[Moderated]The Holocaust never happened! [Archive] - Page 2

Father Dagon

18th July 2007, 10:10 AM

We all know the Holocaust happened. Even Holocaust deniers know it happened. How many Jews were killed? I personally compared an old census of European Jews from 1929 and compared that to post WW2 figures..and I came up with around 4 million dead Jews. Does it matter if it was 6 million or 4 million? No. These are not errors of fact..just errors of math and reliable census data.Wich leads to another question: If a mass murderer who was suspected for 37 killings is only guilty of 29, does that makes him less of a criminal?

Among the deniers there's also an interesting obfuscation of the differece between absolute and relative numbers:

Let's say that a state has a goal of exterminating a people numbering 1 000 000 people. At the height of it's power, it can only "reach" 750 000 of them. And the killing of them is not 100% efficient, but "only" 85%. That leaves us with 637 500 dead, 112 500 survivors and 250 000 potential victims.

And beacuse everyone, member of the targeted people or not, is busy trying to survive and repair the damage after the war - you can't for lack of time and resources get a testimonial from every survivor. But after a few years there's testimonials from 40% of the survivors, numbering 50 pages on average. That leaves us with 45 000 testimonials, totalling 2 250 000 pages.

The number of books on the genocide written during the ten first year after the peace are 2 000, but the ratio books-not murdered are 4:725. And to be frank a lot of the books is crap (how can there be poetry after the genocide?) or are boring sum-ups of the testimonials and only a few of the books has any lasting value.

But the response of the deniers are "look at all those survivors, testimonials and books, how could there be a genocide if there's so many survivors, testimonials and books?"

The sad thing with the real-life deniers are that they aren't applying the same indifference between absolute and relative numbers. If they did, they would swiftly ruin themselves.

funk de fino

18th July 2007, 10:16 AM

The Diary of Anne Frank: Is it Genuine?

the house is genuine

the photos and other evidence in the house is genuine

the dutch who hid the jews from the nazis are genuine

have you been to her house?

i have

its fake?, usual slopey shoulder nonsense

Belz...

18th July 2007, 10:24 AM

Will you then agree with me that Hogan's Heros was Jew propaganda?

You really, really do hate those jews, don't you, MaGZ ?

Firestone

18th July 2007, 12:03 PM

It proves ‘The Holocaust’ was devised as a political weapon in the 1970's.:rolleyes:
The Yad Vashem memorial to the victims of the Holocaust was established in 1953.

The Diary of Anne Frank: Is it Genuine?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p-2_Faurisson.htmlThis hideous claim has been dealt with by historians and by the court:

Nevertheless, Holocaust deniers have been persistent in their claims that the diaries were forged. In 1991, Robert Faurisson and Siegfried Verbeke produced a booklet titled: The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach. It claimed that Otto Frank wrote the diary, based on assertions that the diary contained several contradictions, that hiding in the Achterhuis would have been impossible, and that the style and handwriting of Anne Frank were not those of a teenager.

In December 1993, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Funds in Basle instigated a civil law suit in order to prohibit the further distribution of The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach in the Netherlands. On December 9, 1998, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants, forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the diary and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect, and imposed a penalty of 25,000 guilders per infringement.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_frank#Denials_and_legal_action)For the record, the trial was in the Netherlands where holocaust denial is not outlawed. But of course slander and libel are.

But don't let facts get in the way of your obsession, MaGZ.

gumboot

18th July 2007, 08:55 PM

Please provide something to support that last point.

In the spring of 1942 a historian in Jerusalem, Ben-Zion Dinur, used the
word sho'ah with reference to the extermination of European Jewry, and
called it a "catastrophe" that showed how different and unique the Jewish
people were from the rest of the world.

Source (PDF) (http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/microsoft%20word%20-%206419.pdf)

And More (http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Witness___Legacy_-_Educators__/Holocaust_-_Definition/holocaust_-_definition.html).

"Holocaust" is the English translation of the Hebrew "sho'ah". So you could argue that the term "Holocaust" was used to refer to the Nazi extermination of the Jews from the early 1940's, although Ben-Zion Dinur's work appears to be the first one that was translated into English, and thus the first to actually use the term "holocaust" rather than "sho'ah".

-Gumboot

gumboot

18th July 2007, 09:00 PM

Okay, but it was never used in reference to the death of Jews in WWII until the 1970's.

"Sho'ah" was first used to describe the Nazi persecution of the Jews in 1940, and by the 1950's "Holocaust" (the English translation of "Sho'ah") had come be be accepted as the default term to describe it.

-Gumboot

SpitfireIX

18th July 2007, 10:11 PM

Okay, but it was never used in reference to the death of Jews in WWII until the 1970's.

From "The Secular Word "HOLOCAUST": Scholarly Sacralization, Twentieth Century Meanings (http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/)," by Jon Petrie:

"HOLOCAUST: Hitler has familiarized the world with brutality and terror ... But nothing ... is comparable to his treatment of the Jews ... more than half of Poland's three and a half million Jews have already been done to death ... Reprisals are out of the question ... We can make it plain ... those ... responsible ... for cold blooded calculated mass murders will be brought strictly to account." (News Chronicle [London], 5 December 1942, editorial preceded by uppercased title, "HOLOCAUST," p. 2, col. 2.)

This newspaper article is also referenced in the Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oed.com/) entry for "the Holocaust"; if you don't want to subscribe to the online version, you can probably find it at any decent-sized public or college library.

***1942 News Chron. 5 Dec. 2/2 Holocaust...Nothing else in Hitler's record is comparable to his treatment of the Jews...The word has gone forth that..the Jewish peoples are to be exterminated...The conscience of humanity stands aghast. 1943 Hansard Lords 23 Mar. 826 The Nazis go on killing..If this rule could be relaxed, some hundreds, and possibly a few thousands, might be enabled to escape from this holocaust. 1945 M. R. COHEN in S. Goldschmidt Legal Claims against Germany p.vi, Millions of surviving victims of the Nazi holocaust, Jews and non-Jews, will stand before us in the years to come. 1949 Proc. Amer. Acad. for Jewish Research XVIII. 193 Problems of Jewish Hurban research.

http://opentoeveryone.typepad.com/open_to_everyone/images/weakest_link

Yet again, MaGZ, you are the weakest link. Goodbye!

Loss Leader

19th July 2007, 08:06 AM

Will you then agree with me that Hogan's Heros was Jew propaganda?

Exactly what would the point of that propaganda be? The Nazis were portrayed as bumbling idiots. The American POWs were constantly getting the better of them and were actively conducting sabotage and espioage from inside the camp. The plight of the Jews was never mentioned (IIRC).

So, at a time when you claim we Jews were inventing the Holocaust - at a time when you claim we were trying to convince the world we had been horribly abused and needed our own homeland to protect ourselves from the crushing Nazi presence in the world - what possible reason would we have to portray them as ineffectual morons?

What possible good did it do the Jews to downplay the seriousness of the Nazi's actions in World War II?

I mean, can you even keep this stuff straight anymore?

Belz...

19th July 2007, 10:02 AM

I mean, can you even keep this stuff straight anymore?

He just WANTS it to be true, so it doesn't matter if he contradicts himself.

Drudgewire

19th July 2007, 03:37 PM

MaGZ

19th July 2007, 06:48 PM

Well, since Hogan's Heroes was based on Stalag 17, maybe he means THAT was the propaganda.

Of course the German officers were pretty civil to the prisoners in that too... and neither bothered to mention mistreatment of Jews...

...uuummmm....

So the "cruel and ruthless commandant" in the film Stalag 17 was played by Otto Preminger, making this film another example of Hollywood Jew propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalag_17

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

Tirdun

19th July 2007, 07:18 PM

So the "cruel and ruthless commandant" in the film Stalag 17 was played by Otto Preminger, making this film another example of Hollywood Jew propaganda.

Riiiiiight.
Because in 1953 there would never have been a market for an suspense movie starring WWII GIs. Except maybe Kwai. And Great Escape. Oh, and Longest Day... Patton... Dambreakers.... Battle of Britain... heck, all the way up to Private Ryan. Gee, I guess ex GIs like to go to WWII movies

I suppose the 3 Oscar noms was thanks to the Jews too? Those Jews, they think of everything.

MaGZ

19th July 2007, 07:22 PM

Riiiiiight.
Because in 1953 there would never have been a market for an suspense movie starring WWII GIs. Except maybe Kwai. And Great Escape. Oh, and Longest Day... Patton... Dambreakers.... Battle of Britain... heck, all the way up to Private Ryan. Gee, I guess ex GIs like to go to WWII movies

I suppose the 3 Oscar noms was thanks to the Jews too? Those Jews, they think of everything.

Look at how many decades the Jews in Hollywood have been making holocaust films. When will you guys wise up? Hollywood is a propaganda factory run by the Jews.

Liszt

19th July 2007, 07:28 PM

Look at how many decades the Jews in Hollywood have been making holocaust films. When will you guys wise up? Hollywood is a propaganda factory run by the Jews.

You said earlier that V for Vendetta was some sort of Holocaust promotion film.

It wasn´t, it was written by Alan Moore decades ago, about Thatcher. Small changes were made (Mr susan became Mr Sutler - well, it´s nearly Hitler), but other than that, changes were minimal. It was supposed to be about extremeThatcherism.

Joel Silver is actually a truther´s dream (V, Matrix and loads of others)

There is loads of propaganda out of Hollywood though.

MaGZ

19th July 2007, 07:34 PM

You said earlier that V for Vendetta was some sort of Holocaust promotion film.

It wasn´t, it was written by Alan Moore decades ago, about Thatcher. Small changes were made (Mr susan became Mr Sutler - well, it´s nearly Hitler), but other than that, changes were minimal. It was supposed to be about extremeThatcherism.

Joel Silver is actually a truther´s dream (V, Matrix and loads of others)

There is loads of propaganda out of Hollywood though.

Not V for Vendetta.
V (TV series) was a holocaust film for the sci-fi crowd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(TV_series)

JimBenArm

19th July 2007, 07:40 PM

Look at how many decades the Jews in Hollywood have been making holocaust films. When will you guys wise up? Hollywood is a propaganda factory run by the Jews.
I'd "wise up" if it was actually true. However, since it's just a fantasy of Jew-hating idiots, there isn't really anything to wise up to.
I'm still waiting patiently for you to actually get something right. What are you, zero for 20 now?

MaGZ

19th July 2007, 07:46 PM

I'd "wise up" if it was actually true. However, since it's just a fantasy of Jew-hating idiots, there isn't really anything to wise up to.
I'm still waiting patiently for you to actually get something right. What are you, zero for 20 now?

Jews run almost every film studio in Hollywood. Do some research and you will find out it is true.

Who Rules America?
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2007, 08:07 PM

Not V for Vendetta.
V (TV series) was a holocaust film for the sci-fi crowd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(TV_series)

Magz is right for once.

I loved that show when I was a kid. And yes, the treatment of scientists in the show was an alegory for the treatment of jews in Hitlers europe. The producers deliberately used Nazi imagery in their portrayal of the aliens and their rule over earth as a moralistic warning against the excesses of fascism.

That is to say, Magz, they were warning us about YOU!

Liszt

19th July 2007, 08:12 PM

lol Sword of Truth. I have V on DVD, watched it again this year. You are 100% correct.

Jews run almost every film studio in Hollywood. Do some research and you will find out it is true.

Who Rules America?
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/

Can someone debunk this list please? Just calling MaGZ a nut or whatever, although possibly true, doesn´t help too much.

JimBenArm

19th July 2007, 08:21 PM

Jews run almost every film studio in Hollywood. Do some research and you will find out it is true.

Who Rules America?
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/
Do you do any research outside of Jew-hating idiot sites? Of course not! You'd have to take responsibility for all the problems in your life, then, instead of blaming some outside group of people! Not rich and famous? Hey, I would have been if it wasn't for the Jews! Car didn't start this morning? Some Jew must have siphoned my gas tank!
And of course, all the bad things that happened to the Jews in history was either their own fault, or exaggerated. Hey, Hitler tried to tell them not to go into the showers while they were being cleaned, but they wouldn't listen to him. And the 6 million? Well, a decimal got moved a couple of places, it was like 60 people, total. And they were evil Jews anyway, so what does it matter?
It's really pathetic that you have to denigrate other humans to try to feel better about your own miserable existence. Seriously, it is. They are people, same as the rest of the posters here. They have had idiots doing evil things to them for centuries, and as long as there are people like you believing the nonsense, there always will be the potential for even more evil to be done to them. Until you wise up, start looking at them as something besides a convenient scapegoat, and take some responsibility for your own failures as a human being, decent people are going to heap scorn upon you, and deservedly so.
Now, if you're a man, you'll post an apology to all the Jewish members of this board for being so ignorant.

But, then, I know what will really happen.

Pardalis

19th July 2007, 08:23 PM

Now, if you're a man, you'll post an apology to all the Jewish members of this board for being so ignorant.

And an apology to all us gentiles also while he's at it. His garbage is insulting to anyone with a conscience.

Liszt

19th July 2007, 08:26 PM

Do you do any research outside of Jew-hating idiot sites? Of course not! You'd have to take responsibility for all the problems in your life, then, instead of blaming some outside group of people! Not rich and famous? Hey, I would have been if it wasn't for the Jews! Car didn't start this morning? Some Jew must have siphoned my gas tank!
And of course, all the bad things that happened to the Jews in history was either their own fault, or exaggerated. Hey, Hitler tried to tell them not to go into the showers while they were being cleaned, but they wouldn't listen to him. And the 6 million? Well, a decimal got moved a couple of places, it was like 60 people, total. And they were evil Jews anyway, so what does it matter?
It's really pathetic that you have to denigrate other humans to try to feel better about your own miserable existence. Seriously, it is. They are people, same as the rest of the posters here. They have had idiots doing evil things to them for centuries, and as long as there are people like you believing the nonsense, there always will be the potential for even more evil to be done to them. Until you wise up, start looking at them as something besides a convenient scapegoat, and take some responsibility for your own failures as a human being, decent people are going to heap scorn upon you, and deservedly so.
Now, if you're a man, you'll post an apology to all the Jewish members of this board for being so ignorant.

But, then, I know what will really happen.

I agree with these sentiments, and racism really pisses me off, but this is supposed to be about attacking the arguement, not the person.

This list is from National Vanguard, so it should be full of holes. Can someone (I´m not expert here) debunk it?

When you look at the Military Industrial Complex, they all seem to be run by white guys (not Jews). don´t the weapons makers own the media (GE for example)?

Calcas

19th July 2007, 08:28 PM

What an evil, despicable racist.

The joos this...the joos that.

If he was a bonafide KKK member spouting the same kind of hate mongering, would he be tolerated here?

Sword_Of_Truth

19th July 2007, 08:32 PM

lol Sword of Truth. I have V on DVD, watched it again this year. You are 100% correct.

The Wikipedia article reports a sequel series planned for release next year. It was a good show the first time around, I'm looking forward to it.

Can someone debunk this list please? Just calling MaGZ a nut or whatever, although possibly true, doesn´t help too much.

National Alliance, nuff sed.

Target engaged and debunked, objective achieved. All units return to base.

Alareth

19th July 2007, 08:34 PM

What an evil, despicable racist.

The joos this...the joos that.

If he was a bonafide KKK member spouting the same kind of hate mongering, would he be tolerated here?

Well, he may be a bigot, but he's much more personable than TrondHalvorsen was. :rolleyes:

gumboot

19th July 2007, 08:36 PM

Jews run almost every film studio in Hollywood. Do some research and you will find out it is true.

Who Rules America?
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/

I noticed you've changed your claim from "The CEO of every film production company is a Jew". Oh well. your claim is still not true.

-Gumboot

Liszt

19th July 2007, 08:44 PM

V the next generation. Fantastic, thanks for the heads up on that.

But now my brain is polluted with National Vanguard. I forced myself to read it, with its constant implied racism, in order to be critical. The names are correct, I think, and they are, in fact, mostly Jewish (most of them have done a pretty good job too, but that is not the point)

But I don´t think the heads of media are really in control anyway, it is the shareholders, and the umbrella groups. (?) I think Fulemewunz had some answers to this. Where is he? Or anyone else?

Pardalis

19th July 2007, 08:51 PM

The Wikipedia article reports a sequel series planned for release next year. It was a good show the first time around, I'm looking forward to it.

I can't wait to see who the new Diana is. :drool:

Belz...

20th July 2007, 05:42 AM

Look at how many decades the Jews in Hollywood have been making holocaust films. When will you guys wise up? Hollywood is a propaganda factory run by the Jews.

Really ?

Propaganda movies like what ?

Passion of the Christ ?

Crimson Tide ?

Abyss ?

Top Gun ?

Conan the Barbarian ?

Jaws ?

Those movies ?

Belz...

20th July 2007, 05:43 AM

I can't wait to see who the new Diana is. :drool:

MMmmm... Jane Badler...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080462f606f2f717.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5331)

Loss Leader

20th July 2007, 07:31 AM

So the "cruel and ruthless commandant" in the film Stalag 17 was played by Otto Preminger, making this film another example of Hollywood Jew propaganda.

So, are you abandoning your retarded claim that the TV show Hogan's Heroes was Jewish propaganda?

Or will you finally explain how a TV show that downplayed the Nazi threat and never mentioned the Holocaust somehow helped Jews play up the Nazi threat and invent the Holocaust?

Drudgewire

20th July 2007, 07:41 AM

Jews run almost every film studio in Hollywood. Do some research and you will find out it is true.

Who Rules America?
http://www.natall.com/who-rules-america/
Is there an over/under yet for how long it takes MaGZ to post a youtube link to "The Eternal Jew?" :rolleyes:

Tirdun

20th July 2007, 09:08 AM

Really? Every studio?

Universal is owned by NBC, Vivendi and GE which are corporations and thus owned themselves by thousands of shareholders. Universal is controlled by Marc Shmuger and David Linde.

20th Century Fox is run by Rupert Murdoch.

Disney/Pixar/Buena Vista/Touchstone was founded by Walt Disney: the son of Irish immigrants. It's now a corporation. Their film studios are run by several people. The Weinstein brothers ran Buena Vista for a while, and they're Jewish, but now is run by Daniel Battsek. Disney itself is run by Bob Iger, Pixar originally by Steve Jobs, now by Ed Catmull and John Lasseter.

Dreamworks was created by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen.

Viacom/Paramount is controlled by Brad Grey and Gail Berman, although the prior management included a Jew: Sherry Lansing, whose mother fled Nazi Germany.

MGM is owned by Sony, Comcast and about six other major companies. MGM is run by Harry Sloan.

WB is owned by Time Warner and run by Barry M. Meyer, Alan F. Horn, and Edward A. Romano

Pardalis

20th July 2007, 09:31 AM

Passion of the Christ ?

Jews complained about that one as being antisemitic.

Crimson Tide? Communist propaganda? :confused:

Abyss ?UFO propaganda in disguise.

Top Gun ?Homosexual propaganda.

Conan the Barbarian ?See above.

Jaws ?http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/88864632c7d343ae1.png

;)

Belz...

20th July 2007, 10:48 AM

Jews complained about that one as being antisemitic.

I know. That's why I picked it.

Father Dagon

20th July 2007, 01:59 PM

That's why I voted for Mel as the funniest man in the Community forum.

Who else could show the absurdity that Hitler was?/b/tards? (http://macrochan.org/search.py?tag=People%3ANazis)

(Some pictures are NSFW, mmm-kay?)

Sword_Of_Truth

20th July 2007, 03:24 PM

So, are you abandoning your retarded claim that the TV show Hogan's Heroes was Jewish propaganda?

Or will you finally explain how a TV show that downplayed the Nazi threat and never mentioned the Holocaust somehow helped Jews play up the Nazi threat and invent the Holocaust?

Jewish actor, Werner Klemperer and his family escaped europe just before Hitler consolidated his hold over Germany.

When offered the role of a Nazi POW camp Commandant Klink, he agreed on the condition that his character and the rest of the "master race" be written as a band of bumbling idiots easily made fools of my Col. Hogan and his band of heroic resisters.

If Hogan's Heroes downplays the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities, then it is because of Klemperers personal vengeance in making them all out to be half-wits who couldn't find thier asses if they ate iron filings and used metal detectors. Hogan's Heroes could be regarded as jewish propaganda, given the writers caving to Klemperers demands.

NYCEMT86

20th July 2007, 03:54 PM

If Hogan's Heroes downplays the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities, then it is because of Klemperers personal vengeance in making them all out to be half-wits who couldn't find thier asses if they ate iron filings and used metal detectors. Hogan's Heroes could be regarded as jewish propaganda, given the writers caving to Klemperers demands.

but if they had not caved to Klemperers demands and made it a bit more serious would it be comedy that we know it as today?

Sword_Of_Truth

20th July 2007, 04:16 PM

but if they had not caved to Klemperers demands and made it a bit more serious would it be comedy that we know it as today?

Perhaps, but a show called "Hogans Heroes" would have blatantly biased against the Nazis regardless. Wich is what seems to have MaGZ's white lace panties in a bunch.

I think the real issue here is wether anti-nazi propaganda is wrong. I don't believe it is. Anything that portrays the Nazis as depraved monsters or bumbling mental midgets is perfectly acceptable because that is exactly what they were.

Nick Terry

20th July 2007, 04:28 PM

I think the real issue here is wether anti-nazi propaganda is wrong. I don't believe it is. Anything that portrays the Nazis as depraved monsters or bumbling mental midgets is perfectly acceptable because that is exactly what they were.

depraved mental midget sums up the typical internet Nazi sympathiser pretty well.

:D

Drudgewire

20th July 2007, 04:28 PM

By this standard anything that has an opposing viewpoint to the person making the charge could be called "propaganda." So Col. Clink was not only furthering the cause of Jews, but of skinny people as well.

I just channel-surfed past some funniest pet videos show and noticed there were more dog clips than cat ones. IT'S K-9 PROPAGANDA!

Lots of folks of every religion harbored a little ill-will towards Germans for a long time, and in that era they didn't Oliver Stones to make depressing tales about them. A comedy about American POW's sticking it to their guards was natural, and it worked. Hogan's Heroes is no more a case of Jewish propaganda than MASH was Korean propaganda.

Father Dagon

20th July 2007, 04:48 PM

Perhaps, but a show called "Hogans Heroes" would have blatantly biased against the Nazis regardless. Wich is what seems to have MaGZ's white lace panties in a bunch.

I think the real issue here is wether anti-nazi propaganda is wrong. I don't believe it is. Anything that portrays the Nazis as depraved monsters or bumbling mental midgets is perfectly acceptable because that is exactly what they were.Not really. National socialism might be a mechanism suited to letting only the worst reaching the top. But only bumbling fools had the jew thing? Not really. Most people agreed with the nazis on jews being a problem, but not with the solution.

And the most scary thing about the nazis is how normal they seems to be. In their own publications they are actually not mentioning jews very much at all. The Guido Knopp-spin on how evil and omnious everything was, including Hitler playing with his dog Blondi, is counter-productive. Might as well accusing them for eating roasted babies for breakfast and having turds for cigars...

firecoins

20th July 2007, 04:52 PM

Look at how many decades the Jews in Hollywood have been making holocaust films. When will you guys wise up? Hollywood is a propaganda factory run by the Jews.
I am Jew. I am a comedian. I can't find work. How can I get in on this "propoganda factory"? Do you know where the human resource office of this "factory" is?

simakperrce

20th July 2007, 04:55 PM

simakperrce

20th July 2007, 05:10 PM

And the most scary thing about the nazis is how normal they seems to be. In their own publications they are actually not mentioning jews very much at all. The Guido Knopp-spin on how evil and omnious everything was, including Hitler playing with his dog Blondi, is counter-productive. Might as well accusing them for eating roasted babies for breakfast and having turds for cigars...

Agreed. Hannah Arendt has pointed this out in conjunction with the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem. This was not a spitting, cold, ugly looking, red-neck but a balding, bespeckled guy who looked like a financial advisor. Upon watching the trial she coined the famous term "The banality of evil" (Die Banalität des Bösen).

Knopp (who is a "historian" who has made a fortune by running historical features in German TV which reach from "Hitler's friends" to "Hitler's lackeys" to "Hitler's Dog" to "Hitler's meals") and some of the German press are still trying to render Nazism as an accident that came upon the German people from outer space and was a result of a few who "lured" 80 Million into being co-conspirators of mass murder.

I think everyone with open eyes knew that something fishy was going on. But they decided to not follow up on it, because what really happened actually stretched the wildest imaginations.

ktesibios

20th July 2007, 05:12 PM

SpitfireIX

20th July 2007, 05:15 PM

I am Jew. I am a comedian. I can't find work. How can I get in on this "propoganda factory"? Do you know where the human resource office of this "factory" is?

It's right next door to the office where you sign up to be a paid government disinformation agent.

SpitfireIX

20th July 2007, 05:20 PM

<snip> The holocaust for me is a prime example for the fallacity of Leftists to find a 'root cause' behind everything. It was totally unparalleled and ultimately inexplicable.

The post above is for me a prime example of the irresistible urge of right wing authoritarians to indulge in the fallacies of non sequitur and strawman just to slag anyone who holds an opinion they don't approve of.

Don't make me separate you two. :catfight:

Nick Terry

20th July 2007, 05:39 PM

One thing that's almost always overseen is the fact that widespread extermination didn't start in the death camps but with the SS-lead death squads (Einsatzgruppen) who acted behind the front lines in the Soviet Union. Estimates of killings reach 1,5 Million through mass shootings in the Soviet occupied areas. There has been a huge discussion in Germany a while ago in how far the regular army (Wehrmacht) was involved in providing logistics for these killings.

It always amazes me that the conveyor-belt style extermination in the death camps started only as late as fall 43/early 44, that is only one year before the end of the war. Treblinka was the first site where all the Jews from the Warshaw Ghetto were killed. Then in the summer of 44 the Nazis killed 600.000 Hungarian Jews alone in Auschwitz. Six hundred thousand people in one summer. The gas chambers worked around the clock. Auschwitz's commander in chief Rudolf Höss has admitted this during the Nuremberg trials without moving one muscle in his face. This is beyond any human understanding.

It took well until the 50s until the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen were tried and eventually executed. Actually under heavy protest of the German public.

The holocaust for me is a prime example for the fallacity of Leftists to find a 'root cause' behind everything. It was totally unparalleled and ultimately inexplicable.

There are some serious factual errors in this post

1. Systematic gassing of Jews began in December 1941 at Chelmno, followed by Semlin near Belgrade (March 1942), Belzec (March 1942), Sobibor (April 1942), Auschwitz (sporadically since February 1942, systematically from May 1942), Maly Trostinets near Minsk (May 1942), Treblinka (July 1942) and Majdanek (August 1942).

2. The bulk of the death toll came in 1942, with at least 1.7 million gassed in the above named camps, along with an equal number killed in shootings, which had begun in 1941.

3. The 'Hungarian action' actually involved 430,000 deportees, of whom 120-130,000 were selected for slave labour and sent out from Auschwitz to every corner of Gerrmany. So the correct number of dead is half the 600,000 figure you quote. As Hungarian Jews were also deported to be shot in Russia in 1941 and there were additional deportations not via Auschwitz in late 1944, plus murders in the Budapest ghetto/siege, the death toll in Hungary was at least 450,000.

4. It is very easily grasped by human understanding that the Nazis applied a simple criteria as to who would live and who would die: whether they were capable of work. Feeding 'useless mouths' was not in their rational interests. The irrationality was in designating Jews as the source of all evil in the world according to Nazi ideology. Hitler blamed the Jews for bringing America into the war, forgetting of course that he himself was the one to declare war on the US. Hitler also accused the Jews of being behind Bolshevism. This is why the two key dates of the escalation of Nazi policy are June and December 1941.

The same logic of fitness for work was applied to all other nationalities, but in a much less virulent fashion. The difference - the greater need to exterminate the Jews than to exterminate all unfit Poles or unfit Russians - is why the Holocaust cannot be reduced to economic logic alone, though people would be foolish to ignore the economic semi-rationality of it, as this explains timing and the geography. For example, the Jewish ghettos of Upper Silesia, right next to Auschwitz, survived significantly longer than many other ghettos, because they were fully integrated into the industrial economy of the region. The same applied to the Lodz ghetto, which was the last to be destroyed. Ideological imperatives had to overcome economic interests for the destruction process to succeed. In other areas, however, economic interests accelerated the ideological imperative, since the ghettos might be located in under-industrialised regions, where there were food shortages, making it 'easy' for the ideological fanatics to persuade the more pragmatically minded to assist in eliminating a functional burden.

5. Many of the Einsatzgruppen commanders were prosecuted by the US in 1948 and of these several were executed. Many others were able to blend back into postwar German society until in 1958 the West German government began prosecuting them, starting with the Ulm Einsatzgruppen trial. As West Germany had abolished the death penalty shortly after being constituted as a state, ironically in part because of agitation on behalf of Nazi war criminals sitting on death row in the US controlled prison of Landsberg, none of those convicted after 1958 were sentenced to death. Many however received life sentences.

6. The Holocaust is almost entirely ignored by 'leftists' who have historically been more interested in class, contemporary issues, and since 1967, anti-Zionism. A small number of Marxists in France became Holocaust deniers because they thought that Nazism was the ultimate alibi of capitalism - however bad capitalism was, it couldn't have been as bad as Nazism. Marxist analyses of Nazism always stumbled on explaining the Holocaust, since the Holocaust cannot be reduced to economic logic alone.

gumboot

20th July 2007, 07:18 PM

I think the real issue here is wether anti-nazi propaganda is wrong. I don't believe it is. Anything that portrays the Nazis as depraved monsters or bumbling mental midgets is perfectly acceptable because that is exactly what they were.

I think this is a dangerous line of thought to follow. It leads to conclusions that only depraved monsters and bumbling mental midgets do things like this.

The Nazis were normal people, at first. They drew their ranks for normal German citizenry. And they got their support from normal German citizenry. Any country could become Nazi Germany, given the right (wrong) circumstances. That's the important lesson. Your country. Or mine. Anyone's.

Secondly, the Nazis were so dangerous because they were certainly not "mental midgets". They were incredibly smart, perceptive, some of them even gifted. They knew exactly what they were doing, and for a decade and a half they fooled the entire world, save for Roosevelt and Churchill.

Evil is not dangerous when it is inept. Gifted, brilliant evil, is horrendously dangerous. Students need to be taught that Hitler was an exceptionally gifted speaking, with phenomenal charisma. That's what made him dangerous. In order to prevent something like that happening again, we need to put away the monsters and the demons and understand how they did what they did. How did they gain power? How did they gain loyal supporters? Because of all things, that is the most horrific reality of the Nazi legacy.

The greatest horror of Nazi Germany, for me, is not that 11 million people were killed. Governments before and since have exterminated millions of people. Germany is unique in one way. It was a democracy. It was a republic. The horror is not that 11 million people were exterminated, it was that 70 million Germans let it happen. To understand that, you have to understand the appeal of the Nazis. Sickening as that is. People like MaGZ may actually provide the best source for preventing such a thing ever happening again.

-Gumboot

JJM 777

20th July 2007, 11:46 PM

Not so long ago, all Western countries were happily capturing black men from Africa, selling them as slaves, and forcing their children to hereditary slavery.

O sing yie Christian gentlemen yer cheerful songs of praise to God, then return home from church service in a cart driven by yer black slave, then beat up any lazy black slave of yers at home.

In what way is the modern man different from the 19th century man, except our more advanced political theories and laws? The society has advanced, the individuals not so much.

Pardalis

21st July 2007, 02:10 AM

In what way is the modern man different from the 19th century man, except our more advanced political theories and laws? The society has advanced, the individuals not so much.

I guess pedantic pseudo intellectuals will always exist.

Loss Leader

21st July 2007, 07:46 AM

Not so long ago, all Western countries were happily capturing black men from Africa, selling them as slaves, and forcing their children to hereditary slavery.

Thanks for the non-sequitur. And may I just add: Charmed firms boundaries negative lighest concurrently supply vector.

Random words courtesy of The Random Word Generator (http://www.zokutou.co.uk/randomword/).

SpitfireIX

21st July 2007, 08:08 AM

Thanks for the non-sequitur. And may I just add: Charmed firms boundaries negative lighest concurrently supply vector.

Random words courtesy of The Random Word Generator (http://www.zokutou.co.uk/randomword/).

Loss Leader, what are you doing?? That's the code phrase that activates Operation [redacted]!! That's not supposed to start for another [redacted] weeks!! You're really in for it now! It's two months' remediation at Club NWO for you. With no swimming pool, spa, or restaurant privileges. :(

simakperrce

21st July 2007, 08:18 AM

The post above is for me a prime example of the irresistible urge of right wing authoritarians to indulge in the fallacies of non sequitur and strawman just to slag anyone who holds an opinion they don't approve of.

How about you bring up a counter-argument instead of throwing fancy words around and accuse me of being a "right wing" and an "authoritarian" on top of all? That would also give me a clue as to what opinion I supposedly don't approve of.

simakperrce

21st July 2007, 09:26 AM

There are some serious factual errors in this post

I stand corrected on the factual errors in case of the Hungarian Jews (I was citing from an obviously faulty memory and should have compared to data which you provided here), yet I think I have been misunderstood, especially by some around here who want to turn me into a "right wing" member.

My point was, that the "conveyor-belt style killing" through Zyklon B -- the synonymous "death factory" -- in Auschwitz didn't start until late into the war, and said that this was something that always stuck with me. It was not my intention to deny that mass executions took place prior to that, but in almost all cases (and despite the outrageous numbers of casualties), the methods used to execute prisoners could be considered as -- so macabre this may sound -- trials.

In Chelmo and Majdanek, which you cite, most prisoners were killed by way of using transportable death vans and killing through exhaust fumes or Monoxide. These methods, just as the shootings, were soon considered ineffective in view of the grand scheme to exterminate the European Jewry (Endlösung der Judenfrage) which was sanctioned in January of 1942 at the Wannsee-Konferenz in Berlin.

It was only in the Spring of 1944, that the train-line to Auschwitz-Birkenau was extended to end right at the selection ramp, and that this massive 'turnaround' (another macabre word in that conjunction) could be reached.

It is very easily grasped by human understanding that the Nazis applied a simple criteria as to who would live and who would die: whether they were capable of work. Feeding 'useless mouths' was not in their rational interests. The irrationality was in designating Jews as the source of all evil in the world according to Nazi ideology. Hitler blamed the Jews for bringing America into the war, forgetting of course that he himself was the one to declare war on the US. Hitler also accused the Jews of being behind Bolshevism. This is why the two key dates of the escalation of Nazi policy are June and December 1941.

I agree, but these historical parameters are not what I referred to. I was referring to a particular person -- Rudolf Höss -- who freely admitted of having been responsible for the killing of close (if not over) a Million of people. Authors like Imre Kertesz, who has been a prisoner in Auschwitz himself, have used these extreme cases to ponder on the question whether such a perverted 'ability' is a particularly German trait, or whether it could not be something which belongs to the 'Human condition' per se. In Kertesz's writings you seldomly come across bad Nazis. He is trying to reflect more on which 'human' elements could have made this possible, without always being able to provide an answer.

I am NOT pointing this out in order to clear us Germans from any responsibility or guilt, but in focussing on the Nazi/German side of it alone you are running the danger of declaring this as a one time accident in an otherwise flawless project of Modernism. This is precisely the habit of some contemporary German media outlets (as I pointed out elsewhere), to declare Hitler as a hickup in our history, that, over time, needs to be downplayed (I am not accusing you of downplaying anything BTW, just trying to illustrate my point)

What I meant with 'not understandable' then is this: which element caused the Nazis to not just imprison, deport, or resettle Jews, but to actually try to exterminate them? Of course, if I am a Marxist I will explain it with some sort of "exploitation of the human body" in favor of the industries and the bourgeoisie who supported Hitler. That would be my root cause. But even that doesn't necessarily carry in it the total extermination of these bodies.

5. Many of the Einsatzgruppen commanders were prosecuted by the US in 1948 and of these several were executed. Many others were able to blend back into postwar German society until in 1958 the West German government began prosecuting them, starting with the Ulm Einsatzgruppen trial. As West Germany had abolished the death penalty shortly after being constituted as a state, ironically in part because of agitation on behalf of Nazi war criminals sitting on death row in the US controlled prison of Landsberg, none of those convicted after 1958 were sentenced to death. Many however received life sentences.

Again, I was referring to "some" of the Einsatzgruppenführer, such as Otto Ohlendorf, who were sentenced to death and executed in 1951 under rather heavy protests of the German public. We are not contradicting each other here.

6. The Holocaust is almost entirely ignored by 'leftists' who have historically been more interested in class, contemporary issues, and since 1967, anti-Zionism. A small number of Marxists in France became Holocaust deniers because they thought that Nazism was the ultimate alibi of capitalism - however bad capitalism was, it couldn't have been as bad as Nazism. Marxist analyses of Nazism always stumbled on explaining the Holocaust, since the Holocaust cannot be reduced to economic logic alone.

That was exactly my point, albeit in your case a bit more eloquently brought forth. I assume you are also a "right wing authoritarian"?

Belz...

21st July 2007, 06:03 PM

The Nazis were normal people, at first.

I think the most frightening thing about the Nazis is that they were normal people, period.

Sword_Of_Truth

21st July 2007, 07:09 PM

Gumboot - I don't disagree with anything you said. It's just that I've never considered racism to be an attribute of an enlightened person.

That and the fact that - and you amateur historians here can feel free to debate this - there were a number of critical strategic errors made by the Nazi regime wich dramatically shortened the lifespan of the Third Reich to well below it's promised 1,000 years.

Devil's Advocate

21st July 2007, 07:15 PM

No offense to the posters in this thread, but I wish this thread would die. Even seeing the title is offensive.

Gravy

21st July 2007, 08:40 PM

No offense to the posters in this thread, but I wish this thread would die. Even seeing the title is offensive.Well, it's important to understand that Holocaust denial and 9/11 denial are natural results of a denialist mindset. Because so many Holocaust deniers latched on to 9/11 denial, we've seen too much of both of those uglinesses in this subforum. Perhaps that overexposure manifests as flippancy at times. However, the fact that this thread exists is evidence that we're still sensitive to the astonishing delusions that some people work so hard to sustain.

MaGZ

22nd July 2007, 04:15 AM

Well, it's important to understand that Holocaust denial and 9/11 denial are natural results of a denialist mindset. Because so many Holocaust deniers latched on to 9/11 denial, we've seen too much of both of those uglinesses in this subforum. Perhaps that overexposure manifests as flippancy at times. However, the fact that this thread exists is evidence that we're still sensitive to the astonishing delusions that some people work so hard to sustain.

Gravy,
Do you own the rights to the phrase "9/11 denial" ?
Isn’t this your creation?

Nick Terry

22nd July 2007, 04:47 AM

I stand corrected on the factual errors in case of the Hungarian Jews (I was citing from an obviously faulty memory and should have compared to data which you provided here), yet I think I have been misunderstood, especially by some around here who want to turn me into a "right wing" member.

My point was, that the "conveyor-belt style killing" through Zyklon B -- the synonymous "death factory" -- in Auschwitz didn't start until late into the war, and said that this was something that always stuck with me. It was not my intention to deny that mass executions took place prior to that, but in almost all cases (and despite the outrageous numbers of casualties), the methods used to execute prisoners could be considered as -- so macabre this may sound -- trials.

Technically, 'conveyor belt style killing' began in the T4 euthanasia program. I would regard Treblinka as conveyor-belt as much as Auschwitz.

The mass executions in the east were also industrial-scale; there was a recycling of massive anti-tank ditches as pre-dug graves; machine guns were used, and they resembled nothing so much as a curtailed ghastly parody of the Somme or Verdun. (Minus the poison gas, ironically)

The Aktion Reinhard camps relied on the internal combustion engine, another industrial product of modernity.

It is easy however to fetishise technology and see that as a necessary condition; Rwanda almost disabuses us of that illusion, except for the fact that the machetes were mass-manufactured and imported from overseas, i.e. planning was needed.

In Chelmo and Majdanek, which you cite, most prisoners were killed by way of using transportable death vans and killing through exhaust fumes or Monoxide.

Chelmno used gas vans, as did Semlin and Maly Trostinets. Majdanek had relatively small use of static gas chambers.

These methods, just as the shootings, were soon considered ineffective in view of the grand scheme to exterminate the European Jewry (Endlösung der Judenfrage) which was sanctioned in January of 1942 at the Wannsee-Konferenz in Berlin.

No, they were very effective on a local level; it was only in relation to the overall scale that newer facilities had to be planned and conceived.

Auschwitz was picked out as a death-camp by early 1942 - it managed to kill 250,000 people using very primitive converted houses, the 'Bunkers', before the much discussed new crematoria were installed.

It was only in the Spring of 1944, that the train-line to Auschwitz-Birkenau was extended to end right at the selection ramp, and that this massive 'turnaround' (another macabre word in that conjunction) could be reached.

Yet the 'ramp' was planned since 1941-2. It appears on maps of the intended Birkenau camp site very early on.

I agree, but these historical parameters are not what I referred to. I was referring to a particular person -- Rudolf Höss -- who freely admitted of having been responsible for the killing of close (if not over) a Million of people. Authors like Imre Kertesz, who has been a prisoner in Auschwitz himself, have used these extreme cases to ponder on the question whether such a perverted 'ability' is a particularly German trait, or whether it could not be something which belongs to the 'Human condition' per se. In Kertesz's writings you seldomly come across bad Nazis. He is trying to reflect more on which 'human' elements could have made this possible, without always being able to provide an answer.

The tension between seeing in the Holocaust something specific to Germany, something specific to antisemitism and something generic to modernity has been there ever since the 1940s.

I would say that in the 1950s and 1960s, the universal elements were emphasised; from the 1970s through to the present the specifically Jewish elements have been emphasised; the catch being that the Nazis also mass-murdered millions of others for closely related reasons using identical methods.

I am NOT pointing this out in order to clear us Germans from any responsibility or guilt, but in focussing on the Nazi/German side of it alone you are running the danger of declaring this as a one time accident in an otherwise flawless project of Modernism. This is precisely the habit of some contemporary German media outlets (as I pointed out elsewhere), to declare Hitler as a hickup in our history, that, over time, needs to be downplayed (I am not accusing you of downplaying anything BTW, just trying to illustrate my point)

The specifically 'German' emphasis on Arbeitsfaehigkeit was mirrored in the Soviet Union; Russian has an equivalent term that was just as widely used. German officials and medical personnel had been assessing people for Arbeitsfaehigkeit since the late 19th Century after Bismarck's welfare reforms, which were as is well known the first introduction of health insurance in the Western world. The potential to apply such coldly pragmatic logic to other groups will always exist as long as there are states.

I know that in a German context, Hitler needs to be portrayed as an aberration, yet the Sonderweg thesis persists all the same. The comfort is in seeing 1945 as a break with the past - to a very great extent it has been, in both former Germanies.

Germany, like most other European states, is now almost post-nationalist, generally opposed to war as a means of resolving interstate disputes, pacifist in its social attitudes, and so on. By contrast, America is not. Indeed some critics of American nationalism such as Anatol Lieven have described US foreign policy as possessing a distinctly 'Wilhelmine' flavour. That is on the money, and infinitely more subtle than the Bush=Hitler meme among Troofers.

What I meant with 'not understandable' then is this: which element caused the Nazis to not just imprison, deport, or resettle Jews, but to actually try to exterminate them? Of course, if I am a Marxist I will explain it with some sort of "exploitation of the human body" in favor of the industries and the bourgeoisie who supported Hitler. That would be my root cause. But even that doesn't necessarily carry in it the total extermination of these bodies.

Extermination follows from the economic logic of warfare. No WWII, no Holocaust. Almost all genocides have occurred during wars or their immediate aftermath (applies to Armenia, Cambodia, de facto to Rwanda).

Again, I was referring to "some" of the Einsatzgruppenführer, such as Otto Ohlendorf, who were sentenced to death and executed in 1951 under rather heavy protests of the German public. We are not contradicting each other here.

Point of clarification: Ohlendorf was tried in 1948.

That was exactly my point, albeit in your case a bit more eloquently brought forth. I assume you are also a "right wing authoritarian"?

Nope. I am a sometime Marxist.

Liszt

22nd July 2007, 06:04 AM

Gravy,
Do you own the rights to the phrase "9/11 denial" ?
Isn’t this your creation?

i completely agree with MaGZ here, but for probably (definately!) different reasons. "Holocaust denier" is now a powerful meme. Linking Holocaust deniers to the 911 "truth" movement is intellectually honest, as are "guilt be association" posts such as "didn´t -enter CTist name here- attend a conference with a Holocaust denier present?"

It also degrades the meaning of the word Holocaust.

But I´ve had this agruement here several times, to no avail. Search the forum for this, occasionaly the skeptics come up with good reasons for this bit of nlp.

This is a really informative thread btw, it is good that it exists here (i learnt quite a lot). Many forums would have just deleted it.

Foolmewunz

22nd July 2007, 06:49 AM

i completely agree with MaGZ here, but for probably (definately!) different reasons. "Holocaust denier" is now a powerful meme. Linking Holocaust deniers to the 911 "truth" movement is intellectually honest, as are "guilt be association" posts such as "didn´t -enter CTist name here- attend a conference with a Holocaust denier present?"

It also degrades the meaning of the word Holocaust.

But I´ve had this agruement here several times, to no avail. Search the forum for this, occasionaly the skeptics come up with good reasons for this bit of nlp.

This is a really informative thread btw, it is good that it exists here (i learnt quite a lot). Many forums would have just deleted it.

Actually, the "popularizer" here of "911 Deniers" was Mark(yX) Iridian. I say popularizer, because there have been several "anti" movements which have been tagged with "Denial" or "Denier" (there are threads here from years ago on GW Deniers and HIV Deniers). Someone posted in a thread a while back that 911 Denial had actually surfaced in reaction to the CTers fairly early on. I tried to locate the thread, but whomever did the Tags didn't tag it with Denier or Denial.

As to your earlier point.... I figured someone (and Tirdun did the job) would come up with the list of current owners of the "major studios". I've had a week of 13 and 14 hour days at work, and I can't link to MaGZie's sites from work. (A modern Germany company that won't let you view neo-nazi garbage... Go figure!)

Even that concept is outmoded. The "majors" act as distribution arms for the most part. In the 20s to 40s, they controlled the product, the talent, the theaters and the distribution. When I was working for Warner Brothers, I looked through some of the historical stuff (I was taking courses in film history and appreciation), and the big studios used to releast over a hundred films a year. If you look at the works of Bogie, Bette Davis, Gable, etc..., it's not uncommon to see them in 2 or 3 films a year. Nowadays, the distribution companies do 25 to 30 releases a year, and more than half of those are distribution deals that they've picked up some of the financing on, but which were produced by one or more other companies. (Thus the annoying four different production/distribution company names that you see in the opening credits now for all films.)

To MaGZ. No, you're not really imagining things! You're just reading hopelessly outdated material. The majors were definitely controlled by Jewish owners and producers through the years that they* were allowed, by law, to control the industry. It's not a secret, though. There have been many good books written on the subject by Jews and non-Jews. (Very few of the ones that made my library were dedicated to the Jews' desire to take over the world, though!)

In fact, here's an actual conspiracy for you..... And it's fairly provable by merely watching a few hundred movies. Find the "bad Jew" in a Hollywood movie from the 30s or 40s. There are close to none. By "bad Jew", I refer to characters who are identified as Jewish, not as someone you might assume to be Jewish by the actor in the role or by traits of the character. If a person is identified as Jewish as part of the plot, he or she is either "good", or merely incidental to the plot. Documented? No. It was never a written policy, and the people who promulgated it probably didn't realize they were doing so. But very real, nevertheless.

I know it's a far cry from plotting to take over the world while drinking the blood of Episcopalean babies in the basement at midnight meetings, but it was definitely a tacit conspiracy. The Jews who got to Hollywood came from late 19th and early 20th century Central Europe (or were first generation from same) and came to America to escape ghettoization and discrimination. They had been battling to reverse the image of Jews for years, and they over-reacted by refusing to acknowledge that a character could be a bad guy and Jewish at the same time without reflecting on all Jews. Hyper-sensitivity at its worst.

ETA: *They = The Studios.... I just realized that "they" and "them" to bigots always have a winking meaning, and how that might read over at Stormfront.

Liszt

22nd July 2007, 07:10 AM

an excellent post, Foolmewunz. Yeah, Gumboot covered some of this Hollywood stuff very well earlier.

Thanks for this insight.

Cleon

22nd July 2007, 10:35 AM

Guys, let this thread die.

MaGZ says more about his arguments when he says things like "Hogan's Heroes was Jew propaganda" than 1,000 factual counter-points could ever hope to.

MaGZ

22nd July 2007, 11:35 AM

As to your earlier point.... I figured someone (and Tirdun did the job) would come up with the list of current owners of the "major studios". I've had a week of 13 and 14 hour days at work, and I can't link to MaGZie's sites from work. (A modern Germany company that won't let you view neo-nazi garbage... Go figure!)

Even that concept is outmoded. The "majors" act as distribution arms for the most part. In the 20s to 40s, they controlled the product, the talent, the theaters and the distribution. When I was working for Warner Brothers, I looked through some of the historical stuff (I was taking courses in film history and appreciation), and the big studios used to releast over a hundred films a year. If you look at the works of Bogie, Bette Davis, Gable, etc..., it's not uncommon to see them in 2 or 3 films a year. Nowadays, the distribution companies do 25 to 30 releases a year, and more than half of those are distribution deals that they've picked up some of the financing on, but which were produced by one or more other companies. (Thus the annoying four different production/distribution company names that you see in the opening credits now for all films.)

To MaGZ. No, you're not really imagining things! You're just reading hopelessly outdated material. The majors were definitely controlled by Jewish owners and producers through the years that they* were allowed, by law, to control the industry. It's not a secret, though. There have been many good books written on the subject by Jews and non-Jews. (Very few of the ones that made my library were dedicated to the Jews' desire to take over the world, though!)

In fact, here's an actual conspiracy for you..... And it's fairly provable by merely watching a few hundred movies. Find the "bad Jew" in a Hollywood movie from the 30s or 40s. There are close to none. By "bad Jew", I refer to characters who are identified as Jewish, not as someone you might assume to be Jewish by the actor in the role or by traits of the character. If a person is identified as Jewish as part of the plot, he or she is either "good", or merely incidental to the plot. Documented? No. It was never a written policy, and the people who promulgated it probably didn't realize they were doing so. But very real, nevertheless.

I plan to start a thread on the topic of Jews and Hollywood. I will title it "Jewish control of Hollywood?" I have been doing some research on the subject and sorry to say Gumboot did not do an honest review of those who call the shots in Hollywood.

uk_dave

22nd July 2007, 11:44 AM

Magz,

Could you give us some idea of when and how it was that you discovered that the Holocaust hadn't happened and that Jews were the root of everything bad in the world?

I'm curious to know if this is something you was brought up to believe in, whether it was taught to you or whether you discovered it for yourself.

If you discovered it for yourself, how old were you at the time and what were the circumstances of your discovery?

(apologies if this has been asked before)

simakperrce

23rd July 2007, 07:14 AM

...

Nick, check PM. I think our discussion has somewhat abandoned the purpose of this thread, and is probably exhausting the others.

headscratcher4

23rd July 2007, 07:45 AM

Nick, check PM. I think our discussion has somewhat abandoned the purpose of this thread, and is probably exhausting the others.

I for one disagree. I have found the exchange very interesting...especially as you two address fact and how those facts are interpreted.

MaGZ never addresses facts or directly answers questions...as is the MO of his ilk.

Nick Terry

23rd July 2007, 08:52 AM

I for one disagree. I have found the exchange very interesting...especially as you two address fact and how those facts are interpreted.

MaGZ never addresses facts or directly answers questions...as is the MO of his ilk.

Perhaps we should conduct the discussion in History or Politics.

Belz...

23rd July 2007, 01:02 PM

I plan to start a thread on the topic of Jews and Hollywood. I will title it "Jewish control of Hollywood?" I have been doing some research on the subject and sorry to say Gumboot did not do an honest review of those who call the shots in Hollywood.

Funny that you say this in response to a post that proves you wrong.

Drudgewire

23rd July 2007, 01:11 PM

I plan to start a thread on the topic of Jews and Hollywood. I will title it "Jewish control of Hollywood?" I have been doing some research on the subject and sorry to say Gumboot did not do an honest review of those who call the shots in Hollywood.
Way to not use Stormfront as reference material Gumboot. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

Unalienable

15th November 2007, 12:24 PM

What are some of the common "evidence" for this conspiracy-theory. And are there ANY of them that makes any sense?
Yes, some of the evidence makes sense, but you have to understand there are different flavors of Holocaust deniers.

* Some of them say that "the Nazis were kind loving brilliant progressive people, and that only due to dirty Jew propaganda was this myth invented that they were really heartless killers. They were very humane in their treatment of the Jews, moreso than the Jews deserved since they were actually responsible for much of Germany's woes." This is typical tripe of modern neo-nazi groups.

* Others say, "The Nazis were bad people but didn't kill anywhere close to 6 million Jews, the real figure might be 60,000 or less." Quite a historical revision, but OK, at least it's not filled with frothing-at-the-mouth hatred.

* Others say "It's true the the holocaust happened, but the 6 million figure is a bit of an exaggeration, the true number being mostly lost to history but perhaps half that, or even less."

* Still others say, "The holocaust happened, but it wasn't an order from the top levels of the Nazi government, it just was a byproduct of working people to death in forced-labor camps. A minimum of the deaths happened in gas chambers, while most people died of typhoid, undernourishment, bullets, and natural causes."

The single most compelling piece of argument that makes me doubt that the holocaust story is 100% true is that it simply is not easy to kill people with poison gas. Gas chambers are devilishly hard to make work right, especially if the safety of the non-victims (e.g. the nazi guards) is any kind of priority. What we see in Germany today does not appear to me to be a valid design for gas chamber. I'm no expert in gas chambers, but the few experts who have reviewed the Nazi setup are at a loss to how it could actually have worked as claimed.

Combine this with the fact that there are such easier ways to kill people than by gas chamber. If you really wanted to kill a million people, gas chambers would be one of the stupidest ways to do it. Why not just lead them into a deep mine, then close it off? Or just good old fashioned bullets. Or inject each one individually with a poison via hypodermic needle? The list goes on and on.

I've heard it said that there is a profound lack of documentation for the gas chamber story, which--if true--I would find odd since the Nazis had no qualms in documenting all sorts of horrific things they were doing at the time. I've never researched it deep enough to hear both sides of the story sufficiently to draw a conclusion there.

Before somebody labels me as some kind of Jew hater, let me say first that I am part Jewish. Second, that Hitler's Germany was arguably the worst and most murderous nation of the 20th century, next to Stalin's Russia. I have nothing good to say about the Nazis and nothing bad to say about Jews as a race/culture. However I do approach wartime propaganda with a healthy level of skepticism, like we all should.

SpitfireIX

15th November 2007, 04:20 PM

Yes, some of the evidence makes sense . . .

:faint:

No, it doesn't.

but you have to understand there are different flavors of Holocaust deniers.

The difference is mostly a matter of degree.

* Some of them say that "the Nazis were kind loving brilliant progressive people, and that only due to dirty Jew propaganda was this myth invented that they were really heartless killers. They were very humane in their treatment of the Jews, moreso than the Jews deserved since they were actually responsible for much of Germany's woes." This is typical tripe of modern neo-nazi groups.

This is somewhat of an oversimplification, and is more like a caricature of Holocaust denial.

* Others say, "The Nazis were bad people but didn't kill anywhere close to 6 million Jews, the real figure might be 60,000 or less." Quite a historical revision, but OK, at least it's not filled with frothing-at-the-mouth hatred.

Not really. Such a huge downward revision perforce implies that Jews everywhere are complicit in an exaggeration of two orders of magnitude.

* Others say "It's true the the holocaust happened, but the 6 million figure is a bit of an exaggeration, the true number being mostly lost to history but perhaps half that, or even less."

This isn't Holocaust denial, and the only serious debate I've ever seen among responsible historians is whether the number of Jews killed is closer to 5 or 6 million.

* Still others say, "The holocaust happened, but it wasn't an order from the top levels of the Nazi government, it just was a byproduct of working people to death in forced-labor camps. A minimum of the deaths happened in gas chambers, while most people died of typhoid, undernourishment, bullets, and natural causes."

This makes no sense; why would anyone think the gas chambers had even been built if they didn't believe in the Holocaust?

* The single most compelling piece of argument that makes me doubt that the holocaust story is 100% true is that it simply is not easy to kill people with poison gas. Gas chambers are devilishly hard to make work right, especially if the safety of the non-victims (e.g. the nazi guards) is any kind of priority.

The gas chambers were generally cleared out by work details of prisoners who were allowed to live (at least for a while) in return for performing the service, and they wore gas masks.

* What we see in Germany today does not appear to me to be a valid design for gas chamber. I'm no expert in gas chambers, but the few experts who have reviewed the Nazi setup are at a loss to how it could actually have worked as claimed.

I sincerely hope you aren't referring to Fred Leuchter.

* Combine this with the fact that there are such easier ways to kill people than by gas chamber. If you really wanted to kill a million people, gas chambers would be one of the stupidest ways to do it. Why not just lead them into a deep mine, then close it off?

First, you have to have an abandoned mine handy. Even if you have a thousand abandoned mines handy, you still have to transport about 6000 people to each mine, all at once, and then you have to have enough explosives in place to seal it. Second, you have to figure out how to keep the prisoners from getting suspicious and rushing the guards.

Or just good old fashioned bullets.

The Nazis used bullets at first, but they determined that gas was far more efficient.

Or inject each one individually with a poison via hypodermic needle?

How are you going to keep the ones at the end of the line from figuring out what's happening?

The list goes on and on.

No, it doesn't.

I've heard it said that there is a profound lack of documentation for the gas chamber story, which--if true--I would find odd since the Nazis had no qualms in documenting all sorts of horrific things they were doing at the time.

The Nazis destroyed some records; however, much documentation survives. See nizkor.org (http://www.nizkor.org/)

I've never researched it deep enough to hear both sides of the story sufficiently to draw a conclusion there.

Frankly, it's quite clear that you haven't researched any aspects of The Holocaust in any depth. Fortunately, I have.

Before somebody labels me as some kind of Jew hater, let me say first that I am part Jewish. Second, that Hitler's Germany was arguably the worst and most murderous nation of the 20th century, next to Stalin's Russia. I have nothing good to say about the Nazis and nothing bad to say about Jews as a race/culture. However I do approach wartime propaganda with a healthy level of skepticism, like we all should.

Your comments fall more along the lines of pseudo-skepticism. Much of what you've written frankly makes you look ignorant and foolish. I highly recommend you read some of the articles on nizkor.org in order to educate yourself.

milesalpha

15th November 2007, 04:47 PM

* Still others say, "The holocaust happened, but it wasn't an order from the top levels of the Nazi government, it just was a byproduct of working people to death in forced-labor camps. A minimum of the deaths happened in gas chambers, while most people died of typhoid, undernourishment, bullets, and natural causes."

Spitfire dealt quite ably with the rest of the post but I just thought I'd interject on this point. The amount of resources needed to move and house your working people required clearances and priorities from the highest level. There is simply no way to absolve the Nazi hierarchy of complicity in the Holocaust. One of the prevailing theories in German political history is called "working towards the fuhrer", made popular by Dr. Ian Kershaw. It is impossible to go into detail here but it connects the dots in the chain of command within the mess that was the German government.

dudalb

15th November 2007, 04:49 PM

I was going to reply to Unalienable,but SpitfireIX did my job for me.
I hope Unalienable is just going through a "question all conventional wisdom" stage that a lot of us go through.
The Holocaust happened. It is an established historical fact,and only a few..very few nutcases challenge it.

CptColumbo

15th November 2007, 04:49 PM

The Nazis used bullets at first, but they determined that gas was far more efficient.
CMIIW Wasn't it also to cut down on the stress of the guards having to personally execute prisoners?

ktesibios

15th November 2007, 05:25 PM

Unalienable, I'd also recommend that you read Jean-Claude Pressac's Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.

Pressac spent months of research at Auschwitz poring over primary documents relating to the gassing/crematoria complexes- architectural drawings, invoices for euipment and fittings, work orders, workmen's time sheets etc. while also exploring the Birkenau complex and the ruins of the Kremas to determine as much as possible about the as-built configuration of the rooms believed to have been built as gas chambers.

Despite his having started out very sympathetic to the "revisionist" view and having expected that his research would debunk the use of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, the mass of evidence he accumulated by his own work led him ultimately to conclude that homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz were real.

You can read the book online starting here (http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/).

The Holocaust History Project (http://www.holocaust-history.org/) site is a very useful resource. If you explore the home page a bit you'll find links to a number of essays, including examinations of the claims of such "experts" as Fred Leuchter and also information about the Aktion Reinhard camps, where the Nazis first mechanized mass murder with carbon monoxide gas from internal combustion engines.

AMTMAN

15th November 2007, 05:36 PM

:faint:

The Nazis used bullets at first, but they determined that gas was far more efficient.

There was also the psychological factor. It was much easier to throw a canister of Zyklon B into a room full of people you did not see. Much different than putting bullets into peoples heads all day long.

hellaeon

15th November 2007, 05:38 PM

I think hitler was just CGI. Holocaust never happened.

TriskettheKid

15th November 2007, 05:40 PM

I'd actually recommend Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men in regards to what it was like to shoot masses of people.

http://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Solution/dp/0060995068/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195173613&sr=8-2

Susan Gerbic

15th November 2007, 06:49 PM

I'd actually recommend Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men in regards to what it was like to shoot masses of people.

Also Hitler's Willing Executioners - Goldhardt

We had to read both books in a German history class, had to contrast and compare the books in an essay.

My eyes are opened now,

Susan

ktesibios

15th November 2007, 07:45 PM

That's Goldhagen, sfq8.

Another book that examins the history of the Einsatzgruppen and how the men who murdered ca. 1,000,000 people by shooting them into ditches adapted psychologically is Masters Of Death: The SS-Einsatzgruppen and the Invention of the Holocaust (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780375708220&itm=18) by Richard Rhodes.

Rhodes expands the theory of "violent socialization" from his book Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780375702488&itm=3) to the process by which ordinary, "normal" men from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds were transformed into willing mass murderers. If he's correct, the implications of what authoritarian childrearing might have prepared for us are downright scary.

CptColumbo

15th November 2007, 08:16 PM

Hitler's Scientists by John Cornwell covers the developement of the gases and the creation, mechanics and operation of the gas chambers.

hellaeon

15th November 2007, 09:44 PM

I have to ask, Magz - is that you Jay? You sound just like the guy who runs the jam rooms my bands practice at. He thinks you cant do anything (and I mean anything) in the world on your own terms because he thinks everything is run by jewish people.

Unalienable

16th November 2007, 11:38 AM

In response to my assertion that "Some of the evidence makes sense" Spitfire answered
No, it doesn't.
I think Spit is equating "the evidence is true" and "the evidence makes sense". I interpreted "make sense" to mean "compelling enough to demand a closer look", because otherwise the original question is a little weird. I think that it's not so trivial or stupid that it can be completely dismissed out of hand, without research.

I also think that SpitfireIX was presuming that I've reseached a certain conclusion here, because I was repeating some of the oft-cited arguments. Hence his constant urging me to visit some website to re-educate myself on the matter.

Just because I repeated them, doesn't mean I believe them. I was repeating them because that's exactly what the original poster asked for. If you recall, the question that kicked this thread off was What are some of the common "evidence" for this conspiracy-theory?

Father Dagon

18th November 2007, 09:03 AM

Combine this with the fact that there are such easier ways to kill people than by gas chamber. If you really wanted to kill a million people, gas chambers would be one of the stupidest ways to do it. Why not just lead them into a deep mine, then close it off? Or just good old fashioned bullets. Or inject each one individually with a poison via hypodermic needle? The list goes on and on.Easier and more reliable, absolutley. But the chambers for mass gassing didn't fall from the skies. The nazis tried at first to shoot, hang and club jews to death en masse. But took to great a toll on the killers (shooting squads getting all hammered in order to cope with the job was too big a problem.)

One often overlooked thing is the T4-program where "aryan" handicapped was gassed to death. In the end, they could as well been stabbed to death. But since the T4 was run by white collar doctors, not soldiers in muddy BDUs, gassing seems like a "clinical" solution.

The chambers for mass gassing is the solution to the problem of maximum efficiency + minimum psychological stress for the killers. It was such a efficient solution that it was easier to ship jews and other undesirables by rail all over Europe.

And you could theoretically use a dilapidated outhouse as a gas chamber. As long as the influx of gas is big enough to maintain a lethal concentration for long enough time. (If the deniers is right, then you don't have to mind the ventilation when using paint thinner, since it's less lethal than HCN and your home is not hermetically sealed when all doors and windows are closed.)

So the gas chambers for executions of single individuals are just a red herring. You don't really have to use something that looks like a beached submarine in order to gas someone. It's just show and tell in order to numb the pangs of guilt among the people. (We have sentenced one person to death, but at least we kill him in a proper way.)

SDC

18th November 2007, 06:48 PM

I've said this elsewhere, but again: there are tons of witness testimonies from Poles, Russian, Ukrainians, etc. The deniers ignore this, or more likely are intentionally ignorant because, per Nazi Germany, the Poles (etc.) were barely better than the Jews.

Some decades ago -- I don't recall details, it was in or near Chicago -- American Nazis set up in a Slavic-immigrant-populated neighborhood, because they bought into the idea that Poles (etc.) are automatic anti-Semites. Well, one problem they encountered was that many of the locals and their relations had vivid memories of the Nazi brutality against Slavs as well as Jews. It didn't work out. (I ought to look that up for details... Not Skokie...)

SpitfireIX

18th November 2007, 08:13 PM

. . . I think Spit is equating "the evidence is true" and "the evidence makes sense". I interpreted "make sense" to mean "compelling enough to demand a closer look", because otherwise the original question is a little weird. I think that it's not so trivial or stupid that it can be completely dismissed out of hand, without research.

Most or all of your claimed "evidence" is simply specious denier factoids, and/or consists of argument from incredulity. These in no way constitute real evidence.

I also think that SpitfireIX was presuming that I've reseached a certain conclusion here, because I was repeating some of the oft-cited arguments.

I think you're wrong about what I was presuming, and I think I have reason to know. What I presume is that your description of the so-called "evidence" belies a tremendous ignorance of both the Holocaust and Holocaust denial.

Hence his constant urging me to visit some website to re-educate myself on the matter.

Fixed that for you.

Just because I repeated them, doesn't mean I believe them. I was repeating them because that's exactly what the original poster asked for. If you recall, the question that kicked this thread off was What are some of the common "evidence" for this conspiracy-theory?

The problem is, applying common sense to most of your purported "evidence" should lead one to realize that it's not the least bit compelling--such as the claim that sealing prisoners in abandoned mines is more efficient than gassing them. And, just for the record, I've never seen any deniers claim that gas is particularly inefficient, though I suppose it's possible that some have.

As for "experts" claiming the gas chambers couldn't have worked as advertised, I imagine that someone reading Fred Leuchter's report might be taken in initially, but 10 minutes' research should be enough to discover that Leuchter is a charlatan and a fraud. Again, however, the only way that one could find this "compelling" is if one simply accepted the claim at face value, without bothering to investigate.

westprog

19th November 2007, 06:58 AM

The single most compelling piece of argument that makes me doubt that the holocaust story is 100% true is that it simply is not easy to kill people with poison gas. Gas chambers are devilishly hard to make work right, especially if the safety of the non-victims (e.g. the nazi guards) is any kind of priority. What we see in Germany today does not appear to me to be a valid design for gas chamber. I'm no expert in gas chambers, but the few experts who have reviewed the Nazi setup are at a loss to how it could actually have worked as claimed.

The main, important point is that it doesn't matter exactly how the Jews died, or which element of the Nazi regime killed them.

What is an undeniable, 100% fact is that wherever the German army went, they rounded up Jews. This was the common experience of all the occupied countries. Some countries had more Jews than others, and some had more Jews survive than others.

This operation required huge resources. It was a central part of German administration of those occupied countries. It simply could not have happened without central directives from the Nazi government, and the active cooperation of huge numbers of ordinary Germans. It also required cooperation from civilians in the occupied territories.

Given that, to quibble about the details of how the Jews were disposed of might be an interesting historical detail, but it has no bearing on whether the Nazis were carrying out genocide. It's impossible to look at their actions in any other way.

If the Germans had been running work camps, and if they had been using slave labour, then there would have been far, far more survivors returning after the war. The numbers would have been comparable to, say, the number of French workers in German factories.

westprog

19th November 2007, 07:02 AM

Will you then agree with me that Hogan's Heros was Jew propaganda?

Obviously any TV program featuring Jewish actors is Jewish propaganda, scripted and directed by the Central Council Of Elders. What else could it be?

westprog

19th November 2007, 07:05 AM

the house is genuine

the photos and other evidence in the house is genuine

the dutch who hid the jews from the nazis are genuine

have you been to her house?

i have

its fake?, usual slopey shoulder nonsense

Say that the diary was fake, and that no such person ever existed.

So, did Jews in occupied Holland hide from the Nazis? Why did they do that?

Were Jews in occupied Holland rounded up and taken away? Did they come back? What happened to them?

westprog

19th November 2007, 09:22 AM

Look at how many decades the Jews in Hollywood have been making holocaust films. When will you guys wise up? Hollywood is a propaganda factory run by the Jews.

I've been watching war films for many, many years. How many Hollywood films have shown a death camp? How many war films even have the word "Jew" in them?

There's a good reason for this. The people who make films are trying to make money, and the Holocaust is a bit of a downer. Tanks and planes are fun, even with associated death and mutilation - gas chambers are not.

But in Magz' "mind", Hollywood has been making Holocaust films since the war. He see's the world through Jew-coloured glasses. If Ben Stiller is a star, the only explanation is a massive conspiracy by the Elders of Zion.

westprog

19th November 2007, 09:33 AM

It is easy however to fetishise technology and see that as a necessary condition; Rwanda almost disabuses us of that illusion, except for the fact that the machetes were mass-manufactured and imported from overseas, i.e. planning was needed.

In Rwanda, radio was the means of coordinating the genocide, IIRC.

A-Train

19th November 2007, 09:49 AM

The main, important point is that it doesn't matter exactly how the Jews died, or which element of the Nazi regime killed them.

What is an undeniable, 100% fact is that wherever the German army went, they rounded up Jews. This was the common experience of all the occupied countries. Some countries had more Jews than others, and some had more Jews survive than others.

This operation required huge resources. It was a central part of German administration of those occupied countries. It simply could not have happened without central directives from the Nazi government, and the active cooperation of huge numbers of ordinary Germans. It also required cooperation from civilians in the occupied territories.

Given that, to quibble about the details of how the Jews were disposed of might be an interesting historical detail, but it has no bearing on whether the Nazis were carrying out genocide. It's impossible to look at their actions in any other way.

The fact that Jews may have been "rounded up" does not mean they were ultimately "disposed of." That some Jews may have been executed due to their individual activities as Bolsheviks, partisans, etc., does not mean that "the Jews" were exterminated as a group.

There is no evidence that the Germans ever tried or wanted to exterminate Jews at any point during the Nazi regime!

JimBenArm

19th November 2007, 09:59 AM

SpitfireIX

19th November 2007, 10:43 AM

westprog

19th November 2007, 11:23 AM

The fact that Jews may have been "rounded up" does not mean they were ultimately "disposed of." That some Jews may have been executed due to their individual activities as Bolsheviks, partisans, etc., does not mean that "the Jews" were exterminated as a group.

No, "some" Jews weren't rounded up, due to their activities. All Jews were rounded up. The reason that one tends to blame the Germans for the fact that after being rounded up, they disappeared, is in the absence of any other possible explanation.

In many French schools, they have plaques listing, by name, the children rounded up by the Nazis. In an exhibition in Prague, I saw drawings done by the children sent to concentration camps. It isn't made clear whether the children were arrested for political or military activities.

There is no evidence that the Germans ever tried or wanted to exterminate Jews at any point during the Nazi regime!

There's no arguing with that statement.

TriskettheKid

19th November 2007, 11:40 AM

AMTMAN

19th November 2007, 01:04 PM

headscratcher4

19th November 2007, 01:15 PM

"There is no evidence that the Germans ever tried or wanted to exterminate Jews at any point during the Nazi regime!"

http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/speech-text.shtml

I'll one up you, there's no evidence that the Nazi's ever existed.

SDC

19th November 2007, 01:37 PM

First, a caveat of sorts. I am well aware that it is impossible to argue with the likes of A (Train) and M(agz). To them, Jews are the source of evil, and 1/ nothing happened to them in WW2, and 2/ they (Jews) deserved what they got.

But let's shift the focus a moment. Scholars recognize that the mass killings of civilians in the war were by no means directly exclusively against the Jews. The best estimates remain that close to 6 mln Jewish civilians were killed. (Obviously, I leave out battlefield deaths; probably up to 2 mln Jews served in the various armed forces, particularly the Soviet, American, British+Commonwealth, and Polish -- and since these made up the 4 largest Allied contingents [Yes, Poland = 4th, and had many Jewish soldiers, under British leadership as well as in Poland at the start of the war], that pretty well covers it.)

Right. Anyhow, the estimates I've heard for non-Jewish civilian deaths in occupied Europe outside the USSR are 5-6 mln as well, especially heavy in Poland and Yugoslavia. Let's focus on Poland alone; perhaps 2 mln civilian dead Christian Poles. They died by gassing, shooting, other methods of execution, starvation, disease, and so on. About 100,000 were killed in Auschwitz. Very well documented; "books of the dead" have been published in Polish and German. (Oh yeah, how about the huge and monstrous WW2 archives now opening up?)

So let's hear it, A and M: is this side of the holocaust real? And how about the Roma/ Gypsies? Best estimates are about 500,000 killed by the Germans and their allies and subjects. Let's hear it, boys. Well? Is it only Jews whom you accuse of faking it, or are Poles/ other Slavs (and so on and so forth) also faking it?

Architect

19th November 2007, 04:38 PM

The fact that Jews may have been "rounded up" does not mean they were ultimately "disposed of." That some Jews may have been executed due to their individual activities as Bolsheviks, partisans, etc., does not mean that "the Jews" were exterminated as a group.

There is no evidence that the Germans ever tried or wanted to exterminate Jews at any point during the Nazi regime!

Please, visit Europe. Soon.

Feel free to say this in several countries, preferrably very loudly in public places or perhaps in print.

In some you'll just get arrested, spend a few months in jail, and then be deported. In others you'll get the living daylights kicked out of you by the descendants of the survivors.

Ironically, I bet they'd deny it ever happening and tell you that there is no evidence that they touched you.....

Thunder

19th November 2007, 04:42 PM

A-Train, you may think that the Holocaust did not occur, but what about the expulsion of jews from germany? did that happen? do you think it was justified?

Father Dagon

19th November 2007, 05:00 PM

Please, visit Europe. Soon.

Feel free to say this in several countries, preferrably very loudly in public places or perhaps in print.

In some you'll just get arrested, spend a few months in jail, and then be deported. In others you'll get the living daylights kicked out of you by the descendants of the survivors.

Ironically, I bet they'd deny it ever happening and tell you that there is no evidence that they touched you.....Too bad that it's illegal in some countries to be a denier. A trial gives the deniers a stage for their antics (remember Zündels infamous construction workers hard hat?) and jailed gives them a shot at martyrdom. But being ostracized as the idiot whos idiocy is on par with claims that gold and poop is the same or that 1+1=(-513)? No martyrdom at all. Not even in getting your ass kicked, as there always the reasonable doubt that you got your ass kicked beacuse you was a drunk bastard feeling up the women of some local biker gang.

Redtail

19th November 2007, 05:47 PM

When I was 5-6, I was flying out to LA with Dad and the was a guy sitting next to us. I noticed that he had an odd tattoo. I asked him why he just had a number for a tattoo. After Dad cuffed me on the head and the man said it was ok, they explained what that number meant. (Short version.) I could wrap my head around how someone could do what they claimed happened. I got older and smarter. I see some haven't.

AMTMAN

19th November 2007, 05:51 PM

Too bad that it's illegal in some countries to be a denier. A trial gives the deniers a stage for their antics (remember Zündels infamous construction workers hard hat?) and jailed gives them a shot at martyrdom. But being ostracized as the idiot whos idiocy is on par with claims that gold and poop is the same or that 1+1=(-513)? No martyrdom at all. Not even in getting your ass kicked, as there always the reasonable doubt that you got your ass kicked beacuse you was a drunk bastard feeling up the women of some local biker gang.

Jail might give them a shot at martyrdom within their little community. However jail is still jail. And it can be especially unpleasant if your cellmate takes a dislike to you. Or a liking to you.;)

Father Dagon

19th November 2007, 06:01 PM

Jail might give them a shot at martyrdom within their little community. However jail is still jail. And it can be especially unpleasant if your cellmate takes a dislike to you. Or a liking to you.;)Yes, but social ostracism is a far better punishment. If someone at some academic institution churns out crap like poop=gold or 1+1=(-513), the idiot will be kicked out. Compare with a boycot. If you has been treated badly at a restaurant, not visiting it anymore and spreading a bad rumor will be more swift, harsh and remorseless than any trial. Remember that even if holocaust-denial is not be opinions per se, restricting freedom of thought was exaclty what Hitler did. Of coruse there's a difference between being punished for denying historical facts and punished for denying blatant lies. But we are better than the nazis, eh? (And you can be better than a nazi and still think that people like Faurisson represents the worst of humanity. Give me a honest and proud nazi any day, I'll say!)

And as far as I'm concerned, the only real crime that Germar Rudolf has commited is academic cheating (you know his sock puppet theatre featuring his *nyms.) And I'm not sure that it's a real crime.

milesalpha

19th November 2007, 06:16 PM

twinstead

19th November 2007, 06:20 PM

That's what confuses me: the evidence of the holocaust is OVERWHELMING. I find the bias necessary to ignore that evidence fascinating.

No wonder A-Train believes 911 was an inside job perpetrated by the Jews. He's had a longer time to learn how to ignore evidence contrary to his opinion than just 6 years.

Bell

19th November 2007, 06:35 PM

timhau

20th November 2007, 03:43 AM

How does six million equals some?

It doesn't equal 'none', and since there are still Jews around, it doesn't equal 'all'. It also equals 'most they could get their hands on', but that makes it sound unpleasant if you're leaning A-Train's way.

SDC

20th November 2007, 07:53 AM

westprog

20th November 2007, 09:30 AM

Yoo hoo, Atrain and Magz. Could you please respond to my questions? They were not meant rhetorically.

It's been shown quite clearly, on this thread, that neither of them have the resources to carry out any kind of sensible discussion on this matter. Magz thinks that Hollywood keeps churning out Holocaust films. Atrain thinks that the Nazis weren't even anti-semitic. How can there be a discussion on that basis?

That's not to say that the thread is of no value. It's always the casual passer-by who needs to have things explained to them. There's a certain appeal in explaining away the Holocaust as just one of those things that happens when there's a war on, and it needs to be pointed out, without mitigating other horrific things that happened, what was unique about the Nazi racial exterminations.

Chaos

20th November 2007, 09:40 AM

The main, important point is that it doesn't matter exactly how the Jews died, or which element of the Nazi regime killed them.

What is an undeniable, 100% fact is that wherever the German army went, they rounded up Jews. This was the common experience of all the occupied countries. Some countries had more Jews than others, and some had more Jews survive than others.

This operation required huge resources. It was a central part of German administration of those occupied countries. It simply could not have happened without central directives from the Nazi government, and the active cooperation of huge numbers of ordinary Germans. It also required cooperation from civilians in the occupied territories.

Given that, to quibble about the details of how the Jews were disposed of might be an interesting historical detail, but it has no bearing on whether the Nazis were carrying out genocide. It's impossible to look at their actions in any other way.

If the Germans had been running work camps, and if they had been using slave labour, then there would have been far, far more survivors returning after the war. The numbers would have been comparable to, say, the number of French workers in German factories.

Not to mention, if one believes (like the Nazis did and folks like MaGZ do) that the jews are the greatest threat to "good" people that ever existed, and more concretely that they caused Germany to lose the previous war, then organizing and executing the Holocaust (or something very much like it) is the only logical way of action. After all, to virulent anti-semites such as them, history clearly shows that anything less throrough than genocide fails to stop the evil omni-present jewish conspiracy to dominate the world.

SDC

20th November 2007, 10:20 AM

It's been shown quite clearly, on this thread, that neither of them have the resources to carry out any kind of sensible discussion on this matter. Magz thinks that Hollywood keeps churning out Holocaust films. Atrain thinks that the Nazis weren't even anti-semitic. How can there be a discussion on that basis?

That's not to say that the thread is of no value. It's always the casual passer-by who needs to have things explained to them. There's a certain appeal in explaining away the Holocaust as just one of those things that happens when there's a war on, and it needs to be pointed out, without mitigating other horrific things that happened, what was unique about the Nazi racial exterminations.

Yes, I understand. I just hope against hope to see a Holocaust denier/ revisionist address these sorts of questions. Fundamentally, they can't address them and maintain their illusions, of course. So it goes.

There is a limited amount of Holocaust denial in Polish anti-semitic circles; but I think it's 1/ against the law, and 2/ a fact that much of the killing took place on Polish soil, and too many people saw too much and have said too much since.

(And if anyone asks why most of the killing took place on Polish soil: a/ the Nazis didn't want to do it in Germany, b/ Poland in 1939 had the largest Jewish population in Europe, c/ it was centrally located in Europe + Soviet Union as a whole, with a good train network).

milesalpha

20th November 2007, 10:44 AM

Yes, I understand. I just hope against hope to see a Holocaust denier/ revisionist address these sorts of questions. Fundamentally, they can't address them and maintain their illusions, of course. So it goes.

There is a limited amount of Holocaust denial in Polish anti-semitic circles; but I think it's 1/ against the law, and 2/ a fact that much of the killing took place on Polish soil, and too many people saw too much and have said too much since.

(And if anyone asks why most of the killing took place on Polish soil: a/ the Nazis didn't want to do it in Germany, b/ Poland in 1939 had the largest Jewish population in Europe, c/ it was centrally located in Europe + Soviet Union as a whole, with a good train network).

It's also worth noting that the German Jewish population was quite small by beginning of the war. They had been forced out in systematic campaigns by the Nazis, and this is where the shame of some western nations come in. My own beloved Canada had a anti-semetic pinhead in charge of immigration who prevented any influx of Jews in the pre-war period.

Now this can't be true because according to these two, the Germans had no anti-Jewish policy. And my Leafs will win the Stanley cup this year, two delusions are better than one.

A-Train

20th November 2007, 12:28 PM

This is an honest question. Where did you learn this? Did you get this from home or on your own?

I got it from reading just a few books on the subject. How many have you read? The entire myth is comprehensively demolished by an engineering professor who still teaches at Northwestern University named Arthur Butz, in his 1974 book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry. (http://www.amazon.com/Hoax-Twentieth-Century-Extermination-Holocaust/dp/0967985692/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195586520&sr=1-1)

Another book I read was The Giant With Feet of Clay (http://www.amazon.com/Giant-Feet-Clay-Holocaust-Handbooks/dp/0967985641), by Jurgen Graf.

Why don't you challenge yourself? Go to the Amazon Books link to Butz's book I provided above. I realize not everyone has the time to purchase and read through a 400 page book; but just scroll down and read through the "Customer Reviews" at the bottom of the page. The majority are on your side of the argument, but compare the quality of those who support Butz, as opposed to those who attack him.

If nothing else, you'll realize that MAGZ and I are not the only ones who have learned the truth regarding this Gigantic Lie.

SDC

20th November 2007, 01:07 PM

I got it from reading just a few books on the subject. How many have you read? The entire myth is comprehensively demolished by an engineering professor who still teaches at Northwestern University named Arthur Butz, in his 1974 book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry. (http://www.amazon.com/Hoax-Twentieth-Century-Extermination-Holocaust/dp/0967985692/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195586520&sr=1-1)

Another book I read was The Giant With Feet of Clay (http://www.amazon.com/Giant-Feet-Clay-Holocaust-Handbooks/dp/0967985641), by Jurgen Graf.

Why don't you challenge yourself? Go to the Amazon Books link to Butz's book I provided above. I realize not everyone has the time to purchase and read through a 400 page book; but just scroll down and read through the "Customer Reviews" at the bottom of the page. The majority are on your side of the argument, but compare the quality of those who support Butz, as opposed to those who attack him.

If nothing else, you'll realize that MAGZ and I are not the only ones who have learned the truth regarding this Gigantic Lie.

Hey Champ! How about addressing my questions, above!

A-Train

20th November 2007, 01:16 PM

... Let's focus on Poland alone; perhaps 2 mln civilian dead Christian Poles. They died by gassing, shooting, other methods of execution, starvation, disease, and so on. About 100,000 were killed in Auschwitz. Very well documented; "books of the dead" have been published in Polish and German. (Oh yeah, how about the huge and monstrous WW2 archives now opening up?)

Yes, let's talk about Poland. I've never studied the subject, but I have no doubt that many Polish Christians were murdered during the war. But are you sure it was the Nazis who did it, and not the Soviet-Bolsheviks, who then passed along the blame on to defenseless Germans after the war?

Let's look at one particular incident involving the mass murder of between 15 and 22 thousand Polish officers. Since I know you don't trust any references from "Anti-semites," let's just refer to a source we all generally trust, Wikipedia.

"Katyn Massacre"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

To summarize what happened, the Soviets imprisoned thousands of Polish Army officers after invading Poland in 1939. After interrogating them to find which ones were most resistant to Communist rule, thousands of them were shipped to the Katyn forest in the western USSR, where, on orders from Stalin, they were executed en masse with bullets to the head, and their bodies laid in a mass grave. (Anyone who has studied the history of the USSR will recognize this as only an extension of typical Judeo-Bolshevik behavior throughout the USSR.)

When the Germans overran the Soviet Union in 1941, they discovered the bodies, and showed them to the world. (In his book, Butz notes that this episode shows how difficult it is to hide large numbers of corpses. The Soviets couldn't hide 20,000, but the Nazis made 6 million disappear?) Soviet guilt was obvious, but Churchill promised Stalin to block any investigations.

When the Red Army retook the territory, they naturally began an effort to blame the atrocity on the Nazis. Goebbels wrote this in his diary:

"Unfortunately we have had to give up Katyn. The Bolsheviks undoubtedly will soon 'find' that we shot 12,000 Polish officers. That episode is one that is going to cause us quite a little trouble in the future. The Soviets are undoubtedly going to make it their business to discover as many mass graves as possible and then blame it on us."And of course that's exactly what they did, with American help of course. After the war, ten officers of the German Wehrmacht were tried in Leningrad for the crime; seven of them were hung that day for their "crime." The American President Roosevelt did his part by stifling reports showing Soviet guilt:

"In 1944 Roosevelt assigned Navy Lieutenant Commander George Earle, his special emissary to the Balkans, to compile information on Katyn, which he did using contacts in Bulgaria and Romania. He concluded that the Soviet Union had committed the massacre. After consulting with Elmer Davis, the director of the Office of War Information, Roosevelt rejected that conclusion, saying that he was convinced of Nazi Germany's responsibility, and ordered Earle's report suppressed. When Earle formally requested permission to publish his findings, the President gave him a written order to desist. Earle was reassigned and spent the rest of the war in American Samoa."The whole episode is shocking, but it is a microcosm of what was going on in Europe after the war, when the Holocaust Legend was being born. When you start to understand that these kinds of things could be happening right under the noses of the American military presence, then you are on the road to understanding how a propaganda hoax of millions of Jews being gassed could have ultimately been rammed down all of our throats. You are also on the path to understanding what really happened on 9/11.

So, to sum up SDC, I have no doubt that thousands of Christian Poles were murdered. But I consider it far more likely they were killed by the same people who did the Katyn Massacre than by the Germans.

Radrook

20th November 2007, 01:17 PM

JimBenArm

20th November 2007, 01:28 PM

Well, I'm glad that A-Train finally opened my eyes to the truth. Auschwitz was just a day spa for the Jews. Bergen-Belsen was a fitness center and halfway-house for wayward teens. All the bodies? Those were Nazis who selflessly gave their lives for the betterment of the Jews. And what thanks do they get? Having to take the blame for the disappearance of 6 million Jews. Hey, they just took off for Samoa after the war, they didn't die! It's true, just read up on it! These books will open your eyes, yessir, no doubt about it!
But only after your self-administered lobotomy. There are helpful instructions on how to do this in chapter 7; "Brain Surgery with Common Kitchen Utensils".

A-Train

20th November 2007, 01:31 PM

So according to this concept all the death camp photos are fakes or are misinterpreted. All the accounts given by victims and eyewitnesses are false. Photos of mass burials and cadaverous prisoners on the verge of collapse aren't Jews? The attempted escapes from death camps are fiction? The graphic descriptions of atrocities callously inflicted are imaginary? Why would someone believe this type of thing?

No one denies there were camps-- just as America had camps containing Japanese, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans-- but they weren't "death camps." Many people died in the camps from typhus and malnutrition, especially as Germany collapsed at the end of the war. But most of those who died were not Jews, and they were not intentionally killed.

Many of the accounts of the camps are true. But the accounts of people being sent to gas chambers are lies.

There were mass burials, and cadaverous prisoners. But no exterminations of Jews or anyone else.

No doubt there were atrocities, but not exterminations. As we have seen, the atrocities were committed by all sides of the conflict.

beachnut

20th November 2007, 01:36 PM

... then you are on the road to understanding how a propaganda hoax of millions of Jews being gassed could have ultimately been rammed down all of our throats. You are also on the path to understanding what really happened on 9/11.
...

NeoNAZIs make up stupid idiotic stuff. Why are NeoNAZIs total idiots, unable to think rationally or make correct conclusions on anything. Insane ideas on 9/11 must be like calling the Holocaust a hoax. Good job A-Train, you sound like a NeoNAZI

SDC

20th November 2007, 01:50 PM

Yes, let's talk about Poland. I've never studied the subject, but I have no doubt that many Polish Christians were murdered during the war. But are you sure it was the Nazis who did it, and not the Soviet-Bolsheviks, who then passed along the blame on to defenseless Nazis after the war?

Cut down considerably by me.

Hoo hah. He speaks! By the way, I expect you to use sources other than Wikipedia. If you don't I will scoff and scorn your inability to use multiple sources.

Yes, Katyn. By the way, a large share of those particular Polish soldiers were reserve officers, including many professionals (i.e., lawyers, doctors), and guess what! Many were Jews. Yup. Sovs killed them. No doubt about it. And after the war (as during the war) the Sovs were pretty unkind to the Nazis. During the war, the Katyn revelations were a source of considerable strain among Western Allies (Churchill took the lead), Polish gov't-in-exile, and Sovs. Sure were.

So what the hell is your point? Outside of the basic Katyn facts, your statements about the innocent Germans and the uniquely-evil Sovs are lies, and well known in the scholarly world and among anyone else who looks into it. My advice to you is to travel to Poland and make some speeches. I want to read about the responses of the locals. What they think of the "innocent Germans" of WW2.

Lo, the "defenseless Nazis." That is a wonderful phrase, which I really, really doubt they would thank you for.

SDC

20th November 2007, 01:52 PM

Duplicate post, darn it

A-Train

20th November 2007, 02:18 PM

Lo, the "defenseless Nazis." That is a wonderful phrase, which I really, really doubt they would thank you for.

I've changed it to "Germans," which is what I meant to say.

beachnut

20th November 2007, 02:23 PM

No one denies there were camps-- just as America had camps containing Japanese, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans-- but they weren't "death camps." Many people died in the camps from typhus and malnutrition, especially as Germany collapsed at the end of the war. But most of those who died were not Jews, and they were not intentionally killed.

Many of the accounts of the camps are true. But the accounts of people being sent to gas chambers are lies.

There were mass burials, and cadaverous prisoners. But no exterminations of Jews or anyone else.

No doubt there were atrocities, but not exterminations. As we have seen, the atrocities were committed by all sides of the conflict.
You are full of crap on this topic. Half right does not hack it. Too bad my father was there to see the camps. Darn, you are wrong about this and 9/11. You are just another neoNAZI who can not get the Holocaust correct. Too bad for you.

milesalpha

20th November 2007, 02:32 PM

You have been given several major works and the names of some of the finest war historians and you fight back with Wikipedia? Ok, this kid is a lost cause, I'm moving on.

SDC

20th November 2007, 02:45 PM

I've changed it to "Germans," which is what I meant to say.

No you didn't. You said what you meant.

You know what galls me particularly? Your apparent belief that no one here will have heard of Katyn. Maybe many or most, here, have not; I couldn't say; but I sure was not going to raise this issue without knowing a lot about it.

Again, I say: go to Poland. Or for that matter, go to a Polish-American group here in the States or Canada. Propound your viewpoint. I await the results with eager anticipation. (Is that redundant?)

And I'm still waiting for some Polish or other Slavic-language sources from you. Any sources. Or time's up.

Firestone

20th November 2007, 03:50 PM

Millions of Jews were deported by the nazi's. Men, women and children.
They weren't there at the end of the war.

All the sophistry in the world can't change that fact.

Like many Jews I heard testimonies of survivors in my family about the extermination camps. Did my grandmother lie to me? Did my great-aunt lie to me? Did they invent a story just for me? A story confirmed by almost ALL HISTORIANS?

Some people are so filled with prejudice that they can't accept reality. They can't even accept the reality of the death of one Israeli in flight 11. Let alone the death of millions of innocent Jews, killed by the nazi cowards.

Sad ...

funk de fino

20th November 2007, 03:52 PM

Swingie

Would you take this mans word for it?

Oskar Groening?

bigots and racists are the most ignorant trash on this planet

AMTMAN

20th November 2007, 04:20 PM

I got it from reading just a few books on the subject. How many have you read? The entire myth is comprehensively demolished by an engineering professor who still teaches at Northwestern University named Arthur Butz, in his 1974 book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry. (http://www.amazon.com/Hoax-Twentieth-Century-Extermination-Holocaust/dp/0967985692/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195586520&sr=1-1)

Another book I read was The Giant With Feet of Clay (http://www.amazon.com/Giant-Feet-Clay-Holocaust-Handbooks/dp/0967985641), by Jurgen Graf.

Why don't you challenge yourself? Go to the Amazon Books link to Butz's book I provided above. I realize not everyone has the time to purchase and read through a 400 page book; but just scroll down and read through the "Customer Reviews" at the bottom of the page. The majority are on your side of the argument, but compare the quality of those who support Butz, as opposed to those who attack him.

If nothing else, you'll realize that MAGZ and I are not the only ones who have learned the truth regarding this Gigantic Lie.

So you read two books written by two Holocaust deniers and that's all the evidence you need? Seems to me you didn't need to read those books at all. Your mind was already twisted by hate.

AMTMAN

20th November 2007, 04:25 PM

[QUOTE=A-Train;3173008] Many people died in the camps from typhus and malnutrition, especially as Germany collapsed at the end of the war. But most of those who died were not Jews, and they were not intentionally killed.

QUOTE]

Why were they in those camps to begin with?

Architect

20th November 2007, 04:29 PM

Major Major

20th November 2007, 04:50 PM

A Train. I tend to keep out of the details of Holocaust denial, because to do otherwise is to lend them space they do not merit. However are you aware that David Irving went to court, and lost, on this very subject? He was (if I recall correctly) bankrupted. His evidence to the courts was set at naught by the jury.

Nope. No jury, just a judge. See:

The Case for Auschwitz by Robert Jan van Pelt

History on Trial by Deborah Lipstadt

Lying About Hitler by Richard J. Evans

Or, if you want the academic versions go to:

h t t p : / / w w w . h d o t . o r g / t r i a l / d e f e n s e # e x p e r t

after removing spaces, that is.

Father Dagon

20th November 2007, 05:11 PM

I think that the world-view of the deniers is like an inverted story by Lovecraft:

Lovecraft: The protagonists doesn't know very much about the elders. Only bits and pieces, hints and glimpses.
Deniers: The protagonists know everything about the jews and their lies.

Lovecraft: The elders are just collections of atoms that beacuse of some cosmic coincidence has powers far beyond that of a human.
Deniers: The jews are just ordinary humans whose powers stems from slyness, organization, elbow grease and money, money, money.

Lovecraft: The elders doesn't really care about humans.
Deniers: The jews target #1 is the deniers.

Lovecraft: If a human is goes insane, it's beacuse human minds are to limited to fathom the powers of the elders. If a human is killed, it's beacuse the human annoyed the elders like a fly annoys a human.
Deniers: The jews might have the power to pull of a hoax like this, but then will only harass me. That's beacuse I'm more dangerous to them dead than alive.

MaGZ

20th November 2007, 05:12 PM

A-Train, you may think that the Holocaust did not occur, but what about the expulsion of jews from germany? did that happen? do you think it was justified?

I thought the National Socialists let the Jews leave Germany in the 1930's. Why would they let the Jews leave if they wanted to kill all of them?

MaGZ

20th November 2007, 05:17 PM

Father Dagon

20th November 2007, 05:21 PM

I thought the National Socialists let the Jews leave Germany in the 1930's. Why would they let the Jews leave if they wanted to kill all of them?The nazis wanted a final solution, right? But final solution-1936 differs from final solution-1942. The murdering started for real *after* Stalingrad. The war was practically lost, and they wasted precios resources on murdering totally harmless people. Irrational? Of course it's irrational!Why would those who ran the camps bother to tattoo the inmates if the plan was to kill them?Didn't murder everyone at once.

Smartypants are smart.

MaGZ

20th November 2007, 05:34 PM

Yoo hoo, Atrain and Magz. Could you please respond to my questions? They were not meant rhetorically. I have always been puzzled by the failure of the deniers/ apologists to use sources in Polish, Russian, and other languages outside of German and English. (And, occasionally, French.) Note that I am not asking necessarily about sources in Yiddish or Hebrew or Ladino, or necessarily sources by Jews.

If you say "no one knows Polish, Russian, etc., so it doesn't matter," I am going to get surly. There are nowadays approx 40 mln native speakers of Polish, 150 mln native speakers of Russian, 50 mln native speakers of Ukrainian... Oh, I could go on.

What exactly are you asking me? If non-Jews were gassed?

I do not believe anyone was ever killed in any so called "gas chambers" The "gas chambers" were used for delousing prisoners and clothing. When the prisoners arrived at the camps they were told to disrobe and go into the gas chambers to kill the lice.

The only book worth reading on the "Holocaust" is The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Butz.

Architect

20th November 2007, 05:43 PM

I do not believe anyone was ever killed in any so called "gas chambers" The "gas chambers" were used for delousing prisoners and clothing. When the prisoners arrived at the camps they were told to disrobe and go into the gas chambers to kill the lice.

:eye-poppi

AMTMAN

20th November 2007, 05:43 PM

Why would those who ran the camps bother to tattoo the inmates if the plan was to kill them?

< http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/tattoos1.html >

Bell

20th November 2007, 05:59 PM

:eye-poppi

Use the ignore function. Life will be so much more pleasant.
Well, life not, but our stay on these boards will.

twinstead

20th November 2007, 06:26 PM

The only book worth reading on the "Holocaust" is The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Butz.

The amount of evidence that the holocaust was real is ASTOUNDING. If you think that little joke of a book somehow trumps this evidence then you are delusional.

Delusional people don't know they're delusional, so I'm sure you can rationalize ignoring the evidence. Rational people, however, are flabbergasted at your beliefs.

Trust me.

Father Dagon

20th November 2007, 06:29 PM

What exactly are you asking me? If non-Jews were gassed?

I do not believe anyone was ever killed in any so called "gas chambers" The "gas chambers" were used for delousing prisoners and clothing. When the prisoners arrived at the camps they were told to disrobe and go into the gas chambers to kill the lice.

The only book worth reading on the "Holocaust" is The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Butz.HCN 101: Hydrogen cyanide kills humans at 300 ppm in a few minutes, waaayyy before it's lethal for insects.

(You are a troll, right?)

Drudgewire

20th November 2007, 06:37 PM

The only book worth reading on the "Holocaust" is The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Butz.
I should try that. They do say the best way to learn about history is to only believe one book about it.

And by "they," I mean idiots.

Redtail

20th November 2007, 06:48 PM

So the no one died from the gas chambers? Ok who lied The soldiers who liberated the camps? The prisoners who were in the camps? The Nazis who kept records of what was going on?

Drudgewire

20th November 2007, 06:55 PM

So the no one died from the gas chambers? Ok who lied The soldiers who liberated the camps? The prisoners who were in the camps? The Nazis who kept records of what was going on?
Don't forget the actors and film crews who staged SS troops pretending to be forced to bury all those fake dead bodies by American and British forces. :p

milesalpha

20th November 2007, 06:56 PM

I should try that. They do say the best way to learn about history is to only believe one book about it.

And by "they," I mean idiots.

And the very best way to learn history is to read a piece of trashy pseudo history written by an engineer (JSTOR has a few hundred articles shredding the "evidence" of Butz). Yet they reject the words of engineers on subjects they might actually know something about...for instance buildings that fall down. Go figure.

MaGZ

20th November 2007, 07:02 PM

So the no one died from the gas chambers? Ok who lied The soldiers who liberated the camps? The prisoners who were in the camps? The Nazis who kept records of what was going on?

Why not ask the experts?

http://www.ihr.org/

Father Dagon

20th November 2007, 07:11 PM

USAFMXOfficer

20th November 2007, 07:21 PM

Some interesting memoranda between German leadership in WWII. Holocaust deniers have fun explaining these!

Letter from Generalkommisar for white Russia, Kube, to Reichkommisar
for the Ostland, Lohse, 31 July 1942
['The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press,
NY, 1988, p. 180-181]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
During the course of extensive discussions with SS-Brigadefuehrer Zenner
and the very competent Leiter of the SD, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr.
Strauch, it was established that we have liquidated about 55,000 Jews
in the past ten weeks...

Naturally the SD and I would prefer to eliminate the Jews in the
Generalbezirk of white Russia once and for all as soon as the Jews
are no longer needed by the Wehrmacht for economic reasons. For the time
being, the Wehrmacht's requirements, as the principle employer of
Jewish labor, are being taken into account.

Report No. 51 of Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler to Hitler about mass
executions in the east, 1942
[Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals -
Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. XIII, p. 269-272]
----------------------------------------------------------------
August September October November

Prisoners executed
after interrogation 2,100 1,400 1,596 2,731
.
.
Accomplices of guerrilla and
guerrilla suspects executed 1,198 3,020 6,333 3,706
.
.
Jews executed 31,246 165,282 95,735 70,948 .
.
Villages and localities
Burned down or destroyed 35 12 20 92

Letter from SS Major-General Stahlecker to SS General Heydrich,
January 31, 1942
[The Final Solution: The Attempt to Exterminate the Jews of Europe,
1939-1945 - G. Reitlinger, South Brunswick, T. Yosellof, 1968, p. 233]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete removal of Jewry from the eastern territories has been
substantially attained, with the exception of white Russia, as a result
of the execution up to the present time of 229,052 Jews.

Ereignismeldung UdSSR, No. 101, October 2 1941
['The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press,
NY, 1988, p. 67]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Einsatzgruppen C
Standort Kiev

In collaboration with the group staff and two Kommandos of Police
Regiment South, on 29 and 30 September 1941, Sonderkommando 4a
executed 33,771 Jews in Kiev.

Ereignismlrdung UdSSR, No. 128, November 3 1941
['The Good Old Days' - E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press,
NY, 1988, p. 68]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Kiev, difficulties that arose during the execution of a major action
of this type - particularly with regard to registration - were overcome
by the use of posters announcing that all Jews were to report for
resettlement. Although it was initially thought that the action would
only involve 5,000 to 6,000 Jews, more than 30,000 Jews reported, who
as a result of extremely efficient organization still believed they
were going to be resettled right up until the time they were executed.

Despite that fact that up to now a total of some 75,000 Jews have been
liquidated in this way, it has nevertheless become apparent that this
method will not provide a solution to the Jewish problem.

Report from chief of Security Police and SD, June 17 1942
[Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print.
Off., 1946, Supplement A, p. 661]
------------------------------------------------------------
The Jews in the Crimea.
.
.
Already in 1939, out of 65,000 Jews in the Crimea, 44,000 (that
is almost 70 percent) live in the cities of Simferopol, Sevastopol,
Kertch, Jewpatoria, Yalta, and Feodosia alone...
.
.
Of the Krimtschaks (approx. 6,000) who were generally counted to
be Jews, about half lived for the greater part in Simferopol
(2,500) and in Karasubarsar. Their annihilation together with
that of the real Jews and the Gypsies in the Crimea took part
place essentially until the beginning of December 1941.

Drudgewire

20th November 2007, 07:28 PM

Why not ask the experts?

http://www.ihr.org/
Wow.

JimBenArm

20th November 2007, 07:30 PM

Wow.
Oh, yeah. This is who he considers "experts".
Pretty pathetic.

annexw

20th November 2007, 07:37 PM

Why not ask the experts?

http://www.ihr.org/

Ah yes, experts such as David Irving. The most unbiased of all historians. Just ask the Austrian courts.

Drudgewire

20th November 2007, 07:44 PM

Ah yes, experts such as David Irving. The most unbiased of all historians. Just ask the Austrian courts.
The British courts (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-00-00.html) aren't exactly bending over backwards for him either. :p

MaGZ

20th November 2007, 07:55 PM

JimBenArm

20th November 2007, 07:58 PM

Why should I believe any of this is true?
Because it's not from a neo-nazi with a hate-filled agenda. But then, you knew that. Or at least, you should have.

CHF

20th November 2007, 07:58 PM

Why not ask the experts?

http://www.ihr.org/

Wanna give us a "Sieg Heil!" with that, MaGZ?

Drudgewire

20th November 2007, 07:59 PM

Why should I believe any of this is true?
Exactly. It's probably in one of those "other" books. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

...or... several...

...yeah...

:boxedin:

uk_dave

20th November 2007, 11:37 PM

Why should I believe any of this is true?

Ahhh but what if it is?

You obviously believe that the holocaust is a fake created by people with a certain agenda, but do you entertain the possibility that the historical revisionism you're so keen to promote is also a fake created by people with their own agenda?

Let's face it, an impossibly vast conspiracy involving academics and professionals from all over the world to discredit the tenets of national socialism is a lot less likely than a bunch of bitter and twisted pseudo intellectuals with an axe to grind and a willing audience of skinheads and right wing religious bigots peddling their 'revisionism' despite being proven wrong at every turn.

You're the demographic for these people, MaGZ, because you'll continue to believe them no matter what and they need you.

But what if your beliefs are wrong, MaGZ? Where does that leave you? What're you going to do with all that hate?

Architect

21st November 2007, 12:17 AM

Well said, Dave.

westprog

21st November 2007, 04:54 AM

(And if anyone asks why most of the killing took place on Polish soil: a/ the Nazis didn't want to do it in Germany,

Germany at the time was a lot less restricted than Poland. Administratively it would be a lot easier to do it quietly in Poland than in Germany.

westprog

21st November 2007, 04:59 AM

I thought the National Socialists let the Jews leave Germany in the 1930's. Why would they let the Jews leave if they wanted to kill all of them?

They wanted the Jewish "problem" resolved. When they had nowhere to send them, they killed them. It was a lot easier to do this when there was a war on.

This is all knowlege that's easily accessible.

westprog

21st November 2007, 05:00 AM

Why would those who ran the camps bother to tattoo the inmates if the plan was to kill them?

If they didn't keep track of what they were doing, they could end up losing thousands of Jews.

westprog

21st November 2007, 05:14 AM

Why should I believe any of this is true?

I wouldn't necessarily believe documents purely from Soviet sources. They had entire departments producing forgeries.

However - the reason for believing that the Germans in Russia were rounding up and killing Jews is that everybody involved with what went on in Russia knows that after the Germans passed through, the Jews were gone, and they didn't come back.

Belz...

21st November 2007, 05:52 AM

Why should I believe any of this is true?

Why not ?

Why not ask the experts?

Experts ?

Damien Evans

21st November 2007, 06:11 AM

The British courts (http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-00-00.html) aren't exactly bending over backwards for him either. :p

And over here in Australia we won't even let him into the country

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 06:21 AM

Given my grandmother was Hitler Youth and SAW it happen, I'm inclined to believe her saying it did rather some jackass teenager who swears it didn't.

The Germans used children in the death camps?

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 06:31 AM

The Jews in the Crimea.
.
.
Already in 1939, out of 65,000 Jews in the Crimea, 44,000 (that
is almost 70 percent) live in the cities of Simferopol, Sevastopol,
Kertch, Jewpatoria, Yalta, and Feodosia alone...

If you are going to make up stuff to make your point, try to have the falsehood at least match with historical facts.

Germany fought the Russians in the Crimea in 1941.
:jaw-dropp

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 06:36 AM

Let's face it, an impossibly vast conspiracy involving academics and professionals from all over the world to discredit the tenets of national socialism is a lot less likely than a bunch of bitter and twisted pseudo intellectuals with an axe to grind and a willing audience of skinheads and right wing religious bigots peddling their 'revisionism' despite being proven wrong at every turn

I tend to be skeptical when academics are jailed for their ideas.

uk_dave

21st November 2007, 06:50 AM

I tend to be skeptical when academics are jailed for their ideas.

I tend to believe that people who spread pernicious lies masquerading as historical fact and in so doing fuel the hatred of one race for another, should suffer the consequences, even when those consequences tend to be more restrained than those meted out by the ideologies the faux historian idealises.

Drudgewire

21st November 2007, 06:56 AM

I tend to be skeptical when academics are jailed for their ideas.
I tend to look at it the way I look at Michael Vick. Jail may have been a little more harsh a sentence than I'd have given him, but boo rule10ing hoo for the scumbag.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 07:12 AM

I tend to believe that people who spread pernicious lies masquerading as historical fact and in so doing fuel the hatred of one race for another, should suffer the consequences, even when those consequences tend to be more restrained than those meted out by the ideologies the faux historian idealises.

So, if an academic wrote the the British empire did not rape and pillage the world they should be jailed?

Drudgewire

21st November 2007, 07:21 AM

So, if an academic wrote the the British empire did not rape and pillage the world they should be jailed?
The world was asking for it. You should have seen what she was wearing. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

Foolmewunz

21st November 2007, 07:29 AM

If you are going to make up stuff to make your point, try to have the falsehood at least match with historical facts.

Germany fought the Russians in the Crimea in 1941.
:jaw-dropp

Good catch, Sherlock!

Now read it again, please and then apologize!

The German(translated) gives a little history of the population of the area. I'd suspect that the last census was maybe in 1939.

But the report is dated 1942 (see the header?), and refers to numbers having been executed BEFORE Dec of '41. Since the war in the Crimea, I'm sure you know, was in the autumn and early winter of '41, there's not a thing wrong with the information, historically.

There is, however, something wrong with accusing someone of fabricating evidence without even reading the document.

uk_dave

21st November 2007, 07:34 AM

So, if an academic wrote the the British empire did not rape and pillage the world they should be jailed?

If it was an excuse for accusing someone else of the rape and pillage, or in order to claim that "the world was asking for it, you should have seen what she was wearing"?

You abide by the laws in democratic countries. If the law of a particular country makes holocaust denial illegal then you abide by this or suffer the consequences.

Drudgewire

21st November 2007, 07:45 AM

If it was an excuse for accusing someone else of the rape and pillage, or in order to claim that "the world was asking for it, you should have seen what she was wearing"?
Rattling cages before 10 am. Yes, Thanksgiving has come early this year. :cool:

SDC

21st November 2007, 09:05 AM

Why not ask the experts?

http://www.ihr.org/

The IHR is to serious holocaust history as JONES is to 9/11 serious research. A complete crock o' crooks.

Try the Instytut Pamieci Narodowej, for one. www.ipn.gov.pl (http://www.ipn.gov.pl)

SDC

21st November 2007, 09:13 AM

I wouldn't necessarily believe documents purely from Soviet sources. They had entire departments producing forgeries.

However - the reason for believing that the Germans in Russia were rounding up and killing Jews is that everybody involved with what went on in Russia knows that after the Germans passed through, the Jews were gone, and they didn't come back.

The evidence is far from just "negative," in that sense. There were plenty of witnesses, not just the German soldiers who did the killing, but local people who were drafted for the labor involved. And a few survivors. And then there are the tons of evidence by the Germans themselves. Just one example would be the records of the many trials and investigations in West Germany.

Read anything by Christopher Browning, but especially "Ordinary Men." It's a detailed study of a single reserve unit made up of ordinary German policemen who were assigned to mass shootings in Poland. One of the best and most terrifying books on the topic. (Goldhagen isn't ranked so highly as a scholar, by any means, even though -- because? -- he gained a kind of celebrity status in Germany.)

Another excellent book of recent years, a kind of micro-study: Jan Gross, "Neighbors." About massacres in northeastern Poland at the time of the German sweep-through in the summer of 1941. The point is the active participation of parts of the local Polish community in the slaughter of their Jewish neighbors, in a town called Jedwabne. (That's Yed-VAHB-ne.) An excellent book for depressing thoughts about human nature.

SDC

21st November 2007, 09:15 AM

The Germans used children in the death camps?

They certainly used very young adults, as staff. The Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) were drafted late in the war into all sorts of stuff.

Come on, JDG, do a little homework. Read Michael Kater's recent book, "Hitler Youth." It's short.

SDC

21st November 2007, 09:18 AM

I tend to be skeptical when academics are jailed for their ideas.

Name the academic(s), please. Not Irving, he's not an academic, not as normally defined. (A person holding a university or other educational position).

As for the laws against Holocaust denial, or against promotion of anti-Semitism in many European countries... well, I understand it from their history.

SDC

21st November 2007, 09:26 AM

Good catch, Sherlock!

Now read it again, please and then apologize!

The German(translated) gives a little history of the population of the area. I'd suspect that the last census was maybe in 1939.

But the report is dated 1942 (see the header?), and refers to numbers having been executed BEFORE Dec of '41. Since the war in the Crimea, I'm sure you know, was in the autumn and early winter of '41, there's not a thing wrong with the information, historically.

There is, however, something wrong with accusing someone of fabricating evidence without even reading the document.

Follow-up: yes, the last pre-war census of the Soviet Union was in 1939. ("Jewpatoria" is the German spelling of a city known in English as "Yevpatoria" or "Evpatoriia," depending on transliteration schemes.)

Further, the killing squads (Einsatzgruppen, essentially "special assignment teams") followed the German armies into the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. Their assignment included primarily rounding up and eliminating the Jewish communities, which were especially large and widespread in the western Sov Un, including Belarus (White Russia) and Ukraine, plus Crimea. The most famous case was outside Kiev, at Babi Yar (= "Old Woman Gulch," if you must know) where some tens of thousands were shot and buried. The death camps, of which Auschwitz was most famous, were only one piece of the Holocaust. There were other "pure" death camps (Operation Reinhard, with Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec...), plus hard labor camps where hundreds of thousands died, including many non-Jews (much of the Auschwitz site consisted of labor, not only death camps). I think the most recent estimate is 5,000 KL (Concentration Camp) sites throughout Europe.

Edit: Whoops! I forgot the ghetto sites which were established, chiefly in Poland. Best known of course was the Warsaw ghetto, where half a million were kept. Hundreds of thousands died in the official ghettos due to disease and starvation as well as actual "Aktions", i.e., send in the killing squads and turn them loose for a day.

But heck, Atrain and Magz, you know all this.

Diamond

21st November 2007, 09:26 AM

I had avoided investigating the Holocaust for, well, squeamish pathetic reasons for many years. Then I visited Terezin in 1993 and got interested in the subject as a background historical project, and then the David Irving trial and the book written by one of the expert witnesses (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Telling-Lies-About-Hitler-Holocaust/dp/1859844170/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195661817&sr=8-1), Richard Evans, was a really gripping account, both of the reality of a systematic genocidal campaign against mainly Jews, and of the mindset of the Holocaust revisionists.

I've no doubt, therefore, that to deny the Holocaust is to have a mindset that any evidence presented must be tainted or fraudulent and that the first impression that the Holocaust cannot have happened must be defended at all costs.

As quite a few people on this thread have already mentioned, the documentary evidence is overwhelming that there was indeed a program by the Nazi regime to annihilate all Jews that were under its sphere of military dominance.

But everyone who encounters this evidence must weigh it up in his or her own mind - it is not an ideological position, a faith position, or a consensus position.

The thing you do learn from studying this is that David Irving, Arthur Butz, Paul Rassanier and others are irrelevant, a legend in their own lunchtimes and no-one else's.

SDC

21st November 2007, 10:07 AM

And the bombings of Hamburg and Dresden is exaggregated. The only victims was old ladies that got heart attacks when the RAF conducted recon missions. Typical of the crybaby jerries to claim that at least 100 thousand people was killed in the so-called "firestorm". (And where are the at least 100 thousand corpses? Burned to ash? How convenient.)

Well, I don't know how serious you are, but these were among the most horrifying of the firebombings. There is the case that bombing the active enemy's civilians is a different act from killing the civilians under your (the conqueror's) control who have effectively surrendered. And one should remember that the Germans started the terrorization/ massacre of civilians as a conscious policy process in Poland in 1939. Terrible nonetheless. (And the most recent serious estimates from Dresden are rather lower, but still in the tens of thousands.)

Read W.G. Sebald, "Luftkrieg und Literatur" (Air War and Literature) for one approach to the topic, from the perspective of how little it has been discussed in German literature, which is fascinating. It's been translated into English -- Sebald was a professor in Norfolk, though German-born -- though I don't recall the English title. The German is murderously hard, at least for me, which may be appropriate to the topic.

Edit: they seem to have translated the title as "On the Natural History of Destruction."

twinstead

21st November 2007, 10:10 AM

Holocaust revisionism is so eerily similar to 911 trutherism.

Amazing.

Drudgewire

21st November 2007, 10:13 AM

Name the academic(s), please. Not Irving, he's not an academic, not as normally defined. (A person holding a university or other educational position).
Eh, he's an academic. Wrote lots of books, and is well-studied in the history of the time.

He just also happens to be a fraud and a Nazi apologist/sympathizer.

SDC

21st November 2007, 10:18 AM

Eh, he's an academic. Wrote lots of books, and is well-studied in the history of the time.

He just also happens to be a fraud and a Nazi apologist/sympathizer.

I won't argue. Some of his early work was well-regarded, as well.

SDC

21st November 2007, 10:21 AM

Holocaust revisionism is so eerily similar to 911 trutherism.

Amazing.

It is indeed. There ought to be some serious writing, out there in the world, on the general topic... Hofstadter's approach to the "Paranoid Style in American Politics" (that's the title) often gets cited. Offhand I don't know what else there is. Scholars tend to concentrate on single countries or movements/ events rather than the general topic of conspiratorial writings/ theories. I'd be glad to hear of a wider work on the "theory and practice" of conspiracies.

JimBenArm

21st November 2007, 10:31 AM

It is indeed. There ought to be some serious writing, out there in the world, on the general topic... Hofstadter's approach to the "Paranoid Style in American Politics" (that's the title) often gets cited. Offhand I don't know what else there is. Scholars tend to concentrate on single countries or movements/ events rather than the general topic of conspiratorial writings/ theories. I'd be glad to hear of a wider work on the "theory and practice" of conspiracies.
It's appalling how much overlap there is between the two groups as well.

Drudgewire

21st November 2007, 10:34 AM

It is indeed. There ought to be some serious writing, out there in the world, on the general topic... Hofstadter's approach to the "Paranoid Style in American Politics" (that's the title) often gets cited. Offhand I don't know what else there is. Scholars tend to concentrate on single countries or movements/ events rather than the general topic of conspiratorial writings/ theories. I'd be glad to hear of a wider work on the "theory and practice" of conspiracies.
Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" spends a great deal of time on the Revisionist movement. It's sad it was written prior to 9/11 but almost every single thing he touches on seems to run exactly parallel to twoofers.

Belz...

21st November 2007, 10:40 AM

uk_dave

21st November 2007, 10:42 AM

One thing I don't understand. If most Holocaust-deniers are anti-semites, themselves, why are they denying the Holocaust's existence ? I mean, they should be happy (GRRRr... I need to restrain myself) that it happened.

They're trying to rehabilitate national socialism...... so that they can have another.

Drudgewire

21st November 2007, 10:43 AM

One thing I don't understand. If most Holocaust-deniers are anti-semites, themselves, why are they denying the Holocaust's existence ? I mean, they should be happy (GRRRr... I need to restrain myself) that it happened.
If it had worked and the Nazis ran a Jew-free world it'd be cause to celebrate for them. But since it didn't it's more productive to deny its existence and blame Jews for inventing it as a sympathy ploy.

Chaos

21st November 2007, 12:22 PM

If it had worked and the Nazis ran a Jew-free world it'd be cause to celebrate for them. But since it didn't it's more productive to deny its existence and blame Jews for inventing it as a sympathy ploy.

Plus, if the Holocaust (and a few assorted other crimes) are gone, they can "spin" all the rest to make the Nazis look like blameless victims of the evil jews/communists/capitalists/whatever.

Next stop after that: The Fourth Reich.

milesalpha

21st November 2007, 12:37 PM

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, it may not matter to them but it does to me, the Nazi attitude towards Jews was not unique in Europe. There were several Nationalist (Volkisch) parties in the politics of Germany prior to the Nazis gaining control. A common thread was hatred of the Jews, most often as the villains in the loss of World War I (to the delight of the real villains, the German General Staff). Most of the other nations had similar movements. The notorious Dreyfus affair in France (which these 3 would no doubt believe was true) is an excellent example

timhau

21st November 2007, 12:43 PM

Eh, he's an academic. Wrote lots of books, and is well-studied in the history of the time.

He just also happens to be a fraud and a Nazi apologist/sympathizer.

Does he have an academic degree? I thought he's completely self-taught as a historian.

Redtail

21st November 2007, 12:46 PM

Why not ask the experts?

http://www.ihr.org/

So people who were actually there don't count?

Corsair 115

21st November 2007, 12:52 PM

Well, I don't know how serious you are, but these were among the most horrifying of the firebombings.Yes, but that was only because of the freak occurrence of a large firestorm. Had conditions been just a little bit different, there would have been no firestorm.

brodski

21st November 2007, 12:56 PM

Eh, he's an academic. By what standard is he an accademic?

Drudgewire

21st November 2007, 01:03 PM

By what standard is he an accademic?
He probably has a few tweed jackets. ;)

ImaginalDisc

21st November 2007, 01:07 PM

He probably has a few tweed jackets. ;)

With patches on the elbows or without?

Drudgewire

21st November 2007, 01:21 PM

With patches on the elbows or without?
Without. Easier to slip on the armband that way.

brodski

21st November 2007, 01:29 PM

He probably has a few tweed jackets. ;)

Wouldn't they clash horribly with his brown shirts? ;)

Drudgewire

21st November 2007, 02:44 PM

Wouldn't they clash horribly with his brown shirts? ;)
Hehe, nice one. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hfive.gif

AMTMAN

21st November 2007, 03:26 PM

So people who were actually there don't count?

No, only bigots with an agenda.

beachnut

21st November 2007, 04:27 PM

If you are going to make up stuff to make your point, try to have the falsehood at least match with historical facts.

Germany fought the Russians in the Crimea in 1941.
:jaw-dropp
Hope you are not a neoNAZI nut case like MaGzee.

Foolmewunz

21st November 2007, 04:48 PM

Just woke up here in HK. Has Jerome apologized yet?

:popcorn2

danceswithganja

21st November 2007, 04:54 PM

Another excellent book of recent years, a kind of micro-study: Jan Gross, "Neighbors." About massacres in northeastern Poland at the time of the German sweep-through in the summer of 1941. The point is the active participation of parts of the local Polish community in the slaughter of their Jewish neighbors, in a town called Jedwabne. (That's Yed-VAHB-ne.) An excellent book for depressing thoughts about human nature.

Jan Gross' book, Neighbors, presents a very innaccurate account of the Jedwabne massacre- he never went into the local archives and his chief witness was in siberia at the time. A much better book is "The Massacre at Jedwabne: Before, During and After," by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, which takes into account the findings of the IPN (Institute of National Rememberance). Actually, Gross earlier works are alot more accurate and its almost hard to believe that such different conclusions were written by the same guy (its as if he convieniently forgot things he had written about extensively in prior works....)

(1) "1,600 (Jewish) men, women and children" were murdered (this statement in Gross' `Neighbors' has been repeated many times). In fact, Jedwabne in 1941 did not have 1,600 Jewish inhabitants. An IPN historian, Jan Jerzy Milewski, found a 1940 Soviet NKVD document in the archive in Grodno showing that in Jedwabne in 1940 there were about 560 Jews. Thus a year before the massacre, a Soviet census found the Jewish population of Jedwabne to be approximately one-third the number given by Jan T. Gross in `Neighbors'.

IPN's exhumation of the Jedwabne victims was interrupted at the request of the invited supervising Jewish rabbi that the remains of the victims not be further disturbed. The best estimate of IPN's chief forensic investigator, Prof. Andrzej Kola, was that there were between 300 and 400 victims. IPN concluded: `The figure of 1,600 victims or so seems highly unlikely, and it was not confirmed in the course of the investigation.'

(2) `The Germans' direct participation in the mass murder.....was limited, pretty much, to their taking pictures' (Gross, `Neighbors'). This is false. In reality, IPN found, the day began "with the herding of Poles to the town square, which was done, according to witnesses, jointly by the German gendarmes, i.e. policemen and the people from the collaborating administration. In the testimonials there is mention of the fact that German policemen hit some of the Jedwabne Poles in the face with rifle butts or their hands, which is evidence that some of them did not want to go to the town square." The Germans then distributed bats and clubs to the Poles, to use as weapons against the Jews. At the Jedwabne town square, the Germans were in charge.

The Germans were not in Jedwabne just as photographers, as Gross would have readers believe. The Germans were in Jedwabne as organizers.

(3) "Half of the Polish town" murdered the other half: This is not accurate. IPN, after interviewing 98 persons of whom about one-third were first-hand witnesses, concluded that "approximately at least forty men" were Polish perpetrators in the murder (but not "one half of the town" as stated on the fly-leaf of `Neighbors', which would have required over one thousand participants; Gross himself, in `Neighbors,' claims to have ninety-two names of Polish participants). Whether ninety-two according to Gross or "at least forty" in IPN's findings, the number of Polish participants in the Jedwabne massacre was not one-half of the village, but closer to one-twentieth.

An ACCURATE English-language version of IPN's principal findings, about 3 pages long, can be found on the Internet by going to `The Jedwabne Tragedy' at Buffalo University's `info-Poland' website, and then to `Jedwabne, July 10th, 1941: an interview with Prof. Pawel Machcewicz.

If the above is enough to convince you Poles participated in the holocaust, then you'll just love researching the massacres of Naliboki and Koniuchy, where Jews murdered civilian Poles, though forsome reason these massacres are not so popular in the circles that promote books like Neighbors.

Father Dagon

21st November 2007, 05:18 PM

Well, I don't know how serious you are, but these were among the most horrifying of the firebombings. There is the case that bombing the active enemy's civilians is a different act from killing the civilians under your (the conqueror's) control who have effectively surrendered. And one should remember that the Germans started the terrorization/ massacre of civilians as a conscious policy process in Poland in 1939. Terrible nonetheless. (And the most recent serious estimates from Dresden are rather lower, but still in the tens of thousands.)

Read W.G. Sebald, "Luftkrieg und Literatur" (Air War and Literature) for one approach to the topic, from the perspective of how little it has been discussed in German literature, which is fascinating. It's been translated into English -- Sebald was a professor in Norfolk, though German-born -- though I don't recall the English title. The German is murderously hard, at least for me, which may be appropriate to the topic.

Edit: they seem to have translated the title as "On the Natural History of Destruction."I'm always dead serious, only that I sometimes uses humor and hyperbole to make a point.

A-Train

21st November 2007, 05:40 PM

If the above is enough to convince you Poles participated in the holocaust, then you'll just love researching the massacres of Naliboki and Koniuchy, where Jews murdered civilian Poles, though forsome reason these massacres are not so popular in the circles that promote books like Neighbors.

Can this really be labelled a "holocaust" if the Poles were only taking out revenge on specific individuals based on their actions during the preceding Soviet occupation?

I think this is a common thread throughout Holocaust mythology: the real killings of a handful of Jewish spies, saboteurs, partisans, etc. are linked to the deportation of large parts of the Jewish communities, to falsely suggest that those being evacuated were sent to be exterminated.

An alternate look at the Jedwabne controversy:

http://judicial-inc.biz/jedwabne.htm

Architect

21st November 2007, 06:13 PM

The irony here is that it doesn't really matter what A-Train and his fellow Nazi apologists think; the Holocaust is accepted as fact throughout the West, and taught in schools as such. You can shout until you're blue in the face, lads, but you'll always be a tiny minority....and one which, if you spouted this rubbish in many European countries, would be swiftly escorted to either gaol or the airport.

I think the phrase is "peeing into the wind".......

SDC

21st November 2007, 06:17 PM

Can this really be labelled a "holocaust" if the Poles were only taking out revenge on specific individuals based on their actions during the preceding Soviet occupation?

I think this is a common thread throughout Holocaust mythology: the real killings of a handful of Jewish spies, saboteurs, partisans, etc. are linked to the deportation of large parts of the Jewish communities, to falsely suggest that those being evacuated were sent to be exterminated.

An alternate look at the Jedwabne controversy:

http://judicial-inc.biz/jedwabne.htm

Nuts. Those deported whether to camps, official ghettos, or simple killing fields like Babi Yar, were killed, and the evidence is overwhelming. Witnesses, and documents, and the physical materials, and a few survivors. No one in their right mind can get around that fact. Your argument is silly in the extreme. But I understand that the mods are very much opposed to how people in Jref often address the Holocaust deniers, so I won't go beyond that statement.

And A, if you want to talk Jedwabne, I'm not going to argue with danceswithganja (sounds like a bad idea, but it's been a long time), but I assume he (?) doesn't question that some hundreds of Jews were killed there (10 July 1941, I think, though I'd have to look it up), with the energetic participation of some of the Polish community. I note he refers to "collaborating authorities" (like the mayor, if memory serves), and not-exactly-the-leading-lights of the town, town thugs in other words. Some of the few Jedwabne Jews who survived the war were protected and hidden by local Poles, which was extraordinarily dangerous -- in Poland the protectors and their families were killed as well as any Jews discovered by the Germans and their allies, which wasn't the case in western Europe.

I know about the disagreements. I'm not a spokesman for Gross. It is a very controversial topic and dwj rightly refers to the IPN, Instytut Pamieci Narodowej, Institute of National Memory. One interesting point is that the Germans early on did have an idea of using local populations to do some of the killing, but quickly gave it up; 1/ it was chaotic, which the German army didn't care for, and 2/ wait a minute... giving Poles or other civilian populations weapons... well, the Germans decided it wasn't a great idea. They moved on from these "wild actions" to the much more organized business of Einsatzgruppen and camps.

Obviously there is a lot on the Jedwabne issue not translated, but you can find "Thou Shalt Not Kill: Poles on Jedwabne" (published by Wiez, an important liberal Catholic publisher), and "The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy... [etc.]" published by Princeton U Press (as was Gross' book). These both are collections of the controversy.

On a more general theme, I recommend Michael Steinlauf, "Bondage to the Dead: Poland and the Memory of the Holocaust." The essential theme is the extraordinarily traumatic memory of the Holocaust in Poland, on whose soil over half of the total Jewish deaths were done. I used it as the basis for a paper once; very, very interesting.

Dwj, no need to be sarcastic. We can talk about this. I am well aware who started, organized, directed, and carried out the Holocaust. If you've read this list (and not just my post mentioning Gross' book) you will see that I've been asking A and M why they and their ilk never, ever mention the Polish and other Eastern European (Russian, Ukrainian, etc.) testimonies about the Holocaust; and that, moreover, the Holocaust in the wider sense of the organized mass killing of civilians by the Germans in WW2, included (est.) a couple of million Polish Christians, half a million Roma/ Gypsies, and well one could go on.

I've been lecturing too much on this. I should step back and get out of the way. Except when A or M try to pop up and repeat one of the silly comments. A or M, if you have nothing new to say other than the tired old silly bilge of the professional anti-semites, well, I don't know why you bother.

danceswithganja

21st November 2007, 06:24 PM

SDC

21st November 2007, 06:35 PM

Well the whole issue of Polish-Jewish relations isnt really being looked at objectively by most people. Despite Poland having the fewest collaborators of any occupied country and the largest numbers of Jews saved, while being the only country where helping Jews was punished by death, its easier to shift blame on Poland and drive a mercedes, guilt free, esspecially if you live in the US. Other countries such as France and Scandinavia also like to blame Poles to cover up their own Nazi collaboration. They will talk about a few fishermen ferrying a few thousand Jews 5km to Sweden, while risking not much, but will forget about their goverments giving lists of Jews to the SS and the Nordic SS divisions, for example. Witold Pilecki had himself captured ON PURPOSE and sent to Auschwitz, set up a resistance on the inside, only to be sentenced to death after the war by a Jewish judge and ridicoulous testimony from Jews that hes lying and is an american spy. Jan Karski smuggled himself into ghettoes and documented the holocaust first had only to be called a liar by zionists in the UK and US when he came to them to present the plight of Jews and ask for aid.
Two Polish women set up the Zegota with funding from the Polish goverment in exile with the task of saving Jewish children. 2500 were saved by Irena Sendlerowa alone.
Of course they will make movies about 'good' german slave owners before making fimls about the above. Its quite sad really.

Well you are largely right except for the sarcasm and the allegation that "zionists" were behind the rejection of Karski's testimony. The Anglo-American governments didn't want to hear about it. The Polish government-in-exile (in London) took a while, but finally started promoting the evidence of the massacres; there was enough information pre-Karski, but hardly anyone wanted to act on it, or believe it. More than "zionists," it was foreign service/ state department anti-semites who were opposed to letting Jewish refugees in (whether the US, Canada, or British Mandate Palestine), and also non-Zionist Jews such as, shamefully, the owners of the NY Times.

As for a "Jewish judge" and Jews testifying (Pilecki case), I don't know the case offhand, but in postwar Poland the communists took over -- including communists of both Jewish and Christian origin. That's how they identified themselves; as servants of the communist state.

As for Karski, don't forget that the prize given in his name has been for the promotion of Polish-Jewish conciliation and cooperation. That memory should be honored.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 06:54 PM

They certainly used very young adults, as staff. The Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) were drafted late in the war into all sorts of stuff.

Come on, JDG, do a little homework. Read Michael Kater's recent book, "Hitler Youth." It's short.

Do you have evidence that the Germans used Hitler Youth in the death camps?

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 06:55 PM

If it was an excuse for accusing someone else of the rape and pillage, or in order to claim that "the world was asking for it, you should have seen what she was wearing"?

You abide by the laws in democratic countries. If the law of a particular country makes holocaust denial illegal then you abide by this or suffer the consequences.

Would you consider thought crimes part of a free society?

danceswithganja

21st November 2007, 06:56 PM

SDC,

Well, zionists or not they were Jewish leaders and I wish sometimes people will remember that Ben Gurion didnt send any weapons to the ghettoes when they criticize others for sending to few of theirs when they were significantly underarmed.

btw, Revolution from Abroad is an excellent book by Gross, clearly from his pre-BS days as it, in contrast to Neighbors, didnt include a chapter entitled 'a new approach to sources' which states that we should treat "...what we read in a particular account as fact, until we find persuasive arguments to the contrary, we would avoid more mistakes than we are likely to commit by adopting the opposite approach, which calls for cautious skepticism toward any testimony until independent confirmation of it's content has been found".

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 07:01 PM

Follow-up: yes, the last pre-war census of the Soviet Union was in 1939. ("Jewpatoria" is the German spelling of a city known in English as "Yevpatoria" or "Evpatoriia," depending on transliteration schemes.)

Further, the killing squads (Einsatzgruppen, essentially "special assignment teams") followed the German armies into the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. Their assignment included primarily rounding up and eliminating the Jewish communities, which were especially large and widespread in the western Sov Un, including Belarus (White Russia) and Ukraine, plus Crimea. The most famous case was outside Kiev, at Babi Yar (= "Old Woman Gulch," if you must know) where some tens of thousands were shot and buried. The death camps, of which Auschwitz was most famous, were only one piece of the Holocaust. There were other "pure" death camps (Operation Reinhard, with Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec...), plus hard labor camps where hundreds of thousands died, including many non-Jews (much of the Auschwitz site consisted of labor, not only death camps). I think the most recent estimate is 5,000 KL (Concentration Camp) sites throughout Europe.

Edit: Whoops! I forgot the ghetto sites which were established, chiefly in Poland. Best known of course was the Warsaw ghetto, where half a million were kept. Hundreds of thousands died in the official ghettos due to disease and starvation as well as actual "Aktions", i.e., send in the killing squads and turn them loose for a day.

But heck, Atrain and Magz, you know all this.

Amazing that the Germans sent death squads into the Crimea during the battles with the Russians.

Crimea was a war zone into 1944.

I guess winning the war was less important than killing non-combatants.

SDC

21st November 2007, 07:08 PM

Do you have evidence that the Germans used Hitler Youth in the death camps?

This from the fellow who had to be chastised per Foolmewunz (? I think) for gross misreading of the Crimean information?

First, I'm not here to do your homework. Is your belief that no Hitlerjugend served in the SS extermination program? That is silly beyond belief. The Hitlerjugend was meant to be an omnipresent force in German society. It went well beyond any reasonable definition of adolescence; millions of young men and women participated. It was compulsory, or next thing to. Again, read Kater's "Hitler youth" if you want to know more. It's recent, it's in English (though there is a German edition, too), and it's only 300 pp. or so.

Besides, you evidently misread Unsecured Coin's original statement. He referred to, I think, his grandmother as a German witness to the Holocaust. The actual death camps were only one piece, albeit by the latter part of the war the biggest and most effective part, of the Holocaust. The most recent scholarly estimates refer to several thousand KL (concentration camps) of many different sorts throughout Europe. The big death camps, Operation Reinhard, were set in Poland. Auschwitz was a complex of labor camps plus a death camp, which is why so many survived; it was huge. A number of camps -- but not big death camps -- were in Germany and Austria; most notorious were Dachau, Belsen, Matthausen... but many small ones were scattered across the landscape. Adult Germans as a whole may have tried not to see, but it was under their noses. Also, perhaps UC's grandmother saw something like the death marches, when those who still survived (in early 1945) were marched or truck from camp to camp to get them out of the way of the Red Army, and save them for proper Nazi murder. (It is remarkable how many resources and how many troops the Germans wasted in this effort, which they could have used against either the western Allies or the Sovs.) So ask him what he meant. He could have meant, or his grandmother could have, any number of things.

Go and read. Try to learn. Learning is Good.

Loss Leader

21st November 2007, 07:09 PM

Amazing that the Germans sent death squads into the Crimea during the battles with the Russians.

Crimea was a war zone into 1944.

I guess winning the war was less important than killing non-combatants.

Your not kidding. If Hitler had taken two seconds to think out a coherent plan for Germany that actually had a shot at working, he would have realized that the scientific knowledge, professional skills and money of the Jewish upper class in Germany were necessary to win a war.

Also, he might have done some math and realized it was impossible to kill every single Russian no matter how much he hated them.

SDC

21st November 2007, 07:13 PM

Amazing that the Germans sent death squads into the Crimea during the battles with the Russians.

Crimea was a war zone into 1944.

I guess winning the war was less important than killing non-combatants.

Glory unto the divine being of your choosing! That's correct. The killing squads followed the armies. (Actually, it's becoming better and better known that the army did a lot of its own killing of civilians.) Many have commented that the German focus on eliminating Jews was a waste of war material and forces, and may have been a major factor in German failure in the east -- the "wild East," they called it. The general German policy of repression and violence directed against the civilian populations in general in the east also had a lot to do with this. Many welcomed the German armies in 1941, because they hated the Sovs. It didn't take long for the Germans to waste most of this support. (Though they continued to have some.)

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 07:15 PM

This from the fellow who had to be chastised per Foolmewunz (? I think) for gross misreading of the Crimean information?

First, I'm not here to do your homework. Is your belief that no Hitlerjugend served in the SS extermination program? That is silly beyond belief. The Hitlerjugend was meant to be an omnipresent force in German society. It went well beyond any reasonable definition of adolescence; millions of young men and women participated. It was compulsory, or next thing to. Again, read Kater's "Hitler youth" if you want to know more. It's recent, it's in English (though there is a German edition, too), and it's only 300 pp. or so.

Besides, you evidently misread Unsecured Coin's original statement. He referred to, I think, his grandmother as a German witness to the Holocaust. The actual death camps were only one piece, albeit by the latter part of the war the biggest and most effective part, of the Holocaust. The most recent scholarly estimates refer to several thousand KL (concentration camps) of many different sorts throughout Europe. The big death camps, Operation Reinhard, were set in Poland. Auschwitz was a complex of labor camps plus a death camp, which is why so many survived; it was huge. A number of camps -- but not big death camps -- were in Germany and Austria; most notorious were Dachau, Belsen, Matthausen... but many small ones were scattered across the landscape. Adult Germans as a whole may have tried not to see, but it was under their noses. Also, perhaps UC's grandmother saw something like the death marches, when those who still survived (in early 1945) were marched or truck from camp to camp to get them out of the way of the Red Army, and save them for proper Nazi murder. (It is remarkable how many resources and how many troops the Germans wasted in this effort, which they could have used against either the western Allies or the Sovs.) So ask him what he meant. He could have meant, or his grandmother could have, any number of things.

Go and read. Try to learn. Learning is Good.

So, you admit to not having evidence of your assertion.

Blind faith is not skeptical. I choose not to subscribe to this sort of information consumption.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 07:17 PM

Your not kidding. If Hitler had taken two seconds to think out a coherent plan for Germany that actually had a shot at working, he would have realized that the scientific knowledge, professional skills and money of the Jewish upper class in Germany were necessary to win a war.

Also, he might have done some math and realized it was impossible to kill every single Russian no matter how much he hated them.

You find it logical that there were death squads running around murdering civilians in the middle of a "hot" war zone?

SDC

21st November 2007, 07:18 PM

So, you admit to not having evidence of your assertion.

Blind faith is not skeptical. I choose not to subscribe to this sort of information consumption.

I admit only to thinking you ought to get off your backside and do a little work of your own. I know this stuff and feel no need to forcefeed you, or to cater to those who prefer not to do research or think. If you prefer to express silly ideas, and wallow in a slough of received ignorance, be my guest.

SDC

21st November 2007, 07:22 PM

You find it logical that there were death squads running around murdering civilians in the middle of a "hot" war zone?

This transcends silly. What's logic got to do with it? It happened. If you have a complaint about Ober-Ost's failure to apply logic (the German high command in the "wild east"), I suggest you take it up with them. Yoo hoo, boys, JdG thinks you fell short in your application of logic! Why not stop by the old "Wolf's Lair" (Hitler's eastern hq/ personal refuge) and explain?

Ech, he's just trolling. The method of asking pointless, obviously rhetorical questions indicates that. Why not tell us what you think, besides the implication that the German policies in the east failed in the logic area?

Gotta go, youngster. I've finished the Clifton Chenier CD.

Loss Leader

21st November 2007, 07:27 PM

You find it logical that there were death squads running around murdering civilians in the middle of a "hot" war zone?

No, I find it consistent.

One would have to travel quite a long distance to find anybody who believes Hitler's behavior was in any way logical.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 07:27 PM

Glory unto the divine being of your choosing! That's correct. The killing squads followed the armies. (Actually, it's becoming better and better known that the army did a lot of its own killing of civilians.) Many have commented that the German focus on eliminating Jews was a waste of war material and forces, and may have been a major factor in German failure in the east -- the "wild East," they called it. The general German policy of repression and violence directed against the civilian populations in general in the east also had a lot to do with this. Many welcomed the German armies in 1941, because they hated the Sovs. It didn't take long for the Germans to waste most of this support. (Though they continued to have some.)

So, do you have evidence that German death squads were "following" the army in the middle of the dispute for the Crimea.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 07:32 PM

Ech, he's just trolling.

Is it a common tactic of discussion for you when you lack the ability to evidence your assertions to claim Troll?

robinson

21st November 2007, 07:34 PM

Sadly, this is sometimes true.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 07:35 PM

The method of asking pointless, obviously rhetorical questions indicates that.

rhetorical: asked merely for effect with no answer expected

Your characterization is incorrect. I do want evidence for your assertions.

Loss Leader

21st November 2007, 07:55 PM

Do you have evidence that the Germans used Hitler Youth in the death camps?

Nobody ever said they did. SDC's oiginal quote only said very young adults worked in the death camps and that the Hitler Youth were drafted into many roles at the end of the war. Here is his original statement:

They certainly used very young adults, as staff. The Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) were drafted late in the war into all sorts of stuff.

Yet you misread the statement and ask for evidence of something SDC never said:

Do you have evidence that the Germans used Hitler Youth in the death camps?

And then you insist on demanding evidence for something that nobody ever argued:

So, you admit to not having evidence of your assertion.

And then you demand evidence again despite the fact that nobody ever made the claim you are demanding evidence of:

I do want evidence for your assertions.

You mischaracterized the original argument in such a way as to make evidence impossible. Perhaps you knew that you were doing so. Perhaps you just misread the original post. In any event, you may stop demanding evidence of this now.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 08:10 PM

They certainly used very young adults, as staff.

I am not asking for evidence of something that was not asserted.

Loss Leader

21st November 2007, 08:40 PM

I am not asking for evidence of something that was not asserted.

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermine_Braunsteiner) a woman who started killing in the death camps at the age of 20. By the age of 25, she was the female supervisor at Majdanek.

Do you honestly believe that a country whose youngest soldiers were about 18 for much of the war (and younger at the end), didn't have young adults working as guards in the death camps?

Exactly whom do you believe was working there? The Keebler Elves?

Foolmewunz

21st November 2007, 08:49 PM

Amazing that the Germans sent death squads into the Crimea during the battles with the Russians.

Crimea was a war zone into 1944.

I guess winning the war was less important than killing non-combatants.

Jerome,

Stop embarassing yourself. Get a map. Then get a timeline of the events of WWII. Check out 1941. Particularly check Sep/Oct/Nov. See anything relevant?

I assume you also recall that the Russians mounted a counter-offensive after Germany had controlled extensive Russian territories (including the Crimea) for several years.

Okay, now let's see.
Census is 1939, as I surmised and as the always well-documented Spitfire X confirmed.
Germany took the Crimea in the autumn of '41.
German communique says many of the Jews were effectively wiped out before December of '41.
Russian counter-offensive in Crimea - '44!

Get it, yet?

You still owe the guy an apology. In so many words, you called him a liar... a fabricator of evidence. The only evidence I see is that you're trolling for a scrap, and as usual, you're armed with no facts, just headlines and opinions.

OldTigerCub

21st November 2007, 08:55 PM

I am just joining this thread. Due to the length and number of post, what I have to offer may be redundant, but I would like to offer it none the less. One of the best sources for information about the holocaust online is the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (http://www.ushmm.org/) website.
While none of my relatives were holocaust survivors (or victims), I have met several WW2 veterans who were there for the liberation of at least one of the camps: the Landsberg subcamp of Dachau. My father was in the 10th Armored Division, and at a reunion of that outfit last year, I learned of their part in the liberation of that camp. When I got home, I looked it up, and they are recognized as liberators (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10006147)by the museum, (though according to the vets, Band of Brothers presented the story differently than it really happenned...it was the 10thAD that arrived at and liberated Landsberg. They handed it over to the 101st Airborne.) Even though my dad was not with the outfit when they liberated Landsberg (he was sitting in a POW camp in Muhlberg, captured during the Ardennes Offensive), he was a witness to some of the camps after he was liberated from Stalag 4B. He never liked to talk about it, other than to say he had never immagined there could be such evil perpetrated by men.
Where was I going with this, you ask? To deny the holocaust or to attempt to revise history to shift blame not only dishonors the memory of the victims...it dishonors the memory and the actions off the people who fought the Nazis and ultimately brought the holocaust to an end.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 09:50 PM

J
Germany took the Crimea in the autumn of '41.
German communique says many of the Jews were effectively wiped out before December of '41.

This argument is falling apart by the post.

In just two months the Germans secured the Crimea and "wiped out" the majority of Jews?

Have you thought about the logistics here?

Please keep posting your thoughts; this is great!

Thunder

21st November 2007, 09:50 PM

In 1929 there were 18 million Jews on Earth. After WW2, and till today, there are about 13-14 million Jews. Where did the missing Jews go...Mars?

abenja1

21st November 2007, 09:52 PM

I'll sum up the truth about holocaust deniers. If you don't believe the Holocaust happened, you're in an idiot. There. Time to go to bed CT's.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 09:54 PM

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermine_Braunsteiner) a woman who started killing in the death camps at the age of 20. By the age of 25, she was the female supervisor at Majdanek.

Do you honestly believe that a country whose youngest soldiers were about 18 for much of the war (and younger at the end), didn't have young adults working as guards in the death camps?

Exactly whom do you believe was working there? The Keebler Elves?

I would love to see the transcripts of this trial.

She was convicted in 1980 of stamping old women to death in 1939.

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 10:05 PM

In 1929 there were 18 million Jews on Earth. After WW2, and till today, there are about 13-14 million Jews. Where did the missing Jews go...Mars?

The Jews have had a static population for 60 years?

So, in 1930 Jews were 9% of the world population, 6% of the world population in 1950, and today Jews are 2% of the world population.

What is your explanation for the decrease in percentage of Jews between 1950 and 2005?

Did they go to Mars?

JEROME DA GNOME

21st November 2007, 10:12 PM

I'll sum up the truth about holocaust deniers. If you don't believe the Holocaust happened, you're in an idiot. There. Time to go to bed CT's.

Ohh, I think the holocaust happened. I just find it interesting that people would be jailed for researching history. A very interesting topic concerning freedom of thought and speech. I also have a hard time allowing people to state silly claims only backed by insults and name-calling if evidence is asked of the assertion. This is regardless of the subject at hand.

Corsair 115

21st November 2007, 10:18 PM

I guess winning the war was less important than killing non-combatants.The leadership of the Third Reich made all kinds of errors which contributed to their downfall. Not converting the German economy to a total war footing until well into 1943 would be one. Not focusing on the production of fighters for air defence would be another. Squandering huge amounts of resources on the militarily useless V-1 and V-2 programs would be yet another. And that's just three which quickly come to mind.

Given this, that they would commit another mistake by pouring resources into mass killing of undesired populations rather than in useful military affairs would seem to be fully in keeping with their ability to make unwise choices in regards to winning the war.

robinson

21st November 2007, 10:42 PM

The Jews have had a static population for 60 years?

So, in 1930 Jews were 9% of the world population, 6% of the world population in 1950, and today Jews are 2% of the world population.

What is your explanation for the decrease in percentage of Jews between 1950 and 2005?

Did they go to Mars?

I think I can answer this. According to Jewish Law, when a Jewish man marries a non-Jew, offspring are not Jews. Based on a 54 percent figure
http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishhumor/f/jewry_usa.htm
at least one quarter of the population growth vanishes, based on using Jewish Law to determine who is Jewish.

Because of this weird definition of who is considered Jewish, there are no half Jews, quarter Jews, whatever. Even if a Jewish man has a dozen kids, if his wife is non-Jew, none of them count as Jews.

I'm pretty sure this is the only situation in the entire world where people can reproduce, a population can grow, but the statistics show no growth, or negative growth, because the "race" is based only on the Mother, and it is all or nothing.

I could be wrong, and I'm sure if that is the case, someone will explain why. The Jewish women who marry non-Jews don't balance the numbers because the addition of one non-Jew (even if they convert) doesn't equal the loss of all children from the Jew men who marry out.

I never thought about it before, but it is really strange.

Not just the population statistics being skewed, but the whole way of counting heads based on religion, not race.

Every time a Jew man marries out, all of his children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, none are counted as Jews. The numbers add up quick. There may be 20 million people living right now, who had a Jewish parent, that are not considered Jews.