The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Bovard Archive
Obama’s AWOL Anti-War Protesters
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Photo by Debra Sweet | CC BY 2.0
Photo by Debra Sweet | CC BY 2.0

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008 as a peace candidate. He signaled that he would fundamentally change America’s course after the reckless carnage unleashed by the George W. Bush administration. However, by the end of Obama’s presidency, the United States was bombing seven different foreign nations.

But Obama’s warring rarely evoked the protests or opposition that the Bush administration generated. Why did so many Bush-era anti-war activists abandon the cause after Obama took office?

One explanation is that the news media downplayed Obama’s killings abroad. Obama was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize less than 12 days after taking office — not because of anything that he had achieved, but because of the sentiments he had expressed. Shortly after he accepted the Peace Prize, he announced that he would sharply increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan. Much of the media treated Obama’s surge as if it were simply a military campaign designed to ensure that the rights of Afghan women were respected. The fact that more than 2,000 American troops died in Afghanistan on Obama’s watch received far less attention in the press than did the casualties from Bush’s Iraq war.

In early 2011, popular uprisings in several Arab nations spurred a hope that democracy would soon flourish across North Africa and much of the Middle East. Violent protests in Libya soon threatened the long-term regime of dictator Muammar Qaddafi, who had become a U.S. ally and supporter in recent years. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other advisors persuaded Obama to forcibly intervene in what appeared to be a civil war.

In March 2011, Obama told Americans that “the democratic values that we stand for would be overrun” if the United States did not join the French and British assault on the Libyan government. Obama declared that one goal of the U.S. attack was “the transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people.” Qaddafi, who was dealing with uprisings across the nation, sent Obama a personal message: “As you know too well, democracy and building of civil society cannot be achieved by means of missiles and aircraft, or by backing armed members of al-Qaeda in Benghazi.”

Even before the United States began bombing Libya, there was no sober reason to expect that toppling Qaddafi would result in a triumph of popular sovereignty. Some of the rebel groups had been slaughtering civilians; black Africans whom Qaddafi had brought into Libya as guest workers were especially targeted to be massacred. Some of Qaddafi’s most dangerous opponents were groups that the United States had officially labeled as terrorists.

Obama decided that bringing democracy to Libya was more important than obeying U.S. law. The War Powers Act, passed by Congress in 1973 in the waning days of the Vietnam War, requires presidents to terminate military attacks abroad after 60 days unless Congress specifically approves the intervention. Immediately after the bombing commenced, Secretary of State Clinton declared during a classified briefing for members of Congress that “the White House would forge ahead with military action in Libya even if Congress passed a resolution constraining the mission.” Echoing the Bush administration the Obama administration indicated that congressional restraints would be “an unconstitutional encroachment on executive power.”

According to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Obama “had the constitutional authority” to attack Libya “because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest.” Apparently, as long as presidential advisors concluded that attacking foreigners is in the U.S. “national interest,” the president’s warring passes muster — at least according to his lawyers. Yale professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway lamented that “history will say that the War Powers Act was condemned to a quiet death by a president who had solemnly pledged, on the campaign trail, to put an end to indiscriminate warmaking.”

The U.S. attack on Libya evoked almost no protests across the nation. After Qaddafi was killed, Secretary Clinton laughed during a television interview celebrating his demise: “We came, we saw, he died.” But U.S. missiles and bombs begat chaos, not freedom. Five years later, when asked what was the worst mistake of his presidency, Obama replied, “Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.”

Syria

In 2013, Obama decided to attack the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. The Obama team alleged that the Assad regime had carried out a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians.

A front-page Washington Post headline blared, “Proof Against Assad at Hand.” But that hand remained hidden. On a Sunday talk show, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough admitted that the administration lacked evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt” proving that the Syrian regime had carried out the gas attack. But McDonough asserted, “The common-sense test says [Assad] is responsible for this. He should be held to account.” Obama administration officials also insisted that attacking Syria would boost American “credibility.” But unless “credibility” is defined solely as assuring the world that the president of the United States can kill foreigners on a whim, that is a poor bet. This type of credibility is more appropriate for a drunken brawl in a bar than for international relations.

The administration never provided solid evidence to back up its claim. Even Obama ally Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) characterized the evidence presented in a Capitol Hill classified briefing as “circumstantial.” Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) commented, “The evidence is not as strong as the public statements that the president and the administration have been making. There are some things that are being embellished in the public statements. The [classified] briefings have actually made me more skeptical about the situation.”

Seeking to rally the nation behind the cause, Obama called on Congress to authorize bombing Syria. But the American people had little stomach for another adventure abroad. There were a few protests — including one outside the White House on the Saturday when Obama was expected to announce that he had commenced bombing. I was there that day, along with a smattering of conservative and libertarian opponents to another war. The protest was a bit anemic until a couple busloads of ANSWER Coalition activists arrived from Baltimore. They had great signs — “Bombing Syria Doesn’t Protect People — It Kills Them” —and they marched and chanted in unison better than most high-school bands. The U.S. Park Police were unhappy with the protest and rode their horses into the middle of the group. Federal officials came up and threatened to arrest anyone who did not clear away from the street behind the White House. A handful of arrests were made and the crowd simmered down.

But when Obama made his a radio speech to the nation that afternoon, the chanting from the protest could be heard in the background. Obama announced that he was postponing a decision on bombing.

However, in the summer of 2014, the ISIS terrorist group released videos of the beheading of hostages. That provided sufficient cover for Obama to commence bombing that group — and other targets in Syria. The media played its usual lapdog role. A Washington Post headline proclaimed, “Obama the reluctant warrior, cautiously selling a new fight.” So we’re supposed to think the president is a victim of cruel necessity, or what? A New York Times headline announced, “In Airstrikes, U.S. Targets Militant Cell Said to Plot an Attack Against the West.” “Said to” is the perfect term — perhaps sufficient to alert non-brain-dead readers that something may be missing (e.g., evidence). By mid 2016, the Obama administration had dropped almost 50,000 bombs on ISIS forces (or civilians wrongly suspected to be ISIS fighters) in Syria and Iraq. A September 2016 Daily Beast article noted, “In January, the Pentagon admitted to bombing civilians on at least 14 different occasions. In July, an off-target airstrike in northern Syria killed more than 60 people.”

Obama acted as if he was doing God’s work by again bombing the Middle East. But the supposed beneficiaries were not persuaded. On the eve of the 2016 U.S. November election, independent journalist Rania Khalek (who was visiting Syria) tweeted, “I’ve been asking Syrians who they want to win for president. The vast majority say Trump because they feel he’s less likely to bomb them.” Presidential rhetoric was not sufficient compensation for the lives and homes that would be destroyed by the increased onslaughts that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton seemed to promise.

Anti-War or Anti-Republican?

Thousands of innocent foreigners were killed by U.S. bombings and drone attacks during the Obama administration. In his 2016 State of the Union address, Obama scoffed at “calls to carpet bomb civilians.” Perhaps he considered it far more prudent to blow up wedding parties instead (as happened during his reign in Yemen and Afghanistan). As long as White House or Pentagon spokesmen announced that the United States was using “precision bombing,” media controversy over innocent victims was blunted, if not completely avoided.

Why did Obama suffer far less backlash than George W. Bush? Salon columnist David Sirota summarized an academic study released in 2013: “Evaluating surveys of more than 5,300 anti-war protestors from 2007 to 2009, the researchers discovered that the many protestors who self-identified as Democrats ‘withdrew from anti-war protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success’ in the 2008 presidential election.”

Sirota noted that the researchers concluded that “during the Bush years, many Democrats were not necessarily motivated to participate in the anti-war movement because they oppose militarism and war — they were instead ‘motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments.’”

There have been plenty of stout critics of U.S. warring in recent years — including Antiwar.com, The Future of Freedom Foundation, Ron Paul, the Mises Institute, and some principled liberals and leftists such as CounterPunch and Glenn Greenwald and The Intercept. But overall, the media spotlight rarely shone on U.S. carnage abroad, as it did in earlier times. Perhaps the anti-war movement will revive if Donald Trump commences bombing new foreign nations. But it is clear that too many Americans have not yet learned the folly of “kill foreigners first, ask questions later.”

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy, The Bush Betrayal, Terrorism and Tyranny, and other books. Bovard is on the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is on Twitter at @jimbovard. His website is at www.jimbovard.com

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
 
Of Related Interest
shutterstock_735157936
shutterstock_716498566
Sixteen Years, But Who’s Counting?
Hide 86 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Renoman says:

    Why did Obama suffer far less backlash than George W. Bush?
    Because he acted like an educated civilized sensible careful man instead of a buffoon. In short, he was a better actor. Same whore different dress.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    One reason was he 'led from behind'.

    If Bush had just used air campaigns, he might have gotten by. But he invaded a whole nation and tried to rebuild it. Huge undertaking.

    Obama just bombed Libya and then only aided terrorists in Syria.

    Things might have been somewhat different if he decided to fully invade a nation like Bush did.
    , @Priss Factor
    Anti-War politics, like the Russia thing, is mostly about gaming to win than any commitment to principles.

    So, Joe McCarthy was 'paranoid', but now, Trump colluded with Russia and Putin is a greater threat than Stalin. (In a way, Putin is indeed bigger threat to globalism, but then, not because he seeks a world domination but the very opposite. He wants Russia to be able to mind its own business. In globalist eyes, how dare Russia not go with the flow and not allow massive homomania parades?!? If old USSR was a threat in trying to spread communism, the new much diminished Russia is an unwitting threat simply because it has wants to secure its national sovereignty and want to be part of no empire. Globalists fear that such national self-determination may spread to other nations. It is global empire vs national sovereignty.)

    Anyway, there is so much Fake Passions and Fake Ideals. Basically, the globalists want to expand their power, but when they can't get things their way, they feign moral outrage. But then, the GOP elites do the same BS.

    Now, there are sincere anti-war people, but they are too few and far between. Without rich powerful people to organize and fund mass movements, they won't go anywhere.

    The proof of this was seen when Trump lobbed missiles into Syria. You'd think the anti-Trump proglodytes would leap at the chance to denounce Trump as a war-monger, but there was no concerted anti-war effort. Only Alt Right, which supported Trump, came out as Anti-war.
    Why didn't the progs denounce Trump's act of aggression? Because the globalist sponsors of 'progressivism' didn't give the go-ahead and provide the funds.

    Trump's aggression was ONE THING the globalists did like, so even the 'liberal' media praised Trump, and so there was no sense of outrage among Trump-haters. Most bottom-feeding Trump-haters really have no clue about anything. They have to be told what and why in the politics of anti-Trump.

    , @jilles dykstra
    Because he was a puppet of Deep State.
    CNN, Washpost and NYT supported him.
    Now that someone who does not belong to hawkish Deep State has been elected, the USA has entered Cold Civil War.
    , @Che Guava
    My 'disagree' was too hasty.

    If you had used 'pretended to be' instead of 'acted like', I would have been less so. Obomber, all he was was an actor, vis. how carefully he copied Micheal Luther King's overwrought style of speech in the run up to your 2008 election

    Bookshops in Japan were full of 'Learn English through Obama speeches' CD-attached books.

    It was obvious that he had spent a long time copying King's overwrought phrasing.

    My own opinion, from reading of history, is that Michael King had such an overwrought style only because he was such a sleazy person, the disconnection between his claim to be a Christian 'minister' and his dirty private habits set up a tension that made him speak that way.

    Bush Jr. made many, to me it seems, stupid decisions, at least he is not trying to exert a big influence on your polity, he may well have reflected on (be reflecting on) his many errors.

    This is not true of the talentless (except for mimicing Michael King's style of speech and perhaps basketball), Obomber, who seems not to be able to stop.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/obamas-awol-anti-war-protesters/#comment-1938794
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. yeah says:

    “In short, he was a better actor. Same whore different dress” LOL, LOL!! You sure nailed it. The best one-liner I have read in ages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Anti-war stance is usually just opportunism.

    Once Nixon got rid of the Draft, the anti-war movement became almost overnight the incredible shrinking man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @Renoman
    Why did Obama suffer far less backlash than George W. Bush?
    Because he acted like an educated civilized sensible careful man instead of a buffoon. In short, he was a better actor. Same whore different dress.

    One reason was he ‘led from behind’.

    If Bush had just used air campaigns, he might have gotten by. But he invaded a whole nation and tried to rebuild it. Huge undertaking.

    Obama just bombed Libya and then only aided terrorists in Syria.

    Things might have been somewhat different if he decided to fully invade a nation like Bush did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Obama's legacy: "Billions of dollars’ worth of arms against Syria," by Thierry Meyssan http://www.voltairenet.org/article197144.html
    "Over the last seven years, several billion dollars’ worth of armament has been illegally introduced into Syria – a fact which in itself is enough to disprove the myth according to which this war is a democratic revolution. Numerous documents attest to the fact that the traffic was organised by General David Petraeus, first of all in public, via the CIA, of which he was the director, then privately, via the financial company KKR with the aid of certain senior civil servants. Thus the conflict, which was initially an imperialist operation by the United States and the United Kingdom, became a private capitalist operation..."

    And we should not forget the names of "humanitarian interventionists" Samantha Powers and Hilary Clinton, these two modern-day cannibals of female persuasion

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Renoman
    Why did Obama suffer far less backlash than George W. Bush?
    Because he acted like an educated civilized sensible careful man instead of a buffoon. In short, he was a better actor. Same whore different dress.

    Anti-War politics, like the Russia thing, is mostly about gaming to win than any commitment to principles.

    So, Joe McCarthy was ‘paranoid’, but now, Trump colluded with Russia and Putin is a greater threat than Stalin. (In a way, Putin is indeed bigger threat to globalism, but then, not because he seeks a world domination but the very opposite. He wants Russia to be able to mind its own business. In globalist eyes, how dare Russia not go with the flow and not allow massive homomania parades?!? If old USSR was a threat in trying to spread communism, the new much diminished Russia is an unwitting threat simply because it has wants to secure its national sovereignty and want to be part of no empire. Globalists fear that such national self-determination may spread to other nations. It is global empire vs national sovereignty.)

    Anyway, there is so much Fake Passions and Fake Ideals. Basically, the globalists want to expand their power, but when they can’t get things their way, they feign moral outrage. But then, the GOP elites do the same BS.

    Now, there are sincere anti-war people, but they are too few and far between. Without rich powerful people to organize and fund mass movements, they won’t go anywhere.

    The proof of this was seen when Trump lobbed missiles into Syria. You’d think the anti-Trump proglodytes would leap at the chance to denounce Trump as a war-monger, but there was no concerted anti-war effort. Only Alt Right, which supported Trump, came out as Anti-war.
    Why didn’t the progs denounce Trump’s act of aggression? Because the globalist sponsors of ‘progressivism’ didn’t give the go-ahead and provide the funds.

    Trump’s aggression was ONE THING the globalists did like, so even the ‘liberal’ media praised Trump, and so there was no sense of outrage among Trump-haters. Most bottom-feeding Trump-haters really have no clue about anything. They have to be told what and why in the politics of anti-Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. When it was the people of southeast Asia who were being bombed most of the anti-war’s most visible players were secular Jews, like Abbie Hoffman. Once the farce of 11 September went down and was swallowed by the gentiles the focus of the American industry’s military machine shifted to attacking the Muslim world, since Communism had died, and attacking the Moslems was good for Israel. Now those same anti-war voices are noticeably lacking, and the gentiles cannot run an anti-war movement alone, since they are barely literate.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Netanyahu himself remarked that the 9-11 WTC destruction was "good for Israel"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Wally says:

    In short, Obama was / is black.

    He was / is the perfect schmuck front man for The Globalist ‘Elite’.

    And who are they?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Lemme guess...

    JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. shadow says:

    It’s just like the so called anti-war protesters during the Viet Nam war. They were not protesting war; they were protesting the draft. They simply did not want to go and ran for the high grass. The movement died when the draft was discontinued. Then these protesters returned from Canada, or from the jobs that exempted them from the draft, shaved beards, got a hair cut, and took a bath before they joined the corporate community or daddy’s business. Many became the neo-conservative chicken hawks who now embrace war as long as it is not they or their loved one who are doing the dying.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    They were not protesting war; they were protesting the draft.
     
    You nailed it. A bunch of smelly, hypocritical leeches covered their hypocritical behinds by mouthing high sounding principles. I'd say a good 95% of them were pathetic cowards and fakes.

    However, if I had to do it all over again, I would have protested that hideously filthy war before I saw it rather than after.

    Shame on America for all the wars and strife it's caused from the beginning. Double shame for using its resources and industrial might to inflict industrial scale carnage and destruction all over the world for the benefit of the most despicable among us.

    Butler was right.

    In an effort to PREVENT the war that Churchill called “unnecessary,” (WW2,) this 2 time Medal of Honor recipient wrote...

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    In early 2011, popular uprisings in several Arab nations spurred a hope that democracy would soon flourish across North Africa and much of the Middle East.

    Popular? Only if being fueled with American NGO money and being given the ‘Star Treatment’ by the lying MSM could they be considered popular.
    Popular to fiends like George Soros and that Pierre guy from EBay, who lavished funds and resources on Libya and Syria to stir things up so the world’s policeman, the violently unhinged USA would have an excuse to bomb to smithereens another Muslim nation for our Israeli Overlord.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. LauraMR says:

    Obama was a bad president. It will eventually sink in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Obama was a bad president. It will eventually sink in.
     
    As rotten a system as we have, they all have to be bad presidents. Anyone who'd want the job is scum. Too bad that concept will never sink in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Why do White Liberals hate Christian Russia?

    Because Christian Russians can resist the homosexual-pedophile norming of Christian Russia with nukes…..

    There is no more vile scum in the whole of the Universe than the Greedy Cheating narcissistic White Liberal…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Because, since FDR's ally Stalin blockaded Berlin in 1948, they have been told that any Russian leader wants to dominate the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Every Saturday morning down the road from Renaissance Technologies there is an anti-war protest-vigil. Started right after the Gulf War 2.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008 as a peace candidate.

    Every single American candidate for president who were secretly scheming to take the country into a war has posed as a peace candidate only to later double-cross the same people who voted for them. Deception of the American public is the rule. This Nobel Peace Prize winner is no exception and was one of the phoniest presidents we’ve ever had. He was good at selling it by being smooth and glib, a great salesman. The US establishment has figured out how to keep disgruntlement with it’s war policies to a minimum. First, keep casualties relatively low by use of weapons such as drones, bombs and use of local people as our cannon fodder. During the peak of the Vietnam war we were getting 100-150 dead per week, something that was too hard to ignore. Second, have an all volunteer military so that if they die or get maimed it can be played off as them having asked for it. Thirdly, the US propaganda apparatus has been refined and expanded since the days of Vietnam and we now have relentless full-spectrum spin 24/7. It’s all packaged as doing a favor for whatever country-of-the-month we’re dumping bombs upon. Most people are atomized these days and feel helpless about effecting any sort of change, particularly when they see that voting or protesting does nothing. People nowadays spend most of their time staring into their phone screens like so many zombies and the government likes that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    And let's not forget--it's always someone else's kid who gets killed in these hellholes. It's never the offspring of the people who sit on their collective asses back in Washington and "make policy."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Renoman
    Why did Obama suffer far less backlash than George W. Bush?
    Because he acted like an educated civilized sensible careful man instead of a buffoon. In short, he was a better actor. Same whore different dress.

    Because he was a puppet of Deep State.
    CNN, Washpost and NYT supported him.
    Now that someone who does not belong to hawkish Deep State has been elected, the USA has entered Cold Civil War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @War for Blair Mountain
    Why do White Liberals hate Christian Russia?

    Because Christian Russians can resist the homosexual-pedophile norming of Christian Russia with nukes.....


    There is no more vile scum in the whole of the Universe than the Greedy Cheating narcissistic White Liberal.....

    Because, since FDR’s ally Stalin blockaded Berlin in 1948, they have been told that any Russian leader wants to dominate the world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “…the many protestors who self-identified as Democrats ‘withdrew from anti-war protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success’ in the 2008 presidential election.”

    This sort of thing is precisely what generates public cynicism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anonymous

    Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008 as a peace candidate.
     
    Every single American candidate for president who were secretly scheming to take the country into a war has posed as a peace candidate only to later double-cross the same people who voted for them. Deception of the American public is the rule. This Nobel Peace Prize winner is no exception and was one of the phoniest presidents we've ever had. He was good at selling it by being smooth and glib, a great salesman. The US establishment has figured out how to keep disgruntlement with it's war policies to a minimum. First, keep casualties relatively low by use of weapons such as drones, bombs and use of local people as our cannon fodder. During the peak of the Vietnam war we were getting 100-150 dead per week, something that was too hard to ignore. Second, have an all volunteer military so that if they die or get maimed it can be played off as them having asked for it. Thirdly, the US propaganda apparatus has been refined and expanded since the days of Vietnam and we now have relentless full-spectrum spin 24/7. It's all packaged as doing a favor for whatever country-of-the-month we're dumping bombs upon. Most people are atomized these days and feel helpless about effecting any sort of change, particularly when they see that voting or protesting does nothing. People nowadays spend most of their time staring into their phone screens like so many zombies and the government likes that.

    And let’s not forget–it’s always someone else’s kid who gets killed in these hellholes. It’s never the offspring of the people who sit on their collective asses back in Washington and “make policy.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    In short, Obama was / is black.

    He was / is the perfect schmuck front man for The Globalist 'Elite'.

    And who are they?

    Lemme guess…

    JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Yes, creepy redneck Zionist Jews. Thanks.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Israel's Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Israeli occupied territories
    https://codoh.com/media/files/cartoon24s.png

    Still owning you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Che Guava says:
    @Renoman
    Why did Obama suffer far less backlash than George W. Bush?
    Because he acted like an educated civilized sensible careful man instead of a buffoon. In short, he was a better actor. Same whore different dress.

    My ‘disagree’ was too hasty.

    If you had used ‘pretended to be’ instead of ‘acted like’, I would have been less so. Obomber, all he was was an actor, vis. how carefully he copied Micheal Luther King’s overwrought style of speech in the run up to your 2008 election

    Bookshops in Japan were full of ‘Learn English through Obama speeches’ CD-attached books.

    It was obvious that he had spent a long time copying King’s overwrought phrasing.

    My own opinion, from reading of history, is that Michael King had such an overwrought style only because he was such a sleazy person, the disconnection between his claim to be a Christian ‘minister’ and his dirty private habits set up a tension that made him speak that way.

    Bush Jr. made many, to me it seems, stupid decisions, at least he is not trying to exert a big influence on your polity, he may well have reflected on (be reflecting on) his many errors.

    This is not true of the talentless (except for mimicing Michael King’s style of speech and perhaps basketball), Obomber, who seems not to be able to stop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Agreed, King's style was pure black preacher-hustler, just amped up to 11. King was a convenient front man for the communist agents who handled him, using him to sow social discord and violence in America for the Soviet/Cuban purposes.

    His style was straight travelling hustler preacher; he would not have been out of place in Steve Martin's Leap of Faith film attacking traveling preacher culture. Then they just rewarded him with some choice easy women and some nice suits and he was all set to say whatever they wanted him to do. For example, I doubt very much he even wrote his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail; if you research the piece, it was allegedly "smuggled" out of his prison cell, where he wrote it "in the margins of newspapers". Then it was later "edited" by others, so that different versions exist. It was probably written by his handlers who told him to take credit, and they made up the sexier story of him smuggling it out.

    Unfortunately, since MLK is continuously deified in our culture, any critique of his quite humorous, overwrought, overacted style is verboten.

    Contrast that with Hitler's speeches, which are always presented today as overtly violent and strident, and his practice in front of the mirror is often held up as exemplary of how the Nazis were scary manipulators. As most historians and contemporaries admit, Hitler was an extraordinarily good speaker---most credit the majority of his political rise to his speaking ability, not his policies---and his use of the mirror is and was standard practice among good speakers, actors, singers, and other public performers.

    Yet today, history is so written that MLK is somehow the ideal speaker and Hitler was just a scary, angry guy with a lot of shouting and manipulation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Having spent my teenage years in the US during the Vietnam war, I know why there’s no serious anti-war movement in the US today: no draftees. What fuelled the anti-war movement then was that young men who had no wish to fight were being forced to go to Vietnam. They objected and their families objected. Today, those who go to fight are volunteers and their families support them, as did the families of volunteers in the Vietnam era. You see the same phenomenon in other countries. France used only volunteers in Indo-China: no serious anti-war movement. They used conscripts in Algeria: a massive anti-war movement. The Soviets used draftees in Afghanistan: a deserters’ and mothers’ movement. Putin used draftees in Chechnya: same thing. The trend, indeed, is moving beyond volunteers. Drones: people get worked up if their boy loses his foot to an IED in Iraq but if he blows people away from a safe control room on the other side of the world, they don’t care (unless somebody posts a video of junior whooping with delight!). Contractors: Putin used themin Crimea and appears to be using them in Donetsk and Lugansk. There’s talk of the US using them in Afghnaistan. It’s a bit like working on an oil platform. It’s dangerous and people sometimes are killed but the pay is tops! The politicians and the generals have learned the lesson: no draftees!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. whorefinder says: • Website

    The article gets it right: the protesters were Democrats who protested not because they opposed the war, but because it was a convenient hammer to bludgeon a Republican president.

    It was pure partisan politics.

    As James O’Keefe has revealed—which was also hinted at in Hollywood fictionalization of politics such as in the first season of the American version of House of Cards—-is that the D’s pay-and-bus-in both protesters AND voters to cause disruptions/fights and steal elections.

    The 80-90% of the anti-war protesters were paid by the DNC and their donors, and set up by the corporate media in camera-friendly demonstrations, to hang the “unpopular warmonger” title on W. and claim he was a liar. It was a total corporate set up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stripes Duncan
    And once Obama took office they started paying to protest the 1% and the police instead of the wars.

    The protesters didn't go anywhere, they just started singing a different song.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Che Guava
    My 'disagree' was too hasty.

    If you had used 'pretended to be' instead of 'acted like', I would have been less so. Obomber, all he was was an actor, vis. how carefully he copied Micheal Luther King's overwrought style of speech in the run up to your 2008 election

    Bookshops in Japan were full of 'Learn English through Obama speeches' CD-attached books.

    It was obvious that he had spent a long time copying King's overwrought phrasing.

    My own opinion, from reading of history, is that Michael King had such an overwrought style only because he was such a sleazy person, the disconnection between his claim to be a Christian 'minister' and his dirty private habits set up a tension that made him speak that way.

    Bush Jr. made many, to me it seems, stupid decisions, at least he is not trying to exert a big influence on your polity, he may well have reflected on (be reflecting on) his many errors.

    This is not true of the talentless (except for mimicing Michael King's style of speech and perhaps basketball), Obomber, who seems not to be able to stop.

    Agreed, King’s style was pure black preacher-hustler, just amped up to 11. King was a convenient front man for the communist agents who handled him, using him to sow social discord and violence in America for the Soviet/Cuban purposes.

    His style was straight travelling hustler preacher; he would not have been out of place in Steve Martin’s Leap of Faith film attacking traveling preacher culture. Then they just rewarded him with some choice easy women and some nice suits and he was all set to say whatever they wanted him to do. For example, I doubt very much he even wrote his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail; if you research the piece, it was allegedly “smuggled” out of his prison cell, where he wrote it “in the margins of newspapers”. Then it was later “edited” by others, so that different versions exist. It was probably written by his handlers who told him to take credit, and they made up the sexier story of him smuggling it out.

    Unfortunately, since MLK is continuously deified in our culture, any critique of his quite humorous, overwrought, overacted style is verboten.

    Contrast that with Hitler’s speeches, which are always presented today as overtly violent and strident, and his practice in front of the mirror is often held up as exemplary of how the Nazis were scary manipulators. As most historians and contemporaries admit, Hitler was an extraordinarily good speaker—most credit the majority of his political rise to his speaking ability, not his policies—and his use of the mirror is and was standard practice among good speakers, actors, singers, and other public performers.

    Yet today, history is so written that MLK is somehow the ideal speaker and Hitler was just a scary, angry guy with a lot of shouting and manipulation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Although Mike King's academic bona fides were tossed into the Charles River, the man could deliver a speech - without a teleprompter. Your alt-right inclinations should not blind you to the fact that King was a far better orator than Ronnie the FBI snitch Reagan or Donald let me staff my administration with (((crony-capitalists))), (((Goldman Sachs))), and (((in-laws))) Trump.
    , @Che Guava
    Thanks for that.

    I have read convincing reports of how all interesting parts in his doctoral thesis were plagiarized.

    Never a convincing rebuttal of that.

    I stay by my assertion that his style in speech reflected his sleazy character, but I didn't start to working that out until noticing that Obomber was copying it, and to reading about Michael King's reality.

    Seems to me, it sucks that you USA people have to suffer the national holiday named for him.

    Not that a holiday is not great. Just should have been named for someone else.

    We have, as one example. Ocean Day, it is on the same date as the old Imperial Navy Day, I don't care, it is nice to having another day where you can do what you want.

    For the USA, I think Robert E. Lee Day, Warren G. Harding Day, Sitting Bull Day, Malcolm X Day, Calvin Coolidge Day, any would be preferable to Michael King Day.

    They (USA authorities) are supposed to releasing documents and tapes in ten or so years, I would bettimg that they do not, just heavily censored versions.

    Unless misfortune, I am expecting to still being around, also to expecting a giant cover-up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. anarchyst says:
    @Leslie Jacobs
    When it was the people of southeast Asia who were being bombed most of the anti-war's most visible players were secular Jews, like Abbie Hoffman. Once the farce of 11 September went down and was swallowed by the gentiles the focus of the American industry's military machine shifted to attacking the Muslim world, since Communism had died, and attacking the Moslems was good for Israel. Now those same anti-war voices are noticeably lacking, and the gentiles cannot run an anti-war movement alone, since they are barely literate.

    Netanyahu himself remarked that the 9-11 WTC destruction was “good for Israel”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Art says:

    Sirota noted that the researchers concluded that “during the Bush years, many Democrats were not necessarily motivated to participate in the anti-war movement because they oppose militarism and war — they were instead ‘motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments.’”

    Wake up America!

    There is no mass anti-war movement because the Jew Matrix does not want one. The Matrix controls our culture – its media ignores peace movements – its money will work to suppress peace activism – and it controls all but a few peace minded elected politicians.

    The traditional peace movements of women – has been turned on its head, taken over by Jew feminism – they want women in war – not against it.

    Idealistic young elites in collage are taken up with domestic identity politics – not world peace movements.

    The Christian philosophy of “Blessed are the peace makers” is under attack from all cultural sides.

    The Jew Matrix wants empire for the benefit of Jew money and Israeli power – end of story.

    The real enemy from within must be exposed for the un-American evil that it is.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Wally says: • Website
    @Anon
    Lemme guess...

    JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!

    Yes, creepy redneck Zionist Jews. Thanks.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Israel’s Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Israeli occupied territories

    Still owning you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    So you're fine with Jews as long as they aren't Zionists?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Yes, creepy redneck Zionist Jews. Thanks.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Israel's Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Israeli occupied territories
    https://codoh.com/media/files/cartoon24s.png

    Still owning you.

    So you’re fine with Jews as long as they aren’t Zionists?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    I have yet to meet one who really isn't a Zionist.

    But theoretically they could exist ... somewhere.

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

    - "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg, from https://youtu.be/2q51wqEE1fM

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @whorefinder
    The article gets it right: the protesters were Democrats who protested not because they opposed the war, but because it was a convenient hammer to bludgeon a Republican president.

    It was pure partisan politics.

    As James O'Keefe has revealed---which was also hinted at in Hollywood fictionalization of politics such as in the first season of the American version of House of Cards----is that the D's pay-and-bus-in both protesters AND voters to cause disruptions/fights and steal elections.

    The 80-90% of the anti-war protesters were paid by the DNC and their donors, and set up by the corporate media in camera-friendly demonstrations, to hang the "unpopular warmonger" title on W. and claim he was a liar. It was a total corporate set up.

    And once Obama took office they started paying to protest the 1% and the police instead of the wars.

    The protesters didn’t go anywhere, they just started singing a different song.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @shadow
    It's just like the so called anti-war protesters during the Viet Nam war. They were not protesting war; they were protesting the draft. They simply did not want to go and ran for the high grass. The movement died when the draft was discontinued. Then these protesters returned from Canada, or from the jobs that exempted them from the draft, shaved beards, got a hair cut, and took a bath before they joined the corporate community or daddy's business. Many became the neo-conservative chicken hawks who now embrace war as long as it is not they or their loved one who are doing the dying.

    They were not protesting war; they were protesting the draft.

    You nailed it. A bunch of smelly, hypocritical leeches covered their hypocritical behinds by mouthing high sounding principles. I’d say a good 95% of them were pathetic cowards and fakes.

    However, if I had to do it all over again, I would have protested that hideously filthy war before I saw it rather than after.

    Shame on America for all the wars and strife it’s caused from the beginning. Double shame for using its resources and industrial might to inflict industrial scale carnage and destruction all over the world for the benefit of the most despicable among us.

    Butler was right.

    In an effort to PREVENT the war that Churchill called “unnecessary,” (WW2,) this 2 time Medal of Honor recipient wrote…

    “… I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism.”

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @LauraMR
    Obama was a bad president. It will eventually sink in.

    Obama was a bad president. It will eventually sink in.

    As rotten a system as we have, they all have to be bad presidents. Anyone who’d want the job is scum. Too bad that concept will never sink in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @whorefinder
    Agreed, King's style was pure black preacher-hustler, just amped up to 11. King was a convenient front man for the communist agents who handled him, using him to sow social discord and violence in America for the Soviet/Cuban purposes.

    His style was straight travelling hustler preacher; he would not have been out of place in Steve Martin's Leap of Faith film attacking traveling preacher culture. Then they just rewarded him with some choice easy women and some nice suits and he was all set to say whatever they wanted him to do. For example, I doubt very much he even wrote his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail; if you research the piece, it was allegedly "smuggled" out of his prison cell, where he wrote it "in the margins of newspapers". Then it was later "edited" by others, so that different versions exist. It was probably written by his handlers who told him to take credit, and they made up the sexier story of him smuggling it out.

    Unfortunately, since MLK is continuously deified in our culture, any critique of his quite humorous, overwrought, overacted style is verboten.

    Contrast that with Hitler's speeches, which are always presented today as overtly violent and strident, and his practice in front of the mirror is often held up as exemplary of how the Nazis were scary manipulators. As most historians and contemporaries admit, Hitler was an extraordinarily good speaker---most credit the majority of his political rise to his speaking ability, not his policies---and his use of the mirror is and was standard practice among good speakers, actors, singers, and other public performers.

    Yet today, history is so written that MLK is somehow the ideal speaker and Hitler was just a scary, angry guy with a lot of shouting and manipulation.

    Although Mike King’s academic bona fides were tossed into the Charles River, the man could deliver a speech – without a teleprompter. Your alt-right inclinations should not blind you to the fact that King was a far better orator than Ronnie the FBI snitch Reagan or Donald let me staff my administration with (((crony-capitalists))), (((Goldman Sachs))), and (((in-laws))) Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    lol. That overwrought, overacted, oh-I-am-a-martyr black preaching style is hilariously transparent and mediocre if you're not drinking the Koolaid. It was the same with Obama: those who worshiped the Magical Negro archetype thought him The World'S Greatest Speaker, while everyone else just thought he was overacting a lot and smelling his own farts.

    MLK could deliver a hammy speech, not a good one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Wally says:
    @Anon
    So you're fine with Jews as long as they aren't Zionists?

    I have yet to meet one who really isn’t a Zionist.

    But theoretically they could exist … somewhere.

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

    - “holocaust historian” Raul Hilberg, from https://youtu.be/2q51wqEE1fM

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Never met a Jew who wasn't a Zionist? Why do you suppose that is?

    The Hilberg quote is bullshit, by the way. He didn't say it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    I have yet to meet one who really isn't a Zionist.

    But theoretically they could exist ... somewhere.

    “we’ve often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn’t have the evidence.”

    - "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg, from https://youtu.be/2q51wqEE1fM

    Never met a Jew who wasn’t a Zionist? Why do you suppose that is?

    The Hilberg quote is bullshit, by the way. He didn’t say it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Well, Hilberg did write that the so called "Holocaust" was not the result of a deliberate, mandated policy of the Third Reich carried out by subordinates acting upon direct orders of Hitler or Himmler. His words were along the lines of the "Holocaust" being the effect of a "meeting of the minds throughout a 'far flung bureaucracy', i.e., "Holocaust by telepathy."

    There never was a "Fuehrer Order" to murder all or most of the Jews of Europe, since the National Socialist regime never had such a policy. The policy, from 1933 till the end of the war, was for the Jews to leave the German sphere of influence, either by encouraged emigration, a la the Transfer Agreement or forced resettlement- Madagascar Plan. The exigencies of the war against the Soviet Union led to the conscription of Jews for labor and temporary internment of many, but the plan always remained the Jews leaving Europe. This is attested to in the Luther Memorandum of the German Foreign Ministry of August 1942, which stated unequivocally: "...after the war, the Jews will have to leave Europe. This is the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer..." It stands to reason that if the plan was for the Jews to leave Europe after the war, there was no plan to mass murder them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. whorefinder says: • Website
    @Liberty Mike
    Although Mike King's academic bona fides were tossed into the Charles River, the man could deliver a speech - without a teleprompter. Your alt-right inclinations should not blind you to the fact that King was a far better orator than Ronnie the FBI snitch Reagan or Donald let me staff my administration with (((crony-capitalists))), (((Goldman Sachs))), and (((in-laws))) Trump.

    lol. That overwrought, overacted, oh-I-am-a-martyr black preaching style is hilariously transparent and mediocre if you’re not drinking the Koolaid. It was the same with Obama: those who worshiped the Magical Negro archetype thought him The World’S Greatest Speaker, while everyone else just thought he was overacting a lot and smelling his own farts.

    MLK could deliver a hammy speech, not a good one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Martin Luther (Michael) King's "I have a dream" speech was plagiarized. A white preacher wrote that speech in the 1920s.
    Also, MLK's "doctoral thesis" was also plagiarized...
    , @Liberty Mike
    Mike King was a far better orator than Obama.

    Notice that King was far more mellifluous in his delivery than Obama. The ability to deliver a speech without filler is a hallmark of a good orator. There has been no white president in the telecommunication age who could carry Mike King's athletic supporter with regard to delivering a speech.

    Please note that my comments are limited to the quality of the oratory. I have already referenced Mike King's shameful academic background and I note that anarchist does as well.

    King's oratorical gifts were undeniable - his pipes, his phrasing, and his ability to orate without anger and frothing at the mouth. His style was not that of Jesse Jackson or Jeremiah Wright.

    One can be a race realist and still accept the fact that King was no ordinary negro with regard to delivering a speech.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. anarchyst says:
    @whorefinder
    lol. That overwrought, overacted, oh-I-am-a-martyr black preaching style is hilariously transparent and mediocre if you're not drinking the Koolaid. It was the same with Obama: those who worshiped the Magical Negro archetype thought him The World'S Greatest Speaker, while everyone else just thought he was overacting a lot and smelling his own farts.

    MLK could deliver a hammy speech, not a good one.

    Martin Luther (Michael) King’s “I have a dream” speech was plagiarized. A white preacher wrote that speech in the 1920s.
    Also, MLK’s “doctoral thesis” was also plagiarized…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. annamaria says:
    @Priss Factor
    One reason was he 'led from behind'.

    If Bush had just used air campaigns, he might have gotten by. But he invaded a whole nation and tried to rebuild it. Huge undertaking.

    Obama just bombed Libya and then only aided terrorists in Syria.

    Things might have been somewhat different if he decided to fully invade a nation like Bush did.

    Obama’s legacy: “Billions of dollars’ worth of arms against Syria,” by Thierry Meyssan http://www.voltairenet.org/article197144.html
    “Over the last seven years, several billion dollars’ worth of armament has been illegally introduced into Syria – a fact which in itself is enough to disprove the myth according to which this war is a democratic revolution. Numerous documents attest to the fact that the traffic was organised by General David Petraeus, first of all in public, via the CIA, of which he was the director, then privately, via the financial company KKR with the aid of certain senior civil servants. Thus the conflict, which was initially an imperialist operation by the United States and the United Kingdom, became a private capitalist operation…”

    And we should not forget the names of “humanitarian interventionists” Samantha Powers and Hilary Clinton, these two modern-day cannibals of female persuasion

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @whorefinder
    lol. That overwrought, overacted, oh-I-am-a-martyr black preaching style is hilariously transparent and mediocre if you're not drinking the Koolaid. It was the same with Obama: those who worshiped the Magical Negro archetype thought him The World'S Greatest Speaker, while everyone else just thought he was overacting a lot and smelling his own farts.

    MLK could deliver a hammy speech, not a good one.

    Mike King was a far better orator than Obama.

    Notice that King was far more mellifluous in his delivery than Obama. The ability to deliver a speech without filler is a hallmark of a good orator. There has been no white president in the telecommunication age who could carry Mike King’s athletic supporter with regard to delivering a speech.

    Please note that my comments are limited to the quality of the oratory. I have already referenced Mike King’s shameful academic background and I note that anarchist does as well.

    King’s oratorical gifts were undeniable – his pipes, his phrasing, and his ability to orate without anger and frothing at the mouth. His style was not that of Jesse Jackson or Jeremiah Wright.

    One can be a race realist and still accept the fact that King was no ordinary negro with regard to delivering a speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    MLK was one of the best BS artists around...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. anarchyst says:
    @Liberty Mike
    Mike King was a far better orator than Obama.

    Notice that King was far more mellifluous in his delivery than Obama. The ability to deliver a speech without filler is a hallmark of a good orator. There has been no white president in the telecommunication age who could carry Mike King's athletic supporter with regard to delivering a speech.

    Please note that my comments are limited to the quality of the oratory. I have already referenced Mike King's shameful academic background and I note that anarchist does as well.

    King's oratorical gifts were undeniable - his pipes, his phrasing, and his ability to orate without anger and frothing at the mouth. His style was not that of Jesse Jackson or Jeremiah Wright.

    One can be a race realist and still accept the fact that King was no ordinary negro with regard to delivering a speech.

    MLK was one of the best BS artists around…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon
    Never met a Jew who wasn't a Zionist? Why do you suppose that is?

    The Hilberg quote is bullshit, by the way. He didn't say it.

    Well, Hilberg did write that the so called “Holocaust” was not the result of a deliberate, mandated policy of the Third Reich carried out by subordinates acting upon direct orders of Hitler or Himmler. His words were along the lines of the “Holocaust” being the effect of a “meeting of the minds throughout a ‘far flung bureaucracy’, i.e., “Holocaust by telepathy.”

    There never was a “Fuehrer Order” to murder all or most of the Jews of Europe, since the National Socialist regime never had such a policy. The policy, from 1933 till the end of the war, was for the Jews to leave the German sphere of influence, either by encouraged emigration, a la the Transfer Agreement or forced resettlement- Madagascar Plan. The exigencies of the war against the Soviet Union led to the conscription of Jews for labor and temporary internment of many, but the plan always remained the Jews leaving Europe. This is attested to in the Luther Memorandum of the German Foreign Ministry of August 1942, which stated unequivocally: “…after the war, the Jews will have to leave Europe. This is the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer…” It stands to reason that if the plan was for the Jews to leave Europe after the war, there was no plan to mass murder them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Since you've obviously never read Hilberg, or you would know that's not what he argues at all, you should probably keep your mouth shut about him and what he says.

    The Luther memorandum of August 1942 pertains only to Jews living in areas that have governments allied with Nazi Germany but not under its direct occupation, which is why it only covers those areas: Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.

    So maybe try again?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. KA says:

    From Sudan to Somalia to Yemen to Nigeria, US foreign policy produces famine and death rather than destabilization overseas. We break it down in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
    20th July 2017 https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2017/07/17/four-major-famines-unintended-consequences-of-us-foreign-policy/

    I will add Honduras and the current food scarcity in Venezuela to the list .

    Obama ,Clinton and the leaders like Madame Albright unleashed a hell in many parts of the world. But the actions went unnoticed partly because these were not visible to the media, partly due to the fact that a single action like bombing or targeted assassination or marching of troops could not be held responsible. Our thinking don’t allow us complex processing when atrocities in foreign lands are involved .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    Well, Hilberg did write that the so called "Holocaust" was not the result of a deliberate, mandated policy of the Third Reich carried out by subordinates acting upon direct orders of Hitler or Himmler. His words were along the lines of the "Holocaust" being the effect of a "meeting of the minds throughout a 'far flung bureaucracy', i.e., "Holocaust by telepathy."

    There never was a "Fuehrer Order" to murder all or most of the Jews of Europe, since the National Socialist regime never had such a policy. The policy, from 1933 till the end of the war, was for the Jews to leave the German sphere of influence, either by encouraged emigration, a la the Transfer Agreement or forced resettlement- Madagascar Plan. The exigencies of the war against the Soviet Union led to the conscription of Jews for labor and temporary internment of many, but the plan always remained the Jews leaving Europe. This is attested to in the Luther Memorandum of the German Foreign Ministry of August 1942, which stated unequivocally: "...after the war, the Jews will have to leave Europe. This is the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer..." It stands to reason that if the plan was for the Jews to leave Europe after the war, there was no plan to mass murder them.

    Since you’ve obviously never read Hilberg, or you would know that’s not what he argues at all, you should probably keep your mouth shut about him and what he says.

    The Luther memorandum of August 1942 pertains only to Jews living in areas that have governments allied with Nazi Germany but not under its direct occupation, which is why it only covers those areas: Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, etc.

    So maybe try again?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Perhaps protesters just gave up after millions protested before the invasion of Iraq, including 3 million people in Rome, Italy, all to no effect whatsoever on President George Il-Bush-Son, the mentally defective heir to the Presidency.

    I agree that what Obama did in Libya was appalling. I think he was tired at this point of his presidency and came under the influence of his chicken-hawk Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Perhaps if John Kerry had been in office at that time, it would have been different.

    Anyway Obama did some pretty shameful things in his last years in office, not least trying to interfere in the Brexit referendum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Mulegino1 says:

    Wrong. Here are Hilberg’s exact words:

    “But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus — mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

    Also, when pressed by Ernst Zundel’s attorney, Douglas Christie, to provide some proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers, Hilberg replied, “I am at a loss.”

    At least Hilberg had a shred of honesty, unlike frauds such as Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal, who were shameless liars.

    You are also wrong about the statement in the Luther Memorandum, as it clearly states that the removal of “the Jews” (not: “the Jews living in Hungary or Romania”) from Europe would occur only after the war. The statement clearly applies to all of the Jews of Europe, as is also evinced by the Schlegelberger Document:

    “Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers’ opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party.”

    Of course, true believers such as yourself will never be satisfied with any evidence whatsoever. You must protect your pseudo-religious narrative at all costs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Wrong. Here are Hilberg’s exact words:

    “But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus — mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”
     
    Let's compare that to what you said up-thread:

    Well, Hilberg did write that the so called “Holocaust” was not the result of a deliberate, mandated policy of the Third Reich carried out by subordinates acting upon direct orders of Hitler or Himmler. His words were along the lines of the “Holocaust” being the effect of a “meeting of the minds throughout a ‘far flung bureaucracy’, i.e., “Holocaust by telepathy.”
     
    In response to this, I said that you were mischaracterizing Hilberg's argument, and you are. First of all, there were direct orders from Himmler, and Hilberg acknowledges that. Second, I would guarantee that you cannot succinctly summarize Hilberg's central thesis. Can you?
    , @anarchyst
    Let's not forget that "world jewry" declared "war" on Germany in 1933--yes, 1933, along with jewish authored anti-German books such as "Germany Must Perish". Just what was the German government supposed to do about the threats from jewish interests?
    The "Transfer Agreements" were planned and executed by Zionists, in collaboration with the German government. You see, Zionists felt that by marginalizing German jews, they would be more receptive to resettling in Palestine, which Zionists had their eyes on since the 1800s. As jews were at the pinnacle of German society, very few would have volunteered to resettle. The Zionist way to force resettlement was to marginalize them, making them the "enemy" of Germany, relocating them to "camps" which had dining facilities, theaters, swimming pools, daycare, medical and other facilities for the comfort of those interned. Now, if extermination were the desired result, why build camps with all of the aforementioned amenities? Add to that the logistics of getting the detainees to their destinations would have been daunting, Germany being a fuel-poor nation.
    There are many unanswered questions, these among others, that do not comport with orthodox holocaustianity ™. It is long overdue to put this massive fraud to rest...
    , @Anon
    The passage you quote from the Luther memo is at the end, after discussing the countries I mentioned. As for the Schlegelberger document, perhaps you can tell me the date of its issuance?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Che Guava says:
    @whorefinder
    Agreed, King's style was pure black preacher-hustler, just amped up to 11. King was a convenient front man for the communist agents who handled him, using him to sow social discord and violence in America for the Soviet/Cuban purposes.

    His style was straight travelling hustler preacher; he would not have been out of place in Steve Martin's Leap of Faith film attacking traveling preacher culture. Then they just rewarded him with some choice easy women and some nice suits and he was all set to say whatever they wanted him to do. For example, I doubt very much he even wrote his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail; if you research the piece, it was allegedly "smuggled" out of his prison cell, where he wrote it "in the margins of newspapers". Then it was later "edited" by others, so that different versions exist. It was probably written by his handlers who told him to take credit, and they made up the sexier story of him smuggling it out.

    Unfortunately, since MLK is continuously deified in our culture, any critique of his quite humorous, overwrought, overacted style is verboten.

    Contrast that with Hitler's speeches, which are always presented today as overtly violent and strident, and his practice in front of the mirror is often held up as exemplary of how the Nazis were scary manipulators. As most historians and contemporaries admit, Hitler was an extraordinarily good speaker---most credit the majority of his political rise to his speaking ability, not his policies---and his use of the mirror is and was standard practice among good speakers, actors, singers, and other public performers.

    Yet today, history is so written that MLK is somehow the ideal speaker and Hitler was just a scary, angry guy with a lot of shouting and manipulation.

    Thanks for that.

    I have read convincing reports of how all interesting parts in his doctoral thesis were plagiarized.

    Never a convincing rebuttal of that.

    I stay by my assertion that his style in speech reflected his sleazy character, but I didn’t start to working that out until noticing that Obomber was copying it, and to reading about Michael King’s reality.

    Seems to me, it sucks that you USA people have to suffer the national holiday named for him.

    Not that a holiday is not great. Just should have been named for someone else.

    We have, as one example. Ocean Day, it is on the same date as the old Imperial Navy Day, I don’t care, it is nice to having another day where you can do what you want.

    For the USA, I think Robert E. Lee Day, Warren G. Harding Day, Sitting Bull Day, Malcolm X Day, Calvin Coolidge Day, any would be preferable to Michael King Day.

    They (USA authorities) are supposed to releasing documents and tapes in ten or so years, I would bettimg that they do not, just heavily censored versions.

    Unless misfortune, I am expecting to still being around, also to expecting a giant cover-up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Not that a holiday is not great. Just should have been named for someone else.
     
    We used to have a holiday for Lincoln's Birthday, which was canned in the 80s to make room for MLK Day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    Wrong. Here are Hilberg's exact words:

    “But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

    Also, when pressed by Ernst Zundel's attorney, Douglas Christie, to provide some proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers, Hilberg replied, "I am at a loss."

    At least Hilberg had a shred of honesty, unlike frauds such as Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal, who were shameless liars.

    You are also wrong about the statement in the Luther Memorandum, as it clearly states that the removal of "the Jews" (not: "the Jews living in Hungary or Romania") from Europe would occur only after the war. The statement clearly applies to all of the Jews of Europe, as is also evinced by the Schlegelberger Document:

    "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

    Of course, true believers such as yourself will never be satisfied with any evidence whatsoever. You must protect your pseudo-religious narrative at all costs.

    Wrong. Here are Hilberg’s exact words:

    “But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus — mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

    Let’s compare that to what you said up-thread:

    Well, Hilberg did write that the so called “Holocaust” was not the result of a deliberate, mandated policy of the Third Reich carried out by subordinates acting upon direct orders of Hitler or Himmler. His words were along the lines of the “Holocaust” being the effect of a “meeting of the minds throughout a ‘far flung bureaucracy’, i.e., “Holocaust by telepathy.”

    In response to this, I said that you were mischaracterizing Hilberg’s argument, and you are. First of all, there were direct orders from Himmler, and Hilberg acknowledges that. Second, I would guarantee that you cannot succinctly summarize Hilberg’s central thesis. Can you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Hilberg's central thesis with regards to the "intent" behind the "Holocaust" is characterized as functionalism, i.e., it never happened due to a deliberate policy or a well planned machinery but due rather to the misinterpretation of directives and orders regarding what was to be done to the Jews; there were no direct orders from the highest levels of the Reich (Hitler, Goering or Himmler) to murder all of the Jews of Europe, and up to that point he was correct. There was no "Fuehrer Order" to kill all of the Jews of Europe. An order is an official document or directive, not a passage from Mein Kampf or from a speech.

    He should have gone a step further and searched for the physical evidence of the murder of the "6 million", such as mass graves or traces of human cremains and proof of homicidal gas chambers, the real linchpin of the veracity or lack thereof of an authentic historical event. Since such evidence is scarce to non-existent- and no, the famous footage of mass graves at Bergen-Belsen do not count since there is no proof that the victims were mostly Jews or that they were murdered- it is obvious that they died from disease, thanks to the Allies turning the whole German nation into a pile of rubble.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon

    Wrong. Here are Hilberg’s exact words:

    “But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus — mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”
     
    Let's compare that to what you said up-thread:

    Well, Hilberg did write that the so called “Holocaust” was not the result of a deliberate, mandated policy of the Third Reich carried out by subordinates acting upon direct orders of Hitler or Himmler. His words were along the lines of the “Holocaust” being the effect of a “meeting of the minds throughout a ‘far flung bureaucracy’, i.e., “Holocaust by telepathy.”
     
    In response to this, I said that you were mischaracterizing Hilberg's argument, and you are. First of all, there were direct orders from Himmler, and Hilberg acknowledges that. Second, I would guarantee that you cannot succinctly summarize Hilberg's central thesis. Can you?

    Hilberg’s central thesis with regards to the “intent” behind the “Holocaust” is characterized as functionalism, i.e., it never happened due to a deliberate policy or a well planned machinery but due rather to the misinterpretation of directives and orders regarding what was to be done to the Jews; there were no direct orders from the highest levels of the Reich (Hitler, Goering or Himmler) to murder all of the Jews of Europe, and up to that point he was correct. There was no “Fuehrer Order” to kill all of the Jews of Europe. An order is an official document or directive, not a passage from Mein Kampf or from a speech.

    He should have gone a step further and searched for the physical evidence of the murder of the “6 million”, such as mass graves or traces of human cremains and proof of homicidal gas chambers, the real linchpin of the veracity or lack thereof of an authentic historical event. Since such evidence is scarce to non-existent- and no, the famous footage of mass graves at Bergen-Belsen do not count since there is no proof that the victims were mostly Jews or that they were murdered- it is obvious that they died from disease, thanks to the Allies turning the whole German nation into a pile of rubble.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Hilberg’s central thesis with regards to the “intent” behind the “Holocaust” is characterized as functionalism, i.e., it never happened due to a deliberate policy or a well planned machinery but due rather to the misinterpretation of directives and orders regarding what was to be done to the Jews
     
    That was remarkably close. You were right on target all the way until "misinterpretation." He does not argue that anyone misunderstood anything.

    There were no direct orders from the highest levels of the Reich (Hitler, Goering or Himmler) to murder all of the Jews of Europe
     
    Again, close but no cigar. Certainly, Himmler gave direct orders.

    and up to that point he was correct. There was no “Fuehrer Order” to kill all of the Jews of Europe.
     
    That's correct. There was no written order.

    An order is an official document or directive, not a passage from Mein Kampf or from a speech.
     
    Do you think it really matters if there wasn't one?

    He should have gone a step further and searched for the physical evidence of the murder of the “6 million”, such as mass graves or traces of human cremains and proof of homicidal gas chambers, the real linchpin of the veracity or lack thereof of an authentic historical event. Since such evidence is scarce to non-existent
     
    Scarce, maybe, but to say it's nonexistent is to be ignorant or deliberately dishonest. Which one are you?

    and no, the famous footage of mass graves at Bergen-Belsen do not count since there is no proof that the victims were mostly Jews or that they were murdered- it is obvious that they died from disease, thanks to the Allies turning the whole German nation into a pile of rubble.
     
    Unless you can demonstrate that those people in Belsen belonged there, then the Nazis murdered them.

    Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    Hilberg's central thesis with regards to the "intent" behind the "Holocaust" is characterized as functionalism, i.e., it never happened due to a deliberate policy or a well planned machinery but due rather to the misinterpretation of directives and orders regarding what was to be done to the Jews; there were no direct orders from the highest levels of the Reich (Hitler, Goering or Himmler) to murder all of the Jews of Europe, and up to that point he was correct. There was no "Fuehrer Order" to kill all of the Jews of Europe. An order is an official document or directive, not a passage from Mein Kampf or from a speech.

    He should have gone a step further and searched for the physical evidence of the murder of the "6 million", such as mass graves or traces of human cremains and proof of homicidal gas chambers, the real linchpin of the veracity or lack thereof of an authentic historical event. Since such evidence is scarce to non-existent- and no, the famous footage of mass graves at Bergen-Belsen do not count since there is no proof that the victims were mostly Jews or that they were murdered- it is obvious that they died from disease, thanks to the Allies turning the whole German nation into a pile of rubble.

    Hilberg’s central thesis with regards to the “intent” behind the “Holocaust” is characterized as functionalism, i.e., it never happened due to a deliberate policy or a well planned machinery but due rather to the misinterpretation of directives and orders regarding what was to be done to the Jews

    That was remarkably close. You were right on target all the way until “misinterpretation.” He does not argue that anyone misunderstood anything.

    There were no direct orders from the highest levels of the Reich (Hitler, Goering or Himmler) to murder all of the Jews of Europe

    Again, close but no cigar. Certainly, Himmler gave direct orders.

    and up to that point he was correct. There was no “Fuehrer Order” to kill all of the Jews of Europe.

    That’s correct. There was no written order.

    An order is an official document or directive, not a passage from Mein Kampf or from a speech.

    Do you think it really matters if there wasn’t one?

    He should have gone a step further and searched for the physical evidence of the murder of the “6 million”, such as mass graves or traces of human cremains and proof of homicidal gas chambers, the real linchpin of the veracity or lack thereof of an authentic historical event. Since such evidence is scarce to non-existent

    Scarce, maybe, but to say it’s nonexistent is to be ignorant or deliberately dishonest. Which one are you?

    and no, the famous footage of mass graves at Bergen-Belsen do not count since there is no proof that the victims were mostly Jews or that they were murdered- it is obvious that they died from disease, thanks to the Allies turning the whole German nation into a pile of rubble.

    Unless you can demonstrate that those people in Belsen belonged there, then the Nazis murdered them.

    Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Let's not forget that Anne Frank's "diary" was mostly written with a ball-point pen, not invented till after the conclusion of WW2.
    Otto Frank penned much of the "diary"--another holocaust ™ fabrication.
    Gee, I wonder how many more holocaust ™ falsehoods we can dig up.
    The holocaust ™ is based on lies and fabrications.
    Follow the money, as "there's NO business like 'shoah' business"...
    , @Mulegino1
    Of course directives and orders can be misunderstood. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, had no idea what to do with the Jews in the General Government - despite writing "we cannot shoot or poison them", i.e., "kill them."

    The lack of any written orders for extermination argues heavily against any extermination program. The idea that the "Holocaust" was carried out in secret via word of mouth is absurd. There would be tons of documentation requesting clarification of such '"verbal orders", protests, requests for countermand, etc. The Third Reich was not the Stalinist USSR; the T-3 Euthanasia program (official document issued by Hitler) proved extremely unpopular and led to wide public protests from the Catholic and Lutheran hierarchies. Owing to the protests the program was cancelled and none of the Bishops faced any reprisals from the state. To think they would have countenanced an order (whether written or verbal) for the extermination of all of the European Jews is simply ridiculous.

    "Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim."

    This actually proves my point. As a young girl, Anne Frank was not fit for physical labor, so if it were true that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Jews, why didn't they kill her when she arrived at the "extermination camp" in Auschwitz-Birkenau, instead of wasting valuable rail and human resources to take her and her family back to Belsen? She is not a murder victim, she died from typhus.

    I take it that in your view, every victim of the Second World War owed their death to the "Nazis", despite the fact that there is an increasing body of historiography being amassed which essentially falsifies the popular mythology of Germany's total responsibility for starting and widening the war, going so far as to lay the preponderance of culpability on the British, the Poles, the FDR administration and, in the case of the war in the east, Soviet aggression.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. anarchyst says:
    @Anon

    Hilberg’s central thesis with regards to the “intent” behind the “Holocaust” is characterized as functionalism, i.e., it never happened due to a deliberate policy or a well planned machinery but due rather to the misinterpretation of directives and orders regarding what was to be done to the Jews
     
    That was remarkably close. You were right on target all the way until "misinterpretation." He does not argue that anyone misunderstood anything.

    There were no direct orders from the highest levels of the Reich (Hitler, Goering or Himmler) to murder all of the Jews of Europe
     
    Again, close but no cigar. Certainly, Himmler gave direct orders.

    and up to that point he was correct. There was no “Fuehrer Order” to kill all of the Jews of Europe.
     
    That's correct. There was no written order.

    An order is an official document or directive, not a passage from Mein Kampf or from a speech.
     
    Do you think it really matters if there wasn't one?

    He should have gone a step further and searched for the physical evidence of the murder of the “6 million”, such as mass graves or traces of human cremains and proof of homicidal gas chambers, the real linchpin of the veracity or lack thereof of an authentic historical event. Since such evidence is scarce to non-existent
     
    Scarce, maybe, but to say it's nonexistent is to be ignorant or deliberately dishonest. Which one are you?

    and no, the famous footage of mass graves at Bergen-Belsen do not count since there is no proof that the victims were mostly Jews or that they were murdered- it is obvious that they died from disease, thanks to the Allies turning the whole German nation into a pile of rubble.
     
    Unless you can demonstrate that those people in Belsen belonged there, then the Nazis murdered them.

    Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim.

    Let’s not forget that Anne Frank’s “diary” was mostly written with a ball-point pen, not invented till after the conclusion of WW2.
    Otto Frank penned much of the “diary”–another holocaust ™ fabrication.
    Gee, I wonder how many more holocaust ™ falsehoods we can dig up.
    The holocaust ™ is based on lies and fabrications.
    Follow the money, as “there’s NO business like ‘shoah’ business”…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. anarchyst says:
    @Mulegino1
    Wrong. Here are Hilberg's exact words:

    “But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

    Also, when pressed by Ernst Zundel's attorney, Douglas Christie, to provide some proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers, Hilberg replied, "I am at a loss."

    At least Hilberg had a shred of honesty, unlike frauds such as Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal, who were shameless liars.

    You are also wrong about the statement in the Luther Memorandum, as it clearly states that the removal of "the Jews" (not: "the Jews living in Hungary or Romania") from Europe would occur only after the war. The statement clearly applies to all of the Jews of Europe, as is also evinced by the Schlegelberger Document:

    "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

    Of course, true believers such as yourself will never be satisfied with any evidence whatsoever. You must protect your pseudo-religious narrative at all costs.

    Let’s not forget that “world jewry” declared “war” on Germany in 1933–yes, 1933, along with jewish authored anti-German books such as “Germany Must Perish”. Just what was the German government supposed to do about the threats from jewish interests?
    The “Transfer Agreements” were planned and executed by Zionists, in collaboration with the German government. You see, Zionists felt that by marginalizing German jews, they would be more receptive to resettling in Palestine, which Zionists had their eyes on since the 1800s. As jews were at the pinnacle of German society, very few would have volunteered to resettle. The Zionist way to force resettlement was to marginalize them, making them the “enemy” of Germany, relocating them to “camps” which had dining facilities, theaters, swimming pools, daycare, medical and other facilities for the comfort of those interned. Now, if extermination were the desired result, why build camps with all of the aforementioned amenities? Add to that the logistics of getting the detainees to their destinations would have been daunting, Germany being a fuel-poor nation.
    There are many unanswered questions, these among others, that do not comport with orthodox holocaustianity ™. It is long overdue to put this massive fraud to rest…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    I could not agree more.

    The German camps, while hardly luxury resorts, were sumptuous when compared to the horrors of the Gulag camps or to Eisenhower's Rhine Meadows starvation camps for "disarmed enemy forces."

    We were brainwashed by a lousy public education system and an entirely enslaved mass media, and sold a huge bill of counterfeit goods by Hollywood.
    , @Anon
    What country was "world Jewry"? How many men in its army?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon

    Hilberg’s central thesis with regards to the “intent” behind the “Holocaust” is characterized as functionalism, i.e., it never happened due to a deliberate policy or a well planned machinery but due rather to the misinterpretation of directives and orders regarding what was to be done to the Jews
     
    That was remarkably close. You were right on target all the way until "misinterpretation." He does not argue that anyone misunderstood anything.

    There were no direct orders from the highest levels of the Reich (Hitler, Goering or Himmler) to murder all of the Jews of Europe
     
    Again, close but no cigar. Certainly, Himmler gave direct orders.

    and up to that point he was correct. There was no “Fuehrer Order” to kill all of the Jews of Europe.
     
    That's correct. There was no written order.

    An order is an official document or directive, not a passage from Mein Kampf or from a speech.
     
    Do you think it really matters if there wasn't one?

    He should have gone a step further and searched for the physical evidence of the murder of the “6 million”, such as mass graves or traces of human cremains and proof of homicidal gas chambers, the real linchpin of the veracity or lack thereof of an authentic historical event. Since such evidence is scarce to non-existent
     
    Scarce, maybe, but to say it's nonexistent is to be ignorant or deliberately dishonest. Which one are you?

    and no, the famous footage of mass graves at Bergen-Belsen do not count since there is no proof that the victims were mostly Jews or that they were murdered- it is obvious that they died from disease, thanks to the Allies turning the whole German nation into a pile of rubble.
     
    Unless you can demonstrate that those people in Belsen belonged there, then the Nazis murdered them.

    Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim.

    Of course directives and orders can be misunderstood. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, had no idea what to do with the Jews in the General Government – despite writing “we cannot shoot or poison them”, i.e., “kill them.”

    The lack of any written orders for extermination argues heavily against any extermination program. The idea that the “Holocaust” was carried out in secret via word of mouth is absurd. There would be tons of documentation requesting clarification of such ‘”verbal orders”, protests, requests for countermand, etc. The Third Reich was not the Stalinist USSR; the T-3 Euthanasia program (official document issued by Hitler) proved extremely unpopular and led to wide public protests from the Catholic and Lutheran hierarchies. Owing to the protests the program was cancelled and none of the Bishops faced any reprisals from the state. To think they would have countenanced an order (whether written or verbal) for the extermination of all of the European Jews is simply ridiculous.

    “Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim.”

    This actually proves my point. As a young girl, Anne Frank was not fit for physical labor, so if it were true that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Jews, why didn’t they kill her when she arrived at the “extermination camp” in Auschwitz-Birkenau, instead of wasting valuable rail and human resources to take her and her family back to Belsen? She is not a murder victim, she died from typhus.

    I take it that in your view, every victim of the Second World War owed their death to the “Nazis”, despite the fact that there is an increasing body of historiography being amassed which essentially falsifies the popular mythology of Germany’s total responsibility for starting and widening the war, going so far as to lay the preponderance of culpability on the British, the Poles, the FDR administration and, in the case of the war in the east, Soviet aggression.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Of course directives and orders can be misunderstood. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, had no idea what to do with the Jews in the General Government – despite writing “we cannot shoot or poison them”, i.e., “kill them.”
     
    Which actually makes a somewhat important point: When Frank was making that complaint there were almost 2 million Jews in the GG; less than 2 years later, most were gone. What do you suppose happened to them?

    The lack of any written orders for extermination argues heavily against any extermination program. The idea that the “Holocaust” was carried out in secret via word of mouth is absurd.
     
    Then it's a good thing no one is claiming that.

    There would be tons of documentation requesting clarification of such ‘”verbal orders”, protests, requests for countermand, etc. The Third Reich was not the Stalinist USSR;
     
    You're showing more ignorance than you might imagine. The Soviets were rather methodological record keepers, which is why we know so much about what happened there.

    But I like this idea of the Nazis being great record keepers. Surely there must be some record of these 1.5 million Jews who flat out disappeared from GG at the rate of roughly one million per year, right? So where are they?

    the T-3 Euthanasia program (official document issued by Hitler) proved extremely unpopular and led to wide public protests from the Catholic and Lutheran hierarchies. Owing to the protests the program was cancelled and none of the Bishops faced any reprisals from the state. To think they would have countenanced an order (whether written or verbal) for the extermination of all of the European Jews is simply ridiculous.
     
    No, it isn't, if you think about it for a second. You can make the argument that the disabled are a drain on resources, particularly once the country is at war (which is why T4 -- note the number -- was backdated to 9/39), and it's likely without a complaint from the clergy that T4 would have continued openly. The problem is that average Germans had disabled people in their families and went to church regularly.

    Contrast that with Jews, who had been systematically demonized for six years, who most Germans didn't have in their families, and who the churches felt, at best, neutral about. Plus, the Jews being killed were by and large neither from Germany nor being killed there, so it was easy to hide what was going on for a while.

    “Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim.”

    This actually proves my point. As a young girl, Anne Frank was not fit for physical labor, so if it were true that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Jews, why didn’t they kill her when she arrived at the “extermination camp” in Auschwitz-Birkenau, instead of wasting valuable rail and human resources to take her and her family back to Belsen?
     
    At the age of 15 to 16, she was old enough to work, as literally thousands of testimonies will attest. She was assigned to a work detail at Belsen. She was sent through Auschwitz because all trains from Westerbork at that point went to Auschwitz first.

    She is not a murder victim, she died from typhus.
     
    Only if you want to argue that the Nazis had some right to have her in custody. Do you?

    I take it that in your view, every victim of the Second World War owed their death to the “Nazis”,
     
    Nope

    despite the fact that there is an increasing body of historiography being amassed which essentially falsifies the popular mythology of Germany’s total responsibility for starting and widening the war, going so far as to lay the preponderance of culpability on the British, the Poles, the FDR administration and, in the case of the war in the east, Soviet aggression.
     
    Really? An increasing body? Name me three important works making this claim in the last decade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Mulegino1 says:
    @anarchyst
    Let's not forget that "world jewry" declared "war" on Germany in 1933--yes, 1933, along with jewish authored anti-German books such as "Germany Must Perish". Just what was the German government supposed to do about the threats from jewish interests?
    The "Transfer Agreements" were planned and executed by Zionists, in collaboration with the German government. You see, Zionists felt that by marginalizing German jews, they would be more receptive to resettling in Palestine, which Zionists had their eyes on since the 1800s. As jews were at the pinnacle of German society, very few would have volunteered to resettle. The Zionist way to force resettlement was to marginalize them, making them the "enemy" of Germany, relocating them to "camps" which had dining facilities, theaters, swimming pools, daycare, medical and other facilities for the comfort of those interned. Now, if extermination were the desired result, why build camps with all of the aforementioned amenities? Add to that the logistics of getting the detainees to their destinations would have been daunting, Germany being a fuel-poor nation.
    There are many unanswered questions, these among others, that do not comport with orthodox holocaustianity ™. It is long overdue to put this massive fraud to rest...

    I could not agree more.

    The German camps, while hardly luxury resorts, were sumptuous when compared to the horrors of the Gulag camps or to Eisenhower’s Rhine Meadows starvation camps for “disarmed enemy forces.”

    We were brainwashed by a lousy public education system and an entirely enslaved mass media, and sold a huge bill of counterfeit goods by Hollywood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    A total of 4,500 POWs died in those camps. How many Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    Of course directives and orders can be misunderstood. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, had no idea what to do with the Jews in the General Government - despite writing "we cannot shoot or poison them", i.e., "kill them."

    The lack of any written orders for extermination argues heavily against any extermination program. The idea that the "Holocaust" was carried out in secret via word of mouth is absurd. There would be tons of documentation requesting clarification of such '"verbal orders", protests, requests for countermand, etc. The Third Reich was not the Stalinist USSR; the T-3 Euthanasia program (official document issued by Hitler) proved extremely unpopular and led to wide public protests from the Catholic and Lutheran hierarchies. Owing to the protests the program was cancelled and none of the Bishops faced any reprisals from the state. To think they would have countenanced an order (whether written or verbal) for the extermination of all of the European Jews is simply ridiculous.

    "Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim."

    This actually proves my point. As a young girl, Anne Frank was not fit for physical labor, so if it were true that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Jews, why didn't they kill her when she arrived at the "extermination camp" in Auschwitz-Birkenau, instead of wasting valuable rail and human resources to take her and her family back to Belsen? She is not a murder victim, she died from typhus.

    I take it that in your view, every victim of the Second World War owed their death to the "Nazis", despite the fact that there is an increasing body of historiography being amassed which essentially falsifies the popular mythology of Germany's total responsibility for starting and widening the war, going so far as to lay the preponderance of culpability on the British, the Poles, the FDR administration and, in the case of the war in the east, Soviet aggression.

    Of course directives and orders can be misunderstood. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, had no idea what to do with the Jews in the General Government – despite writing “we cannot shoot or poison them”, i.e., “kill them.”

    Which actually makes a somewhat important point: When Frank was making that complaint there were almost 2 million Jews in the GG; less than 2 years later, most were gone. What do you suppose happened to them?

    The lack of any written orders for extermination argues heavily against any extermination program. The idea that the “Holocaust” was carried out in secret via word of mouth is absurd.

    Then it’s a good thing no one is claiming that.

    There would be tons of documentation requesting clarification of such ‘”verbal orders”, protests, requests for countermand, etc. The Third Reich was not the Stalinist USSR;

    You’re showing more ignorance than you might imagine. The Soviets were rather methodological record keepers, which is why we know so much about what happened there.

    But I like this idea of the Nazis being great record keepers. Surely there must be some record of these 1.5 million Jews who flat out disappeared from GG at the rate of roughly one million per year, right? So where are they?

    the T-3 Euthanasia program (official document issued by Hitler) proved extremely unpopular and led to wide public protests from the Catholic and Lutheran hierarchies. Owing to the protests the program was cancelled and none of the Bishops faced any reprisals from the state. To think they would have countenanced an order (whether written or verbal) for the extermination of all of the European Jews is simply ridiculous.

    No, it isn’t, if you think about it for a second. You can make the argument that the disabled are a drain on resources, particularly once the country is at war (which is why T4 — note the number — was backdated to 9/39), and it’s likely without a complaint from the clergy that T4 would have continued openly. The problem is that average Germans had disabled people in their families and went to church regularly.

    Contrast that with Jews, who had been systematically demonized for six years, who most Germans didn’t have in their families, and who the churches felt, at best, neutral about. Plus, the Jews being killed were by and large neither from Germany nor being killed there, so it was easy to hide what was going on for a while.

    “Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim.”

    This actually proves my point. As a young girl, Anne Frank was not fit for physical labor, so if it were true that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Jews, why didn’t they kill her when she arrived at the “extermination camp” in Auschwitz-Birkenau, instead of wasting valuable rail and human resources to take her and her family back to Belsen?

    At the age of 15 to 16, she was old enough to work, as literally thousands of testimonies will attest. She was assigned to a work detail at Belsen. She was sent through Auschwitz because all trains from Westerbork at that point went to Auschwitz first.

    She is not a murder victim, she died from typhus.

    Only if you want to argue that the Nazis had some right to have her in custody. Do you?

    I take it that in your view, every victim of the Second World War owed their death to the “Nazis”,

    Nope

    despite the fact that there is an increasing body of historiography being amassed which essentially falsifies the popular mythology of Germany’s total responsibility for starting and widening the war, going so far as to lay the preponderance of culpability on the British, the Poles, the FDR administration and, in the case of the war in the east, Soviet aggression.

    Really? An increasing body? Name me three important works making this claim in the last decade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Frank was under the impression that there were 2 million Jews in the area of the General Government, but he was merely citing census data which preceded the outbreak of the war. It is a virtual certainty that many Jews fled to the Soviet zone of occupation after the USSR invaded Poland. Also, we know with certainty that the Soviets evacuated some 2 million Jews from the western frontier military districts in 1941 (Solzhenitsyn even alluded to this fact) prior to their planned invasion of Europe sometime in the summer of 1941, which was preempted by Fall Barbarossa. In any case, it is estimated that there were some 700,000 Jews in German occupied Poland. Thousands of Polish Jews magically reappeared in Germany after the war as refugees, and the composition of the first Polish communist government was overwhelmingly Jewish. Where did those Jews come from if they were all supposedly dead?

    In any case, asking what happened to the Jews should be an easy answer for you - you could point at the gigantic mass graves or piles of cremains which must exist at 6 easily accessed locations, namely Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka II, Chelmno, KZ Lublin (Majdanek) - except that there are none commensurate with even tens of thousands murder victims, much less 3 million or so. In addition, the ridiculous accounts of the so called eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in those camps are absurd beyond imagination and with respect to the murder weapons allegedly used- common pesticide and (non-lethal exhaust) not to mention the logistically impossible claims for body disposal (cremations in 10 minutes, funeral pyres which used human fat for cremation)- obviously the product of free inventions. You cannot reduce a body to ashes in 10 minutes- not even in a state of the art crematory retort- and you cannot cremate bodies on outdoor pyres as the story goes at Treblinka II - without millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood.

    Then you attempt to impute totally bizarre behavior to the German people and to clergymen like Archbishop Von Galen - a lion of a man who publicly opposed the T-3 Program and issued a letter of protest to be read in every German Catholic parish. Of course this is ridiculous. If they opposed the euthanasia program they would have opposed the mass murder of Jews- it is that simple. We are not dealing with uncultured barbarians here. Most Germans probably did not like Jews, but dislike and murder are two entirely different things.

    So, they took the Frank family all the way from Netherlands to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Upper Silesia then back to Belsen just for purposes of torturing them? Obviously, Anne Frank was not gassed anywhere. Why was the Frank family - Frank himself had a shady background and was involved in the black market and most likely ratted out by a former associate - not gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau? No, Anne Frank was not a murder victim- the internment of enemy aliens was a common practice among the belligerents in the Second World War, as was the case in the U.S., which interned its own Japanese citizens. Of course, the American land mass was virtually untouched by the war, unlike Germany, which was bombed and shot to rubble. How would our own internees have fared if the German and Japanese forces were bombing all the American rail corridors and power grids?

    As per your last question: Charles A. Beard, A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Gerd Schultze Ronhof (the latter demonstrates that the British strategy to destroy Germany began, not in 1939, but in 1870-1871, when Prussia defeated France and Bismark established the united German Reich).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anarchyst
    Let's not forget that "world jewry" declared "war" on Germany in 1933--yes, 1933, along with jewish authored anti-German books such as "Germany Must Perish". Just what was the German government supposed to do about the threats from jewish interests?
    The "Transfer Agreements" were planned and executed by Zionists, in collaboration with the German government. You see, Zionists felt that by marginalizing German jews, they would be more receptive to resettling in Palestine, which Zionists had their eyes on since the 1800s. As jews were at the pinnacle of German society, very few would have volunteered to resettle. The Zionist way to force resettlement was to marginalize them, making them the "enemy" of Germany, relocating them to "camps" which had dining facilities, theaters, swimming pools, daycare, medical and other facilities for the comfort of those interned. Now, if extermination were the desired result, why build camps with all of the aforementioned amenities? Add to that the logistics of getting the detainees to their destinations would have been daunting, Germany being a fuel-poor nation.
    There are many unanswered questions, these among others, that do not comport with orthodox holocaustianity ™. It is long overdue to put this massive fraud to rest...

    What country was “world Jewry”? How many men in its army?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    World jewry consisted of Bolsheviks and Zionists, along with the banksters (primarily jewish) who were ITCHING for war...as was the case in WW1, a scapegoat was needed...hence, Germany was made the "villain" of WW2. Zionists had been planning to take over in Palestine for over a century. What better way than to marginalize their own people, using Germany as a model. Look up the "Transfer Agreements" between Germany and Zionists.
    The word "holocaust " was not in use until the 1960s when world jewry (again) realized that they had a giant "cash cow" on their hands that could be used to garner support for their causes, by (again) invoking the "victim card", something that jews are expert at. We are still paying today...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    Wrong. Here are Hilberg's exact words:

    “But what began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They [these measures] were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus -- mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.”

    Also, when pressed by Ernst Zundel's attorney, Douglas Christie, to provide some proof of the existence of homicidal gas chambers, Hilberg replied, "I am at a loss."

    At least Hilberg had a shred of honesty, unlike frauds such as Elie Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal, who were shameless liars.

    You are also wrong about the statement in the Luther Memorandum, as it clearly states that the removal of "the Jews" (not: "the Jews living in Hungary or Romania") from Europe would occur only after the war. The statement clearly applies to all of the Jews of Europe, as is also evinced by the Schlegelberger Document:

    "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

    Of course, true believers such as yourself will never be satisfied with any evidence whatsoever. You must protect your pseudo-religious narrative at all costs.

    The passage you quote from the Luther memo is at the end, after discussing the countries I mentioned. As for the Schlegelberger document, perhaps you can tell me the date of its issuance?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    June, 1942

    "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    I could not agree more.

    The German camps, while hardly luxury resorts, were sumptuous when compared to the horrors of the Gulag camps or to Eisenhower's Rhine Meadows starvation camps for "disarmed enemy forces."

    We were brainwashed by a lousy public education system and an entirely enslaved mass media, and sold a huge bill of counterfeit goods by Hollywood.

    A total of 4,500 POWs died in those camps. How many Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon

    Of course directives and orders can be misunderstood. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, had no idea what to do with the Jews in the General Government – despite writing “we cannot shoot or poison them”, i.e., “kill them.”
     
    Which actually makes a somewhat important point: When Frank was making that complaint there were almost 2 million Jews in the GG; less than 2 years later, most were gone. What do you suppose happened to them?

    The lack of any written orders for extermination argues heavily against any extermination program. The idea that the “Holocaust” was carried out in secret via word of mouth is absurd.
     
    Then it's a good thing no one is claiming that.

    There would be tons of documentation requesting clarification of such ‘”verbal orders”, protests, requests for countermand, etc. The Third Reich was not the Stalinist USSR;
     
    You're showing more ignorance than you might imagine. The Soviets were rather methodological record keepers, which is why we know so much about what happened there.

    But I like this idea of the Nazis being great record keepers. Surely there must be some record of these 1.5 million Jews who flat out disappeared from GG at the rate of roughly one million per year, right? So where are they?

    the T-3 Euthanasia program (official document issued by Hitler) proved extremely unpopular and led to wide public protests from the Catholic and Lutheran hierarchies. Owing to the protests the program was cancelled and none of the Bishops faced any reprisals from the state. To think they would have countenanced an order (whether written or verbal) for the extermination of all of the European Jews is simply ridiculous.
     
    No, it isn't, if you think about it for a second. You can make the argument that the disabled are a drain on resources, particularly once the country is at war (which is why T4 -- note the number -- was backdated to 9/39), and it's likely without a complaint from the clergy that T4 would have continued openly. The problem is that average Germans had disabled people in their families and went to church regularly.

    Contrast that with Jews, who had been systematically demonized for six years, who most Germans didn't have in their families, and who the churches felt, at best, neutral about. Plus, the Jews being killed were by and large neither from Germany nor being killed there, so it was easy to hide what was going on for a while.

    “Anne Frank, born in Germany, fled to Amsterdam, deported from there to Auschwitz, then transferred to Belsen, where she died at the age of 16. Sorry, pal, but she was a murder victim.”

    This actually proves my point. As a young girl, Anne Frank was not fit for physical labor, so if it were true that the Germans had a plan to exterminate the Jews, why didn’t they kill her when she arrived at the “extermination camp” in Auschwitz-Birkenau, instead of wasting valuable rail and human resources to take her and her family back to Belsen?
     
    At the age of 15 to 16, she was old enough to work, as literally thousands of testimonies will attest. She was assigned to a work detail at Belsen. She was sent through Auschwitz because all trains from Westerbork at that point went to Auschwitz first.

    She is not a murder victim, she died from typhus.
     
    Only if you want to argue that the Nazis had some right to have her in custody. Do you?

    I take it that in your view, every victim of the Second World War owed their death to the “Nazis”,
     
    Nope

    despite the fact that there is an increasing body of historiography being amassed which essentially falsifies the popular mythology of Germany’s total responsibility for starting and widening the war, going so far as to lay the preponderance of culpability on the British, the Poles, the FDR administration and, in the case of the war in the east, Soviet aggression.
     
    Really? An increasing body? Name me three important works making this claim in the last decade.

    Frank was under the impression that there were 2 million Jews in the area of the General Government, but he was merely citing census data which preceded the outbreak of the war. It is a virtual certainty that many Jews fled to the Soviet zone of occupation after the USSR invaded Poland. Also, we know with certainty that the Soviets evacuated some 2 million Jews from the western frontier military districts in 1941 (Solzhenitsyn even alluded to this fact) prior to their planned invasion of Europe sometime in the summer of 1941, which was preempted by Fall Barbarossa. In any case, it is estimated that there were some 700,000 Jews in German occupied Poland. Thousands of Polish Jews magically reappeared in Germany after the war as refugees, and the composition of the first Polish communist government was overwhelmingly Jewish. Where did those Jews come from if they were all supposedly dead?

    In any case, asking what happened to the Jews should be an easy answer for you – you could point at the gigantic mass graves or piles of cremains which must exist at 6 easily accessed locations, namely Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka II, Chelmno, KZ Lublin (Majdanek) – except that there are none commensurate with even tens of thousands murder victims, much less 3 million or so. In addition, the ridiculous accounts of the so called eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in those camps are absurd beyond imagination and with respect to the murder weapons allegedly used- common pesticide and (non-lethal exhaust) not to mention the logistically impossible claims for body disposal (cremations in 10 minutes, funeral pyres which used human fat for cremation)- obviously the product of free inventions. You cannot reduce a body to ashes in 10 minutes- not even in a state of the art crematory retort- and you cannot cremate bodies on outdoor pyres as the story goes at Treblinka II – without millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood.

    Then you attempt to impute totally bizarre behavior to the German people and to clergymen like Archbishop Von Galen – a lion of a man who publicly opposed the T-3 Program and issued a letter of protest to be read in every German Catholic parish. Of course this is ridiculous. If they opposed the euthanasia program they would have opposed the mass murder of Jews- it is that simple. We are not dealing with uncultured barbarians here. Most Germans probably did not like Jews, but dislike and murder are two entirely different things.

    So, they took the Frank family all the way from Netherlands to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Upper Silesia then back to Belsen just for purposes of torturing them? Obviously, Anne Frank was not gassed anywhere. Why was the Frank family – Frank himself had a shady background and was involved in the black market and most likely ratted out by a former associate – not gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau? No, Anne Frank was not a murder victim- the internment of enemy aliens was a common practice among the belligerents in the Second World War, as was the case in the U.S., which interned its own Japanese citizens. Of course, the American land mass was virtually untouched by the war, unlike Germany, which was bombed and shot to rubble. How would our own internees have fared if the German and Japanese forces were bombing all the American rail corridors and power grids?

    As per your last question: Charles A. Beard, A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Gerd Schultze Ronhof (the latter demonstrates that the British strategy to destroy Germany began, not in 1939, but in 1870-1871, when Prussia defeated France and Bismark established the united German Reich).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Frank was under the impression that there were 2 million Jews in the area of the General Government, but he was merely citing census data which preceded the outbreak of the war. It is a virtual certainty that many Jews fled to the Soviet zone of occupation after the USSR invaded Poland.
     
    There are several points you get wrong here. First, while it's true that some Jews fled into the Soviet zone, no one -- not even "revisionists" claim that they were all evacuated. The Soviets only occupied one third of Poland. If the Jewish population of Poland was 3 million in 1939, it's fair to assume two million in what would become the German occupation zone and one million in the Soviet zone before the invasion. Assuming further that any Jews that fled went to the Soviet zone, they would still by and large be there (see below for elaboration on this point). Moreover, some of that territory, but not all (not the Biaystok or Wilno districts), was incorporated into the GG, so it got back some Jews it might have left.

    Second, you're ignoring that tens of thousands of Jews were deported into the GG between September 1939 and June 1941 from Warthegau, Silesia, West Prussia, and Danzig to make room for Baltic Germans being brought into the newly acquired territories. This, in fact, was the key complaint that Frank was making -- they were giving him more Jews than he could accommodate.

    Third, the Soviets evacuated many Jews with the Nazis invasion, but not from areas at the front. Jews were evacuated mainly from Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia, but in the Baltic states and eastern Poland, they were mostly trapped.

    Also, we know with certainty that the Soviets evacuated some 2 million Jews from the western frontier military districts in 1941 (Solzhenitsyn even alluded to this fact) prior to their planned invasion of Europe sometime in the summer of 1941, which was preempted by Fall Barbarossa.
     
    I dealt with this above and elsewhere.

    In any case, it is estimated that there were some 700,000 Jews in German occupied Poland.
     
    Ludicrous. The Wannsee Protokol lists more than 2.2 million in the GG, 400K in the Bialystok district, and 420,000 in the Ostgebiet, which means the areas annexed to the Reich.


    Thousands of Polish Jews magically reappeared in Germany after the war as refugees,
     
    But not millions.

    and the composition of the first Polish communist government was overwhelmingly Jewish. Where did those Jews come from if they were all supposedly dead?

     

    Ten percent of Polish Jews survived. Out of an original population of three million, that's still 300,000 people.

    In any case, asking what happened to the Jews should be an easy answer for you – you could point at the gigantic mass graves or piles of cremains which must exist at 6 easily accessed locations, namely Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka II, Chelmno, KZ Lublin (Majdanek)
     
    Putting aside for the moment that you know the bodies were cremated (and cremains have been found at Sobibor, Belzec, and Trebinka), you don't get to turn the tables. I asked you for documents on resettlement. None exist.

    – except that there are none commensurate with even tens of thousands murder victims, much less 3 million or so.
     
    A lie. There are have been numerous forensic investigations of these camps, and you know it. You merely refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever.

    In addition, the ridiculous accounts of the so called eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in those camps are absurd beyond imagination and with respect to the murder weapons allegedly used- common pesticide and (non-lethal exhaust) not to mention the logistically impossible claims for body disposal (cremations in 10 minutes, funeral pyres which used human fat for cremation)- obviously the product of free inventions. You cannot reduce a body to ashes in 10 minutes- not even in a state of the art crematory retort- and you cannot cremate bodies on outdoor pyres as the story goes at Treblinka II – without millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood.
     
    I'm not going to go into the weeds with you on this. You made allegations about documents, and I'm making a point back at you that undermines your own argument. Be a man and respond to my points, and then maybe I'll think about addressing your other claims.

    Then you attempt to impute totally bizarre behavior to the German people and to clergymen like Archbishop Von Galen – a lion of a man who publicly opposed the T-3 Program and issued a letter of protest to be read in every German Catholic parish.
     
    I did nothing of the sort. And it's T4.

    Of course this is ridiculous. If they opposed the euthanasia program they would have opposed the mass murder of Jews- it is that simple. We are not dealing with uncultured barbarians here. Most Germans probably did not like Jews, but dislike and murder are two entirely different things.
     
    You both missed my point and are wrong.

    My point was that, by and large, most Germans didn't know what was going on before it was far too late.

    Your argument from incredulity that people could oppose euthanasia of their own relatives but not the killing of Jews is unconvincing.

    So, they took the Frank family all the way from Netherlands to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Upper Silesia then back to Belsen just for purposes of torturing them?
     
    Straw man: I said the purpose was to put her to work.

    All trains from Westerbork went to Auschwitz, as did trains from other transit camps across western Europe. This should be unsurprising to anyone who's read the relevant material. Again, your incredulity doesn't move me.

    Obviously, Anne Frank was not gassed anywhere. Why was the Frank family – Frank himself had a shady background and was involved in the black market and most likely ratted out by a former associate – not gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau?
     
    Because they could work. And they did.

    No, Anne Frank was not a murder victim- the internment of enemy aliens was a common practice among the belligerents in the Second World War, as was the case in the U.S., which interned its own Japanese citizens.
     
    Enemy aliens? The Franks were German citizens in a country occupied by German against a treaty of neutrality. You really want to try to justify this? First of all, you don't have the right under the law to intern the inhabitants of a lawfully occupied country (which the Netherlands was not) without a reason. Second, you don't have the right to intern your own citizens under those conditions without a reason. And being Jewish isn't a reason, although I'm sure that surprises you. Even if what you say about Otto Frank is more than an attempt to make the Frank family look bad, it doesn't inculpate his minor daughter.

    Of course, the American land mass was virtually untouched by the war, unlike Germany, which was bombed and shot to rubble. How would our own internees have fared if the German and Japanese forces were bombing all the American rail corridors and power grids?

     

    Poorly, obviously, and in the case of Japanese-American internees, their blood would be on our hands.

    As per your last question: Charles A. Beard, A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Gerd Schultze Ronhof (the latter demonstrates that the British strategy to destroy Germany began, not in 1939, but in 1870-1871, when Prussia defeated France and Bismark established the united German Reich).
     
    Only Schultze-Rohnhof among those is current. Give me two more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. anarchyst says:
    @Anon
    What country was "world Jewry"? How many men in its army?

    World jewry consisted of Bolsheviks and Zionists, along with the banksters (primarily jewish) who were ITCHING for war…as was the case in WW1, a scapegoat was needed…hence, Germany was made the “villain” of WW2. Zionists had been planning to take over in Palestine for over a century. What better way than to marginalize their own people, using Germany as a model. Look up the “Transfer Agreements” between Germany and Zionists.
    The word “holocaust ” was not in use until the 1960s when world jewry (again) realized that they had a giant “cash cow” on their hands that could be used to garner support for their causes, by (again) invoking the “victim card”, something that jews are expert at. We are still paying today…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    The word “holocaust ” was not in use until the 1960s
     
    It is used in the authorized English translation of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, from May 1948.

    You don't know anything about anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon
    The passage you quote from the Luther memo is at the end, after discussing the countries I mentioned. As for the Schlegelberger document, perhaps you can tell me the date of its issuance?

    June, 1942

    “Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers’ opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Interesting. Here's the actual document:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/Schlegelberger42.JPG

    Care to point out the date?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    June, 1942

    "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

    Interesting. Here’s the actual document:

    Care to point out the date?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Okay. March 1942. I gladly admit my mistake. Also T4 and not T3. Enormous difference there.

    You probably think that the ridiculous Aktion 1005 really happened (Did I get that one right? You know, Blobel's exhumation of ALL of those mass graves based upon the comically sinister looking "Coffin Map"?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anarchyst
    World jewry consisted of Bolsheviks and Zionists, along with the banksters (primarily jewish) who were ITCHING for war...as was the case in WW1, a scapegoat was needed...hence, Germany was made the "villain" of WW2. Zionists had been planning to take over in Palestine for over a century. What better way than to marginalize their own people, using Germany as a model. Look up the "Transfer Agreements" between Germany and Zionists.
    The word "holocaust " was not in use until the 1960s when world jewry (again) realized that they had a giant "cash cow" on their hands that could be used to garner support for their causes, by (again) invoking the "victim card", something that jews are expert at. We are still paying today...

    The word “holocaust ” was not in use until the 1960s

    It is used in the authorized English translation of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, from May 1948.

    You don’t know anything about anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    It may have been part of the jew "declaration of independence, but it was not commonly used until the 1960s. I know much more than you, hasbara...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    Frank was under the impression that there were 2 million Jews in the area of the General Government, but he was merely citing census data which preceded the outbreak of the war. It is a virtual certainty that many Jews fled to the Soviet zone of occupation after the USSR invaded Poland. Also, we know with certainty that the Soviets evacuated some 2 million Jews from the western frontier military districts in 1941 (Solzhenitsyn even alluded to this fact) prior to their planned invasion of Europe sometime in the summer of 1941, which was preempted by Fall Barbarossa. In any case, it is estimated that there were some 700,000 Jews in German occupied Poland. Thousands of Polish Jews magically reappeared in Germany after the war as refugees, and the composition of the first Polish communist government was overwhelmingly Jewish. Where did those Jews come from if they were all supposedly dead?

    In any case, asking what happened to the Jews should be an easy answer for you - you could point at the gigantic mass graves or piles of cremains which must exist at 6 easily accessed locations, namely Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka II, Chelmno, KZ Lublin (Majdanek) - except that there are none commensurate with even tens of thousands murder victims, much less 3 million or so. In addition, the ridiculous accounts of the so called eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in those camps are absurd beyond imagination and with respect to the murder weapons allegedly used- common pesticide and (non-lethal exhaust) not to mention the logistically impossible claims for body disposal (cremations in 10 minutes, funeral pyres which used human fat for cremation)- obviously the product of free inventions. You cannot reduce a body to ashes in 10 minutes- not even in a state of the art crematory retort- and you cannot cremate bodies on outdoor pyres as the story goes at Treblinka II - without millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood.

    Then you attempt to impute totally bizarre behavior to the German people and to clergymen like Archbishop Von Galen - a lion of a man who publicly opposed the T-3 Program and issued a letter of protest to be read in every German Catholic parish. Of course this is ridiculous. If they opposed the euthanasia program they would have opposed the mass murder of Jews- it is that simple. We are not dealing with uncultured barbarians here. Most Germans probably did not like Jews, but dislike and murder are two entirely different things.

    So, they took the Frank family all the way from Netherlands to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Upper Silesia then back to Belsen just for purposes of torturing them? Obviously, Anne Frank was not gassed anywhere. Why was the Frank family - Frank himself had a shady background and was involved in the black market and most likely ratted out by a former associate - not gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau? No, Anne Frank was not a murder victim- the internment of enemy aliens was a common practice among the belligerents in the Second World War, as was the case in the U.S., which interned its own Japanese citizens. Of course, the American land mass was virtually untouched by the war, unlike Germany, which was bombed and shot to rubble. How would our own internees have fared if the German and Japanese forces were bombing all the American rail corridors and power grids?

    As per your last question: Charles A. Beard, A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Gerd Schultze Ronhof (the latter demonstrates that the British strategy to destroy Germany began, not in 1939, but in 1870-1871, when Prussia defeated France and Bismark established the united German Reich).

    Frank was under the impression that there were 2 million Jews in the area of the General Government, but he was merely citing census data which preceded the outbreak of the war. It is a virtual certainty that many Jews fled to the Soviet zone of occupation after the USSR invaded Poland.

    There are several points you get wrong here. First, while it’s true that some Jews fled into the Soviet zone, no one — not even “revisionists” claim that they were all evacuated. The Soviets only occupied one third of Poland. If the Jewish population of Poland was 3 million in 1939, it’s fair to assume two million in what would become the German occupation zone and one million in the Soviet zone before the invasion. Assuming further that any Jews that fled went to the Soviet zone, they would still by and large be there (see below for elaboration on this point). Moreover, some of that territory, but not all (not the Biaystok or Wilno districts), was incorporated into the GG, so it got back some Jews it might have left.

    Second, you’re ignoring that tens of thousands of Jews were deported into the GG between September 1939 and June 1941 from Warthegau, Silesia, West Prussia, and Danzig to make room for Baltic Germans being brought into the newly acquired territories. This, in fact, was the key complaint that Frank was making — they were giving him more Jews than he could accommodate.

    Third, the Soviets evacuated many Jews with the Nazis invasion, but not from areas at the front. Jews were evacuated mainly from Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia, but in the Baltic states and eastern Poland, they were mostly trapped.

    Also, we know with certainty that the Soviets evacuated some 2 million Jews from the western frontier military districts in 1941 (Solzhenitsyn even alluded to this fact) prior to their planned invasion of Europe sometime in the summer of 1941, which was preempted by Fall Barbarossa.

    I dealt with this above and elsewhere.

    In any case, it is estimated that there were some 700,000 Jews in German occupied Poland.

    Ludicrous. The Wannsee Protokol lists more than 2.2 million in the GG, 400K in the Bialystok district, and 420,000 in the Ostgebiet, which means the areas annexed to the Reich.

    Thousands of Polish Jews magically reappeared in Germany after the war as refugees,

    But not millions.

    and the composition of the first Polish communist government was overwhelmingly Jewish. Where did those Jews come from if they were all supposedly dead?

    Ten percent of Polish Jews survived. Out of an original population of three million, that’s still 300,000 people.

    In any case, asking what happened to the Jews should be an easy answer for you – you could point at the gigantic mass graves or piles of cremains which must exist at 6 easily accessed locations, namely Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka II, Chelmno, KZ Lublin (Majdanek)

    Putting aside for the moment that you know the bodies were cremated (and cremains have been found at Sobibor, Belzec, and Trebinka), you don’t get to turn the tables. I asked you for documents on resettlement. None exist.

    – except that there are none commensurate with even tens of thousands murder victims, much less 3 million or so.

    A lie. There are have been numerous forensic investigations of these camps, and you know it. You merely refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever.

    In addition, the ridiculous accounts of the so called eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in those camps are absurd beyond imagination and with respect to the murder weapons allegedly used- common pesticide and (non-lethal exhaust) not to mention the logistically impossible claims for body disposal (cremations in 10 minutes, funeral pyres which used human fat for cremation)- obviously the product of free inventions. You cannot reduce a body to ashes in 10 minutes- not even in a state of the art crematory retort- and you cannot cremate bodies on outdoor pyres as the story goes at Treblinka II – without millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood.

    I’m not going to go into the weeds with you on this. You made allegations about documents, and I’m making a point back at you that undermines your own argument. Be a man and respond to my points, and then maybe I’ll think about addressing your other claims.

    Then you attempt to impute totally bizarre behavior to the German people and to clergymen like Archbishop Von Galen – a lion of a man who publicly opposed the T-3 Program and issued a letter of protest to be read in every German Catholic parish.

    I did nothing of the sort. And it’s T4.

    Of course this is ridiculous. If they opposed the euthanasia program they would have opposed the mass murder of Jews- it is that simple. We are not dealing with uncultured barbarians here. Most Germans probably did not like Jews, but dislike and murder are two entirely different things.

    You both missed my point and are wrong.

    My point was that, by and large, most Germans didn’t know what was going on before it was far too late.

    Your argument from incredulity that people could oppose euthanasia of their own relatives but not the killing of Jews is unconvincing.

    So, they took the Frank family all the way from Netherlands to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Upper Silesia then back to Belsen just for purposes of torturing them?

    Straw man: I said the purpose was to put her to work.

    All trains from Westerbork went to Auschwitz, as did trains from other transit camps across western Europe. This should be unsurprising to anyone who’s read the relevant material. Again, your incredulity doesn’t move me.

    Obviously, Anne Frank was not gassed anywhere. Why was the Frank family – Frank himself had a shady background and was involved in the black market and most likely ratted out by a former associate – not gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau?

    Because they could work. And they did.

    No, Anne Frank was not a murder victim- the internment of enemy aliens was a common practice among the belligerents in the Second World War, as was the case in the U.S., which interned its own Japanese citizens.

    Enemy aliens? The Franks were German citizens in a country occupied by German against a treaty of neutrality. You really want to try to justify this? First of all, you don’t have the right under the law to intern the inhabitants of a lawfully occupied country (which the Netherlands was not) without a reason. Second, you don’t have the right to intern your own citizens under those conditions without a reason. And being Jewish isn’t a reason, although I’m sure that surprises you. Even if what you say about Otto Frank is more than an attempt to make the Frank family look bad, it doesn’t inculpate his minor daughter.

    Of course, the American land mass was virtually untouched by the war, unlike Germany, which was bombed and shot to rubble. How would our own internees have fared if the German and Japanese forces were bombing all the American rail corridors and power grids?

    Poorly, obviously, and in the case of Japanese-American internees, their blood would be on our hands.

    As per your last question: Charles A. Beard, A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Gerd Schultze Ronhof (the latter demonstrates that the British strategy to destroy Germany began, not in 1939, but in 1870-1871, when Prussia defeated France and Bismark established the united German Reich).

    Only Schultze-Rohnhof among those is current. Give me two more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    There are any number of points you get wrong, including the number of the Jews in German occupied Poland, but never mind. It is not "fair" to assume anything when you are dealing with population transfers and refugee problems. The 2.2 million in the General Government was an estimate, not a statistical figure based upon hard contemporaneous census data. It is likely that many Jews fled into from the advancing German armies towards the east long before the commencement of Barbarossa and were subsequently evacuated from the military districts in the frontier regions in the spring of 1941, since the Soviets evacuated most of the civilian population, including approximately 2 million Jews, from the military districts in the western frontiers in preparation for the gigantic Soviet offensive planned for sometime in the summer of 1941. The Soviets had set up military districts and this implied an imminent offensive. Most of the civilians were sent to the Soviet hinterlands for defense work. Or do you doubt that Stalin was preparing an invasion of Europe? Do you still believe the "Barbarossa was a mad quest for 'lebensraum' " legend as opposed to a desperate preemptive strike against gigantic Soviet forces staging along the western frontiers of the USSR? The bulk of the forces were deployed in the Biyalistok and Lvov salients, with the most powerful army corps in the world, the 9th Rifle Army, deployed along the Romanian border in close proximity to the Romanian oil fields. Had those oil fields been occupied by the Soviets in a general offensive, the Wehrmacht would have been immobilized and Europe would have fallen- de facto- to the Soviet tsunami within a matter of months.

    I notice that most of your arguments in defense of the legend depend on demographics and upon the typical fall back position of "If the Germans did not kill 6 million Jews, where did they go, then?" It is up to you to prove that they were all killed by the Germans, since it is impossible to prove a negative. The best demographic study done so far, Walter Sanning's "The Dissolution of European Jewry" shows conclusively that nothing like 6 million Jews disappeared "without a trace." (Of course, you will dismiss Sanning's work prima facie).

    No serious forensic examinations of any of the alleged "extermination camps" has been done with anything approaching the rigor of the German exhumation of the mass graves of the Polish officers at Katyn, which demonstrated conclusively that the massacres had been committed by the Soviet NKVD and not the Germans. The Germans even brought in neutral observers and Allied p.o.w.'s as witnesses. Did the Soviets or the Polish communists ever bring in neutral Swiss or Spanish observers to their "forensic investigations"? Of course not. Remember the 4 million dead at Auschwitz or the 2 million dead at Majdanek?

    I am fully aware that the usual method of body disposal in the camps was cremation - but where are the gigantic piles of human cremains? And Treblinka II is probably the greatest fraud of the entire legend. You see, the legend goes, the Germans first buried the 700,000 killed by non-lethal diesel exhaust in gigantic mass graves - which they would have needed a fleet of earth moving equipment, not a single dragline, to accomplish. Then, they dug up the mass graves (again, where was the excavation equipment?) removed the bodies and burned them on gigantic outdoor cremation pyres. Of course, to accomplish this, they would have needed something like 140,000,000 pounds of dried, cured firewood, not to mention a giant warehouse or warehouses to keep the wood dry in the rainy Polish climate. There is no evidence for any of this- no traces of the enormous ground disturbances, no traces of the gigantic piles of mass cremains, nothing. And there are no traces of the gigantic mass graves, which would have needed more surface area than the entire camp. And aerial reconnaissance photos taken of Treblinka II shortly after the camp was abandoned show undisturbed fields and vegetation in the camp area and

    The arguments from demographics can go back and forth- although Europe was flooded with Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe after the war -obviously returning from the dead - but the simple logistical and technical impossibilities of the official story are indisputable. It takes approximately 165 kilograms of dried, cured firewood to cremate one single body on an outdoor cremation pyre. It takes at least one hour to cremate a human body in a crematory retort.

    I am afraid that you have to provide a plausible narrative - from a logistical and technical standpoint. Otherwise you are left with an absurd, pseudo-religious narrative that is an impossibility in the real world.
    , @anarchyst
    "judea" declared "war" on Germany in 1933,-yes, 1933. This provided the pretext that the zionists needed to "encourage" jews to emigrate to Palestine. Zionist collaboration with the German government was made possible by this "declaration of war" and made anyone who was a jew in Germany suspect. This "declaration of war" legitimized the zionists far beyond their dreams, and made it possible to seize Palestine for their own...
    One aspect of this "demonization of the jews" sticks out--the number of jews who remained in German government and in the German armed forces, even at flag officer level...for the duration of WW2...
    , @Che Guava
    You are silly.

    I hate to say it, but the internment of Japanese immigrants was not a totally stupid and random or racist action. In California and Hawaii in particular, a big proportion belonged to the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, so they were not loyal to the US.

    Spotters in Hawaii, would-be saboteurs in the USN in California, it was not illogical.

    Sure, the US govt.should have been more selective, but I think it was not stragetically stupid.

    Here, all enemy aliens were placed in internment, even Italians after the first fall of Mussolini. One of the most interesting accounts I have read of that time was from an interned Italian diplomat, he was treated well, until the final period, where he was not treated badly, but food was short. Conditions were no better or worse than for internees in the USA, then became much worse towards the end.
    , @annamaria
    1. "You don’t have the right to intern your own citizens under those conditions without a reason.. First of all, you don’t have the right under the law to intern the inhabitants of a lawfully occupied country"

    Can't wait to hear your arguments re treatment of Palestinians in the Israel-occupied territories.
    I understand your sentiments re the deaths of Jewish populations during the WWII. However, when considering the crimes of the state of Israel against the native population of Palestinians (confiscation of land, dislocation, imprisonment without due process - including the imprisonment of children, torture, the apartheid-inspired roads and checkpoints, the murder of Palestinian civilians, including hundreds of children, by the "most moral" IDF during its attacks on the tightly packed population of Gaza), your righteous arguments lose their force, unfortunately... Moreover, the malignant influence of American Zionists (represented by the Lobby) on the US policies in the Middle East, asks for certain revisions re the expositions in the Holocaust Museums; namely, it is time to illustrate how the former victims (and their progeny) could be transformed, horrifyingly, into the worst warmongers. The state of Israel justifies its subhuman attitude towards Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Iranian, and Palestinians by the exigencies of realpolitik. As soon as the argument of Israeli realpolitik (existential threat and likes) takes its place, the story of Holocaust is not anymore.
    Even worse, your "But not millions" reminds of the role of certain Jewish bankers and certain Jewish revolutionaries in the Russian tragedy of the 20th century. And here comes the painful question of discussing anything related to Jewish people. When will the documentary "Two Hundred Years Together" be finally available to the Americans? Unlike the touching diary of Anne Frank (written by her relatives?), the documentary, written by Solzhenitsyn, uses facts that expose a number of Jewish mass murderers guilty of the death of millions of Russians and of the destruction of ancient Russain civilization. The documentary has been sequestered by western publishing houses. All of them. Compare this to the alleged "antisemtitism" of your opponents - at least, you have a chance to discuss the Holocaust.
    Closer in time, look who had been leading the regime change in Kiev in 2014, while employing the local neo-Nazis. -- A member of a Kagans' clan, while the whole ziocon editorial corp of WSJ expressed its complete and unwavering support for the regime change. (Any feelings about the mass graves of Jewish victims of Nazism in Ukraine?)
    The fate of many Jewish persons during WWII was terrible, but not unique. A research into the veracity of the "6-million" claim and into the real conditions of Nazi concentrations camps that housed the multitude of victims of various ethnicities cannot be qualified as antisemitism since inconvenience of facts does not make them into a lie.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Well some of us did protest Obama, like Cindy Sheehan, and including myself and Laurie Dobson protested against warmonger Obama at Martha’s Vineyard in 2009 during his first vacation in what was an interesting adventure that was not part of the fake foundation funded peace movement….

    Unfortunately our actions were not heard as they should because our planned Press
    Conference had to be cancelled because of the death of Senator Edward Kennedy. It did well cross our minds that perhaps Ted’s demise was perhaps enhanced to protect “The Team”, Obama in this case….well that would have been three brothers.

    Yes the relevant question is this, was Ted Kennedy murdered in order to manipulate the news cycle to protect Obama? ( Ted was dying, but who knows the timing of his death, did take Cindy Sheehan’s protest out of the news cycle when the August lull should have featured the same woman who took on warmonger Bush outside his ranch in Texas)

    Yes some of us called for Obama’s impeachment over Libya!

    As a contributing author to Obama: The Postmodern Coup- The Making of a Manchurian Candidate we were correct in the warning that Obama would be the “Face-Lift” for Imperialism.

    People are still going to have to reckon with the truth that Obama is a war criminal, so it is good that the issue is being brought up as it is as important as understanding the centrality of the 9/11 Coup as the detonator….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon

    Frank was under the impression that there were 2 million Jews in the area of the General Government, but he was merely citing census data which preceded the outbreak of the war. It is a virtual certainty that many Jews fled to the Soviet zone of occupation after the USSR invaded Poland.
     
    There are several points you get wrong here. First, while it's true that some Jews fled into the Soviet zone, no one -- not even "revisionists" claim that they were all evacuated. The Soviets only occupied one third of Poland. If the Jewish population of Poland was 3 million in 1939, it's fair to assume two million in what would become the German occupation zone and one million in the Soviet zone before the invasion. Assuming further that any Jews that fled went to the Soviet zone, they would still by and large be there (see below for elaboration on this point). Moreover, some of that territory, but not all (not the Biaystok or Wilno districts), was incorporated into the GG, so it got back some Jews it might have left.

    Second, you're ignoring that tens of thousands of Jews were deported into the GG between September 1939 and June 1941 from Warthegau, Silesia, West Prussia, and Danzig to make room for Baltic Germans being brought into the newly acquired territories. This, in fact, was the key complaint that Frank was making -- they were giving him more Jews than he could accommodate.

    Third, the Soviets evacuated many Jews with the Nazis invasion, but not from areas at the front. Jews were evacuated mainly from Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia, but in the Baltic states and eastern Poland, they were mostly trapped.

    Also, we know with certainty that the Soviets evacuated some 2 million Jews from the western frontier military districts in 1941 (Solzhenitsyn even alluded to this fact) prior to their planned invasion of Europe sometime in the summer of 1941, which was preempted by Fall Barbarossa.
     
    I dealt with this above and elsewhere.

    In any case, it is estimated that there were some 700,000 Jews in German occupied Poland.
     
    Ludicrous. The Wannsee Protokol lists more than 2.2 million in the GG, 400K in the Bialystok district, and 420,000 in the Ostgebiet, which means the areas annexed to the Reich.


    Thousands of Polish Jews magically reappeared in Germany after the war as refugees,
     
    But not millions.

    and the composition of the first Polish communist government was overwhelmingly Jewish. Where did those Jews come from if they were all supposedly dead?

     

    Ten percent of Polish Jews survived. Out of an original population of three million, that's still 300,000 people.

    In any case, asking what happened to the Jews should be an easy answer for you – you could point at the gigantic mass graves or piles of cremains which must exist at 6 easily accessed locations, namely Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka II, Chelmno, KZ Lublin (Majdanek)
     
    Putting aside for the moment that you know the bodies were cremated (and cremains have been found at Sobibor, Belzec, and Trebinka), you don't get to turn the tables. I asked you for documents on resettlement. None exist.

    – except that there are none commensurate with even tens of thousands murder victims, much less 3 million or so.
     
    A lie. There are have been numerous forensic investigations of these camps, and you know it. You merely refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever.

    In addition, the ridiculous accounts of the so called eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in those camps are absurd beyond imagination and with respect to the murder weapons allegedly used- common pesticide and (non-lethal exhaust) not to mention the logistically impossible claims for body disposal (cremations in 10 minutes, funeral pyres which used human fat for cremation)- obviously the product of free inventions. You cannot reduce a body to ashes in 10 minutes- not even in a state of the art crematory retort- and you cannot cremate bodies on outdoor pyres as the story goes at Treblinka II – without millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood.
     
    I'm not going to go into the weeds with you on this. You made allegations about documents, and I'm making a point back at you that undermines your own argument. Be a man and respond to my points, and then maybe I'll think about addressing your other claims.

    Then you attempt to impute totally bizarre behavior to the German people and to clergymen like Archbishop Von Galen – a lion of a man who publicly opposed the T-3 Program and issued a letter of protest to be read in every German Catholic parish.
     
    I did nothing of the sort. And it's T4.

    Of course this is ridiculous. If they opposed the euthanasia program they would have opposed the mass murder of Jews- it is that simple. We are not dealing with uncultured barbarians here. Most Germans probably did not like Jews, but dislike and murder are two entirely different things.
     
    You both missed my point and are wrong.

    My point was that, by and large, most Germans didn't know what was going on before it was far too late.

    Your argument from incredulity that people could oppose euthanasia of their own relatives but not the killing of Jews is unconvincing.

    So, they took the Frank family all the way from Netherlands to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Upper Silesia then back to Belsen just for purposes of torturing them?
     
    Straw man: I said the purpose was to put her to work.

    All trains from Westerbork went to Auschwitz, as did trains from other transit camps across western Europe. This should be unsurprising to anyone who's read the relevant material. Again, your incredulity doesn't move me.

    Obviously, Anne Frank was not gassed anywhere. Why was the Frank family – Frank himself had a shady background and was involved in the black market and most likely ratted out by a former associate – not gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau?
     
    Because they could work. And they did.

    No, Anne Frank was not a murder victim- the internment of enemy aliens was a common practice among the belligerents in the Second World War, as was the case in the U.S., which interned its own Japanese citizens.
     
    Enemy aliens? The Franks were German citizens in a country occupied by German against a treaty of neutrality. You really want to try to justify this? First of all, you don't have the right under the law to intern the inhabitants of a lawfully occupied country (which the Netherlands was not) without a reason. Second, you don't have the right to intern your own citizens under those conditions without a reason. And being Jewish isn't a reason, although I'm sure that surprises you. Even if what you say about Otto Frank is more than an attempt to make the Frank family look bad, it doesn't inculpate his minor daughter.

    Of course, the American land mass was virtually untouched by the war, unlike Germany, which was bombed and shot to rubble. How would our own internees have fared if the German and Japanese forces were bombing all the American rail corridors and power grids?

     

    Poorly, obviously, and in the case of Japanese-American internees, their blood would be on our hands.

    As per your last question: Charles A. Beard, A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Gerd Schultze Ronhof (the latter demonstrates that the British strategy to destroy Germany began, not in 1939, but in 1870-1871, when Prussia defeated France and Bismark established the united German Reich).
     
    Only Schultze-Rohnhof among those is current. Give me two more.

    There are any number of points you get wrong, including the number of the Jews in German occupied Poland, but never mind. It is not “fair” to assume anything when you are dealing with population transfers and refugee problems. The 2.2 million in the General Government was an estimate, not a statistical figure based upon hard contemporaneous census data. It is likely that many Jews fled into from the advancing German armies towards the east long before the commencement of Barbarossa and were subsequently evacuated from the military districts in the frontier regions in the spring of 1941, since the Soviets evacuated most of the civilian population, including approximately 2 million Jews, from the military districts in the western frontiers in preparation for the gigantic Soviet offensive planned for sometime in the summer of 1941. The Soviets had set up military districts and this implied an imminent offensive. Most of the civilians were sent to the Soviet hinterlands for defense work. Or do you doubt that Stalin was preparing an invasion of Europe? Do you still believe the “Barbarossa was a mad quest for ‘lebensraum’ ” legend as opposed to a desperate preemptive strike against gigantic Soviet forces staging along the western frontiers of the USSR? The bulk of the forces were deployed in the Biyalistok and Lvov salients, with the most powerful army corps in the world, the 9th Rifle Army, deployed along the Romanian border in close proximity to the Romanian oil fields. Had those oil fields been occupied by the Soviets in a general offensive, the Wehrmacht would have been immobilized and Europe would have fallen- de facto- to the Soviet tsunami within a matter of months.

    I notice that most of your arguments in defense of the legend depend on demographics and upon the typical fall back position of “If the Germans did not kill 6 million Jews, where did they go, then?” It is up to you to prove that they were all killed by the Germans, since it is impossible to prove a negative. The best demographic study done so far, Walter Sanning’s “The Dissolution of European Jewry” shows conclusively that nothing like 6 million Jews disappeared “without a trace.” (Of course, you will dismiss Sanning’s work prima facie).

    No serious forensic examinations of any of the alleged “extermination camps” has been done with anything approaching the rigor of the German exhumation of the mass graves of the Polish officers at Katyn, which demonstrated conclusively that the massacres had been committed by the Soviet NKVD and not the Germans. The Germans even brought in neutral observers and Allied p.o.w.’s as witnesses. Did the Soviets or the Polish communists ever bring in neutral Swiss or Spanish observers to their “forensic investigations”? Of course not. Remember the 4 million dead at Auschwitz or the 2 million dead at Majdanek?

    I am fully aware that the usual method of body disposal in the camps was cremation – but where are the gigantic piles of human cremains? And Treblinka II is probably the greatest fraud of the entire legend. You see, the legend goes, the Germans first buried the 700,000 killed by non-lethal diesel exhaust in gigantic mass graves – which they would have needed a fleet of earth moving equipment, not a single dragline, to accomplish. Then, they dug up the mass graves (again, where was the excavation equipment?) removed the bodies and burned them on gigantic outdoor cremation pyres. Of course, to accomplish this, they would have needed something like 140,000,000 pounds of dried, cured firewood, not to mention a giant warehouse or warehouses to keep the wood dry in the rainy Polish climate. There is no evidence for any of this- no traces of the enormous ground disturbances, no traces of the gigantic piles of mass cremains, nothing. And there are no traces of the gigantic mass graves, which would have needed more surface area than the entire camp. And aerial reconnaissance photos taken of Treblinka II shortly after the camp was abandoned show undisturbed fields and vegetation in the camp area and

    The arguments from demographics can go back and forth- although Europe was flooded with Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe after the war -obviously returning from the dead – but the simple logistical and technical impossibilities of the official story are indisputable. It takes approximately 165 kilograms of dried, cured firewood to cremate one single body on an outdoor cremation pyre. It takes at least one hour to cremate a human body in a crematory retort.

    I am afraid that you have to provide a plausible narrative – from a logistical and technical standpoint. Otherwise you are left with an absurd, pseudo-religious narrative that is an impossibility in the real world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    There are any number of points you get wrong, including the number of the Jews in German occupied Poland, but never mind. It is not “fair” to assume anything when you are dealing with population transfers and refugee problems.
     
    It depends, I guess, on what basis one assumes. Population transfers in the Third Reich were generally very well recorded, as were census figures. Refugee problems didn't really figure into things on the German side. If your approach is just to arrest anyone who's a refugee, particularly if they're Jewish, then you count them up and move them to a camp or ghetto. Problem solved.

    The 2.2 million in the General Government was an estimate, not a statistical figure based upon hard contemporaneous census data.
     
    That's 100% false. The GG population figures in particular were hard numbers. You can blame the SS for a lot of things, but not being able to count isn't one of them. When Jews were put in ghettoes, they were counted first; ditto with camps and transports.

    It is likely that many Jews fled into from the advancing German armies towards the east long before the commencement of Barbarossa and were subsequently evacuated from the military districts in the frontier regions in the spring of 1941
     
    Repeating something wrong doesn't make it right.

    since the Soviets evacuated most of the civilian population, including approximately 2 million Jews, from the military districts in the western frontiers in preparation for the gigantic Soviet offensive planned for sometime in the summer of 1941. The Soviets had set up military districts and this implied an imminent offensive. Most of the civilians were sent to the Soviet hinterlands for defense work. Or do you doubt that Stalin was preparing an invasion of Europe? Do you still believe the “Barbarossa was a mad quest for ‘lebensraum’ ” legend as opposed to a desperate preemptive strike against gigantic Soviet forces staging along the western frontiers of the USSR? The bulk of the forces were deployed in the Biyalistok and Lvov salients, with the most powerful army corps in the world, the 9th Rifle Army, deployed along the Romanian border in close proximity to the Romanian oil fields. Had those oil fields been occupied by the Soviets in a general offensive, the Wehrmacht would have been immobilized and Europe would have fallen- de facto- to the Soviet tsunami within a matter of months.
     
    As I said earlier, I'm not tremendously interested in disputing this particular point with you, but you do make an interesting point about Soviet forces deployed near the Romanian border. As in the Baltics and eastern Poland, these were newly deployed units, and when Barbarossa, they put up virtually no resistance. The Romanian army, not exactly an elite fighting force, rolled over the Red Army in Bessarabia and Bukovina and, like in the Baltics and eastern Poland, the Jewish communities there were destroyed. If the USSR was preparing an invasion, it seems to me they would have had the most effective forces at the border, but they clearly didn't.

    I notice that most of your arguments in defense of the legend depend on demographics and upon the typical fall back position of “If the Germans did not kill 6 million Jews, where did they go, then?” It is up to you to prove that they were all killed by the Germans, since it is impossible to prove a negative.
     
    I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You believe that 1.5 million Jews who were in the GG and were not 1.5 years later weren't murdered. You assert this in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. So I ask you to propose an alternate narrative, since you already know mine. It's quite simple: if they weren't murdered in the places that literally every eyewitness says they were, where there are cremated human remains to attest to their deaths, then where'd they go?

    The best demographic study done so far, Walter Sanning’s “The Dissolution of European Jewry” shows conclusively that nothing like 6 million Jews disappeared “without a trace.” (Of course, you will dismiss Sanning’s work prima facie). 
     
    Listen, if you like, we can go through Sanning page by page and I can show you how he distorts the demographic data. But not until you assert an alternate theory of what happened for which there is some proof.

    No serious forensic examinations of any of the alleged “extermination camps” has been done with anything approaching the rigor of the German exhumation of the mass graves of the Polish officers at Katyn, which demonstrated conclusively that the massacres had been committed by the Soviet NKVD and not the Germans. The Germans even brought in neutral observers and Allied p.o.w.’s as witnesses. Did the Soviets or the Polish communists ever bring in neutral Swiss or Spanish observers to their “forensic investigations”? Of course not. Remember the 4 million dead at Auschwitz or the 2 million dead at Majdanek? 
     
    Comparing Katyn to the Reinhard camps is apples and oranges since the Katyn bodies hadn't been cremated. Moreover, the Spanish weren't exactly neutral.

    I am fully aware that the usual method of body disposal in the camps was cremation – but where are the gigantic piles of human cremains?
     
    I snipped the rest. I'm not going into the weeds with you on this until you begin defending your previous positions. We'll get there but you need to stay on point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon
    Interesting. Here's the actual document:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/Schlegelberger42.JPG

    Care to point out the date?

    Okay. March 1942. I gladly admit my mistake. Also T4 and not T3. Enormous difference there.

    You probably think that the ridiculous Aktion 1005 really happened (Did I get that one right? You know, Blobel’s exhumation of ALL of those mass graves based upon the comically sinister looking “Coffin Map”?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There is no date on that document, so why are you insisting it's from 1942?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Che Guava
    Thanks for that.

    I have read convincing reports of how all interesting parts in his doctoral thesis were plagiarized.

    Never a convincing rebuttal of that.

    I stay by my assertion that his style in speech reflected his sleazy character, but I didn't start to working that out until noticing that Obomber was copying it, and to reading about Michael King's reality.

    Seems to me, it sucks that you USA people have to suffer the national holiday named for him.

    Not that a holiday is not great. Just should have been named for someone else.

    We have, as one example. Ocean Day, it is on the same date as the old Imperial Navy Day, I don't care, it is nice to having another day where you can do what you want.

    For the USA, I think Robert E. Lee Day, Warren G. Harding Day, Sitting Bull Day, Malcolm X Day, Calvin Coolidge Day, any would be preferable to Michael King Day.

    They (USA authorities) are supposed to releasing documents and tapes in ten or so years, I would bettimg that they do not, just heavily censored versions.

    Unless misfortune, I am expecting to still being around, also to expecting a giant cover-up.

    Not that a holiday is not great. Just should have been named for someone else.

    We used to have a holiday for Lincoln’s Birthday, which was canned in the 80s to make room for MLK Day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Thanks, I did not know that. Maybe the political masters there will be trying for an Emma Lazarus day in future.

    I think that no other former prex ever had a national holiday there?

    Also that the sleazy Michael King is the only poiitical figure there to have a national hol. now. I have read enough of north-south war to know that Lincoln never deserved a day named for himself, either.

    Bizarre that MLK day is the only such now.

    After Commodore Perry (a very rude drunk, who died early because he was such a serious drunkard), we also had a war that is referred to as north-south, in this case, between forces who were wanting a restored Shogunate, not necessarily the Tokugawa, plus restoration of some kind of samurai rule, will add that the origin of this was from the place that was most loose about transitions between farmer or peasant to samurai, and the Imperial forces.

    It does not at all compare with your war of southern secession in terms of bloodshed, no equivalents of the Federal's bad behaviour against the Confederacy in the closing stages, although the leader of the southern forces, Takamori Saigo, was beheaded in a cave in the end. I have been there two or three times, and prayed for him.

    The Imperial general carried his head out, and made a poetic statement about the bravery of his opponent, or wrote a short poem about it, I think the latter is true, but it is usually written as to have been direct speech.

    Now, Saigo has a famous statue in one of Tokyo's most famous parks. Nobody ever is calling for its removal.

    There were other similar wars or insurrections earlier, and Saigo was earlier part of the new Imperial government, so helped to put them down, but that was the biggest.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    Okay. March 1942. I gladly admit my mistake. Also T4 and not T3. Enormous difference there.

    You probably think that the ridiculous Aktion 1005 really happened (Did I get that one right? You know, Blobel's exhumation of ALL of those mass graves based upon the comically sinister looking "Coffin Map"?)

    There is no date on that document, so why are you insisting it’s from 1942?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    There are any number of points you get wrong, including the number of the Jews in German occupied Poland, but never mind. It is not "fair" to assume anything when you are dealing with population transfers and refugee problems. The 2.2 million in the General Government was an estimate, not a statistical figure based upon hard contemporaneous census data. It is likely that many Jews fled into from the advancing German armies towards the east long before the commencement of Barbarossa and were subsequently evacuated from the military districts in the frontier regions in the spring of 1941, since the Soviets evacuated most of the civilian population, including approximately 2 million Jews, from the military districts in the western frontiers in preparation for the gigantic Soviet offensive planned for sometime in the summer of 1941. The Soviets had set up military districts and this implied an imminent offensive. Most of the civilians were sent to the Soviet hinterlands for defense work. Or do you doubt that Stalin was preparing an invasion of Europe? Do you still believe the "Barbarossa was a mad quest for 'lebensraum' " legend as opposed to a desperate preemptive strike against gigantic Soviet forces staging along the western frontiers of the USSR? The bulk of the forces were deployed in the Biyalistok and Lvov salients, with the most powerful army corps in the world, the 9th Rifle Army, deployed along the Romanian border in close proximity to the Romanian oil fields. Had those oil fields been occupied by the Soviets in a general offensive, the Wehrmacht would have been immobilized and Europe would have fallen- de facto- to the Soviet tsunami within a matter of months.

    I notice that most of your arguments in defense of the legend depend on demographics and upon the typical fall back position of "If the Germans did not kill 6 million Jews, where did they go, then?" It is up to you to prove that they were all killed by the Germans, since it is impossible to prove a negative. The best demographic study done so far, Walter Sanning's "The Dissolution of European Jewry" shows conclusively that nothing like 6 million Jews disappeared "without a trace." (Of course, you will dismiss Sanning's work prima facie).

    No serious forensic examinations of any of the alleged "extermination camps" has been done with anything approaching the rigor of the German exhumation of the mass graves of the Polish officers at Katyn, which demonstrated conclusively that the massacres had been committed by the Soviet NKVD and not the Germans. The Germans even brought in neutral observers and Allied p.o.w.'s as witnesses. Did the Soviets or the Polish communists ever bring in neutral Swiss or Spanish observers to their "forensic investigations"? Of course not. Remember the 4 million dead at Auschwitz or the 2 million dead at Majdanek?

    I am fully aware that the usual method of body disposal in the camps was cremation - but where are the gigantic piles of human cremains? And Treblinka II is probably the greatest fraud of the entire legend. You see, the legend goes, the Germans first buried the 700,000 killed by non-lethal diesel exhaust in gigantic mass graves - which they would have needed a fleet of earth moving equipment, not a single dragline, to accomplish. Then, they dug up the mass graves (again, where was the excavation equipment?) removed the bodies and burned them on gigantic outdoor cremation pyres. Of course, to accomplish this, they would have needed something like 140,000,000 pounds of dried, cured firewood, not to mention a giant warehouse or warehouses to keep the wood dry in the rainy Polish climate. There is no evidence for any of this- no traces of the enormous ground disturbances, no traces of the gigantic piles of mass cremains, nothing. And there are no traces of the gigantic mass graves, which would have needed more surface area than the entire camp. And aerial reconnaissance photos taken of Treblinka II shortly after the camp was abandoned show undisturbed fields and vegetation in the camp area and

    The arguments from demographics can go back and forth- although Europe was flooded with Jewish refugees from Eastern Europe after the war -obviously returning from the dead - but the simple logistical and technical impossibilities of the official story are indisputable. It takes approximately 165 kilograms of dried, cured firewood to cremate one single body on an outdoor cremation pyre. It takes at least one hour to cremate a human body in a crematory retort.

    I am afraid that you have to provide a plausible narrative - from a logistical and technical standpoint. Otherwise you are left with an absurd, pseudo-religious narrative that is an impossibility in the real world.

    There are any number of points you get wrong, including the number of the Jews in German occupied Poland, but never mind. It is not “fair” to assume anything when you are dealing with population transfers and refugee problems.

    It depends, I guess, on what basis one assumes. Population transfers in the Third Reich were generally very well recorded, as were census figures. Refugee problems didn’t really figure into things on the German side. If your approach is just to arrest anyone who’s a refugee, particularly if they’re Jewish, then you count them up and move them to a camp or ghetto. Problem solved.

    The 2.2 million in the General Government was an estimate, not a statistical figure based upon hard contemporaneous census data.

    That’s 100% false. The GG population figures in particular were hard numbers. You can blame the SS for a lot of things, but not being able to count isn’t one of them. When Jews were put in ghettoes, they were counted first; ditto with camps and transports.

    It is likely that many Jews fled into from the advancing German armies towards the east long before the commencement of Barbarossa and were subsequently evacuated from the military districts in the frontier regions in the spring of 1941

    Repeating something wrong doesn’t make it right.

    since the Soviets evacuated most of the civilian population, including approximately 2 million Jews, from the military districts in the western frontiers in preparation for the gigantic Soviet offensive planned for sometime in the summer of 1941. The Soviets had set up military districts and this implied an imminent offensive. Most of the civilians were sent to the Soviet hinterlands for defense work. Or do you doubt that Stalin was preparing an invasion of Europe? Do you still believe the “Barbarossa was a mad quest for ‘lebensraum’ ” legend as opposed to a desperate preemptive strike against gigantic Soviet forces staging along the western frontiers of the USSR? The bulk of the forces were deployed in the Biyalistok and Lvov salients, with the most powerful army corps in the world, the 9th Rifle Army, deployed along the Romanian border in close proximity to the Romanian oil fields. Had those oil fields been occupied by the Soviets in a general offensive, the Wehrmacht would have been immobilized and Europe would have fallen- de facto- to the Soviet tsunami within a matter of months.

    As I said earlier, I’m not tremendously interested in disputing this particular point with you, but you do make an interesting point about Soviet forces deployed near the Romanian border. As in the Baltics and eastern Poland, these were newly deployed units, and when Barbarossa, they put up virtually no resistance. The Romanian army, not exactly an elite fighting force, rolled over the Red Army in Bessarabia and Bukovina and, like in the Baltics and eastern Poland, the Jewish communities there were destroyed. If the USSR was preparing an invasion, it seems to me they would have had the most effective forces at the border, but they clearly didn’t.

    I notice that most of your arguments in defense of the legend depend on demographics and upon the typical fall back position of “If the Germans did not kill 6 million Jews, where did they go, then?” It is up to you to prove that they were all killed by the Germans, since it is impossible to prove a negative.

    I’m not asking you to prove a negative. You believe that 1.5 million Jews who were in the GG and were not 1.5 years later weren’t murdered. You assert this in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. So I ask you to propose an alternate narrative, since you already know mine. It’s quite simple: if they weren’t murdered in the places that literally every eyewitness says they were, where there are cremated human remains to attest to their deaths, then where’d they go?

    The best demographic study done so far, Walter Sanning’s “The Dissolution of European Jewry” shows conclusively that nothing like 6 million Jews disappeared “without a trace.” (Of course, you will dismiss Sanning’s work prima facie). 

    Listen, if you like, we can go through Sanning page by page and I can show you how he distorts the demographic data. But not until you assert an alternate theory of what happened for which there is some proof.

    No serious forensic examinations of any of the alleged “extermination camps” has been done with anything approaching the rigor of the German exhumation of the mass graves of the Polish officers at Katyn, which demonstrated conclusively that the massacres had been committed by the Soviet NKVD and not the Germans. The Germans even brought in neutral observers and Allied p.o.w.’s as witnesses. Did the Soviets or the Polish communists ever bring in neutral Swiss or Spanish observers to their “forensic investigations”? Of course not. Remember the 4 million dead at Auschwitz or the 2 million dead at Majdanek? 

    Comparing Katyn to the Reinhard camps is apples and oranges since the Katyn bodies hadn’t been cremated. Moreover, the Spanish weren’t exactly neutral.

    I am fully aware that the usual method of body disposal in the camps was cremation – but where are the gigantic piles of human cremains?

    I snipped the rest. I’m not going into the weeds with you on this until you begin defending your previous positions. We’ll get there but you need to stay on point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Yes, census figures in the Reich were well recorded, but Poland was not at all part of the Reich during most of the 1930's, and the Korherr Report used census figures from 1931 and an "estimate" from 1937 which failed to account for emigration (hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews were deported from Poland to the German Reich, especially during the Polish passport crisis in 1938 , the most notorious of these being the assassin Herschel Grynspan), or natural mortality. Also, there was considerable emigration abroad, especially to Palestine during this period. As many as 850,000 Jews may have fled the approaching German Armies and taken “refuge” in the Soviet Zone of occupation during September of 1939. Couple this with as many as 1,700,000 (source; Jewish Telegraph Agency) evacuated to the Soviet hinterlands prior to the initiation of the German-Soviet war and there is strong reason to believe that the 2.2 million figure for the German Zone of occupation may be highly exaggerated, and there may have indeed been only 800,000 or so Jews there in reality.

    The deployment of the Soviet forces in June of 1941 points overwhelmingly towards an offensive action of unprecedented scale aimed at Central Europe, to occur sometime in the summer of 1941. Such large forces could not possibly be kept inactive in the field over the winter, and their evacuation in the fall would have tied up the Soviet rail system which was badly needed for the autumn grain harvests. These forces were deployed in offensive formations in vulnerable salients, much of the Stalin Line had been demolished and the front echelon air forces were sitting on their airfields wingtip to wingtip, which is the primary reason that virtually the entire force was wiped out within the first 24 hours of Barbarossa.


    As to “getting into the weeds”, the nuts and bolts of the “Holocaust” legend, namely the technical and logistical impossibilities of the received narrative are where the story breaks down completely. One comes across impossible bottlenecks, for example, the idea that ventilating and clearing a “gas chamber” with an ordinary width door and a single hand powered elevator could be done within hours- it would have taken days, perhaps weeks just to clear the chamber, and the cremation of the bodies would have taken weeks, not hours; the idea that most of the alleged 1.2 million victims of homicidal gassing with commercial pesticide at Auschwitz-Birkenau were cremated in the 52 ordinary crematory retorts, which had at the very least a one hour per body capacity, need for periodic cooling and maintenance and a lifetime of about 3,000 cremations per muffle. Since camp records show that there were no orders for retort or oven replacement, this would put the maximum number of bodies cremated at the A-B complex at about 150,000, which comports well with the extant camp records (which although incomplete show about 69,000 deaths- mostly from Typhus.) More Catholic Poles probably died at Auschwitz-Birkenau than Jews.

    For a period of time during 1942, Bletchley Park, the British decoding center, was intercepting the secret coded transmissions of the German Order Police with regards to movements to and from the camps, and the intercepts show nothing like the huge number of fatalities (under the category of “departures”) show nothing like any mass deaths consonant with a deliberate program of mass murder. As a matter of fact, the intercepts show fairly mundane business as usual activity, e.g., “KZ Lublin is requesting 8 shoemakers.”

    There are two even weaker links in the legend: Treblinka II and Babi Yar. I have already shown why the received tale of the former is a virtual impossibility and the latter is simply a hoax. So 30,000 Jews of Kiev were really taken to the ravine, shot and buried, then exhumed and cremated on tombstones. This would have been a massive operation requiring millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood and a means of transporting it into the ravine. Yet, aerial reconnaissance photos of the area a few days after the alleged mass cremations were completed show undisturbed and unscarred landscape and NO access roads into the ravine. The whole Babi Yar narrative was just another Soviet propaganda tale.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. anarchyst says:
    @Anon

    The word “holocaust ” was not in use until the 1960s
     
    It is used in the authorized English translation of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, from May 1948.

    You don't know anything about anything.

    It may have been part of the jew “declaration of independence, but it was not commonly used until the 1960s. I know much more than you, hasbara…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Neato. You think you're smart. I can assure you that you aren't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Che Guava says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Not that a holiday is not great. Just should have been named for someone else.
     
    We used to have a holiday for Lincoln's Birthday, which was canned in the 80s to make room for MLK Day.

    Thanks, I did not know that. Maybe the political masters there will be trying for an Emma Lazarus day in future.

    I think that no other former prex ever had a national holiday there?

    Also that the sleazy Michael King is the only poiitical figure there to have a national hol. now. I have read enough of north-south war to know that Lincoln never deserved a day named for himself, either.

    Bizarre that MLK day is the only such now.

    After Commodore Perry (a very rude drunk, who died early because he was such a serious drunkard), we also had a war that is referred to as north-south, in this case, between forces who were wanting a restored Shogunate, not necessarily the Tokugawa, plus restoration of some kind of samurai rule, will add that the origin of this was from the place that was most loose about transitions between farmer or peasant to samurai, and the Imperial forces.

    It does not at all compare with your war of southern secession in terms of bloodshed, no equivalents of the Federal’s bad behaviour against the Confederacy in the closing stages, although the leader of the southern forces, Takamori Saigo, was beheaded in a cave in the end. I have been there two or three times, and prayed for him.

    The Imperial general carried his head out, and made a poetic statement about the bravery of his opponent, or wrote a short poem about it, I think the latter is true, but it is usually written as to have been direct speech.

    Now, Saigo has a famous statue in one of Tokyo’s most famous parks. Nobody ever is calling for its removal.

    There were other similar wars or insurrections earlier, and Saigo was earlier part of the new Imperial government, so helped to put them down, but that was the biggest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    I think that no other former prex ever had a national holiday there?
     
    Until MLK Day was invented, we also celebrated George Washington's birthday in February. What happened is that, once they rolled out MLK Day, they mashed Washington and Lincoln's birthdays together into one, single new holiday call Presidents' Day, so that the invention of MLK Day wouldn't give us a new day off from work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anarchyst
    It may have been part of the jew "declaration of independence, but it was not commonly used until the 1960s. I know much more than you, hasbara...

    Neato. You think you’re smart. I can assure you that you aren’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. anarchyst says:
    @Anon

    Frank was under the impression that there were 2 million Jews in the area of the General Government, but he was merely citing census data which preceded the outbreak of the war. It is a virtual certainty that many Jews fled to the Soviet zone of occupation after the USSR invaded Poland.
     
    There are several points you get wrong here. First, while it's true that some Jews fled into the Soviet zone, no one -- not even "revisionists" claim that they were all evacuated. The Soviets only occupied one third of Poland. If the Jewish population of Poland was 3 million in 1939, it's fair to assume two million in what would become the German occupation zone and one million in the Soviet zone before the invasion. Assuming further that any Jews that fled went to the Soviet zone, they would still by and large be there (see below for elaboration on this point). Moreover, some of that territory, but not all (not the Biaystok or Wilno districts), was incorporated into the GG, so it got back some Jews it might have left.

    Second, you're ignoring that tens of thousands of Jews were deported into the GG between September 1939 and June 1941 from Warthegau, Silesia, West Prussia, and Danzig to make room for Baltic Germans being brought into the newly acquired territories. This, in fact, was the key complaint that Frank was making -- they were giving him more Jews than he could accommodate.

    Third, the Soviets evacuated many Jews with the Nazis invasion, but not from areas at the front. Jews were evacuated mainly from Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia, but in the Baltic states and eastern Poland, they were mostly trapped.

    Also, we know with certainty that the Soviets evacuated some 2 million Jews from the western frontier military districts in 1941 (Solzhenitsyn even alluded to this fact) prior to their planned invasion of Europe sometime in the summer of 1941, which was preempted by Fall Barbarossa.
     
    I dealt with this above and elsewhere.

    In any case, it is estimated that there were some 700,000 Jews in German occupied Poland.
     
    Ludicrous. The Wannsee Protokol lists more than 2.2 million in the GG, 400K in the Bialystok district, and 420,000 in the Ostgebiet, which means the areas annexed to the Reich.


    Thousands of Polish Jews magically reappeared in Germany after the war as refugees,
     
    But not millions.

    and the composition of the first Polish communist government was overwhelmingly Jewish. Where did those Jews come from if they were all supposedly dead?

     

    Ten percent of Polish Jews survived. Out of an original population of three million, that's still 300,000 people.

    In any case, asking what happened to the Jews should be an easy answer for you – you could point at the gigantic mass graves or piles of cremains which must exist at 6 easily accessed locations, namely Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka II, Chelmno, KZ Lublin (Majdanek)
     
    Putting aside for the moment that you know the bodies were cremated (and cremains have been found at Sobibor, Belzec, and Trebinka), you don't get to turn the tables. I asked you for documents on resettlement. None exist.

    – except that there are none commensurate with even tens of thousands murder victims, much less 3 million or so.
     
    A lie. There are have been numerous forensic investigations of these camps, and you know it. You merely refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever.

    In addition, the ridiculous accounts of the so called eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in those camps are absurd beyond imagination and with respect to the murder weapons allegedly used- common pesticide and (non-lethal exhaust) not to mention the logistically impossible claims for body disposal (cremations in 10 minutes, funeral pyres which used human fat for cremation)- obviously the product of free inventions. You cannot reduce a body to ashes in 10 minutes- not even in a state of the art crematory retort- and you cannot cremate bodies on outdoor pyres as the story goes at Treblinka II – without millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood.
     
    I'm not going to go into the weeds with you on this. You made allegations about documents, and I'm making a point back at you that undermines your own argument. Be a man and respond to my points, and then maybe I'll think about addressing your other claims.

    Then you attempt to impute totally bizarre behavior to the German people and to clergymen like Archbishop Von Galen – a lion of a man who publicly opposed the T-3 Program and issued a letter of protest to be read in every German Catholic parish.
     
    I did nothing of the sort. And it's T4.

    Of course this is ridiculous. If they opposed the euthanasia program they would have opposed the mass murder of Jews- it is that simple. We are not dealing with uncultured barbarians here. Most Germans probably did not like Jews, but dislike and murder are two entirely different things.
     
    You both missed my point and are wrong.

    My point was that, by and large, most Germans didn't know what was going on before it was far too late.

    Your argument from incredulity that people could oppose euthanasia of their own relatives but not the killing of Jews is unconvincing.

    So, they took the Frank family all the way from Netherlands to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Upper Silesia then back to Belsen just for purposes of torturing them?
     
    Straw man: I said the purpose was to put her to work.

    All trains from Westerbork went to Auschwitz, as did trains from other transit camps across western Europe. This should be unsurprising to anyone who's read the relevant material. Again, your incredulity doesn't move me.

    Obviously, Anne Frank was not gassed anywhere. Why was the Frank family – Frank himself had a shady background and was involved in the black market and most likely ratted out by a former associate – not gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau?
     
    Because they could work. And they did.

    No, Anne Frank was not a murder victim- the internment of enemy aliens was a common practice among the belligerents in the Second World War, as was the case in the U.S., which interned its own Japanese citizens.
     
    Enemy aliens? The Franks were German citizens in a country occupied by German against a treaty of neutrality. You really want to try to justify this? First of all, you don't have the right under the law to intern the inhabitants of a lawfully occupied country (which the Netherlands was not) without a reason. Second, you don't have the right to intern your own citizens under those conditions without a reason. And being Jewish isn't a reason, although I'm sure that surprises you. Even if what you say about Otto Frank is more than an attempt to make the Frank family look bad, it doesn't inculpate his minor daughter.

    Of course, the American land mass was virtually untouched by the war, unlike Germany, which was bombed and shot to rubble. How would our own internees have fared if the German and Japanese forces were bombing all the American rail corridors and power grids?

     

    Poorly, obviously, and in the case of Japanese-American internees, their blood would be on our hands.

    As per your last question: Charles A. Beard, A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Gerd Schultze Ronhof (the latter demonstrates that the British strategy to destroy Germany began, not in 1939, but in 1870-1871, when Prussia defeated France and Bismark established the united German Reich).
     
    Only Schultze-Rohnhof among those is current. Give me two more.

    “judea” declared “war” on Germany in 1933,-yes, 1933. This provided the pretext that the zionists needed to “encourage” jews to emigrate to Palestine. Zionist collaboration with the German government was made possible by this “declaration of war” and made anyone who was a jew in Germany suspect. This “declaration of war” legitimized the zionists far beyond their dreams, and made it possible to seize Palestine for their own…
    One aspect of this “demonization of the jews” sticks out–the number of jews who remained in German government and in the German armed forces, even at flag officer level…for the duration of WW2…

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Don’t you have someone else to play with right now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon

    There are any number of points you get wrong, including the number of the Jews in German occupied Poland, but never mind. It is not “fair” to assume anything when you are dealing with population transfers and refugee problems.
     
    It depends, I guess, on what basis one assumes. Population transfers in the Third Reich were generally very well recorded, as were census figures. Refugee problems didn't really figure into things on the German side. If your approach is just to arrest anyone who's a refugee, particularly if they're Jewish, then you count them up and move them to a camp or ghetto. Problem solved.

    The 2.2 million in the General Government was an estimate, not a statistical figure based upon hard contemporaneous census data.
     
    That's 100% false. The GG population figures in particular were hard numbers. You can blame the SS for a lot of things, but not being able to count isn't one of them. When Jews were put in ghettoes, they were counted first; ditto with camps and transports.

    It is likely that many Jews fled into from the advancing German armies towards the east long before the commencement of Barbarossa and were subsequently evacuated from the military districts in the frontier regions in the spring of 1941
     
    Repeating something wrong doesn't make it right.

    since the Soviets evacuated most of the civilian population, including approximately 2 million Jews, from the military districts in the western frontiers in preparation for the gigantic Soviet offensive planned for sometime in the summer of 1941. The Soviets had set up military districts and this implied an imminent offensive. Most of the civilians were sent to the Soviet hinterlands for defense work. Or do you doubt that Stalin was preparing an invasion of Europe? Do you still believe the “Barbarossa was a mad quest for ‘lebensraum’ ” legend as opposed to a desperate preemptive strike against gigantic Soviet forces staging along the western frontiers of the USSR? The bulk of the forces were deployed in the Biyalistok and Lvov salients, with the most powerful army corps in the world, the 9th Rifle Army, deployed along the Romanian border in close proximity to the Romanian oil fields. Had those oil fields been occupied by the Soviets in a general offensive, the Wehrmacht would have been immobilized and Europe would have fallen- de facto- to the Soviet tsunami within a matter of months.
     
    As I said earlier, I'm not tremendously interested in disputing this particular point with you, but you do make an interesting point about Soviet forces deployed near the Romanian border. As in the Baltics and eastern Poland, these were newly deployed units, and when Barbarossa, they put up virtually no resistance. The Romanian army, not exactly an elite fighting force, rolled over the Red Army in Bessarabia and Bukovina and, like in the Baltics and eastern Poland, the Jewish communities there were destroyed. If the USSR was preparing an invasion, it seems to me they would have had the most effective forces at the border, but they clearly didn't.

    I notice that most of your arguments in defense of the legend depend on demographics and upon the typical fall back position of “If the Germans did not kill 6 million Jews, where did they go, then?” It is up to you to prove that they were all killed by the Germans, since it is impossible to prove a negative.
     
    I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You believe that 1.5 million Jews who were in the GG and were not 1.5 years later weren't murdered. You assert this in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. So I ask you to propose an alternate narrative, since you already know mine. It's quite simple: if they weren't murdered in the places that literally every eyewitness says they were, where there are cremated human remains to attest to their deaths, then where'd they go?

    The best demographic study done so far, Walter Sanning’s “The Dissolution of European Jewry” shows conclusively that nothing like 6 million Jews disappeared “without a trace.” (Of course, you will dismiss Sanning’s work prima facie). 
     
    Listen, if you like, we can go through Sanning page by page and I can show you how he distorts the demographic data. But not until you assert an alternate theory of what happened for which there is some proof.

    No serious forensic examinations of any of the alleged “extermination camps” has been done with anything approaching the rigor of the German exhumation of the mass graves of the Polish officers at Katyn, which demonstrated conclusively that the massacres had been committed by the Soviet NKVD and not the Germans. The Germans even brought in neutral observers and Allied p.o.w.’s as witnesses. Did the Soviets or the Polish communists ever bring in neutral Swiss or Spanish observers to their “forensic investigations”? Of course not. Remember the 4 million dead at Auschwitz or the 2 million dead at Majdanek? 
     
    Comparing Katyn to the Reinhard camps is apples and oranges since the Katyn bodies hadn't been cremated. Moreover, the Spanish weren't exactly neutral.

    I am fully aware that the usual method of body disposal in the camps was cremation – but where are the gigantic piles of human cremains?
     
    I snipped the rest. I'm not going into the weeds with you on this until you begin defending your previous positions. We'll get there but you need to stay on point.

    Yes, census figures in the Reich were well recorded, but Poland was not at all part of the Reich during most of the 1930′s, and the Korherr Report used census figures from 1931 and an “estimate” from 1937 which failed to account for emigration (hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews were deported from Poland to the German Reich, especially during the Polish passport crisis in 1938 , the most notorious of these being the assassin Herschel Grynspan), or natural mortality. Also, there was considerable emigration abroad, especially to Palestine during this period. As many as 850,000 Jews may have fled the approaching German Armies and taken “refuge” in the Soviet Zone of occupation during September of 1939. Couple this with as many as 1,700,000 (source; Jewish Telegraph Agency) evacuated to the Soviet hinterlands prior to the initiation of the German-Soviet war and there is strong reason to believe that the 2.2 million figure for the German Zone of occupation may be highly exaggerated, and there may have indeed been only 800,000 or so Jews there in reality.

    The deployment of the Soviet forces in June of 1941 points overwhelmingly towards an offensive action of unprecedented scale aimed at Central Europe, to occur sometime in the summer of 1941. Such large forces could not possibly be kept inactive in the field over the winter, and their evacuation in the fall would have tied up the Soviet rail system which was badly needed for the autumn grain harvests. These forces were deployed in offensive formations in vulnerable salients, much of the Stalin Line had been demolished and the front echelon air forces were sitting on their airfields wingtip to wingtip, which is the primary reason that virtually the entire force was wiped out within the first 24 hours of Barbarossa.

    As to “getting into the weeds”, the nuts and bolts of the “Holocaust” legend, namely the technical and logistical impossibilities of the received narrative are where the story breaks down completely. One comes across impossible bottlenecks, for example, the idea that ventilating and clearing a “gas chamber” with an ordinary width door and a single hand powered elevator could be done within hours- it would have taken days, perhaps weeks just to clear the chamber, and the cremation of the bodies would have taken weeks, not hours; the idea that most of the alleged 1.2 million victims of homicidal gassing with commercial pesticide at Auschwitz-Birkenau were cremated in the 52 ordinary crematory retorts, which had at the very least a one hour per body capacity, need for periodic cooling and maintenance and a lifetime of about 3,000 cremations per muffle. Since camp records show that there were no orders for retort or oven replacement, this would put the maximum number of bodies cremated at the A-B complex at about 150,000, which comports well with the extant camp records (which although incomplete show about 69,000 deaths- mostly from Typhus.) More Catholic Poles probably died at Auschwitz-Birkenau than Jews.

    For a period of time during 1942, Bletchley Park, the British decoding center, was intercepting the secret coded transmissions of the German Order Police with regards to movements to and from the camps, and the intercepts show nothing like the huge number of fatalities (under the category of “departures”) show nothing like any mass deaths consonant with a deliberate program of mass murder. As a matter of fact, the intercepts show fairly mundane business as usual activity, e.g., “KZ Lublin is requesting 8 shoemakers.”

    There are two even weaker links in the legend: Treblinka II and Babi Yar. I have already shown why the received tale of the former is a virtual impossibility and the latter is simply a hoax. So 30,000 Jews of Kiev were really taken to the ravine, shot and buried, then exhumed and cremated on tombstones. This would have been a massive operation requiring millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood and a means of transporting it into the ravine. Yet, aerial reconnaissance photos of the area a few days after the alleged mass cremations were completed show undisturbed and unscarred landscape and NO access roads into the ravine. The whole Babi Yar narrative was just another Soviet propaganda tale.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Yes, census figures in the Reich were well recorded, but Poland was not at all part of the Reich during most of the 1930′s, and the Korherr Report used census figures from 1931 and an “estimate” from 1937 which failed to account for emigration (hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews were deported from Poland to the German Reich, especially during the Polish passport crisis in 1938 , the most notorious of these being the assassin Herschel Grynspan), or natural mortality.
     
    Regarding the 1931 census, it classified Jews in two chief ways: by primary language (presumably Yiddish) and religion. Suppose a Jew was not religious and spoke Polish as his first language? That Jew, therefore, would not have been counted as such. The question then becomes whether the Poles over- or underestimated the Jewish population. Underestimated is much more likely, given the language/religion classification, rather than simply asking nationality/ethnicity.

    Second, you have the direction of those deportations incorrect. For his own part, Herschel Grynszpan was born in Germany. His parents were Polish citizens and they were expelled during the Passport Crisis; even then the total number of Jews was only 10,000, which hardly accounts for a population in the millions.

    Also, there was considerable emigration abroad, especially to Palestine during this period.
     
    Your contention is that, following the 1931 Polish census, there was significant emigration to Palestine and elsewhere. A few points to make here. First, they certainly didn't come to the United States -- we passed a very strict immigration law based on quotas in 1925 and that law was in place until the Johnson administration. Second, the total number of Jews that went to Palestine between 1931 and 1939, when Britain issued its white paper banning emigration, was 300,000, fully 20% of whom were Germans who either fled or went under the Transfer Agreement. About 94,000 Jews in the second aliyah came from Poland. So even if we add these to the 10,000 Jews in the Passport crisis, we only get 104,000, which is far from the 1.5 million or so that you claim Korherr was off by.

    As many as 850,000 Jews may have fled the approaching German Armies and taken “refuge” in the Soviet Zone of occupation during September of 1939. Couple this with as many as 1,700,000 (source; Jewish Telegraph Agency) evacuated to the Soviet hinterlands prior to the initiation of the German-Soviet war and there is strong reason to believe that the 2.2 million figure for the German Zone of occupation may be highly exaggerated, and there may have indeed been only 800,000 or so Jews there in reality.
     
    The problem with this assertion is that you're conflating two different things. Yes, Jews fled into the Soviet zone, although you notably don't cite a source for that number. But the 1.7 million referred to by the JTA isn't only Polish Jews -- it also includes Jews from other constituent republics, mainly Belarus and Ukraine.

    The deployment of the Soviet forces in June of 1941 points overwhelmingly towards an offensive action of unprecedented scale aimed at Central Europe, to occur sometime in the summer of 1941. Such large forces could not possibly be kept inactive in the field over the winter, and their evacuation in the fall would have tied up the Soviet rail system which was badly needed for the autumn grain harvests. These forces were deployed in offensive formations in vulnerable salients, much of the Stalin Line had been demolished and the front echelon air forces were sitting on their airfields wingtip to wingtip, which is the primary reason that virtually the entire force was wiped out within the first 24 hours of Barbarossa.
     
    Wingtip to wingtip isn't an offensive formation, for one thing. More importantly, you overlook the far more likely explanation that the planes were there because Stalin wasn't expecting an attack. You're beating a dead horse on this.

    As to “getting into the weeds”....
     
    Sorry, pal, not till you give me your alternative thesis. I have news for you -- the argument that they never existed in the first place is going to lose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Che Guava says:
    @Anon

    Frank was under the impression that there were 2 million Jews in the area of the General Government, but he was merely citing census data which preceded the outbreak of the war. It is a virtual certainty that many Jews fled to the Soviet zone of occupation after the USSR invaded Poland.
     
    There are several points you get wrong here. First, while it's true that some Jews fled into the Soviet zone, no one -- not even "revisionists" claim that they were all evacuated. The Soviets only occupied one third of Poland. If the Jewish population of Poland was 3 million in 1939, it's fair to assume two million in what would become the German occupation zone and one million in the Soviet zone before the invasion. Assuming further that any Jews that fled went to the Soviet zone, they would still by and large be there (see below for elaboration on this point). Moreover, some of that territory, but not all (not the Biaystok or Wilno districts), was incorporated into the GG, so it got back some Jews it might have left.

    Second, you're ignoring that tens of thousands of Jews were deported into the GG between September 1939 and June 1941 from Warthegau, Silesia, West Prussia, and Danzig to make room for Baltic Germans being brought into the newly acquired territories. This, in fact, was the key complaint that Frank was making -- they were giving him more Jews than he could accommodate.

    Third, the Soviets evacuated many Jews with the Nazis invasion, but not from areas at the front. Jews were evacuated mainly from Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia, but in the Baltic states and eastern Poland, they were mostly trapped.

    Also, we know with certainty that the Soviets evacuated some 2 million Jews from the western frontier military districts in 1941 (Solzhenitsyn even alluded to this fact) prior to their planned invasion of Europe sometime in the summer of 1941, which was preempted by Fall Barbarossa.
     
    I dealt with this above and elsewhere.

    In any case, it is estimated that there were some 700,000 Jews in German occupied Poland.
     
    Ludicrous. The Wannsee Protokol lists more than 2.2 million in the GG, 400K in the Bialystok district, and 420,000 in the Ostgebiet, which means the areas annexed to the Reich.


    Thousands of Polish Jews magically reappeared in Germany after the war as refugees,
     
    But not millions.

    and the composition of the first Polish communist government was overwhelmingly Jewish. Where did those Jews come from if they were all supposedly dead?

     

    Ten percent of Polish Jews survived. Out of an original population of three million, that's still 300,000 people.

    In any case, asking what happened to the Jews should be an easy answer for you – you could point at the gigantic mass graves or piles of cremains which must exist at 6 easily accessed locations, namely Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka II, Chelmno, KZ Lublin (Majdanek)
     
    Putting aside for the moment that you know the bodies were cremated (and cremains have been found at Sobibor, Belzec, and Trebinka), you don't get to turn the tables. I asked you for documents on resettlement. None exist.

    – except that there are none commensurate with even tens of thousands murder victims, much less 3 million or so.
     
    A lie. There are have been numerous forensic investigations of these camps, and you know it. You merely refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever.

    In addition, the ridiculous accounts of the so called eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in those camps are absurd beyond imagination and with respect to the murder weapons allegedly used- common pesticide and (non-lethal exhaust) not to mention the logistically impossible claims for body disposal (cremations in 10 minutes, funeral pyres which used human fat for cremation)- obviously the product of free inventions. You cannot reduce a body to ashes in 10 minutes- not even in a state of the art crematory retort- and you cannot cremate bodies on outdoor pyres as the story goes at Treblinka II – without millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood.
     
    I'm not going to go into the weeds with you on this. You made allegations about documents, and I'm making a point back at you that undermines your own argument. Be a man and respond to my points, and then maybe I'll think about addressing your other claims.

    Then you attempt to impute totally bizarre behavior to the German people and to clergymen like Archbishop Von Galen – a lion of a man who publicly opposed the T-3 Program and issued a letter of protest to be read in every German Catholic parish.
     
    I did nothing of the sort. And it's T4.

    Of course this is ridiculous. If they opposed the euthanasia program they would have opposed the mass murder of Jews- it is that simple. We are not dealing with uncultured barbarians here. Most Germans probably did not like Jews, but dislike and murder are two entirely different things.
     
    You both missed my point and are wrong.

    My point was that, by and large, most Germans didn't know what was going on before it was far too late.

    Your argument from incredulity that people could oppose euthanasia of their own relatives but not the killing of Jews is unconvincing.

    So, they took the Frank family all the way from Netherlands to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Upper Silesia then back to Belsen just for purposes of torturing them?
     
    Straw man: I said the purpose was to put her to work.

    All trains from Westerbork went to Auschwitz, as did trains from other transit camps across western Europe. This should be unsurprising to anyone who's read the relevant material. Again, your incredulity doesn't move me.

    Obviously, Anne Frank was not gassed anywhere. Why was the Frank family – Frank himself had a shady background and was involved in the black market and most likely ratted out by a former associate – not gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau?
     
    Because they could work. And they did.

    No, Anne Frank was not a murder victim- the internment of enemy aliens was a common practice among the belligerents in the Second World War, as was the case in the U.S., which interned its own Japanese citizens.
     
    Enemy aliens? The Franks were German citizens in a country occupied by German against a treaty of neutrality. You really want to try to justify this? First of all, you don't have the right under the law to intern the inhabitants of a lawfully occupied country (which the Netherlands was not) without a reason. Second, you don't have the right to intern your own citizens under those conditions without a reason. And being Jewish isn't a reason, although I'm sure that surprises you. Even if what you say about Otto Frank is more than an attempt to make the Frank family look bad, it doesn't inculpate his minor daughter.

    Of course, the American land mass was virtually untouched by the war, unlike Germany, which was bombed and shot to rubble. How would our own internees have fared if the German and Japanese forces were bombing all the American rail corridors and power grids?

     

    Poorly, obviously, and in the case of Japanese-American internees, their blood would be on our hands.

    As per your last question: Charles A. Beard, A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Gerd Schultze Ronhof (the latter demonstrates that the British strategy to destroy Germany began, not in 1939, but in 1870-1871, when Prussia defeated France and Bismark established the united German Reich).
     
    Only Schultze-Rohnhof among those is current. Give me two more.

    You are silly.

    I hate to say it, but the internment of Japanese immigrants was not a totally stupid and random or racist action. In California and Hawaii in particular, a big proportion belonged to the Imperial Rule Assistance Association, so they were not loyal to the US.

    Spotters in Hawaii, would-be saboteurs in the USN in California, it was not illogical.

    Sure, the US govt.should have been more selective, but I think it was not stragetically stupid.

    Here, all enemy aliens were placed in internment, even Italians after the first fall of Mussolini. One of the most interesting accounts I have read of that time was from an interned Italian diplomat, he was treated well, until the final period, where he was not treated badly, but food was short. Conditions were no better or worse than for internees in the USA, then became much worse towards the end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    Yes, census figures in the Reich were well recorded, but Poland was not at all part of the Reich during most of the 1930's, and the Korherr Report used census figures from 1931 and an "estimate" from 1937 which failed to account for emigration (hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews were deported from Poland to the German Reich, especially during the Polish passport crisis in 1938 , the most notorious of these being the assassin Herschel Grynspan), or natural mortality. Also, there was considerable emigration abroad, especially to Palestine during this period. As many as 850,000 Jews may have fled the approaching German Armies and taken “refuge” in the Soviet Zone of occupation during September of 1939. Couple this with as many as 1,700,000 (source; Jewish Telegraph Agency) evacuated to the Soviet hinterlands prior to the initiation of the German-Soviet war and there is strong reason to believe that the 2.2 million figure for the German Zone of occupation may be highly exaggerated, and there may have indeed been only 800,000 or so Jews there in reality.

    The deployment of the Soviet forces in June of 1941 points overwhelmingly towards an offensive action of unprecedented scale aimed at Central Europe, to occur sometime in the summer of 1941. Such large forces could not possibly be kept inactive in the field over the winter, and their evacuation in the fall would have tied up the Soviet rail system which was badly needed for the autumn grain harvests. These forces were deployed in offensive formations in vulnerable salients, much of the Stalin Line had been demolished and the front echelon air forces were sitting on their airfields wingtip to wingtip, which is the primary reason that virtually the entire force was wiped out within the first 24 hours of Barbarossa.


    As to “getting into the weeds”, the nuts and bolts of the “Holocaust” legend, namely the technical and logistical impossibilities of the received narrative are where the story breaks down completely. One comes across impossible bottlenecks, for example, the idea that ventilating and clearing a “gas chamber” with an ordinary width door and a single hand powered elevator could be done within hours- it would have taken days, perhaps weeks just to clear the chamber, and the cremation of the bodies would have taken weeks, not hours; the idea that most of the alleged 1.2 million victims of homicidal gassing with commercial pesticide at Auschwitz-Birkenau were cremated in the 52 ordinary crematory retorts, which had at the very least a one hour per body capacity, need for periodic cooling and maintenance and a lifetime of about 3,000 cremations per muffle. Since camp records show that there were no orders for retort or oven replacement, this would put the maximum number of bodies cremated at the A-B complex at about 150,000, which comports well with the extant camp records (which although incomplete show about 69,000 deaths- mostly from Typhus.) More Catholic Poles probably died at Auschwitz-Birkenau than Jews.

    For a period of time during 1942, Bletchley Park, the British decoding center, was intercepting the secret coded transmissions of the German Order Police with regards to movements to and from the camps, and the intercepts show nothing like the huge number of fatalities (under the category of “departures”) show nothing like any mass deaths consonant with a deliberate program of mass murder. As a matter of fact, the intercepts show fairly mundane business as usual activity, e.g., “KZ Lublin is requesting 8 shoemakers.”

    There are two even weaker links in the legend: Treblinka II and Babi Yar. I have already shown why the received tale of the former is a virtual impossibility and the latter is simply a hoax. So 30,000 Jews of Kiev were really taken to the ravine, shot and buried, then exhumed and cremated on tombstones. This would have been a massive operation requiring millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood and a means of transporting it into the ravine. Yet, aerial reconnaissance photos of the area a few days after the alleged mass cremations were completed show undisturbed and unscarred landscape and NO access roads into the ravine. The whole Babi Yar narrative was just another Soviet propaganda tale.

    Yes, census figures in the Reich were well recorded, but Poland was not at all part of the Reich during most of the 1930′s, and the Korherr Report used census figures from 1931 and an “estimate” from 1937 which failed to account for emigration (hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews were deported from Poland to the German Reich, especially during the Polish passport crisis in 1938 , the most notorious of these being the assassin Herschel Grynspan), or natural mortality.

    Regarding the 1931 census, it classified Jews in two chief ways: by primary language (presumably Yiddish) and religion. Suppose a Jew was not religious and spoke Polish as his first language? That Jew, therefore, would not have been counted as such. The question then becomes whether the Poles over- or underestimated the Jewish population. Underestimated is much more likely, given the language/religion classification, rather than simply asking nationality/ethnicity.

    Second, you have the direction of those deportations incorrect. For his own part, Herschel Grynszpan was born in Germany. His parents were Polish citizens and they were expelled during the Passport Crisis; even then the total number of Jews was only 10,000, which hardly accounts for a population in the millions.

    Also, there was considerable emigration abroad, especially to Palestine during this period.

    Your contention is that, following the 1931 Polish census, there was significant emigration to Palestine and elsewhere. A few points to make here. First, they certainly didn’t come to the United States — we passed a very strict immigration law based on quotas in 1925 and that law was in place until the Johnson administration. Second, the total number of Jews that went to Palestine between 1931 and 1939, when Britain issued its white paper banning emigration, was 300,000, fully 20% of whom were Germans who either fled or went under the Transfer Agreement. About 94,000 Jews in the second aliyah came from Poland. So even if we add these to the 10,000 Jews in the Passport crisis, we only get 104,000, which is far from the 1.5 million or so that you claim Korherr was off by.

    As many as 850,000 Jews may have fled the approaching German Armies and taken “refuge” in the Soviet Zone of occupation during September of 1939. Couple this with as many as 1,700,000 (source; Jewish Telegraph Agency) evacuated to the Soviet hinterlands prior to the initiation of the German-Soviet war and there is strong reason to believe that the 2.2 million figure for the German Zone of occupation may be highly exaggerated, and there may have indeed been only 800,000 or so Jews there in reality.

    The problem with this assertion is that you’re conflating two different things. Yes, Jews fled into the Soviet zone, although you notably don’t cite a source for that number. But the 1.7 million referred to by the JTA isn’t only Polish Jews — it also includes Jews from other constituent republics, mainly Belarus and Ukraine.

    The deployment of the Soviet forces in June of 1941 points overwhelmingly towards an offensive action of unprecedented scale aimed at Central Europe, to occur sometime in the summer of 1941. Such large forces could not possibly be kept inactive in the field over the winter, and their evacuation in the fall would have tied up the Soviet rail system which was badly needed for the autumn grain harvests. These forces were deployed in offensive formations in vulnerable salients, much of the Stalin Line had been demolished and the front echelon air forces were sitting on their airfields wingtip to wingtip, which is the primary reason that virtually the entire force was wiped out within the first 24 hours of Barbarossa.

    Wingtip to wingtip isn’t an offensive formation, for one thing. More importantly, you overlook the far more likely explanation that the planes were there because Stalin wasn’t expecting an attack. You’re beating a dead horse on this.

    As to “getting into the weeds”….

    Sorry, pal, not till you give me your alternative thesis. I have news for you — the argument that they never existed in the first place is going to lose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    "Wingtip to wingtip wasn't an offensive formation"? Obviously not. An aircraft on its airfield is not engaging in offensive warfare, but the fact that the aircraft were out in the open sitting on their airfields in close proximity to the future enemy's frontier is a sure sign of offensive intent, since, if the force were defensive, the aircraft would be widely dispersed and camouflaged in the event the enemy forces attacked.

    You simply cannot even frame a coherent narrative. Jews were interned in camps and herded into ghettos. Okay. Many of them disappeared into the Soviet hinterlands, many of them flooded into Europe after the war was over (ask General Patton about that one). Many of them emigrated to Israel, many to South America, and many to the US as Polish, Hungarian, and other nationalities. Funny how there are still so many "survivors" after all these years. As a matter of fact, given natural mortality rates, it would appear that very few Jews died (relative to Germans or Russians) during the war.

    You talk about alternative theses. We revisionists do have a counter-narrative to the ridiculous legend of yours about homicidal gas chambers. Jews were brought to camps, divided by sexes, told to undress, given a bar of soap and a towel and some fresh camp uniforms while their clothes were sent to the real "gas chambers" for delousing. Many of these gas chambers employed Zyklon-B (even J.C. Pressac acknowledged that 95% of the Zyklon-B was for purposes of delousing- a tacit admission that more likely 100% of it was used for such purposes). The delousing/gas chambers had state of the art delousing technology which included powerful ventilators, automated canister openers and hot air blowers to accelerate the evaporation of the Hydrocyanic Acid, the active ingredient in Zyklon B. Obviously, the camp rumor mills about the "gas chamber" and the ovens were incredibly active and many inmates really did think that the loved ones they were parted from were sent to the gas chamber when, as a matter of fact, they were sent to a different part of the camp, to a different camp or labor detail. War has a way of creating such chaotic situations, and this is not something that the Jews have uniquely suffered.

    Contrast this to the nonsense about makeshift holes in the roof of the Krema morgues (demonstrated to have never existed) and pellets of Zyklon-B poured through them down "Kula Columns" (even wire mesh somehow gets its own proper name if relateable to the "Holocaust") onto cold unheated floors. Never mind that this was completely at variance with the technical specifications for the use of Zyklon-B. It would not have worked at all.

    As for the Reinhardt Camps, no murder weapons has ever even been agreed on. Was it steam chambers or electrified floors? (Interestingly enough, there were steam delousing machines in use). Was it diesel exhaust - which appeared to be the official consensus, until it was pointed out that diesel exhaust contains more Oxygen than Carbon Monoxide- or petrol engines? Was it "gas vans" (no blueprint or prototype existed)? Was it execution by tree felling? Delayed reaction gas, which would not take effect until the victims had arrived at the burial pits, whereupon they would collapse into their graves?

    From a real world perspective, you cannot form a plausible or coherent narrative - you simply rely on the "If they were not killed, then where are they?" fallacy. Like I said, the burden of proof is on you - not me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon

    Yes, census figures in the Reich were well recorded, but Poland was not at all part of the Reich during most of the 1930′s, and the Korherr Report used census figures from 1931 and an “estimate” from 1937 which failed to account for emigration (hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews were deported from Poland to the German Reich, especially during the Polish passport crisis in 1938 , the most notorious of these being the assassin Herschel Grynspan), or natural mortality.
     
    Regarding the 1931 census, it classified Jews in two chief ways: by primary language (presumably Yiddish) and religion. Suppose a Jew was not religious and spoke Polish as his first language? That Jew, therefore, would not have been counted as such. The question then becomes whether the Poles over- or underestimated the Jewish population. Underestimated is much more likely, given the language/religion classification, rather than simply asking nationality/ethnicity.

    Second, you have the direction of those deportations incorrect. For his own part, Herschel Grynszpan was born in Germany. His parents were Polish citizens and they were expelled during the Passport Crisis; even then the total number of Jews was only 10,000, which hardly accounts for a population in the millions.

    Also, there was considerable emigration abroad, especially to Palestine during this period.
     
    Your contention is that, following the 1931 Polish census, there was significant emigration to Palestine and elsewhere. A few points to make here. First, they certainly didn't come to the United States -- we passed a very strict immigration law based on quotas in 1925 and that law was in place until the Johnson administration. Second, the total number of Jews that went to Palestine between 1931 and 1939, when Britain issued its white paper banning emigration, was 300,000, fully 20% of whom were Germans who either fled or went under the Transfer Agreement. About 94,000 Jews in the second aliyah came from Poland. So even if we add these to the 10,000 Jews in the Passport crisis, we only get 104,000, which is far from the 1.5 million or so that you claim Korherr was off by.

    As many as 850,000 Jews may have fled the approaching German Armies and taken “refuge” in the Soviet Zone of occupation during September of 1939. Couple this with as many as 1,700,000 (source; Jewish Telegraph Agency) evacuated to the Soviet hinterlands prior to the initiation of the German-Soviet war and there is strong reason to believe that the 2.2 million figure for the German Zone of occupation may be highly exaggerated, and there may have indeed been only 800,000 or so Jews there in reality.
     
    The problem with this assertion is that you're conflating two different things. Yes, Jews fled into the Soviet zone, although you notably don't cite a source for that number. But the 1.7 million referred to by the JTA isn't only Polish Jews -- it also includes Jews from other constituent republics, mainly Belarus and Ukraine.

    The deployment of the Soviet forces in June of 1941 points overwhelmingly towards an offensive action of unprecedented scale aimed at Central Europe, to occur sometime in the summer of 1941. Such large forces could not possibly be kept inactive in the field over the winter, and their evacuation in the fall would have tied up the Soviet rail system which was badly needed for the autumn grain harvests. These forces were deployed in offensive formations in vulnerable salients, much of the Stalin Line had been demolished and the front echelon air forces were sitting on their airfields wingtip to wingtip, which is the primary reason that virtually the entire force was wiped out within the first 24 hours of Barbarossa.
     
    Wingtip to wingtip isn't an offensive formation, for one thing. More importantly, you overlook the far more likely explanation that the planes were there because Stalin wasn't expecting an attack. You're beating a dead horse on this.

    As to “getting into the weeds”....
     
    Sorry, pal, not till you give me your alternative thesis. I have news for you -- the argument that they never existed in the first place is going to lose.

    “Wingtip to wingtip wasn’t an offensive formation”? Obviously not. An aircraft on its airfield is not engaging in offensive warfare, but the fact that the aircraft were out in the open sitting on their airfields in close proximity to the future enemy’s frontier is a sure sign of offensive intent, since, if the force were defensive, the aircraft would be widely dispersed and camouflaged in the event the enemy forces attacked.

    You simply cannot even frame a coherent narrative. Jews were interned in camps and herded into ghettos. Okay. Many of them disappeared into the Soviet hinterlands, many of them flooded into Europe after the war was over (ask General Patton about that one). Many of them emigrated to Israel, many to South America, and many to the US as Polish, Hungarian, and other nationalities. Funny how there are still so many “survivors” after all these years. As a matter of fact, given natural mortality rates, it would appear that very few Jews died (relative to Germans or Russians) during the war.

    You talk about alternative theses. We revisionists do have a counter-narrative to the ridiculous legend of yours about homicidal gas chambers. Jews were brought to camps, divided by sexes, told to undress, given a bar of soap and a towel and some fresh camp uniforms while their clothes were sent to the real “gas chambers” for delousing. Many of these gas chambers employed Zyklon-B (even J.C. Pressac acknowledged that 95% of the Zyklon-B was for purposes of delousing- a tacit admission that more likely 100% of it was used for such purposes). The delousing/gas chambers had state of the art delousing technology which included powerful ventilators, automated canister openers and hot air blowers to accelerate the evaporation of the Hydrocyanic Acid, the active ingredient in Zyklon B. Obviously, the camp rumor mills about the “gas chamber” and the ovens were incredibly active and many inmates really did think that the loved ones they were parted from were sent to the gas chamber when, as a matter of fact, they were sent to a different part of the camp, to a different camp or labor detail. War has a way of creating such chaotic situations, and this is not something that the Jews have uniquely suffered.

    Contrast this to the nonsense about makeshift holes in the roof of the Krema morgues (demonstrated to have never existed) and pellets of Zyklon-B poured through them down “Kula Columns” (even wire mesh somehow gets its own proper name if relateable to the “Holocaust”) onto cold unheated floors. Never mind that this was completely at variance with the technical specifications for the use of Zyklon-B. It would not have worked at all.

    As for the Reinhardt Camps, no murder weapons has ever even been agreed on. Was it steam chambers or electrified floors? (Interestingly enough, there were steam delousing machines in use). Was it diesel exhaust – which appeared to be the official consensus, until it was pointed out that diesel exhaust contains more Oxygen than Carbon Monoxide- or petrol engines? Was it “gas vans” (no blueprint or prototype existed)? Was it execution by tree felling? Delayed reaction gas, which would not take effect until the victims had arrived at the burial pits, whereupon they would collapse into their graves?

    From a real world perspective, you cannot form a plausible or coherent narrative – you simply rely on the “If they were not killed, then where are they?” fallacy. Like I said, the burden of proof is on you – not me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Responded here: http://www.unz.com/article/obamas-awol-anti-war-protesters/#comment-1942026
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “Wingtip to wingtip wasn’t an offensive formation”? Obviously not. An aircraft on its airfield is not engaging in offensive warfare, but the fact that the aircraft were out in the open sitting on their airfields in close proximity to the future enemy’s frontier is a sure sign of offensive intent, since, if the force were defensive, the aircraft would be widely dispersed and camouflaged in the event the enemy forces attacked.

    Repeating the wrong thing over and over doesn’t make it right.

    You don’t have to camouflage your aircraft in peacetime. You put them in hangars, which by the way can’t withstand being bombed.

    You simply cannot even frame a coherent narrative.

    Sure, I can. But I’ve asked you twice now, and you haven’t yet.

    Not only can I frame a coherent narrative, but people have been doing so for 70 years. Your side has zero coherent narratives that address the evidence, the chief piece of which is the utter absence of 5+ million people.

    Jews were interned in camps and herded into ghettos. Okay. Many of them disappeared into the Soviet hinterlands, many of them flooded into Europe after the war was over (ask General Patton about that one).

    They didn’t flood “into Europe.” They were in Europe and relocated elsewhere in Europe. By the way, the number of DPs was 1 million, which leaves several million to be accounted for.

    Saying they “disappeared into the Soviet hinterlands” is not only imprecise, but the number is totally unproved by you.

    Many of them emigrated to Israel, many to South America, and many to the US as Polish, Hungarian, and other nationalities. Funny how there are still so many “survivors” after all these years. As a matter of fact, given natural mortality rates, it would appear that very few Jews died (relative to Germans or Russians) during the war.

    You talk about alternative theses. We revisionists do have a counter-narrative to the ridiculous legend of yours about homicidal gas chambers. Jews were brought to camps, divided by sexes, told to undress, given a bar of soap and a towel and some fresh camp uniforms while their clothes were sent to the real “gas chambers” for delousing.

    Stop right there. There were 1.5 million Jews sent to three camps: Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. We know no one was kept there very long. How about a narrative that explains where they went next and that explains why they subsequently vanished without a trace?

    I cut the rest. Put up a narrative here that explains where 1.5 million Jews sent to three camps ended up and provide some evidence. In addition, concede that you don’t know the date of the Schlegelberger document, since no one does. Otherwise, you’ve exhausted my patience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Preparing for a massive offensive is not "peacetime", it is a prelude to war, it is preparing for war. So stop being so obtuse. It is very tiring after awhile.

    The burden of proof is on you to prove that the "1.5 million Jews sent to 3 camps" were killed there. You can do that by providing a coherent narrative like that regarding the massacres at Katyn (on a much smaller scale, of course). The latter goes something like this:

    "Over ten thousand Polish officers and members of the Polish intelligentsia were arrested by the NKVD, taken to prison, and executed with a bullet to the back of the head. The NKVD executioners used smaller caliber German pistols because the Soviet general issue revolvers were of a larger caliber and had a much greater recoil, which could have resulted in serious injuries to the executioners' hands, arms and fingers due to the repetitive shooting. The bodies of the victims were buried in mass graves in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk. The mass graves were subsequently discovered by the Germans, exhumed and underwent forensic examination, whereby it was determined that the Soviet NKVD had committed the massacres."

    There is truth in directness and simplicity.

    Contrast this to your accepted narrative for Treblinka II:

    "More than 700,000 Jews arrived via rail to Treblinka II. They were either killed in steam chambers (per Nuremberg), non-lethal diesel exhaust from either a captured Soviet submarine, or a generator, or via internal combustion exhaust from a tank engine and the people turned "yellow" from the gas (even though a symptom of Carbon Monoxide poisoning is a cherry red coloration). The 700,000 Jews at Treblinka II were buried in gigantic pits whose excavation would have required an entire fleet of earth moving equipment and nobody knows what the Germans did with the enormous mounds of earth in the meantime, whether they left the mass pits/graves with decomposing bodies open or filled them up after every transport of Jews and reopened them upon arrival of the next transport. Then , to top it all off, all of the bodies were exhumed and burned on railroad ties using twigs and branches as kindling because in the case of Treblinka II, it is a well known fact that bodies burn on their own, without the hundreds of millions of pounds of dried, cured firewood which would have otherwise (in the real world, not Treblinka II) been needed, and even when there is heavy precipitation, as was the case in Poland in 1942-43, which had something like 162" of rain, snow, sleet or hail per annum. Not only that, but there was a dog named Barry who was a rabid antisemite and a man named Ivan the Terrible who ripped babies in half. The SS men would dance around the pyres and sing and drink. To top it all off, the Germans were so successful at covering up their crime they removed all traces of the camp, going so far as to remove any traces of the mass cremations, the wood ash, and the geological disturbances and turned the place into a peaceful looking meadow with undisturbed vegetation bordering on cultivated farmland."

    Ridiculous, laughable, and absurd nonsense. It is the stuff of Gulliver's Travels or the Brothers Grimm.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. annamaria says:
    @Anon

    Frank was under the impression that there were 2 million Jews in the area of the General Government, but he was merely citing census data which preceded the outbreak of the war. It is a virtual certainty that many Jews fled to the Soviet zone of occupation after the USSR invaded Poland.
     
    There are several points you get wrong here. First, while it's true that some Jews fled into the Soviet zone, no one -- not even "revisionists" claim that they were all evacuated. The Soviets only occupied one third of Poland. If the Jewish population of Poland was 3 million in 1939, it's fair to assume two million in what would become the German occupation zone and one million in the Soviet zone before the invasion. Assuming further that any Jews that fled went to the Soviet zone, they would still by and large be there (see below for elaboration on this point). Moreover, some of that territory, but not all (not the Biaystok or Wilno districts), was incorporated into the GG, so it got back some Jews it might have left.

    Second, you're ignoring that tens of thousands of Jews were deported into the GG between September 1939 and June 1941 from Warthegau, Silesia, West Prussia, and Danzig to make room for Baltic Germans being brought into the newly acquired territories. This, in fact, was the key complaint that Frank was making -- they were giving him more Jews than he could accommodate.

    Third, the Soviets evacuated many Jews with the Nazis invasion, but not from areas at the front. Jews were evacuated mainly from Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia, but in the Baltic states and eastern Poland, they were mostly trapped.

    Also, we know with certainty that the Soviets evacuated some 2 million Jews from the western frontier military districts in 1941 (Solzhenitsyn even alluded to this fact) prior to their planned invasion of Europe sometime in the summer of 1941, which was preempted by Fall Barbarossa.
     
    I dealt with this above and elsewhere.

    In any case, it is estimated that there were some 700,000 Jews in German occupied Poland.
     
    Ludicrous. The Wannsee Protokol lists more than 2.2 million in the GG, 400K in the Bialystok district, and 420,000 in the Ostgebiet, which means the areas annexed to the Reich.


    Thousands of Polish Jews magically reappeared in Germany after the war as refugees,
     
    But not millions.

    and the composition of the first Polish communist government was overwhelmingly Jewish. Where did those Jews come from if they were all supposedly dead?

     

    Ten percent of Polish Jews survived. Out of an original population of three million, that's still 300,000 people.

    In any case, asking what happened to the Jews should be an easy answer for you – you could point at the gigantic mass graves or piles of cremains which must exist at 6 easily accessed locations, namely Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka II, Chelmno, KZ Lublin (Majdanek)
     
    Putting aside for the moment that you know the bodies were cremated (and cremains have been found at Sobibor, Belzec, and Trebinka), you don't get to turn the tables. I asked you for documents on resettlement. None exist.

    – except that there are none commensurate with even tens of thousands murder victims, much less 3 million or so.
     
    A lie. There are have been numerous forensic investigations of these camps, and you know it. You merely refuse to accept any evidence whatsoever.

    In addition, the ridiculous accounts of the so called eyewitnesses who claimed to have been in those camps are absurd beyond imagination and with respect to the murder weapons allegedly used- common pesticide and (non-lethal exhaust) not to mention the logistically impossible claims for body disposal (cremations in 10 minutes, funeral pyres which used human fat for cremation)- obviously the product of free inventions. You cannot reduce a body to ashes in 10 minutes- not even in a state of the art crematory retort- and you cannot cremate bodies on outdoor pyres as the story goes at Treblinka II – without millions of pounds of cured, dried firewood.
     
    I'm not going to go into the weeds with you on this. You made allegations about documents, and I'm making a point back at you that undermines your own argument. Be a man and respond to my points, and then maybe I'll think about addressing your other claims.

    Then you attempt to impute totally bizarre behavior to the German people and to clergymen like Archbishop Von Galen – a lion of a man who publicly opposed the T-3 Program and issued a letter of protest to be read in every German Catholic parish.
     
    I did nothing of the sort. And it's T4.

    Of course this is ridiculous. If they opposed the euthanasia program they would have opposed the mass murder of Jews- it is that simple. We are not dealing with uncultured barbarians here. Most Germans probably did not like Jews, but dislike and murder are two entirely different things.
     
    You both missed my point and are wrong.

    My point was that, by and large, most Germans didn't know what was going on before it was far too late.

    Your argument from incredulity that people could oppose euthanasia of their own relatives but not the killing of Jews is unconvincing.

    So, they took the Frank family all the way from Netherlands to Auschwitz-Birkenau in Upper Silesia then back to Belsen just for purposes of torturing them?
     
    Straw man: I said the purpose was to put her to work.

    All trains from Westerbork went to Auschwitz, as did trains from other transit camps across western Europe. This should be unsurprising to anyone who's read the relevant material. Again, your incredulity doesn't move me.

    Obviously, Anne Frank was not gassed anywhere. Why was the Frank family – Frank himself had a shady background and was involved in the black market and most likely ratted out by a former associate – not gassed in Auschwitz-Birkenau?
     
    Because they could work. And they did.

    No, Anne Frank was not a murder victim- the internment of enemy aliens was a common practice among the belligerents in the Second World War, as was the case in the U.S., which interned its own Japanese citizens.
     
    Enemy aliens? The Franks were German citizens in a country occupied by German against a treaty of neutrality. You really want to try to justify this? First of all, you don't have the right under the law to intern the inhabitants of a lawfully occupied country (which the Netherlands was not) without a reason. Second, you don't have the right to intern your own citizens under those conditions without a reason. And being Jewish isn't a reason, although I'm sure that surprises you. Even if what you say about Otto Frank is more than an attempt to make the Frank family look bad, it doesn't inculpate his minor daughter.

    Of course, the American land mass was virtually untouched by the war, unlike Germany, which was bombed and shot to rubble. How would our own internees have fared if the German and Japanese forces were bombing all the American rail corridors and power grids?

     

    Poorly, obviously, and in the case of Japanese-American internees, their blood would be on our hands.

    As per your last question: Charles A. Beard, A.J.P. Taylor, David Hoggan, Gerd Schultze Ronhof (the latter demonstrates that the British strategy to destroy Germany began, not in 1939, but in 1870-1871, when Prussia defeated France and Bismark established the united German Reich).
     
    Only Schultze-Rohnhof among those is current. Give me two more.

    1. “You don’t have the right to intern your own citizens under those conditions without a reason.. First of all, you don’t have the right under the law to intern the inhabitants of a lawfully occupied country”

    Can’t wait to hear your arguments re treatment of Palestinians in the Israel-occupied territories.
    I understand your sentiments re the deaths of Jewish populations during the WWII. However, when considering the crimes of the state of Israel against the native population of Palestinians (confiscation of land, dislocation, imprisonment without due process – including the imprisonment of children, torture, the apartheid-inspired roads and checkpoints, the murder of Palestinian civilians, including hundreds of children, by the “most moral” IDF during its attacks on the tightly packed population of Gaza), your righteous arguments lose their force, unfortunately… Moreover, the malignant influence of American Zionists (represented by the Lobby) on the US policies in the Middle East, asks for certain revisions re the expositions in the Holocaust Museums; namely, it is time to illustrate how the former victims (and their progeny) could be transformed, horrifyingly, into the worst warmongers. The state of Israel justifies its subhuman attitude towards Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Iranian, and Palestinians by the exigencies of realpolitik. As soon as the argument of Israeli realpolitik (existential threat and likes) takes its place, the story of Holocaust is not anymore.
    Even worse, your “But not millions” reminds of the role of certain Jewish bankers and certain Jewish revolutionaries in the Russian tragedy of the 20th century. And here comes the painful question of discussing anything related to Jewish people. When will the documentary “Two Hundred Years Together” be finally available to the Americans? Unlike the touching diary of Anne Frank (written by her relatives?), the documentary, written by Solzhenitsyn, uses facts that expose a number of Jewish mass murderers guilty of the death of millions of Russians and of the destruction of ancient Russain civilization. The documentary has been sequestered by western publishing houses. All of them. Compare this to the alleged “antisemtitism” of your opponents – at least, you have a chance to discuss the Holocaust.
    Closer in time, look who had been leading the regime change in Kiev in 2014, while employing the local neo-Nazis. — A member of a Kagans’ clan, while the whole ziocon editorial corp of WSJ expressed its complete and unwavering support for the regime change. (Any feelings about the mass graves of Jewish victims of Nazism in Ukraine?)
    The fate of many Jewish persons during WWII was terrible, but not unique. A research into the veracity of the “6-million” claim and into the real conditions of Nazi concentrations camps that housed the multitude of victims of various ethnicities cannot be qualified as antisemitism since inconvenience of facts does not make them into a lie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Why would I justify the treatment of Palestinians?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    "Wingtip to wingtip wasn't an offensive formation"? Obviously not. An aircraft on its airfield is not engaging in offensive warfare, but the fact that the aircraft were out in the open sitting on their airfields in close proximity to the future enemy's frontier is a sure sign of offensive intent, since, if the force were defensive, the aircraft would be widely dispersed and camouflaged in the event the enemy forces attacked.

    You simply cannot even frame a coherent narrative. Jews were interned in camps and herded into ghettos. Okay. Many of them disappeared into the Soviet hinterlands, many of them flooded into Europe after the war was over (ask General Patton about that one). Many of them emigrated to Israel, many to South America, and many to the US as Polish, Hungarian, and other nationalities. Funny how there are still so many "survivors" after all these years. As a matter of fact, given natural mortality rates, it would appear that very few Jews died (relative to Germans or Russians) during the war.

    You talk about alternative theses. We revisionists do have a counter-narrative to the ridiculous legend of yours about homicidal gas chambers. Jews were brought to camps, divided by sexes, told to undress, given a bar of soap and a towel and some fresh camp uniforms while their clothes were sent to the real "gas chambers" for delousing. Many of these gas chambers employed Zyklon-B (even J.C. Pressac acknowledged that 95% of the Zyklon-B was for purposes of delousing- a tacit admission that more likely 100% of it was used for such purposes). The delousing/gas chambers had state of the art delousing technology which included powerful ventilators, automated canister openers and hot air blowers to accelerate the evaporation of the Hydrocyanic Acid, the active ingredient in Zyklon B. Obviously, the camp rumor mills about the "gas chamber" and the ovens were incredibly active and many inmates really did think that the loved ones they were parted from were sent to the gas chamber when, as a matter of fact, they were sent to a different part of the camp, to a different camp or labor detail. War has a way of creating such chaotic situations, and this is not something that the Jews have uniquely suffered.

    Contrast this to the nonsense about makeshift holes in the roof of the Krema morgues (demonstrated to have never existed) and pellets of Zyklon-B poured through them down "Kula Columns" (even wire mesh somehow gets its own proper name if relateable to the "Holocaust") onto cold unheated floors. Never mind that this was completely at variance with the technical specifications for the use of Zyklon-B. It would not have worked at all.

    As for the Reinhardt Camps, no murder weapons has ever even been agreed on. Was it steam chambers or electrified floors? (Interestingly enough, there were steam delousing machines in use). Was it diesel exhaust - which appeared to be the official consensus, until it was pointed out that diesel exhaust contains more Oxygen than Carbon Monoxide- or petrol engines? Was it "gas vans" (no blueprint or prototype existed)? Was it execution by tree felling? Delayed reaction gas, which would not take effect until the victims had arrived at the burial pits, whereupon they would collapse into their graves?

    From a real world perspective, you cannot form a plausible or coherent narrative - you simply rely on the "If they were not killed, then where are they?" fallacy. Like I said, the burden of proof is on you - not me.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @annamaria
    1. "You don’t have the right to intern your own citizens under those conditions without a reason.. First of all, you don’t have the right under the law to intern the inhabitants of a lawfully occupied country"

    Can't wait to hear your arguments re treatment of Palestinians in the Israel-occupied territories.
    I understand your sentiments re the deaths of Jewish populations during the WWII. However, when considering the crimes of the state of Israel against the native population of Palestinians (confiscation of land, dislocation, imprisonment without due process - including the imprisonment of children, torture, the apartheid-inspired roads and checkpoints, the murder of Palestinian civilians, including hundreds of children, by the "most moral" IDF during its attacks on the tightly packed population of Gaza), your righteous arguments lose their force, unfortunately... Moreover, the malignant influence of American Zionists (represented by the Lobby) on the US policies in the Middle East, asks for certain revisions re the expositions in the Holocaust Museums; namely, it is time to illustrate how the former victims (and their progeny) could be transformed, horrifyingly, into the worst warmongers. The state of Israel justifies its subhuman attitude towards Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Iranian, and Palestinians by the exigencies of realpolitik. As soon as the argument of Israeli realpolitik (existential threat and likes) takes its place, the story of Holocaust is not anymore.
    Even worse, your "But not millions" reminds of the role of certain Jewish bankers and certain Jewish revolutionaries in the Russian tragedy of the 20th century. And here comes the painful question of discussing anything related to Jewish people. When will the documentary "Two Hundred Years Together" be finally available to the Americans? Unlike the touching diary of Anne Frank (written by her relatives?), the documentary, written by Solzhenitsyn, uses facts that expose a number of Jewish mass murderers guilty of the death of millions of Russians and of the destruction of ancient Russain civilization. The documentary has been sequestered by western publishing houses. All of them. Compare this to the alleged "antisemtitism" of your opponents - at least, you have a chance to discuss the Holocaust.
    Closer in time, look who had been leading the regime change in Kiev in 2014, while employing the local neo-Nazis. -- A member of a Kagans' clan, while the whole ziocon editorial corp of WSJ expressed its complete and unwavering support for the regime change. (Any feelings about the mass graves of Jewish victims of Nazism in Ukraine?)
    The fate of many Jewish persons during WWII was terrible, but not unique. A research into the veracity of the "6-million" claim and into the real conditions of Nazi concentrations camps that housed the multitude of victims of various ethnicities cannot be qualified as antisemitism since inconvenience of facts does not make them into a lie.

    Why would I justify the treatment of Palestinians?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Why would I justify the treatment of Palestinians?"
    Most likely you would not.
    My post was about the fading of the moralizing narrative of Holocaust tragedy in the context of the demoralizing behavior of the Lobby (Israel-firsters) with regard to the ongoing wars in the Middle East, and of the state of Israel re Palestine and Syria. The wars have created the mass slaughter of human beings on a grand scale. In addition, who can forget Mrs. Nuland-Kagan and her cordial cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazis? And it does not help your arguments that the Lobby et al. have been working aggressively against the freedom of speech when any kind of criticism of Israeli policies is concerned: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon

    “Wingtip to wingtip wasn’t an offensive formation”? Obviously not. An aircraft on its airfield is not engaging in offensive warfare, but the fact that the aircraft were out in the open sitting on their airfields in close proximity to the future enemy’s frontier is a sure sign of offensive intent, since, if the force were defensive, the aircraft would be widely dispersed and camouflaged in the event the enemy forces attacked.
     
    Repeating the wrong thing over and over doesn't make it right.

    You don't have to camouflage your aircraft in peacetime. You put them in hangars, which by the way can't withstand being bombed.


    You simply cannot even frame a coherent narrative.
     
    Sure, I can. But I've asked you twice now, and you haven't yet.

    Not only can I frame a coherent narrative, but people have been doing so for 70 years. Your side has zero coherent narratives that address the evidence, the chief piece of which is the utter absence of 5+ million people.


    Jews were interned in camps and herded into ghettos. Okay. Many of them disappeared into the Soviet hinterlands, many of them flooded into Europe after the war was over (ask General Patton about that one).
     
    They didn't flood "into Europe." They were in Europe and relocated elsewhere in Europe. By the way, the number of DPs was 1 million, which leaves several million to be accounted for.

    Saying they "disappeared into the Soviet hinterlands" is not only imprecise, but the number is totally unproved by you.

    Many of them emigrated to Israel, many to South America, and many to the US as Polish, Hungarian, and other nationalities. Funny how there are still so many “survivors” after all these years. As a matter of fact, given natural mortality rates, it would appear that very few Jews died (relative to Germans or Russians) during the war.


    You talk about alternative theses. We revisionists do have a counter-narrative to the ridiculous legend of yours about homicidal gas chambers. Jews were brought to camps, divided by sexes, told to undress, given a bar of soap and a towel and some fresh camp uniforms while their clothes were sent to the real “gas chambers” for delousing.
     
    Stop right there. There were 1.5 million Jews sent to three camps: Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. We know no one was kept there very long. How about a narrative that explains where they went next and that explains why they subsequently vanished without a trace?

    I cut the rest. Put up a narrative here that explains where 1.5 million Jews sent to three camps ended up and provide some evidence. In addition, concede that you don't know the date of the Schlegelberger document, since no one does. Otherwise, you've exhausted my patience.

    Preparing for a massive offensive is not “peacetime”, it is a prelude to war, it is preparing for war. So stop being so obtuse. It is very tiring after awhile.

    The burden of proof is on you to prove that the “1.5 million Jews sent to 3 camps” were killed there. You can do that by providing a coherent narrative like that regarding the massacres at Katyn (on a much smaller scale, of course). The latter goes something like this:

    “Over ten thousand Polish officers and members of the Polish intelligentsia were arrested by the NKVD, taken to prison, and executed with a bullet to the back of the head. The NKVD executioners used smaller caliber German pistols because the Soviet general issue revolvers were of a larger caliber and had a much greater recoil, which could have resulted in serious injuries to the executioners’ hands, arms and fingers due to the repetitive shooting. The bodies of the victims were buried in mass graves in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk. The mass graves were subsequently discovered by the Germans, exhumed and underwent forensic examination, whereby it was determined that the Soviet NKVD had committed the massacres.”

    There is truth in directness and simplicity.

    Contrast this to your accepted narrative for Treblinka II:

    “More than 700,000 Jews arrived via rail to Treblinka II. They were either killed in steam chambers (per Nuremberg), non-lethal diesel exhaust from either a captured Soviet submarine, or a generator, or via internal combustion exhaust from a tank engine and the people turned “yellow” from the gas (even though a symptom of Carbon Monoxide poisoning is a cherry red coloration). The 700,000 Jews at Treblinka II were buried in gigantic pits whose excavation would have required an entire fleet of earth moving equipment and nobody knows what the Germans did with the enormous mounds of earth in the meantime, whether they left the mass pits/graves with decomposing bodies open or filled them up after every transport of Jews and reopened them upon arrival of the next transport. Then , to top it all off, all of the bodies were exhumed and burned on railroad ties using twigs and branches as kindling because in the case of Treblinka II, it is a well known fact that bodies burn on their own, without the hundreds of millions of pounds of dried, cured firewood which would have otherwise (in the real world, not Treblinka II) been needed, and even when there is heavy precipitation, as was the case in Poland in 1942-43, which had something like 162″ of rain, snow, sleet or hail per annum. Not only that, but there was a dog named Barry who was a rabid antisemite and a man named Ivan the Terrible who ripped babies in half. The SS men would dance around the pyres and sing and drink. To top it all off, the Germans were so successful at covering up their crime they removed all traces of the camp, going so far as to remove any traces of the mass cremations, the wood ash, and the geological disturbances and turned the place into a peaceful looking meadow with undisturbed vegetation bordering on cultivated farmland.”

    Ridiculous, laughable, and absurd nonsense. It is the stuff of Gulliver’s Travels or the Brothers Grimm.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @Anon
    If you won't admit you have no explanation for where the Jews send to Reinhard camps and refuse to admit your bluff on Schlegelberger, then we're done.

    You can have the last word if you like.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Mulegino1
    Preparing for a massive offensive is not "peacetime", it is a prelude to war, it is preparing for war. So stop being so obtuse. It is very tiring after awhile.

    The burden of proof is on you to prove that the "1.5 million Jews sent to 3 camps" were killed there. You can do that by providing a coherent narrative like that regarding the massacres at Katyn (on a much smaller scale, of course). The latter goes something like this:

    "Over ten thousand Polish officers and members of the Polish intelligentsia were arrested by the NKVD, taken to prison, and executed with a bullet to the back of the head. The NKVD executioners used smaller caliber German pistols because the Soviet general issue revolvers were of a larger caliber and had a much greater recoil, which could have resulted in serious injuries to the executioners' hands, arms and fingers due to the repetitive shooting. The bodies of the victims were buried in mass graves in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk. The mass graves were subsequently discovered by the Germans, exhumed and underwent forensic examination, whereby it was determined that the Soviet NKVD had committed the massacres."

    There is truth in directness and simplicity.

    Contrast this to your accepted narrative for Treblinka II:

    "More than 700,000 Jews arrived via rail to Treblinka II. They were either killed in steam chambers (per Nuremberg), non-lethal diesel exhaust from either a captured Soviet submarine, or a generator, or via internal combustion exhaust from a tank engine and the people turned "yellow" from the gas (even though a symptom of Carbon Monoxide poisoning is a cherry red coloration). The 700,000 Jews at Treblinka II were buried in gigantic pits whose excavation would have required an entire fleet of earth moving equipment and nobody knows what the Germans did with the enormous mounds of earth in the meantime, whether they left the mass pits/graves with decomposing bodies open or filled them up after every transport of Jews and reopened them upon arrival of the next transport. Then , to top it all off, all of the bodies were exhumed and burned on railroad ties using twigs and branches as kindling because in the case of Treblinka II, it is a well known fact that bodies burn on their own, without the hundreds of millions of pounds of dried, cured firewood which would have otherwise (in the real world, not Treblinka II) been needed, and even when there is heavy precipitation, as was the case in Poland in 1942-43, which had something like 162" of rain, snow, sleet or hail per annum. Not only that, but there was a dog named Barry who was a rabid antisemite and a man named Ivan the Terrible who ripped babies in half. The SS men would dance around the pyres and sing and drink. To top it all off, the Germans were so successful at covering up their crime they removed all traces of the camp, going so far as to remove any traces of the mass cremations, the wood ash, and the geological disturbances and turned the place into a peaceful looking meadow with undisturbed vegetation bordering on cultivated farmland."

    Ridiculous, laughable, and absurd nonsense. It is the stuff of Gulliver's Travels or the Brothers Grimm.

    If you won’t admit you have no explanation for where the Jews send to Reinhard camps and refuse to admit your bluff on Schlegelberger, then we’re done.

    You can have the last word if you like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. annamaria says:
    @Anon
    Why would I justify the treatment of Palestinians?

    “Why would I justify the treatment of Palestinians?”
    Most likely you would not.
    My post was about the fading of the moralizing narrative of Holocaust tragedy in the context of the demoralizing behavior of the Lobby (Israel-firsters) with regard to the ongoing wars in the Middle East, and of the state of Israel re Palestine and Syria. The wars have created the mass slaughter of human beings on a grand scale. In addition, who can forget Mrs. Nuland-Kagan and her cordial cooperation with Ukrainian neo-Nazis? And it does not help your arguments that the Lobby et al. have been working aggressively against the freedom of speech when any kind of criticism of Israeli policies is concerned: https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. anarchyst says:

    If a country were hell-bent on genocide, WHY WOULD THEY KEEP RECORDS?? WHY would they build “camps” hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away with sanitary facilities, housing, recreational, medical and other ancillary facilities. Would it not have been easier to just “eliminate” them without going through all of this trouble? The jewish communist Bolsheviks did just that with the non-communist civilian populations of the conquered countries in the communist orbit.

    Something BIG “stinks” in this whole jewish “holocaust ™” deal. It is no secret that jewish Zionists made “deals” with the Nazis in order to make life “uncomfortable” for jewish Germans.

    The establishment of a “homeland” was a Zionist “dream” since the 1800s. What better way to encourage “emigration” to a barren land than to make things difficult for the “cream of German society” (jews)?? The TRUTH about the so-called jewish “holocaust ™” is out . . .

    The so-called jewish “holocaust ™” has been turned into a de-facto “religion” in which no deviation from orthodoxy is permitted. In fact, in most European countries, independent investigation into jewish “holocaust ™” truths is strictly forbidden under pain of fines and imprisonment. In the USA, things are not quite as bad, only job loss and personal and professional destruction at the hands of those of the “tribe” that FEAR the real truth of the jewish “holocaust ™” being exposed is evident.

    The truth about this minor event in human history will change much of the world’s perception about those that are using this event as a “cash cow” that “keeps on giving”. . . “there’s NO business like “SHOAH business”.

    Jewish complicity in this event is carefully “covered up”.

    It is curious to note that jewish interests will hunt down and imprison a 90 plus year-old German “camp guard” while looking the other way when their “own kind” was involved in truly brutal actions. Camp “capos” and “sonderkommandos” (who were primarily jewish) come to mind. Not one of these jewish “collaborators” has ever been brought to justice. I guess blood is thicker than water.

    A good example of present-day censorship is the fate that awaits those that dare question “official” jewish “holocaust” orthodoxy. Most European countries have criminalized ANY line of thought that deviates from the “official” jewish “holocaust” story. WHY?? In fact, TRUTH is no defense when it comes to “all things holocaust”.

    Ask noted WW2 researcher David Irving, who was forced to recant TRUTH in order to avoid punishment. . .

    If people only knew of the planning that took place (among those of the “chosen”) to engineer the jewish “holocaust”, there would be a pogrom of massive size. You see, the jewish “holocaust” was necessary in order to force the establishment of a jewish state. In this case, the ENDS justified the MEANS. There have been many “holocausts” of much greater misery throughout human history, yet the jewish “holocaust” is the only one that counts . . .

    Some jews are vengeful people that will never pass up a chance to “make a buck” by screwing a gentile (goyim) out of money or property as it is permitted under Talmudic law. Jews were hated in Germany for taking advantage of the non-jew Germans between the two world wars. The average German did not have a pot to piss in while his wealthy jewish neighbor was trading food for land . . . taking advantage of the jewish bankster situation in Germany.

    Look at the “commercialization” of the so-called jewish “holocaust ™” while the much larger communist (true) holocaust is conveniently forgotten. To assure a continuing supply of jewish “holocaust ™” “survivors”, jews are tattooing their ATM (oops, I mean “camp” numbers) on their children and grandchildren. They are also pushing the false concept of “transference”, so that their children and grandchildren can be considered “holocaust ™ survivors” with all of the benefits accorded to them.

    Since the Zionist jews declared war on Germany in 1933 (yes, 1933), the Germans had no choice but to complete the Zionist plan of marginalizing German jews (to say the least).. This fulfilled the Zionist plan of forcing German jews to emigrate to Palestine while making the world grant jews a “homeland” – Israel.

    Zionists have been predicting a jewish “homeland” for the last two-hundred years while predicting a “holocaust ™” of 6 million for the same amount of time. The ACTUAL number of non-combatant deaths in the European theater of operations is approximately 731,000, NOT 6 million (official International Red Cross figures).

    Regarding that “holocaust ™” “showplace” Auschwitz, there are engineering inconsistencies in the design of the so-called “gas chambers”. The doors are not of a gas-tight design; it would have been impossible to retrieve the bodies, and there is no means to ventilate the rooms after the so-called “gassing” took place”. From an engineering standpoint, these are very serious errors that would have caused the deaths of the “operators” of these supposed “gas chambers”.

    American execution expert, Fred Leuchter travelled to Auschwitz, surreptitiously obtained samples from the purported “gas chambers”, had them tested and published his results. The absence of methylene blue in ALL of the samples, save one, was PROOF that the “gas chambers” did not exist. The one positive sample was taken from a room used to disinfect clothing.

    Mr. Leuchter was rewarded for his search for TRUTH by his professional and personal character assassination by those of the “tribe”. He lost all of his federal and state contracts, and was prosecuted under an obscure Massachusetts “law” for “practicing engineering without a license” – a law which had never been used before or since. . .

    It is no secret that after WW2, the Soviets attempted to “create” the “death camps” for propaganda purposes.

    The engineering inconsistencies proves that these “death camps” were recreated for communist propaganda purposes. Germans were excellent engineers, and as such, would not have made the engineering “mistakes” that are evident.

    Yes, there was extreme deprivation and suffering–many people perished. However, the prime cause of death was typhus. As allied bombings destroyed most of the infrastructure, typhus was at epidemic levels. THIS is what caused the massive amounts of human deaths . . .NOT gassing.

    After the end of WW2, German civilians were interned under much harsher conditions, by the “allies”. These German civilians were subject to much greater deprivation and suffering than the “occupants” of the “camps”. In fact, jews were controlling these camps, at the behest of the Allied forces, and were vicious in their treatment of those interned. In fact, the German civilians interned were defined as “disarmed enemy combatants” despite being civilians, so that Geneva Convention rules would not apply to them.

    In fact, it was JEWS that ran the internment camps after WW2. I guess vengeance was theirs, as the Germans made the jews WORK (manual labor in the camps) for the first time in their lives…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Bovard omits to mention Justin Raimondo and Antiwar.com.

    They were there all along.

    But they opposed Bush as much as Obama, which means old conservatives don’t like them – or mention them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. @Che Guava
    Thanks, I did not know that. Maybe the political masters there will be trying for an Emma Lazarus day in future.

    I think that no other former prex ever had a national holiday there?

    Also that the sleazy Michael King is the only poiitical figure there to have a national hol. now. I have read enough of north-south war to know that Lincoln never deserved a day named for himself, either.

    Bizarre that MLK day is the only such now.

    After Commodore Perry (a very rude drunk, who died early because he was such a serious drunkard), we also had a war that is referred to as north-south, in this case, between forces who were wanting a restored Shogunate, not necessarily the Tokugawa, plus restoration of some kind of samurai rule, will add that the origin of this was from the place that was most loose about transitions between farmer or peasant to samurai, and the Imperial forces.

    It does not at all compare with your war of southern secession in terms of bloodshed, no equivalents of the Federal's bad behaviour against the Confederacy in the closing stages, although the leader of the southern forces, Takamori Saigo, was beheaded in a cave in the end. I have been there two or three times, and prayed for him.

    The Imperial general carried his head out, and made a poetic statement about the bravery of his opponent, or wrote a short poem about it, I think the latter is true, but it is usually written as to have been direct speech.

    Now, Saigo has a famous statue in one of Tokyo's most famous parks. Nobody ever is calling for its removal.

    There were other similar wars or insurrections earlier, and Saigo was earlier part of the new Imperial government, so helped to put them down, but that was the biggest.

    I think that no other former prex ever had a national holiday there?

    Until MLK Day was invented, we also celebrated George Washington’s birthday in February. What happened is that, once they rolled out MLK Day, they mashed Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays together into one, single new holiday call Presidents’ Day, so that the invention of MLK Day wouldn’t give us a new day off from work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Thanks for the info. As I said before, our Ocean Day is the old Imperial Navy day, a few others are similar.

    It is important to not give the proles too many holidays. So you now have, a Prex day, and a Michael LK. day.

    I do not doubt that the leaks from tapes of Michael LK are true, that is not the responsibility of the authorities who bugged his rooms, in the end I am thinking 'why not?'

    Sleazy man, repeatedly cheating on his wife, claiming to be a Christian minister. As I was saying before, he deserved unmasking.

    Instead, that is all down the memory hole, he has national holiday in your USA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Che Guava says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    I think that no other former prex ever had a national holiday there?
     
    Until MLK Day was invented, we also celebrated George Washington's birthday in February. What happened is that, once they rolled out MLK Day, they mashed Washington and Lincoln's birthdays together into one, single new holiday call Presidents' Day, so that the invention of MLK Day wouldn't give us a new day off from work.

    Thanks for the info. As I said before, our Ocean Day is the old Imperial Navy day, a few others are similar.

    It is important to not give the proles too many holidays. So you now have, a Prex day, and a Michael LK. day.

    I do not doubt that the leaks from tapes of Michael LK are true, that is not the responsibility of the authorities who bugged his rooms, in the end I am thinking ‘why not?’

    Sleazy man, repeatedly cheating on his wife, claiming to be a Christian minister. As I was saying before, he deserved unmasking.

    Instead, that is all down the memory hole, he has national holiday in your USA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?