The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Operation Finale:" My Movie Review in Taki's Magazine
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Taki’s Magazine:

Bland ‘Finale’
by Steve Sailer

September 05, 2018

Operation Finale is a decently crafted, reasonably accurate retelling of the kidnapping from Argentina of Adolf Eichmann (played by Sir Ben Kingsley), the most notorious supervisor of the Holocaust still on the loose in 1960, by Israeli Mossad operatives (led by a secret agent portrayed by Oscar Isaac).

Unfortunately, the film never quite takes flight. That’s why Operation Finale was dumped on sunburned audiences on Labor Day Weekend, the notorious Idiocracy slot on the calendar for movies that the studio just wants to forget about. This is the umpteenth film in which Isaac, who had long been envisioned by Hollywood as the new Al Pacino, doesn’t yet make it through the formality of becoming a major movie star.

The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, has been mined thoroughly for cinematic stories. So perhaps what’s left to be filmed tends to be less than scintillating, such as the Eichmann abduction. The Mossad team leader (played well by Nick Kroll) admitted that this operation was “one of the easiest missions we did.” Director Chris Weitz’s scrupulousness about retelling what actually happened in Buenos Aires without too much invention to heighten the tension keeps it an only mildly exciting thriller.

Still, Operation Finale is a perfectly okay film, although the more interesting aspects of the Eichmann story happened before and after the extraction from Buenos Aires that takes up most of the movie.

Read the whole thing there.

Also covered in this movie review:

- The impressive Operation Nemesis conspiracy by Armenian assassins taking vengeance for 1915 against Ottoman ex-pashas

- Hannah Arendt’s in-depth prejudices against different kinds of Jews

- Historians’ Functionalist vs. Intentionalist debate about who came up with the idea for the Holocaust

 
Hide 539 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    Who cares. Just when the last couple of Nazis are on death’s door and we were starting to look forward to the end of Nazi hunters, some idiot decides to revive the whole thing in the movies.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @anon
    , @Hail
  2. Achilles says:

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz? Steve, Ron is must-read. Even if you must give up reading something else to fit him in, such as The Hollywood Reporter.

    The most exhaustively documented event in history was probably the Vietnam War. The Pentagon recognized the mistake, and subsequent wars have not been permitted to be so documented by the media.

  3. utu says:

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

  4. That Arendt quote is gold. Great review-turned-essay.

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  5. syonredux says:

    Hitler supposedly scoffed in August 1939: “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?” Yet Armenian patriots in the 1920s had contrived to make as memorable as possible their Operation Nemesis conspiracy in which they assassinated many of the perpetrators of the Ottoman Empire’s 1915 genocide of the Armenians.

    For example, in 1921 an Armenian volunteer who had lost 85 relatives in the massacre gunned down former grand vizier Talaat Pasha in Berlin. As planned, he dropped his weapon and immediately surrendered to the police. The German jury deliberated for only one hour before acquitting him.

    Soghomon Tehlirian. He had a great response to how he felt about assassinating Talaat Pasha: “I do not consider myself guilty because my conscience is clear…I have killed a man. But I am not a murderer.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soghomon_Tehlirian#Assassination_of_Tal%C3%A2t_Pasha

    RE: Oscar Isaac,

    Interesting to note that he has also made a movie about the Armenian Genocide, The Promise.

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, has been mined thoroughly for cinematic stories.

    Indeed. Here are just the Holocaust related films and TV shows that I can remember watching: Schindler’s List, Holocaust, Playing for Time, Triumph of the Spirit, The Pawnbroker, The Stranger, Judgment at Nuremberg , The Pianist, The Odessa File, Marathon Man, Sophie’s Choice , War and Remembrance, Sunshine, The Grey Zone, Defiance, Inglourious Basterds…..And I’m sure that there are more that I just can’t recall at the moment….

  6. syonredux says:
    @Achilles

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?

    Ron’s only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime). His recent stuff on the Holocaust does have a certain morbid fascination, though….I mean, I never imagined that Ron was that gullible*….

    *Well, barring his cracked enthusiasm for JFK assassination conspiracy theories….

  7. Fugit says:

    “The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, ”

    Woah there, are we still allowed to say this on this site?

    • LOL: Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @Anon
  8. Isaac, who had long been envisioned by Hollywood as the new Al Pacino, doesn’t yet make it through the formality of becoming a major movie star.

    I like Yitzhak and I don’t like anyone (hardly).

    Of course there’s no accounting for taste (de gustibus non disputandum est)

    He’s a little too short and little dark to ever be a true leading man and his face lacks the chiseled features of typical leading men like Kirk Douglas in his prime.
    But apart from that he’s a good actor who disappears into his roles.
    In Body of Lies he played Leo’s Iraqi sidekick so well that I believed he really was Arab.
    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe. Inside Llewyn Davis and A Most Violent Year were dull little movies but Isaac’s performances were fine. The puerile Star Wars movies were too dumb for me to watch so I have no comment there.

  9. anon[133] • Disclaimer says:

    “…perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history…”

    Steve certainly knows how to trigger Taki’s readers

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @MBlanc46
  10. Achilles says:
    @syonredux

    We may be on different pages as to the meaning of “documented.”

    I’ve seen the large majority of the films and TV shows you listed but I wouldn’t consider any of those works of art to be “documentation” of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.

    Steve may be using the term in a similar fashion as you.

  11. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    “The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event”

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    Apparently, the exhaustive documention has revealed no record of gas chamber or extermination deaths, no record of gas chambers, no locations of mass graves, no operational plan to carry out the extermination, and no order by or knowledge of the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.

    We are also told that the Germans wrote everything down.

  12. @jesse helms think-alike

    Yeah, he needs to lose some weight to get the more chiseled features of a leading man. He’d probably be permanently uncomfortable, though, at the weight he’d need to get down to.

  13. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    I suppose it depends how one defines “the Holocaust”. How do you define it?

    • Replies: @syonredux
  14. syonredux says:
    @jesse helms think-alike

    He was great in Robin Hood and nearly stole the movie from Russell Crowe.

    A truly outstanding King John

    • Replies: @Alfa158
  15. Anonymous[581] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Too much Burger King?

    http://www.onenation.org/opinion/this-man-controls-california/

    The huge living room contains not a stick of furniture. The fridge holds mostly Gatorade, muffins, and frozen snacks; Unz, a 37-year-old bachelor, eats half his meals at Burger King. He sleeps on a mattress on the floor. The bathrooms are dirty, and the dust is thick. There’s no one who comes in to clean, no photos on display, and no escaping the thought that a well-heeled businessman has to have a screw loose to live this way.

    • Replies: @syonredux
    , @Anon
  16. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achilles

    I wouldn’t consider any of those works of art to be “documentation” of the Holocaust, which I consider to be actual evidence such as confessions, first-person witness accounts, German military records, scientific surveys of the sites, and so forth.

    I’ve read that mainstream historians consider camp inmate testimonials to be generally unreliable.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  17. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Dear boy, never go full retard.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anon
  18. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Kingsley, the Zelig among actors.

    Jew in SCHINDLER, a Nazi in FINALE.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  19. syonredux says:
    @Achilles

    We may be on different pages as to the meaning of “documented.”

    I’ve seen the large majority of the films and TV shows you listed but I wouldn’t consider any of those works of art to be “documentation” of the Holocaust,

    Nor would I.

  20. Adolf Eichmann (played by Sir Ben Kingsley)

    Now that’s taking “Aryan” a little too literally!

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Anonymous
    , @Liza
  21. syonredux says:
    @Achilles

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….

    • Replies: @Achilles
    , @Anonymous
  22. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    I suppose it depends how one defines “the Holocaust”. How do you define it?

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  23. Achilles says:
    @syonredux

    It’s been said that building the Grande Armada denuded the forests of large parts of Spain.

    One can only imagine the wood required for cremating the 11 million victims (the 6 million Jews plus the 5 million others).

    There must not have been a tree left in Central Europe.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  24. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anon

    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Anon
  25. Alfa158 says:
    @jesse helms think-alike

    One of his problems is his ability to disappear physically into his role. He never looks like the same person twice, so in every role he is always starting over again with the audience.
    Stars have distinctive looks but it is pretty much the same one every time and they can build a following even if they aren’t much as actors. Marion Cotillard has the same problem, great actress but the audience is left saying “great performance, by the way, who was that anyway? Really? I would have never guessed!”
    On the other hand someone might be a mediocre performer, but they’ll have a fan base who’ll buy tickets to see “Harry Frabits starring aaaassss…….Harry Frabits!” Think Will Smith or later Jack Nicholson. The actor’s identity overwhelms the role but no one cares.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Twinkie
  26. Twinkie says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Gandhi is Eichmann???!!!

    • Replies: @syonredux
  27. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    The usual ad hominem response, I see.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  28. Alfa158 says:
    @syonredux

    Every dramatization of King John is racist. The real king was a blond Nordic type but he is always played by a darker colored actor to signal that he is the bad guy. I’m surprised Hollywood hasn’t gotten wise to that. I’m looking forward to a future BBC production that will correct the record by casting Daniel Craig as King John and Idris Elba as Richard Lionheart.

    • Replies: @Anon
  29. Twinkie says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).

    Yes, but there is a connecting point. He played a perhaps pro-Nazi Hungarian count in “The English Patient.”

    So, Nazi (“Schindler’s List”) => pro-Nazi Hungarian (“The English Patient”) => Hungarian Jews (“Sunshine”) => Lord Voldemort (“Harry Potter”)/Gay Hungarian concierge (“The Grand Budapest Hotel”)

    • Replies: @syonredux
  30. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Reposting a comment by Kratoklastes:

    Personally, I think the Holocaust occurred substantially as described

    When you say ‘as described‘, what version are you talking about?

    Here are some things that were very specifically included in ‘as described‘ at various stages …

    • an electric conveyor belt that vaporised 1000 Jews at a time;
    • 1.5 million killed by lethal injection to the heart;
    • ‘steaming to death’ of ~10,000 Jews at Treblinka in 1942;
    • asphyxiation from carbon monoxide (from diesel engines);
    • babies being thrown alive into burn pits;
    • ethnically colour-coded smoke from crematory chimneys;
    • soap from human fat;
    • lampshades from human skin;
    • various riveting, harrowing, first-person narratives that have been shown to be completely fraudulent

    At various points in history, those things were part of the canonical narrative; in much of Europe you face criminal sanction if you point out that they are all bullshit. (That’s the truly weird bit: you can be imprisoned for saying that known-false parts of the narrative, are false).

    One of the hallmarks of a false narrative, is a variant of Dunning-Kruger: the people who make things up do not possess any competence in the field, and so they make errors that are obvious to those with some training. The notion that crematoria chimneys give off columns of smoke, for example – or that the smoke changes colour depending on the ethnicity of the corpse.

    I have absolutely no doubt that very unpleasant things happened to people who were interned in camps in territory under the control of the Third Reich, particularly in the late stages of the war when logistics became highly problematic. In and of itself, that was a war crime, and there’s no need to gild the lily (or over-egg the pudding) by trying to pretend there was some Rube Goldberg-esque hyper-inefficient institutional arrangement, set up based on super-secret pinkie-swears, solely (or primarily) to exterminate members of one race-cult.

    As I understand it, the current catechism has a few moving parts:

    ① there was a specific policy of extermination due to racial hatred;
    ② that the policy focused on Jews;
    ③ that the policy was implemented through relocation of victims to camps;
    ④ that (some of) those camps were specifically extermination camps;
    ⑤ that the killing happened using cyanide gas in the form of Zyklon B pellets;
    “⑥ million”, and no less, even if the death toll at some camps is reduced by 3 million;
    ⑦ that the remains of most of the victims were cremated – either in purpose built infrastructure, or in ‘burn pits’.

    ⑦ is easiest to deal with: the throughput of a crematorium is a known engineering quantity; it is simply not possible to have cremated the number of victims being discussed, given the crematory capacity of the camps. As for ‘wood fired’ burn pits: anybody who has seen the mess that’s left after a wood-fired open-air cremation, knows that this is simply a non-starter. A full modern cremation leaves 3-5lb or bone (actually as much as 10lb, but let’s assume they were all small people with low bone density): where are the 9-30 million pounds (4,000-13,000 tonnes) of remains? (These are not ‘ashes’, by and large: they are lumps of dried-out bone; to get to the ‘sandy’ texture people associate with ‘cremains’, they are put through a cremulator ).

    ⑤ is problematic, given that such trace evidence as exists, supports the idea that Zyklon B was used for de-lousing (as it was by the Allies); there is insufficient cyanide residue in the ‘extermination chambers’, but ample residue in the ‘de-lousing’ facilities. There is also the problem that War Crimes investigators appointed doctors to perform hundreds of autopsies after liberation of the camps, and found no evidence of gassings of any type. The same is true for British and French investigations.

    ③ the logistics of moving people to camps for the sole (or main) purpose of putting them to death, is the sort of thing that would be thought up by someone with absolutely no understanding of the vast logistical problems associated with moving large numbers of people long distances (especially against their will). The diversion of resources from the main aim (i.e., fighting the war) would have been immense: manpower, materiel including arms and ammunition, fuel… if that was actually part of the ‘system’, the German military deserved to lose the war based solely on its incompetent planning.

    ④ why bother with death camps, particularly ones where a person might be in the camp for months before they were dispatched to the gas chambers? “To keep it from public view” is a poor attempted rationale (again, the sort of thing that would be proffered by someone who was making it up). Why not just drive them a few miles out of each town, line them up alongside a trench in a forest, and shoot them in the head – like the Soviets did? If anything, that would help explain the lack of forensic evidence of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of cremations.

    Even ① is problematic. Show me a policy of a government, anywhere in the world, that is not underpinned by enormous amounts of paperwork prior to the implementation of the policy. I don’t mean personal records of the individuals who later become victims: I mean the drafting of regulations; the circulation of memoranda to refine the institutional framework that will facilitate the putting-into-practice of the policy; the allocation of funds in budget papers… that sort of thing. As an example: the Enabling Act of 1933 was a scant 2 pages, but there are 200 or so pages of background bureaucratic shit that preceded it, and hundreds more pages that were promulgated as a direct result of its passage.

    As to ②: if Jewishness defined as a racial marker was such a big focus, why were there tens of thousands of Jews, half-Jews and quarter-Jews in the German military (including the officer corps at flag rank)?

    I have almost no doubt that awful things happened to people in labour camps, and that people were interned because of their Jewishness – especially since the rhetoric of global Jewish and Zionist leaders was virulently, genocidally anti-German, as far back as Jabotinsky in 1933/34.

    I also have no doubt that some of those awful things were perpetrated by sick minds – being a camp guard is the type of job that attracts sick fucks who relish the notion of having life-or-death control over others (some of the staff of Abu Ghraib are perfect examples of this).

    But this idea that the German leadership were prepared to compromise their ability to achieve strategic (and later, even tactical) objectives, simply to give vent to a genocidal urge… that’s a pretty extraordinary claim.

    I don’t have a dog in the specifics of the fight: I’m a voluntaryist, so the fact that a government did horrific things to people under its thrall validates my view of the world; the idea of Jewishness as a race is beyond stupid, so any policy based on Jewish-raceness is retarded, as is identifying as a Jew on racial grounds.

    So if the evidence aligned with the dominant narrative, I would change my mind. The fact that the evidence doesn’t align with the narrative; that the narrative has been significantly redacted over time; and that the hammer of the State now enforces an orthodoxy… well, that just serves to make me more skeptical.

    I am always highly skeptical of any ‘fact’ that requires legislation to force its acceptance. That Milton quotation again, with appropriate emphasis…

    “Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2488427

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Liza
  31. syonredux says:
    @Twinkie

    Don’t forget Gay Hollywood director….

    • Replies: @Twinkie
  32. Twinkie says:
    @Alfa158

    One of his problems is his ability to disappear physically into his role

    His problem is that he has the physique of “Pat” from Saturday Night Live. It’s hard to be taken as a leading man that way.

  33. Twinkie says:
    @syonredux

    I don’t know where that fits in the progression. Lord Voldemort is the perfect ending.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  34. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….

    Point and sputter.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  35. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @syonredux

    Dear boy, never go full retard.

    http://takimag.com/article/how_many_jews_can_be_gassed_on_the_head_of_a_pin_david_cole/#axzz5QCeNsSgX

    David Cole is right. The problem has been the focus on Auschwitz. The Narrative made it into THE Nazi camp, and the Holocaust Narrative ‘hollywoodized’ it as a composite of all the other camps. Like ‘Polly Perkins’.

    It’s like Oliver Stone’s HEAVEN AND EARTH made three husbands of the woman into one played by Tommy Lee Jones. They were made into a composite.

    So, Auschwitz was made into the Horror of Horrors, the place that epitomized all of Nazi evil.

    But in fact, Auschwitz was mostly a forced labor camp. There were some killings there but not on the scale of other camps and especially in the Eastern plains.

    Because of the need to make Auschwitz into THE Camp, lots of lies and fabrications were told about it. And this turned out to be a huge boon to the Revisionists and Deniers. It was SO EASY to debunk the many claims about Auschwitz(not least because they were concocted after the war by the Soviets). But the Deniers went further and figured that since there were lies about Auschwitz, everything about the OTHER Camps, some of which were real death camps, were lies too.

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns. Much easier to shoot and bury than go through the complicated process of gassing and burning. Also, in the conquered Eastern territories, there was no one to protest, no one to witness. Timothy Synder in BLOODLANDS admits that the Shoah was mostly an affair of guns than gas.

    There is another problem. Much of the POPULAR Holocaust Narrative was spun when the media and information were tightly held by a few corporations and institutions.
    Generally, the elites have one truth for themselves and another Truth for the hoi polloi. It’s like adults have one story for themselves and another for the kids. Popular Narrative on the Holocaust is like books in the Children’s section.
    And there was a lot of exaggerations and bogus nonsense in the Popular Narrative of the Shoah. Back then, the elites didn’t think much of it because all the means of communication and information were held by powerful institutions.

    But now, there is the internet, via which people can raise all sorts of questions about the Shoah. Clearly, this will draw in a lot of cranks and lunatics, like the commenter Wally for whom codoh.com is the bible. But the internet can draw in a lot of honest people who can debunk the falsehoods of the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust. In a sane world, such people would be allowed to do their thing and revise the Narrative for the popular audience.

    But many Jews fear this. Why? For one thing, the power of the Holocaust Narrative is its quasi-religiosity. And you simply don’t question god. It is to be believed as a matter of faith.
    When it comes to most historical events, one is asked, ‘What do you know about it?’, but on the Shoah, the question is ‘Do you BELIEVE or do you DENY?’ Even before you know anything about it, you must BELIEVE it. And if you don’t believe the Canonical version, you must be a ‘denier’. Or even if you do believe what happened, you are still a denier(or soft denier) if you try to explain why it happened in terms of extreme German reaction to equally extreme Jewish radicalism.

    This is why even questioning the dubious 6 million figure can get you in hot water in EU.
    It is perfectly okay to argue that 3 million instead of 7 million died in the Ukrainian famine. But we must stick with the 6 million number.
    Also, many Jews fear that skepticism about the Popular Narrative of the Holocaust will lead to rejection of the entire Narrative. This is paranoid but not entirely unwarranted, as there is a tendency in human nature to reject in whole what has been proven false in part. It’s like if there’s a fly in your soup, you reject the soup along with the fly.
    Especially because the Holocaust Cult has become sacrosanct as a secular religion, it requires purity of faith to keep it going. It’s like many Vietnam Veterans turned against the war totally when they learned they’d been lied to. They felt betrayed like Ron Kovic. True Believers can become the Biggest Desecrators.

    This would not be a problem IF the Holocaust Narrative had been rational over the years. But as Norman Finkelstein(and even Leon Wieseltier) has admitted, it has become an unholy alliance of prophecy and profit-making, rather like Televangelism. And creeps like Abe Foxman and Eli Wiesel built their entire careers around it. And it’s become a perverse meme to justify every crazy thing, such as the notion that illegal aliens are like Jews fleeing from Nazis. Or Michael Cohen is testifying because he’s haunted by his grandparent as a Holocaust Survivor.

    Because the Holocaust Industry has become a monstrous kind of neo-religion and neo-casino, a holy cow and a cash cow, the powers-that-be fear the revisionists far more than the deniers. The deniers who insist that NOTHING happened are easy to debunk and ridicule.
    But the revisionists can pick apart some of the more egregious distortions or outright lies in the Popular Narrative. (As a young kid in a neighborhood with lots of Jews, I grew up believing in the Soap and Lamp shade nonsense.)

    At this point, the Holocaust Industry simply cannot allow a middle ground where the event can be treated and discussed like other tragic events in history. The Holocaust Narrative requires that we BELIEVE with quasi-religious intensity and childlike earnestness the Tale that it was the most unique and most evil thing that ever happened , and yes, 6 million died, and anti-Jewish feelings were always entirely irrational.

    David Cole is Jewish and was NEVER a denier. But he’s been smeared as such by the Industry because the questions he’s raised bring Shoah down to ground as a historical event than some quasi-biblical event.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @syonredux
  36. syonredux says:
    @Twinkie

    I don’t know where that fits in the progression.

    Conjoined with the Bisexual concierge…..so to speak…..

  37. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Damage control. Distancing from Ron Unz madness.

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @syonredux
    , @AnotherDad
  38. Arendt’s book was on the syllabus of the very first college class I walked into. The key point was the Banality of Evil, contained in the title. Eichmann was a middle-manager-climber type who rose to upper management. He can be found in any organization.

    Spend any time working inside an American corporation and you will get to know a lot of “Eichmenn.” There is little doubt that many of these company men would do in similar circumstances what Adolf did. Arendt wanted to warn us, so that we could spot this happening in others or in ourselves, but there is little reason to be confident that banal evil would not emerge if the SHTF.

    Appropriately, the capture of the bland manager was dull. It must be hard to make an engaging movie about this. Hollywood must encounter this challenge often, because so much of life is ordinary.

    Not only evil men, but many heroes too live mostly ordinary lives. And some ordinary people are heroes. “The banality of heroism” isn’t quite the right way to describe it, but whatever it might be called, it is hard to translate into a box office hit without adding some fiction.

  39. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Similarly, Ralph Fiennes was a Nazi in Schindler, and three generations of Jews in Sunshine (1999).

    One key difference. In both movies, he played flawed characters. Amon Goeth was a monster but still recognizably human. There’s a sense that under different circumstances, he could have been a good person. And the Jewish characters in SUNSHINE, though sympathetic, are far from perfect. Some of them are deeply compromised, and one even becomes a Red secret police who carries out tortures.

    In contrast, Kingsley was totally saintly in SCHINDLER but now totally diabolical in the new movie.

  40. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    Does it include lotsa Gentiles getting killed?

    • Replies: @syonredux
  41. syonredux says:
    @Twinkie

    Gandhi is Eichmann???!!!

    Well…..

    Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Posthumous_publications_(1950s_and_later)

  42. JimB says:

    So now Hollywood is remaking TV movies of the week. Truly we are living in a creative Dark Ages.

    • Agree: Dtbb
  43. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    The usual ad hominem response, I see.

    Aquila non capit muscas

  44. BenKenobi says:
    @utu

    OberstGruppenFuhrer Sailer’s loyalty is not in question.

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
  45. utu says:
    @Anon

    True but one must be a masochist to watch another Holocaust Inc production and I doubt he is a masochist. He suffered through the movie just to be able to write the article and virtue signal.

  46. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Lotsa Jews getting killed? Something like that, at any rate.

    Does it include lotsa Gentiles getting killed?

    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of ’41-’42…..

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  47. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns. Much easier to shoot and bury than go through the complicated process of gassing and burning. Also, in the conquered Eastern territories, there was no one to protest, no one to witness. Timothy Synder in BLOODLANDS admits that the Shoah was mostly an affair of guns than gas.

    How many bodies have been recovered? How many mass graves located and excavated?

    • Replies: @Anon
  48. gcochran says:
    @syonredux

    That’s how Gandhi said India should react to a possible Japanese invasion. After all, what could the Japs do ? Kill everybody? (yep)

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Dave Pinsen
  49. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    “…perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history…”

    Steve certainly knows how to trigger Taki’s readers

    Shoah is weird. It maybe the most exhaustively written-about event in history. But written-about isn’t the same as documented.

    When it comes to documentation, the Shoah has been exhaustively documented and extensively covered up. Any piece of evidence that supports the Narrative has been detailed and discussed. Any piece of evidence that counters the Narrative has been suppressed or hushed up.

    Ron Unz’s piece on Holocaust Denial is instructive in showing how difficult it is for anyone to discuss the matter honestly and openly. It can only be talked about in a certain manner in line with certain ‘facts’ and narrative. Any deviance from that sets off the tripwire, and all hell breaks loose.
    It’s like Jews wrote extensively about God in the Talmud, but it had to adhere to the dogma.

    This is why the Holocaust Literature is compromised. There’s a lot of it, but not all the documentation is sound because it’s generally taboo to raise doubts. As Unz’s mention of THE LIBERATORS illustrates, a total fraud like that made it to PBS(and I watched some of it) for millions of viewers. It demonstrated how even ‘documentation’ could become fraudulent.

    Such one-sided documentation doesn’t make for sound academics. People like Deborah Lipstadt are tribal activists, not real scholars.

    The real problem is the craven mousiness of the academics and respectable people in media. They are too nerdy and spineless to raise big questions and seriously look into certain matters because they are too afraid. Because they don’t do the job, it is taken up mostly by cranks, nuts, and amateurs with ideological ax to grind, notoriety to gain, and not much to lose.

    It’s like the discussion of race in the US. It’s been written about endlessly and ‘documented’ endlessly too. But only one Narrative has been allowed, and only one kind of documentation. David Cole’s new Taki piece hits the nail when it comes to discussion of race in America.

    http://takimag.com/article/color-me-raped/

    It’s talked and written about endlessly but in ONLY ONE WAY where blacks are always victims(due to economics, history, police, or whatever) whereas white victims are best not talked about.

    We need a culture where we can openly and honestly discuss all matters. As it happens, most respectable people fear losing their respectability among peers than losing self-respect(as man of courage and honor). This is why most normal and nice people remain silent to stay out of trouble. Because deviation from the PC narrative on race can get them in hot water, they choose to nothing, not even to raise certain questions.
    So, naturally those who are willing to discuss race with more honesty tend to those on the fringe. Being less normal and nice by personality traits, they are willing to be risque and say what they really believe. The downside is that people on the fringe tend to be eccentric or extreme in one way or another. David Duke, unlike most respectable white people, was willing to talk more candidly and honestly about race. But his oddball personality was such that he was prone to pushing things too far and doing utterly stupid things like joining the KKK.

    The only way to fix the problem is for respectable people in the middle to show some courage and risk their respectability by speaking honestly and openly about the big issues of the day. But if they stick to the Official Narrative on issues like Shoah and the Race issue, the contrarian positions will often be taken up by cranks, lunatics, and mavericks because they’re the only ones with the guts to do so. And the respectable middle has no one to blame but itself because it failed in the area of courage, honesty, and openness.

    Today, the respectable middle is afraid even to say that sodomy is unhealthy & dangerous or that a man is NOT a ‘woman’ because he feels like it. Respectability is relative to who has the power to set the Narrative and Dogma. So, if the Power says ‘gay marriage’ is the New Normal, most people in the middle who seek respectability above all else just go along. At all times, what they fear most is the loss of respectability.

    Look at John McCain’s funeral. All the respectable people there pretending he was some great humanitarian when he spent most of his career since the 90s as a toady of Zionists and war-monger who championed neo-Nazis in Ukraine and terrorists in Syria. But I guess respectable Liberals like Tom Brokaw(who hardly gave McCain a fair break in the 2008 election) now honor McCain as a Good White Man who chose to lose to atone for ‘white privilege’. They want to be so respectable.

    • Agree: mark green
    • Replies: @utu
  50. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Gypsies, I should think. Also the two million plus Soviet POWs that the Nazis starved to death in the Winter of ’41-’42…..

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden? And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

  51. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    Does Steve think that? History’s full of lots of bad stuff: Armenian genocide, Leopold’s rule in the Congo, the massacre of the Dzungar, the Mongol Conquests, the Cultural Revolution, Stalin, Timur Lenk, Aurangzeb, ….

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan. I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Lot
    , @kaganovitch
  52. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @gcochran

    Kill everybody? (yep)

    Like firebombing Tokyo and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    Wiping out civilians in North Korean bombing campaign?

    Dropping more bombs on Vietnam than in WWII?

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.

    And it wasn’t Japan(or Iran or Russia) that turned Middle East in recent yrs into one big hellhole.

    Btw, if Indians has welcomed Japanese without resistance, Japanese might not have been so violent. They went nuts in China because the Chinese finally put the fight to Japan. Japan lost their heads and decided to teach the Chinese a lesson. Japanese were offended by the Chinese resistance. How care the Sick Man of China dare resist the Japanese. They had to be taught a lesson they’ll never forget. I think US reacted the same way with Pearl Harbor. How dare those yellow runts attack us. Who the hell do they think they are? So, it wasn’t enough to defeat Japan. It had to be a taught a lesson it would never ever forget.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  53. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    How many bodies have been recovered? How many mass graves located and excavated?

    How many bodies of the Great Famine, the Great Leap Forward, and the Killing Fields have been recovered. If you wanna play that game and stick only to counted bodies, numbers will go way down for every event.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  54. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:

    - Historians’ Functionalist vs. Intentionalist debate about who came up with the idea for the Holocaust

    I had thought these terms were used to distinguish between the theory that the Holocaust came about as a result of (as a function of) the war and the theory that it was an objective all along.

    Steve’s Taki piece uses the terms to distinguish between authorship of it: lower level officials (functionalist) versus Hitler and senior officials (intentionalist).

  55. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    Another problem. Because killing-by-gas is more sinister, the Holocaust Industry created the impression that most Jews were killed by gassing. Not true. The greater majority were killed by guns.

    Pinker, in The Better Angels of Our Nature, has an interesting discussion about our revulsion towards poison gas, how we somehow find the notion of death by inhalation more disquieting than death via bomb, bullet, and bayonet.

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    , @Anon
  56. Anonymous[112] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Answer the question. 6 million Jews and 5 million Gentiles killed in the camps. Where are the mass graves?

    Has Babi Yar been excavated?

    • Replies: @syonredux
  57. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.

    Anyone say that they were?

    Btw, if Indians has welcomed Japanese without resistance, Japanese might not have been so violent.

    The conqueror’s lament….”If only I had not encountered resistance”……

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Reg Cæsar
  58. Twinkie says:
    @syonredux

    our revulsion towards poison gas

    It’s very unsportsman-like.

  59. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42?

    Hardly suddenly. Starving to death takes a while….

    Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Dunno.

    Does the Holocaust also mean the incineration of hundreds of thousands of Germans in the firebombing of Dresden?

    Dresden?More like approx 25,000.

    Do we have a snappy moniker for British and American atrocities in WW2?I’ve heard some people say that the Anglo powers had a “Zeus Complex”…..

    And the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

    Since Japanese atrocities in China aren’t counted as part of the Holocaust, probably not….

    • Replies: @Byrresheim
  60. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Mind you, I should thank Ron for finally getting me to read that book by that “Butz” fellow. It was so prole-tier that I actually burst out laughing at several points….

    Point and sputter.

    Point and laugh, dear boy. Quite different.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  61. nebulafox says:
    @Anonymous

    Hitler didn’t. He had a supremely un-bureaucratic mind.

  62. jim jones says:

    I see that there are links to Ron’s Jewish pieces on Zerohedge so we can expect even more nutcases around here soon.

  63. @Achilles

    The most exhaustively documented event that…never…happened?

  64. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Does Steve think that?

    I get the impression. Many people agree about the uniqueness of the Shoah because of confluence of factors. Ideology + Industry + Intensity. Usually, genocidal ideologies are hardly carried out to such scale. But there was industrial might behind the supremacist ideology of Germany. And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it. If Mussolini had called for genocide, most Italians would have been at the beach basking in the sun. Germans really get things done, good or bad.

    Soviet mass killings had elements of industry and intensity(under Stalin’s whip), but there was no ideology of targeting a race. Killing Fields and Rwanda may be comparable, but they were barbaric acts carried out by semi-civilized people(Cambodians) and semi-savage people(Hutus).
    It just seems creepier because advanced Germans carried out the horrors.
    Also, it seems incredible that such a man as Hitler gained control of such a powerful nation. There were many crazy rulers in the 20th century but they were mostly in backward nations where things were so chaotic that an extreme figure could emerge out of nowhere. Like Mao in choatic China and Idi Amin in messy Uganda.

    In contrast, modern societies tended to be either bound by tradition(that restrained the radicalism, as in Franco’s Spain that defeated the communists and anarchists) or tempered by pluralism of democracy where power could not be concentrated in a single figure. Germany was one of the most advanced nations with a vast well-educated bureaucracy, extensive business class, and strong institutions. So, how did a man like pathological Hitler come to power? Why wasn’t he stopped? Why didn’t the German generals depose him like Pinochet and Chilean military deposed radical Marxist Allende(seen as tragic by the Left).
    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash. It’s like the ouster of Hugo Chavez led to vast populist uprising that soon restored him to power(and sent the men behind the coup to jail). And then, once Hitler appointed his cronies and henchmen to take over all the institutions, Germany belonged to him. He had both the people and the institutions.

    But we have to give the German people some credit. They lived through hellish depressions but still stuck with Weimar democracy for a decade and half. But by 33, they had enough, but even then, only 1/3 of Germans voted for NS.
    But blaming populism is misguided. The true lesson to learn is that a people become radicalized when the middle class shrinks. Germany had one of the biggest middle classes prior to WWI. But the war and depression tore a huge hole into the German middle class. When the middle lose out and feel they’ve lost everything, they turn radical. This is a lesson for the US too as the globalist elites keep doing things to hollow out the middle while increasing the wealth at the top and misery in the bottom.

    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    One reason is like gas vs guns. Either way, Jews were killed but gas seems more sinister.
    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow. The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Narrative is something people don’t want to touch as long as the greatest generation is still alive. It’s too important as a national myth of the Good War. For those who fought in the war and saw many of their comrades die, it was comforting to believe that the sudden end of the war brought about by the nukes saved many lives. Maybe it can be discussed more freely once the GG passes into history.
    Same with Soviets and Germany in WWII. Soviets committed lots of atrocities, but for the War generation, the Great Patriotic War has become sacred, and who has the heart to say tell these now-old people who defended the motherland, “Hey, you raped 2 million German women.”

  65. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42? Were they buried in individual graves? In mass graves? Or were the bodies returned to the Soviet Union, as per, what I imagine would have been, military custom?

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/germany-to-open-last-wwii-war-cemetery-in-russia-a-914093.html

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  66. @Buzz Mohawk

    The filmmakers improved the story a modest amount — e.g., the Israeli doctor on the mission was changed from a man to a beautiful blonde who used to be Oscar Isaac’s girlfriend, which added a little entertainment to the movie — but mostly they stuck more closely than the average movie to the historical record.

    They might have made Eichmann a little more sympathetic than he was. And having Sir Ben Kingsley play Eichmann gave him a little glamor — Kingsley is just somebody who is interesting to watch. I didn’t watch Stanley Tucci’s version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of “Conspiracy,” but my impression is that Kingsley tends to be more of a star by nature, Tucci more of a character actor by nature.

    Totally changing the subject, how many major Italian-American character actors are there? Turturro, Buscemi, and Tucci to start with. Anybody else in that tier? Giamatti? Or is he more of a leading man?

    The 1970s are famous for Italian-American leading men, but the later 1980s seem like a good time for the emergence of Italian-American supporting actors.

  67. Lot says:
    @syonredux

    “Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan.”

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

  68. syonredux says:
    @nebulafox

    Hitler didn’t. He had a supremely un-bureaucratic mind.

    Hitler’s brain was supremely operatic….

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  69. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    In war movies, the worst possible death for me seems like being stuck in a submarine that sinks to the bottom of the ocean. That’s like being buried alive.

    And there is gassing and there is gassing.

    Carbon Monoxide poisoning will just knock you out. But imagine being hit with mustard gas in war? I once worked with peppers and then rubbed my eyes, and it was the most horrible thing. I sort of understood how it must have been a victim of gas attack in WWI.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  70. syonredux says:
    @Lot

    “Surely the more pressing question is the morality of the British and American aerial bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan.”

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.

  71. Anon[357] • Disclaimer says:
    @Fugit

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history, ”

    Yeah, we’re exhausted listening about the “holocaust”.

  72. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    Actually if you are a patriot American with any sense of morality (is there even such a thing as an immoral patriotic American), then these are questions that need to be asked.

  73. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….

    Okay, if the 2+ million corpses of death-by-starvation Soviet soldiers weren’t returned, where did the Germans bury them during those Winter months?

    • Replies: @syonredux
  74. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Answer the question. 6 million Jews and 5 million Gentiles killed in the camps.

    More like 5 million plus Jews (I think that Hilberg’s estimate is about 5.1 million). And about half of them died died via mass shootings, not in camps.

    Where are the mass graves?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderaktion_1005

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Svigor
  75. @Steve Sailer

    I’m waiting to see what Chazelle and Gosling have done with Armstrong, the modest hero I was thinking about in my comment. I’ve watched the trailers and read the reviews from the festivals, and it seems they’ve found a way.

    I see Giamatti as a leading man and I really like him.

    I remember the 1970s as a time when “ethnics” like Pacino became popular. A friend of mine met him in a Manhattan bar just before The Godfather. They shared drinks and Pacino mentioned that he had just been cast in a big movie. Getting up to leave, he told my friend, “Someday you are going to tell your friends that you had a drink with Al Pacino.”

  76. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it.

    And this massive, industrial, quintessentially “German” operation was carried out without a single surviving written order, plan, or operational discussion.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  77. nebulafox says:
    @syonredux

    Absolutely. He was, in every sense of the word, a theatrical character.

    Worth pointing out that the cumulative “extremizing” of the Nazi state reached its logical conclusion in the USSR. Not just the anti-Semitism: the bureaucratic chaos, the petty exercising of power for power’s sake, the intellectual rigidity, the general megalomania, it seems as though the true *nature* of Hitler and Nazi Germany really became apparent in Russia in 1941. The cumulative process took time: it began to spike in the late 1930s, and Poland served as a test run-as well as a desensitizer for those in the German government and armed forces who might have needed it-for the brutality and ideological fantasies. But for a host of reasons, it was only in the USSR in 1941 where things could truly climax and trends within the Nazi government to reach their logical conclusion.

    As for Hitler personally, he could finally act in the only way which was authentic for him: with the utmost radicality. I guess you say that when Barbarossa started, he sought nothing but final solutions, and made no exception of this when the war turned against Germany. The person who Hitler always was-a personality with a fundamental, innate bent for destruction-behind all the masks he wore since 1919 truly burst forward when the Russian campaign started, not least because when things started to go wrong, the smoke and mirrors that he always excelled with were of no use anymore.

  78. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    The conqueror’s lament….”If only I had not encountered resistance”……

    There is a lot of truth to that. Lots of atrocities were the result of resistance. Not that resistance wasn’t justified. Of course, you should fight against invaders. But it’s often been the case that the invaders were usually far more magnanimous when the other side offered no resistance.

    Romans were like this. If the other side surrendered, Romans could offer the carrot. If they resisted, the stick. The Mongols sent out messengers to towns they planned to sack. If they surrendered, they would only be enslaved. If they resisted, all would die. And Mao’s forces sent similar message to KMT forces. If they surrendered, they would be accepted as brothers. If they fought, they would be massacred without mercy. Germans went easier on Czechs than on Poles because there was less resistance among Czechs. (Oddly enough, Czech brutality against Germans was greater than Polish brutality after the war.)

    Japanese weren’t as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

    US was the same way. Totally brutal in crushing Japan. But with Japan’s total surrender, magnanimity and era of peace and friendship.

  79. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    Incidentally, are bodies normally returned? Lots of German war dead are buried in the former USSR….

    Okay, if the 2+ million corpses of death-by-starvation Soviet soldiers weren’t returned, where did the Germans bury them during those Winter months?

    Dunno. What was German policy with Soviet POW dead?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  80. @Anon

    There was a general rule of warfare that seemed fairly global until not long ago: if a besieged city surrendered, it was to be treated okay, but if it resisted, the conquerors were allowed to rape, murder, and loot for 24 or 48 hours. A Free French general promised his Moroccan troops 50 hours of lawlessness after they took Monte Cassino in Italy in 1944. That came in for a lot of criticism afterwards, but that was the old way of incentivizing troops.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Hank Yobo
  81. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    From your link:

    Attempts to use incendiary bombs to destroy exhumed bodies were unsuccessful as the weapons set fire to nearby forests. The most effective way was eventually found to be giant pyres on iron grills. The method involved building alternating layers of corpses and firewood on railway tracks. Afterwards remaining bone fragments could be crushed by pounding with heavy dowels or in a grinding machine and then re-buried in pits.

    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive. And difficult to conceal. And of questionable effectiveness–outdoor funeral pyres that were supposed to consume millions of corpses, leaving little trace in terms of ashes, burnt wood, and bone fragments?

  82. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @syonredux

    Chris Cornell, whose (2nd) wife was Armenian, contributed a song for that movie about the Armenian genocide. I’ve wondered if thinking about that helped push him over the edge into suicide. Though if you look back at the lyrics of his songs, it seems he’d struggled with depression for a long time.

    • Replies: @DCThrowback
  83. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    And this massive, industrial, quintessentially “German” operation was carried out without a single surviving written order, plan, or operational discussion.

    Why would the Nazis want that kind of stuff to fall into enemy hands?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  84. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Dunno. What was German policy with Soviet POW dead?

    If the bodies weren’t returned, we can assume they were buried. Do you really not know this? You are the one who put the Soviet POWs into issue.

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  85. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history

    Steve Sailer doesn’t read Ron Unz?

    I literally LOL’d at this.

    In Steve’s defense, Ron is a little verbose. And his memoir style of writing buries the lede to an extreme. The trick, as with any current “long form” web writing (Slate, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, New York Times), is to read all articles backwards. Not litteraly backwards, but, start at the 90 percent point paragraph, then go back in 10 percent jumps until you feel you may have found the piece’s nut paragraph.

    As an outsider exploring this contentious topic I think it far more likely than not that the standard Holocaust narrative is at least substantially false, and quite possibly, almost entirely so.

    Some forms of shared beliefs may be a mile wide but an inch deep, and the casual assumptions of individuals who have never actually investigated a given subject may rapidly change.

    – Ronáld Keëva Durian Ackee Unz

  86. @syonredux

    Whenever I’m going through documentaries on Netflix or wherever, I’m always amazed at the steady onslaught of new Holocaust documentaries. Basically, if I see a black and white photo of a person associated with the movie, it’s almost always about the Holocaust in one way or another.

    • Replies: @Trevor H.
    , @kihowi
  87. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @gcochran

    There was an article in the FT a few years back on Indians who fought against the Japanese in WWII, and those who fought on the side of the Japanese. If memory serves, the ones who fought for the Japanese were remembered more fondly, because Japan was at war with Britain.

  88. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    Japanese weren’t as crazy in Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. (If anything, when the KMT arrived later, the Taiwanese felt nostalgia for the relatively gentle Japanese.) Japanese really went nuts when China finally put up a stiff resistance.

    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2…..like cannibalism….or going berserk in Manila…or committing mass suicide rather than surrender…..

  89. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    If a besieged city resisted, the conquerors were allowed to rape, murder, and loot for 24 or 48 hours. That was the old way of incentivizing troops.

    And didn’t this give us Jesus, the Christ, fathered by the Roman rapist and pillager Pantera? So it can’t be all bad.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  90. Lot says:
    @syonredux

    “I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.”

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

  91. Anonymous[169] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Written communication (deliberations and decisions, instructions, approvals) would be essential to coordinate the government in such a massive, sprawling, risky, and efficacious undertaking.

    • Replies: @Hail
  92. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous

    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive.

    And?

    And of questionable effectiveness

    Dunno. Any experts on cremation hereabouts?

    And difficult to conceal.

    From whom? If I were a local, I wouldn’t go too near enemy soldiers….

  93. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer

    Giamatti is a premium cable leading man – he starred in HBO’s John Adams miniseries, and he and the British fellow co-star in Billions.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  94. Anonym says:

    Some musical accompaniment.

  95. syonredux says:
    @Lot

    “I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.”

    And you talk about full retard?

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    My enemy does nasty stuff….therefore I have the right to do nasty stuff…and whatever I do is his fault…

    I’m afraid that I can’t get on board with that….

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Svigor
  96. syonredux says:
    @Anon

    Massive firebombing can kill as many as in a nuking, but nuking just seems worse because of its sheer totality. NO ONE and NOTHING is spared within a certain radius. And then, there is radioactive illnesses to follow.

    I suppose that it’s the radiation illness factor….the unease generated by the prospect of surviving a bombing only to die two or three years later due to some inoperable cancer….

  97. utu says:
    @Anon

    but there was no ideology of targeting a race

    Polish Operation of the NKVD

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

    It resulted in the sentencing of 139,835 people, and summary executions of 111,091 Poles.[3][4] The operation was implemented according to NKVD Order № 00485 signed by Nikolai Yezhov.[5] The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish,[1] but not all, wrote Timothy Snyder.[6] The remainder were ‘suspected’ of being Polish, without further inquiry,[5] or classed as possibly having pro-Polish sympathies.[7] In order to speed up the process the NKVD personnel reviewed local telephone books and arrested persons with Polish-sounding names.

    • Replies: @Trevor H.
  98. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    Ron Unz has a history degree from Harvard (as well as physics degrees from Harvard & Stanford) and an IQ about 70+ points above Sailer. Ron’s Jewish and assiduous and writes hyper-researched historical analysis. Steve’s a lazy goy who writes about golf and sports and entertainment. I think I’ll stick with Unz when it comes to research challenging the historical narrative and stick to Sailer on golf course architecture and contemporary Armenian history (the Kardashians).

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • LOL: utu
  99. Graham says:

    Very interesting review, Steve. As soon as I saw the picture at the top, though, I started wondering… was Eichmann really Jeremy Corbyn? Check out the sticking out ears and the drooping eyelid. Did anyone ever see them together? You need to get rid of Corbyn’s beard of course. Use the search ‘young Jeremy Corbyn’ in Google images for a picture of him as a schoolboy. That would explain certain controversial views held by the Labour leader.

  100. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    The Japanese also had a tendency to just do crazy stuff during WW2…..like cannibalism….or going berserk in Manila…or committing mass suicide rather than surrender…..

    When you’re starving, you gotta eat. When logistics broke down, many Japanese soldiers were on the brink of starvation, as powerfully depicted in the film FIRES ON THE PLAIN.

    A lot of people, not just the Japanese, went nuts in Philippines. Filos can be fierce fighters. Americans went crazy in the Philippines War too. Lots of atrocities on both sides. It was like the first Vietnam War.

    As for committing suicide, it was a matter of honor. Some cultures are into noble death thing. Among Germanic barbarians, death was feared less than show of cowardice. Spartan mothers told their kids to come back dead than as warriors than alive as prisoners.

    Granted, Japan’s honor code was outdated in the 20th century. It’s one thing to practice it in the battlefield in feudal times when it involved just 1000s of warriors. But in a total war between nations where millions may die, it does become crazy.

    But it can become the stuff of legend sometimes. Vietnam fought what was essentially a suicidal war with the US. The North knew that the kill ratio in battles could be 100 dead Viets for 1 American. But they fought and fought and prevailed, and it was one for the history books. Afghan war against the Soviets was also against tremendous odds, often suicidal at times.

    Also, there was the factor of myth and survival. To the Japanese, their nation wasn’t just some island but a sacred homeland with divine spirits. As it had never been invaded and occupied, a US victory and invasion felt like having your mother raped. That was the mythic element. Myth may be ‘crazy’, but it’s powerful. Jews left Palestine 2000 yrs ago but still had to return and carry out massive ethnic cleansing to take it back. And Israel has 200 nukes and says it will blow up EU if Israel were to fall. In other words, the West better back up Israel because Zionists will go for the Samson Option. They won’t go down alone.

    There was also the survival element. Japanese had no idea what would happen if they lost the war. Would the US let Japanese even survive? According to John Dower’s EMBRACING DEFEAT, there were elements in FDR’s government who called for total racial annihilation of the Japanese. Hardly majority opinion, but the Pacific War was a Race War, and there was no telling what might happen. I think one reason why the Soviets fought so desperately against Germany was they feared annihilation. They instinctively understood Hitler wasn’t like Napoleon who only sought political hegemony over Russia. Nazis were far more sinister. And that too was a Race War, the most deadly kind of war.

    As it turned out, the US came to value Japan as an ally in the Cold War against China and USSR, but who knows what they were thinking during the war. Everything seemed like a zero-sum game of winner takes all, loser loses everything.

    • Replies: @Trevor H.
    , @Anonymous
    , @Svigor
  101. Lot says:
    @syonredux

    “My enemy does nasty stuff….therefore I have the right to do nasty stuff…and whatever I do is his fault…”

    In their defensive war against genociders, everything the USA and UK did was within their rights. You are being far too general. I qualified my statement as limited to patriots for a reason.

    Your “nasty stuff” generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Your moral qualms don’t seem to have been shared by our grandfathers and their leaders, thank God.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @Trevor H.
    , @Svigor
  102. utu says:
    @Anon

    Hitler was made by populism, which is one reason why Jews fear it in Trump and America. The institutions on their own would never have allowed a man like Hitler to amass all that power. But Hitler appealed to the masses, and they came to believe in him. Once he became the Man of the People, a neo-Napoleonic figure, it was difficult for the institutions to get rid of him because it would have risked a vast populist backlash.

    One lasting accomplishment of Napoleon was emancipation of Jews in Europe. He did not succeed in Russia thought intended to emancipate Jews there. Hassidic Jew in Russia supported Tsar. The same Lubavitcher Jews who were elected by Putin to represent all Jew in Russia.

    https://forward.com/culture/319002/the-secret-jewish-history-of-napoleon-bonaparte/
    Many Jews of the time believed that Napoleon was their benefactor. Primo Levi has pointed out that in Italy, some Jews named their sons Napoleone in his honor, and in Germany, when Jews adopted family names, some chose Schöntheil, or Bonaparte in German. In France, Jews wrote Hebrew prayers to praise Napoleon during services and called him “Helek Tov” in Hebrew or “good portion” (bona-parte)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shneur_Zalman_of_Liadi
    During the French invasion of Russia, while many Polish Hasidic leaders supported Napoleon or remained quiet about their support, Shneur Zalman openly and vigorously supported the Tsar.

    While fleeing from the advancing French army he wrote a letter explaining his opposition to Napoleon to a friend, Rabbi Moshe Meizeles:[17]

    “ Should Napoleon be victorious, wealth among the Jews will be abundant. . .but the hearts of Israel will be separated and distant from their father in heaven. But if our master Alexander will triumph, though poverty will be abundant. . . the heart of Israel will be bound and joined with their father in heaven. . . And for God’s sake: Burn this letter.

    Some argue that Shneur Zalman’s opposition stemmed from Napoleon’s attempts to arouse a messianic view of himself in Jews, opening the gates of the ghettos and emancipating their residents as he conquered. He established an ersatz Sanhedrin, recruiting Jews to his ranks, and spreading rumors about his conquest of the Holy Land to make Jews subversive for his own ends.[19] Thus, his opposition was based on a practical fear of Jews turning to the false messianism of Napoleon as he saw it.

    Before the WWII 85% of 3.3 million of Polish Jews were ultra Orthodox and Hassidim. Most of them did not survive the Holocaust. Majority of them were anti assimilationists and anti Zionist. Would Israel be created if they lived? The 10-15% who survived were assimilationist, Bundist, Communist and Zionists.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  103. utu says:
    @Anon

    I want to say I agree with you but I must qualify it. There is a difference between revisionism of history and complete denial combined with attempts of complete exoneration Germany. People who call themselves revisionists here like “Wally” who represents CODOH are not interested in finding the truth but in exoneration of Germany only. They act as defense attorney who are not interested in finding more accurate narrative and solving the case but in getting the acquittal for their client even on technicalities. They are as dogmatic and one sided as Deborah Lipstadt on the opposite side. In my opinion they are an obstacle to an honest debate as representatives of the Holocaust Inc.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  104. Sunbeam says:

    “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

    What does that even mean? Sure, sure I can do a search. But either that statement has some context, or it is gobbledygook.

    Somebody parse this out. We have the accountant of the Holocaust. WTF relevance does this have to justifying his actions at a trial?

    Know the worst thing about civilization? The fact that I can’t put my foot six inches up the ass of anyone who quotes such a ridiculous statement without irony.

  105. Joe Walker says: • Website

    My first impression: On top, the judges, the best of German Jewry. Below them, the prosecuting attorneys, Galicians, but still Europeans. Everything is organized by a police force that gives me the creeps, speaks only Hebrew, and looks Arabic. Some downright brutal types among them. They would obey any order. And outside the doors, the Oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country. In addition, and very visible in Jerusalem, the peies (sidelocks) and caftan Jews, who make life impossible for all reasonable people here.

    I have often wondered why so many Jews were unwilling to move to Israel when they seemed to believe that Europe and the United States were ruled by anti-Semites. Now I see that the reason why so many Jews avoid moving to Israel is that living in Israel would be a constant reminder of the Jews’ non-European origins.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    , @Jack D
  106. Pay to Play – Put your money where your mouth is and subscribe for an ad-free experience and to join the world famous Takimag comment board.

    You mean the world famous comment board that Takimag never respected and deliberately killed?

  107. @Buzz Mohawk

    People can find justification for pretty much any evil. That’s why the Good Guys could burn heretics of various stripes (‘they are enemies of God’) or kill babies now (‘giving women reproductive choice’). I doubt many abortionists lie awake at night. The Germans doubtless told themselves they were saving their nation by killing people.

    Of course such bad things will also attract those who like killing for its own sake.

  108. nebulafox says:
    @syonredux

    Well, the MO of atrocities was quite different for the Japanese. Put basically, it was bottom-up whereas the Germans were top-down. The civilians in Tokyo had at the best of times limited influence over what the military did, in part due to the way the Meiji reforms were laid out, and the 1930s were definitely not the best of times in Japanese politics. Political moderates, going up to prime ministers, were regularly assassinated by radicals (gekokujo) throughout the 1930s, to the point where the Japanese government was dubbed “government by assassination” in the US media. Field armies regularly just went off and did their own thing. You had majors and colonels presenting fait accomplis.

    Near as anybody can tell, there was no grand strategic plan behind the Marco Polo Incident. It was just the Kwantung Army chomping at the bit for a fight. It’s very hard to envision an analogous situation in Germany. However lazy Hitler could be at times and however intense the bureaucratic inertia was, nobody ever dared question his ultimate authority-he ran the show. Nothing was ever undertaken in contradiction to his known wishes.

  109. nebulafox says:
    @Lot

    >Your “nasty stuff” generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Agreed. Forget the Anglo-Saxons for a bit: the Japanese managed to make the *Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution* look comparatively good. Sure, you might get paraded about with a dunce cap or die of famine, but at least bored rogue soldiers wouldn’t decide to use you as bayonet practice or randomly decide to ship you off for “experiments” out in Harbin.

    Similarly, the Nazis managed to make the Stalinist gulag and famines look comparatively good. Guys like Erich Koch managed to turn non-Russian minorities in the western USSR-who at first welcomed the Germans as liberators and were eager to see the Russians get squashed-into partisan sympathizers within a year.

    That says all that needs to be said.

  110. @Steve Sailer

    I didn’t watch Stanley Tucci’s version of Eichmann very closely when I saw 15 or 30 minutes of “Conspiracy,”

    PBS aired a German made-for-TV movie titled The Wannsee Conference in the early 1990s. Although the actors are unknown to us, I thought, just as with Downfall, having Germans do Nazi historical reenactments is always a superior approach. And it was. The movie is up on YouTube in its entirety.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  111. The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history,

    Yeah except for that one tiny little thing that is conspicuously non-documented….

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  112. nebulafox says:
    @Anon

    Oddly enough, Hitler personally was way more racist against Czechs than Poles for most of his life-and even in his table talk during the war, the anti-Slav jibes that aren’t against Ukrainians or Russians target Czechs, not Poles. This was probably partially politics in the 1930s, as Poland’s anti-Communist right-wing government (itself authoritarian and somewhat anti-Semitic) was willing to sign a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany on a tacit anti-Soviet basis-quite the turnaround from the 1920s. But this also partially betrayed his declassed Viennese origins. This was in stark contrast to his military commanders, who viewed Poles as the main object of contempt for Slavs and spent most of the 1920s preparing to collaborate with the Russians to crush Poland.

    In any case, starting out around 1938, there’s evidence that Hitler was willing to consider enlisting Poland as a junior partner/satellite state for the crusade against Bolshevism. How that would have worked, I have no idea, but it was only in 1939 when things changed and Hitler shifted to the idea of a temporary pact with the USSR while he secured his Western flank. Yet the occupation of Poland would end up being far more over-the-top brutal than in Czechia, with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940. Probably a lot of reasons for this-the anti-Polish sentiment running rife in the Prussian establishment and military was probably one of them-but was it partly out of pique on Hitler’s part that Poland put up a fight and “caused” the unwanted war against the Western powers, distracting him from the real war he wanted against the USSR, in his thinking? Who knows. Hitler was a really warped dude. Essentially a spoiled, intellectually rigid manchild-disguising this through endless tactical gifts-given power over the most advanced country in Europe.

  113. @Dave Pinsen

    … he starred in HBO’s John Adams miniseries…

    My favorite scene, one of the reasons I like Giamatti:

  114. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Your increasingly bratty comments add nothing worthwhile to the discussion. You are not even trying to change anyone’s mind.

    Why are you driven to insult those who question orthodoxy on this subject? Do you show the thread to someone else whose favor you desire?

  115. Hank Yobo says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Didn’t Polish, not Moroccan, troops finally capture Monte Cassino? A remarkable achievement for expatriate soldiers whose country was under the Nazi jackboot.

  116. Hank Yobo says:
    @Anonymous

    The Soviets tried to bury their mistakes. At least that was their modus operandi after the murders at Katyn Forest. A crime for which they first tried to blame the Nazis.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Hank Yobo
  117. Another holocaust movie?

    I guess Jews must be starting to realize that fewer and fewer people believe in it, or care, so they had to try to milk that (cash) cow yet again before it’s too late. Perhaps another dozen or so “holocaust” memorials are in the works too?

    Still waiting for the scores of movies about the hundred million killed by (((communism)))

  118. jim jones says:

    Given that Japan is now a peaceful and productive country I think the actions that the Allies took are completely justified.

  119. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot

    If you are a patriotic American and/or Englishman, there is no question here, pressing or otherwise.

    Dead civilians are dead civilians. Dead women and children are dead women and children. It doesn’t matter if they are english, japanese, german, or jewish. Killing them is immoral.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  120. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    We have the eyewitness testimony of the people, especially survivors, who saw these things with their own eyes. That is all the evidence we need.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Hail
  121. @syonredux

    “I’m quite patriotic, but I can still question the morality of my country’s actions.”

    Ever heard of the term “context of the times?”

  122. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    That is a ridiculous assertion. And also deeply immoral.

  123. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    That is a ridiculous assertion. And also deeply immoral.

  124. sb says:

    If memory serves the Israeli Court when questioned on the Court’s legal right to try Eichman relied on the extremely doubtful English precedent of the Lord Haw Haw case ( DPP v Joyce )

  125. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anonymous

    These asserted methods would seem to be very labor-, fuel-, and time-intensive.

    So was the V-2 rocket program, which had no military value.

    So was the allied aerial bombing campaign, also of questionable military value.

    • Troll: MikeatMikedotMike
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  126. Svigor says:

    The Holocaust, perhaps the most exhaustively documented event in history

    LOL.

    The Clone Wars are fairly well-documented. Much more so than the War of Polish Succession, for example.

  127. Trevor H. says:
    @Anonymous

    What did the Germans do with the two million plus corpses of Soviet soldiers that they suddenly had on their hands in the Winter of ’41-’42?

    Well, you see, this is the real reason the Germans lost the war. While everyone else was fighting, the Germans were busy triple-cremating tens of millions of corpses, then using ingenious disappearing pulverising devices to turn the billions of bones into a fine white ash, which they then deposited into the bowels of active volcanoes in the tropics so they would be disguised by subsequent eruptions, and also they used some for concrete projects like bridges and tunnels and also a whole lot of Dresden China, which we’d know about for sure if only the Allies hadn’t bombed Dresden, and also I think some found its way into whitening toothpaste, so you can see how pretty much everything white is evil to its core, and I hope this comprehensive documentation helps clarify things for you. Because there’s nothing worse than a holocaust denier. So don’t even go there.

  128. Trevor H. says:
    @Lot

    defensive war against genociders

    Translated: the good guys won!

    Funny how it always works out that way.

  129. Graham says:

    “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”

    It’s easy to understand if you have an example. Here’s a maxim that doesn’t work: “Everybody has to give me respect, otherwise I’ll punch them, but I don’t have to respect anyone”. That’s the morality of the street thug and all the bullies at my old school. You can’t will it to become a universal law because it grants one person special status.

  130. Trevor H. says:
    @Anonymous

    That quote is dumb, even by Wikipedia standards.

  131. Trevor H. says:
    @Malcolm X-Lax

    You should try reading the New York Times, which I used to do. They have an amazing knack for working holocaust references into every single story in the paper, whether it be road closures on Long Island, the daily commodities report or some j.a.p. complaining about her therapist going on vacation.

  132. Trevor H. says:
    @utu

    He meant “a race that mattered.”

  133. @syonredux

    I’ve never been able to understand the essential difference between destroying Hamburg with conventional explosives and using an atomic bomb on Nagasaki….

    For one, Nuclear attack sentenced many of the yet unborn to horrific birth defects. Perhaps nevertheless justifiable but different I think.

  134. Trevor H. says:
    @Anon

    Soon that “Samson Option” will become meaningless because Europe will have destroyed itself in a different way. Though to be sure, aided and abetted by many of the same people.

  135. @syonredux

    Harry Turtledove wrote an alternative history story where the Germans win WW2 and occupy India.

    Ghandi tries his non-violence shtick and some random Nazi colonel has a bunch of Ghandi’s followers machine-gunned.

    Ghandi is sure that once the colonel’s superiors hear of this atrocity, their consciences will get the best of them, setting the Indians on the road to freedom

    It doesn’t work out that way.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  136. @syonredux

    Eichmann’s capture itself has a bunch of movies. Per Wikipedia: Eichmann, The Eichmann Show, The House on Garibaldi Street, The Man Who Captured Eichmann, The People vs. Fritz Bauer.

    I’m glad they got the guy (he certainly deserved it more than paper-pusher Oskar Groening), but is there really anything else to say?

  137. @nebulafox

    Goebbels wouldn’t have liked that. He was involved with Czech actress Lída Baarová for years.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  138. @Joe Walker

    No, it’s because the ultra-Orthos are nutjobs. Met a woman who was on an archeological dig in Israel, wearing khaki shorts and a camp shirt on a broiling hot day. She wandered into town for a meal. They threw rocks at her for showing too much skin.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  139. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Dude’s on his 4th marriage!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  140. Anon[277] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    “War? What war? Gott in Himmel!”

  141. Ian M. says:
    @jesse helms think-alike

    He’s a little too short and little dark to ever be a true leading man and his face lacks the chiseled features of typical leading men like Kirk Douglas in his prime.

    Although none of this really stopped Al Pacino from becoming a leading man.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  142. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Granted, Japan’s honor code was outdated in the 20th century.

    But it can become the stuff of legend sometimes. Vietnam fought what was essentially a suicidal war with the US. The North knew that the kill ratio in battles could be 100 dead Viets for 1 American. But they fought and fought and prevailed, and it was one for the history books. Afghan war against the Soviets was also against tremendous odds, often suicidal at times.

    See also 9/11.

  143. fnn says:
    @Lot

    The entirety of the moral responsibility for the deaths in Dresden and Hiroshima rests on thise who invaded Poland, raped France, massacred the Jews, terror-bombed English cities in night raids with incendiary bombs, and of course bombed Pearl Harbor.

    FDR saw the German-Polish disputes over Danzig, the Corridor and mistreatment of ethnic Germans and decided to make sure said disputes resulted in world war and the destruction of Western Civilization.

    Quotes from Herbert Hoover’s posthumously published magnum opus, Freedom Betrayed :

    http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2012/05/poland-as-pawn-hoover-identifies.html

    Hoover confirms that documentation from the U.S. State Department on this had not yet been released. However, based on conversation Hoover later had with Ambassador Kennedy, the U.S. positions portrayed in these dispatches were confirmed. During the war, Hoover met with Kennedy approximately 20 times. Kennedy apparently profoundly disagreed with Roosevelt’s foreign policy.

    Hoover would document his conversations with the various people he met with. An example is provided of Hoover’s meeting with Kennedy on May 15, 1945. Kennedy indicated he had over 900 dispatches which he could not print without consent of the U.S. Government. He hoped one day to receive such permission as it was Kennedy’s intention to write a book that would:

    …put an entirely different color on the process of how America got into the war and would prove the betrayal of the American people by Franklin D, Roosevelt.

    …Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles.

    He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.

    Kennedy said that if it had not been for Roosevelt the British would not have made this most gigantic blunder in history.

    Kennedy told me that he thought Roosevelt was in communication with Churchill, who was the leader of the opposition to Chamberlain, before Chamberlain was thrown out of office….

    James Forrestal, Under Secretary of the Navy, documented in his diaries a substantially similar conversation with Kennedy.

    Somewhat celebrated mainstream liberal Zionist Jewish historian backs up Hoover:

    https://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-Hitler-Robert-Edwin-Herzstein/dp/1557780218#customerReviews

    For three quarters of a century, scholars have debated President Roosevelt’s role in bringing the United States into World War II. But this book goes far beyond that question: It argues that FDR was the mastermind behind the very war itself. From late 1938, Robert Herzstein writes, Roosevelt’s agents in Europe were busy at work agitating for a total European war to destroy Germany: They incited Poland and Germany against each other, and at the same time more or less bullied Britain and France into supporting Poland. At the same time, the President set up a virtual police state at home, using the HUAC, the FBI, and other government agencies to spy on, harass, and ultimately annihilate the domestic opposition.

    These are startling claims, to say the least, which challenge the fundamental assumptions of most historical writings on World War II. As summarized above, they sound as though they might even be dismissed as kooky conspiracy theories. But the author who makes them is no marginal figure. Robert E. Herzstein, Professor of History at the University of South Carolina and former consultant to the Jewish World Council and the US Department of Justice, has previously written several other acclaimed books on the Interwar-World War II period, including “The War That Hitler Won” (1978, on propaganda) and “When Nazi Dreams Come True” (1982, on Nazi designs for European integration). Most famously, he authored the best-selling “Waldheim: The Missing Years” (1988), which was glowingly reviewed by Simon Wiesenthal (among others) for exposing the Austrian President’s past in the German Wehrmacht. Herzstein is without doubt a respected authority on the subject, and thus we must take him seriously and consider his arguments with care.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  144. Lurker says:
    @utu

    Well documented – apart from the curious lack of German records, photographic or forensic evidence, the debunked shrunken heads, lampshades and soap. Oh and all that contradictory eye witness testimony.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Anonymous
  145. @Anonymous

    Oh my gosh. The K-dashes are the revenge of the Armenians on an indifferent world that permitted the Massacre.

    This explains everything.

  146. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    One lasting accomplishment of Napoleon was emancipation of Jews in Europe.

    “Emancipation”. Lol. Jews were not slaves, serfs, or even peasants, big guy.

  147. Lurker says:
    @Anonymous

    I also consider them unreliable, one only has to read a few to see the problems springing up.

  148. Svigor says:

    Yeah except for that one tiny little thing that is conspicuously non-documented….

    What’s really trippy to me is how, after 50 years of their propaganda blasting from every corner of Big Media, huge percentages of Jews have literally never heard of the other 6m; the goyish victims of the shoah. Seriously, anytime this topic comes up with a Jew, ask how many victims there were; very good odds you’ll hear “6 million” or “6 million Jews.”

    Lulz:
    holocaust.askdefine.com

    1 an act of great destruction and loss of life
    2 the Nazi program of exterminating Jews under Hitler [syn: final solution]

    Lulz. Goys are chopped liver, goy.

  149. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    They act as defense attorney who are not interested in finding more accurate narrative and solving the case but in getting the acquittal for their client even on technicalities. They are as dogmatic and one sided as Deborah Lipstadt on the opposite side. In my opinion they are an obstacle to an honest debate as representatives of the Holocaust Inc.

    Many Holocaust proponents act as much as prosecutors as revisionists act as defense attorneys. Do justice systems produce more truth with defense attorneys than without them?

  150. @Anon

    Pantera was a death metal band. Saw them in the ’90s.

    “Panthera” is a twist on “Parthenos” by Romans who didn’t believe Jesus was the Son of a Virgin. It is not an actual Roman name.

  151. DCThrowback says: • Website
    @Dave Pinsen

    there are strong rumors he was suicided (and she had a hand in it).

  152. @Anon

    Dulce et Decorum Est
    BY WILFRED OWEN

    Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
    Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
    Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
    And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
    Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
    But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
    Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
    Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

    Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
    Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
    But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
    And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.—
    Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
    As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

    In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
    He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

    If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
    Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
    And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
    His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
    To children ardent for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
    Pro patria mori.

  153. nebulafox says:
    @Rosamond Vincy

    Hitler was seriously not amused, especially when Goebbels attempted to commit suicide over it. One reason Goebbels pushed hard for Kristallnacht was the need to regain political ground after the fallout from the Baarova affair.

    Goebbels in his younger days was something of a pseudo-Slavophile. An avid Dostoevsky fan, he was initially was prominent in the northern German faction in the Nazi Party that advocated an alliance with the USSR against the Western powers.

  154. @Steve Sailer

    Joe Pesci. Usually a character a tornado, but an unforgettable star turn in My Cousin Vinny.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  155. Lurker says:
    @PiltdownMan

    The superior approach – make up a good story!

    It’s notable how reliant the holocaust narrative is on works of fiction.

    Holocaust, Schindler’s List, The Boy in the Striped PJs, Sophie’s Choice, The Big Red One etc.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  156. nebulafox says:
    @Rosamond Vincy

    It’s seldom observed that Islam has much in common with Orthodox Judaism. Even if you look at the origins and early days of the faith, it’s clear the amount of late antiquity-era Judaic influence: Moses is mentioned more than any other figure in the Qu’ran, Constitution of Medina, conversion to Judaism (and Christianity) among Arabs in the centuries before Muhammad, etc.

    Especially worth noting is that the early Rashidun Arabs stressed their descent from Abraham and their worship of the one true God of Abraham far more than the Prophet.

  157. Jack D says:
    @Joe Walker

    Now I see that the reason why so many Jews avoid moving to Israel is that living in Israel would be a constant reminder of the Jews’ non-European origins.

    On the eve of the Holocaust, Ashkenazi (European) Jews constituted something like 90% of the Jews in the world, but Hitler “fixed” that. And after Israel was founded, the Moslem world expelled almost all of their Jews. This combination meant that Israel is around 50/50 Ashkenazi/Sephardi. The “true” Sephardim (those whose ancestors were expelled from Spain) also have a lot of European ancestry but a lot of the non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel are not descended from the Spanish refugees.

    No one beat the German Jews for snootiness – they make WASPs look like pikers. The Nazis made their heads explode because to them German culture was the highest form of civilization.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Joe Walker
  158. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox

    with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940

    What are you referring to? If they were “targeted” , why didn’t the Germans act upon it? They had the infrastructure at Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, etc. and after they had murdered all of the Jews they could have easily repurposed it. I understand that the Germans did run a few Polish villages thru the Auschwitz gas chambers as a sort of trial run but for the most part there was no great effort made to exterminate the Poles in the way that the Jews were exterminated (although they did manage to kill 3 million non-Jewish Poles anyway, allowed millions of Soviet POWs to starve to death, etc. – if they could kill this many millions of people without really trying, imagine what they could have done if they were).

    The Germans showed (with the Jews) that they knew how to do genocide when they wanted to. I have often heard it said that their supposed “long term” plan was to also exterminate the Slavs also but it seems to me that was not fully serious, the way that American politician talk about eliminating illegal immigration – it’s something that we will do “mañana” or in 20 years or “when the war is over” and in the meantime you don’t do much of anything. Thank God that they didn’t do this, but it doesn’t appear that they really ever took concerted large scale action on this supposed “targeting”.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
  159. Jack D says:
    @Lurker

    The Germans undertook to carry out the Holocaust as a covert operation under cover of “Night and Fog” and purposely did not maintain records. Nevertheless, there is more than enough documentary, photographic and forensic evidence (not to mention 6 million missing Jews) to convince anyone who is not predisposed to deny the obvious. For those who are so disposed, no amount of evidence will ever suffice.

    Personally, as the son of a man who passed through selection on the rampa at Auschwitz and smelled the smoke of the crematoria not even 100 meters distant, go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers. If this didn’t happen, give me back my grandparents, my aunts, uncles and baby cousins.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  160. keypusher says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Arendt’s book was on the syllabus of the very first college class I walked into. The key point was the Banality of Evil, contained in the title. Eichmann was a middle-manager-climber type who rose to upper management. He can be found in any organization.

    That is a crock, and a slander on middle managers and Eichmann both. He was closer to the Elon Musk of genocide than a middle manager. Check out The Origins of the Final Solution for a corrective.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BS34NCY/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    , @Jack D
  161. I much prefer apocalypse-themed movies which is probably why I like zombie flicks. Holocaust films tend toward caricature and moralizing. Apocalypse scenarios are often more value neutral; the devastated may be somewhat to blame for their own punishment/consequences. And, if creating order after civilizational collapse, such fiction offers insights into the building of healthy vs unhealthy societies.

  162. nebulafox says:

    Um, because the Germans had a war to complete? The Nazis understood full well that they needed to finish the war first, which they initially expected to have over by 1942 before executing their full plans. When that didn’t pan out, they had to pretty quickly alter their plans for something more realistic that allowed them to tap into the labor supply until the war could be won.

    That lasted until about a year after the December 11th Reich Chancellery meeting, when the 6th Army was getting destroyed at Stalingrad, i.e, they couldn’t even get around to being able to murder all the Jews with the time and resources they had at their disposal-it took time to build the Reinhard camps and install the gas chambers in the first place. They also needed laborers to replace all the men headed to the front. Ergo, the more fantastic plans got shelved and German propaganda started to emphasize the whole “defend the continent against the rampaging Cossack and his GPU Jew politruk enabler” schtick.

    > I have often heard it said that their supposed “long term” plan was to also exterminate the Slavs also but it seems to me that was not fully serious, the way that American politician talk about eliminating illegal immigration – it’s something that we will do “mañana” or in 20 years or “when the war is over” and in the meantime you don’t do much of anything.

    No. The Nazis had pretty specific, detailed plans on what they planned on doing to the Slavs-the NSDAP’s racial departments and the SS regularly coordinated memorandum and abstracts that refer to the GPO in the East prior to 1943. Given that, Goering’s Green Folder from the Nuremberg trials, the state of mind of the German leadership in 1941-1942, etc, I think it is safe to presume they were dead serious about Generalplan Ost. Hitler himself was far from shy about his intention to turn the conquered Ukraine into Germany’s version of the American heartland, cleansed of natives-he even makes the comparison in his Table Talk.

    The Jews were targeted during the war for immediate extermination because Hitler essentially viewed them as negative Ubermenschen who’d sabotage everything if left to their own devices, just as they did-in his mind-during his war a quarter century earlier. Slavs weren’t considered that bright by the Germans, so they felt they could afford to wait until the war was over, and maybe leave a remnant over for a helot’s existence-eventually to be worked to death-in the mines or factories. But to accomplish the goal of obtaining Lebensraum and making Germany into a hegemonic world power on the scale of the USA, which was the whole, existential point behind Operation Barbarossa in the first place, the natives would have to be replaced en masse. There was no way around it.

    If Hitler was not serious about obtaining Lebensraum, then he wasn’t serious about his own ideology going back to the Mein Kampf days, and given his personality-that would have basically required him to have been not Hitler in the first place.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    , @Jack D
    , @Anonymous
  163. Ibound1 says:

    WW2 will fade in memory and importance as that generation passes and as we change demographically. Do the Muslim immigrants to the UK care about Hitler? I would guess that they admire him, if they know about him at all. Dunkirk will not quite have the same meaning for these “Englishmen”. And our educational system is so biased now, the kids are undoubtedly taught that the US and the British Empire were on a moral par with Nazi Germany, if not actually below it.

    Anyway, Germany has decided to abolish itself. 1.5 children per mother and that includes the immigrants. The ethnic Germans are having children at a level far below replacement. Meantime Israel is having a baby boom. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-hospitals-witness-record-breaking-baby-boom/

    It is hard to predict how things will all turn out.

  164. Nick Diaz says:

    Steve Sailer:

    “Hitler gratuitously declared war on the mighty United States in support of his honorary Aryan ally’s attack on Pearl Harbor.”

    I saw that coming. No matter what, you will always blow the horn of America. Fact is, in 1941 America wasn’t “mighty “at all: it was a minor military power with a decent navy and that’s about it. America wasn’t even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World. Of course, America had an enormous industrial capacity which could be turned to the war effort, but just having a large industrial capacity does not necessarily translate into a large military industrial capacity. Obviously, Japan declaring war on America turned out to be a bad decision, but for all practical purposes America played only a minor role in the defeat of Germany. When america entered the European war theater on D Day, Germany was already pretty much defeated: the Red Army was already in western Poland by then. America, at the most, hastened Germany’s defeat by 6 months. The Soviets would have won alone anyway.

    “a patriotic capitalist”

    The stupidity of conservatives never ceases to amaze me. A patriotic capitalist is an oxymoron. The maxim of capitalism is that you maximize profits by doing business with as many people as possible, regardless of their ethnicity, religious belief or nationality.

  165. @Buzz Mohawk

    Completely agree about the scene, one of the best on cable to date. What makes it is the intensity between both Giamatti as Adams, and Tom Hollander (a very competent Cambridge grad character actor probably more well-known as the East India Trading Company bad-guy heavy in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise) as King George III.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  166. Sir Ben Kingsley. Best Actor winner for his portrayal of Ghandi in the movie of the same name. Then there’s this Sir Ben Kingsley, who, well, I don’t know, must have needed a paycheck or something…

  167. @Anonymous

    Ron and Steve are both very smart but I see no particular indication that Unz is smarter, let alone in a different league. Steve writes better and has a broader range of analytical pursuits. Ron has more of the high-IQ-but-autistic “systematizing” tendency, which leads him to some hits (English!), some half-baked stuff (Asian admission analysis, Hispanic crime) and now off the rails. Steve has it too, but to a lesser degree and with other strengths to balance it and keep his observations reality-compatible. Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world, while Ron does thought-experiments to show the Holocaust is propaganda.

    My academic background is similar to Ron’s (similar achievements at similar age) and I have spent plenty of time around fellow STEM prodigies. So I have a pretty large database against which to evaluate these things. Trust me that he is very typical of how a Jewish kid with the “boy genius” identity can develop over time. Chomsky is a good example of the same processes.

    FYI, having no furniture in the house (as described in that article someone just posted) is not that unusual for this set, and ascetic traits more generally are very familiar.

  168. @syonredux

    Japanese were murderous bastards, but they were hardly alone in industrial scale massacres.

    Anyone say that they were?

    No, but excuses are made for one side, and not the other.

    Side note– among the few civilians killed in the Pearl Harbor attack were Japanese-American children in Honolulu. Evidently their apartment building looked like a factory. Nice irony there…

    • Replies: @gcochran
  169. bomag says:
    @syonredux

    Ron’s only worth reading on certain topics (e.g., the relationship between race and crime).

    It would help if he didn’t gloss over certain things, such as the far higher rate of immigrant detention in federal facilities which would significantly change the numbers. Ron leaned on state detention to generate his numbers.

  170. snorlax says:
    @nebulafox

    The Jews were targeted during the war for immediate extermination because Hitler essentially viewed them as negative Ubermenschen who’d sabotage everything if left to their own devices, just as they did-in his mind-during his war a quarter century earlier.

    Not necessarily in conflict with your characterization, but from what I’ve read it seems that the Nazis believed their own propaganda that the Jews, as a sort of collective hivemind, secretly controlled the Soviets and Anglo-Americans.

    Therefore, they thought by taking Jews hostage, the Allies would be forced to sue for peace. Baffled that this did not occur, they, like bank robbers, killed the hostages at increasingly faster clips to improve their bargaining position.

    Hence deporting Jews to ghettos and camps and keeping them alive for some time, as opposed to (only) the much simpler, faster and cheaper method of just shooting them. It’s also why the Holocaust took priority over trying to win the war — in their minds it was necessary to win the war.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Steve Sailer
  171. @Jack D

    The Germans showed (with the Jews) that they knew how to do genocide when they wanted to.

    Large scale massacres take no particular organization or skill. Rwandan Hutu civilians killed 800K Tutsis in less than a month, using weapons from before the age of gunpowder. Genghis Khan’s men killed entire cities numbering in the hundreds of thousands in a matter of days, through the simple expedient of assigning a headcount target to every soldier.

    Hitler’s henchmen went through the whole rigamarole of the Holocaust in order to obscure what they did. The Nazis understood that discovery of the atrocity would blacken their names for posterity. They were right – that is indeed what has happened, and rightly so. The Holocaust was unique among atrocities – it (1) targeted a group living in territory under the ruler’s control that had offered no armed resistance, and (2) gave the targeted group no way to redeem itself, either by religious conversion or the pledging of fealty. It would be fitting if, in the future, as Israel is about to be overwhelmed by the invading Arab hordes on its borders, it lobbed a few dozen nukes at Germany’s largest cities as repayment for the German atrocities that caused them to have to return to the land of their ancestors, only to succumb to, in practical terms, the end phase of Germany’s Final Solution.

    • Replies: @IBC
    , @Hail
  172. Jack D says:

    Snorlax – This is an interesting theory but I see no evidence to support it. Do you have any sources? There were some deals made late in the war to trade Hungarian Jews for cash, but this was very late in the game.

    It should have been clear to the Nazis from their pre-war persecution of the German Jews that no Allied government was prepared to lift a finger to help the Jews, so I don’t know what would have made them think that things would be different during the war (and in fact nothing changed). And bank robbers who kill hostages announce the killings in order to raise the stakes – the Germans HID their killings of the hostages. So it’s a cute theory but I don’t think it matches the facts.

  173. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox

    I think you need to differentiate between goals and plans and actions (just as we are seeing now with Trump and illegal immigration/the border wall). It may have been Hitler’s stated GOAL to turn the East into the future German heartland and the Nazi’s may have even had PLANS on how they would go about doing this but they, (thank God), did not really take significant ACTION on these plans (while on the Jews they did, and that is a very big difference). Yes they had their reasons/excuses for not doing so (if you are not really inclined to do something, there are always a million reasons why you can’t do it today – maybe tomorrow it will be possible) , but the bottom line is that they didn’t.

    Maybe they really sincerely thought that they would do this when the war was won and maybe when the war was won they would have had another reason and another reason after that. Exterminating the entire population of Poland, who were after all white Christians (and many of them more Aryan looking than the Germans themselves) I think would have posed a major logistical/morale problem, including getting the cooperation of the German troops, that killing the Jews did not pose.

    I will give you an example. In my father’s shtetl, the Germans set fire to the synagogue on the day that they arrived in September 1939 (they made it pretty clear that things were not going to be good for the Jews in this war – in WWI the Germans had gotten along well with the Jewish population in their occupied areas since they had a more or less mutually intelligible language). Later on, the decision was made to raze the entire town (the population of which was divided between Polish Christians and Jews although it was majority Jewish) because they had plans to construct an air base in the area. And yet, when I visited a few years ago the old Catholic Church still stood. Apparently, the story goes that the troops occupying the area included many German Catholics and they could not bring themselves to set fire to the church.

  174. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    with the Polish nation being explicitly targeted for genocide in 1940.

    The Poles were never targeted by Germany for genocide.

  175. Films are so boring.

    Sailer should review Wolfenstein: The New Colossus.

  176. @syonredux

    Dresden?More like approx 25,000.

    You forgot a 0, sir.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  177. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Actuarial tables do not apply in the Schroedinger Cat universe.

  178. anon[396] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    When did your father leave the shtetl?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  179. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lurker

    Some stories are true that never happened.
    –Elie Wiesel

  180. MBlanc46 says:
    @anon

    Taki’s still has readers?

  181. @Anon

    It could be Nostalgia-ism. Sailer prefers to stick to two Good War narratives.
    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.
    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    1. Nazis were uniquely evil.

    No. And obviously not–except as a tautology that everything is “unique”.

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender. The more compelling “anti” argument to me is whether the same terms were basically available without rushing forward the nuking. (We accepted the emperor which was a sticking point.) But compared with my dad taking part in the invasion of Japan–uh, no thanks!

    ~

    The War was actually “the good war”. It was a great anti-imperialist struggle, against two very aggressive imperialists with hideous–hideously muderous–imperalist designs on other people’s nations.

    The problem people have just acknowledging that is that the Allies didn’t have “clean hands”. The British and French had their large empires as did the Soviet Union. The US was much cleaner but did quasi imperial policing in banana republics and had–very unfortunately–dipped it’s toe into the imperial sewer colonizing the Phillipines–far and away the sleaziest and most morally vile war the US has been involved in. The Soviet Union had outright abetted the start of the war with the joint imperial grab in Poland. And then after the war gobbled up the Baltic nations and imposed imperial control on Eastern Europe. And the US engaged in quasi-imperial shenanigans to contain the Soviets. Including supporting the anti-communist right by giving back the French their colonies–in North Africa and tragically for us, Vietnam. Heck, even the Jews, immediately went out and kicked around Arabs to grab their own state. So no one comes off looking “clean”.

    Because the big victors were the Anglo-sphere, there’s been a lot of b.s. tossed up to confuse and deny what is at the foundation of much of the 20th centuries unpleasantness: Germany and later Japan rising into world where most of the territory had already been divied up between the British, French and Russian Empires.

    If the world in 1900 had instead been under the post-1945 American system of independent nations and open trade, Germany and Japan would have had their appropriate place, been very competitive–as they’ve been post-War–and the big wars would not have happened.

    But despite the victors not having clean hands, it remains the case that the War was a great anti-imperialist struggle.

    Perhaps the single sleaziest piece propaganda of all is the Jews trying to contort this war against pretty naked, explicit and bloodminded German and Japanese imperialism–a war liberating many nations–and make the villain, “nationalism”–i.e. the Jews usual villain, gentiles having and enjoying their own nations.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Reg Cæsar
  182. Ian M. says:
    @Steve Sailer

    De Niro is would be in the leading man category, but he’s certainly had some memorable character-actor-like roles.

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
  183. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Personally, as the son of a man who passed through selection on the rampa at Auschwitz and smelled the smoke of the crematoria not even 100 meters distant, go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers. If this didn’t happen, give me back my grandparents, my aunts, uncles and baby cousins.

    Murder is a very serious charge, Jack. Mass murder and genocide are also very serious charges. We should expect reasonably high standards of proof before they are leveled.

    When, a few months ago, you were politely asked in the comment section how you know what you assert to know about your own family’s experience in Eastern Europe, you were vague and evasive, and eventually non responsive. The evidence you did offer was remarkably thin and inconclusive, and the sequence of events hard to follow.

    I’d rather not that your own comments on this subject be a source of doubt of the official story. Could you therefore please explain to us better in detail what specifically you believe happened to members of your own family and how you know it?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  184. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    A bunch of bunk.

  185. utu says:
    @academic gossip

    Ron will follow chains of reasoning and intuition past the point of plausibility without checking against other information.

    The divergence of a trajectory from the point of plausibility is caused by an invalid extrapolation. Extrapolations from locally valid data are always tricky and usually unstable when burdened with noise. The divergence may become explosive. One would think that a physicist would be keenly aware of it.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  186. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @snorlax

    Not necessarily in conflict with your characterization, but from what I’ve read it seems that the Nazis believed their own propaganda that the Jews, as a sort of collective hivemind, secretly controlled the Soviets and Anglo-Americans.

    Who in their right mind would ever think that Jews have significant influence in the United States?

    Therefore, they thought by taking Jews hostage, the Allies would be forced to sue for peace. Baffled that this did not occur, they, like bank robbers, killed the hostages at increasingly faster clips to improve their bargaining position.

    So the Germans surely made sure to advertise to the Allies this killing of hostages, right? And there’d be lots of documentary evidence of it, right? Because if the Allies didn’t know about it, there’d be no leverage.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  187. gcochran says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Falling anti-aircraft shells.

  188. gcochran says:
    @Nick Diaz

    Soviet Union did most of the heavy lifting, sure, but the Western Allies made a big contribution. More and more of the Luftwaffe had to be kept home for defense against air attacks, lots of 88s also. Plus troops that to be kept against a possible invasion, plus troops lost in North Africa and Italy, etc. Plus Lend-Lease. Plus the struggle in the Atlantic.

    By the way, having a a large industrial capacity did indeed translate into a large military industrial capacity, pretty rapidly.

  189. @Jack D

    Jack–the obvious–if you don’t agree with Nebulafox, with Hitler’s own pretty well stated goals, then what the heck was the point of invading the Soviet Union?

    The French and British declared war on Hitler, turning Hitler’s invasion/obliteration of Poland into a real World War. But the Soviet Union was a co-conspirator in the invasion.

    There are really on two plausible answers:

    1) That Hitler feared/expected the Soviet Union would attack Germany. Not ridiculous–but when revisionists bring this up it is pooh-poohed.

    2) Lebesraum. Hitler really does intend to grab up living space for the Germans in the East and at the very least turn the East into a giant German argicultural and resource colony.

    (Note: I’m not arguing that they were going to explicitly do X,Y or Z; exactly follow every paragraph and subsection of Generalplan Ost. That’s all subject to “events” and “whatever works”. But the general thrust was clear.)

    That Hitler has a serious bug up his butt with the Jews and–not inaccurately–sees them as at the vanguard of communist subversion, that’s a given. But that Hitler isn’t serious about lebensraum–colonizing the East either for slave labor or new territory for Germans–doesn’t make any sense.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Jack D
  190. Hank Yobo says:
    @Nick Diaz

    American forces were involved in the July 1943 invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky) and two months later carried the offensive over to Italy. Thus, they had thousands of troops fighting in Europe’s “soft underbelly” almost a year before D-Day.

  191. gcochran says:
    @Byrresheim

    No, he’s right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @utu
    , @David In TN
  192. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    The war isn’t conceived of as a simple “anti-imperialist struggle”. Both sides fought to maintain or extend imperialist designs, and accused the other side of being imperialistic.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  193. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @27 year old

    An interesting, if skeptical, analysis by commenter Kratoklastes:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-holocaust-denial/#comment-2488427

  194. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @gcochran

    No, he’s right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.

    Citation needed.

  195. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @academic gossip

    You can see the difference particularly clearly in their respective analyses of things Jewish. Steve has built up an insightful synthesis of many different threads, ending up with a pretty accurate and useful mental model of the Jewish Angle of our world

    What is Steve’s “mental model of the Jewish Angle”? I don’t think Steve has ever proposed any sort of model with respect to Jews. He writes about Jewish issues and figures, and he can be critical of Jewish figures, especially in the media and political punditry, but he doesn’t claim to have some theory that explains the “Jewish Angle”.

  196. @Anonymous

    Dude’s on his 4th marriage!

    Consecutive, or concurrent?

  197. @oddsbodkins

    The German Jews were the best, by a mile. They had imbibed the glories of German culture and done their best to make it their own.
    They were so enamored of that miraculous civilisation that they pondered its origins and began, particularly after the awakening of the German nation through the depredations of Napoleon, to so fully identify with it as to convert to its religious impulse, i.e. Christianity. The number was not great, but it was significant, which is to say that the Mendelssohns were not unique.
    All of this was destroyed (like everything else of value) by the defeat (of all of us) in 1918.

    Of course the “German” Jews were not confined to the bounderies of the Second Reich. The best of the Jewish families in Austria, Bohemia & Moravia, and Hungary are certainly worthy of being counted amongst them – and would have expected to be.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  198. @AnotherDad

    2. Japan deserved to be nuked.

    Yes. If they did not surrender.

    Did their women and children deserve to be nuked?

    Japan was the ideal country to demonstrate the A-bomb with minimal human casualties. The place is almost all mountains and forests, with the population squeezed into small plains near ports. Dropping the bomb on uninhabited mountainsides in view of large cities would have made the same point.

    You have to explain why 100,ooo more deaths would have made the difference when 1,ooo,ooo had failed to do so up to that point.

    And you still have to explain why Coventry was a war crime, but Dresden and Hiroshima weren’t.

  199. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hank Yobo

    So what did Germany do with the 2+ million Soviet corpses they had on their hands that winter?

    • Replies: @Hank Yobo
  200. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Camp inmates witnessed millions of Jews being put into gas chambers?

    Why is it that mainstream historians consider survivor testimony generally to be unreliable?

  201. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Imagine thinking that a corpse could be cremated with a single layer of wood, in an oven, much less on an open air pyre.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  202. @Buzz Mohawk

    I like Paul Giamatti but he is horribly miscast (along with many other actors) in the soso series Billions.

  203. @Nick Diaz

    Fact is, in 1941 America wasn’t “mighty “at all: it was a minor military power with a decent navy and that’s about it. America wasn’t even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World…
    but for all practical purposes America played only a minor role in the defeat of Germany.

    Seriously Nick, get a clue. Really this sort of stupidity is pretty much beyond words. At least bother to learn the basic chronology so you don’t utter nonsense like:

    When america entered the European war theater on D Day …

    Ironically your take here–”America, muh”–is the same as Hitler’s. He thought our joint was too racially corrupted (i.e. diverse) and so of no account. (Becoming more and more true, but wasn’t true then.)

    In contrast, a somewhat smarter operator, Churchill, heard about Pearl Harbor and was estatic. America’s in … we’re going to win.

    The bottom line:
    America out–The Axis probably should win.
    America in–The Axis is certain to lose.

  204. @syonredux

    Was the Japanese contempt for non Japanese (apart from Koreans) due to their own racial supremacist views built on their xenophobia and insularity as an island nation or was it in imitation of their German partners.
    Interestingly the Japanese surrendered to an African battalion under the British due to the belief that if they were killed and eaten by Africans, they would be shunned by their ancestors.

    As an aside, those who bore the brunt of defeat in WWII- the Japanese and Germans sure have some weirdass porn. Wonder if that has something to do with various repressed emotions about the war.

    • Replies: @DH
  205. @Ian M.

    De Niro and Pacino are both terribly over rated . They are memorable due to their iconic roles in some classics. But really they pretty much play the same character repeatedly.

    The only two movies I could appreciate De Niro doing something different and doing it really well were Taxi Driver and Once Upon A Time in America.

    • Replies: @Ian M.
  206. @academic gossip

    Perhaps Anonymous is taking Ron Unz’s own reporting of his IQ as 214 at face value. 214-70 is 144, which is about what I have always assumed Steve’s IQ to be.

    But if Ron is actually only at 180 say, then a 110 for Steve would be manifestly absurd.

    • Replies: @academic gossip
  207. @Reg Cæsar

    From a humanitarian perspective, I feel nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified

    1) The Emperor recommended mass suicide of the Japanese nation. This compelled many men to commit seppuku and many women calmly walked into the sea with their infants .Not run, not scream hysterically but walked. Let that sink in.

    2) Not an insignificant number of U.S troops died in Okinawa alone. About 50000 casulties, including more than 10000 dead.110000 Japanese troops and perhaps equal number of civilians.

    3) An A bomb was useful to show Russia who was boss and prevent any further aggression and designs on its part

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  208. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    Bit of pilpul here. I’d take substantial amounts of real forensic evidence of death as proof. E.g., bodies or their remains, or proportionate amount of ash.

    But “missing Jews” is fairly lame. For one thing it relies on inherently dubious census figures (you couldn’t even get a count of American Jews based on the most recent American census). Further, it relies on the dubious idea that missing = murdered, something they won’t even allow for a run of the mill murder case in any proper, 1st world court (prosecuting a murder without a corpse, or sufficient parts of a corpse to prove death, or some other actual evidence that the supposed victim is actually dead, is basically a non-starter); never mind 12 million murders.

    Note that I am not denying anyone’s claim here. I’m simply accurately characterizing the claim.

    For all we know, the Soviets got their hands on them and disappeared them in Siberia.

    • Replies: @Hail
  209. @Reg Cæsar

    You have to explain why 100,ooo more deaths would have made the difference when 1,ooo,ooo had failed to do so up to that point.

    This is a good, legitimate point. And I’m not a knowledgeable enough historian to debate the issue in any great detail.

    However there is some evidence that this new form of warfare, allowed Hirohito to–against tradition–intervene with the cabinet and the surrender faction to gain a clear upper hand. If i remember correctly–don’t quote me, knowledgeable folks can comment–in the aftermath of that cabinet meeting, at least one and i believe a few of the hardliners went home and committed seppuku.

    And you still have to explain why Coventry was a war crime, but Dresden and Hiroshima weren’t.

    Who? Whom?

    They are all war crimes. Credit to Curtis LeMay that he was forthright about this.

    My take here is pretty straightforward:

    The Japanese made their play to acquire a resource and slave labor empire. It failed. In 1945 they–Japan’s military junta that was it’s architect–can either face that failure and surrender or fight on. But at that point, if you’re asking me as an American, who should die because the Japanese imperialists are fighting on? My answer is: Japanese should die rather than Americans.

    Combatants and non-combatants is generally a good distinction in a fight. But Japanese civilians–women and children included–are no more “innocent” than American boys. Neither of them started the war. If those Japanese civilians do not want to be incinerated–then resist, protest, stage a coup. Japan–Japanese policy–is ultimately their responsibility not mine.

    So yeah, chosing between the lives of American soldiers–innocent–and Japanese civlians–mostly innocent, but *of* and responsible for their nation–i chose the Japanese to die. The ultimate responsibility for their deaths rests with the Japanese architects of their imperial adventure and their refusal to surrender when defeated.

  210. @Anonymous

    The war isn’t conceived of as a simple “anti-imperialist struggle”. Both sides fought to maintain or extend imperialist designs, and accused the other side of being imperialistic.

    As i said, no one had clean hands.

    But the Germans and Japanese launched the war with clear imperialist designs.

    And it was resisted by the people of many nations who did not want to submit to their imperial designs–i.e. lose their nations. Sure there were a few nations like Britain, France, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, the United States, where either the Germans or Japanese invaded some piece of their empires. But it also includes honest legitimate distaste for expanding empire–definitely in the US, with the case of Japanese behavior in China and Germany’s occupation of European nations. And, of course, all these nations being gobbled up–Korea, China, Austria (mixed), Czechslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Vietnam … certainly felt their struggle was legitimate and anti-imperialist and victory “liberation”.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  211. @utu

    “Extrapolations from locally valid data are always tricky and usually unstable when burdened with noise. The divergence may become explosive. One would think that a physicist would be keenly aware of it.”

    You’re applying metaphors here, which is ok as long as one realizes that (in making this remark, I’m not implying, that you don’t).

    Except for that -

    - it’s much simpler to understand foreign failures than one’s own.

    If I may add one more thought:

    Since the neurotic defense mechanisms called rationalizations, for example, become less penetrable (=ever denser), the more material they consist of, those thinking of more stuff -maybe even about more subjects – than others are structurally more prone to rationalizations than the others.

    (Btw. – I did answer your modernity/postmodernity-question on Sunday evening).

  212. Would that Australian lawmaker have been okay if he called for an “operation finale” to end the immigration problem instead of a “final solution”?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  213. Again, you’re assuming dropping the bombs in the center of cities– on Christian cathedrals, for Christ’s sake– saved lives that dropping them outside and in view of those cities would not have.

    The easy way to find out would have been to try the less lethal method first. That evidently didn’t occur to anybody, after taking out a million civilian lives elsewhere in the country with “conventional” aerial bombs. (Aerial bombing of any kind hadn’t been around that long.)

    The other case you could make is that the use we made of them exposed us as at least as amoral as they were, and our claims to moral superiority were naught but hot volcanic air. That was probably true.

    As a future teenager might have written about a later war, “Genocide is painless, it brings on many changes, and I can take or leave it if I please.”

    At any rate, Truman said the buck stopped with him. Tell that to Lt. Calley., who was made to answer for far smaller sins.

  214. J.Ross says: • Website

    I have an idea for a movie, it’s called “Untersturmbannfuhrer Schmitt Eats a Sandwich.”

  215. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    I repeat my suggestion that you F.O.A.D. I’m not going to debate gravity with you either or whether the earth is round.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Svigor
    , @anonymous
  216. @Jack D

    Even with full cooperation of all the German troops, the logistics of exterminating a large nation on its own territory would be orders of magnitude more difficult than isolating and then killing the Jews. Killing 10 percent of the population to scare the rest into submission (while they wait for the Allies to win the war) is one thing, but a program of genocide and slavery would lead to total, implacable, endless resistance. Vietnam times ten.

    Thanks for the information from your father. One of the odd things about Holocaust revisionism is that it never bothers to account for the perfect consistency in all the thousands of camp prisoners’ memories of “selection at the ramp”. If something other than immediate guaranteed death were the destination of the un-selected, then in some percentage of the stories a prisoner would be separated from a family member (or someone they know) who was sent toward the presumed gas chamber, but later on meet them again or discover that they were alive. Unfortunately in the actual stories that never happens, the non-selected just disappear.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  217. utu says:
    @gcochran

    Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.

    Nazis did not use their high losses as propaganda tool. It was bad for the morale. The death tolls of city bombings were available only to the insiders.

    It is possible that the 25k number arrived at by German and British historians in the spirit of reconciliation to make Coventry bombing on par with Dresden bombing is too low.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  218. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry Baldwin

    Would that Australian lawmaker have been okay if he called for an “operation finale” to end the immigration problem instead of a “final solution”?

    Is the title Operation Finale a dog whistle by the filmmakers to their correligionists about the final solution to the White Gentile Problem?

  219. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    Who in their right mind would ever think that Jews have significant influence in the United States?

    Apparently you are confusing the situation in 1939 with (your imaginary view of) the situation in 2018. The fact that Roosevelt did not, even after being informed about the Holocaust, lift a finger to do anything about it (other than win the war, which he was trying to do anyway), may give you an idea about the influence of the Jews at that time. The Allies flew over Auschwitz-Birkenau and took photos but did not try to bomb or disrupt the death factory or the rail lines that fed it in any way – it’s not like it was a synthetic rubber factory or something that contributed to the German war effort.

  220. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Governor Jerry Brown of California lived like that most of his life till he finally got married in his old age.

  221. Anonymous[178] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    You are leveling one of the most monstrous charges imaginable against an entire group of people. You’d better be able to back it up.

    You must know that you don’t have much evidence for it. Otherwise, you would state it here. I can’t imagine it would require more than three paragraphs. You’ve been asked about as civilly as possible. (And it cannot be that the subject is too painful for you, as you regularly take the initiative in bringing it up here, even mentioning close relations of yours.)

    Bring the evidence and reasoning or cease the defamation.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Jack D
  222. Jack D says:
    @anon

    The Jews of Przytyk (including my father) were sent to other towns in March of 1941.

  223. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    The holocaust is for Jews, including atheists what the cruxifixion and Easter is for Christians and the battle of Karbala is for shiite Muslims. The big difference is that the Christians and Muslims commemorate their events a few days a year but the Jews commemorate the holofraud 365 days a year.

  224. Jack D says:
    @Old Palo Altan

    Conversion had some popularity among the most successful German Jews because it was the path to advancement and not (in most cases) because of any serious love for Jesus. There was a sort of glass ceiling for Jews which you could break by converting. They became Christians for the same reason that Elizabeth Warren is “an Indian”.

    But most German Jews didn’t feel it was necessary to convert – the joke about German Jews is that they were exactly like other Germans except that they went to church on Saturday.

    • Replies: @Ian M.
  225. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Puleeeeze! Had Roosevelt bombed the camps or the rail lines he would be villified as a partner of Hitler who bombed the camps and slaughtered helpless Jews.
    Bombing rail lines is pretty useless. Rail lines are very fast and easy to fix. Just put tracks, ties, gravel and workers on a train. Drive to the damaged section and it can be fixed in a day.

    During the civil war*, the Yankees had to destroy the train tracks continually because railroad tracks are so fast and easy to fix.

    Yeah yeah, I know it’s really the WONA.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Ian M.
  226. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    Most historians claim Hitlers invasion of the Soviet Union was for the oil, gasoline iron coal and minerals of the Soviet Union and slave labor

  227. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    I suspect that even if (God forbid) the German had won the war they would not have ultimately genocided the Slavs in the way that they did the Jews, to the point of extinction. As a.g. points out, this would have been a whole ‘nother order of magnitude (maybe even exponentially) more difficult than killing the Jewish minority. They might have killed the most pesky troublemakers, exiled others to an area outside the Reich and kept the rest as labor. Maybe there would have been a program to make the most loyal Slavs into “honorary Aryans”. (The Ukrainian nationalists got along swimmingly with the Nazis). It’s not like the Germans had enough of their own people to instantly populate all of Poland and Ukraine. Maybe in Hitler’s view, the German race would have filled up the East in two or three hundred years, the scale of time it took for the Americans to fill the continent but in the meantime they would have needed someone else to operate the breadbasket.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    , @gcochran
  228. I would deny neither that conversions were few, nor that they were not always disinterested.

    It is the second generation which shows whether the conversion has taken or not. Mendelssohn pere probably had little real faith, but his son Felix was unaffectedly pious, and learned too.
    Wittgenstein was a tortured Catholic, but a real one nevertheless.

    And since grace builds upon nature, I have no doubt that the more serious even of the first-generation converts died closer to their new beliefs than when they first solemnly professed them.

  229. @Jack D

    The Allies flew over Auschwitz-Birkenau and took photos but did not try to bomb or disrupt the death factory or the rail lines that fed it in any way – it’s not like it was a synthetic rubber factory or something that contributed to the German war effort.

    Pointless to bomb. The camps were an elaborate charade to obscure an atrocity that could have been accomplished in days. The camps probably prolonged the lives of the Jews ensconced within.

    I don’t understand the motives of the people playing up the decision to avoid bombing the camps or the rail lines that led to them. German soldiers, Wehrmacht or SS, had no issues summarily executing millions of Jews and other civilians using guns or whatever weapons were at hand without the roundabout legerdemain of camps.

    • Replies: @academic gossip
  230. @Old Palo Altan

    The guy who mentioned IQ might have been trolling, or not. There are no reliable IQs in that range (from standard tests anyway), especially childhood IQ, which is the only way to get absurd extrapolations like 200. Ability above, say, 3 standard deviations is better assessed by actual performance history.

    Ron was in a selective gifted-students program, won the Westinghouse competition back in the old days (minimum 140, very variable, some winners are a lot higher) and did well as a Harvard physics undergrad (guess 140-145 is required). He dropped out of his PhD program, receiving some sort of courtesy master’s degree, leaving no research trail to evaluate. So he did a bunch of things that reliably signal 14o+, but Steve must also be in that range.

    Ron’s math skills as demonstrated in the Hispanic crime, Asian admission, and Holocaust analyses, are far below what usually is left over after a youth full of upper tier physics training. Winging it based on a quantitative “feeling” or suspicion is totally in line with theoretical physicist culture, but his actual math ability has rusted more so than I would expect from people who had huge ability in the first place. On the other hand he does show undiminished tendencies, that he would call Jewish, toward hyper-verbalization, ambition, financial enterprise, ownership of media, political activism, argumentation, and “value transference” (he made his money on software to enable the mortgage bubble, cashing in just before the bubble popped). His academic history is also that of the stereotypical Jewish whiz kid, with the early accomplishment and Ivy League degree followed by graduate study in the most speculative and experiment-free part of theoretical physics (quantum gravity). I wonder if Ron recognizes the number of Jewish stereotypes that he embodies even as he argues that the true blood libel was against Gentiles. I say that as someone grateful that he has established a site for heterodox material even if some of it is completely insane.

    It seems to me that Ron and Steve have similar levels of underlying ability, with Ron better at math (in a striving ambitious Jewish verbal-derived way, as he might put it) while Steve is better at some hard to measure things like “noticing” but in the end actually posts sharper quantitative/statistical analysis, in addition to his other strengths.

  231. @gcochran

    “No, he’s right. about 25,000. Exaggerated by first Nazi, then Communist propaganda.”

    Yes, the East German Communist regime played up the Dresden bombing partly to counter the Soviet atrocities in 1945. Also a stick to beat the Americans and British with.

  232. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    The native indigenous Jews of the Middle East are the Mizrahi. They are not Sephardi who went to Europe with the moorish invasions.

    Persian Jews are not Mizrahi. They are a different group.

  233. Liza says:
    @syonredux

    You mean you believe the official version of JFK’s assassination? Jesus take me now – you are one rare bird, syonredux. Moi, I think that the government made the entire official story up out of whole cloth.

  234. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    There were also nationalists in Europe and Asia who were pro-Axis for anti-imperialist reasons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhas_Chandra_Bose

    Subhas Chandra Bose (23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945)[1][a] was an Indian nationalist whose defiant patriotism made him a hero in India,[2][b][3][c][4][d] but whose attempt during World War II to rid India of British rule with the help of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left an ambivalent legacy.[5][e][6][f][2][g] The honorific Netaji (Hindustani: “Respected Leader”), the name granted to him in the early 1940s by the Indian soldiers of the Indische Legion and by the German and Indian officials in the Special Bureau for India in Berlin, was later used throughout India.[7][h]

  235. Craken says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The A-bombs were necessary to end the war before the Soviets could invade northern Japan and split yet another strategic nation between the two Cold War blocks. The Japanese position had been hopeless for some time, yet they refused to surrender. How many do you suppose would have died in the event of a joint Russo-American invasion?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  236. Joe Walker says: • Website
    @Jack D

    So German-born Jews practiced cultural appropriation.

  237. Anonymous[157] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lurker

    The lack of documentary evidence wouldn’t mean that the wholesale slaughter of Jews didn’t occur, although it may suggest that the circumstances of the slaughter may have been different.

    If Germany was able to prevail in Europe, Japan was somehow capable of landing troops in California, and both countries were blockading America, what would have happened to all those Japanese in the internment camps? The American government identified and quarantined what it regarded as foreign hostiles just as the Germans and other nations did during the war.

    Sure, they were treated fine when the war was thousands of miles away and America was exporting food, but if push came to shove, if Americans were starving and blockaded, if domestic bases had to be abandoned in the face of an enemy offensive, the Japanese-Americans would probably have been slowly starved out and/or exterminated lest they serve as assets to their captors. Something similar may have happened in occupied Europe during the war.

  238. @Johann Ricke

    They did have some problems with SS in the Einsatzgruppen, never mind ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers, being traumatized. Things got messy at the scale they operated, and the soldiers were sometimes standing in pools of blood and guts. Combined with the shooting of women and children and people who looked or spoke German, it did affect morale for a considerable number of them, and Himmler became interested in alternatives to the mass shootings.

    Death camps were more impersonal and required fewer Germans per murder, which was useful for secrecy and made it easier to select personnel who were suited to the job.

    re: Rwanda, it was not a random uprising using whatever tools were available. The machetes were imported in the preceding year as “farm equipment” and distributed to the Hutu militias.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    , @Johann Ricke
  239. Jack D says:
    @Achilles

    The crematoria of Auschwitz ran on coke (coal), not wood.

    • Replies: @Achilles
  240. @Anonymous

    There are a few smart goys out there, you know.

  241. @Jack D

    The exquisite irony of the death camps is that an expensive and logistically-complicated method of large-scale massacre, created in order to obscure atrocity, actually became a bigger symbol of man’s inhumanity to man than numberless mass graves of Jews and other civilians who had been summarily shot, grenaded or bayoneted to death, whose only crimes were their ethnicity and their locations in the path of Germany’s advancing armies. There’s a lot of pathos to be derived from people who are rounded up and sent to labor and, eventually, death camps, because the process takes years. But very little from people who are just assembled, killed and buried where they stand.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  242. @jesse helms think-alike

    Kirk Douglas chiseled looks? Maybe if you mean “looks like he got punched in the face a lot as a kid.”

    Chiseled brings to mind prime Daniel Day Lewis or Jude Law. Actors who appealed to women, not men.

    Besides Mel Gibson does not have chiseled features and he became a star. Stardom has more to do with charisma and personality. And perhaps height.

  243. @Dr Van Nostrand

    So the end justifies the means?

    Congratulations. You’re Machiavellian.

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
  244. @academic gossip

    Yes. Bloodlands (https://www.amazon.com/Bloodlands-Europe-Between-Hitler-Stalin-ebook/dp/B00B3M3VE6) makes the point again and again that even the most hardened SS guys got tired of shooting defenseless civilians day after day. The death camps were much more efficient and more impersonal, though I’ll be the smell was pretty bad.

  245. @academic gossip

    They did have some problems with SS in the Einsatzgruppen, never mind ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers, being traumatized. Things got messy at the scale they operated, and the soldiers were sometimes standing in pools of blood and guts. Combined with the shooting of women and children and people who looked or spoke German, it did affect morale for a considerable number of them, and Himmler became interested in alternatives to the mass shootings.

    Considering that the civilian body count from the German death camps was actually lower than that from the traditional summary killings with far more efficient modern military weapons … Note that the numbers weren’t particularly large on a per soldier basis. The Mongols probably killed hundreds each because their troop numbers were paltry compared to the populations they conquered. Germany fielded millions of troops in Europe. They massacred an estimated 12m civilians in areas under their control. On a per soldier basis, that’s not all that many people, even if the death camps had not been ginned up in a misconceived effort to obscure the killings.

  246. IBC says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Hitler’s henchmen went through the whole rigamarole of the Holocaust in order to obscure what they did.

    Such as how the Nazis made use of the Swiss banking system to shelter stolen Jewish assets.

    The Holocaust was unique among atrocities – it (1) targeted a group living in territory under the ruler’s control that had offered no armed resistance, and (2) gave the targeted group no way to redeem itself, either by religious conversion or the pledging of fealty.

    But if the Holocaust was a unique case where there was truly no way out for the German and Polish Jews except death, doesn’t that suggest that for most of the rest of the 3,500-or-so-year-long history of Anti-Semitism, the physical persecution of Jews wasn’t fundamentally different from that of other groups? What eventually happened to the followers of Zeus and Zoroaster; the Huguenots or Tibetan animists after the arrival of Buddhism? How many Jews abandoned their old identities over the years, whether voluntarily or otherwise; and how was that so different from the choices other historical groups have faced? And didn’t the ancient Jews themselves, stone apostates to death?

    So I can see how that would have been a good way to put a dent in dissent, but it doesn’t seem all that much better than what other religious or political establishments have done over the years.

    It would be fitting if, in the future, as Israel is about to be overwhelmed by the invading Arab hordes on its borders, it lobbed a few dozen nukes at Germany’s largest cities as repayment for the German atrocities that caused them to have to return to the land of their ancestors,

    You still believe in “An eye for an eye”? And would you say that that’s more of a Jewish religious thing, or is it just a case of basic human instincts?

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
  247. @Jack D

    I suspect that even if (God forbid) the German had won the war they would not have ultimately genocided the Slavs in the way that they did the Jews, to the point of extinction.

    Germany needed the manpower because there would have been other wars to win. Japan, with 500m Orientals in its empire, would eventually have challenged Germany for the position of top dog.

  248. Achilles says:
    @Jack D

    The notion that the bodies of 6 million Jews and millions of others were cremated using precious coal is no more believable than that they were cremated using wood.

    As to the ashes of the Jews, the claim was made that they were transported to Germany where they were used as fertilizer in the back yard gardens of Nazis. Yeah, right. Lampshades, soap.

    If Jews had been the object of the Atlantic slave trade, we would all have to recite the creed that 50 million slaves died in the middle passage.

    The credible claims are bad enough, why must the most hysterical charges be enshrined as holy writ and enforced as blasphemy law?

    As with the slave trade, the actual facts are enough. Insisting on fantastical claims is not necessary to persuade reasonable, moral people of the evilness of slavery and the slave trade.

    That the Nazi regime was cruel, barbaric and deadly toward non-Germans and especially Russians and other Slavs and above all else toward Jews is indisputable. It is not necessary to take matters beyond even the outer bounds of credulity, if accurately conveying the historical circumstances were really the point of it all.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @anonymous
  249. @snorlax

    The Jews-as-Hostages-in-Hitler’s Mind theory is interesting, but I have a hard time evaluating it.

    If there was a hostage trade plan, did the Nazis ever get around to publicly mentioning to the outside world that they were murdering Jewish civilian hostages en masse behind the front lines?

    Did the Germans ever get around to informing, say, FDR that they were holding Jews as hostages and were willing to make a strategic deal over them by say trading the Jews of Europe for USA’s withdrawal from the war?

    Did Hitler just expect FDR’s theorized Jewish masters to do Hitler’s work for him by informing FDR of the logic of the situation?

    Did it not occur to Hitler that the Jews of America agreed, on the whole, with FDR’s strategy of crushing Nazi Germany as the highest national priority?

    • Replies: @IBC
  250. gcochran says:
    @fnn

    “startling claims” – nonsense.

  251. gcochran says:
    @Jack D

    With modern farm machinery, you don’t need many farmers.

    • Replies: @Lot
  252. gcochran says:
    @utu

    In this case, late in the war, they sure did [ Kershaw's 'The End', p 238-239.] Goebbels and other Nazi leaders used the bombing of Dresden to emphasize the need to fight on. I don’t think it worked: many Germans were petrified at what the Russians might do, but few worried about what the US or GB would do.

  253. MBlanc46 says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Then a large fraction of human history is immoral.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  254. @Anon

    Bombing rail lines is pretty useless.

    In “Lawrence of Arabia” the blowing up of rail lines in the desert looks spectacular, but it’s main effect was to force the Turks to repair them over and over at some cost. Lawrence tried to keep his attacks from getting too numerous because he didn’t want to cause the Turks to abandon their outpost in Medina, which would have saved the Turks a lot of resources.

    Yes, although bombing rail bridges is potentially useful. For example,the USAF tried to bomb a critical rail bridge over a canyon in North Vietnam from 1965 onward, but never succeeded in touching it until the introduction of smart bombs in 1972.

    The Smart Bomb Era can lead people nowadays to underestimate how hard it was to hit any one target from high altitude before 1972.

    One exception was that low level fighter bombers like the armored P-47 had a field day blowing up rail connections to Normandy in 1944, but that was because they had air supremacy and could fly low over the countryside and shoot and bomb infrastructure at their leisure. Auschwitz in contrast was far too far away from English air bases to allow that kind of tactic, so attacks would have had to come from heavy bombers at, say, 20,000 feet. So the chance of hitting any particular rail bridge would have been modest and blasting rail lines on flat land is easily repaired.

  255. Hank Yobo says:
    @Hank Yobo

    I don’t know. Perhaps they left them for the wolves or other scavengers to devour because the Germans considered their Soviet opponents to be Untermenschen and, therefore, not entitled to a Christian burial.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  256. @SteveSailer

    Another hostage theory of the Final Solution is that once the USA entered the war, the Jews lost their value as a bargaining chip and the order was therefore given to exterminate instead of holding them in ghettos and labor camps.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Chancellery_meeting_of_12_December_1941

    This refers back to a bit of iSteve/Unz/Holocaust intersectionality worth noting here: Hitler arguing the Zeroth Amendment in 1939.

    The discussion of extermination in Goebbels’ diary entry on the 12-12-1941 meeting refers back to the famous Reichstag speech by Hitler (30 Jan 1939) in which he threatened, as a “prophecy”, the annihilation of European Jewry in the event of a second World War. Today the speech is known mainly for that passage. But before getting to the prophecy at the end of the speech, Hitler argues for Zeroth Amendment and an admission of Jewish refugees to the USA. He says:

    1. The democracies are hypocrites for criticizing the Nazi treatment of Jews but not lifting a finger to help Jews if their situation is, in fact, so bad

    2. By their own logic the democratic countries (he means outside Europe, ie. USA and maybe Canada/Australia/NZ) should permanently accept the Jews under German jurisdiction as refugees.

    3. Hitler even sarcastically makes the argument that the admission of millions of Jews will culturally enrich the countries that take them in

    4. Due to their low population density and Germany’s high density, the democracies (i.e., USA) are morally obligated to take all the Jews.

    Zeroth Amendment, cultural vibrancy, obligation to take refugees. But in 1939 from Hitler!

    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Steve Sailer
  257. Ian M. says:
    @Dr Van Nostrand

    Agree on Pacino. I like him in The Godfather, but not so much in other stuff I’ve seen him in (he overacts).

    I like De Niro though; however, I do agree he plays the same character a lot (Casino, Goodfellas, Heat, etc.).

    But I think he’s done some memorable character roles too, at least earlier in his career. And I tend to appreciate his character roles more than the actual movies in which he plays them (Taxi Driver is a good example: don’t care for the movie much). Other roles of his that I think are memorable are Bang the Drum Slowly and Awakenings.

    • Replies: @Anon
  258. Jack D says:
    @Achilles

    It is so tedious (and sickening) to address this crap (and useless too – nothing is going to convince the deniers – their belief is theological). E pur si muove.

    But for those who are not insane:

    https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ab7-coke-coal-cremation/

    Regarding the use of coke, Henryk Tauber, a member of one of the cremation Sonderkommando in Auschwitz-Birkenau, testified, “…we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty bodies burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat. On occasion, when coke was in short supply, we would put some straw and wood in the ash bins under the muffles, and once the fat of the body began to burn the other bodies would catch light themselves.”[5] According to Tauber’s testimony, there was no direct correspondence between the amount of coke used and the number of corpses that could be burned. Once the fires were started, it did not take as much coke to burn more bodies.

  259. @Anonymous

    Jack D is under no obligation to list all his murdered family members by name because that would make it simple to dox his own identity. I strongly favor iSteve commenters taking steps to protect their own identities.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  260. @Steve Sailer

    Churchill wanted Auschwitz bombed but RAF staff told him the targeting was not accurate enough to justify the strike (also would kill prisoners, risk pilots and planes, divert resources from other fronts). Another thing is that Auschwitz was in the American air sector for purposes of bombing, and the US commanders were not as interested in bombing the camp or rail lines.

    The lack of targeting accuracy is also why we have all that film footage of Operation Tidal Wave. It took enormous numbers of missions to significantly damage the target.

  261. Jack D says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Germans believe that one should never use a simple solution when a complicated one will do. Anyone who has ever owned a German car will understand.

    But very little from people who are just assembled, killed and buried where they stand.

    I dunno – Babi Yar is pretty infamous.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    , @Kibernetika
  262. @Craken

    I never said the bombs shouldn’t have been dropped. I said they shouldn’t have been dropped on women and children.

    Reading comprehension has gone down the commode in this country since progressive education came along.

    But then, the bombs themselves were progressivism at its apex. Wonder what they have in store for <i?us. After all, we’re more deplorable than the Japanese ever were.

    • Replies: @Lot
  263. Achilles says:
    @Jack D

    That bodies were cremated in ovens is not in dispute. Many people died in these camps of disease.

    Many others were shot in the head by the Nazis (Aktion Kugel). The Nazis committed mass murder as a regular practice throughout their Eastern theater of operations, and not just of Jews. The scale of atrocity is, yes, sickening.

    But the claim of the Holocaust is that millions of Jews were gassed and cremated in these three particular complexes. To say that anyone who asks for convincing evidence of such an immense undertaking is insane or theological seems to have it exactly backwards.

  264. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s an honor to defame Nazis. I owe you nothing – visit Yad Vashem if you have any questions. Visit Auschwitz. Even an idiot like you will be moved. FOAD.

  265. Lot says:
    @gcochran

    My favorite part is:

    “was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans”

    How did making terms with Hitler work out for Czechoslovakia?

  266. @IBC

    But if the Holocaust was a unique case where there was truly no way out for the German and Polish Jews except death, doesn’t that suggest that for most of the rest of the 3,500-or-so-year-long history of Anti-Semitism, the physical persecution of Jews wasn’t fundamentally different from that of other groups? What eventually happened to the followers of Zeus and Zoroaster; the Huguenots or Tibetan animists after the arrival of Buddhism? How many Jews abandoned their old identities over the years, whether voluntarily or otherwise; and how was that so different from the choices other historical groups have faced? And didn’t the ancient Jews themselves, stone apostates to death?

    Pre-Nazi anti-semitism was just another in a long line of efforts by political sovereigns to limit the possibility of religiously-motivated sectarian revolt in their domains by enforcing religious uniformity. All it took to regain the ruler’s favor was conversion. Nazi-era Germany was unique in that it not only precluded conversion or a pledge of fealty as a means of regaining that favor, it prevented the targets of its wrath from buying their way into exile, as they certainly would have, had they been informed that the alternative was mass death.

    You still believe in “An eye for an eye”? And would you say that that’s more of a Jewish religious thing, or is it just a case of basic human instincts?

    Given the uncertainties of the next life, the principal one of which is whether it exists at all, it is best to exact revenge in this one rather than hope for divine retribution in the next. Besides, an eye for an eye isn’t so much a Jewish injunction as it is a Darwinian one. The burning question is whether the German state that has wrought such devastation on global Jewry should be allowed to outlive the Jewish state. If Israelis aren’t thoroughly cucked, the answer should be no.

  267. @Steve Sailer

    The Smart Bomb Era can lead people nowadays to underestimate how hard it was to hit any one target from high altitude before 1972.

    And it was often even harder to know what the target was. It was a source of humor in my old geography department when naive undergrads in other disciplines signed up for Interpreting Aerial Photographs, thinking they’d found an easy A.

    What they ran into instead was a brutally difficult C-.

    Everything looks the same from the sky.

  268. @Jack D

    I dunno – Babi Yar is pretty infamous.

    How many Babi Yar movies have there been? How many death camp movies? There’s a lot less room for story-telling when the encounter with German mass murderers lasts a couple of days. The emotional impact is of a bug splatting on a windshield.

  269. Beene143 says:

    Paul Giamatti is 25% Italian – so, are you counting 1/4s as Italian, too? Like William Forsythe?

    Buscemi is 50%.

    Character actorish Italians include Vincent D’Onofrio, Giancarlo Esposito (50%), Chazz Palminteri, Joe Pantoliano, Ray Romano, Gary Sinise (25%), Armand Assante (50%), Danny DeVito, Michael Richards (50%), Burt Young, Bobby Canavale (50%), Frank Grillo, Joe Pesci, Joe Mantegna, Nicolas Cage (50%), Zachary Quinto (50%), Charlie Day (25%), Jason Biggs, Jason Schwartzman (50%), Steve Carell (25%), Giovanni Ribisi (25%), and the late James Gandolfini.

    Chris Evans, 1/4 Italian, just saw his 1/2 Italian uncle defeated in the Massachusetts primary you wrote about.

  270. Jack D says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Especially if you have elaborately camouflaged your aircraft factory to look like farmland:

  271. Hank Yobo says:
    @Anonymous

    I don’t know. Perhaps they left them for the wolves or other scavengers to devour because the Germans considered their Soviet opponents to be Untermenschen and, therefore, not entitled to a Christian burial.

  272. IBC says:
    @Steve Sailer

    It would make more sense that the Japanese (who helped thousands of Jews escape Nazi-persecution to Japanese-occupied China, but who otherwise were loyal and enthusiastic Nazi allies), had a sense that sheltering a small Jewish population might prove politically or financially useful in negotiating a future settlement with the US or USSR, which I think was what they were realistically aiming for rather than a total American defeat.

    And the Japanese may also have remembered how useful the support of a certain, high-profile, international financier had been in their previous victory over the Russian Empire, which had paved the way for their expansion onto the Asian mainland in the first place (Not that that was Schiff’s explicit fault).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff#National_loans

  273. @Jack D

    The Babi Yar massacre did happen, AFAIK. Basing my statement on personal conversations with people who were much closer to the event(s) than we are today (e.g., local survivors from the area, and troops — mostly non-German (let’s say Volksdeutsche) — who were serving in the East).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  274. @Reg Cæsar

    The difficulty and inevitable ambiguity of IDing targets from aerial photos is a key plot point in an episode of the excellent UK police procedural cum historical series Foyle’s War that we watched recently. It had a character who was very much as you describe.

  275. @Steve Sailer

    In “Lawrence of Arabia” the blowing up of rail lines in the desert looks spectacular…

    Indeed it does. I had forgotten, but there is more than one scene in which the Damascus-Medina Hejaz railroad line is blown up.

  276. @Reg Cæsar

    It was a source of humor in my old geography department when naive undergrads in other disciplines signed up for Interpreting Aerial Photographs…

    Your post caused me to google the subject, and I quickly found a number of instructional videos on the topic, all of them from India.

    This tells me that it is highly likely that the labor intensive business of aerial photograph identification, at least on the civilian side, is beginning to get outsourced to India.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  277. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anonymous

    Imagine thinking that a corpse could be cremated with a single layer of wood, in an oven, much less on an open air pyre.

    Yes, that’s why the Vikings and the Indians always used industrial furnaces.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  278. Mr. Anon says:
    @MBlanc46

    Then a large fraction of human history is immoral.

    Hasn’t it been?

  279. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    Imagine thinking some historical event (that it’s very much in your ethnic interest to do so is just a coincidence, I’m sure) is as unassailable a fact as gravity.

    LOL.

    That’s not history, Jack. It’s religion. Not all of us share it.

  280. anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Epic. I wish I knew Mr Kratoklastes IRL. Jefferson said much the same as Milton of course:

    “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” — Letter to William Roscoe

    I presume the statues of Milton are coming down about now??

  281. anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    You see? Doubting muh holocaust narrative is equivalent to doubting gravity or that the earth is round–except that for one you can go to prison.

    • Agree: Svigor
    • Replies: @Svigor
  282. anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Straw man. No one said “List all of them by name.”

    The request was for any substantiation besides “Because I said so!”

  283. anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achilles

    The credible claims are bad enough, why must the most hysterical charges be enshrined as holy writ and enforced as blasphemy law?

    ‘Tis precisely the nature of a corrupt, calcified religion.

  284. anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hank Yobo

    Ahh. The Six Billion Wolves explanation.

    Something new every day it seems.

  285. anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @academic gossip

    Yes, and among many other things which need explaining, why the Nazis were so manifestly eager to have Jews emigrate when their secret plan was to kill them all. Which was it again? Can’t be both.

  286. @Jack D

    go fuck yourself, you and all the rest of the deniers

    +1

  287. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alfa158

    King John may have had light colored hair, but he and his siblings weren’t Nordic at all. Their mother Eleanor was southern French not Frankish German or Norman French from a long line of southern French Dukes.

    Their father Henry 2 was the son of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou from central, not northern or Norman France.
    So king John and his siblings were 3/4 French 1/8 Scots from Henry 2’s mother and 1/8 Norman English from Henry 1

    There is no record of the hair color of Eleanor and her sons. Supposedly the Plantagenet Count of Anjou brought red and blonde hair into the English Royal family

    Johns French wife Isabella is sometimes pictured with light hair but descriptions state she had black hair.

    There are pictures of John with light blonde browny, reddish and dark brown hair.

    Many of those pictures were made 100 and more years after the kings and queens died.

  288. @Reg Cæsar

    So you have no response to my point except personal attacks. I suppose this was expected. It is hard not to have strong feelings about dropping atomic bombs. For the record I loathe atomic weapons but we would have to deal with them and adapt accordingly

    Yes the ends(atomic bomb on a few hundred thousand) justifies the means( averting the potential and likely loss of millions of lives).
    There are no good or bad choices but bad and worse.

    BTW Machiavelli was not the monster that most people make him out to be.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  289. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ian M.

    I saw him as the Frankenstein monster in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. That was a different character from the usual.

  290. gcochran says:
    @academic gossip

    Killing a whole country wouldn’t be very difficult: civilians don’t have much of a chance against soldiers with modern weapons.

  291. gcochran says:
    @Jack D

    Same principle in spontaneous human combustion.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  292. @academic gossip

    Another hostage theory of the Final Solution is that once the USA entered the war, the Jews lost their value as a bargaining chip and the order was therefore given to exterminate instead of holding them in ghettos and labor camps.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reich_Chancellery_meeting_of_12_December_1941

    Thanks. So it was like I guessed: Germany’s disastrous December 6 to 11, 1941 led Hitler to tell his insiders on December 12, 1941 that they were going ahead with the final stage of the final solution, in which they would murder Jews not just in hot blood on the front lines of the war but would hunt down all Jews behind the lines (e.g., in Italy) and murder them in cold blood too.

    But that raises the question about the hostage theory: It was Hitler who declared war on the United States early on December 11, 1941, after which the US declared war on Germany. So Hitler blew up his own opportunity to try to get some military advantage out of his hostages.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Hail
    , @utu
  293. kihowi says:
    @Malcolm X-Lax

    That’s what “well documented” means. Don’t you holocaust deniers know anything?

    Anybody could just come up with physical evidence from the era. But could you get a documentary on Netflix? I don’t think so.

    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
  294. @keypusher

    If you don’t think evil resides like bacteria inside all of us, then you don’t know anything. You haven’t lived, or you haven’t worked inside any human organization.

    No matter what your referenced book says (and you don’t quote or reference anything from it) we who have lived and worked with others understand what Hannah Arendt was getting at.

    Watch out. Follow what is happening right now. White gentiles are now the victims, under attack from people who reside within the structures of our governments and corporations. If you are white, you should be especially concerned. Jews have no monopoly on the victimhood that many other human groups have suffered, and with which we are now threatened.

    Arendt was warning us about what is happening to us now.

    We are the new Jews.

  295. @Captain Tripps

    Thank you. Two important lines from this scene:

    John Adams: “Yes well, I avow to Your Majesty that I have no attachment to any country but my own.”

    King George III: “An honest man will never have no other.”

    Think about what this truth means today, in this country we inherited from John Adams and his compatriots. We are their posterity, referred to in The Constitution they wrote for us. Anyone here who has any attachment to any country but our own is NOT American.

  296. @Johann Ricke

    The burning question is whether the German state that has wrought such devastation on global Jewry should be allowed to outlive the Jewish state. If Israelis aren’t thoroughly cucked, the answer should be no.

    So Israel should risk as collateral loss all Jews in the Diaspora as well? Because they’re likely going down if Israel pulled even a limited Samson. Which would mean, according to your moral math, that a collapsing Israel should, at the very least, nuke the whole Western world.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    , @Johann Ricke
  297. @syonredux

    In the past 30 years, more people have worn the National Socialist military uniform, more banners with the swastika have hung on walls and building facades, than in the 1933-1945 period. Movie (((producers))) won’t let us forget. Ever. Ever. Ever.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  298. @Steve Sailer

    It was Hitler who declared war on the United States early on December 11, 1941

    Yes, but the US for all intents and purposes was already waging war on him. It was sending weapons without payment (Lend Lease) to his adversaries, and was shooting at German vessels in the Atlantic. Hitler believed that declaring war only made the US feel some of the pain (they actually sunk a large portion of the US commercial fleet in the following months), but it wouldn’t change the US policies.

    Basically, Hitler had hoped that by threatening to murder all Jews, he could make the US refrain from getting involved in the war. By late 1941 this policy had clearly failed.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Anonymous
  299. As a Midwestern Protestant Republican, I liberally worship the Jewish people. Thus I find many of the comments above to be anti-Semitic and offensive.

  300. Mr. Anon says:
    @Johann Ricke

    The burning question is whether the German state that has wrought such devastation on global Jewry should be allowed to outlive the Jewish state. If Israelis aren’t thoroughly cucked, the answer should be no.

    So, the “light unto the World” consists of gamma rays.

    Thanks for making that clear.

    And you wonder why people might not trust you.

  301. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @syonredux

    Apparently the Japanese troops were high on meth (a Japanese invention) throughout the war. They consumed the stuff like the Brits did tea.

    It would explain a few things.

  302. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    When super sonic airliners were declined flight faster than Mach 1 over American land, it was because, quote:

    Never would so many have suffered for so few.

    You see, the sonic booms would have blasted all of us, day after day, just so a small number who could pay the ticket prices could save a few hours from NY to LA — over the “flyover country” of ordinary white Americans. Our government still represented us then, to some extent.

    Think about this concept now, as American foreign policy, media, political movements, agitation, and on and on even to potential restriction of our free speech against foreign governments, whenever you read, see or hear about the complaints of so few — who have always historically identified with their victim status and whose literature tells them that we are less than they.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  303. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Milo Minderbinder

    The Germans had neither the resources nor desire to invade India.

    If they had invaded nonetheless they would have been on their best behavior, given their stretched resources and precarious position due to long supply lines back to Germany. (The Brits would presumably still control the sea.)

  304. @PiltdownMan

    This tells me that it is highly likely that the labor intensive business of aerial photograph identification, at least on the civilian side, is beginning to get outsourced to India.

    You’d think bombing targets in India would be identified by smell. But maybe not; everything there is buried in perfume.

  305. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    Hitler and other top Nazis gave clear advance warning that if the U.S. entered the war that this would result in the end of European Jewry.

    (Note that some people claim that this was a threat to deport Jews from Europe, not kill them.)

    In the summer of 1941 the U.S. de facto entered the war by agreeing to use the U.S. Navy to escort supplies to Britain and Russia. There was soon an undeclared quasi-war in the Atlantic between the U.S. and German navies, with mounting casualties on both sides. Hitler ignored this situation for several months but finally lost his temper and declared war in December.

  306. @nebulafox

    You’re right, Mein Kampf was one page that read “I don’t have time for the shit.”

  307. Liza says:
    @Anonymous

    I also have no doubt that some of those awful things were perpetrated by sick minds – being a camp guard is the type of job that attracts sick fucks who relish the notion of having life-or-death control over others

    Not just camp guards. Prison guards, police in general, and border guards in all countries, even the nice democratic ones, can be added.

    However, some of the guards in the German camps were not there voluntarily.

  308. @syonredux

    The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki precluded the need to invade the Japanese mainland, which was estimated to cause 1 million allied casualties and at least twice as many Japanese casualties.

    From a moral standpoint, I’ll take the former.

  309. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kibernetika

    No corpses have ever been found at Babi Yar.

  310. @Buzz Mohawk

    ” Getting up to leave, he told my friend, “Someday you are going to tell your friends that you had a drink with Al Pacino.””

    Did he say it in Soft Pacino Voice from the 1st half of The Godfather or Boisterous Gravely Pacino Voice from Heat?

  311. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Yes, that’s why the Vikings and the Indians always used industrial furnaces.

    With a single layer of wood? And that incinerates the entirety of the flesh, much less all the bone? Nope.

    Do some research on how much wood is used in Indian funeral pyres.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  312. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @gcochran

    Wouldn’t organisms that spontaneously combusted have been selected against a long long time ago? How much of a human body is water, protein, and bone?

    • Replies: @gcochran
  313. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:

    IIRC, one of the claims made by Solzhenitsyn in his ‘banned’ book is that the Soviet government evacuated large numbers Soviet Jews eastwards, ahead of the German invasion, in 1941.

    • Replies: @Hail
  314. Hail says: • Website
    @Achilles

    The most exhaustively documented event in history was probably the Vietnam War

    Good point.

    I don’t know who began to spread the slogan “The Most Documented Event in History” for something with so little of it (in key areas, none at all, of course, one core Revisionist argument). It really rings hollow for me, anyway.

    I’d love to see an investigative essay into the origin and use of this phrase, as part of the enforcement campaign for the “Big-H Holocaust.”

    __________________

    As for the Vietnam War:

    Say Vietnamese Communists controlled Hollywood and the media from the 1970s to the present. It’s really not that hard to imagine us all believing that the LBJ- and Nixon governments, via the Army and Air Force, committed genocide against the Vietnamese, at a historically unprecedented level. A steady stream of movies, two or three a year; news pieces that mysteriously always seem to pop up; regular extradition of increasingly elderly figures like Lt. Calley (My Lai); a Vietnamese Simon Wiesenthal (Nguyenthal) emerges and is praised universally for hunting down obscure LBJ- and Nixon-era bureaucrats now living in retirement in foreign countries.

    It’s all documented!

  315. @Ian M.

    This is in no way a denunciation of his acting abilities, which are (or were) very good, but Pacino was a right place, right time beneficiary.

    Isaac needs a role in a movie about a 2nd Gen Guatemalan crime family in the US struggling to adapt to a fast changing world.

  316. Svigor says:
    @anonymous

    A lot of this depends on personality type. Tell some people that doubting just this one small part of history lands people in jail, and they respect that history above all others.

    Tell people like me, and they’ll disrespect it more than any other.

  317. Hail says: • Website
    @Anon

    some idiot decides to revive the whole thing in the movies.

    This is nnot a one-off. The average number of major movies about the Holocaust, directly or indirectly, seems to be several per year.

    And I would also caution against your set up (“Just when the last couple of Nazis are on death’s door…”): The number of Holocaust movies has tended increased with time rather than decreased. Very few Holocaust movies were made in the 1950s or 1960s, AFAIK.

    We passed the “Hitler takes power ,+85 years” mark earlier in 2018, by the way.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  318. Hail says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    We have the eyewitness testimony of the people, especially survivors, who saw these things with their own eyes. That is all the evidence we need.

    Investigate this just a little more and see what you find.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  319. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    How does your comment relate to Jenner’s?

  320. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail

    Investigate this just a little more and see what you find.

    What would he/she learn if he/she did the investigation you suggest?

  321. Hail says: • Website
    @academic gossip

    now off the rails

    Off the rails socially, perhaps.

    Off the rails legally, yes, as Ron is now liable to arrest in Germany and many other countries, for the Crime of Denying the Holocaust. Quite a few have spent years in prison over this.

    But in what way is skepticism of the gas chambers off the rails logically, scientifically, intellectually?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  322. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    Basically, Hitler had hoped that by threatening to murder all Jews

    This theory would seem to hinge on Hitler’s having communicated various threats of this nature to the Allied countries and USA. Are there records that the Allies and USA were aware of having received such threats? Do you have citations?

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @reiner Tor
  323. Svigor says:
    @Anon

    I get the impression. Many people agree about the uniqueness of the Shoah because of confluence of factors. Ideology + Industry + Intensity. Usually, genocidal ideologies are hardly carried out to such scale. But there was industrial might behind the supremacist ideology of Germany. And Germans being Germans, when they got to doing something, they really did it. If Mussolini had called for genocide, most Italians would have been at the beach basking in the sun. Germans really get things done, good or bad.

    You mean ignorance + ignorance + ignorance. The death rate of the Rwandan Genocide HANDILY outpaced that of the shoah, and it was carried out by dindus, mostly with machetes. I think the Holodomor did, too (7 to 11m in a year or two, IIRC). So did the most intense phase of the communist genocide in red China. The Chinese exterminated the Dzungars and there are none remaining today. Shoah is fourth-rate to anyone but a Jewish particularist (Jews more valuable than mere human beings) or their stooges.

    The supposed industrial efficiency of the shoah is an absurd Big Media boob tube take. It’s for clowns.

    Soviet mass killings had elements of industry and intensity(under Stalin’s whip), but there was no ideology of targeting a race.

    Yeah, just an ideology of targeting one’s own kind, which is far worse. Like a mother eating her young.

    P.S., the shoah is supposed to have killed 6m or so non-Jews, targeting them for their communism, homosexuality, disability, etc. So the shoah wasn’t really about targeting a race. It’s also worth mentioning that Jews aren’t a race, and object when you call them one.

  324. @Nick Diaz

    “When america entered the European war theater on D Day…”

    The US entered the European war theater in 1943 with the invasion of Italy.

  325. Svigor says:
    @Lot

    Raped France? I managed to miss that bit. Elaborate?

    Invaded Poland? Where is the American pariotic duty to fight the Nazis for invading Poland, but ally with the commies for invading Poland?

    Massacred the Jews? That would be news to Americans in 1941, what with the shoah not starting until afterward. Not that there’s any patriotic American interest, either way.

    Terror-bombed the English? I seem to recall that it was pretty much a two-way street when it started. Afterward, of course, the Allies gained air supremacy, and their terror-bombings of Germany reached a total that made the Germain terror-bombings of England look like a picnic. Which sort of undermines any bloody shirts the English might wave in this regard, or others might wave on their behalf.

  326. Svigor says:
    @syonredux

    I seem to recall you making that argument vigorously and repeatedly, every time we discussed the War of Northern Aggression.

  327. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:

    The problem with holding Jews as hostages to U.S. foreign policy is of course that Jews weren’t running U.S. foreign policy. If they had been so, presumably the U.S. would have refused to support Germany’s enemies. Or else would have withdrawn from the European war when (1942) it learned what the Germans were doing, in exchange for them agreeing to stop it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  328. Svigor says:
    @syonredux

    More like 5 million plus Jews (I think that Hilberg’s estimate is about 5.1 million). And about half of them died died via mass shootings, not in camps.

    2.5 million is a lot of corpses in mass graves, or mass grave sites at least, if the Einsatzgruppen was nice enough to dig individual graves.

    You’d think a lot of them would have been found and very publicly documented by now. Ground-penetrating radar is great for this stuff.

    But there’s pretty much nothing along these lines for the world’s most documented event.

  329. Svigor says:
    @Anon

    As for committing suicide, it was a matter of honor. Some cultures are into noble death thing. Among Germanic barbarians, death was feared less than show of cowardice. Spartan mothers told their kids to come back dead than as warriors than alive as prisoners.

    It’s also a cultural projection thing. When brutality toward prisoners is your cultural norm, you assume it’s what you’ll face if you’re ever captured. Makes fighting to the death a lot more appealing.

  330. Hail says: • Website
    @Svigor

    JackD wrote:
    6 million missing Jews

    Svigor wrote:
    it relies on the dubious idea that missing = murdered

    Consider this:

    White non-Hispanic population of Washington, D.C. (U.S. Census)
    1940: 473,606
    1950: 510,000 [ca.] (‘Hispanic’ category not included; ‘Whites’ at 517,865)
    1970: 200,656
    1980: 164,244

    345,000 Whites of Washington, D.C., vanished between the 1950 and 1980.

    Where are these missing Whites?

    ____________________

    This is not meant to be insulting to anyone. It is meant to propose that showing population numbers between two fixed points, with no other explanation given could give certain false impressions. Very, very few of those 345,000 missing Whites were actually killed, 1950-1979; few were even assaulted or otherwise victimized; some fair number suffered property damage (the April 1968 riots destroyed or damaging thousands of buildings). We all know the story of what happened to these Whites; they left because they saw better prospects elsewhere and the political climate no longer suitable to stick around. There are certainly parallels with what happened to many of the Jews of Eastern Europe.

    Who would want to stick around communist Poland (or Washington, D.C.) with people who hate you glowering at you every day, anyway?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  331. Svigor says:
    @Lot

    In their defensive war against genociders, everything the USA and UK did was within their rights. You are being far too general. I qualified my statement as limited to patriots for a reason.

    Your “nasty stuff” generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    Your moral qualms don’t seem to have been shared by our grandfathers and their leaders, thank God.

    WWII was an aggressive war for the USA, not a defensive one. Certainly insofar as the European theater is concerned, anyway. And really, dropping two nukes on Japan and threatening full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland absent unconditional surrender is a pretty far cry from a defensive reaction to Pearl Harbor. Annihilating their fleet, taking control of the Pacific, and maybe reducing a few of their biggest mainland naval bases would have been more than sufficient.

    Your “nasty stuff” generality is also flawed, as our actions were far short of our enemies.

    And our enemies’ actions were far short of those of our friend and ally the USSR, but who’s counting?

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @gcochran
  332. Svigor says:

    And our enemies’ actions were far short of those of our friend and ally the USSR, but who’s counting?

    Of course, this isn’t really a fair comparison to make in assessing America’s behavior at the time, because when we joined the war in Europe in 1941, the shoah hadn’t even started, and our disproportionately Jewish-led friends in the USSR had already murdered over 10 million innocent civilians.

    • Replies: @Lot
  333. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    If you wanted to, it would be possible to figure out where the “missing” whites of Washington DC went – while the white population of the city was declining, that of suburban Maryland and DC was going up. But if you do the math, the 3 million + Jews of Poland didn’t show up anywhere else – if you look at all the possible destinations – the US, Israel, the Soviet Union, etc. then only a few hundred thousand survived and 90% did not. They didn’t just disappear from Poland, they literally disappeared from the face of the earth. Either they were murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators or they were abducted by space aliens.

    Denial is a human defense mechanism – when something is too awful to contemplate, one way of dealing with it is for your brain to shut down and just pretend that it didn’t happen. All those dead elementary school children in Newtown were just actors. Arabs didn’t fly airplanes into the WTC. Etc. So I understand where this impulse comes from (from a type of mental illness), but unless you can give me back my murdered family you can FOAD anyway.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  334. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    But in what way is skepticism of the gas chambers off the rails logically, scientifically, intellectually?

    Because the evidence is overwhelming that they existed. Because those who are maintaining that they don’t are not really interested in scientific inquiry but because they have some other agenda.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  335. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    Show us some of this overwhelming evidence, plz. I’ve never even seen a diagram of a gas chamber, despite asking for something, anything, over and over.

    Because those who are maintaining that they don’t are not really interested in scientific inquiry but because they have some other agenda.

    But pretty much the entirety of the shoah narrative rests on Jewish scholarship because Jews are only interested in scientific inquiry, and have no other agenda. This is buttressed by Jews’ unimpeachable honesty, on display in their sociological and political output – especially their great work on race-realism. Oh, and their even-handed approach to the Palestine-Israel dispute, free speech in social media, Trump, etc.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  336. Jack D says:
    @keypusher

    Browning’s work is NOT a corrective, but confirms Arendt’s basic premise. See his other book,

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062303023/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i0

    Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland

    Ordinary Men is the true story of Reserve Police Battalion 101 of the German Order Police, which was responsible for mass shootings as well as round-ups of Jewish people for deportation to Nazi death camps in Poland in 1942. Browning argues that most of the men of RPB 101 were not fanatical Nazis but, rather, ordinary middle-aged, working-class men who committed these atrocities …

    In real life, “monsters” don’t exist. Those who are responsible for the greatest crimes in history are just ordinary humans like those you see every day.

    • Replies: @keypusher
    , @nebulafox
  337. @Buzz Mohawk

    Don’t have cable, and I would like some clarification of the subtext in this scene. A lot more is being implied than said (brilliant acting and scriptwriting). Obviously, things are awkward when the U.S. has so recently gained its independence, and the king is trying to find out whether the US intends an alliance with traditional British enemy France. What else is going on?

  338. Hail says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer

    So it was like I guessed: Germany’s disastrous December 6 to 11, 1941 led Hitler to tell his insiders on December 12, 1941 that they were going ahead with the final stage of the final solution, in which they would murder Jews

    There is a serious translation problem with the contents of the Wiki article you cite. It is the kind of thing rarely challenged by those who do not read a foreign language; this is precisely the kind of case where reading sources in their original language comes in useful:

    The Wiki editor cites Goebbels as having written in his diary (in his usual emotionalized style): “die Vernichtung des Judentums,” but this is not the equivalent of the English expression “the annihilation of the Jews” (as given in the Wiki article) which, in English, implies physical killings.

    - Die Juden = The Jews
    - Das Judentum = Judaism; the Jews as a (meta)ethnic concept/unit; Jewish identity; also partially captured in the phrase one sometimes comes across, “Organized Jewry,” a term that does not refer every single Jew-by-ancestry on Earth, but more to a (sub-)group-identity concept.

    Cf. several threads, on the German-English dictionaries, on how to translate the term “Deutschtum” and “Germanentum” into English, with users proposing translations such as “Germanhood,” German identity, Germanism, Germanness, German heritage, nationalism, national traditions. Nobody in any of those threads proposes translating it as “the Germans” or “the German people,” a lazy translation at best (in the case of the Dec. 1941 Goebbels diary entry translation on Wiki, likely a deliberately misleading translation.)

    [Goebbels diary entry]
    Bezüglich der Judenfrage ist der Führer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er hat den Juden prophezeit, daß, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeiführen würden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben würden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen. Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muß die notwendige Folge sein.

    [English translation given on Wiki]
    Regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that, if they yet again brought about a world war, they would experience their own annihilation. That was not just a phrase. The world war is here, and the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence.[4]

    The revisionist position would be that Goebbels was speaking of the plan to round up, intern, and expel the Jews from Europe, rooting out Jewish identity from Europe. The Hitler regime’s pre-war plan to resettle the Jews outside of Europe — generally to destinations of their choice in the 1930s but with many ideas for a Jewish state on the table, the most concrete plan being using Madagascar as a huge Jewish Liberia — was largely on hold from the time of the Polish war crisis in Sept. 1939. Hitler from this time on often is heard saying the solution to the Jewish ‘Question’ was on hold until after the war. In Dec. 1941, victory over the USSR still seemed very possible; my understanding is the provisional plan was to defeat the USSR, decommunize it, and send the Jews of Europe east to a rump post-Soviet state. A lot of camps were set up in the east apparently for this purpose; it is proposed by orthodox Holocaust historians that this was a cover for killings at the transit/deportation camps.

    As for the Goebbels diary being proof of the Holocaust, anyway, they key (IMO) is the proper understanding of the word “Judentum.” If Goebbels was writing so boldly anyway about a giant plan for mass murder of millions, in his private diary, why did he write “Judaism” [Judentum] and not “the Jews” [Juden]? Goebbels was generally not shy about using the term “the Jews” (which is as blunt and borderline-offensive in political speech in German of the time as it is today in English), but here does not.

    ___________________

    Another problem is that there are no minutes of this Dec. 1941 meeting. (We do have the minutes of the bureaucrats’ Wannsee Conference of two months later, with the standing allegation being that they were speaking in code, as no direct reference to mass gassings or genocide is found.)

    It appears that all we have of the Dec. 12 meeting is the Goebbels diary entry (found and deciphered by David Irving, iirc, who claims he took two years to figure out how to read Goebbels’ indecipherable handwriting). Goebbels was always a dramatist, even bombastic, even to his own diary; this entry about the expulsion of Judaism [Judentum] from Europe is characteristic.

    Googling around a little, I see that Hitler used, in public speeches, similar-but-less-bombastic phrases as we see Goebbels using. Hitler used the phrase “…das Judentum aus Europa verschwindet” in a public speech in early 1942, “the disappearance of Judaism from Europe.”

    I’ll bet similar quotations, adjusted somewhat for scale, are be able to be found against the Japanese then-resident in America, by American figures, in 1942 at the very same time (though not from FDR himself in fiery public speeches; anyway, the Japanese were interned, of course).

  339. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    So Israel should risk as collateral loss all Jews in the Diaspora as well? Because they’re likely going down if Israel pulled even a limited Samson. Which would mean, according to your moral math, that a collapsing Israel should, at the very least, nuke the whole Western world.

    You think the world will rise as one to exterminate diaspora Jews because Israel launched against Germany (as well as various Muslim capitals) just before succumbing to the Muslim hordes? Good luck on that. Not that you couldn’t start your own one-man pogrom, of course.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  340. Liza says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Why on earth cast an Asian Indian as Eichmann????

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  341. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    This is exactly what all the apologists for radical Islam do – when the imam/ayatollah says “Death to America” he doesn’t really mean death to America. It’s just a figure of speech, etc. Guess what – they really mean it and so did Hitler and Goebbels.

    It would be fine and dandy to do all this hairsplitting of words if it never went beyond rhetoric, but once you are standing with the giant smoking pit before your face, whether it is Auschwitz or the WTC, it’s all academic.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Svigor
    , @Svigor
  342. utu says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Jews … as a bargaining chip

    In April-May 1944 Eichmann on behalf of Himmler conducted talks with the Zionists (Joel Brand) in Budapest and made an offer of one million Jews for trucks and other goodies. It was when Germany just got control of Hungary and 600,000 of Hungarian Jews after Hungary attempted to get out of being Hitler’s ally. At that time most of Poland in the pre WWII borders was still under German control. The Red Army did to begin its offensive (Operation Bagration) until the end of June that eventually destroyed the Army Group Center and moved the Eastern front to the Vistula river in Poland in August 1944 where it stayed till January 1945. This means that when Eichmann made his offer most of major Ghettos and concentration camps on Polish territory were still under German control. Yet, Eichmann offered only one million Jews, freshly acquired Hungarian Jews. The intention of the offer was to split the Western Allies form the Soviets and potentially save Germany from total destruction. So it was an important offer. If Himmler could offer all the Jews in the Solar System one may presume he would do it. But all he could come up with was one million. This means that 3 million Polish Jews and more Jews who were sent to Poland, Austria and Germany form other countries in previous years were no longer available in April 1944. Eichmann did not put them on the table.

    I think that extreme revisionists who deny the mass destruction of the Jews should think about the implications of Eichmann’s offer.

  343. Hail says: • Website
    @Jack D

    You don’t think it is worth understanding the meanings of words used? Or of other context?

    I am not sure if you read my full post there (a long one, I know), but a much better analogy to a present-day Islamist would be if you produced one who said “Death to Americanism!” and not “Death to America(ns)!” Do you see the difference? I do.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  344. DH says:
    @Dr Van Nostrand

    All weirdass porn is jewish. Make that all porn is Jewish. Period.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Rosamond Vincy
  345. @Dr Van Nostrand

    So you have no response to my point except personal attacks.

    What “attack”? I just pointed out the logic in your statement, without expressing judgment. And paraphrased a classic line from the late, great Florence King.

    For the record I loathe atomic weapons but we would have to deal with them and adapt accordingly

    I don’t. Inasmuch as they’ve prevented major wars between major powers, they’ve been a force for good. What I object to is targeting women and children with any weapon.

    Yes the ends(atomic bomb on a few hundred thousand) justifies the means( averting the potential and likely loss of millions of lives).

    Millions of such deaths didn’t change their minds in the previous year or two. Why would ten percent more have done so? It seems the nature of the weapon, not the death toll thereof, is what made the difference. And that could have been demonstrated quite vividly away from population centers. Eg. atop Mt Fuji:

    BTW Machiavelli was not the monster that most people make him out to be.

    I’m inclined to agree. I once drove 90 miles to see a rare production of one of his plays. You’re the one who took “Machiavellian” as an insult.

  346. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    The problem with holding Jews as hostages to U.S. foreign policy is of course that Jews weren’t running U.S. foreign policy.

    Oh? Who was running foreign policy then?

    Another problem with your comment is the implicit slander against Americans that it contains. American Gentiles would have responded to credible evidence of German attempts to exterminate Jews.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Anonymous
  347. Outstanding essay, Steve. I wish the students in my “film as literature” class could read your reviews. It’s like pulling teeth to get them to use a film as a pretext for saying something interesting about history, society, or whatever. You excel at this, unlike most other contemporary reviewers.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  348. Anonymous[373] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail

    “Death to America” doesn’t mean “Death to Americans” either.

    It probably doesn’t even mean an intention of literal “death” to the political entity or ideology “America”.

    • Replies: @Hail
  349. @Hail

    Actually, the simple explanation is Nazis are safe bad guys. You can’t use Arabs anymore.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel_Bad_Arabs

  350. @Liza

    Because he’s an amazing actor.

  351. Jack D says:
    @Svigor

    When you visit Auschwitz (which I would recommend for all Holocaust doubters, actually for everyone although I can’t say that it’s as much fun as Disneyland) they have on display a scale model of the gas chambers:

    By the way, the Auschwitz museum is run under Polish and not Jewish auspices.

    Here is the actual blueprint, found in Berlin:

    https://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/Tour/Birkenau/RuinsII01.html

    When I visited Auschwitz, I noticed that next to each guard tower there was a ditch with a little pipe culvert (which didn’t lead anywhere). I asked what it was for (I admit I was not thinking very clearly that day) the guide told me that these were bomb shelters for the guards up in the towers. If the bombers (which never came) arrived, the guards would huddle in the little culvert for safety. A thoughtful little touch – you wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt at Auschwitz!

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Svigor
    , @utu
    , @vinteuil
  352. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    If there was a corpse, all of this hairsplitting would fade away to insignificance, no? But oddly, no corpse. And no effort to find a corpse. And no talking about no corpse is allowed.

  353. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    Yeah but how did it work? This is the murder weapon in the most important historical event in the history of the universe.

  354. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    This all works great if you start by assuming the shoah happened as stated by orthodox jewish historians, and work backward from there. But if you don’t follow the shoah religion, not so much.

  355. Jack D says:
    @DH

    The Japanese have a long and distinguished history of producing pornography that is entirely free from evil Jooish influence. If you don’t believe me, plug the word “shunga” into Google Images (not safe for work).

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Anonymous
  356. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    What I gather from this is that there’s no hard forensic proof that the gas chambers existed. So the orthonarrative has to fall back on rather unreliable evidence, like testimony.

    Correct?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  357. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    Japs are world-class pervs. But despite Jap porn being ostensibly more perverted than Jewish porn, it doesn’t seem nearly as filthy.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  358. DH says:

    This whole tread seems to be a triangulation by Sailer to avoid being classified as a holocaust denier. The SPLC and ADL may not put that tag on him, but still he will be despised and attacked without much distinction.
    Getting some Pokemon points here is not going to work Steve. A couple of Jews might online sympathize with you and your civic nationalism, but that is it. Even those sympathizers when they have a chance show their true psychopath side demanding a preemptive Samson option on the Goyim. And the rest of your passive-aggressive jewish followers not so secretly support it too. A vomit of hatred that is hard to believe. But that is what they are.
    Not going to work for you Steve. If given a chance they will come for you, and your family too.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Jack D
  359. Hail says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    “Death to America” doesn’t mean “Death to Americans” either.

    Imagine if somebody translated that Islamicist slogan as to “Death to all Americans!” That is what the Wiki editor (or whoever it was) did with the translation of Goebbels’ (and Hitler’s) Judentum to “Jews.” Judentum does not mean Jews, it means something a lot closer to ‘Judaism’. That’s all.

    To shift the analogy to something fashionable today: Say I am against Christianity for x reason(s). If I get worked up and say “Christianity will be destroyed!” is it a call to murder millions of Christians? If someone wrote in their own language “Christianity will be destroyed,” and it is translated as (to the effect of) “Christians will be murdered en masse,” that is an obvious and frighteningly serious translation error, the kind of error that has started ethnic riots in places like India with many lives lost.

    Or, shift the analogy to Khruschev in 1960. What if we were told he said “We will kill all of you!” as he was banging that shoe, instead of “We will bury you!” There is always a linguistic gray area; it pays to be careful with translation.

    __________________________

    There is another small linguistic problem with this analogy to Death to America, in that Hitler and Goebbels and etc. else did not use the harsh and direct word ‘Death’ or ‘Kill,’ but often-metaphorical terms like “vernichtung” (a term carrying contexts of annihilation, destruction, abolition, demolition, elimination) and “ausrottung.” Why would this be?

    Here is Nazi racial theorist and intellectual Alfred Rosenberg when, at Nuremberg in 1946, a judge confronts him with ‘Ausrottung’ which the judge says is “extermination” (as will dictionaries).

    MR. DODD: Yes, very well. Did you ever talk about the extermination of
    the Jews?

    ROSENBERG: I have not in general spoken about the extermination of the Jews in the sense of this term. One has to consider the words here. The term “extermination” has been used by the British Prime Minister…

    MR. DODD: You will get around to the words. You just tell me now whether you ever said it or not? You said that, did you not?

    ROSENBERG: Not in a single speech in that sense [....]

    MR. DODD: [Y]ou have written into your speech remarks about the
    extermination of Jews, haven’t you? Answer that “yes” or “no.”

    ROSENBERG: I have said already that that word does not have the sense which you attribute to it. [....]

    ROSENBERG: I do not need a foreign dictionary in order to explain the various meanings “Ausrottung” may have in the German language. One can exterminate an idea, an economic system a social order, and as a final consequence, also a group of human beings, certainly. Those are the many possibilities which are contained in that word [....]

  360. @Anonymous

    That would be another problem with holding Jews as hostages and announcing to the world a threat to murder them all unless America stays out of the war: It would make Hitler look like a really, really bad guy in the minds of average Americans. So, they tried to keep the mass murdering fairly secret.

    This is not to say that the hostage idea wasn’t at times bouncing around in Hitler’s head, but it doesn’t seem to have been worked out very well at all. It’s almost like Hitler’s basic thrust was so he could say to himself, I tried to be a nice guy, but the perfidiousness of my foes leaves me no choice but … to murder all the Jews! Same with invading Russia. Morally, nobody should blame me for starting the biggest war ever because my enemies forced me to. But, at the same time, win or lose, I’ve always wanted to be remembered forever as the man who chose to start the biggest war of all time.

    • Replies: @Hail
  361. Svigor says:
    @DH

    If I may, I have a standard point about optics that I like to make. These are all distinct things:

    1. How your enemies characterize you.
    2. What you actually say and do.
    3. Other groups’ perception of your words and deeds.

    3 gets lost A LOT in these conversations. In my experience, the people referred to in 3 are much more meaningful to the people referred to in 2 than the people referred to in 1 are.

    IOW, sure, our enemies are always gonna call us nazis. But putting on a nazi uniform and goose-stepping around is a great way to get other people to believe the charge.

    Steve might just be worried about how “normies” perceive him, and not so worried about how Jews or a subset of Jews might perceive him.

    • Replies: @Hail
  362. Hail says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    This theory would seem to hinge on Hitler’s having communicated various threats of this nature to the Allied countries and USA. Are there records that the Allies and USA were aware of having received such threats? Do you have citations?

    There are no such records, of course, because no such thing happened.

    The whole bloated hypothesis displays telltale signs of the postmodern condition of Judeocentric WWII-Narrative-ensis. It is relatively contagious and is known to have often been spread through television screens. Its primary symptom is the delusion that WWII was a war all about Jews, in which Jews were the central figures of the war, in which a maniac named Hitler invaded a series of countries solely to kill their Jews. There is nothing more to know about the event known as “WWII.” That’s it.

    The most common variant of this condition in America is the belief that we demanded Hitler stop killing Jews, and when he refused, we stopped him by force, thus saving the world.

  363. Jack D says:
    @Svigor

    What I gather is that nothing would convince you short of being gassed yourself,

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @gcochran
  364. Lot says:
    @Svigor

    I agree with you my defense of US and UK bombing campaigns as morally justified does not apply to the USSR’s acts.

  365. Lot says:
    @Svigor

    “a pretty far cry from a defensive reaction to Pearl Harbor.”

    Once the war started because of the sneak attack, we gained the moral right to both seek an unconditional surrender to impose a liberal government, and separately to also obtain a fair resolution for our allies against Japan. This map shows Japan still occupied British, Dutch, French and Chinese territory in Aug 1945.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  366. utu says:
    @Jack D

    the guards would huddle in the little culvert for safety. A thoughtful little touch – you wouldn’t want anyone to get hurt at Auschwitz!

    Can you snap out from your Jewish hysteria?

    Tens of thousand of people survived Auschwitz and Birkenau. And each has a different story.

    Hundreds were legally released during the war after serving their sentences or due and intervention of their families. And Germans did not fear or did not care that the story of gassings and extermination would spread.

    There were cases of people who escaped and were caught and brought back and contrary to common beliefs were not executed but pressed back into the same work commandos they escaped from.

    Read memoirs of those who survived. Most of those memoirs are concerned with living and surviving and the extermination is mentioned in passing only.

    Many people survived because of Zyklon-B that was used to kill flea and lice. Many survived because they got medical help. Germans were concerned about epidemics all the time.

    The delousing campaign meant that everybody was running naked around when their clothings were in the delousing chambers. The delousing chambers have signs of Prussian blue on the walls till now unlike the gas chambers.

    People were fighting each other and making love and organizing resistance and showing exceptional feats of solidarity. But some turned into animals.

    Some were living quite well and even gained weight. And some were hoarding gold and jewelry.

    How was one’s life there? It all depended were you were, who you were, who you knew and what skills you had. And lots of blind luck.

    It could have happened.

    It had to happen.

    It happened earlier. Later.

    Nearer. Farther off.

    It happened, but not to you.

    You were saved because you were the first.

    You were saved because you were the last.

    Alone. With others.

    On the right. The left.

    Because it was raining. Because of the shade.

    Because the day was sunny.

    ou were in luck — there was a forest.

    You were in luck — there were no trees.

    You were in luck — a rake, a hook, a beam, a brake,

    A jamb, a turn, a quarter-inch, an instant . . .
    by Wislawa Szymborska

    One could make hundreds of movies about Auschwitz based on individual lives and each would be different. Yet all the productions we see are if they were generated by the same machine built and programmed by a caricature of Jew like yourself. That is your Hollywood.

    And if you want Disneyland you can find in Auschwitz as well. The gas chamber in Auschwitz I was significantly modified after the war. The chimney which is not connected to ovens was built after the war just for show and ovens where brought from somewhere else. This is the gas chamber that is shown to all tourists. Nobody knows how many people were killed in this gas chamber but the official number is under 10,000.

    And not far from the Auschwitz I gas chamber there is a swimming pool were some inmates actually did swim after work. Even Witold Pilecki mentions it in his report.

    There were SS guards who were punished for brutality and sent to the same solitary confinement in Block 11 where other prisons were sent to die. Some SS guards were sadists and some were OK and even liked by the inmates. At some point after some interventions in Berlin punishment and beatings were significantly reduced.

    Inmates were getting packages from home. Russians could not get packages. The regulations were changing but there at some point that were very small packages that one could receive daily. The reason was that Germans did not want inmates to hoard food and cause infestation so you were supposed to eat it right away. When Witold Pilecki escaped he took with him a jar of honey he had sent to him from home.

    Some inmates developed good bonds with their captors. The most astonishing is a case of Polish women ex prisoners of Ravensbrück who organized a successful escape from Polish prison in Cracow for war criminal Johanna Langefeld who was a high ranking woman commander in Auschwitz and later Ravensbrück. Rudolf Höss wanted to get rid of her because, I guess, she was too nice but Himmler overruled him. The Polish women saved her life by organizing her escape because she was facing gallows. They kept her in hiding (monastery and private homes) in Poland for several years until she could be smuggled back to West Germany. These Polish women did it during the post war Stalinist terror in Poland where propaganda was calling for German blood. A movie about these Polish women should be made instead of the usual Jewish schlock an schmaltz that comes from Hollywood. We goys want reconciliation and forgiveness. We do not want to be oppressed by Jewish never ending pedagogy of guilt and shame. We are tired of the Jewish crap and Holocaust pornography that come form Hollywood.

    And finally what are the exact numbers of those who died of typhoid fevers, hunger, brutality, executions and gassings in the whole complex of the archipelago of Auschwitz camps and subcamps?. The numbers are not really known and never will be known for sure. The official number of Auschwitz dead was already once reduced three fold. Is it possible that the new number might be reduced too? Absolutely. Unfortunately the Jewish ‘hysterians’ and Neo Nazi deniers make studying and research impossible. The idiots deniers want to prove that nobody died there and Jewish hysterians like Deborah Lipstadt believe that every temporary truth should be carved in stone. They deserve each other. I always suspected that the deniers and the stupid Jewish hysterians are in cahoots.

    In Birkenau they had chiseled out the ‘four million’ part from 20+ plaques in 20+ different languages already once. Prudently they did not carve in the new official number.

  367. Jack D says:
    @Svigor

    It seems to me that filthiness is precisely the quality that you want in porn. Clean porn is an oxymoron, like dry water or military intelligence. The secret to success of Jewish entertainment providers, indeed all Jewish businessmen, is “give the customer what he wants”.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  368. Jack D says:
    @DH

    Perhaps everyone sees what they want to see, like the blind men and the elephant, but I see no evidence that Steve is a secret Holocaust denier or that he denies the Holocaust at all.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @DH
  369. vinteuil says: • Website
    @Jack D

    So I guess you’d consider David Cole, with his estimate of about 3 1/2 million victims, and his skepticism about gas chambers at Auschwitz, a Holocaust denier?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  370. Jack D says:
    @Jack D

    I would guess however that he does not agree with American Jews constructing their entire identity around the Holocaust. And neither to do I, despite having a much closer connection to it than most American Jews. The Holocaust certainly happened and it was a particularly awful event sponsored by an advanced industrial country, but this doesn’t mean that the Nazis are coming to Great Neck or Brentwood any time soon. I don’t go around worrying about which of my non-Jewish friends will hide me because I don’t think that’s going to happen, at least not as long as white people are in charge of America.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
  371. gcochran says:
    @Anonymous

    It works like this: you have someone, usually fat, often with low mobility, falls asleep, usually smoking. Something, often bedding or clothing, catches fire, and the smoke suffocates the sleeping person. The fat melts onto the clothing, which acts as a wick. You get a very local fire, like a candle. Often there is enough fat to completely burn up most or all the victim, leaving only calcined bones.

    Anyone that ever grilled knows something about this.

  372. gcochran says:
    @Svigor

    “far short of those of our friend and ally the USSR”

    They weren’t.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Hail
  373. vinteuil says: • Website
    @Lot

    Once the war started because of the sneak attack, we gained the moral right to both seek an unconditional surrender to impose a liberal government, and separately to also obtain a fair resolution for our allies against Japan.

    By any means necessary? Including the indiscriminate nuclear annihilation of countless innocent women & children?

    What ethical theory are you working with, here? I’m genuinely curious.

    • Replies: @Lot
  374. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    Yeah but that’s because you’re a True Believer, and that’s the kind of thing TBs say and tell themselves.

    Fact is I don’t know. And such agnosticism is Heresy.

    Holocaustians are a cult of fanatics, many of whom want to harm and harass people for insufficient faith.

  375. Mr. Anon says:
    @Anonymous

    With a single layer of wood? And that incinerates the entirety of the flesh, much less all the bone? Nope.

    It wasn’t a single layer of wood. Not that I am interested in arguing with you; it’s probably pretty pointless.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  376. Svigor says:
    @gcochran

    Yeah, except they were:

    1. The Soviets got the genocide ball rolling (9-12m in Holodomor alone) before Hitler even became Chancellor.
    2. The Soviets killed a lot more civilians than the Nazis did.
    3. The Soviets killed their own people.
    4. The Soviets didn’t even have wartime desperation or fog of war as excuses.

    Unless you meant, with your vague comment, that the Soviets weren’t much in the way of friends or allies, in which case I agree and amplify.

    • Replies: @gcochran
  377. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    Jewish mentality, projected.

  378. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    I guess it all depends on how plausible one finds the idea of concentration camps full of obese 1940s people. Lean people to begin with, then put on rations for months or years…

    Presumably there are pictures of these camps full of gordos? Because I can’t recall ever seeing even one photo or reel showing a fat camp internee.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  379. vinteuil says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Wow. I have, from time to time, thought better of you.

    Turns out you’re just Wally’s opposite number.

    Yeah, I know – I should just FOAD. Whatever.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  380. Hail says: • Website
    @gcochran

    “far short of those of our friend and ally the USSR”

    They weren’t.

    I read “they weren’t” to be “they weren’t our friends,” meaning the USSR was an ally of convenience (true).

    If “they weren’t” implies a claim that Hitler’s crimes were “far greater” than Stalin’s, this is only defensible if Jewish lives are assumed to have more value than non-Jewish lives. That is, even taking the orthodox Holocaust narrative at face-value, there were far more victims of Communism.

    You might say “It’s not a total-numbers thing, it’s a genocide thing.” Stalin did that, too. Stalin’s open-air continental prison-camp had lots of small genocides, most of which we’ve never heard much about; because, hey, life is short and we need to focus on Jews, after all.

    (The ethnic-supremacism implied in this reasoning is rather disturbing…)

  381. @DH

    Donatien Alphonse François de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch? Whodathunk?

    They don’t look Jewish.

  382. @Jack D

    OTOH, if Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan take over….

  383. IBC says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Thanks for the response, Johann.

  384. Hail says: • Website
    @Johann Ricke

    [Germany] prevented the targets of its wrath from buying their way into exile, as they certainly would have, had they been informed that the alternative was mass death.

    Too much Hollywood. Seriously.

    Reality: The Nazi German government actively promoted emigration of Jews, and indeed most had emigrated by August 1939. Emigration tends to stop on national-security grounds when a large-scale, home-front war is ongoing (likewise, not many Japanese ‘emigrated’ to Japan from the USA from Dec. 1941 to August 1945).

    The entire point of the Jewish policy by the NSDAP and then the regime (from 1933) was promoting Jewish emigration (a coincidence of interests with the Zionists, it might be added), promoting a colonization effort analogous to the Liberia project undertaken by the USA a century earlier for freed Blacks, had the Liberia project had access to modern wealth and modern technology, had more Blacks been available (slave Blacks were not eligible), and had the U.S. been a dictatorship. At different times, it looked like this could be Palestine, but at least as equally proposed was apparently Madagascar.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  385. Jack D says:
    @vinteuil

    Cole is widely known as a “Holocaust revisionist” (or at least he was at one time under one of his identities). I don’t think it is controversial to say so.

    The operation of the gas chambers and crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau to murder those arriving by train after selection is widely accepted by all respectable historians. There is more than ample evidence for anyone whose mind is not already made up in advance. If you visit Auschwitz, the setup is perfectly obvious despite the fact that the Nazis dynamited the crematoria and gas chambers at the end of the war – they were in a big rush by then and did not do a good job in hiding their tracks. As I said before, my father underwent selection and saw (and smelled) the operation of the crematoria with his own eyes. I believe my father more than I believe Cole.

    As for the numbers, we will never have an exact count but Eichmann thought it was 6 million. Maybe he was bragging.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    , @BagelBasher
  386. Hail says: • Website
    @Johann Ricke

    It would be fitting if, in the future, as Israel is about to be overwhelmed by the invading Arab hordes on its borders, it lobbed a few dozen nukes at Germany’s largest cities as repayment for the German atrocities

    Pure madness.

  387. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    There were only 1/2 million Jews in Germany and indeed most had left (been forced out) by the start of the war. However, once the war began, and especially once Hitler invaded Russia, he found himself in the custody of a vastly greater # of Jews and no realistic prospect of getting them to emigrate in the middle of a war. So he chose another “solution”.

    • Replies: @Hail
    , @Svigor
  388. Hail says: • Website
    @Svigor

    1. How your enemies characterize you.
    2. What you actually say and do.
    3. Other groups’ perception of your words and deeds.

    Isn’t (3) set largely by (1) in certain cases?

    I do not know a more monolithic discourse in the West in our era than the Holocaust. Most people treat it with the reverence of old-time religion (reverence that few retain for our actual, nominal religion, Christianity); the high priests of the Holocaust are all in category (1) there.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  389. Jack D says:
    @Svigor

    You don’t have to be obese. Normal humans, especially women, are up to 20% body fat without being overweight. Was Tauber lying and why would he?

  390. gcochran says:
    @Svigor

    That’s on the high end for the 1933 famine, but numbers are very uncertain.

    The Nazis killed about 11 million civilians, probably more the the Soviets.

    The Soviets weren’t much as friends, but they made very useful allies. They dealt with more Germans than we did.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  391. Hail says: • Website
    @Jack D

    So he chose another “solution”.

    I believe we have numerous documents in which Hitler is quoted, even post-Barbarossa, as saying the full or “final” solution to the Jewish Question was to be postponed until after the war. As a temporary solution, he and his war-regime wanted to push them east, a policy that emerged with the war against the Soviet Union, which was making progress unlike the deadlock in the west with the problem of the British Navy.

    Here is a letter from Himmler to Gauleiter Arthur Greiser, September 18, 1941:

    The Führer desires that the Altreich [Germany proper] and the Protectorate [Czehcia] be emptied and freed of Jews as soon as possible, from the west to the east. It is therefore my intention, if possible this year, to initially transport the Jews from the Altreich and the Protectorate into the eastern territories newly incorporated into the Reich two years ago, as a first stage, in order to deport them still farther to the east next spring.

    We see many notes and comminiques from later in 1941 and 1942 in which Nazi officials ruling over the occupied territories of the western districts of the USSR protest the arrivals of so many Jews given the political situation and potential for partizan resistance.

    A main destination for these was Minsk (in German hands for exactly three years, Late June 1941 to early July 1944). Some camps, Treblinka and others, were set up as transit camps to get these Jews moving east. Treblinka was 700km east of Berlin, 100km east of Warsaw, and 500 km west of Minsk, so an ideal way-station for the thousands of Jews on the way to Minsk (of which we have documentation) in the wartime expulsion program then in effect. The orthodox Holocaust narrative on Treblinka alleges mass gassings occurred there.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  392. Lot says:
    @vinteuil

    I agree the Japanese children who died in WWII were innocent, but the moral responsibility for their death belongs to the Japanese government.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
    , @Svigor
  393. @Reg Cæsar

    Did their women and children deserve to be nuked?

    Why do you think deserts ought to determine what happens in war?

    Did the young Americans that died in WW2 deserve to die? How about the ones at Pearl Harbor? Did the victims of the atrocities of the Bataan Death March deserve what the Japanese meted out to them? Did the victims of the Rape of Nanking deserve the vicious and vile actions the Japanese visited upon them?

    Perform a simple thought experiment. Suppose there was no Atomic Bomb. Would there have been fewer or more Japanese dead? Will you say fewer, because Okinawa and Saipan prove you would be wrong. If you say more, then why are you complaining about the Atomic Bomb?

    In war, deserts and outcomes have no relationship. You want to take an ‘is’ and turn it into an ‘ought’ and Hume showed there is no path between them.

    The Japanese started the war. We finished it in a manner as kind and gentle as possible. And Japan has flourished in the postwar period. Your perspective is false, dishonest, and worst of all, pernicious.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Reg Cæsar
  394. @Nick Diaz

    America wasn’t even perceived as one of the great military powers of the World

    Thanks for demonstrating how breathtakingly stupid you are. Only a world class idiot would mistake being perceived as a great military power of the World for actually being a great military power.

    Once again, you remind us of the Leftist inability to reason, to think, or to learn from experience. And BTW, you have, all by yourself, disproved Darwin’s theory of ‘survival of the fittest.’

  395. Hail says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    one of the claims made by Solzhenitsyn in his ‘banned’ book is that the Soviet government evacuated large numbers Soviet Jews eastwards, ahead of the German invasion, in 1941.

    When was the banned book written? What was the title?

    FWIW, there appears to be a good deal more documentation of these forced movements to the east in 1941-2 than of the gassings at obscure transit camps like Treblinka in 1942-3. Look at the evidence. The gassing stories appear to rest entirely on the testimony of one or two alleged witnesses. (Their testimony generally lacks physical corroboration; see this brief overview [Youtube] of one of the forensic investigations, conducted in Oct. 1999 by a team of Australian specialists…)

    A general rule of thumb on the war is, the further east someone was, the less certainty we have about anything; the further west, the more certainty and documentation. We have the ultra-documented war years of Anne Frank there in the Netherlands, and we have essentially nothing on masses of Jews who were in Soviet territory. It is this lack of documentation that can lead people to either make up stories, or believe them, or spread them for black-propaganda (the three categories of person will have very different motivations).

    (Note, Anne Frank died of typhus in the last weeks of the war; the very disease the camp staff went at lengths to avoid at Auschwitz…)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  396. Hail says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer

    Morally, nobody should blame me for starting the biggest war ever because my enemies forced me to

    If Suvorov’s theory is correct, even partially correct, doesn’t this change things a bit? Surely history ought to be updated as new information becomes available and is evaluated; history ought not be stuck in a binary, black-and-white wartime thinking (Hitler invaded the Soviet Union! He is evil and must be stopped!).

    A version of the Suvorov theory was used, I would note, by German high-government defendants at Nuremberg; for people too young to remember the era, which will be something easily over 99% of us reading this in 2018, the war was not all about Jews (not even primarily about Jews, not even close…); in fact, neither were the Nuremberg Trials; Jewish matters made up but a small part of Nuremberg. The main charge against the German leadership was waging aggressive war. Their defense was that they believed the USSR was planning and actively preparing a general invasion of Europe. It didn’t spare them the noose, but that’s what they all said… Decades later, Suvorov comes out with military records that suggest maybe the Nazi leadership weren’t just making up self-serving lies after all…

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  397. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon

    From his own words:

    The method involved building alternating layers of corpses and firewood on railway tracks. Afterwards remaining bone fragments could be crushed by pounding with heavy dowels or in a grinding machine and then re-buried in pits.

  398. “One thing I should like to say on this day which may be memorable for others
    as well as for us honest commenters: in the course of my life I have very often been a
    prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it.

    Today I will once more be a prophet:

    If the international Denialist-Revisionist claque in and outside Germany should succeed in plunging the Sailer blog into an endless pool of squid ink, then the result will not be the Nazification of the forum, and thus the victory of weasels, but a site migration and the annihilation of Unz.com page views!”

    – speech to the Commentariat, 6 September 2018

  399. Hail says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Written communication (deliberations and decisions, instructions, approvals) would be essential to coordinate the government in such a massive, sprawling, risky, and efficacious undertaking.

    Here is what Raul Hilberg (1926-2007), orthodox Holocaust historian, author of The Destruction of the European Jews, has to say on the matter:

    “[W]hat 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.”

    Raul Hillberg, one of the Chief Rabbis of the Holocaust itself, claims it was all done by “mind reading,” you see. That settles it! No more need for any of that pesky documentation… It was mid-reading all along.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  400. vinteuil says:
    @Lot

    I ask again: what ethical theory are you working with, here?

    And I don’t ask idly. I’m currently teaching three sections of a course on ethical theory at small college in flyover country, and I’m interested in using your remarks as a real world example of an interesting but extreme position.

    • Replies: @Lot
  401. @Hail

    Good luck obfuscating the full quotation. Wikipedia gives an excerpt. The longer version is more specific about what Hitler had decided to do with the Jews.

    “Regarding the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that, if they yet again brought about a world war, they would experience their own annihilation [Vernichtung]. That was not just a phrase. The world war is here, and the annihilation of Jewry [Vernichtung des Judentums] must be the necessary consequence. This question is to be regarded without sentimentalism. We are not here to have sympathy with the Jews, but rather with our German people. If the German people have sacrificed 160,000 dead in the eastern campaign, so the authors of this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives.”

    The formulation with “Vernichtung” and “Judentums” is taken directly from Hitler’s Reichstag speech (30 January 1939) that Goebbels is recalling. For the Hitler speech analyzed alone in a vacuum, a weasel heavily invested in denying the obvious could of course play word games and challenge whether “vernichtung” definitely meant physical extermination. But Goebbels, whose German is probably good enough that you will not complain about his ability to parse the subtle, subtle shading of public genocidal death threats, didn’t have any problem making sense of Hitler’s words from 1939 and interpreting Hitler’s decision in 1941 as a fulfillment of that promise. He took Hitler’s prophecy to mean that Jews would “pay with their lives”.

  402. Lot says:
    @vinteuil

    “I’m interested in using your remarks as a real world example of an interesting but extreme position.”

    My position is extreme here on Ron Unz’s Happy House of Hitlerfan and HolocaustHoaxHalting, but perfectly mainstream in the United States generally.

    As for your class, there are plenty of published and better defenses of Hiroshima, Tokyo and Dresden than my comments. I recall plenty of them around 2005 and 2015 that expressed my sentiments better.

    But if I put anything in a simple and short form you find convenient to the class, please go ahead.

    I can’t answer your first question very precisely, I suppose “mainstream anglo-american christian popular ethics”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @vinteuil
    , @Ian M.
  403. Lot says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “I never said the bombs shouldn’t have been dropped. I said they shouldn’t have been dropped on women and children.”

    Hiroshima by itself wasn’t enough. And you think blowing up some uninhabited mountains would have done the trick?

    The price of marginal a-bombs at that time was also gigantic, and Americans were dying in the Pacific theatre at around 100 a day.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Reg Cæsar
  404. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:

    I can’t answer your first question very precisely, I suppose “mainstream anglo-american christian popular ethics”

    And these ethics supply what rule that leads to the judgment you have made?

  405. Anonymous[203] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    The price of marginal a-bombs at that time was also gigantic, and Americans were dying in the Pacific theatre at around 100 a day.

    No one was forcing them to keep fighting or to remain in the Pacific Theater.

  406. keypusher says:
    @Jack D

    I don’t want to fight with you, because we have one thing in common in this thread — we’re not Holocaust deniers.

    No, Browning does not confirm Arendt’s essay. It wasn’t just bad luck that Eichmann happened to wind up working for Heydrich at the SS rather than, say, Alfred Sloan at GM. He was an ambitious, smart, hard-working and deeply committed Nazi. Sometimes I get the sense he didn’t sleep between 1939 and 1942.

    And the point of “Ordinary Men” is not that anybody has the capacity for evil (who would deny that anyway?) but that ordinary German soldiers and police officers were all too willing to exterminate Jews (and others).

  407. @Lot

    Hiroshima by itself wasn’t enough. And you think blowing up some uninhabited mountains would have done the trick?

    You’re saying the holiness of the mountain is trivial, but the holiness of the Emperor is absolute. On what do you base that hypothesis?

    Wrecking Fuji-san might have worked the first time. That would have gained three days, and three hundred lives.

  408. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail

    When was the banned book written? What was the title?

    This is his two-volume book about Russian/Jewish history. It’s not actually banned, just unavailable in English.

  409. Anonymous[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot

    I can’t answer your first question very precisely, I suppose “mainstream anglo-american christian popular ethics”

    And these ethics supply what rule that leads to the judgment you have made?

    • Replies: @Lot
  410. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:

    The secrecy surrounding the death camps is because these killings were illegal. People will laugh at this, but the Germans took legality very seriously.

    The killing of enemy partisans, and of civilians who gave support and assistance to partisans, was in accordance with the then-accepted laws of war. The Germans weren’t at all embarrassed by the killings they committed on the Eastern Front because in their minds this was fully legal. This is accordingly the best-documented part of the Holocaust.

    Similarly, putting enemy and potentially disloyal populations in internment camps was not illegal. There was no secrecy surrounding the concentration camps. If inmates died of disease or malnutrition due to the dislocations and upheavals of war, well that was unfortunate but not the fault of the authorities.

    What WAS illegal was the killing of civilians or POWs who were not offering resistance or participating in war activities. Most European Jews came under this category. They were in places like Poland that were far from the front, and which were at peace with no partisan activity.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  411. DH says:

    Modern industrial scale porn is a Jewish business. Another reason Jews are despised.

  412. DH says:
    @Jack D

    Sailer is cleverly ambiguous about what he exactly believes of the holocaust, and what he wants people to believe he believes.
    The 6 million magic number? No way I would say. Why should he or I believe it when there is no evidence for that number? And when there are laws in Europe even forbidden to discuss it?
    I think those laws will probe to be worse for the holocaust narrative in the long term.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  413. Anonymous[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    What WAS illegal was the killing of civilians or POWs who were not offering resistance or participating in war activities.

    If it happened. What evidence exists that it happened? Where are the bodies?

  414. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Roosevelt knew what was going on by late 1942. He did nothing about it. Or rather, he took the view – which shouldn’t be casually dismissed – that the best way of ending the massacres was to defeat Germany ASAP. Entering into negotiations with Hitler to save the Jews never crossed his mind.

    What would he have done if he had been Jewish?

    (I know that many modern neo-Nazis claim that Roosevelt was Jewish. Did the actual wartime Nazis also believe this?)

  415. @Hail

    Hilberg is a leading Functionalist interpreter of the origins of the Holocaust.

    Functionalism vs Intentionalism an interesting debate:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism

    My impression is that the day after Hitler declared war on the USA, 12/12/1941, was the point of no return for the maximalist Holocaust, when Hitler told 50 top Nazis that he wanted the annihilation of the Jews.

    There had been plenty of mass murders on the front lines before then and pilot projects for mass murders behind the front lines before then, but they could have suspended the project for the duration, like they did with Generalplan Ost, until Hitler’s speech of 12/12/41. From then on, though, its full speed ahead for hunting down Jews everywhere behind the lines despite being obviously bad for the war effort.

    Hitler’s priorities appeared to be:

    1. Fight the biggest war ever
    2. Murder Jews
    3. Win the biggest war ever

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    , @Lot
    , @Hail
  416. @Hail

    Stalin would have loved to have conquered Europe, but, unlike the absurdly risk-prone Hitler, Stalin was super-paranoid and thus only planned to do it after Hitler got bogged down fighting the French, the way the Germans had gotten bogged down fighting the French in 1914-1918, and then after the German/Austrian collapse in 1918, the Communists had briefly staged revolutions in Hungary, Munich, etc. This time, the Red Army would be ready to roll when the Western Europeans had fought each other into the ground by, say, 1944.

    Marxism-Leninism predicted that capitalist powers like Germany and France couldn’t help going to war with each other and Stalin intended to wait until one or both were collapsing under the cost of a second Great War to march in and pick up the pieces from the exhausted combatants.

    But when Hitler crushed the French in 6 weeks in 1940, suddenly Stalin looked a right proper fool, so he didn’t want to hear anything about how his new pal Hitler was going to invade Russia. Why can’t we all just get along? was Stalin’s general attitude until about ten days after 6/22/1941, when the Politburo convinced him they weren’t going to shoot him and that they had to hang together or they’d all hang separately.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  417. @Johann Ricke

    You think the world will rise as one … good luck on that.

    I didn’t write “rise as one.” I imagine the reckoning would be mostly unorganized and not all at once. But a nuke attack on the center of Europe and other places would be a spell breaker of spectacular clarity. There would be an unstoppable wave of pissed-off goyim of various backgrounds who would act organically and close the book on ethnic Jewry as a going concern. So your silly Samson Option would be murder-suicide for Jews as a people wherever they are.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
  418. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Yes, this is exactly what Stalin did w.r.t. the Japanese. It’s a reasonable assumption that his intentions towards Germany were the same: maintain friendly relations with Germany until the Germans were worn down and exhausted, then launch a massive ‘stab-in-the-back’ surprise offensive when they were too weak to resist.

  419. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. Here I lived all these years believing that my grandparents and aunts had perished at Treblinka, but now I know that they are safe and living in Minsk. I am buying tickets today so I can go find them – they will be overjoyed!

    I am also going to fix that wikipedia page that refers to Treblinka extermination camp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka_extermination_camp and has all sorts of false details about gas chambers and so on. From now on, it will be Treblinka TRANSIT camp. I notice that there are lots of footnotes on that page and I suspect that they will want me to footnote my revisions too. Do you mind if I use you as my source?

    • Replies: @Hail
  420. @Steve Sailer

    Which meant that so many people were absent from the Front because they were running camps (or serving as extras in attempted morale-booster Kolberg), Hitler tried to get women, children, and senior citizens to pick up the slack in the Volksturm.

    The fact that he tried to win a war and annihilate Jews at the same time shows the same trait as his studying the Bayou tapestries for inspiration on the planned invasion of England. The fanaticism that made him so compelling as a speaker rendered him completely impractical as a military tactician. Dunning-Kruger?

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Jack D
    , @nebulafox
  421. Lot says:
    @Anonymous

    Normal people don’t have a bunch of written rules for ethics. If you really want some, check out the articles I referenced from 2005 and 2015.

    • Replies: @Ian M.
  422. Svigor says:
    @Hail

    Yes, sometimes it can be a fine distinction, but there usually is a distinction. E.g., it’s hard for them to show footage of us goose-stepping around in nazi uniforms if none of us are actually goose-stepping around in nazi uniforms. Obviously they won’t stop at using footage of feds or actors marching* but it’s still preferable to lots of us doing it for free, for various reasons.

    *Like the one guy who was at C-Ville who was carrying a swastika flag, and who just happens to be the one guy from that day who hasn’t been doxed yet, and nobody actually in the altright has a clue who he is.

  423. Lot says:
    @Rosamond Vincy

    Hitler was extremely confident. When he invaded France his generals told him to slow down the mechanized attack, let the soldiers on foot catch up, don’t risk getting ahead of supply lines. He was basically alone in thinking they should continue the offensive, but he was right. He surrounded the British and Dunkirk and moved toward Paris.

    After that, he was a one note leader: more offensives on every front! This was a disaster in Russia. He might have won Moscow and St Petersburg had he abandoned the Southern offensive. Once the tide turned, he might have focused entirely on attrition and defense, but instead more hopeless offensives that bled Germany dry.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  424. @Lot

    When he invaded France his generals told him to slow down the mechanized attack, let the soldiers on foot catch up, don’t risk getting ahead of supply lines. He was basically alone in thinking they should continue the offensive

    You’re wrong. The high-ranking generals and Hitler both wanted to stop the attack, only the supremely confident Guderian kept the attack going. Finally it was Hitler who – albeit indirectly – stopped the attack short of a total victory before Dunkirk, otherwise Britain would also have fallen. (Rundstedt wanted to stop the attack, Guderian wanted to continue in contravention of Rundstedt’s attack, and finally Hitler intervened in the sense that “Rundstedt is the commander, he is the one to decide when or whether to stop or resume the attack.” Basically, had he not done that, he could’ve won the world war.

    Anyway, if you’re interested, a recommended reading is The Blitzkrieg Legend by Bundeswehr colonel Karl-Heinz Frieser. Hitler didn’t really understand the operational plan and was as surprised by its success as anyone else. In retrospect he claimed to have understood and even to have invented it (and probably that’s how he remembered it), but his own ideas were (although superficially similar) actually quite different from the Manstein-Guderian plan.

  425. Lot says:
    @Steve Sailer

    “Hitler’s priorities appeared to be:

    1. Fight the biggest war ever
    2. Murder Jews
    3. Win the biggest war ever”

    Agree completely.

    Every once of his decisions from 1940 on is explained by this. As well as the hopeless offensives he kept ordering all the way until 1945.

    Point 1 is why he considered it treason to consider the really obvious step of attempting a separate peace with US/UK, even on heavy terms of completely abandoning Greece, France, Belgium. His non psychopath advisers all realized this was a better fate than complete loss in a two front war and Russian revenge and occupation.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Hail
  426. Svigor says:
    @DH

    Most self-respecting white men would shy away from aggressively asserting a narrative that’s enforced by tyrannical laws and institutions. I don’t think Jews really understand this.

  427. Hail says: • Website
    @Jack D

    I understand that you were born in the U.S. to Jewish parents of Polish(?) origin, who left Europe circa 1950. You have heard these kinds of stories all your life, I presume, and they are emotionally important to you. This is understandable. I do not wish to claim any specific relative lied or anything of that kind, nor to diminish anyone’s suffering.

    However, critical questions are worth asking (are they not?): Someone I think asked you this before, but how exactly do you know the fates of the relatives you allude to?

    I can show you documentation to the effect that Treblinka was designed as s transit camp; the allegation that it was a secret extermination camp and this is orthodox history today, it’s true. Look into the hard sources on that, not secondary re-tellings, but the basis of the extermination stories. If you dig deep enough, you see that Treblinka all really relies on a handful of eyewitnesses, with no other documentation or physical evidence at all. Eyewitness testimony is interesting, but for some, this is not enough — especially when their stories at times seem non-credible and they have incentive to lie and/or others, who curate their stories, have that incentive.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Johann Ricke
  428. Svigor says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    The Japanese started the war. We finished it in a manner as kind and gentle as possible. And Japan has flourished in the postwar period. Your perspective is false, dishonest, and worst of all, pernicious.

    I don’t think that’s true. I think we secured Japan’s unconditional surrender as mercifully as possible, but that’s pretty much Hell and gone from finishing the war as mercifully as possible, something I don’t think was even remotely a goal.

  429. Svigor says:
    @Lot

    I don’t buy this, either. Our demanding unconditional surrender from the Japs wasn’t writ in stone, morally or otherwise.

  430. @Anonymous

    Hitler publicly threatened with that much.

    It occurred to me recently that if there’s anything to the conspiracy theories surrounding it (unlikely, but not totally impossible), Hess’s mission might’ve communicated that much. But the very public threats might’ve been enough in Hitler’s mind.

  431. @Lot

    a separate peace with US/UK, even on heavy terms of completely abandoning Greece, France, Belgium

    There never was any chance to such proposals, the US/UK would never offered them, so Hitler and Germany were not in a position to reject those proposals in the first place. The reason why they were forbidden is because talks of a ceasefire agreement or “partial capitulation” in the First World War led to a complete collapse of morale and disintegration of the German military.

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Anonymous
  432. Hail says: • Website
    @Lot

    “Hitler’s priorities appeared to be:

    1. Fight the biggest war ever
    2. Murder Jews
    3. Win the biggest war ever”

    Agree completely.

    Does no one see the serious implausibility of this? It relies on a belief that Hitler and all the Nazis were non-rational, crazed comic-book villains.

    Do people really believe he would rather kill Jews than win the war?

    Think about this, now. Try to put on the non-Hollywood thinking cap.

    Every once of his decisions from 1940 on is explained by this. As well as the hopeless offensives he kept ordering all the way until 1945.

    Internal sources and the minutes of many of their meetings until late in the war reveal that Hitler personally believed the Americans would switch sides to fight Stalin and hold back the Red Tide, and never allow Stalin to annex half or more of Germany. He apparently believed this even as late as March and April 1945.

    Ironically, he was right about this, just with a time lag and with an underestimation of how much Washington wanted Hitler personally gone; there would be no fighting Communism until Hitler was either in custody or dead. His political analysis that Washington would ‘turn on’ its ally the USSR and stand against it resolutely (rather than fade into isolationism again) was, anyway, right, in geopolitical terms.

    His analysis which led him to believe in a last-minute, wartime turn against the USSR was a misreading of how the U.S. works, for sure. Americans don’t think like that. We believe in sticking to our commitments (unlike the Italians, who famously switched sides in both World Wars…)

    • Replies: @Lot
    , @Jack D
  433. Svigor says:
    @gcochran

    The Holodomor was but a fraction of the Soviets’ ultimate civilian body count, which was likely way higher than 11 million. Estimates of Soviet genocide tally’s range from 8 million up to 60 million, but tend to cluster around 20 million. (We can talk about inflated claims, but I think that’s at least as applicable on the German side of history as it is on the Russian)

    And if we’re using Lot’s moral code (TL;DR, it’s okay to kill 10m people in reaction to having 1m of your people killed), then Soviets striking first is key, and justifies much of what Germany allegedly did to prevent the Soviets taking over Germany and repeating their pattern of atrocities there.

    As for dealing with the Germans, that sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Better to have let the Nazis and the commies sort it out themselves.

  434. Jack D says:
    @Rosamond Vincy

    My father said that the guys that they had running his labor camp were not exactly crack troops – they were older men, guys who had been wounded at the front, etc.

    Nevertheless, by the end of the war, I had the feeling that the guys running the camp viewed their prisoner guarding duty as the thing that was keeping them off the front and were they not eager to be reassigned to combat duty.

  435. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    There were only 1/2 million Jews in Germany and indeed most had left (been forced out) by the start of the war. However, once the war began, and especially once Hitler invaded Russia, he found himself in the custody of a vastly greater # of Jews and no realistic prospect of getting them to emigrate in the middle of a war. So he chose another “solution”.

    How did he even know they were Jews? Surely they were clever enough to ditch any identifying material to that effect.

  436. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    (This is late, sorry, I’ve been having some personal issues offline.)

    It is true that the main gist of Generalplan Ost was to be undertaken over the course of a few decades after the war, but is worth pointing out they actually did, on a limited scale, attempt the beginnings of Generalplan Ost in the Hunger Plan. And if the Germans managed to take Leningrad and Moscow (the ideological centers of Bolshevism and Russianness in Nazi thought) in 1941, the result would have been clearly genocidal for the populace-the Army Command North communiques couldn’t be clearer about that. The Germans couldn’t have cared less that most Leningraders weren’t Jewish-that only meant they didn’t have to go to the trouble of specifically eliminating them as saboteurs preemptively.

    Look, if we were talking about any dictator-or any politician-other than Adolf Hitler, in the modern era, I would fully agree with you. But I do not think Hitler was capable, in terms of basic mental processes, of not attempting his plans in full rigor. He was capable of delaying them when it made tactical sense, because with tactics, he was endlessly flexible, or when he didn’t have the requisite control or resources needed. But he was not capable of altering them, let alone being cynical about them. Other people in the way of his expansion? He’d replace them. People in his government squeamish about what he was going to order them to do? He’d persuade, bribe, socially pressure, kill them, do whatever he needed. Races not fitting his conception of what they should be? He’d breed, fit, exterminate until reality fit his conception. He said it himself-he was not one for adjusting his ideas to circumstances, but circumstances to his ideas. And this was a guy who liked war to the point that he wanted nothing more than a perpetual war in the Urals to serve as a constant cauldron to improve the Nordic peasants he’d settle there. Vietnam x 10? Hitler would have *welcomed* that. He genuinely got his driving energy from chaos. The comparisons to Caesar, Alexander, and Napoleon miss the mark: in another era, Hitler would have made a fine Mongol khan, or more accurate yet, a pre-Acaemenid Assyrian warlord.

    Would it have been possible for Hitler to do what he planned to do? Probably not, for a whole bunch of reasons: not least because the system of government he had going on in Germany was going to implode sooner or later. But that wouldn’t have stopped him from trying: and he was planning for much more than just getting rid of the Jews. He would have unquestionably attempted to found his “Mississippi on the Volga” had he won the war in the East somehow, and that by necessity entailed the mass deportation/extermination of the majority of the natives, with a small amount left to be worked to death as slaves. The contempt for reality that animated Hitler was deeply embedded in his personality to the point that, if you take away this characteristic, Hitler would be such a fundamentally different human being that comparisons wouldn’t be germane. I’d also argue that if you took away his disturbed relationship with reality, he would have never achieved power in the first place.

    Hitler never conquered the USSR: that meant he couldn’t implement Generalplan Ost for the time-being. That’s why Backe’s Hunger Plan was, at least officially, abandoned. That’s why the mass starvation of Soviet POWs was ended. Hitler needed them for manpower with the war clearly not ending-how would the German factories, under increasing strain, cope with less supplies of forced labor? And where was he going to deport all the Slavs as planned, if the unconquered USSR stood in the way? Where would he get the manpower needed for the operations, with men busy fighting and dying in Rhzev? Etc, etc.

    The Holocaust, on the other hand, was achievable, at least in Hitler’s thinking.. That (and here’s where I’m not disagreeing with you), and he viewed the Jews as the primary, biggest threat to mankind rather than a bunch of useless obstacles to be exploited if necessary and removed if possible.

    >Maybe they really sincerely thought that they would do this when the war was won and maybe when the war was won they would have had another reason and another reason after that. Exterminating the entire population of Poland, who were after all white Christians (and many of them more Aryan looking than the Germans themselves) I think would have posed a major logistical/morale problem, including getting the cooperation of the German troops, that killing the Jews did not pose.

    I rather doubt this, because along with all the Ostjuden, the SS and Wehrmacht were capable of exterminating fully assimilated European Jews in the name of a perverted moral energy. Those that originates from Mitteleuropa spoke their own language, the older men would have fought for the Central Powers in the last war, and if they were from Germany proper, might have voted for Hitler in 1932 if he didn’t view them as a disease. There’s no question that encountering Ostjuden for the first time allowed for a desensitizing effect, but that was a desensitizing effect that applied eventually to Jews who fit the notions of what was civilized in German culture far more than mud-booted Slavic peasants.

    I don’t think the Nazis would have cared about the Slavs being Christian: especially considering that Hitler wanted to get rid of Christianity, too, after the war. But I think it is worth pointing out something interesting here: the invasion of Poland in 1939 was viewed with trepidation by most in in the German government (even if that was primarily due to the Western powers getting involved and a presumable repeat of WWI being viewed with understandable horror), and the atrocities against non-Ostjuden* being viewed with distaste-even if that distaste was muted-by army commanders and bureaucrats. However, things changed over the next two years in Poland: just as the cumulative radicalization tendencies of the German state under Hitler got more intense, there was also something of a densitizing effect on Germans who were stationed in the East. By 1941, mass slave labor, forced brothels, deportation, mass executions had just become normalized in a way they weren’t in 1939.

    (Who many German soldiers were encountering for the first time-the only Ostjuden in pre-Nazi Germany being immigrants in places like Berlin. And who, as you already probably know, more or less occupied their own seperate society in prewar Poland, in contrast to Germany. For many Poles or Ukranians or Lithuanians, Yiddish might as well have been Mandarin Chinese.)

    In this way, Poland kind of served as a vital stop-gap period. Throw in the fact that the USSR was a far more backward country on the whole (serving as a great backdrop for the “Asiatic Cossack horde” that had filled European thought as a whole about Russia for centuries) and that this time around, the whole German establishment was positively gigging for Barbarossa. Not the people themselves-they just wanted the war over with for the most part. But it did mean that the German government was ready to go to unprecedented steps and that people were more receptive to carrying them out by 1941: and this spilled over into treatment of other undesireables outside the USSR.

    I’m not denying that this hit the Jews first and foremost-that the Jews were a unique threat to the German people, that needed to be gotten rid of one way or another ASAP, was made clear in Hitler’s said and did. What I am saying is that the innately “self-radicalizing” nature of Hitler and the Third Reich didn’t solely hit Jews, and if we extrapolate to a successful victory over the USSR what happened in German governmental thought in 1941 after two years of running things in Poland, it isn’t hard to see them attempting Generalplan Ost. It would actually be necessary to have justified Barbarossa-and the way they carried out Barbarossa in not exploiting the genuine hatred felt toward Communism (though they did exploit the hatred toward Jews quite successfully-when it came to destruction, the Nazi bureaucracy was efficient. Governing, not so much. In this, it reflected its master.) in much of the Western USSR-in the first place, as AnotherDad mentioned. Hitler would have attempted it, damn all obstacles, moral or physical. That’s why the Soviets fought so hard: they quickly realized that Hitler quite meant what he said when he talked about a “Vernichtungskrieg”.

    Note that Hitler’s personal prestige-the lodgestone of his charismatic authority, to wax Weberian for a bit-would also have been completely undamaged if he captured Moscow and had Stalin hanged in front of the Kremlin before he blew it up. He wouldn’t have slunk off to East Prussia to play army commander for good and have Bormann hide him from the people and from reality. So, his influence, rather than being curtailed, would have been more intense than ever.

    Side note:

    I remember once reading a memorandum from the German high command in WWI about the treatment of Jews in the occupied East. I can’t recall exactly what it said, but it essentially stated something along the lines of “the Jews aren’t like the Slavic peasants in that they value education, they hustle like nobody’s business, they are thrifty and don’t just blow all their money on vodka, are very clever if devious, value culture, and they speak something akin to our own language. We could use them. They should be fastly civilizable. If they look filthy, lie, and steal right now like the Ostjuden stereotype, then that is a result of centuries of Russian incompetence and mistreatment, and will change with time.”

    So, more or less, they still viewed themselves as an old-style colonial power-but during this period, they viewed the people as redeemable, not just the soil. Stereotypes, sure, but far from genocidal, or even negative. I wonder what changed? Even Hitler himself probably didn’t become the anti-Semite that we knew him as until the war and the aftermath. The advent of “Judeo-Bolsheivism”? There was something deeper to the German-Jewish relationship (and the influence of the bourgeois culture of the Hapsburg Empire was critical here) that was lacking with other European nations, IMO.

  437. Lot says:
    @reiner Tor

    So you think if Hitler agreed to completely withdraw from every inch of land he controlled in the West, Norway and Denmark, Africa, and SE of Europe in 1942 or 1943, release all POWs, end support for Japan, etc, the offer would have been rejected? I don’t know for sure, but I think there would be a good chance of it.

    Certainly some of the German leadership thought a separate peace was possible, which is why they attempted negotiations and tried to kill Hitler.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  438. Hail says: • Website
    @Steve Sailer

    Hitler told 50 top Nazis that he wanted the annihilation of the Jews

    I am not aware of any defendant at Nuremberg corroborating this version, which AFAICS relies entirely on the pompous bloviator Goebbels’ diary entry.

    Each and every top Nazi denied any personal knowledge of any genocide plan — this despite the strongest incentive to cooperate to dodge the noose; a tactic some mid-tier official adopted in other contexts. Each and every top Nuremberg defendent said they’d never heard of the genocide plan before the International Military Tribunal told them about it; some insisted it was untrue; others said “it must have been others.” None claimed personal knowledge.

    The way you wrote that sentence I quote above is, strictly, incorrect in that your sentence is in active form: “Hitler wanted to [x]” whereas in the speech you reference and others, he always spoke in the passive, “[x] will inevitably occur.” Some might not see this as an important difference. I would.

    A comparable though much-more-trivial case happened a few weeks ago, in which the hapless ‘conspiracy theorist’ Alex Jones, another emotionalized political-diatribe-giver, said something like “the media is really in for it if they keep pushing anti-Americanism,” and then referenced battle rifles; he was accused by NYT or similar of directly threatening to kill members of the media. It is a small jump from that to “Alex Jones launched an active genocide-against-journalists plan.”

  439. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    .If you dig deep enough, you see that Treblinka all really relies on a handful of eyewitnesses

    The reason for that is that they murdered 99%+ of the people who arrived there. That there is even a handful of witnesses who survived is a miracle – the Germans intended that there be none.

    As for “knowing” the fate of my relatives, no one will ever know the exact details – dead men tell no tales. The Germans did not issue death certificates for those who were gassed. As someone else explained, they knew that what they were doing was illegal and that the usual bureaucratic rules did not apply. I know where they were living and that all the Jews of that town were put on cattle cars on such and such a date and none of them were ever seen again. From historical sources I know that the destination of the train was Treblinka. All the (reputable) historical sources say that they would have been gassed upon arrival. As a child I had fantasies that something else might have happened to them and that they somehow survived, but I understand now that this was just wishful thinking and that no survival was possible.

    After the war there were extensive efforts made to reunify the survivors, both formal and informal. My father’s brother remained in Poland in hiding throughout the war and when the war was over, he was able, without much difficulty, to find my father 1,000 km away in a DP camp in Germany. One of my aunt’s brothers ended up in Tashkent and the aunt in Germany and again they found each other. If any of the others had survived, they would have found each other too but they were never heard from. There are rare cases where siblings survived and did not find each other but in the vast majority of cases people found each other if there was anyone to find. But sadly there wasn’t in most cases.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  440. nebulafox says:
    @Rosamond Vincy

    I don’t think Hitler was incompetent, per se, as a military tactician. He clearly grasped a lot of things better than his generals did, above all the usage of tanks in France in 1940, and he realized that the USSR was going to be a much tougher slog than expected quicker than his General Staff did. He also realized that he couldn’t the win the war, in the classical sense that he planned, a lot earlier than people think. It’s also the case that his very “outsiderness” made him supremely effective when dealing with a situation amenable to that, as was the case in the West in the early phase of the war. He was able to view military tactics with a complete lack of bias and combine that with his ground experience from WWI.

    The generals after the war tried to have it both ways: they took credit for the victories and blamed the failures on Hitler alone. It didn’t work like that.

    But all of this rebounded when things got tough on the Eastern Front. Hitler’s strengths always relied on him taking the offensive. In a defensive war against determined opponents, his strengths-above all, his contempt for reality-rebounded against him and become weaknesses that made the effect of every loss even worse. And it just got worse and worse as the war went on. The fact that he was forcing himself into a lifestyle completely antithetical to his personality didn’t help matters in the quality of the decisions he made, as was his rejection (to the utter incomprehension of more reality-attached associates like Goebbels) to abandoned politics completely in favor of military command. Granted, Hitler probably also didn’t have delusions about the Casablanca agreement, unlike other Nazis-or he welcomed it, given his “superpower or Nibelungstod” thinking.

  441. Lot says:
    @Hail

    “Does no one see the serious implausibility of this? It relies on a belief that Hitler and all the Nazis were non-rational, crazed comic-book villains”

    Yeah, Hitler and most top Nazis were non-rational and crazed, or in a rational fear of the crazed ones in their totalitarian personality cult. And meth is a hell of a drug!

    As for comic-book villainy, if the HoloHoax isn’t enough for you, how about Hitler’s disobeyed order to blow up Paris’s patrimony before retreating? And then the Nero Decree that was disobeyed by Speer because it was… crazed irrational comic book villainy.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  442. Jack D says:
    @Hail

    Do people really believe he would rather kill Jews than win the war?

    I think that at some point Hitler must have realized that they were not going to win the war but at least he would have this great historic accomplishment of having permanently cleansed Europe from the scourge of Judaism under his belt and would be remembered for this rather than just as the guy who lost the war.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  443. @Lot

    Well, the collapse in the German military would immediately have been felt. It’d also immediately have boosted American and British morale.

    And yes, it’d have been rejected, if for no other reason, then because the war started for Poland, and so he’d have to have left Poland, too. It had no reality.

    some of the German leadership thought a separate peace was possible, which is why they attempted negotiations and tried to kill Hitler

    They were desperate and Germany was losing anyway, so they felt they had nothing to lose. It was unrealistic anyway.

  444. @Jack D

    Exactly.

    Hitler probably would’ve let the Jews out if in some magical way it was going to win him the war. But he realized he had already burned his bridges even before he started murdering the Jews en mass, so why not go full in?

    • Replies: @Lot
  445. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    >In real life, “monsters” don’t exist. Those who are responsible for the greatest crimes in history are just ordinary humans like those you see every day.

    That’s what makes them interesting.

    Guys like Hitler-truly pathological figures who slipped early in life, got steadily more and more isolated, and now are trapped by their own negative impulses, a la Dostoevsky’s Underground Man-are going to exist on the fringes of society, any society. A select few will be high-functioning enough that in times of great upheaval, they can get somewhere. There’s nothing to be done about that, sadly. But most of the top Nazis-let alone the rank and file-did not fit this profile in the slightest. Same with most other dictators in history themselves. In another time and another place, they’d be selling wine or signing paperwork in an office somewhere, and they’d probably your next-door neighbor planting flowers and whose kids might be dating yours, or who might teach you at school, or whatever.

    When you give humans unbridled power and ideological mania… what we are capable of should profoundly destroy any sort of notion of unchecked, Whiggish progress that can be taken for granted. Flip side of this, though, is that humans are also capable of the most amazingly positive things. I can’t help but think there’s some religious significance in this very simple realization that one would think would be obvious to most people, yet somehow isn’t.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  446. @Lot

    Hitler and most top Nazis were non-rational and crazed

    They were more rational than you think.

    The irrational thing was the utopian project itself (basically, building a huge Germanic empire in just a few years of war), but it was actually more rational than the utopian project of communists (which was totally impossible; as opposed to the Nazi project, which was almost realized – basically it all depended on stopping the German Panzer divisions before Dunkirk).

    Otherwise, they were quite rational. You think that doing something bad is irrational, but it’s not. For example destroying Paris is not irrational – Hitler hated Paris anyway, he didn’t even like its architecture. (As opposed to Rome, which he spared, he explicitly gave orders not to fight for the city.) It didn’t help his position at all, but destroying the world as you are about to go down along with your empire and everything you hold dear is not irrational. Would the Samson Option be irrational for Israel? (Destroying Arab and perhaps even European cities while Israel is eviscerated by the incoming Arab armies…) I don’t think so.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  447. @nebulafox

    Guys like Hitler-truly pathological figures

    He was not “truly pathological,” though of course he was not totally normal either. He was quite decent to those who were close to him. When his secretary’s husband, an SS soldier, fell on the front, he insisted on personally informing her. He got very nervous and the task was visibly uncomfortable to him (as would be to any of us, having to tell some terrible news to a close acquaintance), and so his subordinates offered to relieve him of it – there were dozens of officers who would inform her in a professional manner. However, Hitler insisted that letting some faceless officer inform her would be a very rude way to do it, so he told her when they met. This shows a number of things – for example that he was not psychopathic. He cared for those he liked (and he must’ve felt responsible for the death of the SS soldier – he must’ve known he started the war, and as supreme commander, was responsible for the losses). He also felt responsibility. For example he complained in February 1945 to his doctor about being unable to sleep. Whenever he closed his eyes, he could see a map of Stalingrad with all the divisions and battalions there. Three years after the event! It must’ve haunted him how magnificently he screwed things up. This is quite unlike psychopaths, who generally don’t have regrets and don’t worry much about the future either.

    It’s easy to think that Hitler was a truly pathological figure, but he was probably closer to normal people than most superficial students of history think.

    • Replies: @Lot
  448. @Hail

    If you dig deep enough, you see that Treblinka all really relies on a handful of eyewitnesses, with no other documentation or physical evidence at all.

    Odin forbid that this should ever happen, but if this country is ever conquered by a foreign invader (say “North Korea”, as a nod to the most recent iteration of Red Dawn) and if you and your entire town are ever selected by a new ruling power at gunpoint for extermination and put in the ground without so much as a by-your-leave, the odds are fairly good that there will be very few witnesses. It’s fairly hard to find witnesses for cartel-related mass killings in Mexico, and it’s not like any individual cartel is the totalitarian ruling class of Mexico, the way “North Korea” of the new Red Dawn would be.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  449. Ian M. says:
    @Jack D

    That joke would be better if it were:

    “German Jews were exactly like other Germans except that they went to church.”

  450. Lot says:
    @reiner Tor

    “He was quite decent to those who were close to him.”

    Except his “fight to the last man” orders than caused incredible needless death and suffering of those closest to him. He refused to make an honest woman out of Eva Braun until the day before their murder-suicide. One of his closest friends and supporters murdered his 5 children before his own suicide. They were deeply evil people on every level.

    “He wasn’t rude to his secretary” is the best you got?

    Hitler psychopathy denial is even dumber than holocaust denial.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @reiner Tor
  451. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    The reason for that is that they murdered 99%+ of the people who arrived there. That there is even a handful of witnesses who survived is a miracle – the Germans intended that there be none.

    Then why build the camp at all? How does a camp further that plan?

    • Replies: @Lot
  452. Svigor says:

    Except his “fight to the last man” orders than caused incredible needless death and suffering of those closest to him. He refused to make an honest woman out of Eva Braun until the day before their murder-suicide. One of his closest friends and supporters murdered his 5 children before his own suicide. They were deeply evil people on every level.

    Wouldn’t most Jews recoil from the idea that the Jews besieged at Masada were deeply evil people?

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  453. vinteuil says: • Website
    @Jack D

    Obviously, you’ve never read a word of Cole’s stuff.

    Yes, he’s a “revisionist.” But that’s not what I asked. I asked if he was a “denier.” Two very different things. Why confuse them?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  454. vinteuil says: • Website
    @Lot

    “mainstream anglo-american christian popular ethics”

    You mean, like, “turn the other cheek?” or “we are all one in Christ Jesus?”

    No – you’re quite obviously working from a nakedly tribalist ethical viewpoint.

    I actually have a lot of sympathy for that.

  455. Jack D says:
    @vinteuil

    So I gather that if you deny 1/2 the Holocaust you’re a revisionist and if you deny the whole thing, then you are a denier. I don’t doubt any part of the widely accepted account, I see no reason to doubt it (first and foremost because it really happened). I don’t really understand why people are so invested in denying all or any part of it, except for either sick or anti-Semitic reasons. Are they worried about hurting Nazi’s feelings? Slandering the memory of Hitler? No one denies Hiroshima, no one denies the Civil War, why is this the one event in history that is subject to denial?

    • Replies: @DH
    , @vinteuil
    , @Svigor
    , @Svigor
    , @Svigor
    , @HA
  456. Jack D says:
    @Johann Ricke

    In the 2014 mass killing of 43 Mexican students, only 2 sets of remains have been identified. The other 41 remain “missing”. Perhaps they are living in Minsk along with the rest of my family.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Iguala_mass_kidnapping#Identification_of_the_students

    • Replies: @Svigor
  457. Jack D says:
    @Lot

    You know, not many people knew it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  458. @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Your perspective is false, dishonest, and worst of all, pernicious.

    In other words, too Christian. Just war philosophy and all that.

  459. @reiner Tor

    Hitler and most top Nazis were non-rational and crazed

    They were more rational than you think.

    As Chesterton said, the madman’s problem is not a lack of reason, but a lack of anything else.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  460. @Jack D

    You know, not many people knew it, but the Fuhrer was a terrific dancer!

    Most homos are.

  461. DH says:
    @Jack D

    Looks like a 5/6 revisionist take is a good approximation to what actually happened.

  462. Lot says:
    @Svigor

    Treblinka was an “extermination camp” that killed everyone upon arrival. It housed only a couple dozen guards and slave-workers. So a very small complex compared to concentration camps that housed and employed tens of thousands.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  463. Lot says:
    @reiner Tor

    Probably that’s would be Hitler’s response to your hypothetical.

    But his actual choices were more like, “kill a half million more Hungarian Jews while reducing the probability of German victory by 2%.”

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  464. Ian M. says:
    @Anon

    During the civil war*, the Yankees had to destroy the train tracks continually because railroad tracks are so fast and easy to fix.

    In his personal memoirs, Ulysses S. Grant relates the following anecdote:

    [L]ike ourselves, the rebels had become experts in repairing such damage [to railroads]. Sherman… relates an anecdote of his campaign to Atlanta that well illustrates this point. The rebel cavalry lurking in his rear to burn bridges and obstruct his communications had become so disgusted at hearing trains go whistling by within a few hours after a bridge had been burned, that they proposed to try blowing up some of the tunnels. One of them said, “No use, boys, Old Sherman carries duplicate tunnels with him, and will replace them as fast as you can blow them up; better save your powder.”

  465. @Jack D

    Your father could smell with his eyes? Oy vey!

  466. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    But a nuke attack on the center of Europe and other places would be a spell breaker of spectacular clarity. There would be an unstoppable wave of pissed-off goyim of various backgrounds who would act organically and close the book on ethnic Jewry as a going concern. So your silly Samson Option would be murder-suicide for Jews as a people wherever they are.

    Actually, the white inhabitants of Europe would probably rise as one to congratulate every identifiably Jewish person they ran into, while commiserating over the destruction of Israel. The grievances of WWII run deep, and Germans are not particularly popular. The reality is that the Klan and the idea of white solidarity is a uniquely American phenomenon. Europeans are all white. The question has always been “whose solidarity?” When Germans answered that with “solidarity under the German boot”, non-Germans resisted, in a war that killed ~10% of the German population.

    They were fortunate that Yalta divided up the country between the Allied powers. If Stalin had gotten all of Germany, it’s possible that the entire country could have been made to walk to Siberia, killing perhaps 90% of them in the process. Except for a small fringe of Teutophiles, few would have shed tears over the removal of Germany from the chessboard.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  467. vinteuil says: • Website
    @Jack D

    I don’t really understand why people are so invested in denying all or any part of it, except for either sick or anti-Semitic reasons.

    OK, so I guess it’s either sick or anti-Semitic to want to find out the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth about The Holocaust – by far the most important event of the 20th Century, if not all of human history, as I’m reliably informed.

    I think David Cole has made an honest attempt do just that – and, my God, has he ever paid for it.

    Have you?

  468. @Hail

    Googling around a little, I see that Hitler used, in public speeches, similar-but-less-bombastic phrases as we see Goebbels using. Hitler used the phrase “…das Judentum aus Europa verschwindet” in a public speech in early 1942, “the disappearance of Judaism from Europe.”

    Well yes, he uses this phrase immediately after a reference to the them-or-us nature of extermination, and immediate before repeating (as Goebbels did) the exact bombastic phrase from his January 1939 “prophecy” speech, about annihilating European Jewry [Vernichtung des Judentum]. It’s almost as though Hitler and Goebbels considered that prophecy to be important, a specific promise to be fulfilled. Like Goebbels, Hitler helpfully follows that prophecy-repetition with additional genocidal threats to make clear what he means, thus making it much harder for denialist scum to play weasely word games about this later on. As a prophet, he must have foreseen the Internet age and did not want to be misunderstood.

    If Nazi apologist trolls nevertheless want to try and “historically revise” what Hitler said on that occasion, they don’t have much choice except to be vague about the date of the speech, omit the extermination and annihilation references, quote only the 5 words sandwiched in between that call for Jewry to “disappear from Europe”, and hope that everyone will take that to mean a relaxing getaway to the Catskills. Because the actual speech is pretty easy to understand once located:

    We see clearly that this war could only end with the extermination of the Germanic peoples, or that Jewry must disappear [verschwindet] from Europe. I already said it on September 1, 1939 [sic] in the German Reichstag…that this war will not end the way the Jews have foreseen it, namely that the European Aryan peoples will be exterminated [ausgerottet]; rather the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry [Vernichtung des Judentum]. For once all the others will not bleed to death alone; for once the ancient Jewish law will come into play: an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth.

    The Bolshevist monster, to which they want to deliver the European nations, will someday tear them and their people to pieces. The Jew will not however exterminate[ausrotten] the European peoples, rather he will be the victim of his own plot.

    – 30 January 1942, Hitler’s speech at Berlin Sportspalast

  469. @academic gossip

    How much sense does my guess make that Hitler was keeping his options open on how far he’d push the Holocaust until December 6-11, 1941, when the Zhukov’s counter-attack and Hitler’s decision to unilaterally declare war on the USA, meant that by 12/12/1942 he was all in on the maximalist Holocaust?

  470. @academic gossip

    How much sense does my guess make that Hitler was keeping his options open on how far he’d push the Holocaust until December 6-11, 1941, when the Zhukov’s counter-attack and Hitler’s decision to unilaterally declare war on the USA, meant that by 12/12/1942 he was all in on the maximalist Holocaust?

  471. @Lot

    His chances of winning in the summer of 1944 were already nonexistent. Reducing them by 2% was the exact same thing as reducing them by 100%, or as increasing them by 500%.

    I don’t think that the killing operations behind the front lines in the summer of 1941 reduced his chances much, nor the operations to kill the Polish Jews in 1942, and those are the only ones where you could still argue that he still had some chance of winning. They certainly didn’t reduce those chances by 2%, whatever that means. It was a rounding error, while a lot of resources were waisted on unnecessary things. (“A lot of resources” means less than 10%, but that’s already way more than what was spent on killing the Jews plus any benefits the Jewish labor might’ve produced.) For example Germany was producing fridges and luxury cars until 1944, totally unnecessary and they even reduced morale.

  472. @Steve Sailer

    That’s a mainstream opinion, one with which I’m in agreement, but there are historians arguing against it, downplaying the importance of those fateful events in early December 1941.

  473. @Reg Cæsar

    The utopian project needs to be put in context. Though it’s chances were slim, the utopia of the Germanic racial empire was almost created. It was a utopia which didn’t contradict human nature, in fact, built on some of our best and worst motivations.

    The utopia that Stalin and other communist leaders believed in was impossible to create, regardless of the number of military victories, because it was against human nature, so it was definitely crazier stuff than what Hitler believed in. Similarly, the idea of a multicultural utopia our own elites in the USA and Western Europe believe in is also against human nature and so impossible to create. Yet our elites believe in it, so they are that much crazier than Hitler.

    Compared to 20th century elites in Europe, Hitler was certainly crazier than the elites before the Great War, but he was less crazy than the later elites have been. He was in the middle, in terms of craziness, and he almost realized his vision, it only depended on him not stopping the Panzer divisions right before Dunkirk.

  474. @Reg Cæsar

    Millions of such deaths didn’t change their minds in the previous year or two. Why would ten percent more have done so?

    That’s the way morale goes. You’re trundling along despite hit after hit after hit. Then you can’t go on any more. We call that point the final straw. That’s why wars don’t generally go on forever. One party gets to a pain threshold beyond which it cannot continue.

    Re morality – our young men aren’t inferior cuts that can be fed without guilt into the meat grinder. A leadership that consigns these men to their deaths without doing the utmost to obliterate the enemy’s war machine, including both civilian or military components, that is converting them into hamburger, is as responsible for their deaths as the enemy. Our soldiers weren’t the warriors of old, who fought for loot and slaves among the conquered. They were just young men conscripted to do a job for peanuts. The only unfortunate aspect of the atomic program is that it wasn’t ready in time to use the bombs on German cities.

    In making decisions about whether to bomb enemy cities, war leaders have to decide which group is more important – their own soldiers or the enemy population. Truman decided in favor of GI’s over Japanese government officials, soldiers, defense industry workers and assorted civilians. And Americans are better off for it.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  475. Anonymous[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    Most or at least much of the old line smut-the Tijuana Bibles, 8mm and 16mm silent films, et al-was made by non-Jews. The porno business became dominantly Jewish after the late sixties when openly selling hardcore material became legal.

    I interviewed for a job as an install tech for a company that made coin op video booths for “jack joints”, as the adult book and sex toy places that had them were called. The owners were Jewish and when years later I met one of the former workers I’d met there-I knew him from hamfests and such before- he said that of the dozens of places they sold to most were owned by one of two people, both Jews. But they never had Jews running them, because they figured goys were less likely to figure out how to skim off profits. Most of the managers were lesbians, he said. I have no way to confirm this, but it makes a certain sense.

  476. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    It is so tedious (and sickening) to address this crap (and useless too – nothing is going to convince the deniers – their belief is theological). E pur si muove.

    Hilarious; you think you’re Galileo in this story. Truly amazing.

  477. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    I gather that you aren’t smart enough to distinguish between your version of logic, and the real thing.

    When I say I’m not convinced that Santa Claus exists, I’m not “denying” anything, except your assertion that you’ve made a case that he exists. This is how science works.

    Similarly, when a juror says he’s not convinced that a defendant is guilty, he’s not denying his guilt, but merely that the prosecutor made his case sufficiently. This is how the law works.

    Agnostics (heretics, in your parlance) don’t deny the existence of God, they simply aren’t convinced of His existence.

  478. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    I don’t doubt any part of the widely accepted account, I see no reason to doubt it (first and foremost because it really happened).

    doubt.askdefine.com

    1 the state of being unsure of something [syn: uncertainty, incertitude, dubiety, doubtfulness, dubiousness] [ant: certainty]

    This state should obtain over every part of history. At bottom, history is merely a collection of received stories. Hell, for most of us, science is merely a collection of received stories. Hell, for scientists, large portions of science are merely a collection of received stories.

    Doubt is a logical corrolary.

    What you’re engaged in is faith, religion, not science or logic. “You’re sick or anti-me if you disagree”; this is clearly a religion for you.

  479. Svigor says:
    @Johann Ricke

    If saving our boys’ lives was the thing, leaving Europe to figure out her own destiny was the clearly superior choice.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
  480. Svigor says:
    @Lot

    Yes but what purpose does an “extermination camp” like Treblinka serve?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  481. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    In the 2014 mass killing of 43 Mexican students, only 2 sets of remains have been identified. The other 41 remain “missing”. Perhaps they are living in Minsk along with the rest of my family.

    Has anyone been found guilty of killing any of the 41?

    P.S., just for the record, you are asserting “six twelve million dead because my family,” correct?

  482. Svigor says:

    In the 2014 mass killing of 43 Mexican students, only 2 sets of remains have been identified. The other 41 remain “missing”. Perhaps they are living in Minsk along with the rest of my family.

    I’m not going to read that whole article just for you, but it seems you’re drawing a false parallel. An unidentified corpse of a homicide victim and a missing person are two very different things.

    The first few paragraphs of that article seem to bear out my assertion that (even in third world banana republics,) courts don’t convict people of murder when death hasn’t even been established. In fact, the two students you refer to as “the only two to have been identified” are actually the only two PROVEN TO BE DEAD AT ALL. My apologies if the article goes on to correct my take, but as I said I’m not reading all of that just for you.

    Fact is, it’s ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that any number of those missing students are alive somewhere, and convicting anyone for their murder would be a miscarriage of justice.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  483. Svigor says:

    From Treblinka Wiki article:

    Neither the Jewish religious leaders in Poland nor the authorities allowed archaeological excavations at the camp out of respect for the dead narrative. Approval for a limited archaeological study was issued for the first time in 2010 to a British team from Staffordshire University using non-invasive technology and Lidar remote sensing. The soil resistance was analysed at the site with ground-penetrating radar.[229] Features that appeared to be structural were found, two of which were thought to be the remains of the gas chambers, and the study was allowed to continue.[230]

    The archaeological team performing the search discovered three new mass graves. The remains were reinterred out of respect for the victims. At the second dig the findings included yellow tiles stamped with a pierced mullet star resembling a Star of David, and building foundations with a wall. The star was soon identified as the logo of Polish ceramics factory manufacturing floor tiles, founded by Jan Dziewulski and brothers Józef and Władysław Lange (Dziewulski i Lange – D✡L since 1886), nationalised and renamed under communism after the war.[231][232] As explained by forensic archaeologist Caroline Sturdy Colls, the new evidence was important because the second gas chambers built at Treblinka were housed in the only brick building in the camp; Colls claimed that this provides the first physical evidence for their existence. In his memoir describing his stay in the camp, survivor Jankiel Wiernik says that the floor in the gas chambers (which he helped build) was made of similar tiles.[233] The discoveries became a subject of the 2014 documentary by the Smithsonian Channel.[234] More forensic work has been planned.[235]

    FIFT. Imagine doing this in court: “oh, we didn’t examine the corpse or the crime scene because respect for the dead. But we assure you of the defendant’s guilt because reasons.” Yeah, that would go over well. But because we’re trying Nazis for 11m murders, suddenly evidence doesn’t matter. Because extraordinary claims require no proof, or something.

    In non-clown-world, you don’t get to have both this far-reaching, tendentious version of “respect for the dead” and convictions for mass murder. You have to pick one.

  484. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    So I gather that if you deny 1/2 the Holocaust you’re a revisionist and if you deny the whole thing, then you are a denier. I don’t doubt any part of the widely accepted account, I see no reason to doubt it (first and foremost because it really happened). I don’t really understand why people are so invested in denying all or any part of it, except for either sick or anti-Semitic reasons. Are they worried about hurting Nazi’s feelings? Slandering the memory of Hitler? No one denies Hiroshima, no one denies the Civil War, why is this the one event in history that is subject to denial?

    This really deserves a fuller response than I gave previously. There’s a lot to unpack here.

    Doubt about all of history is logical. Certitude is religion, not science. You can’t prove a negative; “I don’t believe in Santa Claus” is not “Santa denial” and “I don’t believe the shoah narrative” is not “holocaust denial.”

    I don’t really understand why people are so invested in denying all or any part of it, except for either sick or anti-Semitic reasons.

    This is indistinguishable, in terms of logic, from "who but a racist would know, much less utter, so many hatefacts?" As I've said many times, even “right-wing” Jews turn into leftists when the conversation closes in on Jewish sensitivities.

    We question EVERYTHING here. And we’re quite used to finding that popular “truths” are actually lies. But suddenly we’re supposed to pack it in for the shoah? Why? Because Jews?

    Shoah narrativists act like criminals covering up a crime. Questioning the narrative is a criminal offense in most of Europe. People are thrown in jail for this. Jews aggressively pursue prosecution. Americans are technically free to discuss the matter, but 99% of the American web is policed according to Jewish preferences; violators are banned and their opinions deleted or censored.

    This alone is enough to piss off independent-minded goys. The fact is that there’s no way that a critical thinker can buy the narrative. The Jewish obstruction of justice is far too blatant. How can we, in good conscience, accept this narrative when the gaming, the intimidation, the cheating in its creation is so apparent?

    No one denies Hiroshima, no one denies the Civil War, why is this the one event in history that is subject to denial?

    This is a direct inversion of real logic. No event but the shoah MUST BE BELIEVED, OR ELSE. No other event is propped up with criminal punishment, harassment, oppression. That’s exhibit A in why we find it uniquely problematic.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  485. Jack D says:
    @Svigor

    With all due respect (none), you’re an idiot. If any of those students were alive at least one of them would have contacted their families by now. Is there a tiny, tiny probability that they are not dead? Sure, they could be hiding out on the dark side of the moon or joined the cartels or something, but there is no REASONABLE doubt that they are dead.

    Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean ZERO doubt. There’s no exact number, but reasonable doubt means that you are maybe 99% sure that something happened. In almost every crime there is SOME doubt – the defense can throw some shade that causes you to have a teeny tiny doubt that the defendant is guilty – his buddy Tyrone says that he was out drinking with him at the time of the murder. So if we required NO doubt, no one could ever get convicted, but the law does not require this impossible standard.

    In a murder case, the best evidence of death is obviously the body of the deceased. However, if there is no body, it is entirely possible to prove a crime took place if sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, all a murderer would need to do was disappear the body and, viola, no murder charges would ever be possible.

    Now that I see that you don’t have grasp of these basic legal principles, I can understand why you are a Holocaust denier too.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  486. Svigor says:

    Then there’s the fact that the shoah is totally weaponized: you can’t have for yourself what Jews have for themselves in Israel because shoah, goy. Jews must endlessly police whites’ thoughts and prevent pro-white thinking because shoah, goy. Jews get to do whatever they want in Israel because shoah, goy. Descendants of the whites who pulled Jews’ fat out of the fire in WWII must be steeped in guilt and indoctrinated from birth because shoah, goy.

    Then there’s the fact that a great many Jews have received, and are receiving, nice fat monthly checks because shoah. Which, aside from the fact that Jews’ entire culture now rests on the shoah, is a pretty big incentive for them to prop up the narrative, even if they think it false.

    Ron Unz questions the shoah. Everybody here knows he’s Jewish. Is he a Hitler-worshiper, an anti-semite, etc? Ron seems to have ZFG for Jewish sensibilities, and he has even punched them collectively in the face a few times recently. But anti-semite? I dunno about that one. And Hitler-worshiper seems an absurd charge.

  487. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Moscow#Soviet_counteroffensive

    This was Germany’s first defeat of the war. Hitler would have immediately thought of the battle of the Marne in 1914. It was the moment he realised for the first time that Germany might lose the war.

    He was angry, looking for scapegoats, and decided the Jews and the Americans were to blame. (In his mind the two were probably the same thing.)

  488. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @reiner Tor

    Hitler did want peace with Britain before Barbarossa. This was what the Hess mission was all about. We don’t know the specific details of the peace offer that Hess brought with him to Britain (it is still secret) but we can infer that it was something similar to this: Germany to withdraw from France and the West in return for friendly British neutrality in the coming war with Russia.

    The British rejected this for several reasons, but mainly because they no longer trusted Hitler. They assumed that he would attack them as soon as he was finished with the Russians, and given Hitler’s past track record it was not unreasonable paranoia.

  489. @Svigor

    To kill a lot of people with a minimal number of guards and executioners as far away from the public view as possible.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  490. @Svigor

    The reason for holocaust denial laws is twofold. First, they want to push you to the most idiotic positions (they are successful with a large number of people), so that they can show how idiotic most of their opponents are. Second, they ever expand those censorship laws to include holocaust “relativization” and all kinds of “hate speech,” so it’s basically just used as a Trojan horse of censorship. The expansion of definitions also has the additional benefit of painting everyone a “denier” who even slightly questions the Narrative, for example you could be labeled a “denier” for merely expressing doubt about the ever expanding Holocaust Cult. Why do we need a lot of museums and monuments for that one event far in excess of any other memorials about the countless other tragedies, including the rest of the world war? This might even be prosecuted (though probably the charges will be dropped in most countries, the prosecution itself will be the punishment), and in any event the holocaust denial laws are having a chilling effect on expressing such sentiments.

    But these laws are not proof that the standard holocaust story of an extermination program didn’t exist. It did.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Svigor
    , @Ian M.
  491. @Lot

    It’s not a very smart thing to say that volunteering to inform his secretary of the death of her husband (which was in any event not Hitler’s job) despite feeling visibly uncomfortable with it simply means “he wasn’t rude to his secretary.”

    The rest of your argument boils down to “they did many bad things, therefore they must have been psychopaths.” This reminds me of the black-and-white thinking of teenagers and Americans.

    Obviously, my point was that very bad things can be done by more or less normal people, mass murderers are usually not psychopaths.

  492. Jack D says:
    @reiner Tor

    I disagree with your 1st paragraph. First of all, you must understand that we don’t and can’t have Holocaust denial laws in the US because of the 1st Amendment.

    2nd, the reason they have these laws in Europe is that in general the Nazi Party is an illegal party in Germany (and some other countries). If you accept the premise that the Holocaust did not happen, then there’s really nothing wrong with Nazis (actually there is, but put that aside) – they did not commit any monstrous crimes, AH is really a good guy, etc. – all that stuff about killing Jews is just Judeo-Bolshevik propaganda. In Germany, they have chosen to put Nazism not only beyond the pale of socially acceptable opinion but to completely outlaw it. Given the enormous damage the Nazis caused, not only to the rest of Europe but to Germany itself, it seems like a legitimate choice for them. Things are somewhat different in the US.

    As for the need for special memorials and museums, etc. I think that in some way relates to Germany’s special status as one of the major seats of modern Western civilization – the nation of Mozart and Goethe and Leibniz, etc. England, France, Germany were “the big 3″ of modernity. Sure the Russians, the Turks, the Rwandans, the Chinese, the Japanese, etc. have had their own little adventures with genocide or mass killing (although arguably what Stalin did in the Ukraine was class warfare and not genocide – it was not his goal to kill every last Ukrainian) but we had low expectations for them. Germany was sort of the Great White Defendant on a global scale. And the message we are supposed to take away is that “if this could happen in Germany, the shining crown of Western science and culture, it could happen anywhere.”

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  493. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    With all due respect (none), you’re an idiot. If any of those students were alive at least one of them would have contacted their families by now. Is there a tiny, tiny probability that they are not dead? Sure, they could be hiding out on the dark side of the moon or joined the cartels or something, but there is no REASONABLE doubt that they are dead.

    With all due respect, you have no imagination. Some of them could be alive in captivity, for example. But sure, let’s flush rule of law and the legitimacy of the state down the toilet and prosecute for their “murders” so they can show up alive later and undermine the entire justice system.

    News flash, people go missing fairly often, for a variety of reasons. If any of those students wanted to disappear, being presumed dead would be a great time to do it.

    There’s plenty of reasonable doubt to be had there, and it’s baked into the cake.

    Reasonable doubt doesn’t mean ZERO doubt. There’s no exact number, but reasonable doubt means that you are maybe 99% sure that something happened. In almost every crime there is SOME doubt – the defense can throw some shade that causes you to have a teeny tiny doubt that the defendant is guilty – his buddy Tyrone says that he was out drinking with him at the time of the murder. So if we required NO doubt, no one could ever get convicted, but the law does not require this impossible standard.

    Lack of proof of death is automatic reasonable doubt, sans some other very compelling evidence. Protip: testimony ain’t it.

    It’s possible to prosecute a murder case without proof of death, but given due process and a lack of the aforementioned compelling evidence, it shouldn’t happen.

    Now that I see that you don’t have grasp of these basic legal principles, I can understand why you are a Holocaust denier too.

    I know; the mauling I’ve given you here stings. Learn from it.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  494. @Svigor

    If saving our boys’ lives was the thing, leaving Europe to figure out her own destiny was the clearly superior choice.

    That would have been the inferior choice, because Europe was the home of the most productive economies in the world, and the combined European countries controlled, through their colonial holdings, a territory many times the continental US. By extension, a Germany that controlled Europe would have had resources many times that of the US. Once his conquests were consolidated with the help of large scale massacres, Hitler would have crossed the Atlantic with the same alacrity that he mounted Operation Barbarossa. Short of unconditional surrender without offering battle, the American casualties that would have accompanied a German invasion of North America would have dwarfed the actual numbers sustained (~300K in ETO) in WWII.

    It is fortunate that Hitler declared war on the US when he did, because that gave Roosevelt the excuse necessary to become a persistent thorn in Germany’s side. What the Western Allies did, before the Normandy landings in 1944, was mount a series of spoiling attacks that prevented Hitler from devoting Germany’s full resources towards defeating the Soviet Union.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Anonymous
  495. Svigor says:
    @reiner Tor

    You’ve already got them on the train; why not do the job there?

  496. Svigor says:
    @reiner Tor

    They’re proof that the shoah narrative stinks.

  497. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    As for the need for special memorials and museums, etc. I think that in some way relates to Germany’s special status as one of the major seats of modern Western civilization – the nation of Mozart and Goethe and Leibniz, etc. England, France, Germany were “the big 3″ of modernity

    Yes, but the special memorials and museums didn’t just spring up because Germany is “special”. They were established because Germany was the perpetrator and the victims of the crime had the energy, ability, and influence to memorialize it. It seems unlikely that it would’ve been memorialized to the extent it has been without Jewish energy and activism. If the Germans had perpetrated the Holocaust against the Armenians instead, would it have been as memorialized to the same extent, just because it was Germany that had done it?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  498. HA says:
    @Jack D

    No one denies Hiroshima, no one denies the Civil War, why is this the one event in history that is subject to denial?

    One event? As opposed to the Holodomor, the Armenian genocide, the cumulative death toll attributable to Stalin and Mao? The number of native Americans killed by Europeans? The moon landing, for that matter?

    To the extent the Holocaust is unique, it is that downsizing the “official story” of any of these other events is not likely to get you fired and render you virtually unemployable. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if being a 9/11 “truther” is less hazardous to one’s overall job prospects than being someone like, say, David Cole. (And let’s not forget, lest you try to walk away from what you just said, reducing the official toll by as much as a half is equivalent to outright denial. Do you really think the events I listed don’t have a range of scholarly estimates of 50% or more below the current consensus, depending on which scholars one chooses to follow?)

    Seriously, get a clue. I’ve said this before, but your lack of self-awareness is stunning, and downright dangerous. To the extent that you (and this goes for your nutjob Agree-button-pushing sidekick who thinks nuking modern Germany should be the main item on Israel’s bucket list if it ever circles the drain) truly can’t see it, you are not helping. In the same way that “Wally” and “Annamarina” might as well be paid hasbara trolls given how counterproductive their posts are (I mean, assuming they’re not indeed hasbara trolls), you’re shooting yourselves in the foot. And if it were only you who will wind up paying the price, I would be tempted to say, well, it couldn’t happen to a nicer pair of guys. But it won’t be. It never works out that way. And no, that doesn’t make you unique, either. Like I said, get a clue.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  499. Ian M. says:
    @reiner Tor

    I would say a major reason for the Holocaust denial laws is because the Holocaust is the central legitimizing or foundation myth for modern liberal Europe and the modern West more generally (in the U.S., other primary legitimizing myths are slavery and Jim Crow). The legitimizing principles of the modern West are inclusiveness and tolerance, which are deemed necessary to suppress the sort of nationalistic fervor that gave rise to the Holocaust. For a society to maintain itself and for a government to maintain its legitimacy, it cannot permit public challenging of its legitimizing principles.

    Destroy the Holocaust narrative, and the whole raison d’etre for the European Union vanishes. Holocaust denial is thus regarded as an attack on its authority.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  500. Ian M. says:
    @Lot

    I can’t answer your first question very precisely, I suppose “mainstream anglo-american christian popular ethics”

    Then mainstream anglo-american christian popular ethics is opposed to actual Christian ethics and to Scripture: “And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.”

    Christian ethics teaches that it is always wrong intentionally to kill the innocent (i.e., the definition of murder), war time or no. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki involved intentionally killing innocents, ergo, it was immoral.

  501. Ian M. says:
    @Lot

    Normal people might not, but religions certainly do.

  502. @Reg Cæsar

    Millions of such deaths didn’t change their minds in the previous year or two.

    The highest estimate of Japanese civilian deaths, including from the Battle of Okinawa and other battles where civilians provided logistical support for Japanese outposts, as well as through guerrilla activity in occupied lands, was 800K. War is, to an extent, premised on exchange ratios. On Okinawa, the Japanese lost 10 soldiers and 10 civilians for every American killed. From the Japanese perspective, it was a lopsidedly high ratio in favor of the US, but possibly acceptable. The reasoning would have been that Japan could afford to lose 20m dead* (out of 70m) in exchange for 1m American dead, but the US would sue for peace long before it got to that point, given that US dead in ETO came to only about 300K. As it was, US dead in PTO had risen to 100K and counting.

    The bombs that flattened Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed these calculations irrevocably. Perhaps 120K Japanese were killed in the blink of an eye, with no American casualties, along with the literal vaporization of many defense plants. The hope of 20 to 1 exchange ratios, at worst, had evaporated along with most of the man-made structures of the two ruined cities.

    * This wasn’t an unusually high attrition rate by medieval standards. It is estimated that the 100 Years War cut France’s population in half. Similar attrition rates are recorded for dynastic changes and/or inter-state wars involving Japan’s gargantuan neighbor across the Sea of Japan.

  503. Jack D says:
    @HA

    Again with the paying the price thing? Wasn’t that Hitler’s shtick – if the Jews start another war, they will be the ones who pay the price? I’m not sure I even understand – unless I agree with you that the Holocaust never happened, then the Jews are going to pay a price for that? How is that supposed to work? When you are in charge (when Hell freezes over), will admitting the Holocaust be a crime instead of denying it? Or is it that there’s going to be a backlash by all the millions of white people who are resentful of being forced by the Joos to say that the Holocaust is real even though they don’t think it is? With like pogroms and pitchforks? Burn down the Holocaust Museum? Maybe I’m misunderestimating this, but I don’t think this is (no pun intended) really a burning issue among most Americans. I think the most you are going to get from the average person is “they made me go on that field trip when I was in 8th grade and it was boring and I didn’t really care – I wish they would have taken us to see the bug museum instead.

    I think Donald Trump will end up being the high water mark of White Power in America and his grandchildren are Jewish. Hillary declared victory a little too soon but the handwriting really is on the wall (unfortunately) – if not in this decade, then the next or the next. Probably when America has a non-white majority, they really won’t give a damn about the Jews (who they see as just another kind of white people) and their damn Ho-low-cost (everyone knows that the black Holocaust was much, much worse), but I don’t think that is what you have in mind. The fantasy that white people are going to take over again and make all those uppity Jews and blacks and lesbians, etc. pay the price for their uppitiness – not going to happen.

    • Replies: @HA
  504. @Anonymous

    Here in SoCal, lots of both Jews and Armenians. The Armenians do more little public stuff among the Armenian masses to commemorate their genocide, like drive around with Armenian flags on their cars on April 25th, but the Jews have the bigger, more prestigious Holocaust memorial institutions and more media coverage.

    The Armenian assassination campaign that hunted down many ex-Ottoman officials in the 1920s was pretty impressive, but I had barely heard of it, even though the most famous hero, the volunteer who shot the ex-Grand Vizier, had died in Fresno, California during my lifetime.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
  505. HA says:
    @Jack D

    “Again with the paying the price thing? Wasn’t that Hitler’s shtick – if the Jews start another war, they will be the ones who pay the price? I’m not sure I even understand”

    Oh, that’s pretty clear. The lack of self-awareness is clearly not your only blind spot.

    “Or is it that there’s going to be a backlash by all the millions of white people….I think Donald Trump will end up being the high water mark of White Power in America…”

    Because white people are the only ones who ever had it in for Jews? Because once the high water mark of “White Power” passes (unlike, say, that of the Jews, who will never again be down on their luck), it’ll be smooth sailing forever for the Jews? No, sorry to disillusion you. As long as there are Jews like you, there will be plenty of non-Jews you need to worry about. It’s as if you need each other to validate your respective self-fulfilling obsessions. To spare you the effort of making any more wild extrapolations from that simple assertion to whatever I may actually believe about white power, Jews, and blacks and lesbians, for that matter, I’ll leave it there — except to also note, for the record, that you didn’t even get around to addressing how any sane person can claim that only the Holocaust is subject to heated disagreement and calls for revision, and instead yet again opted for pointing-and-sputtering and waving the card around the same way you do whenever you’re caught making an ass of yourself. And that’s as close to a concession of defeat as I’m likely to get.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Anonymous
  506. Svigor says:
    @Johann Ricke

    That would have been the inferior choice, because Europe was the home of the most productive economies in the world, and the combined European countries controlled, through their colonial holdings, a territory many times the continental US. By extension, a Germany that controlled Europe would have had resources many times that of the US. Once his conquests were consolidated with the help of large scale massacres, Hitler would have crossed the Atlantic with the same alacrity that he mounted Operation Barbarossa. Short of unconditional surrender without offering battle, the American casualties that would have accompanied a German invasion of North America would have dwarfed the actual numbers sustained (~300K in ETO) in WWII.

    LOL, clown world. Hitler would have been spending all his time managing his empire. Even running on all 8 cylinders, which it wouldn’t, the Navy a Nazi EU could produce would not have overmatched the US + British Navies. Or even just the US Navy.

    Which is all predicated on the idea that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union wouldn’t have annihilated each other. Which they would have. And the winner would have spent many generations recovering. And Hitler would have his lebensraum, and not been following some LARPy spec fiction plot.

    Which is all giving this clown-world take more credit than it deserves: “Hitler would have conquered the world because I say so, because that’s the only way I can justify spending American lives saving Jews, because spending American lives to save Jews is what I’m really on about.”

    And my strategy would have worked out, because nukes.

  507. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:

    Even in WWI, when the German navy was MUCH bigger than in WWII, the U.S. government didn’t take seriously the threat of German invasion. It was absurd.

    A more credible concern is that German agents would subvert the loyalty of the large German-American population. Nothing came of this however, not even in WWI when many of these people were recent immigrants. By WWII it was irrelevant.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  508. Jack D says:
    @Svigor

    Lack of proof of death is automatic reasonable doubt, sans some other very compelling evidence. Protip: testimony ain’t it.

    This isn’t the law at all. Not even close. Are you just making this stuff up as you go along? But if I ever had a non-Jewish white client up for murder and there was no body, I’d want you on the jury, for sure.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  509. Svigor says:
    @Jack D

    Who said it was the law, jackass? It’s just legal reality. Generally they don’t get prosecuted BECAUSE YOU CAN’T EVEN PROVE THE VIC IS DEAD, ERGO YOU CAN’T PROVE HE WAS MURDERED, ERGO YOU CAN’T PROVE THE DEFENDANT MURDERED HIM.

    FFS it isn’t rocket science.

  510. Svigor says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body

    Here, they list like under a dozen cases.

    Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit: better add a couple hundred so it doesn’t look quite so rare, eh?

  511. Svigor says:

    Jews have spent billions on hundreds (probably thousands) of shoah flicks (most of them probably financial losers), but they won’t spend a shekel looking for the literal tons of chemical evidence the cremated bodies should have left behind. To say nothing of the more-intact corpses that should be buried all over the place. In fact, they seem to actively resist anyone searching. They certainly don’t seem to like my talking about the subject.

    Despite the fact that the reward would be decisive evidence to shut up holocaust heretics.

    This seems odd to me.

  512. Svigor says:
    @HA

    instead yet again opted for pointing-and-sputtering and waving the card around the same way you do whenever you’re caught making an ass of yourself. And that’s as close to a concession of defeat as I’m likely to get.

    The guy is absurdly bad.

  513. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ian M.

    It is strange that Americans appear to feel more guilt over the Holocaust than the nations that actually carried it out.

  514. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @Johann Ricke

    This is not plausible. There was no credible prospect of a Nazi invasion of the U.S. The Germans did not have the resources for this.

    However, you would probably have seen German naval and possibly military bases in various places in Latin America, and possibly formal alliances between Germany and some of these countries. This would have caused headaches for postwar U.S. administrations–sort of like what actually did happen with the Russians and Cuba in the Cold War.

    Indeed, a ‘Cold War’ between victorious Nazi Germany and America would have been likely and would have followed similar lines as the actual one with the Soviets.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  515. @Anonymous

    “Indeed, a ‘Cold War’ between victorious Nazi Germany and America would have been likely and would have followed similar lines as the actual one with the Soviets.”

    I never read Robert Harris’s thriller “Fatherland” that is set in an alternate timeline in which the Germans win the war, but an advertising poster for it is the front page of the New York Times in 1964 with President Kennedy announcing he is going to Berlin to meet the aged Chancellor and discuss an end to the Cold War. (Turns out President Kennedy is Joe Sr.)

  516. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:
    @HA

    The idea that declining whites are going to drag Jews down to destruction after them is delusional. It won’t happen. The closest that has ever come to happening was Hitler’s WWII stupidities, and as we can see all around us, he not only failed but achieved the opposite of what he intended.

    Gentile nations rise and fall like trees in the forest, but Jews, like birds, will always remain in the sunlight.

  517. @Anonymous

    German agents did blow up part of the Statue of Liberty during WWI.

  518. @Steve Sailer

    Here in SoCal, lots of both Jews and Armenians.

    Speaking of genocide denial …

    Just west of Boston, Watertown and Newton/Brookline are adjacent towns divided by the Charles River and are home to Massachusetts’s largest urban concentrations of Armenians and Jews, respectively. There was some local tension between the two stemming from Jewish interests interfering with recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

    The ADL (and AIPAC, etc.) long preferred that the Armenian Genocide not be officially recognized by the American government, due to Israeli concerns over their own relations with Turkey (and, I suspect, a greater Jewish desire to keep ‘Shoah business’ all to themselves). But in classic “Is it good for the Jews?” calculations, the ADL, after years of stubbornness, reversed its stance when it became expedient.

    From 2010 in Salon:

    Suddenly, the Israel lobby discovers a genocide

    2007 article from an extensive, well-documented blog about the saga:

    Watertown Ends Partnership With “No Place For Hate”

    Miffed Armenians in Watertown rejected the ADL’s sanctimonious, Orwellian “No Place For Hate” campaign in which a town government—after town officials and others attend brainwashing sessions run by the ADL—gets the privilege of putting up ADL-branded signs (on public property) declaring the jurisdiction intolerant of “hate.”

  519. @Johann Ricke

    … the removal of Germany from the chessboard.

    LOL. The game will have gone from an upended chessboard to worldwide battle-axe. Guess who’s gonna be fatally outnumbered when both whites and dusky Muslims start swinging.

  520. @kihowi

    I’m not a “holocaust denier”. I’d just like to see a documentary about, say, Roma or communists or gays who were killed too. I think the jews have done a pretty good job getting the word out that something happened to them.

  521. @Steve Sailer

    It makes a lot of sense. Many details are filled in in the paper by Christian Gerlach

    The Wannsee Conference, the Fate of German Jews, and Hitler’s Decision in Principle to Exterminate All European Jews

    https://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jewishnb/hrc/mti/wannsee.pdf

    with references to a mountain of German wartime documents (deniers, take note). Wikipedia cites an earlier version of this article for the seemingly implausible “hostage theory” but it turns out that theory has almost nothing to do with the article and is only floated in one sentence as a speculative tangent. The only indication of using Jews as leverage is that there was a speech on December 18 by Alfred Rosenberg whose first draft, written before the Pearl Harbor attack, threatened “New York Jews” agitating against Germany that the Nazis had 6 million Eastern Jews in their hands who could be destroyed if agitation continued. Rosenberg and Hitler agreed on Dec 14th that the threat should be removed in light of the war situation, and the speech as broadcast did not contain it.

    As of December 1941, in principle Germany was already at “maximum Holocaust” in the USSR and Polish territories, subject only to practical/logistical limitations on the rate at which people could be killed, and in the rest of Europe subject also to political limitations such as the potential for international complaints from the US, or the Vatican. That this would be the case should war arise was also probably decided, if not announced, before the war started. The die was cast by several earlier developments:

    1. The T4 euthanasia program, which showed that Aryan Germans of higher status than Jews could be gassed by the hundreds of thousands. After this there was no reason in principle not to do the same to Jews en masse, who were seen as much more dangerous than invalids.

    2. The exclusion of Jews from the economy. This made the Jews more valuable dead (with their possessions confiscated) than alive, except for the ones that could be used as slave labor. The Darwinian Nazi ideology then dictated that the survivors of the forced labor, who were the strongest Jews, must be executed to prevent them from breeding even more dangerous super-Jews. This logic was eventually expressed during planning of the Final Solution, but must have been clear to Hitler and many others from the beginning.

    3. Hitler’s keen awareness that measures could be taken in wartime that were not previously possible. He stated this as a rationale for T4 and anything that was a reason for going ahead and killing non-Jewish hospital patients was even more an argument for doing the same to Jews.

    Given this, all Jews under German control were destined to die by early 1941 at the latest, whether or not formal announcements were made. Himmler told various subordinates starting in mid-1941 that Final Solution (as we understand it, ie., extermination of whole populations) was authorized by Hitler, in the course of approving liquidation of particular large groups and building of death camps. Various sources speak of the Final Solution, in the sense of all Jews or all non-German Jews being explicitly marked for ASAP liquidation, being decided by the end of summer 1941.

    August to December 1941 was a period in which forces were gathered for the next phase of implementation, without any major new decisions of principle. Einsatzgruppen paused the killings for several months, gas vans were ordered and delivered, gas chamber technology was developed and tested, Auschwitz was built up. This was well underway beyond the proof-of-concept stage by early December, and once war with the USA started, there were no further international political considerations to limit the actions against Jews from all of occupied Europe. It was only a question of logistics and which camps and ghettos would be ready at which times (hence the whole thing was handed over to Eichmann’s office which was a relatively small part of RSHA interfaced to the huge bureaucracy of the German transportation ministry in charge of the trains). This is why the date of December 12 makes perfect sense. Everything was in place and all that was left to do was open the administrative floodgates.

    The one remaining decision of principle made in December was whether German Jews were to get the full treatment immediately (given T4, it is hard to imagine they would not get it eventually, as the circumstances permitted). Apparently Hitler decided the answer was yes and announced it by the 12th.

    After that things move quickly, in the few days afterward Himmler has a flurry of detailed planning meetings with Heydrich and with the head of the T4 program about transferring personnel to run the new death camps, and the “second sweep” Einsatzgruppen mass shootings start up again.

    In short, yes, announcing the decision to 50 top Nazis is a point of no return, but there was essentially nothing new decided except the fact of making it an announcement. The consolidation of German Jews with the rest simplified many issues and as Gerlach’s paper demonstrates, the Wannsee Conference could devote more of its time to planning the Holocaust rather than (its original purpose) sort out the thorny problems of handling Jews inside the Reich.

  522. Svigor says:

    2. The exclusion of Jews from the economy. This made the Jews more valuable dead (with their possessions confiscated) than alive, except for the ones that could be used as slave labor. The Darwinian Nazi ideology then dictated that the survivors of the forced labor, who were the strongest Jews, must be executed to prevent them from breeding even more dangerous super-Jews. This logic was eventually expressed during planning of the Final Solution, but must have been clear to Hitler and many others from the beginning.

    Oh brother.

    Given this, all Jews under German control were destined to die by early 1941 at the latest, whether or not formal announcements were made. Himmler told various subordinates starting in mid-1941 that Final Solution (as we understand it, ie., extermination of whole populations) was authorized by Hitler, in the course of approving liquidation of particular large groups and building of death camps. Various sources speak of the Final Solution, in the sense of all Jews or all non-German Jews being explicitly marked for ASAP liquidation, being decided by the end of summer 1941.

    Doesn’t matter that the story is self-contradicting. Exterminate! Use ‘em for labor! Kill ‘em then bring them back with voodoo and hit both birds with one stone! It’s way more interesting that way.

    • Replies: @academic gossip
  523. @Svigor

    Darwinian Nazi ideology then dictated that the survivors of the forced labor, who were the strongest Jews, must be executed to prevent them from breeding even more dangerous super-Jews. This logic was eventually expressed during planning of the Final Solution, but must have been clear to Hitler and many others from the beginning.

    Oh brother.

    Here’s how your idols described it in their memos to each other.

    Under proper leadership, the Jews shall now in the course of the Final Solution be suitably brought to their work assignments in the East. Able-bodied Jews are to be led to these areas to build roads in large work columns separated by sex, during which a large part will undoubtedly drop out through a process of natural reduction. As it will undoubtedly represent the most robust portion, the possible final remainder will have to be handled appropriately, as it would constitute a group of naturally-selected individuals, and would form the seed of a new Jewish resistance.
    — Wannsee Protocol, 1942.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_through_labour#In_Nazi_Germany

    “Handled appropriately” as in “special handling”, besonderhandlung. I think you know what that is.

  524. Svigor says:

    Here’s how your idols described it in their memos to each other.

    Yes, I must be a Hitler-worshiper because I’m in the radical, extremist category of “unconvinced.”

    I’ve been @ this blog for like 15 years. How have I managed to keep my love of Hitler, Goebbels, et. al., in the closet for so long? It’s all public record; find the comments where I even seem to GAF about any of them.

    You guys don’t much like talking about 12m corpses worth of forensic evidence, I gather.

  525. Svigor says:

    Here’s how your idols described it in their memos to each other.

    Put this response in a separate comment because Steve is likely to whim it, but this kind of thing screams “Jewish” to me. Nobody else gets this het up over unconvinced goys.

    • Replies: @academic gossip
  526. Svigor says:

    Trump says Puerto Rico death toll inflated by Democrats: ’3000 people did not die’

    Trump says claim Puerto Rico hurricane killed 2,975 people is FAKE after he’s hammered for calling relief effort ‘unsung success’

    The most recent Hurricane Maria death-toll number, 2,975, comes from a computer estimate published last month, rather than a list of specific casualties

    (((Oy VEY!!!)))

    Basing a death toll on a census computer model, not an actual body count? Where have I heard that before?

  527. What’s your list of top 10 movies telling the story of Japanese atrocities against American prisoners of war, Steve?

    Btw, here’s another movie you may wish to review: https://www.timesofisrael.com/film-tries-to-wash-away-myth-that-nazis-made-soap-out-of-jews/

  528. Greenwald’s Spielbergian “Why ‘we’ fight” moment from The Caine Mutiny:

    “Well, sure, you guys all have mothers, but they wouldn’t be in the same bad shape mine would if we’d of lost this war, which of course we aren’t, we’ve won the damn thing by now. See, the Germans aren’t kidding about the Jew. They’re cooking us down to soap over there. They think we’re vermin and should be terminated and our corpses turned into something useful. Granting the premise–being warped, I don’t, but granting the premise, soap is as good an idea as any. But I just can’t cotton to the idea of my mom melted down into a bar of soap. I had an uncle and an aunt in Cracow, who are soap now, but that’s different, I never saw my uncle and aunt, just saw letters in Jewish from them, ever since I was a kid, but I can’t read Jewish.” but never could read them. Jew, but I can’t read Jewish.”

    …So when all hell broke loose and the Germans started running out of soap and figured, well it’s time to come over and melt down old Mrs. Greenwald–who’s gonna stop them? Not her boy Barney. Can’t stop a Nazi with a lawbook. So I dropped the lawbooks and ran to learn how to fly. Stout fellow. Meantime, and it took a year and a half before I was any good, who was keeping Mama out of the soap dish? Captain Queeg.

    The things you hear and see in movies, hey Steve?

  529. @Svigor

    Basing a death toll on a census computer model, not an actual body count? Where have I heard that before?

    A few things you may not have heard.

    One. 80 percent of the dead Hungarian Jews have been identified by name. A “body count”. Together with emigrants and camp survivors that means almost the whole pre-war Jewish population of Hungary is accounted for. The ones killed were mostly shipped to Auschwitz in May-June 1944. None of the people who were seen (by survivors) going to the wrong side of the selection were heard from again, so, you know…. maybe they boarded a spaceship or something?

    Two. On Wikipedia’s list of the biggest massacres by death toll, the estimated “body count” for the Holocaust is more accurate, in proportion to the number killed, than for the other entries. i.e. the high estimate divided by the low estimate is a smaller number than in the death tolls for Rwanda, Cambodia, Ukraine, Armenians, and many other biggies. Out of all, these only the one involving Jews gets its own third party (= not from perpetrator population) revisionist movement demanding exact body counts estimates more accurate than anything ever done on that scale.

    Three. Holocaust death tolls were not estimated by computer models. Using a computer isn’t a bad thing, but I don’t think it has been done in this case.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.