[Moderated]The Holocaust never happened!

[Loss Leader]

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.


And yet when I provide you evidence, you react with incredulity. So, if you want evidence, why do you mock it when it is presented?


I would love to see the transcripts of this trial. She was convicted in 1980 of stamping old women to death in 1939.


Do you have any evidence that she wasn't guilty of this? Do you have any reason to believe that this woman who was identified by numerous victims was not a Nazi murderer in her early twenties?


And here again, you just mock the evidence presented:

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 actually have an explanation for the decrease in percentage. I found it after twelve seconds of research. If you read here (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm#_Toc26172079), you'll see that the world population of Jews is stagnating and even declining. The two main reasons are low birthrate and intermarriage.

As personal wealth increases, birthrate decreases. Jews are victims of this cold sociological fact. We just aren't reproducing like poorer quarters of the world. That makes our real numbers stagnate and our population percentage decline.

Sadly, intermarriage reduces our numbers. As Jews assimilate into Western society, we marry non-Jews and raise our children outside of the faith. Two generations of that and people hardly remember they had a Jewish ancestor, let alone practice any of the religion.

Do you have any facts that dispute this? Or do you just have your mocking incredulity based on ignorance?

[robinson]

I actually have an explanation for the decrease in percentage. I found it after twelve seconds of research. If you read here (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/world-jewish-population.htm#_Toc26172079), you'll see that the world population of Jews is stagnating and even declining. The two main reasons are low birthrate and intermarriage.


Ha! I figured it out and I didn't even do any research.

Maybe people of Jewish descent aren't really stagnating, maybe they are doing what so many other people have done. Joined the melting pot and become Americans. While the numbers might show Jews decreasing, in reality they are doing quite well, just not called Jews anymore.

[robinson]

Based on your link the numbers for outmarriage in Britain are 50% for married men under 30. Obviously this makes it look like Jews are not reproducing, when in fact they may be breeding like rabbits, just not counted as Jews.

How strange. There may be a huge population of people who have Jewish fathers, but they are not considered of Jewish descent. In fact, based on statistics, that is actually the case.

Does anyone else find that odd?

[abenja1]

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.


I wasn't referring to you. I was replying to the General Topic of the post. I'm making a general statement that if someone refuses to believe a historical fact, they are idiots. I would say the same thing about someone who didn't believe that Gen. Custer committed mass murder of a tribe or that the Rwandan Genocide didn't happen. And I would also say they are quite sociopathic in their reasoning. As far I have seen everyone here has not resorted to name calling and they have provided the keyword dun dun dun FACTS. And also regarding freedom of speech. Just a general statement. Life is not carte blanche. With that right there also has to be responisbility. If you are irresponsible then there are consequences. It is my right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater but as the Supreme Court has said, I have to face the consequences of abusing that right. Now I'm not one of those people who believes that in America someone should be jailed for denying the Holocaust. But if Austria wants to do it, let them. That's their perogative. This is America. And as far as I see given Austria's involvement with the Holocaust I understand why they fear Holocaust denial. It isn't a freedom of speech issue there. It's because they don't want a second Hitler to emerge.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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.

Well done! Great reasoning. I did know of this quirk but never thought of it in this instance.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And yet when I provide you evidence, you react with incredulity. So, if you want evidence, why do you mock it when it is presented?


I think you may be talking to a ghost here.

Do you have any evidence that she wasn't guilty of this? Do you have any reason to believe that this woman who was identified by numerous victims was not a Nazi murderer in her early twenties?

No and No. I just stated that I would love to read the transcript of the trial.


And here again, you just mock the evidence presented:

You are jumping to conclusions here. I was trying to determine if the figures were accurate, and if so, why the static population growth.

The Mars comment was a direct mock of the exact comment directed toward me.


I actually have an explanation for the decrease in percentage. I found it after twelve seconds of research.

Opps, Robinson beat you to the info. See, this is a forum that is used for conversation and exchange of ideas. You seem to think it is a place "mock" any with which you perceive a disagreement.

Do you have any facts that dispute this? Or do you just have your mocking incredulity based on ignorance?

Nope and Nope.

Our conversations are falling apart here. I would suggest that we read the meanings of the words written and not presume their meaning. If unclear we could ask one another what our meaning is.

:)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is my right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater but as the Supreme Court has said, I have to face the consequences of abusing that right.

Well written post.

I must comment on the above part.

You can only be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater IF your yelling is taken as serious and there is actual harm done as a direct result of your yelling.

[Foolmewunz]

This argument is falling apart by the post.

Only due to your total ignorance of the history of WWII in the Crimea. If you knew anything about the topic, you might be able to keep up. You're flopping around like a bass on the beach. Maybe you read somewhere about the battle in the Crimea continuing through the early years of the war. Maybe you should read a little more. The Germans took the vast majority of the Crimea in one fell swoop. (See below for specfics.)


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

Argument from incredulity? Do you have a library card. There are numerous books on WWII readily available, and you wouldn't have to do so much guesswork.

The majority of the "available" 65000. You do know that the Germans could not take Kerch and Sevastopol, right? You do, don't you? Tell me you know something about the topic under discussion, please.

So, if 40% lived in the large cities, let's say 10% lived in those bigger, unoccupied (by Germans) cities. So,....? 50,000 +/- deaths/murders/executions in 60 +/- days? Why do you find that so difficult to believe? 850 deaths a day? Heck the Germans could handle that many before the morning coffee and streudel was ready!



Have you thought about the logistics here?


Why no, Jerome. I'd never think of the logistics of the situation, having merely spent my entire business career (41 years) in the field of, well, .... Logistics. :spjimlad:

Please keep posting your thoughts; this is great!

Oh, I will, Jerome. You can rely on that. So many trolls; so few rye crisps to serve 'em on! Where's Paulhoff with that barbecue sauce?

[uk_dave]

Would you consider thought crimes part of a free society?

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.

And if those silly claims, unbacked by any substantial evidence, are capable of fueling hatred and violence or cause innocent people to be accused of crimes, does this 'hard time' of yours ever translate into a desire for justice?

Once again, I can only point out to you that the countries in which holocaust denial is considered a crime are democratic countries whose laws should be followed by all of those within their borders. If a denier is stupid enough to flout such a law, then they suffer the consequences.

Likewise, if an individual is sued in a civil action in a country where holocaust denial is not illegal, but the court finds against the denier, then the law says that person must pay the prescribed award or suffer the consequences of being in breach of the law.

Let's say a woman does accuse you of rape, and you go through the whole process of being investigated and stigmatised by the accusation only to be found completely innocent. Has she committed a 'thought crime' and, if so, should she go unpunished?

[MG1962]

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.

Fortunately we still have a few guards and the last of the Zonda men to dispell your belief

[Architect]

And if those silly claims, unbacked by any substantial evidence, are capable of fueling hatred and violence or cause innocent people to be accused of crimes, does this 'hard time' of yours ever translate into a desire for justice?

Once again, I can only point out to you that the countries in which holocaust denial is considered a crime are democratic countries whose laws should be followed by all of those within their borders. If a denier is stupid enough to flout such a law, then they suffer the consequences.

Likewise, if an individual is sued in a civil action in a country where holocaust denial is not illegal, but the court finds against the denier, then the law says that person must pay the prescribed award or suffer the consequences of being in breach of the law.

Let's say a woman does accuse you of rape, and you go through the whole process of being investigated and stigmatised by the accusation only to be found completely innocent. Has she committed a 'thought crime' and, if so, should she go unpunished?

Just to endorse this point, the law in most European countries ensures freedom of speech. What it does not do it allow others to maliciously usethat freedom to encourage racial or religious hatred.

In some countries, notably Germany, the law prevents silly and unsubstantiated claims such as those that the Holocaust never took place. In others, such as the UK, you can be sued for libel or slander if you seek to attack those who highlight the errors in your reasoning.

Of course if you could prove that the Holocaust didn't take place then a court would have no real scope to act. Europe is not a police state, and the courts are usually quite happy to intervene where laws are inappropriate.

As with David Irving, your problem is that (a) the Holocaust did take place - although there may be discussion regarding the exact numbers - and (b) you can't put together a compelling case, supported by evidence, that proves otherwise.

Really, you're just using this to support your crazy anti-semetic ideology. Get a grip.

[timhau]

In some countries, notably Germany, the law prevents silly and unsubstantiated claims such as those that the Holocaust never took place.

AFAIK, the law (in Germany and certain other countries) doesn't forbid silly and unsubstantiated claims such as those that the Holocaust never took place. It forbids the silly and unsubstantiated claim that the Holocaust never took place.

I'm not going to shed any tears for the scumbags that get prosecuted and convicted because of it, but I'm still not totally comfortable with that law.

[Architect]

AFAIK, the law (in Germany and certain other countries) doesn't forbid silly and unsubstantiated claims such as those that the Holocaust never took place. It forbids the silly and unsubstantiated claim that the Holocaust never took place.

Agreed. I was just giving myself some leeway in case it covered any other Nazi war crimes. Incidentally, you would think that if it was all jsut a big "hoax" then the Germans more than anybody would be keen to expose it. Funny that they don't, eh?

Anyway, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) ensures freedom of speech saving for where the deliberate intention is to encourage criminal acts. I really don't have a problem with that. Jail 'em.

[timhau]

Agreed. I was just giving myself some leeway in case it covered any other Nazi war crimes. Incidentally, you would think that if it was all jsut a big "hoax" then the Germans more than anybody would be keen to expose it. Funny that they don't, eh?

Yeah, well, it has been a criminal offense there (or in West Germany, anyway) after WWII. At least this particular law was AFAIK pretty directly dictated by the Allies. While what you say makes sense, I don't see it as that strong an argument.

And then there's of course the fact that there's still a significant number of Germans who were alive back then and who have memories of the Nazi era. "None of that happened" doesn't necessarily go down well with people who were there (or even people who remember stories from ma and pa who were there). Plus, there's something deeply absurd about a theory that requires that the Soviet Bloc (which has its own history of anti-semitism) who went trough quite a bit of trouble to fake gas chambers, concentration camps and stuff, seemingly to emphasize their 'communist martyrs' who died there while downplaying the Jewish (and Roma) massacre, was really doing all that to further some Zionist agenda.


Anyway, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) ensures freedom of speech saving for where the deliberate intention is to encourage criminal acts. I really don't have a problem with that. Jail 'em.

The 'deliberate intention to encourage criminal acts' part is, IMO, crucial. That's what separates the crank from the demagogue. The guy who stands on a soapbox in the middle of the downtown market square yelling "All blue-eyed Finns should be crucified!" to the masses who ignore him, is exercising his right to free speech. The guy who yells the same words under my balcony to a frenzied crowd waving planks, nails, and hammers is doing something different. I'd be interested in knowing whether the German law differentiates between the two.

[westprog]

Do you have any evidence that she wasn't guilty of this? Do you have any reason to believe that this woman who was identified by numerous victims was not a Nazi murderer in her early twenties?


I've a degree of scepticism wrt very late convictions of individuals based on eye witness testimony many years later. I don't know this particular case, so I can't comment directly. It might be that there was other evidence which was critical.

Which doesn't effect the main point, as to the fact that those acts were committed.

[westprog]

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

The Nazis did murder millions of Jews. ... I am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust took place.

Which is not to say that he hasn't twisted the truth, and provided support for the Nazis. His peculiar contention is that the massive enterprise of extermination went on without Hitler's knowlege. Still, anyone who asserts that there wasn't a mass extermination of Jews by Nazis is contradicting Irving.

[Father Dagon]

The nazis was actually pretty good at creating jews. Here's a parable:

You have five apples and five pears. You want to eat all the apples.

You eat two apples, one pear that you think is an apple and nibble at one pear that you also think is an apple.

The pear that got nibbled does, for some reason, turn into an apple.

After this we have four apples (one nibbled) and three pears, even though your journal claims that you ate three apples and nibbled at one apple.

[westprog]

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

It's certainly true that the Nazis would have found it much more difficult to round up Jews without cooperation from locals in many jurisdictions, willing or otherwise. How would they know who the Jews were if nobody told them? This happened on Jersey and Guernsey - local officials reporting to the Germans where the Jews were to be found.

[westprog]

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.

In any case, the Einsatzgruppen didn't operate in hot war zones. They moved in when the territory was occupied.

It's hardly surprising that there was an organisation set up to administed captured territories. The allies had their own arrangements when Germany was conquered. It just so happens that the Einsatzgruppen had a mandate to round up, detain, deport or execute Jews, en masse.

As to the population question - naturally switching the context from absolute numbers to percentages is at best disingenuous, at worst the tactic of a scoundrel. The fact that the absolute numbers of Jews fell drastically in Europe cannot be explained by anything other than a deliberate plan.

The idea that millions of Jews decided to run off and hide just to make the Germans look bad, out of sheer badness, is obviously ridiculous.

[westprog]

Plus, there's something deeply absurd about a theory that requires that the Soviet Bloc (which has its own history of anti-semitism) who went trough quite a bit of trouble to fake gas chambers, concentration camps and stuff, seemingly to emphasize their 'communist martyrs' who died there while downplaying the Jewish (and Roma) massacre, was really doing all that to further some Zionist agenda.


The Soviets and their satellites in fact suppressed Holocaust memorials. There's a synagogue in Prague which had the names of all the Jews killed by the Nazis. During the 6-day war, the authorities closed the place for "repairs" and painted over all the names.

[Belz...]

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

Might want to re-read that.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So, if 40% lived in the large cities, let's say 10% lived in those bigger, unoccupied (by Germans) cities. So,....? 50,000 +/- deaths/murders/executions in 60 +/- days? Why do you find that so difficult to believe? 850 deaths a day?

By your math that is a murder every 1 minute and 36 seconds 24 hours a day for 60 days straight.

With your logistics experience are you testifying this is logistically possible under the circumstances of the Crimea during war?

Oh, I will, Jerome. You can rely on that. So many trolls; so few rye crisps to serve 'em on! Where's Paulhoff with that barbecue sauce?

Name-calling?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In any case, the Einsatzgruppen didn't operate in hot war zones. They moved in when the territory was occupied.

It's hardly surprising that there was an organisation set up to administed captured territories. The allies had their own arrangements when Germany was conquered. It just so happens that the Einsatzgruppen had a mandate to round up, detain, deport or execute Jews, en masse.

As to the population question - naturally switching the context from absolute numbers to percentages is at best disingenuous, at worst the tactic of a scoundrel. The fact that the absolute numbers of Jews fell drastically in Europe cannot be explained by anything other than a deliberate plan.

The idea that millions of Jews decided to run off and hide just to make the Germans look bad, out of sheer badness, is obviously ridiculous.

Was every single Jew that was no longer in Europe murdered?

According to the American Jewish Yearbook, the Jewish population of Europe was about 9.5 million in 1933. In 1950, the Jewish population of Europe was about 3.5 million.
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005687

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Might want to re-read that.

It is exactly what I intended to write.
:confused:

[westprog]

Was every single Jew that was no longer in Europe murdered?


No, I don't believe they were. A proportion of Jews relocated to the USA, the UK, Palestine and other places. However, that leaves a significant shortfall.


http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005687

According to which, about two out of every three died. I suppose that a proportion of those didn't die because they were directly (e.g. shot, gassed) or indirectly (e.g. starved in Warsaw ghetto) targetted for extermination by the Nazis. But that two out of three statistic is fairly telling. That number of people don't die Europe-wide without it being made happen.

[westprog]

By your math that is a murder every 1 minute and 36 seconds 24 hours a day for 60 days straight.

With your logistics experience are you testifying this is logistically possible under the circumstances of the Crimea during war?


A unit of a thousand men could kill one person each per day and maintain that rate. I don't know how many einsatzgruppen were operating in the Crimea, but that's not logistically unlikely. Clearly they'd need to be identified and rounded up, but it's not so unlikely. The Crimea is almost perfect as a killing ground. There's nowhere for runaways to go.

However, if they didn't die, where did they go?

[MG1962]

By your math that is a murder every 1 minute and 36 seconds 24 hours a day for 60 days straight.

With your logistics experience are you testifying this is logistically possible under the circumstances of the Crimea during war?



Why is that so hard to believe - If you accept a figure of 55 million for casualties in the war - Over six years thats works out a 17.5 people killed per minute during the conflict

[SDC]

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

You are pretending that there is no significant evidence, and then engaging in weaselly statements. You should go to the library and start looking. Yes, you're trolling. My "ability" is that I send you to the library. Try to learn, heavens to betsy.

[SDC]

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

Then prove it -- let's see your quote, young whippersnapper. Granted, that was yesterday, after I went to bed. Who can remember that far back?

Edit: wait a minute... what in heck does JdG's sentence mean when it is parsed? Is that a double negative I see before my eyes/ Its point ... oh, whatever that quote is.

Let's put it this way: you give an excellent impression of someone who is misinterpreting, perhaps deliberately, others' assertions; and thereby yes, you are asking other people to provide evidence for things they didn't say. Don't try that at home...

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why is that so hard to believe - If you accept a figure of 55 million for casualties in the war - Over six years thats works out a 17.5 people killed per minute during the conflict

You are equating death tolls in battles in which parties know the location of large groupings of people in which to fire large amounts of munitions to a death squad searching for specific people to murder.

The logistics are vastly different.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, I don't believe they were. A proportion of Jews relocated to the USA, the UK, Palestine and other places. However, that leaves a significant shortfall.

That is the crux. If the European population of Jews dropped by 6 million and not all 6 million were murdered than the 6 million figure is incorrect.

[A-Train]

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.

This seems to be a common theme among defenders of the Holocaust legend. "My dad/grandpa/neighbor was there, and he saw it..." Being related to or meeting someone who was there gives us a personal bond to the Legend, and we become emotionally attached to the official story, defending it to the death.

It reminds me of one person I debated who defended the official story of 9/11-- on the basis of the fact that his brother had been working in a nearby office building. "He was there, it happened," I was told.

There is no denying that British and American soldiers liberated several camps. No doubt they saw horrifying conditions and many dead bodies. The camps had been ravaged by typhus and other diseases compounded by malnutrition as the German nation collapsed under relentless Allied bombing and the demand for unconditional surrender.

How come we never hear about any American soldiers describing the carnage they witnessed in the wake of the firebombing of Dresden in February, 1945?

"When Germany collapsed in the spring of 1945 it was after a long Allied propaganda campaign which had repeatedly claimed that people, mainly Jews, were being systematically killed in German "camps." When the British captured the camp at Bergen-Belsen in northern Germany they found a large number of unburied bodies lying around the camp. Photographs such as Fig. 10 (http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/holocaust_mass_grave_belsen.jpg) and pictures of guards with unfortunate facial expressions, such as Fig. 12 (http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/war/belsen5.jpg), were accordingly reproduced all over the world. It is, I believe, Belsen which has always constituted the effective, mass propaganda "proof" of exterminations, and even today you will find such scenes occasionally waved around as "proof."

In fact these scenes, repeated in varying degrees at other German camps, e.g. Dachau and Buchenwald, were much less related to "extermination" than the scenes at Dresden after the British-American raids of February, 1945, when many, many times as many bodies were found lying around. The deaths at Belsen were the result of a total loss of control, not a deliberate policy. Equivalent scenes could easily have existed in any country invaded on all sides by enemy armies, crippled by powerful "strategic" bombings which had caused all sorts of shortages and chaotic conditions.

The major cause of the deaths at Belsen was a typhus epidemic. Everybody agrees that typhus was a constant menace in all German camp and eastern military operations; for this reason there was a real fear of typhus spreading throughout Germany and vigorous countermeasures were applied. The typhus problem will play a most significant role in our story because it was not merely at the end of the war that it manifested itself; the scenes at the end of the war were due to the total collapse of all measures against a disease that had plagued the German concentration camps since early in the war. The typhus was of the sort carried by the body louse and consequently defensive measures consisted in killing the lice, whose spread was due mainly to the constant rail traffic with the East. Thus all "survivor literature," sincere or inventive, and regardlesss of the type of camp involved, report the same basic procedure involved in entering a German camp: disrobe, shave hair, shower, dress in new clothes or in old clothes after disinfection..."

Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century pp.34

[SDC]

You are equating death tolls in battles in which parties know the location of large groupings of people in which to fire large amounts of munitions to a death squad searching for specific people to murder.

The logistics are vastly different.

Oh, bazz fazz. Do a little research. It was easy to find "large groupings." They typically lived in the same parts of the towns and cities (historic or self-segregation); the local police and authorities often helped; and they put one hell of a lot of work into this. These were dangerous subhumans, remember (the Jews). It was very difficult to hide and stay alive for an extended period; most people were too frightened to help, or simply unwilling or hostile; and if you find a market town with a few hundred or a few thousand Jews per day or two or three, it isn't hard. Remember machine guns?

Ach, like I said, a troll. He's / she's (I shouldn't presume) just baiting.

You are giving an excellent impression of someone either who is trying to undermine the extraordinarily detailed and comprehensive evidence for the Holocaust, by means of silly and ill-informed objections; or else someone who is not necessarily trying to undermine that, but somehow gets a kick out of saying silly and ill-informed things. Your choice.

[SDC]

That is the crux. If the European population of Jews dropped by 6 million and not all 6 million were murdered than the 6 million figure is incorrect.

Eh? I gather that you have now become the greatest Holocaust scholar of the age? Able to leap over the best estimates of those far better qualified than you at a single bound?

[SDC]

This seems to be a common theme among defenders of the Holocaust legend. "My dad/grandpa/neighbor was there, and he saw it..." Being related to or meeting someone who was there gives us a personal bond to the Legend, and we become emotionally attached to the official story, defending it to the death.

It reminds me of one person I debated who defended the official story of 9/11-- on the basis of the fact that his brother had been working in a nearby office building. "He was there, it happened," I was told.

There is no denying that British and American soldiers liberated several camps. No doubt they saw horrifying conditions and many dead bodies. The camps had been ravaged by typhus and other diseases compounded by malnutrition as the German nation collapsed under relentless Allied bombing and the demand for unconditional surrender.

How come we never hear about any American soldiers describing the carnage they witnessed in the wake of the firebombing of Dresden in February, 1945?

Hey, you're back, Pumpkin! Happy t'giving. Kisses to the family.

American soldiers... You mean besides Kurt Vonnegut? He was there, captured at the Battle of the Bulge. The Dresden bombings are well known. What's your point? Heck, it's even in a movie made from the book, though a lousy one. (The movie.)

This is a standard Holocaust denier tactic; "Oh yeah?? Well, what about the poor defenseless Nazis [that's A-Train's phrase, remember] here or there or elsewhere?"

Note that he can't say "your grandfather lied to you, since he must have been in the pay of the Jews!" And so we see -- now class, pay attention -- the Holocaust denier's version of moving goalposts: most of those who died after liberation in the camps in Germany, like Belsen, died of disease, exhaustion, starvation, and overwork. True. (Though who exposed them to disease, exhaustion, starvation, and overwork? The Nazis. Do we detect a hint of culpability?) However, the camps in Germany proper were not extermination/ death camps. The massive killing fields were further east, on Polish territory (see Y.Arad, "Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps"), and in the mass shootings which JdG regards as logistically illogical elsewhere in Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, and the Soviet Union.

Whillikers, A-train, before you sit down for your kosher-certified turkey (whoops! sorry to let that out of the bag), try and find something more interesting.

[Dave Rogers]

How come we never hear about any American soldiers describing the carnage they witnessed in the wake of the firebombing of Dresden in February, 1945?

Because the Russians took Dresden.

Yes, Dresden's been covered up really effectively, and practically nobody ever discusses it. Now if, say, some leading sci-fi author had made it the centrepiece of his greatest work, maybe some of us would have heard of it.

Dave

ETA: SDC beat me to it. Oh well, maybe I can say something about Len Deighton's "Bomber"...

[timhau]

This seems to be a common theme among defenders of the Holocaust legend. "My dad/grandpa/neighbor was there, and he saw it..." Being related to or meeting someone who was there gives us a personal bond to the Legend, and we become emotionally attached to the official story, defending it to the death.

Right. With all those eyewitnesses, it can't be anything but a hoax.

:hb:

[MG1962]

There is no denying that British and American soldiers liberated several camps. No doubt they saw horrifying conditions and many dead bodies. The camps had been ravaged by typhus and other diseases compounded by malnutrition as the German nation collapsed under relentless Allied bombing and the demand for unconditional surrender.

How come we never hear about any American soldiers describing the carnage they witnessed in the wake of the firebombing of Dresden in February, 1945?

I will happily be proved wrong, but I am certain that Dresden never came under the US armies control, if memory served, it remained, like Cologne, firmly under Soviet control

[timhau]

I will happily be proved wrong, but I am certain that Dresden never came under the US armies control, if memory served, it remained, like Cologne, firmly under Soviet control

Hey, come on. It's patently unfair to use historical facts when debating Holocaust deniers.

[Belz...]

It is exactly what I intended to write.
:confused:

No, the thing you were quoting, assuming you were answering it.

[Loss Leader]

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.


Well, Robinson, I'd disagree with you slightly. The Jewish mother thing certainly is a "rule" in most branches of Judaism. However, it's not an enforced rule. There's a good reason for this: Nobody really wants to enforce it. As a people, we don't have the luxury of excluding anybody. If you live like a Jew and call yourself a Jew, we're pretty much going to accept that you're a Jew and count you as one. It's a self-defining demographic. Jews are counted by statisticians as anyone who answers yes to the question, "Are you Jewish?" Also, anyone who hears that question and runs away.

Now, there may be some highly religious sects who disagree but even they would just have the "non-Jew" convert - a process that would be trivially easy for any "non-Jew" who considers himself a Jewish member of such a religious sect.


You can only be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater IF your yelling is taken as serious and there is actual harm done as a direct result of your yelling.


Once again, you are completely wrong about a matter of law. Your statement is false. Don't ask me for evidence, do your own research before just blithering ignorantly.


By your math that is a murder every 1 minute and 36 seconds 24 hours a day for 60 days straight.

With your logistics experience are you testifying this is logistically possible under the circumstances of the Crimea during war?


We know that it was logically possible because it happened. Fact is proof of possibility.



Was every single Jew that was no longer in Europe murdered?

That is the crux. If the European population of Jews dropped by 6 million and not all 6 million were murdered than the 6 million figure is incorrect.


Okay, so now I see your disgusting little jog around logic. All you want to prove is that less than six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. You think that knocking down that fact somehow brings all claims about the Holocaust tumbling to the ground.

You're a filthy, ignorant fool. Read a book.


Second of all,

How come we never hear about any American soldiers describing the carnage they witnessed in the wake of the firebombing of Dresden in February, 1945?


I certainly never heard about it first hand from an American POW who was there. I only read about it second hand in the Cliff's Notes.

ETA: I'm kidding. Slaughterhouse Five kicks ass.

[twinstead]

Hey, come on. It's patently unfair to use historical facts when debating Holocaust deniers.

It's also patently unfair to use the term 'debate' when describing discussions with Holocaust deniers. It's actually more like trying to keep a straight face during their idiotic diatribes.

[Thunder]

The fact remains that the number of Jews who immigrated to Israel, the USA, and other places after WW2 in no way accounts for the missing 6 million Jews.

For example, before WW2 there were between 3.3 million and 2.8 million Jews in Poland. After the war there were 300,000 left. Most of them moved to Israel. Where did the missing Jews go?

Nazis can never answer this question.

[westprog]

That is the crux. If the European population of Jews dropped by 6 million and not all 6 million were murdered than the 6 million figure is incorrect.

Of course the figure is incorrect. Does anyone think exactly six million were killed? It would be a surprisingly round number. That's yet another strawman. Suppose that close analysis reveals that "only" five million Jews were killed, the rest being due to natural wastage. How does that change our attitude to the event?

However, all else being equal, populations remain static. Deaths are balanced by births. It should also be possible to allow for the death rates suffered by the non-Jewish civilian populations. When this is done, it turns out that vast numbers of Jews must have been deliberately disposed of.

[westprog]

The fact remains that the number of Jews who immigrated to Israel, the USA, and other places after WW2 in no way accounts for the missing 6 million Jews.

For example, before WW2 there were between 3.3 million and 2.8 million Jews in Poland. After the war there were 300,000 left. Most of them moved to Israel. Where did the missing Jews go?


Do we know how many Poles died from their population in the same period? It would put things in perspective. I would assume that they suffered massive casualties, but still enormously less in percentage terms than the Jews.

Nazis can never answer this question.

They'd rather quibble about the paint on the gas chamber walls.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

These were dangerous subhumans, remember (the Jews).

Do you think there were any "dangerous subhuman Jews" in the Nazi party and serving in Hitlers' war machine?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Eh? I gather that you have now become the greatest Holocaust scholar of the age? Able to leap over the best estimates of those far better qualified than you at a single bound?

I am sorry that simple math disturbs you so much.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Once again, you are completely wrong about a matter of law. Your statement is false. Don't ask me for evidence, do your own research before just blithering ignorantly.


In response too:

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME
You can only be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater IF your yelling is taken as serious and there is actual harm done as a direct result of your yelling.


Oliver Wendell Holmes:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.

I guess Oliver Wendell Holmes is wrong as well, esquire.


Each time you name-call it shows your inability to have a rational talk at an adult level.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Okay, so now I see your disgusting little jog around logic. All you want to prove is that less than six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. You think that knocking down that fact somehow brings all claims about the Holocaust tumbling to the ground.

You're a filthy, ignorant fool. Read a book.


You are not rational or speaking as an adult. I would suggest you take a break and calm down a bit.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Of course the figure is incorrect. Does anyone think exactly six million were killed? It would be a surprisingly round number. That's yet another strawman. Suppose that close analysis reveals that "only" five million Jews were killed, the rest being due to natural wastage. How does that change our attitude to the event?

However, all else being equal, populations remain static. Deaths are balanced by births. It should also be possible to allow for the death rates suffered by the non-Jewish civilian populations. When this is done, it turns out that vast numbers of Jews must have been deliberately disposed of.

Agreed. Thank you for your rational response.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hey, come on. It's patently unfair to use historical facts when debating Holocaust deniers.

How do you define Holocaust denier?

If I said the Nazis killed only 4 million Jews would that fall into the category of denier?

[SDC]

Perhaps I'm wrong in the assumption that JdG is a Yank of some variety. If he is, I can only assume that he/she didn't get invited to any nice T'givings today. (And if he's/she's Canadian, then he/she didn't like the event last month.)

Between JdG and LastChild, this place is a total grump-o-rama.

Anyhow, JdG, I now depart. The little bits you provide are as content- and value-free as any I've ever seen. My advice is to renew your library card, and try to use it.

[Darat]

I understand that this is often a very emotive subject to discuss however please keep in mind your Membership Agreement and if you can't post something civil and on topic don't post until you can.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Perhaps I'm wrong in the assumption that JdG is a Yank of some variety. If he is, I can only assume that he/she didn't get invited to any nice T'givings today. (And if he's/she's Canadian, then he/she didn't like the event last month.)

Between JdG and LastChild, this place is a total grump-o-rama.

Anyhow, JdG, I now depart. The little bits you provide are as content- and value-free as any I've ever seen. My advice is to renew your library card, and try to use it.

Why even write this insult full post?

I am amused that one of your insults concerns others posts lacking content.

Your post here is the definition of irony.
:boxedin:

[Belz...]

Each time you name-call it shows your inability to have a rational talk at an adult level.

Considering how much vitriol there is in the adult world, I'd say that name-calling is very adult, indeed.

[Belz...]

I understand that this is often a very emotive subject to discuss however please keep in mind your Membership Agreement and if you can't post something civil and on topic don't post until you can.

OK, I know this is a very emotive subject, but it is still possible to discuss it without resorting to personal attacks and rudeness. Please refrain from the use of words such as 'filthy', and 'disgusting', particularly directed at individual members. Stay calm, and adress your comments to the issues, not members. Thanks.

Now, if we could get a third mod to chime in, maybe it'll work, but I doubt it! ;)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Considering how much vitriol there is in the adult world, I'd say that name-calling is very adult, indeed.

This made me laugh. Thanks!
:D

[chillzero]

Now, if we could get a third mod to chime in, maybe it'll work, but I doubt it! ;)

Yeah, sorry - that was my fault, and then I had a problem removing mine :blush:

[Loss Leader]

Do you think there were any "dangerous subhuman Jews" in the Nazi party and serving in Hitlers' war machine?


Another strawman parading as a question. What exactly would your argument be if the answer were yes? Let me guess, you're not making an argument, you're "just asking questions." Do your own research.


I guess Oliver Wendell Holmes is wrong as well, esquire.


And yet, even with OWH's quote, you're still completely wrong. That is to be expected coming from a position of willful ignorance such as your own.

Here's what you wrote:
You can only be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater IF your yelling is taken as serious and there is actual harm done as a direct result of your yelling.

And here, as just one example out of fifty, is the California Penal Code Section 403 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=403-420.1):

403. Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs
or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its
character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section
302 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.

See? There is no requirement that the threat of "fire" be taken seriously. There is no requirement of actual harm.

You are wrong.

[tsig]

Do you think there were any "dangerous subhuman Jews" in the Nazi party and serving in Hitlers' war machine?

What color is your bridge?

[tsig]

How do you define Holocaust denier?

If I said the Nazis killed only 4 million Jews would that fall into the category of denier?

How many do you have to kill to be a murderer?

[milesalpha]

Trying to wrap my head around the idea that no one discusses the moral question surrounding the Allied bomber campaigns in general, let alone Dresden. It has been quite a hot topic for some time among documentary makers and historians.

Here in Canada there was a major documentary called "The Valour and the Horror" which detailed the futility and the human costs of the Allied bomber campaigns. It caused a huge stir when the Legion began a national protest campaign against it. Of course, it's only 15 years old so it might be a little too new for some. The History channel and the BBC have similar programs. It would be fair to say you can find dozens of articles in Jstor. A quick search of Amazon revealed several books and dvd's dealing with the subject, most specifically addressing Dresden.

Is it easy to not find something you aren't looking for?

[Nick Terry]

Trying to wrap my head around the idea that no one discusses the moral question surrounding the Allied bomber campaigns in general, let alone Dresden. It has been quite a hot topic for some time among documentary makers and historians.

Then obviously it's not 'no one', right?

Anyway, using troofer logic, what evidence do we have that Dresden wasn't a Nazi false flag operation?

:eek:

[Pardalis]

How do you define Holocaust denier?

If I said the Nazis killed only 4 million Jews would that fall into the category of denier?

The thing about deniers is that they don't necessarily deny the events

http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html

"the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none."

[Myriad]

Nothing like a thread like this to remind me of something to be thankful for on Thanksgiving Day. I've said this before, but I don't think it can be said too often.

I am thankful that our fathers and grandfathers, mothers and grandmothers, Americans and Brits and Russians and Candadians and countless others, fought and suffered and sacrificed to fight the Nazi ideology. I'm thankful that they were able to exploit its blindness and its weakness. I'm thankful that they battered it into what it remains today: a twisted impotent wisp of hatred; the stupidest, ugliest, and most useless ideology of a century notable for stupid, ugly, useless ideologies; a bad joke in bad taste; a handy source of stock villains for adventure stories (useful because no one is offended when the heroes shoot them on sight without hesitation or compassion); an icon of mental illness and of failure and of absolutely nothing else.

I'm thankful that they shot the people who were fighting for Nazi ideals. I'm thankful that they bombed them. I'm thankful that they strafed them in their camps and burned them in their bunkers and bayoneted them in their trenches and garotted them at their guard posts and starved them in Stalingrad and sank them in the depths of the Atlantic. I'm thankful that they hung them by the neck in Nuremberg. At great cost to themselves, they did what they could and what was necessary to take the Nazis' power away forever, and I'm thankful for their many sacrifices and thankful for their success.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And yet, even with OWH's quote, you're still completely wrong. That is to be expected coming from a position of willful ignorance such as your own.


And here, as just one example out of fifty, is the California Penal Code Section 403 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=403-420.1):

403. Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs
or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its
character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section
302 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.

See? There is no requirement that the threat of "fire" be taken seriously. There is no requirement of actual harm.

You are wrong.


So esquire, Oliver Wendall Holmes is wrong in what he stated in a Supreme court decision because the California code trumps the Supreme court.
:boxedin:

Good to know.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What color is your bridge?

I didn't catch what you were throwing?

:confused:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How many do you have to kill to be a murderer?

One

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The thing about deniers is that they don't necessarily deny the events

http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html

"the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none."

This presumes that anyone arguing that the Nazis killed 4 million Jews is a denier.

This is strange.

The Jewish population decreased in Europe by 6 million and we know for a certainty that a number did emigrate to the US and Israel.

Are you stating that to state these facts one is a denier?

Your implication is that facts are irrelevant to this particular talk, and a maligning characterization of the presenter of facts is appropriate.

What is the reasoning here?

[Belz...]

Yeah, sorry - that was my fault, and then I had a problem removing mine :blush:

Are you kidding ? I'm just happy to see your avatar, every now and then! ;)

[Bell]

I'm thankful that they shot the people who were fighting for Nazi ideals. I'm thankful that they bombed them. I'm thankful that they strafed them in their camps and burned them in their bunkers and bayoneted them in their trenches and garotted them at their guard posts and starved them in Stalingrad and sank them in the depths of the Atlantic. I'm thankful that they hung them by the neck in Nuremberg. At great cost to themselves, they did what they could and what was necessary to take the Nazis' power away forever, and I'm thankful for their many sacrifices and thankful for their success.

Myriad, with all respects returned, this part is just plain wrong, in generalizing each and every German that fought -and died- in the war, as fighting for Nazi ideals.

I know this thread isn't about that, but I thought it needed to be said.

[westprog]

Myriad, with all respects returned, this part is just plain wrong, in generalizing each and every German that fought -and died- in the war, as fighting for Nazi ideals.


Indeed, many of the victims of the allied campaign were entirely innocent. Many of them had no choice. That doesn't mean that Myriad is wrong though. They weren't killed to punish them - they were killed to end an evil.

I know this thread isn't about that, but I thought it needed to be said.

Part of the issue to do with Holocaust discussions is the extent to which the deaths of Jews differ from other deaths. It's not morally obvious.

[Corsair 115]

How come we never hear about any American soldiers describing the carnage they witnessed in the wake of the firebombing of Dresden in February, 1945?The number of casualties at Dresden was a fluke due to the occurrence of a firestorm. Firestorms were very rare events, with perhaps just half a dozen occuring during the entire war. Had a firestorm not occurred, the casualties at Dresden would have been no worse than any similar raid on other German cities.

The attack on Dresden was a completely ordinary Bomber Command raid. It is only the results that were extraordinary.

Trying to wrap my head around the idea that no one discusses the moral question surrounding the Allied bomber campaigns in general, let alone Dresden. It's a topic I'm always willing to discuss. I find there are a lot of misunderstandings and misconceptions surrounding the subject.

Here in Canada there was a major documentary called "The Valour and the Horror" which detailed the futility and the human costs of the Allied bomber campaigns. It caused a huge stir when the Legion began a national protest campaign against it.I remember watching that series. Personally, I felt many of the veterans' objections to that program vis-a-vis it presenting information out-of-context and incompletely were entirely justified.

[MaGZ]

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?

What happened to the Jews?
Here is the answer from the experts.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p375_Desjardins.html

[Loss Leader]

So esquire, Oliver Wendall Holmes is wrong in what he stated in a Supreme court decision because the California code trumps the Supreme court.


Once again, you deliberately misread a post and then try to get a poster to back up a statement he never made. It is a very tiring and very ineffective debate tactic.

I never said OWH was wrong. OWH was a genius. I said you were wrong. You personally. You said this:

You can only be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater IF your yelling is taken as serious and there is actual harm done as a direct result of your yelling.


It is an incorrect statement. As I showed you with just one state's law, there is no requirement that you be taken seriously or cause actual harm. It's not surprising that you were wrong as all you did was make up a rule out of thin air after having done no research whatsoever. You're bound to make mistakes when you have no idea what you're talking about.

In any case, you're wrong for many more reasons. Here is what Holmes actually wrote here (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=249&invol=47):

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

So, all Holmes said was that fire could not be shouted "falsely." He never said anything about people needing to take the threat of fire seriously or of anyone suffering actual harm. The test you made up out of your imagination has nothing to do with what Holmes said.

But there's an even more important reason why California law doesn't disagree with Holmes: The case in which he said it had nothing to do with shouting things in theaters. The case of Shenck v. US was about a man convicted of circulating fliers against the draft in World War I. Everything Holmes said about fires in theaters was dicta. It was just words that he wrote to support his opinion that Congress could criminalize the act of telling people to resist the draft.

California isn't violating the Supreme Court's opinion because the Supreme Court's opinion only applies to the case it's hearing and similar cases. The Supreme Court cannot just start making rules about things that are not in dispute. So, nothing said in the case of a man with World War I fliers could ever actually bind any state about their shouting in public laws in any case.

Two points remain: First, the concept of dicta is so well understood, so open, and so obvious that it is amazing to me that you failed to apprehend this point. Anyone who did even a moment's research would see that Holmes could not have been talking about actual yelling in actual theaters. You clearly have no understanding of the facts or concepts about which you spoke.

Second, this is a case where the SCt found it was constitutional to convict someone of a crime for doing nothing but handing out pamphlets to draftees during a time of war. There's pretty much no question that the Court's opinion was reversed by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Imagine Vietnam without "Alice's Restaurant," a song that had pretty much the same theme as Schenck's pamphlets. Considering how strident you've been in your defense of free speech in this and other threads, it is astonishing to me that you would cite Schenck with approval.

Perhaps you were utterly ignorant of the facts of Schenck and you spoke without giving your comments any thought whatsoever. Perhaps that's it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You can only be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater IF your yelling is taken as serious and there is actual harm done as a direct result of your yelling.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.


Esquire, you can parse all you want but the fact remains that simply yelling fire in a crowded theater is free speech according to Oliver Wendall Holmes. Ohh, and I agree with Oliver and not you.

[Loss Leader]

You can only be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater IF your yelling is taken as serious and there is actual harm done as a direct result of your yelling.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.


Esquire, you can parse all you want but the fact remains that simply yelling fire in a crowded theater is free speech according to Oliver Wendall Holmes. Ohh, and I agree with Oliver and not you.



Here's something else often attributed (wrongly) to Oliver Wendel Holmes: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I have explained why Holmes' statement cannot actually bind any state in any way regarding its criminal laws of fire yelling. I have explained why Holmes' statement does not actually imply your made up test. I have shown state law that contradicts your made-up test. Please cite any evidence at all that your made-up test is actually the law in any state in the country.

Also, your last paragraph contradicts everything else you said. Your last paragraph says that "simply yelling fire in a crowded theater is free speech," but Holmes said you cannot falsely shout fire. So which do you believe? Do you believe Holmes who limits speech only to times when the theater is on fire (like you say you do) or do you belive yourself that you can yell fire any time at all so long as it does not cause actual harm? Can you even tell the difference?

Hint: You can't. Reason: You're wrong. Result: Stop talking about topics on which you know nothing. Attenuated Result: The world becomes a better and smarter place for your silence.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

What does this statement mean? I do not want to misunderstand you.

[8den]

Myriad, with all respects returned, this part is just plain wrong, in generalizing each and every German that fought -and died- in the war, as fighting for Nazi ideals.

I know this thread isn't about that, but I thought it needed to be said.

Bell I agree, many German's fought with honour and dignity, and respect for civilian population, and disagreed with the final solution or were unaware of it. Most of the german military senior hierarchy wanted to engage in terms after the success of Overlord.

It does a dis service to Germans who signed up to the army that they were idealogical Nazis.

[leftysergeant]

You can only be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater IF your yelling is taken as serious and there is actual harm done as a direct result of your yelling.

That's a pathetic arguement. Yelling fire, or doing anything that has the potential to create a panic displays callous and wanton disregard for the public safety, and perhaps the intent to cause harm, and is, thus, of concern to the state for reasons of public safety.

By your definition, drunken driving would be of no concern to the state until you have harmed someone. You're talking through your belly button on this one.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That's a pathetic arguement. Yelling fire, or doing anything that has the potential to create a panic displays callous and wanton disregard for the public safety, and perhaps the intent to cause harm, and is, thus, of concern to the state for reasons of public safety.

By your definition, drunken driving would be of no concern to the state until you have harmed someone. You're talking through your belly button on this one.

I will continue to take the side of Oliver Wendall Holmes, the man who wrote the words in a supreme court case.

You can choose to think Holmes is pathetic if you like. It is still a free thought country.

[leftysergeant]

The most important words here are "clear and present danger."

There is clear and present danger that encouraging acceptance of Holocaust denial and acceptance of Naziism as just another political position will eventually result in acceptance of mass murder, a la Kevin Barret's dreams of a blood purge of non-twoofers.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The most important words here are "clear and present danger."

There is clear and present danger that encouraging acceptance of Holocaust denial and acceptance of Naziism as just another political position will eventually result in acceptance of mass murder, a la Kevin Barret's dreams of a blood purge of non-twoofers.

Which part of National Socialism is a "clear and present danger"?

Fascism?

Socialism?

Nationalism?

Militarism?

Eugenics?

Antisemitism?

[Loss Leader]

I will continue to take the side of Oliver Wendall Holmes, the man who wrote the words in a supreme court case.

You can choose to think Holmes is pathetic if you like. It is still a free thought country.


So, do you agree with Holmes' ruling that it should be criminal for a person to pass out anti-enlistment fliers to recently drafted soldiers in a time of war?

Do you believe that a case about passing out fliers can actually bind the states in the manner in which they decide when actual theater patrons may or may not alert those around them to the threat of fire?

Do you believe that the case in which Holmes made the statement is still good law?

Have you done any research on Schenck v. US at all? How about Blackburn?

Have you ever taken a course at any college at any time in Constitutional Law?

Have you ever read a book about the First Amendment?

Do you agree that it should be illegal to protest a war?

Can you define the "clear and present danger" test?

Do you believe that the "clear and present danger" test is still good law?

Have you ever protested a war?

Have you ever been tested for trisomy 21?

Put the following events in order:
World War I
Everything That's Happened Since World War I

In fifty words or less, describe where you think you are right now.

Now dance.

[leftysergeant]

Which part of National Socialism is a "clear and present danger"?

Fascism?

Socialism?

Nationalism?

Militarism?

Eugenics?

Antisemitism?

All of it, though it is not really a form of socialism.

Minimizing the evil that they intended is dispicible. The deaths of the Jews did not just happen. The Nazis wanted them gone, and dead was as good a form of gone as any. They had, quite simply, no right as humans to have done what they did. They are evil and apologizing for them is an evil act. The only sub-humans involved in WWII were the Nazi ideolouges.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now dance.

Nope

[Myriad]

Bell I agree, many German's fought with honour and dignity, and respect for civilian population, and disagreed with the final solution or were unaware of it. Most of the german military senior hierarchy wanted to engage in terms after the success of Overlord.


That's true.

It does a dis service to Germans who signed up to the army that they were idealogical Nazis.


But I didn't say that. I said they were fighting for Nazi ideals. Which they were, in a manner that has nothing to do with what they did or didn't believe in personally. The result of their fighting, if successful, would not have been honor, dignity, and respect for the civilian population. It would have been the establishment of Nazi rule based on Nazi principles and goals, just as it was in every place they were successful.

I'm sorry they had to be destroyed. I'm glad they were destroyed.

I'm glad that today's Nazis are such an embarrassing joke that they don't have to be destroyed. I hope it stays that way, for their sakes as well as mine.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[JEROME DA GNOME]

All of it, though it is not really a form of socialism.

Just called itself and practiced socialism, but never mind that.

Minimizing the evil that they intended is dispicible. The deaths of the Jews did not just happen. The Nazis wanted them gone, and dead was as good a form of gone as any. They had, quite simply, no right as humans to have done what they did. They are evil and apologizing for them is an evil act. The only sub-humans involved in WWII were the Nazi ideolouges.

When you wrote the bolded above, did you mean that if it is a historical fact based on evidence that the Nazis killed 5 million Jews; that to state this fact, as it minimizes their atrocities, is despicable?

[Foolmewunz]

1. By your math that is a murder every 1 minute and 36 seconds 24 hours a day for 60 days straight.

2. With your logistics experience are you testifying this is logistically possible under the circumstances of the Crimea during war?



3. Name-calling?

(numbers added by me)

1. How long does it take to pull a trigger? Why gosh, you could kill ten people in one minute, and then have a 16 minute break, by your math. Or maybe you could line up, say twenty or thirty at a time. I think I read that they might have done that in certain areas (sarcastic smiley of your choice). Then you could kill a couple of hundred in an hour, and even have time to sleep. Jerome! Jerome! Jerome! It was World War II! (It was in all the papers at the time.) In many an action or battle, dozens or hundreds of people were killed within spans of minutes.

2. Once again you're evidencing complete lack of knowledge of the battle for the Crimea in '41. The Germans controlled all of the Crimea except for Sebastopol by October 31. The Russians landed a big ol' army/force in the area around Kersh a couple of months later, but the Germans whupped them real good, so essentially the only fighting in the Crimea in the time in question was the siege of Sebastapol. (Hint: Maps are your friend. Look at a map of the Crimea and get an idea of how much area was under their control.)


3. Yep. Your behavior is that of a troll so I say you're a troll. You're the Monty Python "argument sketch". No facts, just counterpoint. And when you take a chance on actually citing something factual, you quite often fail miserably as in this example. You called a fellow poster, in so many words, a liar. If you were an adult, you'd just apologize for the apparent mistake. (I think you misread the post and didn't see the 1942 date on the communique, but instead of admitting it, you're continuing to throw smoke grenades to cover your retreat, hoping someone will think you've won. You haven't, that sort of sophistry rarely plays here.)

I'm quite sure the mods watch any thread on the holocaust because tempers snap and accusations fly. If calling you a troll is an offence to the rules, I can I can live with the warning, but I frankly don't think it merits one. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, craps like a duck, and is constantly seen in the company of other ducks.....

[JEROME DA GNOME]

(numbers added by me)

I will have to defer to your expressed skills of logistics and thus your account of the logistical ability of the Germans to scour the country side of the Crimea during the battles with the Russians and kill 50,000 people of a particular race in 60 days.



BTW: The memos you seem to be defending have yet to be sourced.

Do you normally take things written on the forums at face value, or just when you like what is said?

[leftysergeant]

Just called itself and practiced socialism, but never mind that.



When you wrote the bolded above, did you mean that if it is a historical fact based on evidence that the Nazis killed 5 million Jews; that to state this fact, as it minimizes their atrocities, is despicable?

I am saying that disputing the numbers killed and stating that some of them just happened is to minimize the fact that the Nazis were an infection needed to be stopped by any means available and that those who do not now recognize them as evil may be contermplating further evil.

That there are still people in the world who do not consider the Nazis the greatest evil ever to rise is one of the reasons I own firearms and am preparted to use them without remorse.

There is no lower form of life passing for human than a Nazi.

[The Atheist]

I'm thankful that they shot the people who were fighting for Nazi ideals.

One post I bet you wish you'd thought more about.

It is still a free thought country.

One of the few left. That's why Stormfront have a radio show.

________________________________


Isn't it about time Holocaust denial was left to tag-teams from Stormfront to come over for Remembrance Day debates? Or cage matches, if they'd rather.


One thing I find ironic. Many vehement Holocaust denier deniers don't seem to hold the same of level of revulsion towards the atrocities their own country is actively committing right now.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I am saying that disputing the numbers killed and stating that some of them just happened is to minimize the fact that the Nazis were an infection needed to be stopped by any means available and that those who do not now recognize them as evil may be contermplating further evil.

By any means necessary if the subject is deemed important enough.

I agree with your sentiment. I disagree that facts should be hidden. When facts are hidden and then found it promotes ideas of romanticism of the vile.

[The Atheist]

That there are still people in the world who do not consider the Nazis the greatest evil ever to rise is one of the reasons I own firearms and am preparted to use them without remorse.

I've just read that a few times and I'm a little concerned for my safety. As I read it, your biggest concern is people who do not believe that the Nazis were the greatest evil ever and you'd have to include me in your target group. That the target is at the end of a gun disturbs me, especially when said gun has been purchased with me specifically in mind!

There is no lower form of life passing for human than a Nazi.

Given the vehemence you reserve for people who don't agree with you, you could chalk me up in the group that disagrees with that statement as well.

[Corsair 115]

A theoretical question for those participants of this thread denying the Holocaust:

Let's for the moment say the Holocaust didn't happen. What then does that mean we should think about the Nazi regime? Should it still be reviled for waging war on its neighbouring nations? Should it still be considered a grotesque entity for the brutal manner in which it occupied the nations it subjugated? Should the SS and Gestapo still be regarded as horrible and repugnant organizations? Is it still moral and correct for the Allies to have defeated the Third Reich?

[CHF]

I'm sometimes amazed that Holocaust Deniers exist.

For crying out loud, the Einsatzgruppen shot some 1.5 M Jews before the death camps even opened!

To question the exact total of Jews killed is justified, IMO, in the interest of historical accuracy. But claiming that there was no organized, systematic campaign of genocide directed at the Jews by the Nazis??? That takes serious mental issues.

It speaks volumes that so many Holocaust Deniers have joined the 9/11 twoof movement.

[Loss Leader]

A theoretical question for those participants of this thread denying the Holocaust:

Let's for the moment say the Holocaust didn't happen. What then does that mean we should think about the Nazi regime? Should it still be reviled for waging war on its neighbouring nations? Should it still be considered a grotesque entity for the brutal manner in which it occupied the nations it subjugated? Should the SS and Gestapo still be regarded as horrible and repugnant organizations? Is it still moral and correct for the Allies to have defeated the Third Reich?


I think their argument is more of a tortured form of antisemitism. They're stick with this logical proof that makes no sense but they have to try to make all of the premises true because it's all they've got:

1. Jews benefitted a great deal from world sympathy after the Holocaust.
2. But the Holocaust wasn't as bad as it was made out to be.
3. If the Jews knew this, they are liars who deserve to have all of the benefits taken away from them.
4. If the Jews didn't know this, they are now trying to cover it up which makes them liars who deserve to have all of the benefits taken away from them.
5. If the Jews didn't know this and aren't covering it up because they still don't really understand it, the harsh truth compels us to take away all of the benefits they've gotten because they never deserved them anyway.

All of this rests upon the supressed premises that: 1) Jewish advances since World War II are due to some sort of social guilt and not due to a generally increasing worldwide tolerance for religious diversity; and 2) that Jews have advanced far more than people realize and now run the world or something equally nuts.

Scratch a Holocaust denier, find a racist.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm sometimes amazed that Holocaust Deniers exist.

For crying out loud, the Einsatzgruppen shot some 1.5 M Jews before the death camps even opened!

To question the exact total of Jews killed is justified, IMO, in the interest of historical accuracy. But claiming that there was no organized, systematic campaign of genocide directed at the Jews by the Nazis??? That takes serious mental issues.

It speaks volumes that so many Holocaust Deniers have joined the 9/11 twoof movement.

Bolded Part

[gnome]
Mein Gott, man! Do you realize that that would mean they killed 75 people per hour, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for two years! Do you have any idea of the logistics involved in that.... while fighting a losing battle against five different soviet armies! It boggles the mind that some people just believe anything. [/gnome off]

Actual holocaust deniers are beyond hope. I respond to them, admittedly with a certain passion, so that people stumbling across their filth will see it pegged for what it is. I'm more interested in the pseudo serious and neo-libertarians who are tip-toeing up to the edge of Denialism and hungrily peering in the window. Some of those might actually still be save-able.

AT and MaGZ are just lightweight bigots, IMHO. Note that Nick Terry doesn't even bother to drop more than a passing note. I'd bet that if Mr. Terry sees a serious or credentialed Denier in here, he'd be on 'em like white on rice.

[Foolmewunz]

I will have to defer to your expressed skills of logistics and thus your account of the logistical ability of the Germans to scour the country side of the Crimea during the battles with the Russians and kill 50,000 people of a particular race in 60 days.



BTW: The memos you seem to be defending have yet to be sourced.

Do you normally take things written on the forums at face value, or just when you like what is said?

Jerome... try this again real slowly...

There
was
no
huge
battleground
in
the
Crimea
except
for
the
siege
of
Sevastopol.

Stop making that silly argument. The Germans had free run of the entire peninsula, including control of Yalta, just like in the rest of the Ukraine. And, as mentioned when the Russians put a huge force into Kersh, the Germans captured the whole damned bunch, so that area was only a battleground for a couple of weeks near the end of '41.

[Darat]

Trying to wrap my head around the idea that no one discusses the moral question surrounding the Allied bomber campaigns in general, let alone Dresden. It has been quite a hot topic for some time among documentary makers and historians.

...snip...

It's been discussed on the Forum many, many times. However its got nowt to do with the Holocaust.

[Darat]

Just called itself and practiced socialism, but never mind that.

...snip...

You are getting confused by the word "Socialist" in the translated name of "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei". "Socialist" in that sense does not mean the political ideology that in English that we call "socialism".

The Nazi party ideology was by act, deed and definition a form of fascism, not socialism.

[Nick Terry]

Bolded Part

[gnome]
Mein Gott, man! Do you realize that that would mean they killed 75 people per hour, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for two years! Do you have any idea of the logistics involved in that.... while fighting a losing battle against five different soviet armies! It boggles the mind that some people just believe anything. [/gnome off]

Actual holocaust deniers are beyond hope. I respond to them, admittedly with a certain passion, so that people stumbling across their filth will see it pegged for what it is. I'm more interested in the pseudo serious and neo-libertarians who are tip-toeing up to the edge of Denialism and hungrily peering in the window. Some of those might actually still be save-able.

AT and MaGZ are just lightweight bigots, IMHO. Note that Nick Terry doesn't even bother to drop more than a passing note. I'd bet that if Mr. Terry sees a serious or credentialed Denier in here, he'd be on 'em like white on rice.

No bet, but my standards for what might count as 'serious or credentialed' are pretty darn high now. The Skeptics Society Forum has a playpen for 2-4 deniers who are largely not worth debating, as the regular denizens can manage them quite well, and they are incredibly repetitive and boring.

A-Train and MaGZ are indulging in the usual antisemitic fallacies (argumentum ad judaeorum? I forget my O-Level Latin knowledge of declensions. We do need this named precisely as there are many forms of CT woo that appeal to the magic powers of teh Joooz) and are thus essentially immune to reasoned argument. Quarantining them is easily done as neither seems inclined to post more than a few lines of a drive-by than make a sustained argument.

Likewise those who engage in HD/'scepticism' for trolling purposes. JdG has racked up nearly 1700 posts in what can't be more than 2 months here (join date: Oct 2007) and so it's small wonder he cannot manage more than one-liners of elliptical and cryptic relevance to anything that might be under discussion.

Apropos the Crimea, JdG seems to be indulging in another classic fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantium, combined with an argument to personal incredulity. Ignorance is no defense in a matter of historical or scientific argument. Before you can apply your personal scepticism, you have to know what the evidence is. The straight up answer to any debate over what happened to the Crimean Jews is to send JdG to the library, and probably also to language classes, to read the dissertations now published as books of Andrej Angrick and Norbert Kunz, two German historians who have respectively worked on Einsatzgruppe D (who carried out the mass shootings in the Crimea with support from the German Army and some local collaborators), and German occupation policy in the Crimea. I could also recommend some Russian-language material too.

No doubt JdG was blithely unaware that such books existed, or if he was, he has been pretending that their existence doesn't matter. He might perhaps demand, (1) an English-language work, (2) a source on the internet, (2) that his discussion partners do the reading for him. (1) through (2) exist, i.e. one can recommend Hilberg's classic study and therein one will find quite a bit of discussion of the Crimea on a few pages, likewise a lot of discussion of Otto Ohlendorf, the commander of Einsatzgruppe D. I bet one could find a fair few things through semi-competent Googling.

(2) and (3) are typical troll behaviour, i.e. a wilful refusal to consider the possibility that real knowledge and science, including historical knowledge and science, are not reducible to political and philosophical opinion, and have to be worked at.


This applies to the languages needed to get to the starting-line of direct knowledge of the evidence concerning the Holocaust. Engineers, physicists and architects need a mastery of maths, physics and other sciences which is potentially there in anyone who actually stayed awake

[leftysergeant]

Given the vehemence you reserve for people who don't agree with you, you could chalk me up in the group that disagrees with that statement as well.

What I am concerned with is that there are lower life forms who would like to try it again. Have you read The Turner Diaries? That was not writtne for entertainment purposes. There are quasi-human beings who wouild like to act out that scenario, and have even made concrete efforts to do so (e.g., McVeigh, Richard Wayne Snell and Robert Matthews, may they burn in the most vile pit of hell.)

Should they rise up in force, I would feel it my duty to feed them a few Czech silvertips.

I will certainly not, in the mean time, remain silent when someone apologizes for or in any way tries to put a less malignant face on the Third Reich.

[SDC]

No bet, but my standards for what might count as 'serious or credentialed' are pretty darn high now. The Skeptics Society Forum has a playpen for 2-4 deniers who are largely not worth debating, as the regular denizens can manage them quite well, and they are incredibly repetitive and boring.

A-Train and MaGZ are indulging in the usual antisemitic fallacies (argumentum ad judaeorum? I forget my O-Level Latin knowledge of declensions. We do need this named precisely as there are many forms of CT woo that appeal to the magic powers of teh Joooz) and are thus essentially immune to reasoned argument. Quarantining them is easily done as neither seems inclined to post more than a few lines of a drive-by than make a sustained argument.

Likewise those who engage in HD/'scepticism' for trolling purposes. JdG has racked up nearly 1700 posts in what can't be more than 2 months here (join date: Oct 2007) and so it's small wonder he cannot manage more than one-liners of elliptical and cryptic relevance to anything that might be under discussion.

Apropos the Crimea, JdG seems to be indulging in another classic fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantium, combined with an argument to personal incredulity. Ignorance is no defense in a matter of historical or scientific argument. Before you can apply your personal scepticism, you have to know what the evidence is. The straight up answer to any debate over what happened to the Crimean Jews is to send JdG to the library, and probably also to language classes, to read the dissertations now published as books of Andrej Angrick and Norbert Kunz, two German historians who have respectively worked on Einsatzgruppe D (who carried out the mass shootings in the Crimea with support from the German Army and some local collaborators), and German occupation policy in the Crimea. I could also recommend some Russian-language material too.

No doubt JdG was blithely unaware that such books existed, or if he was, he has been pretending that their existence doesn't matter. He might perhaps demand, (1) an English-language work, (2) a source on the internet, (2) that his discussion partners do the reading for him. (1) through (2) exist, i.e. one can recommend Hilberg's classic study and therein one will find quite a bit of discussion of the Crimea on a few pages, likewise a lot of discussion of Otto Ohlendorf, the commander of Einsatzgruppe D. I bet one could find a fair few things through semi-competent Googling.

(2) and (3) are typical troll behaviour, i.e. a wilful refusal to consider the possibility that real knowledge and science, including historical knowledge and science, are not reducible to political and philosophical opinion, and have to be worked at.


This applies to the languages needed to get to the starting-line of direct knowledge of the evidence concerning the Holocaust. Engineers, physicists and architects need a mastery of maths, physics and other sciences which is potentially there in anyone who actually stayed awake

Excellent, excellent comments.

[Belz...]

Esquire, you can parse all you want but the fact remains that simply yelling fire in a crowded theater is free speech according to Oliver Wendall Holmes. Ohh, and I agree with Oliver and not you.

Sounds like a "nuh-huh" to me.

I will continue to take the side of Oliver Wendall Holmes, the man who wrote the words in a supreme court case.

I think the problem is that you're not.

[Drudgewire]

What I am concerned with is that there are lower life forms who would like to try it again. Have you read The Turner Diaries? That was not writtne for entertainment purposes.
That said despite the vile message, from a fiction standpoint it's NOT an unreadable book.

I remember being obsessed about reading it from the moment they spent a segment of the movie "Talk Radio" on the book, and even though I'm probably still on an FBI list 20 years later for ordering it from National Vanguard it was worth it.

[MG1962]

What I am concerned with is that there are lower life forms who would like to try it again. Have you read The Turner Diaries? That was not writtne for entertainment purposes. There are quasi-human beings who wouild like to act out that scenario, and have even made concrete efforts to do so (e.g., McVeigh, Richard Wayne Snell and Robert Matthews, may they burn in the most vile pit of hell.)

Should they rise up in force, I would feel it my duty to feed them a few Czech silvertips.

I will certainly not, in the mean time, remain silent when someone apologizes for or in any way tries to put a less malignant face on the Third Reich.

Yep - I could not have said it better myself. Fortunately the vast majority of the free world would be right there with you - Once, was one time too many

[leftysergeant]

I admit a special motivation to keep those fools down. There's a rope in it for me if they try to pull it off. There are three different racial components of my immediate family in my wife and son, my brother's wife and daughter, and my sister's husband.

Organization types don't take kindly to mixed families.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The Nazi party ideology was by act, deed and definition a form of fascism, not socialism.

Fascism and Socialism are first cousins, as with all political structures there are aspects that are the same; in this case few differences.

[Loss Leader]

Fascism and Socialism are first cousins, as with all political structures there are aspects that are the same; in this case few differences.


Here are some of those differences:

Fascism is a political system, socialism is an economic system.

Fascism favors whatever economics the supreme leader wants industry by industry and minute by minute, socialism favors socialism.

Fascism concentrates profits among the leadership, socialism distributes profits among the citizenry.

Nazi Germany was astonishingly capitalist with almost all major industries in private hands throughout the war, Nazi Germany was astonishingly not socialist with most of the citizenry being denied even basic goods in order to feed the war machine.

Fascism relies heavily upon a large and omnipresent military, socialism relies heavily upon the maximizing each person's labor potential far more than is done when a person is diverted into soldiering.

Fascism allows for the destruction of huge numbers of a nation's indigenous population for racist reasons, socialism attempts to maximize each person's labor potential by generally not killing them.

Fascism operates without regard to human rights, socialism is founded upon a respect for human rights.

People who know nothing of history shouldn't speak about it, people who refuse to do any research whatsoever should't speak about it either.

[SDC]

I am reminded of an ancient (Soviet, I believe) joke about the differences between communism and capitalism.

Under communism, man exploits man. Under capitalism, it's the other way around.

[Drudgewire]

Fascism and Socialism are first cousins
Well, they both have "ism" in their name. Otherwise this is spectacularly inaccurate.

[twinstead]

I always thought perhaps that Socialism and Communism are distant cousins, but fascism? I don't think so.

[Darat]

Of course the state the Nazi's actually set up was a totalitarian dictatorship but the underpinnings were of a fascist nature, and they used many aspects of a fascist ideology in their quest for power.

[Gravy]

Fascism and Socialism are first cousins, as with all political structures there are aspects that are the same; in this case few differences.My, oh, my. The things they teach at Troll Academy these days!

[AMTMAN]

I am reminded of an ancient (Soviet, I believe) joke about the differences between communism and capitalism.

Under communism, man exploits man. Under capitalism, it's the other way around.

Years ago I remember reading about a running joke in the former Soviet Union. "They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work".

[Elizabeth I]

All of this rests upon the supressed premises that: 1) Jewish advances since World War II are due to some sort of social guilt and not due to a generally increasing worldwide tolerance for religious diversity; and 2) that Jews have advanced far more than people realize and now run the world or something equally nuts.

No, no, no... have you forgotten? The official nutso line is that Jews secretly run the world and always have. All those bankers, investors, moneylenders...

[Drudgewire]

No, no, no... have you forgotten? The official nutso line is that Jews secretly run the world and always have. All those bankers, investors, moneylenders...
Not to mention the whole "Jesus thing" that certainly at least the Christian Identity members hold them responsible for. :p

[SpitfireIX]

What happened to the Jews?
Here is the answer from the experts.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p375_Desjardins.html


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[kageki]

A theoretical question for those participants of this thread denying the Holocaust:

Let's for the moment say the Holocaust didn't happen. What then does that mean we should think about the Nazi regime? Should it still be reviled for waging war on its neighbouring nations? Should it still be considered a grotesque entity for the brutal manner in which it occupied the nations it subjugated? Should the SS and Gestapo still be regarded as horrible and repugnant organizations? Is it still moral and correct for the Allies to have defeated the Third Reich?

Hello. Very interesting thread here.

These are great questions that have crossed my mind as well as I started looking more into our history. In many ways though it is a strange question that shows the incredible force of social conformity. You ask these questions simply because it is unfashionable to even hint that the Nazi regime could possibly have not been evil incarnate.

The point is that you shouldn't be asking these questions just to see what opinion or answer is acceptable. If you are truly interested in finding out the answer then the only recourse is to do research yourself, but since they are good questions in the context of this discussion I can add a little to it.


I can't post any links yet so a quick summary regarding pre-WWII conditions:

- Germany suffered a crushing defeat in WWI. Hitler blamed the Jews for the loss (there is some truth in this)

- Hitler felt the Treaty of Versaille was unfair. Most of Europe felt the same. Germany also lost some territory as a consequence.

- Hitler wanted revenge from WWI. Hitler wanted to rebuild and rearm Germany and to regain the lost territory.

- Hitler hated Communism. His plans for the east were to mainly stop the Soviet Communists.

Invasion of Poland

- Poles were killing Germans living in Poland. Hitler wanted to defend them.

- Hitler wanted to regain the lost territory to Poland.

- Hitler only invaded Poland after making a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. They made a deal to split up Poland between them. The Soviets also invaded Poland from the east.

- Hitler did not think the British and also the French were going to attack Germany when he invaded Poland. The British were appeasing Hitler up to that point. The British made a secret pact to defend Poland if Germany were to attack Poland. This is what made Poles cocky and were openly taunting Germany prior to the invasion.


While this is not meant to justify the Nazis, it is a good start in illustrating that we have not been told the whole story. I can discuss this further, but I'll leave it at that for now since this thread is about the Holocaust.

[The Atheist]

What I am concerned with is that there are lower life forms who would like to try it again.

I admit a special motivation to keep those fools down. There's a rope in it for me if they try to pull it off.

Seems a little paranoid to me - I haven't seen any signs of resurgent Nazism.

[Corsair 115]

The point is that you shouldn't be asking these questions just to see what opinion or answer is acceptable.The reason for asking the questions I did is because it often seems to me that the reason for denying the Holocaust is that it is an attempt to somehow make Hitler and the Nazi regime seem more palatable and less vile.

I wanted to know if the resident deniers here had that intent.

[SDC]

Hello. Very interesting thread here.

These are great questions that have crossed my mind as well as I started looking more into our history. In many ways though it is a strange question that shows the incredible force of social conformity. You ask these questions simply because it is unfashionable to even hint that the Nazi regime could possibly have not been evil incarnate.

The point is that you shouldn't be asking these questions just to see what opinion or answer is acceptable. If you are truly interested in finding out the answer then the only recourse is to do research yourself, but since they are good questions in the context of this discussion I can add a little to it.


I can't post any links yet so a quick summary regarding pre-WWII conditions:

- Germany suffered a crushing defeat in WWI. Hitler blamed the Jews for the loss (there is some truth in this)

- Hitler felt the Treaty of Versaille was unfair. Most of Europe felt the same. Germany also lost some territory as a consequence.

- Hitler wanted revenge from WWI. Hitler wanted to rebuild and rearm Germany and to regain the lost territory.

- Hitler hated Communism. His plans for the east were to mainly stop the Soviet Communists.

Invasion of Poland

- Poles were killing Germans living in Poland. Hitler wanted to defend them.

- Hitler wanted to regain the lost territory to Poland.

- Hitler only invaded Poland after making a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. They made a deal to split up Poland between them. The Soviets also invaded Poland from the east.

- Hitler did not think the British and also the French were going to attack Germany when he invaded Poland. The British were appeasing Hitler up to that point. The British made a secret pact to defend Poland if Germany were to attack Poland. This is what made Poles cocky and were openly taunting Germany prior to the invasion.


While this is not meant to justify the Nazis, it is a good start in illustrating that we have not been told the whole story. I can discuss this further, but I'll leave it at that for now since this thread is about the Holocaust.

Pfeh. Standard disingenuous Holocaust denier openers; just like the truther version, "Hey, I'm just asking questions." Here are a couple of comments. I'll comment on the points on which you are wrong. (No question that Germany felt wronged by Versailles, and some others felt so as well -- English popular opinion leaned to that side.)

You say: "there is some truth" in the Dolchstoss (stab in the back), by the Jews, legend of Germany's defeat in 1918. Nope. Wrong. No truth at all. Read some books, and I don't mean the likes o' Butz. Right now I'm reading Winkler's big book on Weimar Germany, a standard work.

You say: Hitler's main idea in the "wild east" was to stop communism. That was a factor, sure. So was Lebensraum, living room, the dream of creating a vast German colonial empire in the region. Poles, Czechs -- ooohh, did he hate Slavs! -- Russians, and others, were to be culturally "beheaded" (educated and upper classes destroyed) and enslaved, Roma/ Gypsies to be killed, etc.

You say: Poles were killing Germans. Nope. Wrong. Untrue.

You say: Poles were "cocky" and "openly taunting." Nope. Unless, "No, we aren't going to surrender" qualifies as that. And Britain's and France's guarantees to Poland were public knowledge -- they had to be, to be effective. While France had been allied with Poland for years, Britain gave up officially on appeasement after March 1939, when Hitler broke his promises (for the umpteenth time) and marched into rump (sic!) Czechoslovakia. Oh, you forgot to claim that the Czechs had been killing the Sudeten Germans. Come on, look at your cheat sheets! Do I have to remind you of everything?

Heck, are the Poles not allowed to be "cocky"? Any rule about that? Jeszcze Polska nie zginela, and I don't mean that in a nice way.

Crikey. What a lousy pack of ... incorrect statements.

[uk_dave]

- Poles were killing Germans living in Poland. Hitler wanted to defend them.


Really?



The British made a secret pact to defend Poland if Germany were to attack Poland.

Really?

[AMTMAN]

Invasion of Poland

- Poles were killing Germans living in Poland. Hitler wanted to defend them.

- Hitler wanted to regain the lost territory to Poland.

- Hitler only invaded Poland after making a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. They made a deal to split up Poland between them. The Soviets also invaded Poland from the east.

- Hitler did not think the British and also the French were going to attack Germany when he invaded Poland. The British were appeasing Hitler up to that point. The British made a secret pact to defend Poland if Germany were to attack Poland. This is what made Poles cocky and were openly taunting Germany prior to the invasion.


While this is not meant to justify the Nazis, it is a good start in illustrating that we have not been told the whole story. I can discuss this further, but I'll leave it at that for now since this thread is about the Holocaust.

Well it sounds like you are trying to do just that, justifying the invasion of Poland. Do you anything to back up your claims? I find it hard to believe that the Poles, with small army and obsolete air force compared to the Germans would taunt anyone. Speaking of the whole story did you know that Polish Army was still using calvary when the Germans invaded?

Is this one of your sources?

< http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm >

[SDC]

Well it sounds like you are trying to do just that, justifying the invasion of Poland. Do you anything to back up your claims? I find it hard to believe that the Poles, with small army and obsolete air force compared to the Germans would taunt anyone. Speaking of the whole story did you know that Polish Army was still using calvary when the Germans invaded?

Is this one of your sources?

< http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm >

I'll disagree on some of this. In fact, the Polish state was overconfident, as things proved, concerning its military preparation; though of course the French and British guarantees added to their confidence. The general view was that the French, in particular, could beat Germany. Relative to the actual, eventual balance of forces, with the Germans in the west and the Sovs in the east, Poland gave a far better showing than is often recognized. And in the war as a whole, the 4th-largest-Allied armed forces were the Polish one -- though distributed (by 1943-44) between British and Soviet leadership.

Co nam przemoc obca wziela, szabla odbierzymy, you know.

[Gravy]

Hello.Hello.

- Poles were killing Germans living in Poland. Hitler wanted to defend them.
These Germans the Poles were killing were known as the German Army, which invaded and occupied Poland and systematically slaughtered its civilian population.

[kageki]

The reason for asking the questions I did is because it often seems to me that the reason for denying the Holocaust is that it is an attempt to somehow make Hitler and the Nazi regime seem more palatable and less vile.

I wanted to know if the resident deniers here had that intent.

There is some truth to that as some of the deniers are white nationalists and sometimes gush about Hitler which is both wrong and biased, but the truth is also much murkier.

Isn't it also reasonable to say the Allied and the Jews attempt to make the Nazis more vile then they really were? Therefore have bias too?

Many of the allegations of Jewish survivors seem grossly exaggerated or completely fabricated. Burning babies alive? Did the Nazis really do that?

Why did the Nazis delouse prisoners with Zyklon B to stop the spread of typhus only to kill them later with the same gas? Some of it doesn't add up.

Closer analysis does seem to reveal that the Nazis weren't as evil as the Allied like us to believe, but still nowhere from innocent either. They did believe in purifying the Aryan race for instance and for the record considered Britain their Aryan cousins.

There shouldn't be some "intent" or bias. Only what really happened.

[AMTMAN]

I'll disagree on some of this. In fact, the Polish state was overconfident, as things proved, concerning its military preparation; though of course the French and British guarantees added to their confidence. The general view was that the French, in particular, could beat Germany. Relative to the actual, eventual balance of forces, with the Germans in the west and the Sovs in the east, Poland gave a far better showing than is often recognized. And in the war as a whole, the 4th-largest-Allied armed forces were the Polish one -- though distributed (by 1943-44) between British and Soviet leadership.

Co nam przemoc obca wziela, szabla odbierzymy, you know.

There is a difference between being overconfident and taunting a potential foe.

[Loss Leader]

My word, what an inauspicious beginning, Kageki. I don't think more than eleven words you posted were true. Have you studied World War II at all? I mean, have you studied anything not written by David Irving?


- Germany suffered a crushing defeat in WWI. Hitler blamed the Jews for the loss (there is some truth in this)


I have no doubt Hitler blamed the Jews for losing WWI. I have no doubt Hitler blamed the Jews for rain, sour milk and meteor showers. However, what truth is there that "the Jews" caused Germany to lose WWI? What truth is there that "the Jews" even acted as a cohesive bloc? And which Jews are you talking about - American, German, Polish? Why would Hitler blame the Polish Jews for Germany's inability to fight a two-front war?


Hitler felt the Treaty of Versaille was unfair. Most of Europe felt the same. Germany also lost some territory as a consequence.


I'm sure he felt everything that wasn't perfect for Germany was unfair. That was kind of his thing.


- Hitler wanted revenge from WWI. Hitler wanted to rebuild and rearm Germany and to regain the lost territory.


Revenge against whom? The mythical "Jews" who somehow caused Germany to lose by hoping really hard? Germany started a simultanious two-front war for, basically, no reason. Why is that anyone's fault but Germany's?


Hitler hated Communism. His plans for the east were to mainly stop the Soviet Communists.


If by "stop Soviet Communists" you mean "kill every man, woman and child from the German/Polish border to the Pacific Ocean," I agree with you. Somehow on his way to rid the world of Communism, he managed to kill eleven million civilians and set up death camps to liquidate the entire Jewish population of Poland. If Communism was his main goal, he sure wasted a lot of resources before getting at it.


Poles were killing Germans living in Poland. Hitler wanted to defend them.


I thought Hitler wanted to get through Poland to wipe out Soviet Communists. Which one was it?


Hitler wanted to regain the lost territory to Poland.


And some other choice pieces of real estate as well.


Hitler only invaded Poland after making a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. They made a deal to split up Poland between them. The Soviets also invaded Poland from the east.


Um, what? Didn't you say Hitler was trying to wipe out Societ Communism? Why would the fact that Germany and Russia made a deal to split Poland be any defense of the German invasion of Poland if Hitler's plan was to race through Poland and stab the Russians in the back as quickly as possible?


Hitler did not think the British and also the French were going to attack Germany when he invaded Poland. The British were appeasing Hitler up to that point. The British made a secret pact to defend Poland if Germany were to attack Poland. This is what made Poles cocky and were openly taunting Germany prior to the invasion.


Have you been drinking?


I can discuss this further.


Not intelligently, you can't.

[Gravy]

Isn't it also reasonable to say the Allied and the Jews attempt to make the Nazis more vile then they really were? Therefore have bias too?No.

Closer analysis does seem to reveal that the Nazis weren't as evil as the Allied like us to believe, but still nowhere from innocent either. No. Closer analysis reveals that the Nazis were more evil than any history book can convey.

Link not safe for work: http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/images/dartmouth/DachauBodiesApril_45.jpg

Time to get informed, kageki. http://www.nizkor.org/

[funk de fino]

There is some truth to that as some of the deniers are white nationalists and sometimes gush about Hitler which is both wrong and biased, but the truth is also much murkier.

Isn't it also reasonable to say the Allied and the Jews attempt to make the Nazis more vile then they really were? Therefore have bias too?

Many of the allegations of Jewish survivors seem grossly exaggerated or completely fabricated. Burning babies alive? Did the Nazis really do that?

Why did the Nazis delouse prisoners with Zyklon B to stop the spread of typhus only to kill them later with the same gas? Some of it doesn't add up.

Closer analysis does seem to reveal that the Nazis weren't as evil as the Allied like us to believe, but still nowhere from innocent either. They did believe in purifying the Aryan race for instance and for the record considered Britain their Aryan cousins.

There shouldn't be some "intent" or bias. Only what really happened.

What about the ones from the German survivors who admitted it all?

So my grandfather was lying then?

[SDC]

There is some truth to that as some of the deniers are white nationalists and sometimes gush about Hitler which is both wrong and biased, but the truth is also much murkier.

Isn't it also reasonable to say the Allied and the Jews attempt to make the Nazis more vile then they really were? Therefore have bias too?

Many of the allegations of Jewish survivors seem grossly exaggerated or completely fabricated. Burning babies alive? Did the Nazis really do that?

Why did the Nazis delouse prisoners with Zyklon B to stop the spread of typhus only to kill them later with the same gas? Some of it doesn't add up.

Closer analysis does seem to reveal that the Nazis weren't as evil as the Allied like us to believe, but still nowhere from innocent either. They did believe in purifying the Aryan race for instance and for the record considered Britain their Aryan cousins.

There shouldn't be some "intent" or bias. Only what really happened.

Gather 'round, folks! Many of those present are experts on the standard, sidling, crab-wise approach that truthers like to employ; "I'm just asking questions;" "Shouldn't we all be unbiased;" and so on and so forth which you all know well.

Well, we are now seeing the standard, sidling, crab-wise approach of the Holocaust denier types. The "truth is murkier...;" could the Nazis really have used Zyklon-B for killing when it could also be used for lice (which was, incidentally, a standard Nazi image of the Jews). Etc. etc.

I've often wondered. Do Holocaust deniers work from particular scripts? Do they draw on the same Web sites or books? Do they know that Hitler's last nephews live in obscurity (or did till recently, at least) in the greater NY area?

Oh yeah, he's right about one thing. The Nazis regarded the British as their racial cousins and were very annoyed that, with some exceptions (certain aristocratic families, and street fascists gathered around Mosley -- though he modelled himself more on Mussolini), the British were singularly uninterested. See Gerwin Strobl, "The Germanic Isle," a very good book.

[kageki]

There is a difference between being overconfident and taunting a potential foe.

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." He threatened to overrun Germany in three days.

Rydz Smigly

?

[AMTMAN]

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." He threatened to overrun Germany in three days.

Rydz Smigly

?

Source please. And if you have a source that is not from some hate monger web site does this justify the Germans invading Poland?

[kageki]

What about the ones from the German survivors who admitted it all?

So my grandfather was lying then?

I like to seriously start collecting all these stories since everyone seems to know a survivor.

What did your grandfather say exactly? What did they exactly witness?

Sure the Nazis did seem to round up the Jews and seemed to use them mostly for forced labor to produce goods during the war.

Nazis seemed to be rather elaborate with their executions at camp. Going so far as to disguise a gas chamber as showers and have 12 orchestras throughout the camps which mainly consisted of Jewish prisoners only to fool the prisoners about the executions?

Again why did they bother to delouse and tattoo the prisoners only to execute them?

As for the Jews, the Transfer Agreement between the Nazis and Zionists seem to reveal the main plan for Jews was to deport them eventually to Palestine.

[SDC]

"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." He threatened to overrun Germany in three days.

Rydz Smigly

?

Source it, please. And in the original -- which could be Polish or French, that being the standard diplomatic language of the day. My French is mediocre, but I can translate the Polish fine if you will only provide it. Actually, I'll take the German, too. R-S was in the Polish Legion in WWI, which fought in the Austro-Hungarian army, so he probably spoke at least some German.

Alternatively, you can provide a reputable historian, who is not David Irving. I loved how, in the little poem he would recite to his daughter(s?), he rhymed "Aryan," and "Rastafarian." Don't you? Or do you think it was just a leeeeeeettle bit over the top?

And so what, anyhow? It was the Germans who invaded Poland. Edward Rydz-Smigly (also known, honest to god, as Edward Smigly-Rydz), was far from the brightest bulb in the box despite his leadership of the Polish state.

[SDC]

There is a difference between being overconfident and taunting a potential foe.

You're right. I shouldn't have spoken as I did.

[Gravy]

Again why did they bother to delouse and tattoo the prisoners only to execute them? Time to get informed, kageki. Will you? http://www.nizkor.org/

[AMTMAN]

You're right. I shouldn't have spoken as I did.

No biggie. I knew the point you were trying to make.

[SDC]

I like to seriously start collecting all these stories since everyone seems to know a survivor.

What did your grandfather say exactly? What did they exactly witness?

Sure the Nazis did seem to round up the Jews and seemed to use them mostly for forced labor to produce goods during the war.

Nazis seemed to be rather elaborate with their executions at camp. Going so far as to disguise a gas chamber as showers and have 12 orchestras throughout the camps which mainly consisted of Jewish prisoners only to fool the prisoners about the executions?

Again why did they bother to delouse and tattoo the prisoners only to execute them?

As for the Jews, the Transfer Agreement between the Nazis and Zionists seem to reveal the main plan for Jews was to deport them eventually to Palestine.

Poppycock. You aren't even up to Atrain's level. Please check your cheat sheets! Don't you have any, well, self-respect? Don't you want to make a good showing? Don't you want to make converts?

Yes, I've met survivors, and I've seen the numbers. No close relations though there were some among my European cousins, who moved after the war to Israel. Most survivors, and most WW2 vets are dead now, of course. Remember -- last year? -- the guy who tried to kidnap Eli Wiesel in a hotel and force him to reveal the "truth"?

Edit: I believe the man who was tattooed #1 is, or was till recently, still alive in Poland and active in Auschwitz survivors activities -- a Polish Christian, not a Jew. How do you feel about the 100 thousand or so Polish Christians who were killed at Auschwitz, by the way?

[Darat]

...snip...

Oh yeah, he's right about one thing. The Nazis regarded the British as their racial cousins and were very annoyed that, with some exceptions (certain aristocratic families, and street fascists gathered around Mosley -- though he modelled himself more on Mussolini), the British were singularly uninterested. See Gerwin Strobl, "The Germanic Isle," a very good book.

It's a sad fact that until quite late on Hitler had the support of many influential British people, infamously the owner of the Daily Mail supported Hitler until Britain declared war with Germany.

In 1933 he published this editorial in his newspaper


I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful distracters of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia.

They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call "Nazi atrocities" which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny.

The German nation, moreover, was rapidly falling under the control of its alien elements. In the last days of the pre-Hitler regime there were twenty times as many Jewish Government officials in Germany as had existed before the war. Israelites of international attachments were insinuating themselves into key positions in the German administrative machine. Three German Ministers only had direct relations with the Press, but in each case the official responsible for conveying news and interpreting policy to the public was a Jew.

[funk de fino]

I like to seriously start collecting all these stories since everyone seems to know a survivor.

What did your grandfather say exactly? What did they exactly witness?

he is dead

Sure the Nazis did seem to round up the Jews and seemed to use them mostly for forced labor to produce goods during the war.

Nazis seemed to be rather elaborate with their executions at camp. Going so far as to disguise a gas chamber as showers and have 12 orchestras throughout the camps which mainly consisted of Jewish prisoners only to fool the prisoners about the executions?

Again why did they bother to delouse and tattoo the prisoners only to execute them?

Why not research it from an openminded point of view? Instead of asking stupid uniformed questions.

As for the Jews, the Transfer Agreement between the Nazis and Zionists seem to reveal the main plan for Jews was to deport them eventually to Palestine.

What was left of them perhaps?

My grandfather was a british soldier who served nearly all the war in a german POW camp. He said they were the most evil scum he had ever seen. His word is good enough for me.

[Loss Leader]

I like to seriously start collecting all these stories since everyone seems to know a survivor.


No need to. These people (http://college.usc.edu/vhi/) have already started collecting eyewitness testimonies for you. Of course, they've only managed to to film 50,657 of them, so that might not be sufficient proof for you.

[AMTMAN]

It's a sad fact that until quite late on Hitler had the support of many influential British people, infamously the owner of the Daily Mail supported Hitler until Britain declared war with Germany.

In 1933 he published this editorial in his newspaper

This is a bit off topic but there was a woman MP who was part of this group. Naturally she did not get along with Winston Churchill. She once told him "Sir, if you were my husband I would put poison in your tea". Chruchill being master of one liners replied "Madam, if I were your husband I would drink it." :D

[AMTMAN]

Is it me or does anyone else have the sneaking suspicion that one of our holocaust deniers has a new profile?

[SDC]

My grandfather was a british soldier who served nearly all the war in a german POW camp. He said they were the most evil scum he had ever seen. His word is good enough for me.

My father-in-law was captured in early 1945, near Strasbourg, a 20 year old Jewish kid from Detroit; company medic. He was shipped to a POW camp where the oldtimers were British captured in 1940 or 1941. And of course the prisoners basically ran the inner workings of the camp; standard procedure. The British oldtimers made sure that no Jewish soldiers were ever sent out on work details, because typically they were "shot while trying to escape." He never talked about his experiences till I became his first son-in-law (no sons, 4 daughters), in 1978. But I always felt they had helped keep him alive, and his family is grateful.

And then, of course, there was the day the American air force bombed the POW camp and almost killed him ...

[Nick Terry]

There is some truth to that as some of the deniers are white nationalists and sometimes gush about Hitler which is both wrong and biased, but the truth is also much murkier.

Isn't it also reasonable to say the Allied and the Jews attempt to make the Nazis more vile then they really were? Therefore have bias too?

Many of the allegations of Jewish survivors seem grossly exaggerated or completely fabricated. Burning babies alive? Did the Nazis really do that?

Why did the Nazis delouse prisoners with Zyklon B to stop the spread of typhus only to kill them later with the same gas? Some of it doesn't add up.

Closer analysis does seem to reveal that the Nazis weren't as evil as the Allied like us to believe, but still nowhere from innocent either. They did believe in purifying the Aryan race for instance and for the record considered Britain their Aryan cousins.

There shouldn't be some "intent" or bias. Only what really happened.

wie es eigentlich gewesen war...;)

But that's precisely how it is within history, which is the only yardstick worth applying here. The field of research into the Third Reich, WWII and the Holocaust is one of the most internationalised there is; Germans, Americans, Brits, pretty much all other European nationalities, all checking each others' work and rectifying inevitable national biases.

All this scholarship shows that the Nazis were more murderous than any other regime in European history, more murderous than Stalin (yes, fact fans, Dolfy pips Uncle Joe to the post there) and more widely murderous than anyone else, too. This gives about 25+ countries in modern Europe an especially good reason to remember Dolfy. Most particularly in Eastern Europe, where the Nazis ran amok murdering millions of Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians.

As for the warmed-over denier canards

1) burning babies alive: there are multiple eyewitness accounts to this effect. By standards dating back to the Romans, we can conclude that this was probably the case, on rare occasions. Funnily enough this is not a detail that is regularly mentioned in conventional history books, since it's simply gross.

It's also utterly peripheral to the real issue, which is how the SS organised mass murder on a routine basis, since this was an exceptional event, not the norm. The witness evidence says that this happened for a certain period in 1944, number of times unknown, because there were difficulties (shortages of gas, space in the gas chamber, too few people arriving to be gassed economically).

Frankly, whether or not that detail happened is irrelevant. At best, you have a possible embellishment, not a key detail whose possible falsity (note, possible, since all you're doing is bringing argument to personal incredulity to the table here) would negate the totality of a witness account.

2) The 'doesn't add up' wiffle about Zyklon and delousing is pure ignorance of the circumstances. The SS got the inspiration for one kind of gas chambers from the T4 euthanasia program, and indeed transferred experienced personnel from German euthanasia institutes to Poland, to run death-camps such as Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor. So this had nothing to do with delousing at all.

Second, delousing facilities never used Zyklon B on people, because, duuuh, it's incredibly lethal. HCN was used to kill lice in clothing; people would be separated from their clothing and then sent via a separate route into showers, then reunited with their freshly deloused clothing afterwards. This happened to millions of people, including Wehrmacht soldiers, Ostarbeiter, other foreign workers, and KZ inmates.

The inspiration to use Zyklon B at Auschwitz most certainly originated from its use as a delousing agent, but that speaks to the logic of the development, not to its 'not adding up'. Furthermore, Zyklon B was first used to kill people in an experiment on Soviet commissars and sick Polish camp inmates. These people had to die, the Auschwitz camp staff thought they'd try something different that was potentially less messy than mass shootings (which tend to grind an Uebermensch down after a while, they found).

:boggled:

Anyway, time for you to put your cards on the table: what are the sources for your so far unsourced hearsay opinions?

[leftysergeant]

Hello. Very interesting thread here.

These are great questions that have crossed my mind as well as I started looking more into our history. In many ways though it is a strange question that shows the incredible force of social conformity. You ask these questions simply because it is unfashionable to even hint that the Nazi regime could possibly have not been evil incarnate.

"Evil incarnate" is a rather strange term. The typical sheep following Hitler probably had no immediate intention of committing evil, but the over-all design was about as evil as a "human" gorvernment can become. And being evil was by no means a disqualification for membershipp in even the innermost circles of power in the party. Ultimately, many of the actions of the party and of the state they created were unspeakably evil. Mass exterminations and enslavement of entire peoples are just not defensible.

The point is that you shouldn't be asking these questions just to see what opinion or answer is acceptable.

"Hitler was not as bad as he is made out to be" is not an acceptable answer among civilized human beings. He was about as evil as any major world leader has ever been. Stalin is a distant third, right after Pol Pot.

Germany suffered a crushing defeat in WWI. Hitler blamed the Jews for the loss (there is some truth in this)

I would say that the defeat was more a result of the hubris of the German leadership. The Jews may not have supported the war effort as much as the ethnic Germans would have liked, but, then, the war was not really a good idea to begin with.

Hitler felt the Treaty of Versaille was unfair. Most of Europe felt the same. Germany also lost some territory as a consequence.

- Hitler wanted revenge from WWI. Hitler wanted to rebuild and rearm Germany and to regain the lost territory.

Half-point for the first part. The treaty sucked and was driven by the baser instincts of the victors. Life is hard. Deal with it. As for the lost territory, it was taken by force of arms to begin with, so that does not justify taking more by force of arms. Hitler's vision was of Germany taking what the Germans felt they deserved, but they clearly deserved none of it, especially in the Steppes.

Hitler hated Communism. His plans for the east were to mainly stop the Soviet Communists.

That's another half-truth. His plans for the east mostly involved making it a supply of wheat, harvested by Russian and Ukrainian and Polish peons, for the German tables.

Poles were killing Germans living in Poland. Hitler wanted to defend them.

I have seen no indication of this other than in sources totally apologetic for the Nazis. There were actually a few false-flag operations staged to make it appear to be true to justify the invasion.

Hitler wanted to regain the lost territory to Poland.

And he had no right to do so. The Polish people had just been freed from a couple centuries of oppression by non-Polish nations.

Hitler only invaded Poland after making a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. They made a deal to split up Poland between them. The Soviets also invaded Poland from the east.[/QUOTE}

Stalin signed the non-aggression treaty mostly to allow himself time to build up the Red Army. Much Soviet equipment used in the initial battles was manufactured in Germany or with steel imported from Germany. Germany needed the wheat that they got in exchange to feed their armies on the western front.

[QUOTE]Hitler did not think the British and also the French were going to attack Germany when he invaded Poland. The British were appeasing Hitler up to that point. The British made a secret pact to defend Poland if Germany were to attack Poland. This is what made Poles cocky and were openly taunting Germany prior to the invasion.

There is nothing wrong with a newly-liberated nation taking pride in their national identity as long as they stay within their own boarders. There was never any chance of a successful polish invasion and occupation of Germany. Thus, there was nothing defensive about the invasion.

While this is not meant to justify the Nazis, it is a good start in illustrating that we have not been told the whole story. I can discuss this further, but I'll leave it at that for now since this thread is about the Holocaust.

We have been told all of what we need to know about the Germany rationale for the war. They were wrong. Their rationale does nothing to make those who would paint Hitler in a less malignant light any less evil.

[beachnut]

Isn't it also reasonable to say the Allied and the Jews attempt to make the Nazis more vile then they really were? Therefore have bias too?

No, NAZIs did it. You have been exposed to stupid ideas and you are actually letting your ignorance show.

If you want to make up cute ideas about NAZIs and other murdering scum, have at it. It just makes you look like a dumb as dirt NeoNAZI idiot.

[kageki]

wie es eigentlich gewesen war...;)

But that's precisely how it is within history, which is the only yardstick worth applying here. The field of research into the Third Reich, WWII and the Holocaust is one of the most internationalised there is; Germans, Americans, Brits, pretty much all other European nationalities, all checking each others' work and rectifying inevitable national biases.

All this scholarship shows that the Nazis were more murderous than any other regime in European history, more murderous than Stalin (yes, fact fans, Dolfy pips Uncle Joe to the post there) and more widely murderous than anyone else, too. This gives about 25+ countries in modern Europe an especially good reason to remember Dolfy. Most particularly in Eastern Europe, where the Nazis ran amok murdering millions of Poles, Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians.

As for the warmed-over denier canards

1) burning babies alive: there are multiple eyewitness accounts to this effect. By standards dating back to the Romans, we can conclude that this was probably the case, on rare occasions. Funnily enough this is not a detail that is regularly mentioned in conventional history books, since it's simply gross.

It's also utterly peripheral to the real issue, which is how the SS organised mass murder on a routine basis, since this was an exceptional event, not the norm. The witness evidence says that this happened for a certain period in 1944, number of times unknown, because there were difficulties (shortages of gas, space in the gas chamber, too few people arriving to be gassed economically).

Frankly, whether or not that detail happened is irrelevant. At best, you have a possible embellishment, not a key detail whose possible falsity (note, possible, since all you're doing is bringing argument to personal incredulity to the table here) would negate the totality of a witness account.

2) The 'doesn't add up' wiffle about Zyklon and delousing is pure ignorance of the circumstances. The SS got the inspiration for one kind of gas chambers from the T4 euthanasia program, and indeed transferred experienced personnel from German euthanasia institutes to Poland, to run death-camps such as Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor. So this had nothing to do with delousing at all.

Second, delousing facilities never used Zyklon B on people, because, duuuh, it's incredibly lethal. HCN was used to kill lice in clothing; people would be separated from their clothing and then sent via a separate route into showers, then reunited with their freshly deloused clothing afterwards. This happened to millions of people, including Wehrmacht soldiers, Ostarbeiter, other foreign workers, and KZ inmates.

The inspiration to use Zyklon B at Auschwitz most certainly originated from its use as a delousing agent, but that speaks to the logic of the development, not to its 'not adding up'. Furthermore, Zyklon B was first used to kill people in an experiment on Soviet commissars and sick Polish camp inmates. These people had to die, the Auschwitz camp staff thought they'd try something different that was potentially less messy than mass shootings (which tend to grind an Uebermensch down after a while, they found).

:boggled:

Anyway, time for you to put your cards on the table: what are the sources for your so far unsourced hearsay opinions?

No I don't believe that is precise history. History is largely dependent on interpretation with possible false evidence and hearsay. Ironing out the real details is precisely what historians do and what discussions are for.

Nazis more murderous then Stalin and anyone else? Really? I haven't heard that anywhere when the figures seems to show otherwise. Are you not biased?


Possible embelisment or gross exaggeration? It is pertinent to know these exact details as it's quite relevant on getting an accurate portrayal of the Nazis or shall I say Germans?



So which is it? Was Zyklon B used to kill humans or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

The scenario you described is probably exactly what happened. They were never sent to the showers disguised as gas chambers to be killed. They were sent to the showers... You do realize you are contradicting witness testimonies?

Why did they still bother to delouse prisoners?

Records seem to indicate that there weren't enough Zyklon B gas for mass executions. Since they had VX nerve gas lying around, why didn't they use that instead?

Lastly, I do believe the revisionists have a point where they say it was impossible to carry out mass extermination using gas given the conditions explained by witness testimonies.

If the gas is so lethal then Sonderkommandos would have needed full body suits which they didn't.

[Myriad]

How can there be any question about how evil the Nazis were? They're so evil that when they opened the Ark of the Covenant, it melted their ******* heads! Seriously, glowing holy-ghost-assassins flew out of God's own humidor and melted the Nazis' heads. God's judgment, right there. End of story.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[robinson]

It must be true, I saw it in a movie.

[The Atheist]

Is it me or does anyone else have the sneaking suspicion that one of our holocaust deniers has a new profile?

What difference does it make? They all have the same indoctrination, the same heroes, the same links, the same lies.

[leftysergeant]

The delousing process consisted of shaving off every bit of hair and a hot shower. This was done to keep the healthy persons capable of performing useful labor alive long enough to starve to death and to prevent a pandemic of typhus in the German factories where they were sent to be worked to death. It was more for the well-being of the Germans than for that of their prisoners/slaves. Those not deemed capable of working had to be disposed of somehow.

The Nazis were not at all hesitant to kill off Germans who didn't measure up to minimal standards of mental competancy. Why then, should they have any reservations against killing individuals they considered "a race, but not a human race" when they were ecconomicly useless and a strain on resources?

Look again at the pictures of the Jewish corpses and the survivors. Not a one of them seems to have an ounce of body fat to spare. That takes prolonged starvation. Clearly, there was more than adequate food available to keep the German people and Allied POWs alive, but not the Jews. That there were still ethnic Germans being born proves that there was food available, despite the ravages of war. Below a certain percentage of body fat, women stop ovulating. The Germans weren't so mal-nourished that they could not have kept the internees alive ...had they given a rat's about jewish lives.

[Nick Terry]

No I don't believe that is precise history. History is largely dependent on interpretation with possible false evidence and hearsay. Ironing out the real details is precisely what historians do and what discussions are for.


The "real details" have long been established. You are displaying the woo-ful tendency to confuse part with whole, detail with totality and periphery with centre.


Nazis more murderous then Stalin and anyone else? Really? I haven't heard that anywhere when the figures seems to show otherwise. Are you not biased?


No, I'm not biased since I read both Russian and German, have studied both sets of documents pertaining to the bodycounts and have formed a reasoned conclusion based on these documents that the Stalinist regime murdered fewer people than the Nazi regime.

Possible embelisment or gross exaggeration? It is pertinent to know these exact details as it's quite relevant on getting an accurate portrayal of the Nazis or shall I say Germans?

No, in this case you should say the Auschwitz SS, a tiny minority of 'Nazis' and an even tinier minority of Germans. You're betraying your own biases by conflating an entire people with the activities of small minorities in uniform, acting under orders and while drunk on racist ideology.

An embellishment is an exaggeration, by the way. What you have not done is established that this is either.


So which is it? Was Zyklon B used to kill humans or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself.


No, I am not contradicting myself because you are falling for an either/or fallacy and trying to pretend that things must be solely one or the other. There are many dual-purpose devices and phenomena in the world. An axe can be used either to chop down wood or to knock someone's head off. Likewise the chemicals that make up fertiliser can be used either to fertilise agricultural land or to form the basis for a bomb.


The scenario you described is probably exactly what happened. They were never sent to the showers disguised as gas chambers to be killed. They were sent to the showers...


OK, so now it all comes out. You're a denier. Please inform us all which revisionists you derived this nonsense from. Leuchter? Rudolf? Faurisson? Tell us so we can have a good laugh.

You do realize you are contradicting witness testimonies?

Waaait a minute, a moment ago you were trying to poison the well and cast doubt on witness testimonies because of a peripheral detail mentioned by some witnesses in one camp regarding one moment of time... and now you have the cheek to claim *I* am contradicting witness testimonies?

Why did they still bother to delouse prisoners?

The selection principle is where almost all deniers fall down. The logic was very simple. If you were arbeitsfaehig (fit for work) then you were selected for work and entered into Auschwitz. If you were arbeitsunfaehig (unfit for work) then you were selected for immediate extermination.

The bigger question is: why would a cynical totalitarian regime not kill those it deemed to be unfit for work and without any possibility of becoming fit for work, such as the elderly and small children, the crippled and chronically sick?

While in the camp, those selected for work received (poor) rations, (poor) access to medical care, (poor) access to sanitation, including delousing of their clothing.

Were any of these inmates to become arbeitsunfaehig, they would be selected for the gas chamber and killed. Then new arrivals would replace them. Human life and what Marx called labour power were cheap, indeed had been devalued.

This is so well known as to beggar belief that not one denier I have ever encountered grasps the simple utiliarian logic of the system.

Records seem to indicate that there weren't enough Zyklon B gas for mass executions.

No, records indicate there was in fact more than sufficient HCN for this person. Read Robert Van Pelt's report for the Irving trial which is online, he discusses this among other themes.

Since they had VX nerve gas lying around, why didn't they use that instead?

Where to start? How many ways can we count the woo here?

Firstly, nerve gas was developed by the German Armed Forces and was a military chemical weapon. The SS did not have access to sarin and tabun.

Second, nerve gas, unlike cyanide, requires full noddy-suit protection and is lethal through the skin. It is super-toxic, and remains so for much longer than other chemical weapons of the WWI generation (which thus includes HCN). Traces of nerve gas which find their way to the undersides of fences can remain poisonous for a very long time.

Third, the SS had easy access to cyanide. Why mess with something that they found worked?

By the way, how many people do you think that we, the normal sane non-revisionists, think were murdered using Zyklon B as opposed to other means?

Lastly, I do believe the revisionists have a point where they say it was impossible to carry out mass extermination using gas given the conditions explained by witness testimonies.

No, they don't. Leuchter doesn't, Lueftl doesn't, Faurisson doesn't, Rudolf doesn't, and nor do any of the other [rule10]holes

If the gas is so lethal then Sonderkommandos would have needed full body suits which they didn't.

That would apply to nerve gas, which you just tried to argue was somehow superior to cyanide - 'why didn't they use that instead?'

DOOOOOOOHHHH!

OSHA publishes a neat little chart showing how many ppm of cyanide is lethal and how many can be tolerated for short periods. Guess what, simply opening the doors of a gas chamber and letting natural air circulation remove the gas, while wearing a gas mask and no other protection, is quite sufficient.

Otherwise, you're now arguing that every time anyone conducted a HCN fumigation in a delousing chamber, that they required special protection over and above a gas mask. Guess what? they didn't need such protection. Otherwise not one delousing of clothing could ever have taken place. There is no functional difference between a delousing and a gassing for those carrying it out.

So that's your argument screwed.

[milesalpha]

Hello. Very interesting thread here.

These are great questions that have crossed my mind as well as I started looking more into our history. In many ways though it is a strange question that shows the incredible force of social conformity. You ask these questions simply because it is unfashionable to even hint that the Nazi regime could possibly have not been evil incarnate.

The point is that you shouldn't be asking these questions just to see what opinion or answer is acceptable. If you are truly interested in finding out the answer then the only recourse is to do research yourself, but since they are good questions in the context of this discussion I can add a little to it.

Sorry people, I left this onscreen too long and others shredded this summary already
I can't post any links yet so a quick summary regarding pre-WWII conditions:

- Germany suffered a crushing defeat in WWI. Hitler blamed the Jews for the loss (there is some truth in this)

- Hitler felt the Treaty of Versaille was unfair. Most of Europe felt the same. Germany also lost some territory as a consequence.

- Hitler wanted revenge from WWI. Hitler wanted to rebuild and rearm Germany and to regain the lost territory.

- Hitler hated Communism. His plans for the east were to mainly stop the Soviet Communists.

Invasion of Poland

- Poles were killing Germans living in Poland. Hitler wanted to defend them.

- Hitler wanted to regain the lost territory to Poland.

- Hitler only invaded Poland after making a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. They made a deal to split up Poland between them. The Soviets also invaded Poland from the east.

- Hitler did not think the British and also the French were going to attack Germany when he invaded Poland. The British were appeasing Hitler up to that point. The British made a secret pact to defend Poland if Germany were to attack Poland. This is what made Poles cocky and were openly taunting Germany prior to the invasion.


While this is not meant to justify the Nazis, it is a good start in illustrating that we have not been told the whole story. I can discuss this further, but I'll leave it at that for now since this thread is about the Holocaust.


Your summary is appalling.

There is no truth to the Jews being to blame for Germany's loss in WWI. The German General staff had conned the Kaiser right to the end, and simply walked away from the whole thing in November 1918.

Hitler felt the treaty was unfair, welcome to losing a world war. Take time to examine the conditions that Germany forced Russia to accept in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1917.

Germany lost very little territory due to Versailles. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to the French and Danzig went to Poland. Their few colonies were insignificant. Other than that is was some tiny slivers to the Czechs and Poles. By European standards that's pretty minute, especially when the scope of the war is considered. Austria-Hungary fared much worse. By the time of Poland, Hitler had regained all the territories except Alsace-Lorraine and Danzig.

Hitler looked east for "lebensraum", it didn't matter what nation was there. Hitler hated communism true, he also hated democracy.

Poland

Hitler had been formenting dissent in Danzig for some time. Poland was next on his hit list. The Poles attempted to negotiate a solution but Hitler, as per usual, upped the ante any time an agreement was close.

A port city is what he wanted back, hardly an excuse for war.

The attack on Poland was inevitable, regardless of the treaty with the Soviet Union, it was simply gravy (no pun intended).

Hitler was warned that Britain and France would likely go to war over Poland. He decided to follow the advice of the rather stupid Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop on the matter. Appeasement was long over, and Britain and France had been agressively rearming at this point. Secret pact? Their guarantee of Polish sovereignty made all the papers, and Chamberlain reminded Hitler of it several times. The Polish government was certainly disliked within Europe, once again hardly a reason for war.

You would fail a first year World History course with this kind of stuff, let alone any class that goes into depth on Nazi Germany. I really advise you to do some serious reading, you are not in a position to discuss this currently.

[Darat]

No I don't believe that is precise history. History is largely dependent on interpretation with possible false evidence and hearsay. Ironing out the real details is precisely what historians do and what discussions are for.

...snip...

Yes it is indeed what historians do however after many decades of extensive research the consensus is pretty clear about the atrocities of WWII, at best there is still discussion about very small details and interpretations of motives not actions.

[leftysergeant]

This is a bit off topic but there was a woman MP who was part of this group. Naturally she did not get along with Winston Churchill. She once told him "Sir, if you were my husband I would put poison in your tea". Chruchill being master of one liners replied "Madam, if I were your husband I would drink it." :D

Ah, yes, Lady Astor, right? I didn't know until now the root of their dislike for each other. And she was the butt of some of Churchill's best jokes:

L.A.: You, sir, are quite drunk.

W.C.: And you, madam, are quite ugly. However, by morning, I shall be quite sober.

[kageki]

The delousing process consisted of shaving off every bit of hair and a hot shower. This was done to keep the healthy persons capable of performing useful labor alive long enough to starve to death and to prevent a pandemic of typhus in the German factories where they were sent to be worked to death. It was more for the well-being of the Germans than for that of their prisoners/slaves. Those not deemed capable of working had to be disposed of somehow.

The Nazis were not at all hesitant to kill off Germans who didn't measure up to minimal standards of mental competancy. Why then, should they have any reservations against killing individuals they considered "a race, but not a human race" when they were ecconomicly useless and a strain on resources?

Look again at the pictures of the Jewish corpses and the survivors. Not a one of them seems to have an ounce of body fat to spare. That takes prolonged starvation. Clearly, there was more than adequate food available to keep the German people and Allied POWs alive, but not the Jews. That there were still ethnic Germans being born proves that there was food available, despite the ravages of war. Below a certain percentage of body fat, women stop ovulating. The Germans weren't so mal-nourished that they could not have kept the internees alive ...had they given a rat's about jewish lives.

First this illustrates that the Jews were not entirely exclusive to the Holocaust. The Nazis got rid of anyone they deemed undesirable. Not just because you were a Jew.

But did they really want to work and starve them to death? Your comments also slightly disprove the official story that it was a death camp. It was primarily a labor camp to produce goods necessary during war.

How do you know exactly those corpses were all Jews to begin with? The camps were ravaged with disease like Typhus and there was massive food shortages and resources due to the Allied bombing campaign. It does seem to make sense the Germans would rather save themselves first before anyone else when there were not enough food to go around to everyone.

Oh but they also saved the Allied POWs??


I am not allowed yet to post links, but this testimony comes from the Nuremburg trial (Nuremberg document NO-1523.)


SS chief Heinrich Himmler, who was ultimately in charge of the concentration camp system, was so concerned about the high death rate due to disease that he issued an emphatically worded order in December 1942 to improve the nutrition of the inmates and take all necessary measures to reduce the death rate.

[Darat]

First this illustrates that the Jews were not entirely exclusive to the Holocaust. The Nazis got rid of anyone they deemed undesirable. Not just because you were a Jew.

...snip...



And exactly how does this make them not as bad as if they only singled out people that they decided were Jews?

[beachnut]

First this illustrates that the Jews were not entirely exclusive to the Holocaust. The Nazis got rid of anyone they deemed undesirable. Not just because you were a Jew.

But did they really want to work and starve them to death? Your comments also slightly disprove the official story that it was a death camp. It was primarily a labor camp to produce goods necessary during war.

How do you know exactly those corpses were all Jews to begin with? The camps were ravaged with disease like Typhus and there was massive food shortages and resources due to the Allied bombing campaign. It does seem to make sense the Germans would rather save themselves first before anyone else when there were not enough food to go around to everyone.

Oh but they also saved the Allied POWs??


I am not allowed yet to post links, but this testimony comes from the Nuremburg trial (Nuremberg document NO-1523.)
Heinrich Himmler, great source. Are all your posts full of dumb stuff?

[kageki]

Heinrich Himmler, great source. Are all your posts full of dumb stuff?

But he seems to be a credible source for proving the atrocities committed by Nazis right?

This is exactly the problem with biased Pro-Allied like you. You are yourself biased and denying some evidence that is contrary to your beliefs.

[Bell]

What kind of disseases did Himmler want to prevent? Disseases the Nazi's working at those camps could get from the infected prisoners?

[Thunder]

I love how neo-Nazis think that the Nazis loved the Jews soo much that they actually tried to cure them of diseases and infestations. Those Nazis really werent bad people after all huh?

[Darat]

Yeah all that propaganda in Germany about disease carrying Jews was done to help the Jews!

[Bell]

Mengele most certainly was concerned with the wellbeing of the Jews. He was after all a doctor.

[kageki]

And exactly how does this make them not as bad as if they only singled out people that they decided were Jews?

Your assumption is wrong. I am not trying to prove the Nazis were angels. I am merely trying to bring more balance into the discussion.

This point is extremely pertinent to the discussion of the Holocaust since the Jews have decided to make it into something that is exclusively Jewish. The Holocaust or Shoah has become part of the Jewish identity now.

Why does this matter?

This proves that the Jews have a bias to exaggerate the claims of the Holocaust for their benefit. To be more accurate, to the benefit of the Zionists. Who provides a lot of the sources and claims for the Holocaust? Jews.


It doesn't seem the Nazis were just targeting Jews at all. Rather anyone they deemed as an enemy or undesirable.

Generalplan Ost planned out an extermination of 40 million Slavs. It indicates that the Holocaust was not exclusively for Jews. While it's been difficult to find an accurate answer I have seen numbers of dead Slavs that are higher then 6 million. What about the Slavs?

[Darat]

Your assumption is wrong. I am not trying to prove the Nazis were angels. I am merely trying to bring more balance into the discussion.


So how does the fact that they didn't just single out people they decided were Jews for concentration camps and the like bring "balance" into a discussion about the atrocities they did carry out?


This point is extremely pertinent to the discussion of the Holocaust since the Jews have decided to make it into something that is exclusively Jewish.


No they haven't.


The Holocaust or Shoah has become part of the Jewish identity now.


For some Jews it may have in the same way that "the Blitz" has become part of the "British identity now" but what has this got to do with the atrocities the Nazi's instigated and carried out?


Why does this matter?

This proves that the Jews have a bias to exaggerate the claims of the Holocaust for their benefit. To be more accurate, to the benefit of the Zionists. Who provides a lot of the sources and claims for the Holocaust? Jews.


Your assertions are factually incorrect.


It doesn't seem the Nazis were just targeting Jews at all. Rather anyone they deemed as an enemy or undesirable.

Generalplan Ost planned out an extermination of 40 million Slavs. It indicates that the Holocaust was not exclusively for Jews. While it's been difficult to find an accurate answer I have seen numbers of dead Slavs that are higher then 6 million. What about the Slavs?

What about them?

[beachnut]

Your assumption is wrong. I am not trying to prove the Nazis were angels. I am merely trying to bring more balance into the discussion.

This point is extremely pertinent to the discussion of the Holocaust since the Jews have decided to make it into something that is exclusively Jewish. The Holocaust or Shoah has become part of the Jewish identity now.

Why does this matter?

This proves that the Jews have a bias to exaggerate the claims of the Holocaust for their benefit. To be more accurate, to the benefit of the Zionists. Who provides a lot of the sources and claims for the Holocaust? Jews.


It doesn't seem the Nazis were just targeting Jews at all. Rather anyone they deemed as an enemy or undesirable.

Generalplan Ost planned out an extermination of 40 million Slavs. It indicates that the Holocaust was not exclusively for Jews. While it's been difficult to find an accurate answer I have seen numbers of dead Slavs that are higher then 6 million. What about the Slavs?
Each post is more evidence of your neoNAZI make up.

The NAZIs targeted the Jews to be eliminated. You must not of read Hitler's book, or paid attention to the industry set up to kill Jews by the train load. Your ideas are pathetic.

[Darat]

Each post is more evidence of your neoNAZI make up.

The NAZIs targeted the Jews to be eliminated. You must not of read Hitler's book, or paid attention to the industry set up to kill Jews by the train load. Your ideas are pathetic.

Yes they did target Jews, or to be accurate people they determined to be Jews, but they also targeted other groups for extermination.

[Bell]

Yes they did target Jews, or to be accurate people they determined to be Jews, but they also targeted other groups for extermination.

Untermensch (undesired man) was the term the Nazi's used.

It doesn't seem the Nazis were just targeting Jews at all. Rather anyone they deemed as an enemy or undesirable.

Your point?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Fascism is a political system, socialism is an economic system.

FAIL: socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Fascism favors whatever economics the supreme leader wants industry by industry and minute by minute, socialism favors socialism.

FAIL: fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

See, fascism is a type of socialism.

Fascism concentrates profits among the leadership, socialism distributes profits among the citizenry.

You must be kidding about socialism. Maybe you do not understand how societies work.

Nazi Germany was astonishingly capitalist with almost all major industries in private hands throughout the war, Nazi Germany was astonishingly not socialist with most of the citizenry being denied even basic goods in order to feed the war machine.

FAIL: State run industries is not capitalistic. State run industries is both socialist and fascist.

Fascism relies heavily upon a large and omnipresent military, socialism relies heavily upon the maximizing each person's labor potential far more than is done when a person is diverted into soldiering.

Both require aggressive law enforcement, fascism more so. Here we see just a different degree.

Fascism allows for the destruction of huge numbers of a nation's indigenous population for racist reasons, socialism attempts to maximize each person's labor potential by generally not killing them.

PASS: You got one right. :) Although, fascism generally promotes the indigenous population at the detriment of the interlopers.

Fascism operates without regard to human rights, socialism is founded upon a respect for human rights.

Deception and regulation is the tool used by socialist to hide their disregard for human rights. Again we are talking about degrees.

People who know nothing of history shouldn't speak about it, people who refuse to do any research whatsoever should't speak about it either.

I agree. I guess I will see you in the humor threads? ;)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

My, oh, my. The things they teach at Troll Academy these days!

Try some content next time; it looks better on you.

[kageki]

Each post is more evidence of your neoNAZI make up.

The NAZIs targeted the Jews to be eliminated. You must not of read Hitler's book, or paid attention to the industry set up to kill Jews by the train load. Your ideas are pathetic.

Well if you like to be more accurate then you can possibly call me an Axis sympathizer since I am Japanese, but that wouldn't be quite accurate either. You people sure like to call names though don't you?


Your statement is exactly what we are told which is exactly what some people are debating.

The Nazis didn't just target Jews. Therefore Jews need to stop making it out to be something that is inherent to them since it is also inaccurate.

This industry to kill Jews by the train load is also exactly what is contentious. If they kept some of them for labor then the primary goal is not extermination. The records seem to indicate the Jews were primarily meant to be deported.

Jews were found to be collabrating with Communists.

Survivors often claimed that the Jewish kapos were far more brutal then the SS.

While the Nazis did have a plan for eugenics it is doubtful whether many of them that were indicted and or executed were ever really guilty of the crimes they were accused of. The evidence is mostly testimonies.


The standard description is inaccurate and some of the claims against the Nazis seem inaccurate, exaggerated or possibly made up. For the sake of accuracy it should be clarified.

Whether they were Nazis or not. It is injustice if anyone is wrongfully accused of a crime they did not do.

[gumboot]

For anyone interested in how normal people end up carrying out atrocities such as carried out by the Nazis, I'd suggest reading David Grossman's book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, in particular Section 5 - Killing And Atrocities: "No Honor Here, No Virtue".

Essentially Grossman argues that atrocity offers a strong immediate benefit to the soldier, at huge long term cost. Committing atrocity pulls one into a reinforcing loop whereby you are forced to continue committing atrocities, primarily to protect your own psychological well-being (admitting the atrocity was wrong leads to damnation of yourself, your unit, and your entire world view).

It's quite an interesting read, and it shows how easily you can be pulled into the atrocity trap, and why it's so vitally important to support and enforce the laws of war which prohibit that sort of behaviour.

-Gumboot

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Anyway, time for you to put your cards on the table: what are the sources for your so far unsourced hearsay opinions?

Nick, not trying to be rude, but you are asking him for sources when you gave none yourself.

[Belz...]

Closer analysis does seem to reveal that the Nazis weren't as evil as the Allied like us to believe

What part of "eleven million civilians", men, women and children, do you find is "not as evil" as we say ?

Talk about rattling the hornet's nest, man. Let's see if your historical "knowledge" holds up against people who actually know what they're talking about.

Oh, and Gravy, if you're going to flaunt that avatar around, at least have the courtesy to give me the phone number of one of those girls.

[Belz...]

Nazis seemed to be rather elaborate with their executions at camp. Going so far as to disguise a gas chamber as showers and have 12 orchestras throughout the camps which mainly consisted of Jewish prisoners only to fool the prisoners about the executions?

Again why did they bother to delouse and tattoo the prisoners only to execute them?

Just asking questions, eh ?

My French is mediocre

Not mine. Come on, kageki. Let's have it.

[Father Dagon]

Nazi Germany was astonishingly capitalist with almost all major industries in private hands throughout the war, Nazi Germany was astonishingly not socialist with most of the citizenry being denied even basic goods in order to feed the war machine.Uh, no. It might've been technically capitalist, but there was no free enterprise what so ever. Especially not after the confiscation of "non-aryans" property.

[jhunter1163]

My wife's uncle was one of the men who liberated Auschwitz. He left her a good many photos of what he found there. I challenge anyone, anywhere, to look at those photos and say that the Nazis were not the most evil group of individuals ever to befoul the earth with their presence.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not Jewish.

[Belz...]

Your assumption is wrong. I am not trying to prove the Nazis were angels. I am merely trying to bring more balance into the discussion.

Some balance. You're trying to use any excuse, ANY excuse, to try ot make the Nazis appear less monstrous than they really were. I wonder why.

This point is extremely pertinent to the discussion of the Holocaust since the Jews have decided to make it into something that is exclusively Jewish.

Well, they DID lose 6 million people over it. I'd take it personally, too.

This proves that the Jews have a bias to exaggerate the claims of the Holocaust for their benefit. To be more accurate, to the benefit of the Zionists. Who provides a lot of the sources and claims for the Holocaust? Jews.

Even if you were correct, how many Jews do you think were murdered by the Nazis, eh ?

It doesn't seem the Nazis were just targeting Jews at all. Rather anyone they deemed as an enemy or undesirable.

Yeah, and no one was less desirable than Jews.

Ugh. This subject disgusts me.

"Nazis. I hate Nazis." - Indiana Jones

[Loss Leader]

FAIL: fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

See, fascism is a type of socialism.




I am convinced you cannot read.

[Belz...]

Untermensch (undesired man) was the term the Nazi's used.

I know about 12 words in German, but wouldn't this mean "sub-human", or something ?

[Belz...]

Well if you like to be more accurate then you can possibly call me an Axis sympathizer since I am Japanese, but that wouldn't be quite accurate either. You people sure like to call names though don't you?

I was under the impression that the Japanese had a very demanding school system. Don't you have school on Saturdays ? You skipped history class, ne ?

[AMTMAN]

[QUOTE=leftysergeant;3181049


"Hitler was not as bad as he is made out to be" is not an acceptable answer among civilized human beings. He was about as evil as any major world leader has ever been. Stalin is a distant third, right after Pol Pot.
[/QUOTE]

Stalin was a close second to Hitler, Pol Pot comes in third.

[Myriad]

Pro-Nazi dudes: what part of "they were so evil God melted their heads" don't you understand?

I have it on video.

No video of God melting Khmer Rouge or Soviet heads, so Pol Pot and Stalin can only be runners-up.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Belz...]

Stalin was a close second to Hitler, Pol Pot comes in third.

Though I wonder how badly Genghis Khan or Alexander would fare if we had any real figures...

[Belz...]

Pro-Nazi dudes: what part of "they were so evil God melted their heads" don't you understand?

I have it on video.

No video of God melting Khmer Rouge or Soviet heads, so Pol Pot and Stalin can only be runners-up.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Say, Myriad, when are we going on that expedition to recover the Grail from that chasm ? You said you'd be ready by Friday!

[Bell]

I know about 12 words in German, but wouldn't this mean "sub-human", or something ?

Yes, more likely. I never thought of the exact English phrase for it, and tried to translate it.

Anyway, it meant that the people labeled as 'untermensch' where unworthy to live in the Third Reich, did not fit the Nazi ideals of human beings. They where -in the Nazi's eyes- the complete opposite of the Arians.

[SDC]

First this illustrates that the Jews were not entirely exclusive to the Holocaust. The Nazis got rid of anyone they deemed undesirable. Not just because you were a Jew.

But did they really want to work and starve them to death? Your comments also slightly disprove the official story that it was a death camp. It was primarily a labor camp to produce goods necessary during war.

How do you know exactly those corpses were all Jews to begin with? The camps were ravaged with disease like Typhus and there was massive food shortages and resources due to the Allied bombing campaign. It does seem to make sense the Germans would rather save themselves first before anyone else when there were not enough food to go around to everyone.

Oh but they also saved the Allied POWs??


I am not allowed yet to post links, but this testimony comes from the Nuremburg trial (Nuremberg document NO-1523.)

Amateurs.

Yep, the Germans killed a ton of non-Jewish non-combatants, civilians, prisoners of war, and anyone else they didn't like. Gosh, I guess that disproves the Holocaust, doesn't it?

Crikey. What camp are you discussing? If it's the biggest complex, Auschwitz/ Birkenau, yep it was a network of concentration/ labor camps, plus a huge extermination operation. Most of the Jews were killed right away. Minority were not; young, strong.

Then you seem to segue (look it up) from a huge complex of labor (and extermination) camps, to the camps liberated by the western allies, in Germany proper. Different kettle of fish. The extermination camps were placed, intentionally, outside Germany.

Can't you do any research at all?

Allied bombing... yeah, was destructive. It disrupted German supplies, as was the plan. Lots of hunger. In the Netherlands, early 1945 is remembered as the "hunger winter..." oh wait! That area was still under German control, and the Germans intentionally starved the Dutch after the "Bridge too far" debacle!

Darn it, why were the Germans so silly as to start and continue a war of conquest? (This reminds of JdG and his complaint that Ober-Ost wasn't behaving logically.)

Yes, they "saved" = did not kill, Allied POW's. You call that "saved"? We are now discussing UK-Canadian-Dominion-American POW's. My father in law was one. They almost starved on sawdust bread. The Germans also knew -- even Hitler figured this one out -- that if they let the Western Allies' POW's die, or if they killed them, well you know what? There were hundreds of thousands of German POW's in the UK, Canada, and the US; can you spell hostages to decent German behavior? Though it's also true that thousands of allied POW's were put into forced labor operations and many of them died. That is, the Germans killed the British-Canadian-American POW's. Not many. But some, and intentionally. Nazism at its most typical.

Though both sides were very wary of transgressing the rules about POW's. Though these didn't apply on the eastern front; the usual estimate of Soviet soldiers who died in German captivity = 5 million. May well be too high, but it was definitely in the millions.

[SDC]

But he seems to be a credible source for proving the atrocities committed by Nazis right?

This is exactly the problem with biased Pro-Allied like you. You are yourself biased and denying some evidence that is contrary to your beliefs.

"Pro-Allied"?? Who are we supposed to be for? The war was over in '45 in any case. That's settled. What universe are you writing from?... Wait... you aren't Harry Turtledove, are you?

[SDC]

Your assumption is wrong. I am not trying to prove the Nazis were angels. I am merely trying to bring more balance into the discussion.

This point is extremely pertinent to the discussion of the Holocaust since the Jews have decided to make it into something that is exclusively Jewish. The Holocaust or Shoah has become part of the Jewish identity now.

Why does this matter?

This proves that the Jews have a bias to exaggerate the claims of the Holocaust for their benefit. To be more accurate, to the benefit of the Zionists. Who provides a lot of the sources and claims for the Holocaust? Jews.


It doesn't seem the Nazis were just targeting Jews at all. Rather anyone they deemed as an enemy or undesirable.

Generalplan Ost planned out an extermination of 40 million Slavs. It indicates that the Holocaust was not exclusively for Jews. While it's been difficult to find an accurate answer I have seen numbers of dead Slavs that are higher then 6 million. What about the Slavs?

I'm talking too much.

The number of fatalities, inflicted in WW2 by the Germans, on the (Christian) populations of the western republics of the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, all majority-Slavic countries, goes well beyond 6 mln. But you -- who make it clear that you think that the Allies were on the wrong side -- claim that you are somehow supporting the cause of justice for the Slavs, because the Germans killed 20,30,40 million Slavs?

Wait, wait, there is a flaw here somewhere, got to think... think...

[kageki]

My wife's uncle was one of the men who liberated Auschwitz. He left her a good many photos of what he found there. I challenge anyone, anywhere, to look at those photos and say that the Nazis were not the most evil group of individuals ever to befoul the earth with their presence.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm not Jewish.

So they saw the aftermath. What does that prove?

How many of them legitimately died from typhus? From starvation because resources were indeed limited? How much did Allied bombing contribute to the death toll? What were the conditions like in Germany in general?

Those photos will most likely not prove who did what exactly.

Have you seen the photos from Bromberg Bloody Sunday?

[MaGZ]

All of it, though it is not really a form of socialism.

Minimizing the evil that they intended is dispicible. The deaths of the Jews did not just happen. The Nazis wanted them gone, and dead was as good a form of gone as any. They had, quite simply, no right as humans to have done what they did. They are evil and apologizing for them is an evil act. The only sub-humans involved in WWII were the Nazi ideolouges.


I bet you don’t feel the Jewish Bolshevik regime of the Soviet Union were evil.

[kageki]

I was under the impression that the Japanese had a very demanding school system. Don't you have school on Saturdays ? You skipped history class, ne ?

Belz don't you have anything to add to the discussion then ad hominen attacks?

You're frankly just wasting space.

Funny how a majority of posts by people like you consist mainly of insults with little to no substance.

Is this what they teach you in America?

[SDC]

You mean Krwawa Niedziela, in Bydgoszcz, I believe. (Go on, pronounce it. I dast you.)

Please source. I'm interested to see what you are using as a source.

But if I understand correctly, it was fighting between "ethnic Germans" in Poland and Polish forces, several days after the start of the ... wait for it... German invasion of Poland. Looks like it wasn't nice. I take it you believe that this is justification for approximately 2 mln Polish non-combatant deaths, inflicted by the Germans, in the War? You show your pictures. Then we can look at pictures from Warsaw after the 1944 uprising.

Hmmm... You appear to be using Hitler and Goebbels as your primary sources. You are aware that their stock is rather low, nowadays, aren't you? I'd rather get pharmacy referrals from Barry Bonds.

[Bell]

Belz don't you have anything to add to the discussion then ad hominen attacks?

You're frankly just wasting space.

Funny how a majority of posts by people like you consist mainly of insults with little to no substance.

Is this what they teach you in America?

In America, as in many other countries, people are teached about the holocaust.

[jhunter1163]

Attempted move of the goalposts noted.

These people died at Auschwitz. It doesn't matter what they died of: they were there because your heroes, the Nazis, rounded them up and put them there.

Your argument seems to be that someone who died in the gas chamber isn't as dead as someone who died of typhus or under an Allied bomb. The fact remains that those Allied bombs wouldn't have been falling on Germany had your heroes, the Nazis, not started the war.

[SDC]

Belz don't you have anything to add to the discussion then ad hominen attacks?

You're frankly just wasting space.

Funny how a majority of posts by people like you consist mainly of insults with little to no substance.

Is this what they teach you in America?

That's ad hominem. "Addressed to the person." You talk about "wasting space..." "people like you..." (demon gods?) ... You are thin skinned, fellow. Come on, tighten your belt and be strong. And for heaven's sake, check your cheat sheets! You are not doing well at all.

[MaGZ]

I am saying that disputing the numbers killed and stating that some of them just happened is to minimize the fact that the Nazis were an infection needed to be stopped by any means available and that those who do not now recognize them as evil may be contermplating further evil.

That there are still people in the world who do not consider the Nazis the greatest evil ever to rise is one of the reasons I own firearms and am preparted to use them without remorse.

There is no lower form of life passing for human than a Nazi.

Where does this hate come from sarge? Are you a decedent from a Holocaust Jew or committed Stalinist?

[Foolmewunz]

Belz don't you have anything to add to the discussion then ad hominen attacks?

You're frankly just wasting space.

Funny how a majority of posts by people like you consist mainly of insults with little to no substance.

Is this what they teach you in America?

Oops, idiotic misreading of post. NEVER MIND!

But I believe Belz is from Canada, nominally a part of North America, but not the "America" you meant, e.g. USA.

[jhunter1163]

Lefty, if you need someone to cover your six against the neo-Nazis, call me.

[beachnut]

Where does this hate come from sarge? Are you a decedent from a Holocaust Jew or committed Stalinist?
Why do you post real dumb stuff from neoNAZI sites? Are you unable to get an education to see that neoNAZIs are idiots?

You seem to be on the loosing side of this argument, like the NAZIs. What else do you have that is not as dumb as some of your other ideas on this subject?

[beachnut]

So they saw the aftermath. What does that prove?

How many of them legitimately died from typhus? From starvation because resources were indeed limited? How much did Allied bombing contribute to the death toll? What were the conditions like in Germany in general?

Those photos will most likely not prove who did what exactly.

Have you seen the photos from Bromberg Bloody Sunday?
You are really presenting stupid stuff. Where do you get such doltish tripe from?

[Redtail]

I bet you don’t feel the Jewish Bolshevik regime of the Soviet Union were evil.

...Riiiight.

[kageki]

I'm talking too much.

The number of fatalities, inflicted in WW2 by the Germans, on the (Christian) populations of the western republics of the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia, all majority-Slavic countries, goes well beyond 6 mln. But you -- who make it clear that you think that the Allies were on the wrong side -- claim that you are somehow supporting the cause of justice for the Slavs, because the Germans killed 20,30,40 million Slavs?

Wait, wait, there is a flaw here somewhere, got to think... think...

Exactly so why do we keep hearing 6 million Jews when more Slavs died?

What were some of the reasons for killing the Slavs? Was it partially because they were part of the Soviet Union therefore deemed enemies?

I don't think Allies were on the wrong side necessarily. I've long dropped this notion of black and white thinking. What I would like to point is that the Allied were no saints either.

[SDC]

Where does this hate come from sarge? Are you a decedent from a Holocaust Jew or committed Stalinist?

It wasn't addressed to me, but heck, let's go through this. You have 3 questions. Here are the answers.

The hate is from you, Magz.

"Decedent" means someone who is dead. (Deceased, get it? de·ce·dent (dhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gifdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifnt)
n. Law A dead person.) This question makes no sense.


You are closer to a Stalinist than anyone else I hear on this list.

Lefty, sorry. I interrupted. I should back down. I got carried away.

[AMTMAN]

Where does this hate come from sarge? Are you a decedent from a Holocaust Jew or committed Stalinist?

And where does your ignorance come from Magz? Did your parents brainwash you as a child? Or did some hate monger sink his claws into you when you were young?

[Bell]

Oops, reading idiotic post. NEVER MIND!

Fixed it for you.

[MaGZ]

A theoretical question for those participants of this thread denying the Holocaust:

Let's for the moment say the Holocaust didn't happen. What then does that mean we should think about the Nazi regime? Should it still be reviled for waging war on its neighbouring nations? Should it still be considered a grotesque entity for the brutal manner in which it occupied the nations it subjugated? Should the SS and Gestapo still be regarded as horrible and repugnant organizations? Is it still moral and correct for the Allies to have defeated the Third Reich?

The only country National Socialist Germany wanted to destroy was the Soviet Union. To get there you have to go through Poland.

[kageki]

Attempted move of the goalposts noted.

These people died at Auschwitz. It doesn't matter what they died of: they were there because your heroes, the Nazis, rounded them up and put them there.

Your argument seems to be that someone who died in the gas chamber isn't as dead as someone who died of typhus or under an Allied bomb. The fact remains that those Allied bombs wouldn't have been falling on Germany had your heroes, the Nazis, not started the war.

Off course it matters how they died. That is the point!

Yes they did round up people into concentration camps primarily to be used for labor. Why did the US round up Japanese-Americans in concentration camps?

If they died of natural causes such as typhus then the Nazis did not kill them. They even took measures to stop the spread of this disease. Why?

Who died in the gas chamber? Is there forensic evidence showing people that died due to gassing?

The US only entered the war because they were duped. Otherwise they would have not entered. It also does not seem that Hitler wanted global conquest nor even had the desire to topple England as he viewed their cooperation as necessary.

Anyone can elaborate about Hitler's peace offer where he offered to return most of the land back?

[MaGZ]

If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. Adolf Hitler


Did Hitler really say this?
To say Hitler promoted the Big Lie is a Big Lie itself.
Someone please provide a source.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Did Hitler really say this?
To say Hitler promoted the Big Lie is a Big Lie itself.
Someone please provide a source.

I thought it was Goebbels.

[MaGZ]

I'm sometimes amazed that Holocaust Deniers exist.

For crying out loud, the Einsatzgruppen shot some 1.5 M Jews before the death camps even opened!


That is very hard to believe.

[Bell]

kageki, first off, I don't believe you are Japanese, but that is beside the discussion.

However, you did not reply to these two posts:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3181298&postcount=664
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3181327&postcount=667

[kageki]

It's a sad fact that until quite late on Hitler had the support of many influential British people, infamously the owner of the Daily Mail supported Hitler until Britain declared war with Germany.



Isn't this the same in the US? Many people say the Nazis could not have been possible without the backing of influential people abroad.

Hitler was also Time's Man of the Year.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Isn't this the same in the US? Many people say the Nazis could not have been possible without the backing of influential people abroad.

Hitler was also Time's Man of the Year.

1938
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/hitler-time_man_of_year_1938.jpg

[MaGZ]

You are getting confused by the word "Socialist" in the translated name of "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei". "Socialist" in that sense does not mean the political ideology that in English that we call "socialism".

The Nazi party ideology was by act, deed and definition a form of fascism, not socialism.

The National Socialist German Workers Party was a real Socialist party. That is why the leftist party members who wanted to continue the socialist experiment in the party had to be purged. They no longer strived toward a nationalist form of unity.

[Loss Leader]

Hitler was also Time's Man of the Year.


Meaning that he was the person who most affected the world that year.

And here's what Time said about him in that article (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html):

But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Führer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.
...
What Adolf Hitler & Co. did to the German people in that time left civilized men and women aghast. Civil rights and liberties have disappeared. Opposition to the Nazi regime has become tantamount to suicide or worse. Free speech and free assembly are anachronisms. The reputations of the once-vaunted German centres of learning have vanished. Education has been reduced to a National Socialist catechism.

Pace Quickened. Germany's 700,000 Jews have been tortured physically, robbed of homes and properties, denied a chance to earn a living, chased off the streets. Now they are being held for "ransom," a gangster trick through the ages.

Yeah, it was a real puff piece.

[MG1962]

1938
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/hitler-time_man_of_year_1938.jpg

Grow up - that award is for the most influential figure of that year - For better or worse - there is no criteria for that influence

[Father Dagon]

Where does this hate come from sarge? Are you a decedent from a Holocaust Jew or committed Stalinist?Ayn Rand said that racism is the worst kind of collectivism. And she escaped from the Soviet Union, mind you.

I leave the connection of the dots to you...

[Foolmewunz]

Isn't this the same in the US? Many people say the Nazis could not have been possible without the backing of influential people abroad.

Hitler was also Time's Man of the Year.


Oooh, do I hear the pitter patter of little "Prescott Bush" feet?

(And someone's already covered the actual content of the Time piece.)

Kageki,
You've rapidly progressed from "just want to balance" to "Hey, prove that people died in gas chambers!" Whomever called it way back at your first posts would seem to be correct. The opening gambits of a true Denier.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Civil rights and liberties have disappeared. Opposition to the Nazi regime has become tantamount to suicide or worse. Free speech and free assembly are anachronisms. The reputations of the once-vaunted German centres of learning have vanished. Education has been reduced to a National Socialist catechism.

I wonder if the Nazi state had video recording cameras if they would place them in the schools and send a feed to the police.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Grow up - that award is for the most influential figure of that year - For better or worse - there is no criteria for that influence

Grow up?

Someone mentioned that he was TIME man of the year and I presented the cover of the magazine thinking it would be of interest. I doubt most have seen the cover.

What exactly is your problem?

[MaGZ]

What I am concerned with is that there are lower life forms who would like to try it again. Have you read The Turner Diaries? That was not written for entertainment purposes. There are quasi-human beings who wouild like to act out that scenario, and have even made concrete efforts to do so (e.g., McVeigh, Richard Wayne Snell and Robert Matthews, may they burn in the most vile pit of hell.)

Should they rise up in force, I would feel it my duty to feed them a few Czech silvertips.

I will certainly not, in the mean time, remain silent when someone apologizes for or in any way tries to put a less malignant face on the Third Reich.

The author of The Turner Diaries, Dr. William Pierce was a very great man.

So was Bob Mathews.

I know.

[Redtail]

I wonder if the Nazi state had video recording cameras if they would place them in the schools and send a feed to the police.

They might. I wonder how many they would have then killed when it was discovered members of the White Rose types.

[Gravy]

The author of The Turner Diaries, Dr. William Pierce was a very great man.You think so, huh? Well, recent scholarship has revealed that Pierce didn't even write the sequel, Turner and Hooch.

[Foolmewunz]

The author of The Turner Diaries, Dr. William Pierce was a very great man.

So was Bob Mathews.

I know.

No, he wasn't.
No, he wasn't.
No, you don't.

[Redtail]

The author of The Turner Diaries, Dr. William Pierce was a very great man.

So was Bob Mathews.

I know.

Really? what did they do that was great?

[MaGZ]

I admit a special motivation to keep those fools down. There's a rope in it for me if they try to pull it off. There are three different racial components of my immediate family in my wife and son, my brother's wife and daughter, and my sister's husband.

Organization types don't take kindly to mixed families.

What was it about your parental upbringing that led you and your siblings to betray your race?

[milesalpha]

First this illustrates that the Jews were not entirely exclusive to the Holocaust. The Nazis got rid of anyone they deemed undesirable. Not just because you were a Jew.

But did they really want to work and starve them to death? Your comments also slightly disprove the official story that it was a death camp. It was primarily a labor camp to produce goods necessary during war.

How do you know exactly those corpses were all Jews to begin with? The camps were ravaged with disease like Typhus and there was massive food shortages and resources due to the Allied bombing campaign. It does seem to make sense the Germans would rather save themselves first before anyone else when there were not enough food to go around to everyone.

Oh but they also saved the Allied POWs??


I am not allowed yet to post links, but this testimony comes from the Nuremburg trial (Nuremberg document NO-1523.)


Funny document, the only people I could find who used it in an argument were Stormfront and Mark Weber, can I have a "Sieg Heil"?

Now, it is incredibly easy to find a few lines in a document that seems to support your argument, the trick is does your argument survive when the few lines is placed in context? This is a case where it does not.

First the testimony is not from Himmler but rather one of his lackeys, Himmler gave no testimony at Nuremberg. Being stiff as a board due to a case of death. I wonder why they never ask why he committed suicide if he did nothing wrong?

Now, what was he testifying about? A passionate argument that the holocaust was a myth? No, rather he was arguing that the death rate was a result oif a few exuberant commandants and the crack SS legal team was on the job.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-20/tgmwc-20-197-01.shtml

Moreover, this witness makes a point that his evidence is only relevant beginning in the latter half of 1943. What evidence is provided that the order was actually carried out? None. Evidence from camp records cited in the 1946 investigation of Auschwitz do not indicate any increase in rations. There is also the nasty problem of Himmler's Posen speech. Even if we accept the revisonist semantics argument, the tone of the speech is undeniable.

http://www.cwporter.com/posen.htm

Now let's take it a step further, what was happening around Himmler at that time that might have precipitated the order? We could, I suppose, accept that Himmler had a flash of humanity, but there is something that stands out in the documentation. By the end of 1941 Germany was suffering a significant manpower shortage. They did not use women in factories, instead relying on the slave labour of POWs and the "undesirables" of the captured populaces. Speer was screaming for more labour, and the SS was making a huge profit off of the slave labour. This meant that those who could work gained a longer existence.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-03/tgmwc-03-24-04.html

Now that existence would be largely based on the kind of work performed. The harder the work, the less likely it can be performed indefinitely, especially if it was not rewarded in a corresponding manner (rations, rest). What was the pecking order in a camp? Who was relegated to the worst conditions, and hence the greatest danger of death. This political prisoner's account sheds some light.

http://www.germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1512

Basically, I would more readily rely on the 1946 investigation of Auschwitz, supported by eyewitness testimony from both sides, supported by the documentation of German government officials. It has errors to be sure (I think most historians would agree that anything less that 50 years old is journalism) but that is recorded in the historiography. Still, there has been no major revision of their findings.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpol9.htm

A word about gassing. Because of the destruction of camps like Aushwitz, there is no way to know the extent of this story. Regardless, I know of no historian who is interested in quibbling between gassing, hanging, shooting, working to death, starving to death or confining someone in conditions that lead to an inevitable death. The method only comes up when dealing with specific elements, for example the Einsatzgruppen.

A final word about the inevitable (and strictly neo-nazi) argument about ignoring the other victims of the holocaust. The Slavs, the homosexuals, the intellectuals, the handicapped, the Jehovah Witnesses, the gypsies, and so on. Only the Slavs can really be put in the same category of sheer persecution by the Nazis, but even then the Jewish persecution was much more enduring. All of the victims are remembered by history, as anyone who has read any real works on the Nazis well knows. Do the Jews as a political body use the Holocaust to further their cause? Maybe, but does it affect the real history (as opposed to pop culture. The odd legend of a heroic Custer was kept alive for decades after it had been exposed by historians. The same holds true of Nazi Germany, a good example being "they made the trains run on time" inferring the Nazis were an efficient bunch, they weren't).


Ok, I'll stand by now for more references from psychologists (Faurisson), electrical engineers (Butz), neo-nazis (IHR, experts my ass) in hopes that they might actually get around to consulting a historian or two (Kershaw and Bullock would be a good start).

[SDC]

The only country National Socialist Germany wanted to destroy was the Soviet Union. To get there you have to go through Poland.

Can you spell "Czechoslovakia"? (Well, probably you cannot.) OK, how about "Austria"?

Heck, how about "Germany." That was the country the Nazis most successfully destroyed.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

They might. I wonder how many they would have then killed when it was discovered members of the White Rose types.

I do not understand your reference. Could you please explain it.

Thanks in advance.

[Redtail]

What was it about your parental upbringing that led you and your siblings to betray your race?

Does it sting that I'm Black and my fiancee is not only White, but related to Adolph Eichmann? :D

[milesalpha]

I wonder if the Nazi state had video recording cameras if they would place them in the schools and send a feed to the police.

Close, they had to work with the technology of the time. It involved radio and a sort of blockwatch created to feed information back to authorities.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Close, they had to work with the technology of the time. It involved radio and a sort of blockwatch created to feed information back to authorities.

Interesting.

Do you have further knowledge of the Nazi state monitoring the citizens?

[Belz...]

Belz don't you have anything to add to the discussion then ad hominen attacks?

You're frankly just wasting space.

Funny how a majority of posts by people like you consist mainly of insults with little to no substance.

Is this what they teach you in America?

Oops, I'm Canadian. Maybe you should answer my question. Did you skip history class, or do they not teach that in Japan ? I'm actually expecting you to have had history class, and to have decided to ignore it.

And it would do some good if you knew what an ad hominem attack was.

[MaGZ]

Hello. Very interesting thread here.

These are great questions that have crossed my mind as well as I started looking more into our history. In many ways though it is a strange question that shows the incredible force of social conformity. You ask these questions simply because it is unfashionable to even hint that the Nazi regime could possibly have not been evil incarnate.

The point is that you shouldn't be asking these questions just to see what opinion or answer is acceptable. If you are truly interested in finding out the answer then the only recourse is to do research yourself, but since they are good questions in the context of this discussion I can add a little to it.


I can't post any links yet so a quick summary regarding pre-WWII conditions:

- Germany suffered a crushing defeat in WWI. Hitler blamed the Jews for the loss (there is some truth in this)

- Hitler felt the Treaty of Versaille was unfair. Most of Europe felt the same. Germany also lost some territory as a consequence.

- Hitler wanted revenge from WWI. Hitler wanted to rebuild and rearm Germany and to regain the lost territory.

- Hitler hated Communism. His plans for the east were to mainly stop the Soviet Communists.

Invasion of Poland

- Poles were killing Germans living in Poland. Hitler wanted to defend them.

- Hitler wanted to regain the lost territory to Poland.

- Hitler only invaded Poland after making a non-aggression pact with the Soviets. They made a deal to split up Poland between them. The Soviets also invaded Poland from the east.

- Hitler did not think the British and also the French were going to attack Germany when he invaded Poland. The British were appeasing Hitler up to that point. The British made a secret pact to defend Poland if Germany were to attack Poland. This is what made Poles cocky and were openly taunting Germany prior to the invasion.


While this is not meant to justify the Nazis, it is a good start in illustrating that we have not been told the whole story. I can discuss this further, but I'll leave it at that for now since this thread is about the Holocaust.

Welcome to the forum kageki.

[Belz...]

I don't think Allies were on the wrong side necessarily.

Fascinating.

The US only entered the war because they were duped.

Who was duped, and of what ? Are you ALSO a Pearl Harbor CTer ?

[milesalpha]

Interesting.

Do you have further knowledge of the Nazi state monitoring the citizens?

Some, bound to have a little after a few years of classes and a reading list that would choke a goat. My degree is in history, and my post-graduate work in German political history 1919-1939 (unfinished, decided I was too old to bother). Which may explain why I find so much of the "history" in this thread to be offensive.

[MaGZ]

The reason for asking the questions I did is because it often seems to me that the reason for denying the Holocaust is that it is an attempt to somehow make Hitler and the Nazi regime seem more palatable and less vile.

I wanted to know if the resident deniers here had that intent.

History knows only one truth. It is up to the individual to pursue it.

[kageki]

What kind of disseases did Himmler want to prevent? Disseases the Nazi's working at those camps could get from the infected prisoners?

Typhus.

That's one way to interpret it, but at the minimum it's mutually beneficial isn't it?

That still means they had an interest in stopping the spread of the disease right?


It seems they actually did try to stop the typhus epidimic that was occurring in Europe at that time and they actually did use the gas to delouse prisoner's clothe. The death rates were ordered to be lowered in the camps!

[Belz...]

What was it about your parental upbringing that led you and your siblings to betray your race?

What "race" would that be ? Exactly how "pure" does it need to be ?

[CHF]

The similarities between Holocaust Denial and 9/11 twoof continue to amaze.

[beachnut]

Isn't this the same in the US? Many people say the Nazis could not have been possible without the backing of influential people abroad.

Hitler was also Time's Man of the Year.
Yes, total dolts are also made the person of the year. What a dolt post. Stalin was next! Seems people who kill a lot of people make the list for Time. What is your weak point on this non issue?

[Belz...]

"Hey! Hitler liked chocolate. I like chocolate!! Hitler was a saint! Evil joooooos!!"

[Redtail]

I do not understand your reference. Could you please explain it.

Thanks in advance.

The White Rose was a nonviolent resistance group in Nazi Germany that ran an leaflet campaign calling for active resistance against Hitler. IIRC 5-6 of the founding members were caught by the Gestapo and sentenced to execution in 1943.

[milesalpha]

Isn't this the same in the US? Many people say the Nazis could not have been possible without the backing of influential people abroad.

Hitler was also Time's Man of the Year.

Such as? I have never heard anyone suggest this outside the conspiracy circles.

[MaGZ]

Hello.

These Germans the Poles were killing were known as the German Army, which invaded and occupied Poland and systematically slaughtered its civilian population.

Gravy, when you say the Germans were systematically killing the civilian population what exactly do you mean and why would they do this? Are the Germans killing Poles on sight? Why would they do this? What would be accomplished by killing Polish civilians?

Just asking questions.