in early 1942 (these estimates don't count any Jews in hiding on the Aryan side). Lodz ghetto housed about 160,000 Jews, to which were added about 20,000 from the Reich, Austria, and the Protectorate in late 1941 and 1942 and 20,000 from the Warthegau (also 5,000 Zigeuner were shipped to Lodz). In Riga, on the eve of the war, there were an estimated 40,000 Jews; Riga, like Lodz, saw Jewish transports from the Greater Reich during winter 1941-1942 - I believe about 20,000. According to OSR 97, there were 150,000 Jews living in Kiev in September 1941.

So in these 5 cities there were approximately 840,000 Jews living at the time of the German occupation, give or take. 840,000 people: a large enough number, from just these 5 places, that their whereabouts need explanation, especially considering that in each of these cities, by war's end, the large pre-war Jewish population was simply gone - a demographic gap of very large proportions.


We could discuss these case studies - or you could continue to ask questions you know the answers to and pretend there's nothing to discuss. Really, 840,000 people - some of whom were victims of the Holocaust or not, perhaps part of the overall death toll - and you ask what there is to discuss! If you don't want to discuss the Holocaust, and its elements, why in the heck are you even here?

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 04:17 PM
I linked to a page discussing the discrepancy, which mentions a book which called out the figure as early as 1961. I also pointed out that the figure was openly contradicted by non-Soviets, and that no one at all used the incorrect numbers after the USSR dissolved.

The denier tactic of pretending that this number was widely accepted by everyone, when it was rejected by just about every historian, is a transparent lie. Also transparent is your complete lack of evidence for the Jews' Red connection, or even the Nazis alleging same. Gosh, if it were true (and it's not), it would make McCarthy look like Mary Poppins. I'm also betting you'll never show us "Team Holocaust" using the "6 million Jews lost lie" before WW2 at all.

Team Holocaust was attempting to fabricate a holocaust long before the Holocaust. Not unlike the old standard joke question "Why do teachers make the best lovers?"

000063
4th July 2012, 04:19 PM
That's as precise as you can be? The best data available from generations of census, official, economic and financial, religious, press, and other records and a vast history of Jewish life in Europe, with all that entails - neighborhoods, businesses, religious institutions, personal biographies, relations with non-Jews, literature, cultural and scientific achievements, etc. and you can't even come up with a number?

But when you say you're missing six million of them, this time I'm suppose to just believe you?

Dogzilla, he is mocking you.

Just FYI.

000063
4th July 2012, 04:21 PM
Team Holocaust was attempting to fabricate a holocaust long before the Holocaust. Not unlike the old standard joke question "Why do teachers make the best lovers?"

I see. Can you elaborate on these attempts? Did they fail or succeed?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 04:22 PM
Say, Dogzilla, what's your criteria for relevance again? Do you actually have one that could be written down, on paper? Or is it something you feel in your gut?

Relevance = topics that do not make deniers feel uncomfortable, ignorant, or out of their depth - Dogzilla definition, gleaned from context clues.

TSR
4th July 2012, 04:45 PM
There was no mass extermination of Europe's Jews, and the by-and-large Communist-affiliated Jews deserved it.FTFY
I guess it's time to remind the Holocaustics that the reason Jewish people were being sent to concentration camps was their Communist affiliations.

And again, time to ask you to document the "Communist affiliations" of the little guy to my left...

TSR
4th July 2012, 04:53 PM
Team Holocaust goes with the lies and the liars as it suits their agenda.

Who is this Team Holocaust you keep yammering about? Because from your characterization above, you would seem to be a charter member, mr. "nothing but lies".

They attempted to use the 6 million lost lie TWICE before WW2.

Nope.

Go ahead, demonstrate your inability to read for comprehension and almost complete ignorance of history by trying to support your lie.

Auschwitz 4 million: Aside: We never believed that number but the Holocaust impressionable needed to be duped to solidify their imprinting.

... by a demonstrably anti-semitic regime.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Clayton Moore
4th July 2012, 05:02 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling

Numbers of people considered Mischlinge

According to the 1939 Reich census, there were about 72,000 Mischlinge of the 1st degree, some 39,000 of the 2nd degree, and probably tens of thousands more of higher degrees, which, however, were not recorded.[18]

According to historian and Israeli Army and U.S. Marine Corps veteran Bryan Mark Rigg, up to 160,000 one-quarter, one-half, and even full Jewish men served in the German armed forces during World War II, including several generals and at least one field marshal, Erhard Milch.[19]

Didn't I read that there were only about 200,000 Jewish people left in Germany?

TSR
4th July 2012, 05:04 PM
Didn't I read that there were only about 200,000 Jewish people left in Germany?


Nunno. Did you? And if so, where?

Cyrix686
4th July 2012, 05:17 PM
Why can't we have proper History related discussion with this pair instead of the usual well lets just say it's the opposite word to, "illumination."

I'm thinking here about things like answers to questions such as:

What were the main ways and why did the amount of Jews in Germany and the Reich continue to fall between 1933 and 1939?

OR

To what extent was the National Socialist administration between 1933 and 1945 Anti-Semitic?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 05:49 PM
Nunno. Did you? And if so, where?

Maybe in my post #3975, the estimate taken from the USHMM website. No citation; the figure is for "Germany proper," the old Reich.

According to the Reich racial census of 15 May 1939 there were in Germany, the Sudetenland, the Saar, and Austria the following, in their proper categories:

Mischlinge I - 72,738
Mischlinge II - 42,811
Racial Jews - 330,892
(from John A.S. Grenville, in Berenbaum & Peck, eds., The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed and the Reexamined, p 320)

(Rigg's estimate of 160,000 - I think his article said 150,000 - Mischlinge in the Wehrmacht is thus highly problematic, as it is higher than the total number of Mischlinge of the first and second degrees by 44,000 - or 34,000!)

The period 1933 to 1939 saw Jewish population in Germany drop, due to Nazi racial policies including discriminatory laws, forced Aryanization and pauperization of the Jewish community, and the "encouragement" of emigration. The same policies introduced in 1938-1939 in Austria and the Protectorate had the same results there. One thing is certain: Dogzilla's best sorting of the puzzle is dreadfully wrong. Which was the point of this discussion, wasn't it?

The Mischlinge were non-Aryans but as Hilberg wrote, Mischlinge "were neither Jews nor Germans."

At Wannsee it was agreed that, with certain exceptions, Mischlinge of the first degree would be treated as Jews for purposes of the Final Solution and Mischlinge of the second degree as Germans. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8407174&postcount=3303

TSR
4th July 2012, 05:49 PM
Why can't we have proper History related discussion with this pair instead of the usual well lets just say it's the opposite word to, "illumination."


Because they are, both of them, both unwilling and incapable of such a discussion, not to mention it being off topic for this thread, which is about denial, not proper history (save that it be contrasted with denial).

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 05:54 PM
The Jaeger report.

Self-serving? Of course, sometimes, and that's why witnesses are examined and their testimony is weighed with other evidence like documents and with other testimony.

You are aware of what was the only evidence which the prosecution used against these defendants and their cohorts, aren’t you?

Of course not. What trial are you talking about and where are the court documents?

But the sort of testimony which I quoted, without accepting it on face value, is, in fact, useful. It isn't perfect, and I never said it was. It is indicative - and in the Einsatzgruppen trial the inability of these defendants to sustain the argument made by Mr Moore, which the defendants wished to make, is indicative of the problems with that argument. In the case of these two men, they were unable, under questioning, to construct a defense of their actions as directed at dealing with a Communist threat as opposed to carrying out a program of murder of Jews. So the court found. And so the documents you won’t discuss prove as well.

Yeah...uh. We'll need to see the transcripts of the trial and the verdict to see what you're talking about. This idea that the men were convicted because the wholesale slaughter of Commies would be a defense but since it was Jews, it's a crime. That sounds like your spin on it.

But what's it going to do to prove gas plan six? You continue to run away from this.

Dogzilla
4th July 2012, 05:58 PM
Desperate misrepresentation duly noted. I was, as I am sure you know perfectly well, referencing the six million you are so certain didn't die in the camps; where is the evidence for their postwar existence?

The evidence would be old Jews with eastern or central European accents you run into wherever Jews can be found. There are fewer and fewer but they're still there.

Matthew Ellard
4th July 2012, 06:07 PM
Didn't I read that there were only about 200,000 Jewish people left in Germany?

Hi Clayton! I see you are still having problems with basic concepts as you are a junior holocaust denier. Let us help you.....

Firstly, you failed to read the Wikipedia article, you quoted, in full and left out this quote.. "90% of the 214,000 Jews still left in Germany in 1939 were killed during the war" and "Additionally, approximately 15,000 German Jews survived the concentration camps or survived by going into hiding" Was that just an error, as you are incompetent, or a lie on purpose?

Secondly, you don't seem to understand that Treblinka, Auschwitz and the other camps being discussed were in Poland and other countries. Do you got a map of Europe that you can look at? This will help reduce your ongoing confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany#Jews_in_Germany_fro m_1945_to_the_reunification

Thirdly, you never back up your claims or follow through your arguments when questioned. Is this your own technique or a general holocaust deniers technique you use?

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 06:26 PM
Of course not. What trial are you talking about and where are the court documents?

The trial I mentioned in the post you replied to. NMT trial #9, known as "the Einsatzgruppen trial," as I wrote about Ott and Braune. You pontificate about this but, in your own words, you, of course, are not aware of the facts of matter nor even where Ott and Braune were tried?

Yeah...uh. We'll need to see the transcripts of the trial and the verdict to see what you're talking about.

Be my guest.

This idea that the men were convicted because the wholesale slaughter of Commies would be a defense but since it was Jews, it's a crime. That sounds like your spin on it.

That is not my interpretation: you are confusing what the defendants tried to argue with my interpretation of the conviction. The court's judgment in the case, FWIW, noting the various groups of Einsatzgruppen victims, concluded that Jews were the main targets, that the defense argument about defending Germany from Bolshevism was unreasonable and unsubstantiated, and that the Jewish victims were murdered because they were Jews and in concert with Nazi racial ideology.

But what's it going to do to prove gas plan six? You continue to run away from this.

I have answered this over and over, specifically arguing that your dumbed-down and narrow definition of the Holocaust is not one I share nor one scholars share. I've quoted from the USHMM and Nick on this definition and cited Hilberg's component elements of the Holocaust. And, finally, I've shown both how you deny more than what you say with your truncated formula and that the mobile killing actions are part of even your poor definition: the 1.4 million victims make up a significant part of the murdered Jews and these people were killed as part of policies for exterminating Jews and intentionally.

Matthew Ellard
4th July 2012, 06:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling......even full Jewish men served in the German armed forces during World War II, including several generals and at least one field marshal, Erhard Milch.

Hi Clayton! Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot again.

Can you explain what government policy existed in Germany that required Göring to fake Milch's background? Any idea at all?

Two years later, the Gestapo looked into allegations that Milch’s father was Jewish. His friend and ally, Luftwaffe chief Hermann Göring, suppressed the investigation and forged a document claiming Milch’s biological father was his maternal uncle and a Christian. Göring also produced a certificate that faked Milch’s Aryan purity. When criticized for shielding a Jew, Göring quoted Karl Lueger, the anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna at the turn of the century: “I will decide who is a Jew.”

Matthew Ellard
4th July 2012, 06:36 PM
.....referencing the six million you are so certain didn't die in the camps; where is the evidence for their postwar existence?
The evidence would be old Jews with eastern or central European accents you run into wherever Jews can be found. There are fewer and fewer but they're still there.

I see..... Can you name the specific post war Jewish community that you have looked at that gave you this impression? I mean....you have looked haven't you? Please give up your best example so we may have a look ourselves.

000063
4th July 2012, 06:50 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling



Didn't I read that there were only about 200,000 Jewish people left in Germany?

You do realize that exact same article specifically said that Hitler personally reviewed the applications and granted exceptions? You even quoted it. Either you are deluded, or you are actively lying. Given that it would be an incredibly transparent lie...

Hi Clayton! Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot again.
...I have this odd image of a Tommy gun on full-auto.

[COLOR="Navy"]I see..... Can you name the specific post war Jewish community that you have looked at that gave you this impression? I mean....you have looked haven't you? Please give up your best example so we may have a look ourselves.

Wouldn't that be more anthropology, rather than history? Or etymology?

A'isha
4th July 2012, 06:54 PM
I see..... Can you name the specific post war Jewish community that you have looked at that gave you this impression? I mean....you have looked haven't you? Please give up your best example so we may have a look ourselves.

And how he can tell that they're postwar emigrants, instead of prewar emigrants. The time spanning the Nazis being merely one political party in Wiemar Germany to the height of the Nazi mass-murder of Jews was only a decade, after all.

Finding Jews with accents in modern Jewish communities and saying "aha! Obviously they survived the Nazi murders, therefore the Holocaust never happened!" is one of the dumbest arguments for denialism I've seen. And this thread is a neverending goldmine of dumb denier arguments.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 06:57 PM
And how he can tell that they're postwar emigrants, instead of prewar emigrants. The time spanning the Nazis being merely one political party in Wiemar Germany to the height of the Nazi mass-murder of Jews was only a decade, after all.

How can you all even tell what he's arguing? He posts one liners and links without responding to arguments made and without explaining what he is trying to say. :confused:

Cyrix686
4th July 2012, 06:58 PM
LC:

The period 1933 to 1939 saw Jewish population in Germany drop, due to Nazi racial policies including discriminatory laws, forced Aryanization and pauperization of the Jewish community, and the "encouragement" of emigration. The same policies introduced in 1938-1939 in Austria and the Protectorate had the same results there. One thing is certain: Dogzilla's best sorting of the puzzle is dreadfully wrong. Which was the point of this discussion, wasn't it?

Additionally there was an abnormally high level of Jewish suicide. Particularly amongst older couples. The Nazis veered between gloating over Jewish suicide as a result of their vile policies or trying to hide the figures.

A'isha
4th July 2012, 06:59 PM
How can you all even tell what he's arguing? He posts one liners and links without responding to arguments made and without explaining what he is trying to say. :confused:

Because his arguments may be colossally dumb, but at least they're pathetically transparent.

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 07:00 PM
LC:

Additionally there was an abnormally high level of Jewish suicide. Particularly amongst older couples. The Nazis veered between gloating over Jewish suicide as a result of their vile policies or trying to hide the figures.

Not to mention pogroms - organized violence - like Kristallnacht, a Nazi attack on the Jewish community for which Jews, who were victims of the attack, were jailed and for which the Jewish community was forced to pay a large fine. Not to mention petty harassment designed to make the lives of Jews in Germany so miserable that they'd leave . . . and so on.

Cyrix686
4th July 2012, 07:04 PM
This Jewish accents one, reminds me of the checking the telephone directory for Jewish surnames one...

Though "no Jews no Holocaust" by Dogzilla should be in the Stundie finals and I do hope that those of you reading along or participating in this discussion will send it spinning to the bottom of the stupid land by voting for it when the time comes. Thus joining it's subnormal brother in thought the "winning" Stundie, by FP. Berg. This notoriously dense idea:

"Jews could survive in a gas chamber by "simply" holding their breath for half an hour."

LemmyCaution
4th July 2012, 07:06 PM
Finding Jews with accents in modern Jewish communities and saying "aha! Obviously they survived the Nazi murders, therefore the Holocaust never happened!" is one of the dumbest arguments for denialism I've seen. And this thread is a neverending goldmine of dumb denier arguments.

Astonishing. We are back to Nessie's near-prediction of this However, I would say that if the Nazis had won and had total control of Europe, they may have still been Jewish survivors as plans are rarely 100% successful, not all Germans and others mentioned such as Bulgarians were anti-semitic.

That in no way disproves the Holocaust. although he didn't foresee "proof by accent."