The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewLinh Dinh Archive
Flagless Germany
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

October 3rd was the Anniversary of the Reunification of Germany. Having arrived in Leipzig just days earlier, I decided to take a long walk with my friend Olliver Wichmann. Though we covered nearly 20 miles that day, we saw no national flag on display, only an East German one in Grünau, a neighborhood of huge, Communist-era apartment blocks.

“This is remarkable, Olliver. In the US, you can’t walk a mile on any day without seeing flags.”

“Generally, the only Germans who display flags are far-right ones. During big soccer matches involving the national team, it’s also OK to display flags.”

Nationalism has become a dirty word for many Germans. Along the Karl-Heine-Kanal, I spotted a sticker that said in English, “FIGHT NATIONALISM AND NAZIS,” then beneath that, “BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY.”

The huge influx of Middle Eastern and North African refugees has triggered a backlash among German nationalists, however. Each Monday, there is a large rally in Dresden and Leipzig. The lead marchers in Leipzig carry a banner that proclaims:

“FOR HOMELAND, PEACE AND GERMAN CORE CULTURE.

AGAINST RELIGIOUS FANATICISM.

AGAINST ISLAMIFICATION AND MULTICULTURALISM.”

Counter-demonstrators in Leipzig
Counter-demonstrators in Leipzig

These flag waving folks, LEGIDA, have also declared that they are neither left nor right, and certainly not Neo-Nazis. At each Leipzig rally, they are met by an equally large contingent of counter demonstrators who whistle, shout, shake tambourines or bang on drums to drown out their opponents’ speeches. Hundreds of cops are on the streets to keep the two camps apart.

Twenty-five years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany is in danger of being split in two by this refugee crisis. At the University of Leipzig, there’s, “ONLY A COSMOPOLILTAN LEIPZIG IS A BEAUTIFUL LEIPZIG. NO TO LEGIDA,” and at Moritzbastei, a downtown arts center, there’s a banner, “FOR TOLERANCE, OPEN-MINDEDNESS, GOOD MUSIC & AGAINST RACISM.” By St. Peter Church, I saw a sticker, “Better Living—No Nazis!” and another in English, “HATE NAZIS.” In contemporary Germany, to oppose refugees or immigrants is to risk being called a Neo-Nazi.

What you have, then, is a battle between those who seek to defend a national culture based on at least a shared heritage and language, if not ethnicity, and those who subscribe to a more universalist concept. To these multiculturalists, a nation is just a collection of whoever happen to be in it, no matter their differences in core beliefs, since we’re just one big human family, after all, and all resultant frictions are more than compensated for by the varied benefits.

It’s notable that this argument is taking place almost exclusively in the West, in countries that are still mostly white and nominally Christian. Of course, Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, England and the United States were also Colonialists that used Christianity as a pretext to conquer the world. Even as they slaughtered or enslaved, they saved, and a spin on that narrative is still extant today. As led by the US, the West is still meddling all over, thus generating the millions of refugees now swarming into Europe.

As is, Leipzig is a very cosmopolitan city that’s filled with international eateries. Within two blocks of my apartment, there are Thai, Indian and Turkish restaurants, plus a Doner Kebab stand that’s run by a friendly but mirthless Palestinian who came here from Jordan 20 years ago. There’s a Thai non-erotic massage parlor and a small Vietnamese-owned grocery. Another Vietnamese business, Mr. Quan’s Bar and Restaurant, has gone under. To round out the eating options, there’s a Subway, a German bakery and World of Pizza, a German chain.

WOP, as it is known, is basically a purveyor of American fast food. Besides pizzas, they sell spare ribs, buffalo wings, chicken nuggets, burgers and fries, and their pizzas have names like Montana, Philadelphia, Hawaii, California, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, Western and Spring Rod [?]. There is an Italiano, but no Napoli, interestingly enough. There is one called Zingaro, however, the Italian word for “Gypsy.” English is all over WOP’s menu.

Vietnamese Restaurant and Nail Salon in Grünau
Vietnamese Restaurant and Nail Salon in Grünau

At a strip mall in Grünau, I counted a Croatian, a Turkish and a Vietnamese restaurant. As Olliver and I sat eating outside the Turkish joint, we could see Russians, Turks and Arabs walk by along the wide, tree lined promenade.

“See those three little girls?” Olliver pointed out. “The one on the left is German, the one in the middle, on the bike, is Arabic, and the one on the right is Russian. They don’t see any difference. They don’t care.”

After a Muslim couple passed, Olliver observed, “They’re Turks.”

“How can you tell?”

“By her conservative dress. The typical uniform of a godfearing Turkish wife is a headscarf with an overcoat down to the knuckles, even on summer days in the nineties. Many of the Turks came here from the more backward parts of Turkey, like Anatolia. The Syrians and Iraqis, on the other hand, are more Westernized. They don’t dress that much differently than Germans.”

“And they just got here!”

Olliver is an autodidactic encyclopedia. Of working class background, he’s underemployed, like many people in this region. Abstaining from both meat and alcohol, Olliver is going bald, has a five o’clock shadow, takes photos during endless walks, plays chess against himself in his mind and composes electronic music whenever he starts to hear things. In his youth, Olliver gravitated towards Sartre, then freebased Joyce, Dostoyevsky, Camus, Strindberg, Hemingway, Marquez and Kafka. “In hindsight, I don’t quite like his convoluted style.” Among contemporary political commentators, Olliver pays attention to Noam Chomsky, Andre Vltchek, Michael Parenti, Bill Mitchell, Michael Hudson, John Pilger, Andrew Korybko, Pepe Escobar, Paul Craig Roberts and The Saker. He hates political correctness. Although Olliver’s English is deft and fluent, he becomes exasperated and even apologizes whenever a word or phrase doesn’t come to his mind immediately. Born in Hamburg, Olliver has been in Leipzig for more than 15 years.

ORDER IT NOW

Moving with the help of a walker, a German pensioner asked if he could share our table. He had a large bottle of Ur-Krostitzer, the cheap yet excellent local beer. Among the pleasures of being in Germany is the freedom to drink alcohol in just about any setting, a public garden, outside an eatery, strolling down the street or relaxing in a square. Germans don’t have the American hang-up with getting buzzed within sight of kids and other immature beings. The legal drinking age here is 16.

Prodded by us, the affable and serene old man revealed that he had worked for 47 years as a locomotive mechanic. A widower, he lives alone and has one daughter. Born in Leipzig, he lived through the Communist years without problems by not paying any attention to politics. He just put his head down and worked.

Leipzig’s Nicholas Church was where weekly demonstrations in 1989 eroded the Communist government’s legitimacy and helped to tear down the Berlin Wall. LEGIDA and PEDIGA (in Dresden) see themselves as a part of this tradition of peaceful protests. Scuffles have broken out between them and counter-demonstrators, however, with each blaming the other for the violence.

Americans can learn from the persistence of German protests, for they don’t just march for an hour once or twice a decade, give each other high fives then drive home in their SUVs to watch sports on TV. Contemporary German protests are also allowed a stage and microphones, so there’s no need to relay each sentence quite robotically, creepily and time consumingly as happened during our Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.

Germans, on the other hand, don’t need to be encouraged to follow our example in anything, for they already ape America aplenty. Olliver, “We are not just an occupied nation physically, but mentally. People know about the 40,000 American soldiers here, but who’s talking about the occupation of the German mind?”

Local Cineplex in Grünau
Local Cineplex in Grünau

At the Cineplex in Grünau, we saw five movies advertised, Straight Out of Compton, Ladies First, Er ist wieder da, Fack yu Göhte 2 and Maze Runner, so three out of five are American, with the two German films featuring Germany mocking itself. There is a war between those who aim to restore German swagger and those who mock such an effort. An anti-Neo-Nazis group calls itself, in English, No Tears for Krauts.

Fack yu Göhte is a moronic or post-literate, millennial spelling of Fuck you Goethe, and on its billboard, there is also the misspelling of “klassenfahrt,” class trip, as “klassnfart.” Get it? Fart! The image is of a Rambo parody, with the muscular man holding a cross bow made from a slide ruler. Instead of going to Vietnam to rescue POW, the cast is romping to Thailand to fack each other.

Based on a best selling novel by Timur Vermes, Er is wieder da [He’s back] has Hitler waking up in 2011 Berlin. The ensuing confusion results in a series of comic scenes, with Hitler reduced to a harmless buffoon. To promote the film, Hitler lookalikes were placed on the streets of German cities. Whatever the professed intentions of the writer or director, the popularity of this Hitler resurrection belies a nostalgia for a more muscular and assertive Germany, I think. Though the Führer is mocked, his face is huge on the screen, and Adolf is presented as human and even likeable, not a caricature of evil. At another movie theater, I saw an Er is weider da poster with a plastic rose stem, almost tribute like, next to it.

Joining in the merriment, PEGIDA leader Lutz Bachmann snapped a photo of himself as Hitler and posted it on FaceBook in late 2014. The resultant furor has forced him out of PEGIDA, but more gravely, Bachmann is being prosecuted for calling asylum seekers Viehzeug, Gelumpe and Dreckspack [cattle, garbage and filthy rabble]. Bachmann may be jailed for up to five years. Free speech in Germany is limited, and one must not, above all, publicly criticize Israel or Jews, or raise questions about the Holocaust. France has the same prohibitions.

As for the American films, Olliver told me that German distributors used to translate their titles, but now leave them as is, so folks here must decipher, for example, “Straight Outta Compton” themselves. In my early 20’s, I thought of my goofy self as au courant for knowing N.W.A. and Ice-T, etc., but now Niggers With Attitude has become part of the universal education. Before settling in to your mesmerization, you can even buy a Coors, I kid you not, from the “American-Diner-Stil” concession stand.

Stores in Germany
Stores in Germany

American culture shows up everywhere here. English is routinely inserted into advertisements and many stores have English names only. On each police vehicle, there’s “VERDÄCHTIG GUTE JOBS” [“SUSPICIOUSLY GOOD JOBS”]. In tourist infested Markplatz, I saw a big band playing Jazz standards. Swinging along rather ploddingly, all songs were belted out in English. Not too far away, there was a middle-aged German dressed like a country music singer, though in a straw cowboy hat. Twanging or growling in English, he channeled Glenn Campbell, Bruce Springsteen or Bob Dylan, sometimes all within the same song. Well, at least he sounded like an American.

Strolling by, a teenaged girl chirped “hello baby” into her cell phone. Olliver, “It’s how they talk now. It’s cool to insert English words into a conversation. They would say something like, ‘Alles easy. Ich bin voll happy. Das ist nice. See you!’” Years ago in Iceland, I heard a woman complain that English syntax was creeping into Icelandic conversations. English was rearranging their minds’ furniture, in short. The internet has accelerated this linguistic hegemony. Hör auf bitching! Alles groovy!

Downtown, there are bars with names like Texas, Big Easy and Papa Hemingway. One night in Staubsauger [Vacuum Cleaner] Bar on trendy Karl-Liebknecht-Straße, I caught the young bartender reading Mumia Abu-Jamal’s We Want Freedom: Ein Leben in der Black Panther Party. Franziska studied media in college. I also chanced upon a Mumia sticker along the Karl-Heine-Kanal. He’s bigger here than in his native Philly, apparently. Mumia was also made an honorary citizen of Paris in 2001.

ORDER IT NOW

Liebknecht, by the way, was a founder of the German Communist Party. After Reunification, most of the street names in Leipzig were left alone. It is curious that Kathe Kollwitz, a very minor artist, is given a busy thoroughfare, while Max Beckmann, among the greatest painters of the 20th century and a Leipzig native to boot, is relegated to a short, serpentining lane. Like other European countries, at least Germany does name its streets after painters, writers and musicians, even foreign ones. When you name a street after a cultural figure, you also educate the people, but in the States, we waste too many street names on trees, stones, animals or real estate promotional monikers.

On October 5th, I tried to observe a LEGIDA rally. Following a handful of Polish house painters walking home, I managed to pass through two police barricades, but still couldn’t get close enough to see anything but the cops. Seeing me photographing, a group of giant men in black uniform approached my sorry ass. Maybe they were not Polizisten but the German basketball Mannschaft. I did as Dirk Nowitzki commanded and deleted his and his buddies’ likeness from my camera.

With so many streets blocked and cops everywhere, Monday in Leipzig these days means slower or practically no business for many stores in the vicinity. As tension ratchets up, who knows if we will see street battles? America’s accelerating collapse ensures that there will be more US-instigated wars, which will send even more refugees into Germany to exacerbate the already rancorous division within its society.

In small, depressed Saxony towns like Riesa, Trebsen and Bautzen, the National Democratic Party of Germany has made serious inroad. Its main slogan, “THE BOAT IS FULL—STOP THE ASYLUM SEEKER FLOOD.” An extremely xenophobic area is also known a National befreite Zone [National Liberated Zone]. Since such a realm is not marked by fixed boundaries but by the mindset of its people, you won’t know if you have strayed into one until you’re suddenly greeted, say, by a highly unpleasant welcome.

There are those who say that these nativists, xenophobes and Neo-Nazis altogether are such a tiny minority, they’re more noise than substance. A Leipziger in his 30’s assessed, “I’d say 90 to 95% of the people here have no problems with immigrants. We need them since they will contribute to our economy. Many of them are highly educated. The LEGIDA and PEGIDA rallies are getting smaller and smaller, and they’re not all local people. Many of these far right fanatics travel around to attend these rallies. Outsiders may think these rallies are a big deal, but they’re really not. We’re doing fine.”

Sharply disagreeing with the above, a friend emailed me from Frankfurt, “Tensions are rising in Germany—while hundreds of thousands flee to us, Germans are beginning to understand that it will cause massive problems in the future […]

Germany still is a rich country—but that doesn’t mean, that all Germans are rich.

On the contrary, the number of poor Germans has been rising for the last 20 years—and the number of homeless people has doubled in the last five years (still only 400,000—but way too high in my view).

Now the little German worker with his shitty job or the poor pensioner, who can buy less and less with his money each year, because pensions are frozen and prices are rising, is seeing these thousands and thousands of mostly young men coming in—and they see them getting health care for free, having doctors treat them for free, that they all have these trendy smartphones, that they do not need to buy a ticket for the bus or the train, because they are refugees, while HE, the German, has to pay some extra money for the doctor and has to pay for the bus etc.

It is mostly well meant, what German officials and actors and ordinary people do, to help the refugees—but since nothing is done in the same way for German homeless people and since some Germans have to leave their apartments for refugees (there were some cases where people in social housing had to leave, because the landlord or the government wanted to put in refugees—in Munich, where my brother lives, they wanted to use a facility for coma patients, but backed off when the parents of these patients complained)—in short, it is a social disaster rising.

There are no jobs for these people. Most of them are not qualified for the labor market here. There are no houses for them. In fact, the German housing market for people with little money is down—so the poor will compete with the refugees.

At the moment most of them are in former military areas or even tents. When winter comes, the mood will get worse on both sides.

[…]

At the moment, anyone saying something against the refugees is considered to be either a bad man or even a Nazi—and because of this, a critical view is seldom expressed in the media.

And this also contributes to the anger of many people, because in their view, the refugees keep coming, THEY have to pay for it (rising taxes will come—

it is only a matter of time)—and so it is the perfect storm, which is brewing here.

Unfortunately most Germans are so ill-informed about politics etc. that they will not get the bigger picture—that it is a great chess game we are in—and we are an expendable pawn.

Germany has done its part in US plans—now (meaning the next years) the chaos shall rise so that we will accept anything and everything our masters present to us as a solution, when the real riots come.

Martial law? Yes please! No civil rights anymore? Please!

Alright—we will protect you. Just give us all your money and your freedom—There! Have it! Please protect us!

It’s kinda odd to watch that, Linh—I just hope, that my parents will peacefully pass away, before the real chaos starts.

We shall see.”

ORDER IT NOW

So it’s not alles easy, baby. A long, bitter winter is swooping down. I’ve said all along that the only way to solve the refugee problem is to stop bombing one country after another, so to save its own Arsch, Europe must say fick dich to Uncle Sam and regain its autonomy. If you help America bomb, you’ll also reap the chaos that comes with it. Let’s close with Rammstein, a Neue Deutsch Härte band named after the US Airforce base in Germany where most of the drone strikes worldwide are coordinated. Deutschland, you have blood on your hands again, but it’s not from your own choosing. Sense!

“We’re all living in America,

America ist wunderbar.

We’re all living in America,

Amerika, Amerika.

We’re all living in America,

Coca-Cola, Wonderbra,

We’re all living in America,

Amerika, Amerika.

This is not a love song,

this is not a love song.

I don’t sing my mother tongue,

No, this is not a love song.

We’re all living in America,

Amerika ist wunderbar.

We’re all living in America,

Amerika, Amerika.

We’re all living in America,

Coca-Cola, sometimes WAR,

We’re all living in America,

Amerika, Amerika.”

Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories, five of poems, and a novel, Love Like Hate. He’s tracking our deteriorating socialscape through his frequently updated photo blog, Postcards from the End of America.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Germany, Immigration 
Hide 327 CommentsLeave a Comment
327 Comments to "Flagless Germany"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. “I’ve said all along that the only way to solve the refugee problem is to stop bombing one country after another, so to save its own Arsch, Europe must say fick dich to Uncle Sam and regain its autonomy.”

    I realize that you think Amerikkka is the root of all evil, and there’s much I dislike about US hegemony…but still, it’s just silly to pretend that there wouldn’t be massive immigration pressure on Europe even without America’s misguided wars. Even in Syria, the population grew by more than ten million just in the two decades of 1990-2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Syria#Population)…something thay may well be underappreciated as a reason for the civil war. And population growth in Syria is actually fairly modest compared to the insane rates in subsaharan Africa. Even if American foreign policy would suddenly change, there still would be a massive problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    You clearly misunderstand the basic difference between economic migration and what can be presented as asylum seeking from the US's wars.
    But, thank you for playing.
    , @AriusArmenian
    Yes, the Syrian population grew, of course, because of the millions fleeing the chaos in Iraq caused by the US.

    There is no civil war in Syria, it is an invasion of US trained jihadis now under a death sentence by the Russia rat extermination professionals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /ldinh/flagless-germany/#comment-1176500
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Tom_R says:

    GERMANY—A JEWISH CONTROLLED POLICE STATE.
    WHITE ETHNIC CLEANSING BY JUDAISTS IN PROGRESS—IN RETALIATION FOR THE HOLOHOAX.

    The Judaists are on a rampage in Germany, involved in ethnic cleansing of whites by flooding Germany with 3rd world blacks and Muslims who are being brought in rape and murder and exterminate Whites, as retaliation for the holohoax, etc.

    After WW2, Jew-SA basically took over Germany, and manufactured a document they titled “Basic Law” which gives all power to a “Federal Constitution Court” and installed a sham democracy.

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

    Even the German site below admits that theirs is a govt. under “Judicial control”.

    http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/political-system/main-content-04/the-basic-law.html

    This Basic Law is NOT the constitution, was never ratified by the people, was temporary and has already expired. This Basic law and this “Federal Constitutional Court” are therefore unconstitutional and therefore illegal and null and void:

    http://www.rense.com/general69/germany.htm

    Since the Basic Law is null and void, Angela Merkel is a mere trespasser and an usurper, and all her decisions, such as allowing tens of thousands of 3rd world “refugees” and “migrants” to settle her country, her persecution of holocaust scholars, etc. are all ultra vires and therefore null and void and simply criminal acts.

    This illegal court*, is stuffed with Judges from the 2 main Jewish controlled left wing parties, and these crooks then ban almost all right wing parties that are against immigration, etc. (often at the behest of the Judaists who file these cases, just like in other countries) and arrest opposition leaders for simply being patriotic, by calling them “Neo-nazis”, etc. so their left wing Jewish puppets like Angela Merkel remain in power and carry out their crimes against humanity, by proxy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom_R
    ADDENDUM

    P.S. By the way, thanks for the excellent article, Mr. Dinh. I agree with many of the things you said, except that there are other forces that are behind the alien invasion of Germany (not just bombings in the Middle East), as described in my prior comment. The poor Germans have been totally brainwashed and subjugated into accepting their own extermination.
    , @el topo
    If the Holocaust is a hoax, why would it provoke retaliation?

    You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    P.S. I do agree that Jewish multi-culturists (perhaps Judaists is not a bad term) like Annette Kahane have too much influence in Germany.
    , @random observer
    Is it not a Constitution just because it was not ratified by the people? Lots of countries have constitutions ratified by parliaments or other assembly-type bodies rather than referenda. Like the United States.
    , @AndrewR
    Take your meds.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. fnn says:

    Anti-immigration activists in Germany should call for closure of all foreign military bases and withdrawal from NATO. The evidence indicates that the goal of the American Empire is to reduce the vast bulk of humanity to a mass of indistinguishable pop culture-addicted consumerist drones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Tom_R says:
    @Tom_R
    GERMANY—A JEWISH CONTROLLED POLICE STATE.
    WHITE ETHNIC CLEANSING BY JUDAISTS IN PROGRESS—IN RETALIATION FOR THE HOLOHOAX.

    The Judaists are on a rampage in Germany, involved in ethnic cleansing of whites by flooding Germany with 3rd world blacks and Muslims who are being brought in rape and murder and exterminate Whites, as retaliation for the holohoax, etc.

    After WW2, Jew-SA basically took over Germany, and manufactured a document they titled “Basic Law” which gives all power to a “Federal Constitution Court” and installed a sham democracy.

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

    Even the German site below admits that theirs is a govt. under “Judicial control”.

    http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/political-system/main-content-04/the-basic-law.html

    This Basic Law is NOT the constitution, was never ratified by the people, was temporary and has already expired. This Basic law and this “Federal Constitutional Court” are therefore unconstitutional and therefore illegal and null and void:

    http://www.rense.com/general69/germany.htm

    Since the Basic Law is null and void, Angela Merkel is a mere trespasser and an usurper, and all her decisions, such as allowing tens of thousands of 3rd world “refugees” and “migrants” to settle her country, her persecution of holocaust scholars, etc. are all ultra vires and therefore null and void and simply criminal acts.

    This illegal court*, is stuffed with Judges from the 2 main Jewish controlled left wing parties, and these crooks then ban almost all right wing parties that are against immigration, etc. (often at the behest of the Judaists who file these cases, just like in other countries) and arrest opposition leaders for simply being patriotic, by calling them "Neo-nazis", etc. so their left wing Jewish puppets like Angela Merkel remain in power and carry out their crimes against humanity, by proxy.

    ADDENDUM

    P.S. By the way, thanks for the excellent article, Mr. Dinh. I agree with many of the things you said, except that there are other forces that are behind the alien invasion of Germany (not just bombings in the Middle East), as described in my prior comment. The poor Germans have been totally brainwashed and subjugated into accepting their own extermination.

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

    “Flagless Germany”?

    Spineless Germany.

    There. Fixed it for you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. el topo says:
    @Tom_R
    GERMANY—A JEWISH CONTROLLED POLICE STATE.
    WHITE ETHNIC CLEANSING BY JUDAISTS IN PROGRESS—IN RETALIATION FOR THE HOLOHOAX.

    The Judaists are on a rampage in Germany, involved in ethnic cleansing of whites by flooding Germany with 3rd world blacks and Muslims who are being brought in rape and murder and exterminate Whites, as retaliation for the holohoax, etc.

    After WW2, Jew-SA basically took over Germany, and manufactured a document they titled “Basic Law” which gives all power to a “Federal Constitution Court” and installed a sham democracy.

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

    Even the German site below admits that theirs is a govt. under “Judicial control”.

    http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/political-system/main-content-04/the-basic-law.html

    This Basic Law is NOT the constitution, was never ratified by the people, was temporary and has already expired. This Basic law and this “Federal Constitutional Court” are therefore unconstitutional and therefore illegal and null and void:

    http://www.rense.com/general69/germany.htm

    Since the Basic Law is null and void, Angela Merkel is a mere trespasser and an usurper, and all her decisions, such as allowing tens of thousands of 3rd world “refugees” and “migrants” to settle her country, her persecution of holocaust scholars, etc. are all ultra vires and therefore null and void and simply criminal acts.

    This illegal court*, is stuffed with Judges from the 2 main Jewish controlled left wing parties, and these crooks then ban almost all right wing parties that are against immigration, etc. (often at the behest of the Judaists who file these cases, just like in other countries) and arrest opposition leaders for simply being patriotic, by calling them "Neo-nazis", etc. so their left wing Jewish puppets like Angela Merkel remain in power and carry out their crimes against humanity, by proxy.

    If the Holocaust is a hoax, why would it provoke retaliation?

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    P.S. I do agree that Jewish multi-culturists (perhaps Judaists is not a bad term) like Annette Kahane have too much influence in Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. oldnik007 says:

    for me this is a wonderbar discovery of someone who can paint a word picture of multi faceted depth.
    i loved it, especially the little snippets like the mirthless Palestinian and identifying Turks by their female attire.
    the implications more than hinted at about this ‘invasion’ bears all the hallmarks of someone’s agenda and i link it to the YouTube video of a American/Swedish/Jewess who says, and i quote…
    “the jews will be blamed for this multilateralism in Europe, because that is our plan”.

    even in England Cameron has had to backtrack on refugees’ numbers because of the quite understandable ‘peoples’ humanitarian sentiments’, fostered by the commendable Jeremy Corbyn, who might not carry the day in his party because of the bankers’ traitorous Blairites dominating the MPs.

    enough of my blinkered Englishisms, i often wish i spoke German, French, Italian etc to follow closer Marie le Penn, Grillo, Padamos and of course that feisty young woman in the Bundestag criticising Merkel.

    all in all, its an interesting time locally in the ‘free world’ (ha ha – nsa?) and the second act is beginning to take shape.

    bon voyage and via con Dias

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. marylou says:

    check out Roy beck gumballs for a practical eyeopener.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7bc_1406741219

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Stogumber says:

    The German-American relation is somewhat more complex.

    Between the mid-19th century and mid-20th century, Germans were constantly harassed by propaganda which unfavourably compared Germany to the “West”. “The West” meant in fact leftist France. French Conservatives didn’t count, nor did British Conservatives, being mere elites with a questionable loyalty to democracy.

    Only after 1945 Germans got to know a Western country which was democratic and even populist, but at the same time un-leftist: had a strong tradition of rurality, family and home values, anti-capitalism and rugged individualism – a Western country they could identify with.

    A lot of American soldiers were German-friendly – possibly had German roots or had supported “America First” – and only few of them (mostly Jews) felt the deep-sitting resentment of the British or French. This was eventually the base of the rather succesful American-German military cooperation under Eisenhower.

    I accept that we Germans have adopted a lot of vulgar modern American traits and have supported American wars more than we ought to. But there’s that positive strain of “Americanism”, too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Early part acceptable “on the ground” observations. But this America stuff just misses the mark:

    I’ve said all along that the only way to solve the refugee problem is to stop bombing one country after another, so to save its own Arsch, Europe must say fick dich to Uncle Sam and regain its autonomy. If you help America bomb, you’ll also reap the chaos that comes with it.

    Sorry, you solve the “refugee”–most of these guys aren’t refugees!–problem by not inviting\not allowing the refugees to come. It’s really that simple. Basic logic.

    And if you don’t do that you can have peace and brotherhood break out all over the middle east–good luck with that, the US screwing up or no!–and you’ll still be inundated. For starters all the blacks–Eritreans, Somalis, Nigerians, etc. etc. What does US bombing in Iraq and Syria have to do with all those “refugees”? Uh … nothing.

    There are millions upon millions of people in the 3rd world who are
    a) aware that white people operate better–more peaceful, prosperous, law-abiding– countries
    b) have the means to come now, even if it’s relatives scraping up some cash for smugglers.
    You let them come … they’ll come.

    If you want to preserve your country for its citizens, you say “no”. That simple.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. The German flag is the ugliest one on Earth (which I’m pretty sure it was deliberately designed to be), so that may have some impact on its scarcity as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Unfair. Africa and Latin America have many uglier flags.

    I was under the impression it was unusual in most of the more established western European countries to display a lot of national flags other than on holidays, especially by private citizens. Until very recently it was quite rare even in Britain. I was surprised to learn that even government buildings prior to 2007 flew the Union flag only on designated days.

    Here in Canada the government and every business or institution with poles fly them daily, arguably to excess. Some don't keep them in good shape, but they're there just the same. Citizens don't do so as commonly as in the US, but they are fairly common.

    So visiting the US all my life, the flags never struck me as out of the ordinary. When I studied in London, my German-origin Francophile professor took me by surprise when she claimed to have been shocked on her first visit to the US.

    I of course assume some is a reaction to the 1933-45 period in GErmany, but I certainly came away with the impression that ostentatious, regular display of national flags by the citizenry has not been a traditional feature of patriotism in most western European countries. The Danes would be an obvious exception- they really like their [very old] flag and have an elaborate code of flag rules.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. “Hundreds of cops are on the streets to keep the two camps apart.”
    when the Pegida and Legida demonstrations (which are exclusively called “marches” by mainstream media) walk in the cities the policeman stand at the side of the streets, always with their faces outwards of the streets, looking at the contra-demonstrations. The reason ist simple: their job is not “to keep the camps apart” to detain the Antifa to attack the nonviolent -gida demonstrations

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website

    The Germans are chained to a lie.

    There are the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M & gas chambers’ and there are the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M & gas chambers’.

    The ’6M & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:
    http://www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Real truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    The tide is turning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    In order to believe codoh, you must start by thinking that they are right, and then you just keep on convincing yourself. Basically, CODOH and Holocaust deniers are of the kind that even if you would transfer them back in time so they could witness the intelligentsia shootings, massacres in Prague (district of Warsaw) and gassing Jews, they would still claim that is is all just a scam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @German_reader
    "I’ve said all along that the only way to solve the refugee problem is to stop bombing one country after another, so to save its own Arsch, Europe must say fick dich to Uncle Sam and regain its autonomy."

    I realize that you think Amerikkka is the root of all evil, and there's much I dislike about US hegemony...but still, it's just silly to pretend that there wouldn't be massive immigration pressure on Europe even without America's misguided wars. Even in Syria, the population grew by more than ten million just in the two decades of 1990-2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Syria#Population)...something thay may well be underappreciated as a reason for the civil war. And population growth in Syria is actually fairly modest compared to the insane rates in subsaharan Africa. Even if American foreign policy would suddenly change, there still would be a massive problem.

    You clearly misunderstand the basic difference between economic migration and what can be presented as asylum seeking from the US’s wars.
    But, thank you for playing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    clearly misunderstand

    Actually, the vast majority of the current "Flüchtlinge" invading Europe and especially Germany are clearly economic migrants -- they are not Syrians and do not meet any reasonable definition of a "refugee" as someone who is persecuted or fears persecution. Therefore, their desire to relocate to Europe has nothing to do with "the US’s wars".

    But 'thanks for playing', you moron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. szopen says:
    @Wally
    The Germans are chained to a lie.

    There are the 'Nazis' with the mythological '6M & gas chambers' and there are the 'Nazis' without the mythological '6M & gas chambers'.

    The '6M & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    www.codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Real truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    The tide is turning.

    In order to believe codoh, you must start by thinking that they are right, and then you just keep on convincing yourself. Basically, CODOH and Holocaust deniers are of the kind that even if you would transfer them back in time so they could witness the intelligentsia shootings, massacres in Prague (district of Warsaw) and gassing Jews, they would still claim that is is all just a scam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Szopen, answer this if you can:

    How come that not a single eyewitness to the alleged gassings got the colour of the alleged corpses right?

    How come that in the locations where eye witnesses testified as to the location of mass burning pits and mass burial sites, nothing of substance was found that would support the claim of mass killings?

    Then of course there is the Leuchter report and Rudolf report that put the final coffin nail into the claims of the "holocaust" gassings.

    Finally, why has there NEVER been a broadcast debate between holocaustians and those questioning their claims?

    And from a purely intellectual perspective, why must holocaustians practically always resort to ad hominem attacks instead of refuting the mostly scientific and forensic facts of the questioners with better arguments and facts???

    It is for these reasons, and numerous others, that this individual no longer believes any of the assertions regarding Germany and its actions during WWI and WWII. For anything relating to these times I would want to see hard and verifiable evidence, not arm waving, synthetic outrage, crocodile tears nor curtailment of free speech or free inquiry.

    What do the holocaustians have to hide?

    HdC
    , @reiner Tor
    Occasionally I visit this thread, and my impression is the same.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    Were truth-seekers to do the time-travel that you suggest, where would you have them land?

    Would you caution time-travelling truth-seekers to avoid the 131 German cities that the Allies incinerated by firebombing, or, in the spirit of full inquiry, should they probe every melted roadway, every demolished cathedral, every bombed-out hospital?

    Here's a Baedeker for that tour -- The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940 - 1945 by Jörg Friedrich

    Would you have them visit the camps where Jews tortured and killed disarmed German soldiers and civilians? An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945 by John Sack

    How about the open-air camps where Eisenhower caged disarmed enemy combatants and starved them to death? Should your time-travelers trod these terror-terrains? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxh6FC-bwWQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. HdC says:
    @szopen
    In order to believe codoh, you must start by thinking that they are right, and then you just keep on convincing yourself. Basically, CODOH and Holocaust deniers are of the kind that even if you would transfer them back in time so they could witness the intelligentsia shootings, massacres in Prague (district of Warsaw) and gassing Jews, they would still claim that is is all just a scam.

    Szopen, answer this if you can:

    How come that not a single eyewitness to the alleged gassings got the colour of the alleged corpses right?

    How come that in the locations where eye witnesses testified as to the location of mass burning pits and mass burial sites, nothing of substance was found that would support the claim of mass killings?

    Then of course there is the Leuchter report and Rudolf report that put the final coffin nail into the claims of the “holocaust” gassings.

    Finally, why has there NEVER been a broadcast debate between holocaustians and those questioning their claims?

    And from a purely intellectual perspective, why must holocaustians practically always resort to ad hominem attacks instead of refuting the mostly scientific and forensic facts of the questioners with better arguments and facts???

    It is for these reasons, and numerous others, that this individual no longer believes any of the assertions regarding Germany and its actions during WWI and WWII. For anything relating to these times I would want to see hard and verifiable evidence, not arm waving, synthetic outrage, crocodile tears nor curtailment of free speech or free inquiry.

    What do the holocaustians have to hide?

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Szopen
    As for the color of the bodies, I don't know, but it's quite known that eye-witnesses quite often miss some details. I am not sure whether I could get right the colour of my wife's dress yesterday.

    As for the second, you don't know what you are talking about. There were done exhumations all over the Poland, there is a massive documentation of mass graves. Moreover, it is very easy to find it even using google. Some mass graves were found only in 60, some in 1970; New mass graves are occasionally found - for the record, only recently mass graves of GERMAN prisoners were found, and until that would you argue that no, Soviets were not murdering Germans in Poland after the war, because there are no mass graves? In fact, entering "Treblink mass grave" into google will give you links to news about British archeologs who in 2013 and 2014 examined the site, finding new, previously unknown mass graves there. The fourth link I googled was a site containing some most known evidence for mass graves in Treblinka (including the most shameful fact for my own countryman, that there was something akin to gold-rush between the peasants, who immedietely after the war were digging through the mass graves, searching for the gold).

    The only thing you can do is to not believe Polish documents, and all the researchers, claming they are all part of he massive conspiracy, and then to proceed from that to "since all evidence is fabricated, then there is no evidence" without providing any proof that the evidence is fabricated.

    Leuchter report was debunked, and again, it's easy to find all the flaws of this report. The debates are not broadcasted, but you can easily find the discussions with historians addressing all the points raised by denialists. The ad hominem are occasionally used because deniers are using ad hominem arguments too, and - moreover - they ignore all the evidence and facts even if they are pointed to it. It's hard to discuss with someone, who closes eyes when you show him evidence, and you are finally tired, he then opens eyes and scream: "you see? there is no evidence!".

    Start with nizkor. You can see Leuchter report thouroughly examined there and debunked, point by point. If you had not ever read Nizkor, then you are not really seeking the debate, but just want to preach. If you have read, then how in the earth can you still believe in Leuchter report? (www.nizkor.org/faq/leuchter)
    , @MQ
    You're delusional. There is apparently no amount of photographs or films of mass graves, massive stacks of corpses, eyewitness accounts, bureaucratic records, etc. that will convince you or others like you, since your 'denial' is motivated not by evidence but by anti-semitism.

    One odd thing is that the Holocaust deniers are also often those who most transparently wish to kill some Jews themselves. "The Holocaust didn't happen...but just give me a chance and I'll make it happen!".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @szopen
    In order to believe codoh, you must start by thinking that they are right, and then you just keep on convincing yourself. Basically, CODOH and Holocaust deniers are of the kind that even if you would transfer them back in time so they could witness the intelligentsia shootings, massacres in Prague (district of Warsaw) and gassing Jews, they would still claim that is is all just a scam.

    Occasionally I visit this thread, and my impression is the same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @szopen
    In order to believe codoh, you must start by thinking that they are right, and then you just keep on convincing yourself. Basically, CODOH and Holocaust deniers are of the kind that even if you would transfer them back in time so they could witness the intelligentsia shootings, massacres in Prague (district of Warsaw) and gassing Jews, they would still claim that is is all just a scam.

    Were truth-seekers to do the time-travel that you suggest, where would you have them land?

    Would you caution time-travelling truth-seekers to avoid the 131 German cities that the Allies incinerated by firebombing, or, in the spirit of full inquiry, should they probe every melted roadway, every demolished cathedral, every bombed-out hospital?

    Here’s a Baedeker for that tour — The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, 1940 – 1945 by Jörg Friedrich

    Would you have them visit the camps where Jews tortured and killed disarmed German soldiers and civilians? An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945 by John Sack

    How about the open-air camps where Eisenhower caged disarmed enemy combatants and starved them to death? Should your time-travelers trod these terror-terrains? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxh6FC-bwWQ

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Tom_R
    GERMANY—A JEWISH CONTROLLED POLICE STATE.
    WHITE ETHNIC CLEANSING BY JUDAISTS IN PROGRESS—IN RETALIATION FOR THE HOLOHOAX.

    The Judaists are on a rampage in Germany, involved in ethnic cleansing of whites by flooding Germany with 3rd world blacks and Muslims who are being brought in rape and murder and exterminate Whites, as retaliation for the holohoax, etc.

    After WW2, Jew-SA basically took over Germany, and manufactured a document they titled “Basic Law” which gives all power to a “Federal Constitution Court” and installed a sham democracy.

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

    Even the German site below admits that theirs is a govt. under “Judicial control”.

    http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/political-system/main-content-04/the-basic-law.html

    This Basic Law is NOT the constitution, was never ratified by the people, was temporary and has already expired. This Basic law and this “Federal Constitutional Court” are therefore unconstitutional and therefore illegal and null and void:

    http://www.rense.com/general69/germany.htm

    Since the Basic Law is null and void, Angela Merkel is a mere trespasser and an usurper, and all her decisions, such as allowing tens of thousands of 3rd world “refugees” and “migrants” to settle her country, her persecution of holocaust scholars, etc. are all ultra vires and therefore null and void and simply criminal acts.

    This illegal court*, is stuffed with Judges from the 2 main Jewish controlled left wing parties, and these crooks then ban almost all right wing parties that are against immigration, etc. (often at the behest of the Judaists who file these cases, just like in other countries) and arrest opposition leaders for simply being patriotic, by calling them "Neo-nazis", etc. so their left wing Jewish puppets like Angela Merkel remain in power and carry out their crimes against humanity, by proxy.

    Is it not a Constitution just because it was not ratified by the people? Lots of countries have constitutions ratified by parliaments or other assembly-type bodies rather than referenda. Like the United States.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    The German flag is the ugliest one on Earth (which I'm pretty sure it was deliberately designed to be), so that may have some impact on its scarcity as well.

    Unfair. Africa and Latin America have many uglier flags.

    I was under the impression it was unusual in most of the more established western European countries to display a lot of national flags other than on holidays, especially by private citizens. Until very recently it was quite rare even in Britain. I was surprised to learn that even government buildings prior to 2007 flew the Union flag only on designated days.

    Here in Canada the government and every business or institution with poles fly them daily, arguably to excess. Some don’t keep them in good shape, but they’re there just the same. Citizens don’t do so as commonly as in the US, but they are fairly common.

    So visiting the US all my life, the flags never struck me as out of the ordinary. When I studied in London, my German-origin Francophile professor took me by surprise when she claimed to have been shocked on her first visit to the US.

    I of course assume some is a reaction to the 1933-45 period in GErmany, but I certainly came away with the impression that ostentatious, regular display of national flags by the citizenry has not been a traditional feature of patriotism in most western European countries. The Danes would be an obvious exception- they really like their [very old] flag and have an elaborate code of flag rules.

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

    The U.S. flag is analogous to the E.U. flag I would think. Even in the U.S. there is historical opposition to state flags .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Germans are messing up totally.

    Germans and Scandies have a high sense of civic duty/virtue. And they’ve come to see civic duty/virtue as opposed to ethnic identity and unity.

    But in fact, civic duty works best within ethnic unity. Civic duty means you not only care about yourself and your family but about the community at large. Now, what would give to boost to such civic-minded feelings? A sense of shared identity, heritage, territory, and history. You care for the community apart from yourself and family cuz you see others of the community as your own people of shared race, culture, and values. Even if you don’t consciously think about, you emotionally and intuitively feel that ‘these are my people’.

    Now, not all people feel such civic sense of virtue, but it’s usually easier to come by if a nation is made up of one people.
    For instance, a nation that is all German is likely to be more civic-minded that a nation that is 1/3 German, 1/3 Greek, and 1/3 Spanish. Granted, Greeks and Spanish are not very civic-minded.
    But even if if you were to bunch together civic-minded peoples, there will be less civic-mindedness with more diversity. If a nation were 1/3 German, 1/3 English, and 1/3 Danish, it would be less civic-minded than an all German one, all Danish one, or all English one. Notice that Scots are part of UK but because of their sense of separate identity, there is less civic-mindedness toward the English.

    Or if we move outside Europe, imagine a nation that is 1/3 Vietnamese, 1/3 Chinese, and 1/3 Japanese. It’s gonna be more difficult to maintain civic-mindedness than in a nation that is all Japanese, all Vietnamese, or all Chinese.
    Singapore is often hailed as a multi-cultural success, but it’s long been overwhelmingly majority Chinese. And Lee used non-democratic means to force civic-mindedness on people, something that is not possible in a lot of modern western nations with diversity.

    Anyway, civic-mindedness should not be seen separately or independently of ethnic identity and unity. Rather, civic-mindedness should be seen as a partner or even outgrowth of ethnic identity and unity. The more a people are alike, the more they feel a common sense of community. And that is a sounder basis for developing civic-mindedness. Now, ethnic identity and unity are no guarantee for civic mindedness, but a homogeneous community is more likely to develop such virtues than a diverse one. (the one great exception are the negroes. negroes are just trouble, period. they just be too crazy and wild and childlike.)

    [MORE]

    Similarly, human rights should not be seen apart from national rights. The concept of ‘human rights’ are too murky when applied universally. If all nations should just go with the UN notion of ‘human rights’ and dispense with national right(to exist as a race, culture, heritage, and territory), then it means no race, culture, or history has any meaning. If all peoples should primarily see themselves as human than as a member of a nation, then all nations are interchangeable, and no one owns anything. IF everyone is just a human, then Africans own Japan must as Japanese do, and Japanese own Mexico as much as Mexicans do, and Mexicans own China as much as Chinese do, and Chinese own India as much as Indians do, and Indians own Iran just as much as Iranians do, and Iranians own France just as much as French do, and etc. The world becomes meaningless. (And though the ideal of universal human rights is said to transcend the beastly tribalism/nationalism around the world, it actually has the opposite effect. It animalizes us. After all, what is the difference between animal and man? Animal has no sense of identity or history or culture. An animal just is and is occupied with food and sex. Animals are territorial, but their territories always shift back and forth based on who has the power. Animals have no sense of parents, grandparents, great grandparents. In contrast, humans have memory and a sense of historical existence. Jews don’t see themselves merely as individuals in the here-and-now but as a race/culture/heritage that stretches back 1000s of yrs. Now, every people have their own history, their own perspective. There is no single world history; there are only many histories, and these sacred memories have allowed humans to develop cultures on certain territories that became their homelands. So, history and identity allow us to be more than human, which is to be animal. They allow us to belong to a tradition, culture, history, a collective memory. The idea of universal human rights, as promoted by globalism, promises to rise above nationalism, but when an extreme formula of human rights rejects nations and tribes, its radicalism merely animalizes people into individual consumers and nomads. If we should reject nations and cultures and just be part of humanity, then we are reduced to individualism and consumerism. Also, the result of humanity cut off from culture/history/territory is animalist than angelic. The basic essence of human-ness is animal-ness. We are animals that can attain a sense of history and culture. It is culture and history and memory that makes us rise above the mere animality of being human, the hairless ape. If we separate man from culture/history/identity, the man just becomes a seeker of individual pleasures and thrills. He is like an animal that has no interest in anything beyond its appetites and thrills. And indeed, look at what globalism has done to us. It is turning young people all over the world into deracinated animals hooked to MTV, Hollywood, videogames, hook up behavior, and etc. It is reducing Being into one of animal appetite. We don’t need real zombies for the zombie apocalypse. We have it with globalism that robs people of their identity, culture, and nationality. The result is not some high-minded universal man steeped in higher thoughts but an infantilized narcissist-hedonist who takes endless selfies, pigs out, seeks sex like animals, splatters tattoos all over, and listens to animalish rap music. What is striking about all the ‘refugees’ from the Middle East is that they seem so steeped in globalism. Their nations have been wrecked, they’ve been cut off from their identity and territory, and they just see Europe as a big economic pie and a ‘big fat pussy just waiting to be fuc*ed. Of course, Jews like this cuz the power of culture and identity makes non-Jews of each nation care more about their own people and culture than about Jews. Jews want all peoples around the world to prioritize Jewish interests over their own interests. So, if Jews could undermine nationalism and identity for every goy group, then all the gentiles will be deracinated zombie-like animal-humans whose hearts-minds-guts-and-genitals will be owned by Jews who control Hollywood, music industry, and a culture that is being pornified with the likes of Nicki Minaj and Smiley Circus. And if such people were to crave for some kind of identity, they would have to outsource it in the form of worshiping the Holocaust, waving the Israeli flag, and singing endless hosannas to Jews. In time, Jewish nationalism will be the only one left… along with homo worship. Having been robbed of their own history, identity, and heritage, their only sense of such can from Jews who’ve maintained their own identity, history, and heritage.)

    Ink cannot be thicker than blood. Consider East Germany during the Cold War. If West Germans should have defined themselves primarily according to western concept of ‘human rights’, then they should identified more with Italians, English, Greeks, and Spanish(after Franco) since those nations were also democratic and committed to liberalism. But West Germans didn’t seek to unite with any nation but with East Germany. Why?
    Now, East Germans under communism believed in anti-liberal ideas and rejected democracy. Its communist concept of Marxist revolution was at odds with the liberal western kind. But why did West Germans decide to merge with East Germans? Because despite the political and ideological differences, people of both nations were Germans of shared race, heritage, and history. Upon uniting, Germans discovered that Germany could be both ethnic and devoted to human rights.

    Human rights must be practiced within national borders. Human rights must accompany national and cultural identity. Japanese must uphold human rights as Japanese, and Germans must uphold human rights as Germans. Each nation should have rules and treat minorities and tourists and foreign workers with dignity. But each nation must have its own rules as to what makes that nation unique, special, and different from other nations. That is no rejection of human rights but simply human rights operating within national rights(of existence). Japanese have a right to say Japan is a nation of the Japanese people of a certain race, culture, customs, and history. In other words, Japanese count for more in making Japan Japanese. And Hungarians should say the same thing about Hungary. Hungarians are what makes Hungary Hungarian. So, Hungarians count for more in Hungary. This is not a violation of human rights against non-Hungarians as non-Hungarians have their own nations, and in their own nations, they are the primary residents. All nations can learn to treat foreigners with respect, but all nations must maintain a distinction between natives and foreigners.

    The problem today is that, with the global domination of the United States(a relatively new nation made up of constant waves of newcomers) and especially with domination of Jewish Americans, the new template of globalism is that ALL nations must follow the US model.
    But this is crazy since Old World nations have ancient roots and identity. What is okay in New York shouldn’t be okay in Paris or London. New York defined itself as being changed and altered by constant waves of newcomers.
    In contrast, Paris has ancient roots as a French city and London has ancient roots as English city. Look what happened to them by adopting Americanism. Paris is turning Afro-Arab and London will soon be no longer majority white.

    Some Liberal whites like to believe that they can rise above ethnicity and be good-willed toward other peoples. Even if this is true of some white folks, the problem is they eventually bump against the realization that many non-white people don’t share the same attitudes, values, and manners. So, even idealistic whites are likely to grow cynical or dispirited in the long run. But since PC is the religion of the land, they repress their disappointment with diversity and keep bitching about ‘white privilege’.

    Furthermore, white good-will is self-defeating in the age of PC. If whites were good-willed and confident in power, they could at least force their own civic mindedness on non-whites. And non-whites, under the pressure of confident and powerful whites, would feel compelled to follow suit.

    But today, with multi-culti PC that always invokes ‘white guilt’ and ‘tolerance’, good-willed whites have no means with which to compel lazy, stupid, and loutish non-whites to shape up and act more civic-minded. Indeed, if such effort were made, it could be called ‘racist’ and ‘insensitive’.

    So, white good-will now operates on the basis of moral inferiority, as an act of sappy atonement than act of righteous assertion. Morality without spine is useless. PC has a spine only when pressuring whites to be sensitive toward non-whites, but it has no spine when addressing non-whites. The effect is that civic-minded whites check themselves from criticizing non-whites while the messy and uncivil non-whites become more arrogant in their dysfunctions(and then even blame whites for problems they’ve caused themselves).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Szopen says:
    @HdC
    Szopen, answer this if you can:

    How come that not a single eyewitness to the alleged gassings got the colour of the alleged corpses right?

    How come that in the locations where eye witnesses testified as to the location of mass burning pits and mass burial sites, nothing of substance was found that would support the claim of mass killings?

    Then of course there is the Leuchter report and Rudolf report that put the final coffin nail into the claims of the "holocaust" gassings.

    Finally, why has there NEVER been a broadcast debate between holocaustians and those questioning their claims?

    And from a purely intellectual perspective, why must holocaustians practically always resort to ad hominem attacks instead of refuting the mostly scientific and forensic facts of the questioners with better arguments and facts???

    It is for these reasons, and numerous others, that this individual no longer believes any of the assertions regarding Germany and its actions during WWI and WWII. For anything relating to these times I would want to see hard and verifiable evidence, not arm waving, synthetic outrage, crocodile tears nor curtailment of free speech or free inquiry.

    What do the holocaustians have to hide?

    HdC

    As for the color of the bodies, I don’t know, but it’s quite known that eye-witnesses quite often miss some details. I am not sure whether I could get right the colour of my wife’s dress yesterday.

    As for the second, you don’t know what you are talking about. There were done exhumations all over the Poland, there is a massive documentation of mass graves. Moreover, it is very easy to find it even using google. Some mass graves were found only in 60, some in 1970; New mass graves are occasionally found – for the record, only recently mass graves of GERMAN prisoners were found, and until that would you argue that no, Soviets were not murdering Germans in Poland after the war, because there are no mass graves? In fact, entering “Treblink mass grave” into google will give you links to news about British archeologs who in 2013 and 2014 examined the site, finding new, previously unknown mass graves there. The fourth link I googled was a site containing some most known evidence for mass graves in Treblinka (including the most shameful fact for my own countryman, that there was something akin to gold-rush between the peasants, who immedietely after the war were digging through the mass graves, searching for the gold).

    The only thing you can do is to not believe Polish documents, and all the researchers, claming they are all part of he massive conspiracy, and then to proceed from that to “since all evidence is fabricated, then there is no evidence” without providing any proof that the evidence is fabricated.

    Leuchter report was debunked, and again, it’s easy to find all the flaws of this report. The debates are not broadcasted, but you can easily find the discussions with historians addressing all the points raised by denialists. The ad hominem are occasionally used because deniers are using ad hominem arguments too, and – moreover – they ignore all the evidence and facts even if they are pointed to it. It’s hard to discuss with someone, who closes eyes when you show him evidence, and you are finally tired, he then opens eyes and scream: “you see? there is no evidence!”.

    Start with nizkor. You can see Leuchter report thouroughly examined there and debunked, point by point. If you had not ever read Nizkor, then you are not really seeking the debate, but just want to preach. If you have read, then how in the earth can you still believe in Leuchter report? (www.nizkor.org/faq/leuchter)

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Hmmm, thousands of bodies of a pinkish colour and not a single witness remembers? Unbelievable. The colour of your -or my- wife's dress is totally inconsequential when compared the the allegations made against the Germans.

    Leuchter was accepted by prison officials all over the USA as an expert in execution technology, to wit, execution gas chambers. His technology obviously worked, and this is the crux of the matter. Then , of course, there is the Rudolf report. And Rudolf was a PhD candidate in Chemistry, a degree which was denied him because the powers-that-be took umbrage at him for publishing a report that flies in the face of officialdom. His report has not been refuted.

    There are mass graves and there are mass graves. 6 or 12 bodies in a hole constitutes a mass grave. For 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million others as the claims go) gassed bodies that's a lot of graves. Even with 100,000 bodies per grave that's a lot of graves. And the ONLY thoroughly investigated grave site was Katyn Forest. By the Germans no less. At 10,000 bodies per grave one should be stumbling over bodies everywhere in Eastern Europe. And nary a word in the MSM which is absolutely obsessed with the Nazis.

    Yes I read about the British team at Treblinka. You can also watch a video on YOUTUBE about this. If that party constitutes a serious forensic investigation I'd like to see its report debated. You may accept as evidence of gas chambers the fact that the back of a fired clay tile found in the area bore the star of David (6 pointed star) evidently to placate Jews being led to the gas chamber. Fact is that symbol ON THE BACK OF THE TILE is the trademark of the Polish factory that produced those tiles and is still operating!

    Actually, I found Polish newspaper reports from the 1930's most interesting. Talk about chauvinism!

    I found Nitzkor practically unreadable because of the verbosity, obfuscation and illogic, of the writings. Further, the great majority of debating sites are unreadable for the same reasons, plus the ad hominem attacks.

    "Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof". Please supply.

    HdC

    , @SolontoCroesus
    There are mass graves.
    They're in Russia.

    Consider this extended quote of a conversation Zbigniew Brzezinski had with Brian Lamb in 1989
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?7047-1/book-discussion-grand-failure

    Stalin was the worst murderer in history (@ 12 min) “[In my book, Grand Failure], I try to provide statistics . . .that Stalin killed as many as 40 million . . . in a variety of ways . . . by shooting, but on a massive, massive scale.
    [1]We are now discovering graves next to every large Soviet city, graves with thousands of people. For example near Minsk, a city before the war of half-a-million people, they have discovered mass graves, which according to the calculations of those who dug them up, numbered as many as 101,000 people, shot in the course of four years. 101,000 people.

    [2]Now the Soviet government has investigated this and the Soviet secret police, which is the inheritor of the NKVD which carried out these executions, has issued a statement saying “that’s a vastly exaggerated figure. The number was ONLY 30,000.

    Now since then the place at Minsk, called Kuropathy (sp ??), they have discovered mass graves in Kiev, in some cemeteries in Moscow, in the AltI Kai ??, and searches are now going on in every major city. Now Stalin literally shot thousands, hundreds of thousands, probably several million people.
    Then there were people who died during mass deportations carried out under extraordinarily inhuman conditions.
    [3] Then there were mass executions in the camps. We now know from documentary evidence . . .that the numbers were among the tens of millions — TENS of millions, in camps. Periodically an order would arrive saying, ‘Ten percent are to be liquidated.’ Just like that!

    [4] Or in local police offices sometimes an order would arrive saying, In your region it is estimated there are 15% enemies of the people.” That was clearly an order to the local civilian police to ferret out 15% of the people. Because if they didn’t they would be guilty of dereliction of duty and the same thing would happen to them.”

     

    Brzezinski provided information relevant to several assertions in this thread:

    1. Max Hastings has argued in several venues that the holocaust puts Hitler in the same league of evil as Stalin. Thus, for Brits like Hastings (and A C Grayling and a host of others), maintaining the holocaust narrative is the Red Wagon upon which depends the ability to exculpate the Allies from crimes against humanity, not least for allying with Stalin, the greatest mass murderer of all time.

    2. There is forensic as well as documentary evidence of mass graves, in Russian cities. Hitler didn't do it.

    4. re the assertion that "gas chambers were used because German soldiers found that shooting people was too upsetting.
    Hitler & NSDAP took account of the moral scruples of German soldiers.
    As the above quote notes, Stalin forced Russian police to "liquidate 12%" of a population, and if they failed to do so, they would themselves be killed. Zhukov employed the same tactic: gunners were set up behind Russian lines to shoot any Russian soldier who failed to charge forward into battle against Germans.

    ---

    With regard to the "Hitler did not write orders but they were understood; it is known that this was done re euthanasia of terminally ill Germans, etc. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume he did the same wrt to gas chamber extermination of Jews."

    Consider the Stalin pattern:
    At Katyn, Stalinists killed 50,000 Polish officers and blamed it on Germans.

    From that, we can assume that Stalin killed 6 million Jews and blamed it on Germans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. szopen says:

    The links is http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/ ; sorry for the typo.

    And you can easily find literally HUNDREDS of sites which debate holocaust denial claims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Green
    I agree that Jews were targeted, and many killed. And why not? The were in the middle of WWII--a cataclysmic event that claimed some 50,000,000 lives. Untold millions of civilians were slaughtered during WWII. And the Jews were players. Many revolutionary communists were Jewish. They had blood on their hands, too. Jews were not merely a collection of innocent shop-keepers.

    But the claim that six million (6,000,000) Jews were gassed or burned alive is, I believe, a grotesque exaggeration used for political purposes. The Holocaust myth is essential to 1) the legitimacy a race-based, 'Jews Only' state created through violence, and the establishment of new taboos that permit non-white ethno-racial cohesion while simultaneously linking white racial cohesion with fascism, xenophobia and genocide.

    It is UNDENIABLE that claims were made about six million Jews being slaughtered before and during WWI! Please google it. The evidence is everywhere. Even on YouTube. All these absurd stories turned out to be false.

    Indeed, there are scores or surviving newspaper stories, headlines and even letters by prominent Americans claiming that six million Jews were dead or dying--this long before the end of WWI. Some stories go back to the 19th century! I've seen them myself.

    There's also a book on this subject called 'The First Holocaust'.

    These dishonest and defamatory fables--promulgated by leading Jewish figures--must be examined and explained. It indicates a serious and ongoing pattern of deception.

    Enormous, defamatory lies by the same clique over and over cannot be ignored.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. 1. The asylum law grants the asylum seekers the right
    to get their family to Germany. 1,5 Mill Refugees this year
    - let’s say that on average they bring two more people
    for each person here – this would amount to 4,5 Mill asylum
    seekers (and this is a conservative guess).

    2. The expenditures for asylum seekers in 2014 amounted
    to 2,3 Bill Euros for 360.000 people (according to the
    Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz – try to say that, Yankee :-) – these
    include health care, personal expenditures, food and
    clothing etc. – but not the money for housing and
    integration (language courses etc.) – so the real costs are
    higher (much higher in the long run).

    For 2015 the costs should be five times as much – at
    least!

    3. Again – there are no jobs (apart from the low paid
    sectors), no houses, no appartments, no women and no chance
    that all this will change soon (all the more, since the
    process of rationalization and automation will continue -
    all big German companies have laid of people in the last
    years and will continue to do so).

    So all in all – the refugees will compete with the poor
    - some (a minority) will turn into muslim fanatics, some
    others will go into crime (in 2014 the propability of a
    refugee to rape a German woman was ten times higher than
    that of a German man according to statistics of the German
    police – which are never published, by the way – this
    disparity should grow also, thanks to stark social and
    cultural differences and no chance to really integrate the
    refugees in the way of giving them work, because there is
    not enough as I said).

    Interestingly many Germans still believe the fairy
    tale, that we need the migrants, because we are an aging
    society – which is very naive, because

    a) there are officially 3 mill German unemployed,
    unofficially the number could be between 6-8 mill
    people)

    b) the refugees don’t speak the language, come from
    totally different cultural and religious backgrounds and are
    in general not qualified for our labour market and will
    therefore only be able to work in the low skilled labor
    sector or will receive unemploymency benefits for the rest
    of their lives (of course there will be exceptions to the
    rule).

    People unfortunately never ask themselves: Hm – how is
    the schooling and university system in Nigeria, Syria,
    Libya, Afghanistan etc. – how many great technology
    companies do I know from there or engineering companies like
    in Germany or great universities – how many noble prize
    winners are there etc.

    It is not the fault of these poor people, that their
    countries are being savagely destroyed by outside forces and
    it is understandable that they want to get away – but if the
    poor keep coming here, we will also become poor (and more
    divided) – and sooner rather than later.

    If one would just look at the current work
    participation of foreigners already living here and coming
    from the same areas as the refugees (middle east, Africa),
    one would see the desaster – also within the school
    system.

    In 2012 in the latest “check” of the German
    schooling success (called PISA), the number of German pupils,
    who were not sufficent in mathematics was 34%. The
    percentage of migrants not sufficient was 50% – and even
    higher for muslims from the middle east or africans.

    In short: A catastrophy in the making.

    Disappointment, radicalization, distrust, poverty,
    violence, no-go-areas and crime will rise.

    Terror attacks should also happen – it is just a matter
    of time. They will act as an excuse for more surveillance
    etc. Civil war at some point in time is a real possibility.

    Divide and rule at its best.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. HdC says:
    @Szopen
    As for the color of the bodies, I don't know, but it's quite known that eye-witnesses quite often miss some details. I am not sure whether I could get right the colour of my wife's dress yesterday.

    As for the second, you don't know what you are talking about. There were done exhumations all over the Poland, there is a massive documentation of mass graves. Moreover, it is very easy to find it even using google. Some mass graves were found only in 60, some in 1970; New mass graves are occasionally found - for the record, only recently mass graves of GERMAN prisoners were found, and until that would you argue that no, Soviets were not murdering Germans in Poland after the war, because there are no mass graves? In fact, entering "Treblink mass grave" into google will give you links to news about British archeologs who in 2013 and 2014 examined the site, finding new, previously unknown mass graves there. The fourth link I googled was a site containing some most known evidence for mass graves in Treblinka (including the most shameful fact for my own countryman, that there was something akin to gold-rush between the peasants, who immedietely after the war were digging through the mass graves, searching for the gold).

    The only thing you can do is to not believe Polish documents, and all the researchers, claming they are all part of he massive conspiracy, and then to proceed from that to "since all evidence is fabricated, then there is no evidence" without providing any proof that the evidence is fabricated.

    Leuchter report was debunked, and again, it's easy to find all the flaws of this report. The debates are not broadcasted, but you can easily find the discussions with historians addressing all the points raised by denialists. The ad hominem are occasionally used because deniers are using ad hominem arguments too, and - moreover - they ignore all the evidence and facts even if they are pointed to it. It's hard to discuss with someone, who closes eyes when you show him evidence, and you are finally tired, he then opens eyes and scream: "you see? there is no evidence!".

    Start with nizkor. You can see Leuchter report thouroughly examined there and debunked, point by point. If you had not ever read Nizkor, then you are not really seeking the debate, but just want to preach. If you have read, then how in the earth can you still believe in Leuchter report? (www.nizkor.org/faq/leuchter)

    Hmmm, thousands of bodies of a pinkish colour and not a single witness remembers? Unbelievable. The colour of your -or my- wife’s dress is totally inconsequential when compared the the allegations made against the Germans.

    Leuchter was accepted by prison officials all over the USA as an expert in execution technology, to wit, execution gas chambers. His technology obviously worked, and this is the crux of the matter. Then , of course, there is the Rudolf report. And Rudolf was a PhD candidate in Chemistry, a degree which was denied him because the powers-that-be took umbrage at him for publishing a report that flies in the face of officialdom. His report has not been refuted.

    There are mass graves and there are mass graves. 6 or 12 bodies in a hole constitutes a mass grave. For 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million others as the claims go) gassed bodies that’s a lot of graves. Even with 100,000 bodies per grave that’s a lot of graves. And the ONLY thoroughly investigated grave site was Katyn Forest. By the Germans no less. At 10,000 bodies per grave one should be stumbling over bodies everywhere in Eastern Europe. And nary a word in the MSM which is absolutely obsessed with the Nazis.

    Yes I read about the British team at Treblinka. You can also watch a video on YOUTUBE about this. If that party constitutes a serious forensic investigation I’d like to see its report debated. You may accept as evidence of gas chambers the fact that the back of a fired clay tile found in the area bore the star of David (6 pointed star) evidently to placate Jews being led to the gas chamber. Fact is that symbol ON THE BACK OF THE TILE is the trademark of the Polish factory that produced those tiles and is still operating!

    Actually, I found Polish newspaper reports from the 1930′s most interesting. Talk about chauvinism!

    I found Nitzkor practically unreadable because of the verbosity, obfuscation and illogic, of the writings. Further, the great majority of debating sites are unreadable for the same reasons, plus the ad hominem attacks.

    “Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof”. Please supply.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    Hmmm, thousands of bodies of a pinkish colour and not a single witness remembers? Unbelievable. The colour of your -or my- wife’s dress is totally inconsequential when compared the the allegations made against the Germans.
     
    Repeating things that aren't true doesn't suddenly make them true.

    Beyond that, there are plenty of reasons why eyewitnesses wouldn't either have noticed or remarked on the color of the bodies. Maybe no one asked. Maybe they considered a minor detail at best. Maybe they didn't notice. Maybe a lot of the bodies weren't pink, for the mere matter that a large number of people dying in gas chambers suffocated, rather than being poisoned.

    Leuchter was accepted by prison officials all over the USA as an expert in execution technology, to wit, execution gas chambers. His technology obviously worked, and this is the crux of the matter.
     
    Leuchter was an expert at gassing one person at a time. He was also not a scientist, which was a point made by the judge in the Zündel case, who refused to qualify Leuchter as an expert.

    Then , of course, there is the Rudolf report. And Rudolf was a PhD candidate in Chemistry, a degree which was denied him because the powers-that-be took umbrage at him for publishing a report that flies in the face of officialdom. His report has not been refuted.
     
    Sure it has, by Richard Green, an actual Ph.D. in chemistry who did post-doc work on cyanide:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/blue.html

    Your ignorance of evidence is not the same as evidence not existing.

    There are mass graves and there are mass graves. 6 or 12 bodies in a hole constitutes a mass grave. For 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million others as the claims go) gassed bodies that’s a lot of graves. Even with 100,000 bodies per grave that’s a lot of graves. And the ONLY thoroughly investigated grave site was Katyn Forest. By the Germans no less. At 10,000 bodies per grave one should be stumbling over bodies everywhere in Eastern Europe. And nary a word in the MSM which is absolutely obsessed with the Nazis.
     
    Again, not true. Please choose a mass grave site to discuss, and we'll discuss it. Again, your lack of knowledge about these sites doesn't mean they don't exist.

    [snip]

    I found Nitzkor practically unreadable because of the verbosity, obfuscation and illogic, of the writings. Further, the great majority of debating sites are unreadable for the same reasons, plus the ad hominem attacks.
     
    Your refusal to read evidence is not the same as evidence not existing.

    “Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof”. Please supply.
     
    Indeed, you are alleging a tremendous conspiracy. Care to prove it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @HdC
    Hmmm, thousands of bodies of a pinkish colour and not a single witness remembers? Unbelievable. The colour of your -or my- wife's dress is totally inconsequential when compared the the allegations made against the Germans.

    Leuchter was accepted by prison officials all over the USA as an expert in execution technology, to wit, execution gas chambers. His technology obviously worked, and this is the crux of the matter. Then , of course, there is the Rudolf report. And Rudolf was a PhD candidate in Chemistry, a degree which was denied him because the powers-that-be took umbrage at him for publishing a report that flies in the face of officialdom. His report has not been refuted.

    There are mass graves and there are mass graves. 6 or 12 bodies in a hole constitutes a mass grave. For 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million others as the claims go) gassed bodies that's a lot of graves. Even with 100,000 bodies per grave that's a lot of graves. And the ONLY thoroughly investigated grave site was Katyn Forest. By the Germans no less. At 10,000 bodies per grave one should be stumbling over bodies everywhere in Eastern Europe. And nary a word in the MSM which is absolutely obsessed with the Nazis.

    Yes I read about the British team at Treblinka. You can also watch a video on YOUTUBE about this. If that party constitutes a serious forensic investigation I'd like to see its report debated. You may accept as evidence of gas chambers the fact that the back of a fired clay tile found in the area bore the star of David (6 pointed star) evidently to placate Jews being led to the gas chamber. Fact is that symbol ON THE BACK OF THE TILE is the trademark of the Polish factory that produced those tiles and is still operating!

    Actually, I found Polish newspaper reports from the 1930's most interesting. Talk about chauvinism!

    I found Nitzkor practically unreadable because of the verbosity, obfuscation and illogic, of the writings. Further, the great majority of debating sites are unreadable for the same reasons, plus the ad hominem attacks.

    "Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof". Please supply.

    HdC

    Hmmm, thousands of bodies of a pinkish colour and not a single witness remembers? Unbelievable. The colour of your -or my- wife’s dress is totally inconsequential when compared the the allegations made against the Germans.

    Repeating things that aren’t true doesn’t suddenly make them true.

    Beyond that, there are plenty of reasons why eyewitnesses wouldn’t either have noticed or remarked on the color of the bodies. Maybe no one asked. Maybe they considered a minor detail at best. Maybe they didn’t notice. Maybe a lot of the bodies weren’t pink, for the mere matter that a large number of people dying in gas chambers suffocated, rather than being poisoned.

    Leuchter was accepted by prison officials all over the USA as an expert in execution technology, to wit, execution gas chambers. His technology obviously worked, and this is the crux of the matter.

    Leuchter was an expert at gassing one person at a time. He was also not a scientist, which was a point made by the judge in the Zündel case, who refused to qualify Leuchter as an expert.

    Then , of course, there is the Rudolf report. And Rudolf was a PhD candidate in Chemistry, a degree which was denied him because the powers-that-be took umbrage at him for publishing a report that flies in the face of officialdom. His report has not been refuted.

    Sure it has, by Richard Green, an actual Ph.D. in chemistry who did post-doc work on cyanide:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/blue.html

    Your ignorance of evidence is not the same as evidence not existing.

    There are mass graves and there are mass graves. 6 or 12 bodies in a hole constitutes a mass grave. For 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million others as the claims go) gassed bodies that’s a lot of graves. Even with 100,000 bodies per grave that’s a lot of graves. And the ONLY thoroughly investigated grave site was Katyn Forest. By the Germans no less. At 10,000 bodies per grave one should be stumbling over bodies everywhere in Eastern Europe. And nary a word in the MSM which is absolutely obsessed with the Nazis.

    Again, not true. Please choose a mass grave site to discuss, and we’ll discuss it. Again, your lack of knowledge about these sites doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    [snip]

    I found Nitzkor practically unreadable because of the verbosity, obfuscation and illogic, of the writings. Further, the great majority of debating sites are unreadable for the same reasons, plus the ad hominem attacks.

    Your refusal to read evidence is not the same as evidence not existing.

    “Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof”. Please supply.

    Indeed, you are alleging a tremendous conspiracy. Care to prove it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    I'm not accusing anybody, YOU and your ilk have accused the Germans for over 70 years of God knows what crimes when in fact these crimes were committed by the Allies. Look up the definition of holocaust. Hiroshima and Dresden immediately spring to mind.

    Consequently it is up to YOU to provide incontrovertible evidence that your accusations are in fact true and have occurred in the manner you assert.

    Locking up people and their lawyers in Europe when they try to present evidence that flies in the face of the politically correct rubbish of common knowledge as propagated by the MSM no longer suffices as "evidence". Not even a witness from Israel was allowed in this particular trial. Any thinking individual must ask himself what the holocaustians are trying to hide.

    Read: "For 99% of what we know of the Holocaust no evidence exists". This is a very famous quote from a daily paper in Toronto when it interviewed the Canadian High Priest of Holocaustianity.

    I have read and tried to understand the verbiage in Nitzkor. And I have also read numerous written judgements by sitting judges as this affected my professional work. Consequently I understand very well the difference between sound judgements and empty verbiage. The latter is what passes in Nitzkor as evidence.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Hmmm, thousands of bodies of a pinkish colour and not a single witness remembers? Unbelievable. The colour of your -or my- wife’s dress is totally inconsequential when compared the the allegations made against the Germans.
     
    Repeating things that aren't true doesn't suddenly make them true.

    Beyond that, there are plenty of reasons why eyewitnesses wouldn't either have noticed or remarked on the color of the bodies. Maybe no one asked. Maybe they considered a minor detail at best. Maybe they didn't notice. Maybe a lot of the bodies weren't pink, for the mere matter that a large number of people dying in gas chambers suffocated, rather than being poisoned.

    Leuchter was accepted by prison officials all over the USA as an expert in execution technology, to wit, execution gas chambers. His technology obviously worked, and this is the crux of the matter.
     
    Leuchter was an expert at gassing one person at a time. He was also not a scientist, which was a point made by the judge in the Zündel case, who refused to qualify Leuchter as an expert.

    Then , of course, there is the Rudolf report. And Rudolf was a PhD candidate in Chemistry, a degree which was denied him because the powers-that-be took umbrage at him for publishing a report that flies in the face of officialdom. His report has not been refuted.
     
    Sure it has, by Richard Green, an actual Ph.D. in chemistry who did post-doc work on cyanide:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/denial-of-science/blue.html

    Your ignorance of evidence is not the same as evidence not existing.

    There are mass graves and there are mass graves. 6 or 12 bodies in a hole constitutes a mass grave. For 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million others as the claims go) gassed bodies that’s a lot of graves. Even with 100,000 bodies per grave that’s a lot of graves. And the ONLY thoroughly investigated grave site was Katyn Forest. By the Germans no less. At 10,000 bodies per grave one should be stumbling over bodies everywhere in Eastern Europe. And nary a word in the MSM which is absolutely obsessed with the Nazis.
     
    Again, not true. Please choose a mass grave site to discuss, and we'll discuss it. Again, your lack of knowledge about these sites doesn't mean they don't exist.

    [snip]

    I found Nitzkor practically unreadable because of the verbosity, obfuscation and illogic, of the writings. Further, the great majority of debating sites are unreadable for the same reasons, plus the ad hominem attacks.
     
    Your refusal to read evidence is not the same as evidence not existing.

    “Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof”. Please supply.
     
    Indeed, you are alleging a tremendous conspiracy. Care to prove it?

    I’m not accusing anybody, YOU and your ilk have accused the Germans for over 70 years of God knows what crimes when in fact these crimes were committed by the Allies. Look up the definition of holocaust. Hiroshima and Dresden immediately spring to mind.

    Consequently it is up to YOU to provide incontrovertible evidence that your accusations are in fact true and have occurred in the manner you assert.

    Locking up people and their lawyers in Europe when they try to present evidence that flies in the face of the politically correct rubbish of common knowledge as propagated by the MSM no longer suffices as “evidence”. Not even a witness from Israel was allowed in this particular trial. Any thinking individual must ask himself what the holocaustians are trying to hide.

    Read: “For 99% of what we know of the Holocaust no evidence exists”. This is a very famous quote from a daily paper in Toronto when it interviewed the Canadian High Priest of Holocaustianity.

    I have read and tried to understand the verbiage in Nitzkor. And I have also read numerous written judgements by sitting judges as this affected my professional work. Consequently I understand very well the difference between sound judgements and empty verbiage. The latter is what passes in Nitzkor as evidence.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    In other words, you first complain that there is no debate, and then you refuse to read your opponents arguments. There is no better proof that you, actually, do not want to enter into the debate, that you do not care about the proofs or evidence, that you simply want to whitewash Germany. The evidence was already provided, thousands of times, and you dismissed it without even reading it, as you have admitted.

    Remember, even if you would explain away Holocaust, you still have crimes against Poles, Russians and others to explain. Shooting innocent people, wiping all whole villages, bombing undefended cities, starving prisoners to death, public executions of dozens, shooting professors of universities just because they were educated (NOT in retaliation), kidnapping the children after executing their parents, and the list goes on and on.

    As about Polish newspapers from 1930, czy to znaczy, że rozumie Pan po polsku bez potrzeby używania google translate? Jakoś wątpię. Większość zaprzeczaczy Holocaustu posiłkuje się cytatami, które gdzieś wygrzebało na sieci, i jakoś wówczas nie wątpią w ich autentyczność. To samo w sobie świadczy o tym, czy szukacie prawdy, czy po prostu chcecie wybielić zbrodniarzy.

    , @Andrew E. Mathis

    I’m not accusing anybody, YOU and your ilk have accused the Germans for over 70 years of God knows what crimes when in fact these crimes were committed by the Allies. Look up the definition of holocaust. Hiroshima and Dresden immediately spring to mind.
     
    Armes Deutschland!

    The Germans have admitted what happened during the Third Reich, to their great credit. That idiots elsewhere in the world try to exculpate their fascist regime does Germany no favors.

    Consequently it is up to YOU to provide incontrovertible evidence that your accusations are in fact true and have occurred in the manner you assert.
     
    No, I must only provide a logical narrative that explains the available evidence, which has been done repeatedly. For 70-plus years of "revisionism," not a single revisionist has ever offered a plausible alternative narrative for what became of millions of Jews. I suspect you're not going to be the first.

    Locking up people and their lawyers in Europe when they try to present evidence that flies in the face of the politically correct rubbish of common knowledge as propagated by the MSM no longer suffices as “evidence”.
     
    Appeal to emotion. Logical fallacy.

    Not even a witness from Israel was allowed in this particular trial. Any thinking individual must ask himself what the holocaustians are trying to hide.
     
    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    Read: “For 99% of what we know of the Holocaust no evidence exists”. This is a very famous quote from a daily paper in Toronto when it interviewed the Canadian High Priest of Holocaustianity.
     
    Actually, he said 99%% of what we know has no physical evidence. Big difference.

    I have read and tried to understand the verbiage in Nitzkor. And I have also read numerous written judgements by sitting judges as this affected my professional work. Consequently I understand very well the difference between sound judgements and empty verbiage. The latter is what passes in Nitzkor as evidence.
     
    Appeal to incredulity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Holocaust deniers make the cardinal error of insisting that the Auschwitz gas chambers were the chief engines of Nazi mass murder – when roughly half of the Nazis’ victims were murdered outside the concentration camps.

    This lifts but one corner of the carpet that’s been kept over the swept-under hundreds of Holocaust mass-murder sites: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hidden-holocaust/

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Yet not a single, authenticated report, that the victims were indeed Jews.

    Why no thorough investigation as the Germans did when they discovered the Katy Forest massacre in Poland?

    Opinions are insufficient to support serious allegations.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. szopen says:
    @HdC
    I'm not accusing anybody, YOU and your ilk have accused the Germans for over 70 years of God knows what crimes when in fact these crimes were committed by the Allies. Look up the definition of holocaust. Hiroshima and Dresden immediately spring to mind.

    Consequently it is up to YOU to provide incontrovertible evidence that your accusations are in fact true and have occurred in the manner you assert.

    Locking up people and their lawyers in Europe when they try to present evidence that flies in the face of the politically correct rubbish of common knowledge as propagated by the MSM no longer suffices as "evidence". Not even a witness from Israel was allowed in this particular trial. Any thinking individual must ask himself what the holocaustians are trying to hide.

    Read: "For 99% of what we know of the Holocaust no evidence exists". This is a very famous quote from a daily paper in Toronto when it interviewed the Canadian High Priest of Holocaustianity.

    I have read and tried to understand the verbiage in Nitzkor. And I have also read numerous written judgements by sitting judges as this affected my professional work. Consequently I understand very well the difference between sound judgements and empty verbiage. The latter is what passes in Nitzkor as evidence.

    HdC

    In other words, you first complain that there is no debate, and then you refuse to read your opponents arguments. There is no better proof that you, actually, do not want to enter into the debate, that you do not care about the proofs or evidence, that you simply want to whitewash Germany. The evidence was already provided, thousands of times, and you dismissed it without even reading it, as you have admitted.

    Remember, even if you would explain away Holocaust, you still have crimes against Poles, Russians and others to explain. Shooting innocent people, wiping all whole villages, bombing undefended cities, starving prisoners to death, public executions of dozens, shooting professors of universities just because they were educated (NOT in retaliation), kidnapping the children after executing their parents, and the list goes on and on.

    As about Polish newspapers from 1930, czy to znaczy, że rozumie Pan po polsku bez potrzeby używania google translate? Jakoś wątpię. Większość zaprzeczaczy Holocaustu posiłkuje się cytatami, które gdzieś wygrzebało na sieci, i jakoś wówczas nie wątpią w ich autentyczność. To samo w sobie świadczy o tym, czy szukacie prawdy, czy po prostu chcecie wybielić zbrodniarzy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Proof? Positive, incontrovertible proof? Tested for veracity in an unbiased court? Agreed that such a court would be difficult to find in western countries.

    Assertions from 85 year olds just does not cut it.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. HdC says:
    @Auntie Analogue
    Holocaust deniers make the cardinal error of insisting that the Auschwitz gas chambers were the chief engines of Nazi mass murder - when roughly half of the Nazis' victims were murdered outside the concentration camps.

    This lifts but one corner of the carpet that's been kept over the swept-under hundreds of Holocaust mass-murder sites: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hidden-holocaust/

    Yet not a single, authenticated report, that the victims were indeed Jews.

    Why no thorough investigation as the Germans did when they discovered the Katy Forest massacre in Poland?

    Opinions are insufficient to support serious allegations.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Your ignorance of evidence is not proof that no evidence exists.

    How many times do I have to repeat this point to you?

    Choose a mass grave site to discuss, please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. HdC says:
    @szopen
    In other words, you first complain that there is no debate, and then you refuse to read your opponents arguments. There is no better proof that you, actually, do not want to enter into the debate, that you do not care about the proofs or evidence, that you simply want to whitewash Germany. The evidence was already provided, thousands of times, and you dismissed it without even reading it, as you have admitted.

    Remember, even if you would explain away Holocaust, you still have crimes against Poles, Russians and others to explain. Shooting innocent people, wiping all whole villages, bombing undefended cities, starving prisoners to death, public executions of dozens, shooting professors of universities just because they were educated (NOT in retaliation), kidnapping the children after executing their parents, and the list goes on and on.

    As about Polish newspapers from 1930, czy to znaczy, że rozumie Pan po polsku bez potrzeby używania google translate? Jakoś wątpię. Większość zaprzeczaczy Holocaustu posiłkuje się cytatami, które gdzieś wygrzebało na sieci, i jakoś wówczas nie wątpią w ich autentyczność. To samo w sobie świadczy o tym, czy szukacie prawdy, czy po prostu chcecie wybielić zbrodniarzy.

    Proof? Positive, incontrovertible proof? Tested for veracity in an unbiased court? Agreed that such a court would be difficult to find in western countries.

    Assertions from 85 year olds just does not cut it.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    Proof? Positive, incontrovertible proof? Tested for veracity in an unbiased court? Agreed that such a court would be difficult to find in western countries.
     
    When did this become the standard by which history is judged?

    Assertions from 85 year olds just does not cut it.
     
    Really? Why not?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @HdC
    I'm not accusing anybody, YOU and your ilk have accused the Germans for over 70 years of God knows what crimes when in fact these crimes were committed by the Allies. Look up the definition of holocaust. Hiroshima and Dresden immediately spring to mind.

    Consequently it is up to YOU to provide incontrovertible evidence that your accusations are in fact true and have occurred in the manner you assert.

    Locking up people and their lawyers in Europe when they try to present evidence that flies in the face of the politically correct rubbish of common knowledge as propagated by the MSM no longer suffices as "evidence". Not even a witness from Israel was allowed in this particular trial. Any thinking individual must ask himself what the holocaustians are trying to hide.

    Read: "For 99% of what we know of the Holocaust no evidence exists". This is a very famous quote from a daily paper in Toronto when it interviewed the Canadian High Priest of Holocaustianity.

    I have read and tried to understand the verbiage in Nitzkor. And I have also read numerous written judgements by sitting judges as this affected my professional work. Consequently I understand very well the difference between sound judgements and empty verbiage. The latter is what passes in Nitzkor as evidence.

    HdC

    I’m not accusing anybody, YOU and your ilk have accused the Germans for over 70 years of God knows what crimes when in fact these crimes were committed by the Allies. Look up the definition of holocaust. Hiroshima and Dresden immediately spring to mind.

    Armes Deutschland!

    The Germans have admitted what happened during the Third Reich, to their great credit. That idiots elsewhere in the world try to exculpate their fascist regime does Germany no favors.

    Consequently it is up to YOU to provide incontrovertible evidence that your accusations are in fact true and have occurred in the manner you assert.

    No, I must only provide a logical narrative that explains the available evidence, which has been done repeatedly. For 70-plus years of “revisionism,” not a single revisionist has ever offered a plausible alternative narrative for what became of millions of Jews. I suspect you’re not going to be the first.

    Locking up people and their lawyers in Europe when they try to present evidence that flies in the face of the politically correct rubbish of common knowledge as propagated by the MSM no longer suffices as “evidence”.

    Appeal to emotion. Logical fallacy.

    Not even a witness from Israel was allowed in this particular trial. Any thinking individual must ask himself what the holocaustians are trying to hide.

    I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Read: “For 99% of what we know of the Holocaust no evidence exists”. This is a very famous quote from a daily paper in Toronto when it interviewed the Canadian High Priest of Holocaustianity.

    Actually, he said 99%% of what we know has no physical evidence. Big difference.

    I have read and tried to understand the verbiage in Nitzkor. And I have also read numerous written judgements by sitting judges as this affected my professional work. Consequently I understand very well the difference between sound judgements and empty verbiage. The latter is what passes in Nitzkor as evidence.

    Appeal to incredulity.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sam Shama
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    Thanks to you and sznopen for answering the Holocaust-denying asshole. I can't deal with people like him.

    I note that it's really only in the US and France that you find his ilk. There are plenty of anti-Semites in Poland but you won't find one who denies the truth of the Holocaust.

    In my own case, I'm of Greek heritage and what the Germans did to Greece in WWII was a form of extermination. Anyone who tries to deny that in the presence of any person of Greek heritage had better watch out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @HdC
    Yet not a single, authenticated report, that the victims were indeed Jews.

    Why no thorough investigation as the Germans did when they discovered the Katy Forest massacre in Poland?

    Opinions are insufficient to support serious allegations.

    HdC

    Your ignorance of evidence is not proof that no evidence exists.

    How many times do I have to repeat this point to you?

    Choose a mass grave site to discuss, please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Your ignorance of evidence is not proof that no evidence exists.
     
    Classic, absolutely classic example of demanding proof of a negative.

    Fallacy, pure and unblemished.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. “Yet not a single, authenticated report, that the victims were indeed Jews….Opinions are insufficient to support serious allegations.”

    My dear HdC, in the 60 Minutes program segment perhaps you missed, or out of hand dismissed, the eyewitnesses’ accounts?

    “Assertions from 85 year olds just does not cut it.”

    Yet your claims “cut it”? Despite your having never been there at those gravesites and your likely not having been alive at the time those sites’ shot-dead remains fell into those pits? Please. You embarrass yourself.

    “Why no thorough investigation as the Germans did when they discovered the Katy Forest massacre in Poland?”

    Did you watch the same program that I watched? The mass graves were long in Soviet-occupied and Russian territory, and the Soviets were quite shy of inviting anyone – including their own people – to investigate such sites lest their own record of mass murder should also be exposed. Yet you reference the Katyn mass murders which the Soviets also strove to conceal from postwar investigation? Please. Again, you embarrass yourself.

    Further, the British housed captured Wehrmacht officers in a stately English estate which the British had thoroughly bugged, and from those buggings the recorded transcripts still exist, some of which reveal Wehrmacht officers discussing among themselves German SS and Wehrmacht rapes and mass murders of Jews and other noncombatant “enemies” in the eastern nations that the Wehrmacht had occupied. Can you say, “From the horse’s mouth”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Did you watch the same program that I watched?

    The mass graves were long in Soviet-occupied and Russian territory, and the Soviets were quite shy of inviting anyone – including their own people – to investigate such sites lest their own record of mass murder should also be exposed.

    Yet you reference the Katyn mass murders which the Soviets also strove to conceal from postwar investigation? Please. Again, you embarrass yourself.
     
    I'm watching this program, from a November 2014 discussion at Jewish Heritage Museum in NYC, where Ron Rosenbaum and Martin Amis talked about Rosenbaum's book, "Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil," and Amis's novel "The Zone of Interest" --http://www.c-span.org/video/?322861-1/book-discussion-explaining-hitler-zone-interest

    Selected quotes:

    The Zone of Interest cracks open the carapace of the daily horror of the death camps . . .you may think you know it, you may not. and then you turn a page in Martin’s novel and come upon mention of the Spring Meadow at Auschwitz, a place where when the crematoria were running overtime and the bodies couldn’t be completely burned -- they were trying to hide the evidence -- they buried them in shallow graves under the spring meadow.
    and after a while — this is the thing that got to me — the meadow began to move and to quake and steam with the decomposition of the corpses. Now you know about auschwitz and the 6 million and all that but i didn’t know about the spring meadow. there are passages all thorough out this book like that … it’s about the daily life, the trap door beneath the daily life that leads to some horrific other level.

    so to me this book was a service in that it illustrated why holocaust fatigue is not the right answer. [i.e. we must keep writing about it]
     
    Rosenbaum continued:


    [Martin Amis] also dared enter territory where few would want to — the horrifying interior of the minds of the perpetrators. um at a time when holocaust denial is on the increase , when jews still face genocidal threats, uh, we want to know about the perpetrators.

     

    What I find fascinating about this comment is Rosenbaum's willingness to rely on the fictional emanations of a novelist to explore the "interior of the minds of the perpetrators" -- to perform arm-chair psychology, with a view to producing a work that publishers will publish and a gullible public will purchase.

    Rosenbaum then issued this directive:

    uh some might say uh how dare non jews penetrate into this jewish tragedy, but i would say, how dare non jews not seek to find out what it was about non jews that led them to do this.
     
    Only the careless reader would conclude from this statement that Rosenbaum is inviting exploration of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the (alleged) holocaust of Jews.
    What Rosenbaum demands is that non-Jews scrupulously avoid investigation of the numerous ways that Jews provoked a war; exploited their host countries; demeaned, exploited, robbed and subverted a nation, destroyed their culture. Rather, Rosenbaum demands that non-Jews focus only on the narrative that Jews have concocted to exculpate themselves and condemn non-Jews.

    Rosenbaum's book on Hitler demonstrates that quirky characteristic of looking for hate in all the wrong places while carefully ignoring historical facts and evidence. The first two chapters (maybe more; I got only that far before disgust overtook) of "Explaining Hitler" are devoted to looking back over 150 years to discover the identity of Adolf Hitler's grandfather and presenting Freudian theories in an attempt to explain how that grandfather's identity was the key to Adolf Hitler's "mysterious strangeness."

    Among the historical facts and evidence that Rosenbaum & Amis fail to consider is the starvation of the German people. Although Rosenbaum and Amis discuss at length the effects of starvation on a people, they fail to acknowledge that the German people were starved into submission in World War I; endured starvation during the Weimar years, and were threatened with starvation by Jewish leaders beginning in March 1933 and persisting through 1941.

    Perhaps this is because Rosenbaum and Amis believe that starving people to death is peachy-keen, if carried out in service of an ideology that, seemingly, appeals to them.

    @ 51 min Amis said:

    "The Stalin crime that most neatly corresponds to the holocaust is the terror famine in the Ukraine in 1933 where -- it's not really known but something like, 7- 8- 9-million peasants were starved to death, even tho the granaries were full.
     
    Amis then mentions a novel by Anthony Grossman that describes "what it's like to watch your family starve to death", a process that " matches in cruelty the holocaust, I think; [it's] comparable."

    That statement, counterpoised against Edwin Black's mention, in The Transfer Agreement, of the deaths of 800,000 German civilians in World War I suggests that these Jewish- or philosemitic authors at very least have a blind spot, or fail in intellectual integrity. Black dismisses German starvation rather cavalierly, blaming it on the German misappropriation of resources and manpower, which suggests that no, or very few, Jews died of starvation in Germany in WWI, else Black would have elaborated on the injustice of it. It's also worth noting that Walter Rathnau was in charge of German domestic and industrial production during the war.

    To be sure, Black does elaborate on the starvation of Germans as he underlines how an economic boycott was the one weapon that Hitler, and the German people, would fear most because they had a present memory of the suffering endured; and why Jewish leaders who organized an economic boycott of Germany from March 1933 to just after the US and Germany were officially at war were confident their efforts would produce the desired result.

    Rosenbaum wants those whom geokat62 calls "dumb goy" to join him in ascribing all manner of evil to Hitler -- and themselves-- because 156 years ago his grandfather did not sign his name to a birth certificate, but he fails to acknowledge that Hitler and NSDAP, as leaders of a devastated and demoralized nation, might be more than ordinarily concerned to ensure that the German people never starve again.

    For his part, Martin Amis applies selective morality to the act of starving people. Of Stalin's terror-famine of Ukrainians that Amis has just described as the equivalent of the holocaust of Jews, Amis says:

    [The terror famine was] very comparable to the holocaust, but, the difference is, Stalin really had no choice: he had to break the peasants in order to collectivize them. And um if he had decided on something sort of more Bukharin-like it would have been uh abandoning the Socialist experiment, and betraying the revolution, so he had to go forward, he had to be as hard as nails to get that through.
     
    .
     The Communist project must go forward; ende gut, alles gut.

    But of Hitler, Amis says:

    Whereas there's no conceivable ideological justification for what Hitler did. . . .It wasn't an ideology. I mean what did he have: lebansraum; he wanted the Reich to last for a thousand years; uh, what else is there? Antisemitism. Uh [Sebastian Hafner says] what Hitlerism was was really a rallying cry for sadists. If you can beat and kill and steal for no reason and without provocation, then come to my banner. And that's how he recruited his rank-and-file. It makes no sense, as a war aim or anything else. "
     
    [I debunked three main assertions in the above, but I deleted the material. Readers here can make their own analysis. I hope. Or we are doomed.]
    ---
    Amis's fiction insists that the "Germans had lost by December 1941." Since they knew they had lost the war, his characters were instructed to "hide the evidence of their crimes" by exhuming the bodies they'd buried, and burning them.
    Two of Amis's characters figure out how to ascertain how many were buried (for some unknown reason). "Counting skulls won't do because they'd been shot in the back of the neck," so they count femurs and divide by two, arriving at a figure of 107,000 corpses.
    Jeopardy question: How long would it take to count 214,000 femurs?

    One more passage (without comment):

    Amis: "[After it was known that the war was lost, in December 1941], Hitler began to covet defeat and wanted that defeat to be as total and as humiliating as possible. Hitler had turned against another population, the Germans. Uh his tactics towards the end of the war can only vouch for the fact that he can only want the Russians to come in first."

    Rosenbaum: "He wanted the Russians to punish the German people for their lack of devotion to his grand --"

    Amis: "Yea, for not being up to it; stronger people. He wanted what actually happened which was, you know, a lot of murder and rape. . . . There were a million illegitimate births in Germany thanks to the Red Army. It was an army of rapists, and a whole population sprang up."

     

    ---

    Watching this video was like watching two grown men masturbate before an audience of eager and approving voyeurs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @HdC
    Proof? Positive, incontrovertible proof? Tested for veracity in an unbiased court? Agreed that such a court would be difficult to find in western countries.

    Assertions from 85 year olds just does not cut it.

    HdC

    Proof? Positive, incontrovertible proof? Tested for veracity in an unbiased court? Agreed that such a court would be difficult to find in western countries.

    When did this become the standard by which history is judged?

    Assertions from 85 year olds just does not cut it.

    Really? Why not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    A whole nation is accused of mass murder; methinks unbiased court proven evidence would be expected to substantiate these allegations.

    Yet every time someone in Europe dares to ask questions or offer alternative answers, they are jailed. Is this what you call debate? In case you missed this, we are talking of accusations of wholesale murder, not some irrelevant point in history. Perhaps this is what it means to you?

    No, the Nuernberg trials to not meet this requirement as this victor's justice was termed "high grade lynching party" and "Kangeroo Court" by several justices of the US supreme court.

    Where are the original recordings of the German Officer's conversations? Not transcripts, but the original recordings?

    And the best proof you can offer is what you saw on "60 Minutes"? Surely thou jest?

    To quote the state attorney who conducted the police shooting inquiry in Ferguson; "Eye witness testimony without corroboration forensic evidence was dismissed as worthless."

    Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Proof? Positive, incontrovertible proof? Tested for veracity in an unbiased court? Agreed that such a court would be difficult to find in western countries.
     
    When did this become the standard by which history is judged?

    Assertions from 85 year olds just does not cut it.
     
    Really? Why not?

    A whole nation is accused of mass murder; methinks unbiased court proven evidence would be expected to substantiate these allegations.

    Yet every time someone in Europe dares to ask questions or offer alternative answers, they are jailed. Is this what you call debate? In case you missed this, we are talking of accusations of wholesale murder, not some irrelevant point in history. Perhaps this is what it means to you?

    No, the Nuernberg trials to not meet this requirement as this victor’s justice was termed “high grade lynching party” and “Kangeroo Court” by several justices of the US supreme court.

    Where are the original recordings of the German Officer’s conversations? Not transcripts, but the original recordings?

    And the best proof you can offer is what you saw on “60 Minutes”? Surely thou jest?

    To quote the state attorney who conducted the police shooting inquiry in Ferguson; “Eye witness testimony without corroboration forensic evidence was dismissed as worthless.”

    Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    "Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof."

    Exactly. Your claim is that all witnesses testimonies are false, that all the evidence was falsified, and holocaust is part of massive conspiracy. That is extraordinary allegation and you have provided no proof at all, except refusing to debate, claiming that all the evidence is fabricated because you feel so, and so on. You are a perfect example why not many people argue with Holocaust deniers: because you, in this very thread, proved that you do not care about evidence or debate at all.

    Andrew Mathies (sorry if I mispell your name) invited you several times to discuss any particular mass grave and you ignored him. Everytime someone is presenting you with evidence, you dismiss it, because there are no "original recordings" - except that there are original recordings, but we - simple internet users - have no access to it. That would be fine in itself, but on another side you have no problem with reading "Polish newspapers", though you, most likely, do not know Polish and I bet you had real Polish newspapers from 1939 in your hands, so you probably relied on transcripts and seem to have no problems with that. You have clearly double standards here.

    Therefore, I won't care to discuss with you, as you have shown here that you are not really interested in a debate.

    And remember that even after explaining away Holocaust, you still have several millions of people to explain away, such as those killed during intelligentsia aktion, during mass shootings in Warsaw and so on. Even if gas was not used, you still have to explain shootings of Jews (and others), as you surely know that most killed was shot. Will your all reasoning be again "all of the hundreds of witnesses have lied, all mass graves are false"?
    , @Andrew E. Mathis

    A whole nation is accused of mass murder; methinks unbiased court proven evidence would be expected to substantiate these allegations.
     
    Nobody accused "a whole nation" at any of the trials of war criminals. Rather, all war criminals trials sought to establish culpability on the basis of individual acts. Nobody was charged generally with "the Holocaust."

    Yet every time someone in Europe dares to ask questions or offer alternative answers, they are jailed. Is this what you call debate? In case you missed this, we are talking of accusations of wholesale murder, not some irrelevant point in history. Perhaps this is what it means to you?
     
    Really? Every time? Do you really need me to demonstrate for you how this isn't true? Do I need to provide a list of German historians who offered alternate interpretations of the Third Reich, successfully or otherwise?

    No, the Nuernberg trials to not meet this requirement as this victor’s justice was termed “high grade lynching party” and “Kangeroo Court” by several justices of the US supreme court.
     
    Van Roden wasn't a US Supreme Court justice, just to make sure you're aware.

    Two other points about Nuremberg:

    (1) Rudolf Höss testified at Nuremberg as a defense witness (for Ernst Kaltenbrunner). Please describe how or why one tortures a defense witness.

    (2) Even if we threw out the Nuremberg trials proceedings entirely, you'd still have to contend with the lengthy judicial processes undertaken in W. Germany beginning in 1963 or so. These trials were conducted in agreement with every principle of jurisprudence. In those trials were established the crimes of Auschwitz and the Reinhard camps. Shall we get into those?

    Where are the original recordings of the German Officer’s conversations? Not transcripts, but the original recordings?
     
    They're in the British library.

    And the best proof you can offer is what you saw on “60 Minutes”? Surely thou jest?
     
    I don't know who you think you're talking to...

    To quote the state attorney who conducted the police shooting inquiry in Ferguson; “Eye witness testimony without corroboration forensic evidence was dismissed as worthless.”
     
    That's an excellent standard to use in a legal case.

    History is not a legal case.

    Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.
     
    Indeed. You are alleging an enormous conspiracy. You should try to prove it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Auntie Analogue

    "Yet not a single, authenticated report, that the victims were indeed Jews....Opinions are insufficient to support serious allegations."

     

    My dear HdC, in the 60 Minutes program segment perhaps you missed, or out of hand dismissed, the eyewitnesses' accounts?

    "Assertions from 85 year olds just does not cut it."

     

    Yet your claims "cut it"? Despite your having never been there at those gravesites and your likely not having been alive at the time those sites' shot-dead remains fell into those pits? Please. You embarrass yourself.

    "Why no thorough investigation as the Germans did when they discovered the Katy Forest massacre in Poland?"

     

    Did you watch the same program that I watched? The mass graves were long in Soviet-occupied and Russian territory, and the Soviets were quite shy of inviting anyone - including their own people - to investigate such sites lest their own record of mass murder should also be exposed. Yet you reference the Katyn mass murders which the Soviets also strove to conceal from postwar investigation? Please. Again, you embarrass yourself.

    Further, the British housed captured Wehrmacht officers in a stately English estate which the British had thoroughly bugged, and from those buggings the recorded transcripts still exist, some of which reveal Wehrmacht officers discussing among themselves German SS and Wehrmacht rapes and mass murders of Jews and other noncombatant "enemies" in the eastern nations that the Wehrmacht had occupied. Can you say, "From the horse's mouth"?

    Did you watch the same program that I watched?

    The mass graves were long in Soviet-occupied and Russian territory, and the Soviets were quite shy of inviting anyone – including their own people – to investigate such sites lest their own record of mass murder should also be exposed.

    Yet you reference the Katyn mass murders which the Soviets also strove to conceal from postwar investigation? Please. Again, you embarrass yourself.

    I’m watching this program, from a November 2014 discussion at Jewish Heritage Museum in NYC, where Ron Rosenbaum and Martin Amis talked about Rosenbaum’s book, “Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil,” and Amis’s novel “The Zone of Interest” –http://www.c-span.org/video/?322861-1/book-discussion-explaining-hitler-zone-interest

    Selected quotes:

    The Zone of Interest cracks open the carapace of the daily horror of the death camps . . .you may think you know it, you may not. and then you turn a page in Martin’s novel and come upon mention of the Spring Meadow at Auschwitz, a place where when the crematoria were running overtime and the bodies couldn’t be completely burned — they were trying to hide the evidence — they buried them in shallow graves under the spring meadow.
    and after a while — this is the thing that got to me — the meadow began to move and to quake and steam with the decomposition of the corpses. Now you know about auschwitz and the 6 million and all that but i didn’t know about the spring meadow. there are passages all thorough out this book like that … it’s about the daily life, the trap door beneath the daily life that leads to some horrific other level.

    so to me this book was a service in that it illustrated why holocaust fatigue is not the right answer. [i.e. we must keep writing about it]

    Rosenbaum continued:

    [Martin Amis] also dared enter territory where few would want to — the horrifying interior of the minds of the perpetrators. um at a time when holocaust denial is on the increase , when jews still face genocidal threats, uh, we want to know about the perpetrators.

    What I find fascinating about this comment is Rosenbaum’s willingness to rely on the fictional emanations of a novelist to explore the “interior of the minds of the perpetrators” — to perform arm-chair psychology, with a view to producing a work that publishers will publish and a gullible public will purchase.

    Rosenbaum then issued this directive:

    uh some might say uh how dare non jews penetrate into this jewish tragedy, but i would say, how dare non jews not seek to find out what it was about non jews that led them to do this.

    Only the careless reader would conclude from this statement that Rosenbaum is inviting exploration of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the (alleged) holocaust of Jews.
    What Rosenbaum demands is that non-Jews scrupulously avoid investigation of the numerous ways that Jews provoked a war; exploited their host countries; demeaned, exploited, robbed and subverted a nation, destroyed their culture. Rather, Rosenbaum demands that non-Jews focus only on the narrative that Jews have concocted to exculpate themselves and condemn non-Jews.

    Rosenbaum’s book on Hitler demonstrates that quirky characteristic of looking for hate in all the wrong places while carefully ignoring historical facts and evidence. The first two chapters (maybe more; I got only that far before disgust overtook) of “Explaining Hitler” are devoted to looking back over 150 years to discover the identity of Adolf Hitler’s grandfather and presenting Freudian theories in an attempt to explain how that grandfather’s identity was the key to Adolf Hitler’s “mysterious strangeness.”

    Among the historical facts and evidence that Rosenbaum & Amis fail to consider is the starvation of the German people. Although Rosenbaum and Amis discuss at length the effects of starvation on a people, they fail to acknowledge that the German people were starved into submission in World War I; endured starvation during the Weimar years, and were threatened with starvation by Jewish leaders beginning in March 1933 and persisting through 1941.

    Perhaps this is because Rosenbaum and Amis believe that starving people to death is peachy-keen, if carried out in service of an ideology that, seemingly, appeals to them.

    @ 51 min Amis said:

    “The Stalin crime that most neatly corresponds to the holocaust is the terror famine in the Ukraine in 1933 where — it’s not really known but something like, 7- 8- 9-million peasants were starved to death, even tho the granaries were full.

    Amis then mentions a novel by Anthony Grossman that describes “what it’s like to watch your family starve to death”, a process that ” matches in cruelty the holocaust, I think; [it's] comparable.”

    That statement, counterpoised against Edwin Black’s mention, in The Transfer Agreement, of the deaths of 800,000 German civilians in World War I suggests that these Jewish- or philosemitic authors at very least have a blind spot, or fail in intellectual integrity. Black dismisses German starvation rather cavalierly, blaming it on the German misappropriation of resources and manpower, which suggests that no, or very few, Jews died of starvation in Germany in WWI, else Black would have elaborated on the injustice of it. It’s also worth noting that Walter Rathnau was in charge of German domestic and industrial production during the war.

    To be sure, Black does elaborate on the starvation of Germans as he underlines how an economic boycott was the one weapon that Hitler, and the German people, would fear most because they had a present memory of the suffering endured; and why Jewish leaders who organized an economic boycott of Germany from March 1933 to just after the US and Germany were officially at war were confident their efforts would produce the desired result.

    Rosenbaum wants those whom geokat62 calls “dumb goy” to join him in ascribing all manner of evil to Hitler — and themselves– because 156 years ago his grandfather did not sign his name to a birth certificate, but he fails to acknowledge that Hitler and NSDAP, as leaders of a devastated and demoralized nation, might be more than ordinarily concerned to ensure that the German people never starve again.

    For his part, Martin Amis applies selective morality to the act of starving people. Of Stalin’s terror-famine of Ukrainians that Amis has just described as the equivalent of the holocaust of Jews, Amis says:

    [The terror famine was] very comparable to the holocaust, but, the difference is, Stalin really had no choice: he had to break the peasants in order to collectivize them. And um if he had decided on something sort of more Bukharin-like it would have been uh abandoning the Socialist experiment, and betraying the revolution, so he had to go forward, he had to be as hard as nails to get that through.

    .

    The Communist project must go forward; ende gut, alles gut.

    But of Hitler, Amis says:

    Whereas there’s no conceivable ideological justification for what Hitler did. . . .It wasn’t an ideology. I mean what did he have: lebansraum; he wanted the Reich to last for a thousand years; uh, what else is there? Antisemitism. Uh [Sebastian Hafner says] what Hitlerism was was really a rallying cry for sadists. If you can beat and kill and steal for no reason and without provocation, then come to my banner. And that’s how he recruited his rank-and-file. It makes no sense, as a war aim or anything else. “

    [I debunked three main assertions in the above, but I deleted the material. Readers here can make their own analysis. I hope. Or we are doomed.]

    Amis’s fiction insists that the “Germans had lost by December 1941.” Since they knew they had lost the war, his characters were instructed to “hide the evidence of their crimes” by exhuming the bodies they’d buried, and burning them.
    Two of Amis’s characters figure out how to ascertain how many were buried (for some unknown reason). “Counting skulls won’t do because they’d been shot in the back of the neck,” so they count femurs and divide by two, arriving at a figure of 107,000 corpses.
    Jeopardy question: How long would it take to count 214,000 femurs?

    One more passage (without comment):

    Amis: “[After it was known that the war was lost, in December 1941], Hitler began to covet defeat and wanted that defeat to be as total and as humiliating as possible. Hitler had turned against another population, the Germans. Uh his tactics towards the end of the war can only vouch for the fact that he can only want the Russians to come in first.”

    Rosenbaum: “He wanted the Russians to punish the German people for their lack of devotion to his grand –”

    Amis: “Yea, for not being up to it; stronger people. He wanted what actually happened which was, you know, a lot of murder and rape. . . . There were a million illegitimate births in Germany thanks to the Red Army. It was an army of rapists, and a whole population sprang up.”

    Watching this video was like watching two grown men masturbate before an audience of eager and approving voyeurs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Martin has a way about him, and on those occasions when he sat down with Hitch, he really excelled.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KxEFqs9yRg

    The Zone of Interest is a poignant story that tackles a most difficult subject, which likely explains your rapture at the very end.

    I suggest you also pick up a copy of "the King"'s (Kingsley Amis) 'Everyday Drinking'. It has persuaded many a teetotaller to overcome their bad habit.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    If anyone can be German, why not declare that Germany no longer exists but is just a part of the world?

    If anyone can be European, why not get rid of European Union and go with World Union and allow all people to come and go as they please?

    And if European values are world values, why even call them ‘European values’? Why not call them ‘world values’?

    If Europe is all about universalism and accepting all peoples/cultures as equally European, then get rid of the idea of Europe or European values. If Christianity is no more European than Islam is, then theocracy should be just as European as secular democracy is. If indeed nothing is more European than anything else, then everything is equally European.

    If Europe is just an idea, especially about democracy, then why not say Japan is European too since it is democratic? After all, European is just an idea.

    Using this logic, non-democratic European nations are not European while democratic non-European nations are European because they are democratic. After all, europe is all about an ‘idea’.

    So, India might as well be European since it is a political democracy.

    But if Poland were to be ruled by a dictator, it would no longer be European cuz it’s not democratic.

    How ridiculous is that?

    True Europeanism is European by blood and soil, good or bad.

    If only modern liberal ideas make for European-ness, then Germany prior to becoming a liberal democracy was not European.

    Defining nation by ideas is stupid.

    US once has slavery. But it was still the United States. A nation may have ideas and ideals, but it is what it is regardless of those ideas.

    Germany was Germany under Kaiser, Weimar, Hitler, and democracy.
    It’s like John is John whether he is a communist, a nazi, a libertarian, republican, democrat, anarchist. whatever he believes, HE is john.
    It’d be stupid to say there are John values and John is John only when he is a communist. If john = communist, then anyone who is a communist would also be John.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @German_reader
    "I’ve said all along that the only way to solve the refugee problem is to stop bombing one country after another, so to save its own Arsch, Europe must say fick dich to Uncle Sam and regain its autonomy."

    I realize that you think Amerikkka is the root of all evil, and there's much I dislike about US hegemony...but still, it's just silly to pretend that there wouldn't be massive immigration pressure on Europe even without America's misguided wars. Even in Syria, the population grew by more than ten million just in the two decades of 1990-2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Syria#Population)...something thay may well be underappreciated as a reason for the civil war. And population growth in Syria is actually fairly modest compared to the insane rates in subsaharan Africa. Even if American foreign policy would suddenly change, there still would be a massive problem.

    Yes, the Syrian population grew, of course, because of the millions fleeing the chaos in Iraq caused by the US.

    There is no civil war in Syria, it is an invasion of US trained jihadis now under a death sentence by the Russia rat extermination professionals.

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

    The German government is giving the fascist state of Israel submarines that can be armed with nukes that will be aimed at Europe. This is mindboggling!

    The Germans fear their own fascism – yet they are arming the most fascist state in the world.

    What a curse the Jews are to the Germans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sherman
    Hi Little Art,

    Israel must be the only "fascist" country in history with a directly elected parliament and a prime minister who regularly runs for reelection.

    Thanks for analysis!

    Sherman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. szopen says:
    @HdC
    A whole nation is accused of mass murder; methinks unbiased court proven evidence would be expected to substantiate these allegations.

    Yet every time someone in Europe dares to ask questions or offer alternative answers, they are jailed. Is this what you call debate? In case you missed this, we are talking of accusations of wholesale murder, not some irrelevant point in history. Perhaps this is what it means to you?

    No, the Nuernberg trials to not meet this requirement as this victor's justice was termed "high grade lynching party" and "Kangeroo Court" by several justices of the US supreme court.

    Where are the original recordings of the German Officer's conversations? Not transcripts, but the original recordings?

    And the best proof you can offer is what you saw on "60 Minutes"? Surely thou jest?

    To quote the state attorney who conducted the police shooting inquiry in Ferguson; "Eye witness testimony without corroboration forensic evidence was dismissed as worthless."

    Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.

    HdC

    “Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.”

    Exactly. Your claim is that all witnesses testimonies are false, that all the evidence was falsified, and holocaust is part of massive conspiracy. That is extraordinary allegation and you have provided no proof at all, except refusing to debate, claiming that all the evidence is fabricated because you feel so, and so on. You are a perfect example why not many people argue with Holocaust deniers: because you, in this very thread, proved that you do not care about evidence or debate at all.

    Andrew Mathies (sorry if I mispell your name) invited you several times to discuss any particular mass grave and you ignored him. Everytime someone is presenting you with evidence, you dismiss it, because there are no “original recordings” – except that there are original recordings, but we – simple internet users – have no access to it. That would be fine in itself, but on another side you have no problem with reading “Polish newspapers”, though you, most likely, do not know Polish and I bet you had real Polish newspapers from 1939 in your hands, so you probably relied on transcripts and seem to have no problems with that. You have clearly double standards here.

    Therefore, I won’t care to discuss with you, as you have shown here that you are not really interested in a debate.

    And remember that even after explaining away Holocaust, you still have several millions of people to explain away, such as those killed during intelligentsia aktion, during mass shootings in Warsaw and so on. Even if gas was not used, you still have to explain shootings of Jews (and others), as you surely know that most killed was shot. Will your all reasoning be again “all of the hundreds of witnesses have lied, all mass graves are false”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    Your claim is that all witnesses testimonies are false,
     
    This strikes me as a completely dishonest line of argumentation.

    The claim has been made that something on the order of six million Jews were murdered, the principal weapon being homicidal gas chambers.

    First of all, any eyewitness accounts are just as consistent with 600 thousand killed, say, as they are with six million. So the eyewitness accounts do not prove the conjecture at hand.

    The survivor saw his loved ones being led away and he never saw them again. Presumably they were killed. He has no way of knowing how, whether by gas or some other means. Nor does he really know whether they actually died of disease or hunger or some other cause.

    By and large, the eyewitness testimony is consistent with the conventional and the revisionist narrative. The revisionists are not claiming that all the testimony is false.

    That is a blatant straw man.

    You really ought to feel that there is an onus on you to come up with an intellectually honest argument.

    , @HdC
    You have the cart before the horse. You accuse the German People of mass murder. You, therefore, provide incontrovertible evidence that this mass murder was indeed committed.

    Of 6,000,000 claimed gassed bodies, not a single witness got the colour of the bodies correct.

    As I have argued before, compelled confessions, by torture or other means, negates that testimony.

    Of course, original recordings may not be easily accessible, but they had better be available. Transcripts are not good enough for such a controversial subject.

    I agree that I had to rely on translations of Polish newspapers, but had been translated into English.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. eah says:
    @Bill Jones
    You clearly misunderstand the basic difference between economic migration and what can be presented as asylum seeking from the US's wars.
    But, thank you for playing.

    clearly misunderstand

    Actually, the vast majority of the current “Flüchtlinge” invading Europe and especially Germany are clearly economic migrants — they are not Syrians and do not meet any reasonable definition of a “refugee” as someone who is persecuted or fears persecution. Therefore, their desire to relocate to Europe has nothing to do with “the US’s wars”.

    But ‘thanks for playing’, you moron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Friedrich
    One could argue that this is due to syrians having the "refugee status" and those afghans and iraqis are just misusing this to get into the west. So there would be no reason for there being refugees without the US, if I understand correctly. On the other hand, I'm seeing many niggers here in western Germany now, so what wars are fought in niggerland? It's clearly the NWO in vollem Gange.

    I'd also like to say I almost puked when I read that "Leipziger in his 30's" bullshit. Most aren't well-educated, well-trained or anything. Sarrazin did not write his book for no reason -- he did the math and understood. Just like Volkmar Weiss, who should be read by anyone who is able to read german ("Die Intelligenz und ihre Feinde: Aufstieg und Niedergang der Industriegesellschaft / Intelligence and its Enemies: Rise and Fall of industrial society" [or so in english]).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @szopen
    "Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof."

    Exactly. Your claim is that all witnesses testimonies are false, that all the evidence was falsified, and holocaust is part of massive conspiracy. That is extraordinary allegation and you have provided no proof at all, except refusing to debate, claiming that all the evidence is fabricated because you feel so, and so on. You are a perfect example why not many people argue with Holocaust deniers: because you, in this very thread, proved that you do not care about evidence or debate at all.

    Andrew Mathies (sorry if I mispell your name) invited you several times to discuss any particular mass grave and you ignored him. Everytime someone is presenting you with evidence, you dismiss it, because there are no "original recordings" - except that there are original recordings, but we - simple internet users - have no access to it. That would be fine in itself, but on another side you have no problem with reading "Polish newspapers", though you, most likely, do not know Polish and I bet you had real Polish newspapers from 1939 in your hands, so you probably relied on transcripts and seem to have no problems with that. You have clearly double standards here.

    Therefore, I won't care to discuss with you, as you have shown here that you are not really interested in a debate.

    And remember that even after explaining away Holocaust, you still have several millions of people to explain away, such as those killed during intelligentsia aktion, during mass shootings in Warsaw and so on. Even if gas was not used, you still have to explain shootings of Jews (and others), as you surely know that most killed was shot. Will your all reasoning be again "all of the hundreds of witnesses have lied, all mass graves are false"?

    Your claim is that all witnesses testimonies are false,

    This strikes me as a completely dishonest line of argumentation.

    The claim has been made that something on the order of six million Jews were murdered, the principal weapon being homicidal gas chambers.

    First of all, any eyewitness accounts are just as consistent with 600 thousand killed, say, as they are with six million. So the eyewitness accounts do not prove the conjecture at hand.

    The survivor saw his loved ones being led away and he never saw them again. Presumably they were killed. He has no way of knowing how, whether by gas or some other means. Nor does he really know whether they actually died of disease or hunger or some other cause.

    By and large, the eyewitness testimony is consistent with the conventional and the revisionist narrative. The revisionists are not claiming that all the testimony is false.

    That is a blatant straw man.

    You really ought to feel that there is an onus on you to come up with an intellectually honest argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    This strikes me as a completely dishonest line of argumentation.
     
    No, it is an honest and entirely logical line of argumentation. Follow along:

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.
    (2) Revisionists say there were no gas chambers.

    If the Revisionist argument is true, then what inferences can we logically draw about (1) above? At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.

    Clue: (2) isn't true.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    The survivor saw his loved ones being led away and he never saw them again. Presumably they were killed. He has no way of knowing how, whether by gas or some other means. Nor does he really know whether they actually died of disease or hunger or some other cause. [. . .]
     
    . . . or if they died at all.

    Bernie Sanders spoke at an Hispanic forum recently.

    He emphasized that his roots are Polish, he is the child of a Polish immigrant father who "lost much of his family in Europe as a result of the holocaust."

    Wikipedia records that Sanders's "father was a Jewish immigrant from Poland whose family was killed in the Holocaust."

    How does he know that?
    Was Papa Sanders's family "lost" in the holocaust or "killed" in the holocaust?
    Will there be a movement to demand death certificates for Sanders's "lost/killed" family, as there was a movement demanding Barack Obama's birth certificate?

    Sanders mentioned his father's immigrant status in the context of prioritizing immigration reform in USA. He elaborated on the modest circumstances of his upbringing; that his father arrived in USA penniless and unable to speak English; that his mother's dream had been to have a house; that his father was proud of being an American because he was able to send his two children to college.

    Remember: Sanders is speaking about US immigration reform to the Hispanic caucus.

    Hispanics are migrating to USA because they cannot find work or opportunity in their home countries.

    The Poland that was Papa Sanders's homeland boasted the largest contingent of Jews than any other place in the world. Jews had been in Poland, in very large numbers, since at least the 1200s. Jews enjoyed great wealth and built numerous lavish synagogues.

    Why didn't Sanders's Polish forebears find -- or create-- in Jewish Poland the opportunities that were afforded to them in USA? Were Jews in Poland incapable of establishing, over the course of 700 or 800 years, a university for Jews?

    Are Hispanics similarly incapable of creating opportunities in their own home countries?

    Sanders was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1941; as baby Bernie was cutting his milk teeth Martin Amis has his fictional characters counting femurs in the "heaving, steaming, decomposing" mass grave at Spring Meadow, where nasty Nazis were frantically trying to "hide the evidence" of their war crimes because, insists Amis, "by December 1941, for Germany, the war was over."


    Baby Bernie was still in nappies in 1942 as Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," collaborated with US Air Force and Standard Oil to devise the most efficient means to create firestorms that would incinerate the greatest number of working-class German civilians. (see, for example, Goodbye to Berlin Erich Mendelsohn designed some of the world's finest buildings - and helped destroy the German capital. By Jonathan Glancey

    Sanders told a Christian Science Monitor interviewer that

    "As a child, being Jewish taught him 'in a very deep way what politics is about. A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932,' and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.'”
     
    That's a sweeping generalization, and a dangerously incomplete assessment of causes and effects and of the power of money in politics.

    Did Sanders also learn "as a child, being Jewish" that many influential Jews in USA, London and Tel Aviv acquiesced to the mass murder of as many as 9 million Ukrainians as a result of Bolshevik Communist ideology even as Hitler and NSDAP "curbed violence against Jews" from the time they gained power until the (false-flag) mob reaction to the assassination of Ernst vom Rath in November 1938.

    Given those two 1933 scenarios, of mass murders in Ukraine but "curbed violence against Jews" in Germany, did Sanders ever expand his political awareness to question why Louis Brandeis directed, by Feb. 14, 1933, that "all Jews must leave Germany," but Brandeis was apparently not concerned about Jews in Poland, Ukraine and Russia?

    Did Sanders ever ask himself why influential Jews acquiesced to Bolshevik mass murders in 1933 but International Jewry declared war on Germany in March of the same year?
    , @szopen
    That's inaccurate. It's hard to come with definite number of victims for any event; you can hear historians arguing about how many people were killed in such and such battle in WWII (even you could expect that having military documentation, that should be quite easy). It's even harder when documentation was non-existent, destroyed on purpose and so on. The estimation for the Holocaust number victims vary amongst historians, simply because it's not really possible to give a precise number. A six million number is simply the most widely known estimate which is currently deemed to be the most accurate.

    Gassing was the principal method, true, but it is estimated for example that something like 1.5 million Jews were shot, not gassed. Many were simply starved to death.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Dan says:

    Germania Delenda Est…

    That’s what we have here. That white Europeans have been hoodwinked into the Hebe scam is the puzzler. I can understand the position of blood suckers like Amis or cryptos like Hitchens. Quite why ordinary people put up with the bullying eludes me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Flagless UK too.

    Get a load of this:

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/oct/12/why-are-london-cyclists-so-white-male-and-middle-class?CMP=fb_gu

    There is something wrong with the fact that ‘too many’ bicyclists in London are WHITE even though UK has been the home of white people forever.

    Shouldn’t the real question be “why are there so many non-whites in the UK, esp when non-whites pushed the whites out of their own nations during the anti-colonial struggle?”

    There was once a time when no one thought there was anything wrong with a nation being composed of its native people. And during the anti-colonial struggle, this was the ideal. Drive out foreign invaders, reclaim your land.

    But now, the globalist mantra promoted by Jews demands that all nations open up to multi-culturalism and massive immigration and race-mixing. Jews want goyim to invade each other’s nations and mix so that the whole world will be like Latin America. This way, no one will like he has a special ownership of his/her nation. Every nation/people will belong to the world. Since Jews control the world via globalism, they will come to own the world.

    We see this in the EU. When Jews tell Europeans to take in more non-whites, it’s not about compassion for non-whites. It is about more power for Jews via the decline of white identity & heritage and sense of ownership of nation.

    Multi-culturalism weakens nationalism, and the homo agenda weakens majority national pride as homo elites of every nation will serve as fifth-columnists to globalist Jewish masters.

    Look at Sweden. Decline in nationalism, rise in homo-madness, multi-culti obsession, and feminism(that makes white women see white men as the enemy). All these developments play into hands of Jewish power as Swedes don’t know who they are, therefore they don’t know what to defend and whom to resist and fight.

    The Right hopes that Jews will see the light and realize thay immigrants don’t like Jews, but Jews know that immigrants will remain poor and won’t harm the richer Jews living in safe neighborhoods. Most of the problems will be between poor whites and immigrants.
    Instead, Jews will just blame ‘white privilege’ for the problems of the immigrant community and play ‘divide and rule’ among the goyim. Jews will guilt-bait whites and enrage non-whites.

    We are all Palestinians. Reclaim identity, and know that Jews are out to destroy you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. HdC says:
    @szopen
    "Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof."

    Exactly. Your claim is that all witnesses testimonies are false, that all the evidence was falsified, and holocaust is part of massive conspiracy. That is extraordinary allegation and you have provided no proof at all, except refusing to debate, claiming that all the evidence is fabricated because you feel so, and so on. You are a perfect example why not many people argue with Holocaust deniers: because you, in this very thread, proved that you do not care about evidence or debate at all.

    Andrew Mathies (sorry if I mispell your name) invited you several times to discuss any particular mass grave and you ignored him. Everytime someone is presenting you with evidence, you dismiss it, because there are no "original recordings" - except that there are original recordings, but we - simple internet users - have no access to it. That would be fine in itself, but on another side you have no problem with reading "Polish newspapers", though you, most likely, do not know Polish and I bet you had real Polish newspapers from 1939 in your hands, so you probably relied on transcripts and seem to have no problems with that. You have clearly double standards here.

    Therefore, I won't care to discuss with you, as you have shown here that you are not really interested in a debate.

    And remember that even after explaining away Holocaust, you still have several millions of people to explain away, such as those killed during intelligentsia aktion, during mass shootings in Warsaw and so on. Even if gas was not used, you still have to explain shootings of Jews (and others), as you surely know that most killed was shot. Will your all reasoning be again "all of the hundreds of witnesses have lied, all mass graves are false"?

    You have the cart before the horse. You accuse the German People of mass murder. You, therefore, provide incontrovertible evidence that this mass murder was indeed committed.

    Of 6,000,000 claimed gassed bodies, not a single witness got the colour of the bodies correct.

    As I have argued before, compelled confessions, by torture or other means, negates that testimony.

    Of course, original recordings may not be easily accessible, but they had better be available. Transcripts are not good enough for such a controversial subject.

    I agree that I had to rely on translations of Polish newspapers, but had been translated into English.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    Of 6,000,000 claimed gassed bodies, not a single witness got the colour of the bodies correct.
     
    You keep claiming this as if I hadn't already proved otherwise.

    Also, of six million murdered people, less than half were gassed.
    , @szopen
    "I agree that I had to rely on translations of Polish newspapers, but had been translated into English."

    Why you believed their veracity, when not actually seeing the real newspapers, while doubting the veracity of transcripts of recordings?

    AS for the mass murder, there is one thing: I am Polish. Polish have a lot of stories of German behaviour during the occupation. Stories about mass execution, deportations and so on. I also know that before the war some three million Jews lived here, and after the war, only something like hundred thousands could be identified.

    So the accusation are entirely believeable, especially if there is quite a lot of evidence. On the other hand, the story about world-wide conspiracy are not believeable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. JustJeff says:

    What a pathetic people. They deserve to be conquered by Islam, if only to put them out of their misery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "What a pathetic people. They deserve to be conquered by Islam, if only to put them out of their misery."

    Ethocide precedes ethnocide.

    This horror is happening to Germans(and will happen to other peoples as well) because Jews have conquered the ethical consciousness of Germans. Germans now believe that unless they open their nation to endless 'refugees', they are guilty of another Holocaust.
    Because Germans are ethical slaves of Jews and since Jews say Germans must atone by allowing mass immigration, Germans are becoming the ethnic slaves of Arabs and Africans who are arriving in huge numbers. If others control your mind/heart, they control your body.
    Germans no longer believe Germany belongs to Germans. They believe it belongs to 'the world'. Demographically, it means non-Germans have the right to take over. But in elite financial/political/intellectual terms, it means Jews will take over since Jews operate at the highest levels of power and influence. A Germany that is no longer about Germany-for-Germans will be invaded from below by Muslims and invaded from top by Jews.

    This is why the desperate effort of some Rightists to win over Jews won't work. These rightists say to Jews, "Look, those Muslims are coming to kick your Jewish ass, and we white nationalists wanna save you." While some less prosperous Jews do get attacked by Muslims, the fact is the powerful Jews are safe from Muslim violence and see white gentiles as their main rivals.
    And the best way for Jews to weaken white power is by massive immigration. Immigration and multi-culti stuff means Germany belongs just as much to non-Europeans, Arabs, and Africans as to Germans.
    This implies that German leadership shouldn't represent and serve German people's interests. This further implies that Germany doesn't have to be led and controlled by Germans. If Germany should be open to all peoples, then German elite power should be open to all peoples as well. So, Jews should take over the German elites just like Muslims and Africans are taking over German towns.

    US has gone in this direction. Once a white Christian nation, it is now a Jewish-ruled nation. For Jews to justify the fact that they are ruling over a nation that is majority white Christian, they must spread the message that America is equally open to all. If Jews should take elite power from white Christians in a white Christian nation, then non-whites should take mass territories from white Christians.

    But whites are too stupid to know what is being done to them. Intoxicated with the opium of 'diversity' and 'hope', they think they are 'more evolved' than others because they've chosen racial suicide and cuckery.

    Of course, Jews play dirty. They took over from Wasps in the name of greater equality, but look how Jews have rigged the game to favor Jews in government, academia, media, Wall Street, Hollywood. Look how Jews have used US foreign policy to favor Jews in the Middle East. Look how Jews have damaged Russian economy to serve Jewish interests in Europe.

    German ethical pride has been destroyed by Jewish power. So, there is no ethnic pride since German-ness has been associated with shame and guilt. The only way Germans can seek redemption according to PC is to un-German themselves. It's like the only way men can redeem themselves according to feminism is to un-man themselves.

    So, as western man becomes more tranny and pussy, western people become less white and more wussy.

    As time passes, you'd think Germans would finally let go of their guilt conscience related to WWII. But this isn't true. The hold of a certain historical period on present consciousness has little to do with when-it-happened but how-it-is-memorialized-and-sacralized.

    For example, white people should have felt more guilt about blacks in the early 20th century since that period was less removed from slavery and also because there was still much discrimination against blacks. But they felt less guilt cuz the Race stuff wasn't at the first and center of public/social discourse.

    Today, we are far removed from slavery and even civil rights era, but the cult of 'white guilt' is bigger than ever cuz Jews who control media, academia, and government hammer people 24/7 with that stuff and also because kids are raised from cradle with PC and MLK.

    Is your baby 'racist'?

    http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID19823/images/racist_baby_newsweek.jpg

    We should really ask, "is your Jewish Baby supremacist?"

    We are all Palestinians.

    Germans are orphans abandoned by their elites.

    When the elites of your nation don't protect, serve, and defend you, you've been orphanized.

    Orbanism is a weapon against Orphanism.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Sherman says:
    @Art
    The German government is giving the fascist state of Israel submarines that can be armed with nukes that will be aimed at Europe. This is mindboggling!

    The Germans fear their own fascism – yet they are arming the most fascist state in the world.

    What a curse the Jews are to the Germans.

    Hi Little Art,

    Israel must be the only “fascist” country in history with a directly elected parliament and a prime minister who regularly runs for reelection.

    Thanks for analysis!

    Sherman

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "Israel must be the only “fascist” country in history with a directly elected parliament and a prime minister who regularly runs for reelection."

    Hi Sherm,

    What you say is 100% true - but what does that say about the Israeli people - it is obvious that they chose fascism in the last election.

    In the last election when Netanyahu said "no peace deal with the Palestinians" - it insured his reelection.

    The Israeli people said NO to peace - what kind of a people are they?

    Art

    , @Priss Factor
    “Israel must be the only 'fascist' country in history with a directly elected parliament and a prime minister who regularly runs for reelection.”

    Israel is a fascist-democracy, the best kind of nation in the world(but for the fact that it was founded on expulsion of so many Palestinians and is supported by globalist Jews who seek to destroy gentile nations around the world).

    Israel is a democracy founded on principles of blood-and-soil, identity, heritage, sacred memory, mythic narrative(religious and secular), and etc.
    After all, even secular Jews wanted their nation to be in the Holy Land cuz of its historical significance to them. Even secular Jewish narrative is tied to spiritual Jewish narrative cuz that land gained significance to the Jews through God.
    Israel is a modern nation with ancient roots. Jews there preserve the past and move into the future.

    That is what fascism is about. These fascist themes can be served by a democracy. And Israeli democracy was founded on these fascist principles of fusing tradition and modernity, on nationhood based on race and culture.
    It's not a universalist kind of liberal democracy that says 'oh gee whiz, anyone can become Jewish and Israeli.'
    Jews don't allow Right of Return to Pallies cuz Jews insist that Israel must be a Jewish state or Jewish-dominated state. Israel must be Jewish in order to preserve what is historically and spiritually sacred to Jewish memory.

    That is a fine basis for fascist nationalism. And the fact that it is democratic too makes it all the better cuz dictatorships turn into trouble.
    It would have been better for Germany if Hitler had founded a system of fascist democracy. That way, he wouldn't be permanent leader but could be replaced by someone else by elections. But regardless who rules, it would be agreed by all that Germany is for Germans and for the preservation of German culture, race, and memory, even as Germany accepts modernity and progress into future.
    But Hitler went for authoritarian-fascism, and so, Germany was at the whim of his personal prejudices.

    Israel is a fascist-democracy cuz both its left and right must agree that Israel must be a Jewish state committed to Jewish power, Jewish tradition, and Jewish identity. And for serving Jewish future.

    Another feature of fascism is combination of capitalism and socialism, and Israel has that. Where fascist-socialism differs from welfare-socialism of Western nations is there are conditions placed on welfare in Israel, and all Jews are expected to serve and work for the good of the nation. Even Jewish scholars who don't work and have lots of babies are serving the system cuz they produce Jews to ensure that Jews will outbreed the Arabs. In contrast, welfare-socialism is just about milking the system to be a bum.

    This is why Jews don't want other nations to follow the Israeli model.
    Gentile-nations-acting-like-Israel would mean that every white gentile nation should be for its people, its own memory, its own future. And that would mean gentile nations should favor gentile interests over ones favored by Jewish elites.

    Imagine Israeli Jews allowing gentiles to take over Israel's elite institutions and industries like white nations have allowed Jews to take over their elite institutions.

    In Israel, all the banks, media, academia, and etc are controlled and dominated by Jews. If Polish Catholics were 2% of the Israeli population, there is no way Jews would allow them to gain the kind of power that Jews have in France or UK.
    In the US, Jews who are 2% of the population control 90% of media. Would Jews allow such to happen in Israel? No way. Why not? Cuz Israeli democracy was founded on blood-and-soil concepts.

    This is why what is good for the Jews in Israel is seen as bad for Jews when practiced by gentile nations, i.e. if gentiles in their nations acted like Jews in Israel, the Jewish diaspora would be faced with greater challenges.

    Do as the Jews do(in Israel), and disobey what they say.

    Some on the Alt Right reject all of democracy, but that is like throwing the baby with the bathwater.
    The problem of Western democracies is they were founded on universal principles.
    But as Israel has shown, a democracy can be founded on particularist blood-and-soil principles. Because of the founding principles of Israel, even the Israeli left is patriotic, nationalist, and race-ist(racially conscious as opposed to 'racist', which means just being nastily bigoted).

    Alt Right should support the idea of democracy premised on blood-and-soil identity. A democracy for our people in our people's land.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @HdC
    You have the cart before the horse. You accuse the German People of mass murder. You, therefore, provide incontrovertible evidence that this mass murder was indeed committed.

    Of 6,000,000 claimed gassed bodies, not a single witness got the colour of the bodies correct.

    As I have argued before, compelled confessions, by torture or other means, negates that testimony.

    Of course, original recordings may not be easily accessible, but they had better be available. Transcripts are not good enough for such a controversial subject.

    I agree that I had to rely on translations of Polish newspapers, but had been translated into English.

    HdC

    Of 6,000,000 claimed gassed bodies, not a single witness got the colour of the bodies correct.

    You keep claiming this as if I hadn’t already proved otherwise.

    Also, of six million murdered people, less than half were gassed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Also, of six million murdered people, less than half were gassed."

    Historians say it was closer to 5 million.

    But I don't know about these numbers.

    I heard 8 million Ukrainian dead, but now historians say 3 to 4 million died.

    Number of dead in Khmer Rouge Cambodia have ranged from 3 million to 1 million.

    I'm guessing millions of Jews died, but that 6 million figure seems rather suspect, especially as number 6 is significant in Jewish culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @HdC
    A whole nation is accused of mass murder; methinks unbiased court proven evidence would be expected to substantiate these allegations.

    Yet every time someone in Europe dares to ask questions or offer alternative answers, they are jailed. Is this what you call debate? In case you missed this, we are talking of accusations of wholesale murder, not some irrelevant point in history. Perhaps this is what it means to you?

    No, the Nuernberg trials to not meet this requirement as this victor's justice was termed "high grade lynching party" and "Kangeroo Court" by several justices of the US supreme court.

    Where are the original recordings of the German Officer's conversations? Not transcripts, but the original recordings?

    And the best proof you can offer is what you saw on "60 Minutes"? Surely thou jest?

    To quote the state attorney who conducted the police shooting inquiry in Ferguson; "Eye witness testimony without corroboration forensic evidence was dismissed as worthless."

    Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.

    HdC

    A whole nation is accused of mass murder; methinks unbiased court proven evidence would be expected to substantiate these allegations.

    Nobody accused “a whole nation” at any of the trials of war criminals. Rather, all war criminals trials sought to establish culpability on the basis of individual acts. Nobody was charged generally with “the Holocaust.”

    Yet every time someone in Europe dares to ask questions or offer alternative answers, they are jailed. Is this what you call debate? In case you missed this, we are talking of accusations of wholesale murder, not some irrelevant point in history. Perhaps this is what it means to you?

    Really? Every time? Do you really need me to demonstrate for you how this isn’t true? Do I need to provide a list of German historians who offered alternate interpretations of the Third Reich, successfully or otherwise?

    No, the Nuernberg trials to not meet this requirement as this victor’s justice was termed “high grade lynching party” and “Kangeroo Court” by several justices of the US supreme court.

    Van Roden wasn’t a US Supreme Court justice, just to make sure you’re aware.

    Two other points about Nuremberg:

    (1) Rudolf Höss testified at Nuremberg as a defense witness (for Ernst Kaltenbrunner). Please describe how or why one tortures a defense witness.

    (2) Even if we threw out the Nuremberg trials proceedings entirely, you’d still have to contend with the lengthy judicial processes undertaken in W. Germany beginning in 1963 or so. These trials were conducted in agreement with every principle of jurisprudence. In those trials were established the crimes of Auschwitz and the Reinhard camps. Shall we get into those?

    Where are the original recordings of the German Officer’s conversations? Not transcripts, but the original recordings?

    They’re in the British library.

    And the best proof you can offer is what you saw on “60 Minutes”? Surely thou jest?

    I don’t know who you think you’re talking to…

    To quote the state attorney who conducted the police shooting inquiry in Ferguson; “Eye witness testimony without corroboration forensic evidence was dismissed as worthless.”

    That’s an excellent standard to use in a legal case.

    History is not a legal case.

    Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof.

    Indeed. You are alleging an enormous conspiracy. You should try to prove it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Jonathan Revusky

    Your claim is that all witnesses testimonies are false,
     
    This strikes me as a completely dishonest line of argumentation.

    The claim has been made that something on the order of six million Jews were murdered, the principal weapon being homicidal gas chambers.

    First of all, any eyewitness accounts are just as consistent with 600 thousand killed, say, as they are with six million. So the eyewitness accounts do not prove the conjecture at hand.

    The survivor saw his loved ones being led away and he never saw them again. Presumably they were killed. He has no way of knowing how, whether by gas or some other means. Nor does he really know whether they actually died of disease or hunger or some other cause.

    By and large, the eyewitness testimony is consistent with the conventional and the revisionist narrative. The revisionists are not claiming that all the testimony is false.

    That is a blatant straw man.

    You really ought to feel that there is an onus on you to come up with an intellectually honest argument.

    This strikes me as a completely dishonest line of argumentation.

    No, it is an honest and entirely logical line of argumentation. Follow along:

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.
    (2) Revisionists say there were no gas chambers.

    If the Revisionist argument is true, then what inferences can we logically draw about (1) above? At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.

    Clue: (2) isn’t true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    According to notes in his diaries, in 1942 Rabbi Stephen Wise told Henry Morgenthau, Jr. that Germans were making soap and lampshades out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau wrote that the information sickened him and "changed my life."

    At war's end, German civilians were paraded past displays of soap and lampshades made of Jewish flesh.

    It was not until decades later that these notions were debunked for the propaganda gambits that they were.

    Nevertheless, the propaganda had powerful real-world consequences. Many people died as a result of Rabbi Stephen Wise's wild ravings that motivated Henry Morgenthau's genocidal policies.

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews. soap and lampshades being made of Jewish flesh.

    (2) Revisionists say there were no gas chambers. the story and artifacts 'proving' it are false. If the Revisionist argument is true, then what inferences can we logically draw about (1) above? At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.

    Clue: (2) (1) isn’t true.
     
    --

    PS One major failing of Nuremberg trials is that the wrong people were tried and hung.
    Rabbi Wise lived a long life, synagogues are named for him; Morgenthau is revered in the Jewish community; Ilya Ehrenburg, who propagandized Russian soldiers to "kill kill kill and rape rape rape" (although -- according to Martin Amis, Erhenberg and Hitler must have collaborated) also lived a long life and was feted by his friend, Pablo Picasso, at his death; numerous Jewish communities in USA clamored for Erich Mendelsohn to design and build their houses of worship.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    No, it is an honest and entirely logical line of argumentation.
     
    What I was specifically referring to was the claim that holocaust revisionists believe that all survivor testimony is false. That is not an honest argument. The revisionists are claiming that the German policy was a brutal forced labor program, and yes, many died, but no, it was not an extermination program. The revisionist position is not that nobody died, but rather that most of the deaths were due to the breakdown of German infrastructure as they began to lose the war, and most of the concentration camp inmates who died, it was from hunger and disease, particularly typhus.

    They are not claiming that all the survivor testimony is false, but rather, that it is at least as consistent with the revisionist position as the conventional narrative.


    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.
     
    Well, first of all, what number is X? I think it's quite a small number. Granted, if the conventional holocaust narrative is true, then millions of people saw the gas chambers, but also they were dead within a short time after seeing them!

    You see, I sense clear intent to deceive here. Yes, there is a huge amount of survivor testimony, but in only a minuscule fraction of that testimony does anybody claim to have witnessed a gassing themselves. (Obviously! If they had been present at a gassing, they would not be survivors!)

    Again, the bulk of the survivor testimony is just as consistent with the revisionist narrative as it is with the conventional narrative.


    At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.
     
    Well, again, how many witnesses are we talking about? Saying that there are thousands of witnesses... that's clearly dishonest, because, yes, there are thousands of survivor witnesses, yes, but only a very small number claim to have witnessed a gassing.

    Regardless, anybody who claims that he went into a gas chamber immediately after a gassing and was pulling out bodies with his bare hands, not mentioning the use of any gas mask or other protective clothing -- this is a false witness. I don't see any way around that. There has clearly been false testimony.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    When people try to explain what is happening in the Middle East, they talk of how diversity of ethnic groups and sectarian identities led to the fighting.

    So, one would have to conclude that diversity is not a good basis for political system since it can lead to massive warfare and mayhem once political order begins to weaken.

    For diversity to work, there has to be a strong hand to keep everyone under lid, like Tito, Hussein, or Assad. Or Zionist regime in Israel that keeps Arabs under control.
    No wonder Merkel and EU bosses are acting like Soft Husseins. Their attitude toward Hungary is rather like Hussein’s attitude toward Kurds. They lob rhetorical poison gas at Hungarians who are only trying to defend their own nation.

    So, why is it a good thing to make Europe more diverse? Won’t it have the same problems that the Middle East did?

    Didn’t Yugoslavia teach us that it is better for different groups to have their own nations in order to feel secure and get along with one another?
    US and EU certainly supported the independence of Kosovo from Serbia on grounds that Kosovo is a Muslim Albanian nation.

    The only way to overcome the problem of diversity is amnesia, which is why US has accommodated diversity better. As people who become ‘American’ lose their sense of identity and history, they are less antagonistic tribally. But at what price?
    But they lack a rich sense of history and heritage. They are just pop culture-addled consumers whose values and meaning comes from TV and videogames. History and culture mean nothing to such people.

    For white Americans to be accepting of more non-whites, they had to abandon their sense of America as a white country. It made US more tolerant but it made white Americans spineless, meaningless, gutless, and soulless. They are just globo-clones than people of blood and soil richness and substance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Of 6,000,000 claimed gassed bodies, not a single witness got the colour of the bodies correct.
     
    You keep claiming this as if I hadn't already proved otherwise.

    Also, of six million murdered people, less than half were gassed.

    “Also, of six million murdered people, less than half were gassed.”

    Historians say it was closer to 5 million.

    But I don’t know about these numbers.

    I heard 8 million Ukrainian dead, but now historians say 3 to 4 million died.

    Number of dead in Khmer Rouge Cambodia have ranged from 3 million to 1 million.

    I’m guessing millions of Jews died, but that 6 million figure seems rather suspect, especially as number 6 is significant in Jewish culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    but that 6 million figure seems rather suspect, especially as number 6 is significant in Jewish culture
     
    This is a commonly repeated and entirely untrue assertion. The number 6 is no more "significant" in Judaism than virtually any other number. Sure there are a couple of numbers with high significance, e.g., 18 (which the letters for the word for "life" add up to), 613 (the number of commandments in the Torah), 12 (number of the tribes of Israel), etc. But 6? No, not really.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. AndrewR says:
    @Tom_R
    GERMANY—A JEWISH CONTROLLED POLICE STATE.
    WHITE ETHNIC CLEANSING BY JUDAISTS IN PROGRESS—IN RETALIATION FOR THE HOLOHOAX.

    The Judaists are on a rampage in Germany, involved in ethnic cleansing of whites by flooding Germany with 3rd world blacks and Muslims who are being brought in rape and murder and exterminate Whites, as retaliation for the holohoax, etc.

    After WW2, Jew-SA basically took over Germany, and manufactured a document they titled “Basic Law” which gives all power to a “Federal Constitution Court” and installed a sham democracy.

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

    Even the German site below admits that theirs is a govt. under “Judicial control”.

    http://www.tatsachen-ueber-deutschland.de/en/political-system/main-content-04/the-basic-law.html

    This Basic Law is NOT the constitution, was never ratified by the people, was temporary and has already expired. This Basic law and this “Federal Constitutional Court” are therefore unconstitutional and therefore illegal and null and void:

    http://www.rense.com/general69/germany.htm

    Since the Basic Law is null and void, Angela Merkel is a mere trespasser and an usurper, and all her decisions, such as allowing tens of thousands of 3rd world “refugees” and “migrants” to settle her country, her persecution of holocaust scholars, etc. are all ultra vires and therefore null and void and simply criminal acts.

    This illegal court*, is stuffed with Judges from the 2 main Jewish controlled left wing parties, and these crooks then ban almost all right wing parties that are against immigration, etc. (often at the behest of the Judaists who file these cases, just like in other countries) and arrest opposition leaders for simply being patriotic, by calling them "Neo-nazis", etc. so their left wing Jewish puppets like Angela Merkel remain in power and carry out their crimes against humanity, by proxy.

    Take your meds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @JustJeff
    What a pathetic people. They deserve to be conquered by Islam, if only to put them out of their misery.

    “What a pathetic people. They deserve to be conquered by Islam, if only to put them out of their misery.”

    Ethocide precedes ethnocide.

    This horror is happening to Germans(and will happen to other peoples as well) because Jews have conquered the ethical consciousness of Germans. Germans now believe that unless they open their nation to endless ‘refugees’, they are guilty of another Holocaust.
    Because Germans are ethical slaves of Jews and since Jews say Germans must atone by allowing mass immigration, Germans are becoming the ethnic slaves of Arabs and Africans who are arriving in huge numbers. If others control your mind/heart, they control your body.
    Germans no longer believe Germany belongs to Germans. They believe it belongs to ‘the world’. Demographically, it means non-Germans have the right to take over. But in elite financial/political/intellectual terms, it means Jews will take over since Jews operate at the highest levels of power and influence. A Germany that is no longer about Germany-for-Germans will be invaded from below by Muslims and invaded from top by Jews.

    This is why the desperate effort of some Rightists to win over Jews won’t work. These rightists say to Jews, “Look, those Muslims are coming to kick your Jewish ass, and we white nationalists wanna save you.” While some less prosperous Jews do get attacked by Muslims, the fact is the powerful Jews are safe from Muslim violence and see white gentiles as their main rivals.
    And the best way for Jews to weaken white power is by massive immigration. Immigration and multi-culti stuff means Germany belongs just as much to non-Europeans, Arabs, and Africans as to Germans.
    This implies that German leadership shouldn’t represent and serve German people’s interests. This further implies that Germany doesn’t have to be led and controlled by Germans. If Germany should be open to all peoples, then German elite power should be open to all peoples as well. So, Jews should take over the German elites just like Muslims and Africans are taking over German towns.

    US has gone in this direction. Once a white Christian nation, it is now a Jewish-ruled nation. For Jews to justify the fact that they are ruling over a nation that is majority white Christian, they must spread the message that America is equally open to all. If Jews should take elite power from white Christians in a white Christian nation, then non-whites should take mass territories from white Christians.

    But whites are too stupid to know what is being done to them. Intoxicated with the opium of ‘diversity’ and ‘hope’, they think they are ‘more evolved’ than others because they’ve chosen racial suicide and cuckery.

    Of course, Jews play dirty. They took over from Wasps in the name of greater equality, but look how Jews have rigged the game to favor Jews in government, academia, media, Wall Street, Hollywood. Look how Jews have used US foreign policy to favor Jews in the Middle East. Look how Jews have damaged Russian economy to serve Jewish interests in Europe.

    German ethical pride has been destroyed by Jewish power. So, there is no ethnic pride since German-ness has been associated with shame and guilt. The only way Germans can seek redemption according to PC is to un-German themselves. It’s like the only way men can redeem themselves according to feminism is to un-man themselves.

    So, as western man becomes more tranny and pussy, western people become less white and more wussy.

    As time passes, you’d think Germans would finally let go of their guilt conscience related to WWII. But this isn’t true. The hold of a certain historical period on present consciousness has little to do with when-it-happened but how-it-is-memorialized-and-sacralized.

    For example, white people should have felt more guilt about blacks in the early 20th century since that period was less removed from slavery and also because there was still much discrimination against blacks. But they felt less guilt cuz the Race stuff wasn’t at the first and center of public/social discourse.

    Today, we are far removed from slavery and even civil rights era, but the cult of ‘white guilt’ is bigger than ever cuz Jews who control media, academia, and government hammer people 24/7 with that stuff and also because kids are raised from cradle with PC and MLK.

    Is your baby ‘racist’?

    We should really ask, “is your Jewish Baby supremacist?”

    We are all Palestinians.

    Germans are orphans abandoned by their elites.

    When the elites of your nation don’t protect, serve, and defend you, you’ve been orphanized.

    Orbanism is a weapon against Orphanism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Jonathan Revusky

    Your claim is that all witnesses testimonies are false,
     
    This strikes me as a completely dishonest line of argumentation.

    The claim has been made that something on the order of six million Jews were murdered, the principal weapon being homicidal gas chambers.

    First of all, any eyewitness accounts are just as consistent with 600 thousand killed, say, as they are with six million. So the eyewitness accounts do not prove the conjecture at hand.

    The survivor saw his loved ones being led away and he never saw them again. Presumably they were killed. He has no way of knowing how, whether by gas or some other means. Nor does he really know whether they actually died of disease or hunger or some other cause.

    By and large, the eyewitness testimony is consistent with the conventional and the revisionist narrative. The revisionists are not claiming that all the testimony is false.

    That is a blatant straw man.

    You really ought to feel that there is an onus on you to come up with an intellectually honest argument.

    The survivor saw his loved ones being led away and he never saw them again. Presumably they were killed. He has no way of knowing how, whether by gas or some other means. Nor does he really know whether they actually died of disease or hunger or some other cause. [. . .]

    . . . or if they died at all.

    Bernie Sanders spoke at an Hispanic forum recently.

    He emphasized that his roots are Polish, he is the child of a Polish immigrant father who “lost much of his family in Europe as a result of the holocaust.”

    Wikipedia records that Sanders’s “father was a Jewish immigrant from Poland whose family was killed in the Holocaust.”

    How does he know that?
    Was Papa Sanders’s family “lost” in the holocaust or “killed” in the holocaust?
    Will there be a movement to demand death certificates for Sanders’s “lost/killed” family, as there was a movement demanding Barack Obama’s birth certificate?

    Sanders mentioned his father’s immigrant status in the context of prioritizing immigration reform in USA. He elaborated on the modest circumstances of his upbringing; that his father arrived in USA penniless and unable to speak English; that his mother’s dream had been to have a house; that his father was proud of being an American because he was able to send his two children to college.

    Remember: Sanders is speaking about US immigration reform to the Hispanic caucus.

    Hispanics are migrating to USA because they cannot find work or opportunity in their home countries.

    The Poland that was Papa Sanders’s homeland boasted the largest contingent of Jews than any other place in the world. Jews had been in Poland, in very large numbers, since at least the 1200s. Jews enjoyed great wealth and built numerous lavish synagogues.

    Why didn’t Sanders’s Polish forebears find — or create– in Jewish Poland the opportunities that were afforded to them in USA? Were Jews in Poland incapable of establishing, over the course of 700 or 800 years, a university for Jews?

    Are Hispanics similarly incapable of creating opportunities in their own home countries?

    Sanders was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1941; as baby Bernie was cutting his milk teeth Martin Amis has his fictional characters counting femurs in the “heaving, steaming, decomposing” mass grave at Spring Meadow, where nasty Nazis were frantically trying to “hide the evidence” of their war crimes because, insists Amis, “by December 1941, for Germany, the war was over.”

    Baby Bernie was still in nappies in 1942 as Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect,” collaborated with US Air Force and Standard Oil to devise the most efficient means to create firestorms that would incinerate the greatest number of working-class German civilians. (see, for example, Goodbye to Berlin Erich Mendelsohn designed some of the world’s finest buildings – and helped destroy the German capital. By Jonathan Glancey

    Sanders told a Christian Science Monitor interviewer that

    “As a child, being Jewish taught him ‘in a very deep way what politics is about. A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932,’ and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.’”

    That’s a sweeping generalization, and a dangerously incomplete assessment of causes and effects and of the power of money in politics.

    Did Sanders also learn “as a child, being Jewish” that many influential Jews in USA, London and Tel Aviv acquiesced to the mass murder of as many as 9 million Ukrainians as a result of Bolshevik Communist ideology even as Hitler and NSDAP “curbed violence against Jews” from the time they gained power until the (false-flag) mob reaction to the assassination of Ernst vom Rath in November 1938.

    Given those two 1933 scenarios, of mass murders in Ukraine but “curbed violence against Jews” in Germany, did Sanders ever expand his political awareness to question why Louis Brandeis directed, by Feb. 14, 1933, that “all Jews must leave Germany,” but Brandeis was apparently not concerned about Jews in Poland, Ukraine and Russia?

    Did Sanders ever ask himself why influential Jews acquiesced to Bolshevik mass murders in 1933 but International Jewry declared war on Germany in March of the same year?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    . . . or if they died at all.
     
    There definitely were cases where families were separated and the people simply assumed that their family members had died, but, in fact, they were just trapped in opposite sides of the iron curtain after the war.

    However, my sense of things is that, in a very high percentage of the cases where somebody says: "I was separated from the rest of my family and never saw them again", the people did in fact die.

    What I think happens, though, is that people eventually superimpose the conventional narrative on their own actual memories. So: "And then my brother was led away and I never saw him again...." morphs into: "And then they took my brother to the gas...."

    And I'm pretty sure this doesn't involve conscious dishonesty on the person's part. You know, it's like if you were a young boy during ww1 and your older brother was conscripted and you never saw him again, your testimony might eventually become: "my brother died in a trench in ww1" even if you don't really know how he died. Human memory is actually quite malleable this way.

    So, to say that there is all kinds of testimony that mentions the gas chambers is actually not the overwhelming evidence people are claiming it is.

    But the bigger problem is that all the testimony where people really say they personally saw gas chambers -- all of that looks pretty phoney. You have people claiming that they went in to clear out the bodies minutes after a gassing, with no mention of them having any protective clothing or gas masks... The descriptions of the gas chamber seem physically impossible. No real homicidal gas chamber would ever work like that....

    So, on the one hand, you have the vast bulk of the legitimate survivor testimony that, properly understood, provides no proof for or against their being gas chambers. And then the testimony that really describes the gassings -- there's no easy of getting around this problem, as far as I can see... This is false testimony...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Andrew E. Mathis
    Your ignorance of evidence is not proof that no evidence exists.

    How many times do I have to repeat this point to you?

    Choose a mass grave site to discuss, please.

    Your ignorance of evidence is not proof that no evidence exists.

    Classic, absolutely classic example of demanding proof of a negative.

    Fallacy, pure and unblemished.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    Classic, absolutely classic example of demanding proof of a negative.
     
    Um, what? No, it isn't. I haven't asked him to prove anything. Rather than mindlessly parroting the statements of your Nazi-loving Holocaust-denying heroes, you might want to try thinking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    In Germany, it’s illegal to reject, deny, or even question the Holocaust.

    Then, it is hilarious that Germany is welcoming so many Holo-deniers.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/syrdenial.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Andrew E. Mathis

    This strikes me as a completely dishonest line of argumentation.
     
    No, it is an honest and entirely logical line of argumentation. Follow along:

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.
    (2) Revisionists say there were no gas chambers.

    If the Revisionist argument is true, then what inferences can we logically draw about (1) above? At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.

    Clue: (2) isn't true.

    According to notes in his diaries, in 1942 Rabbi Stephen Wise told Henry Morgenthau, Jr. that Germans were making soap and lampshades out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau wrote that the information sickened him and “changed my life.”

    At war’s end, German civilians were paraded past displays of soap and lampshades made of Jewish flesh.

    It was not until decades later that these notions were debunked for the propaganda gambits that they were.

    Nevertheless, the propaganda had powerful real-world consequences. Many people died as a result of Rabbi Stephen Wise’s wild ravings that motivated Henry Morgenthau’s genocidal policies.

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews. soap and lampshades being made of Jewish flesh.

    (2) Revisionists say there were no gas chambers. the story and artifacts ‘proving’ it are false. If the Revisionist argument is true, then what inferences can we logically draw about (1) above? At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.

    Clue: (2) (1) isn’t true.

    PS One major failing of Nuremberg trials is that the wrong people were tried and hung.
    Rabbi Wise lived a long life, synagogues are named for him; Morgenthau is revered in the Jewish community; Ilya Ehrenburg, who propagandized Russian soldiers to “kill kill kill and rape rape rape” (although — according to Martin Amis, Erhenberg and Hitler must have collaborated) also lived a long life and was feted by his friend, Pablo Picasso, at his death; numerous Jewish communities in USA clamored for Erich Mendelsohn to design and build their houses of worship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Except that there weren't that many witnesses of soap and so one being made from Jews, and, in fact, it seems that there was experiment to made soap from human fat (failed). You are making false equivalence here.
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
    I don't know what to say about your lampshade and soap story except that proving one thing true doesn't automatically prove another thing true. Proving, e.g., that curses on the part of witches didn't cause the Black Death doesn't mean that the Black Death didn't happen, which is to say that disproving part of the whole doesn't negate the whole automatically.

    I know you don't do nuance, but that's not my problem.

    One major failing of Nuremberg trials is that the wrong people were tried and hung.
     
    Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    Ilya Ehrenburg, who propagandized Russian soldiers to “kill kill kill and rape rape rape” (although — according to Martin Amis, Erhenberg and Hitler must have collaborated) also lived a long life and was feted by his friend, Pablo Picasso, at his death
     
    Did Ehrenburg exhort Russian soldiers to kill German soldiers? He absolutely positively did, as well they should have. Their country had been invaded by German soldiers, and killing them in turn was their patriotic duty.

    Did Ehrenburg exhort Russian soldiers to kill civilians or to rape anyone? Nope. You can't prove otherwise.

    numerous Jewish communities in USA clamored for Erich Mendelsohn to design and build their houses of worship.
     
    I hear Hitler could paint, nu?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Friedrich says:
    @eah
    clearly misunderstand

    Actually, the vast majority of the current "Flüchtlinge" invading Europe and especially Germany are clearly economic migrants -- they are not Syrians and do not meet any reasonable definition of a "refugee" as someone who is persecuted or fears persecution. Therefore, their desire to relocate to Europe has nothing to do with "the US’s wars".

    But 'thanks for playing', you moron.

    One could argue that this is due to syrians having the “refugee status” and those afghans and iraqis are just misusing this to get into the west. So there would be no reason for there being refugees without the US, if I understand correctly. On the other hand, I’m seeing many niggers here in western Germany now, so what wars are fought in niggerland? It’s clearly the NWO in vollem Gange.

    I’d also like to say I almost puked when I read that “Leipziger in his 30′s” bullshit. Most aren’t well-educated, well-trained or anything. Sarrazin did not write his book for no reason — he did the math and understood. Just like Volkmar Weiss, who should be read by anyone who is able to read german (“Die Intelligenz und ihre Feinde: Aufstieg und Niedergang der Industriegesellschaft / Intelligence and its Enemies: Rise and Fall of industrial society” [or so in english]).

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Thanks for the info on Volkmar Weiss -- I did not know of him.

    Of course the cretins who contribute to and run Wikipedia could not resist putting a section called "Rechtsextremistische Kontexte" in their article on him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Art says:
    @Sherman
    Hi Little Art,

    Israel must be the only "fascist" country in history with a directly elected parliament and a prime minister who regularly runs for reelection.

    Thanks for analysis!

    Sherman

    “Israel must be the only “fascist” country in history with a directly elected parliament and a prime minister who regularly runs for reelection.”

    Hi Sherm,

    What you say is 100% true – but what does that say about the Israeli people – it is obvious that they chose fascism in the last election.

    In the last election when Netanyahu said “no peace deal with the Palestinians” – it insured his reelection.

    The Israeli people said NO to peace – what kind of a people are they?

    Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @SolontoCroesus

    The survivor saw his loved ones being led away and he never saw them again. Presumably they were killed. He has no way of knowing how, whether by gas or some other means. Nor does he really know whether they actually died of disease or hunger or some other cause. [. . .]
     
    . . . or if they died at all.

    Bernie Sanders spoke at an Hispanic forum recently.

    He emphasized that his roots are Polish, he is the child of a Polish immigrant father who "lost much of his family in Europe as a result of the holocaust."

    Wikipedia records that Sanders's "father was a Jewish immigrant from Poland whose family was killed in the Holocaust."

    How does he know that?
    Was Papa Sanders's family "lost" in the holocaust or "killed" in the holocaust?
    Will there be a movement to demand death certificates for Sanders's "lost/killed" family, as there was a movement demanding Barack Obama's birth certificate?

    Sanders mentioned his father's immigrant status in the context of prioritizing immigration reform in USA. He elaborated on the modest circumstances of his upbringing; that his father arrived in USA penniless and unable to speak English; that his mother's dream had been to have a house; that his father was proud of being an American because he was able to send his two children to college.

    Remember: Sanders is speaking about US immigration reform to the Hispanic caucus.

    Hispanics are migrating to USA because they cannot find work or opportunity in their home countries.

    The Poland that was Papa Sanders's homeland boasted the largest contingent of Jews than any other place in the world. Jews had been in Poland, in very large numbers, since at least the 1200s. Jews enjoyed great wealth and built numerous lavish synagogues.

    Why didn't Sanders's Polish forebears find -- or create-- in Jewish Poland the opportunities that were afforded to them in USA? Were Jews in Poland incapable of establishing, over the course of 700 or 800 years, a university for Jews?

    Are Hispanics similarly incapable of creating opportunities in their own home countries?

    Sanders was born in Brooklyn, NY in 1941; as baby Bernie was cutting his milk teeth Martin Amis has his fictional characters counting femurs in the "heaving, steaming, decomposing" mass grave at Spring Meadow, where nasty Nazis were frantically trying to "hide the evidence" of their war crimes because, insists Amis, "by December 1941, for Germany, the war was over."


    Baby Bernie was still in nappies in 1942 as Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," collaborated with US Air Force and Standard Oil to devise the most efficient means to create firestorms that would incinerate the greatest number of working-class German civilians. (see, for example, Goodbye to Berlin Erich Mendelsohn designed some of the world's finest buildings - and helped destroy the German capital. By Jonathan Glancey

    Sanders told a Christian Science Monitor interviewer that

    "As a child, being Jewish taught him 'in a very deep way what politics is about. A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932,' and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.'”
     
    That's a sweeping generalization, and a dangerously incomplete assessment of causes and effects and of the power of money in politics.

    Did Sanders also learn "as a child, being Jewish" that many influential Jews in USA, London and Tel Aviv acquiesced to the mass murder of as many as 9 million Ukrainians as a result of Bolshevik Communist ideology even as Hitler and NSDAP "curbed violence against Jews" from the time they gained power until the (false-flag) mob reaction to the assassination of Ernst vom Rath in November 1938.

    Given those two 1933 scenarios, of mass murders in Ukraine but "curbed violence against Jews" in Germany, did Sanders ever expand his political awareness to question why Louis Brandeis directed, by Feb. 14, 1933, that "all Jews must leave Germany," but Brandeis was apparently not concerned about Jews in Poland, Ukraine and Russia?

    Did Sanders ever ask himself why influential Jews acquiesced to Bolshevik mass murders in 1933 but International Jewry declared war on Germany in March of the same year?

    . . . or if they died at all.

    There definitely were cases where families were separated and the people simply assumed that their family members had died, but, in fact, they were just trapped in opposite sides of the iron curtain after the war.

    However, my sense of things is that, in a very high percentage of the cases where somebody says: “I was separated from the rest of my family and never saw them again”, the people did in fact die.

    What I think happens, though, is that people eventually superimpose the conventional narrative on their own actual memories. So: “And then my brother was led away and I never saw him again….” morphs into: “And then they took my brother to the gas….”

    And I’m pretty sure this doesn’t involve conscious dishonesty on the person’s part. You know, it’s like if you were a young boy during ww1 and your older brother was conscripted and you never saw him again, your testimony might eventually become: “my brother died in a trench in ww1″ even if you don’t really know how he died. Human memory is actually quite malleable this way.

    So, to say that there is all kinds of testimony that mentions the gas chambers is actually not the overwhelming evidence people are claiming it is.

    But the bigger problem is that all the testimony where people really say they personally saw gas chambers — all of that looks pretty phoney. You have people claiming that they went in to clear out the bodies minutes after a gassing, with no mention of them having any protective clothing or gas masks… The descriptions of the gas chamber seem physically impossible. No real homicidal gas chamber would ever work like that….

    So, on the one hand, you have the vast bulk of the legitimate survivor testimony that, properly understood, provides no proof for or against their being gas chambers. And then the testimony that really describes the gassings — there’s no easy of getting around this problem, as far as I can see… This is false testimony…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. eah says:
    @Friedrich
    One could argue that this is due to syrians having the "refugee status" and those afghans and iraqis are just misusing this to get into the west. So there would be no reason for there being refugees without the US, if I understand correctly. On the other hand, I'm seeing many niggers here in western Germany now, so what wars are fought in niggerland? It's clearly the NWO in vollem Gange.

    I'd also like to say I almost puked when I read that "Leipziger in his 30's" bullshit. Most aren't well-educated, well-trained or anything. Sarrazin did not write his book for no reason -- he did the math and understood. Just like Volkmar Weiss, who should be read by anyone who is able to read german ("Die Intelligenz und ihre Feinde: Aufstieg und Niedergang der Industriegesellschaft / Intelligence and its Enemies: Rise and Fall of industrial society" [or so in english]).

    Thanks for the info on Volkmar Weiss — I did not know of him.

    Of course the cretins who contribute to and run Wikipedia could not resist putting a section called “Rechtsextremistische Kontexte” in their article on him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Sherman
    Hi Little Art,

    Israel must be the only "fascist" country in history with a directly elected parliament and a prime minister who regularly runs for reelection.

    Thanks for analysis!

    Sherman

    “Israel must be the only ‘fascist’ country in history with a directly elected parliament and a prime minister who regularly runs for reelection.”

    Israel is a fascist-democracy, the best kind of nation in the world(but for the fact that it was founded on expulsion of so many Palestinians and is supported by globalist Jews who seek to destroy gentile nations around the world).

    Israel is a democracy founded on principles of blood-and-soil, identity, heritage, sacred memory, mythic narrative(religious and secular), and etc.
    After all, even secular Jews wanted their nation to be in the Holy Land cuz of its historical significance to them. Even secular Jewish narrative is tied to spiritual Jewish narrative cuz that land gained significance to the Jews through God.
    Israel is a modern nation with ancient roots. Jews there preserve the past and move into the future.

    That is what fascism is about. These fascist themes can be served by a democracy. And Israeli democracy was founded on these fascist principles of fusing tradition and modernity, on nationhood based on race and culture.
    It’s not a universalist kind of liberal democracy that says ‘oh gee whiz, anyone can become Jewish and Israeli.’
    Jews don’t allow Right of Return to Pallies cuz Jews insist that Israel must be a Jewish state or Jewish-dominated state. Israel must be Jewish in order to preserve what is historically and spiritually sacred to Jewish memory.

    That is a fine basis for fascist nationalism. And the fact that it is democratic too makes it all the better cuz dictatorships turn into trouble.
    It would have been better for Germany if Hitler had founded a system of fascist democracy. That way, he wouldn’t be permanent leader but could be replaced by someone else by elections. But regardless who rules, it would be agreed by all that Germany is for Germans and for the preservation of German culture, race, and memory, even as Germany accepts modernity and progress into future.
    But Hitler went for authoritarian-fascism, and so, Germany was at the whim of his personal prejudices.

    Israel is a fascist-democracy cuz both its left and right must agree that Israel must be a Jewish state committed to Jewish power, Jewish tradition, and Jewish identity. And for serving Jewish future.

    Another feature of fascism is combination of capitalism and socialism, and Israel has that. Where fascist-socialism differs from welfare-socialism of Western nations is there are conditions placed on welfare in Israel, and all Jews are expected to serve and work for the good of the nation. Even Jewish scholars who don’t work and have lots of babies are serving the system cuz they produce Jews to ensure that Jews will outbreed the Arabs. In contrast, welfare-socialism is just about milking the system to be a bum.

    This is why Jews don’t want other nations to follow the Israeli model.
    Gentile-nations-acting-like-Israel would mean that every white gentile nation should be for its people, its own memory, its own future. And that would mean gentile nations should favor gentile interests over ones favored by Jewish elites.

    Imagine Israeli Jews allowing gentiles to take over Israel’s elite institutions and industries like white nations have allowed Jews to take over their elite institutions.

    In Israel, all the banks, media, academia, and etc are controlled and dominated by Jews. If Polish Catholics were 2% of the Israeli population, there is no way Jews would allow them to gain the kind of power that Jews have in France or UK.
    In the US, Jews who are 2% of the population control 90% of media. Would Jews allow such to happen in Israel? No way. Why not? Cuz Israeli democracy was founded on blood-and-soil concepts.

    This is why what is good for the Jews in Israel is seen as bad for Jews when practiced by gentile nations, i.e. if gentiles in their nations acted like Jews in Israel, the Jewish diaspora would be faced with greater challenges.

    Do as the Jews do(in Israel), and disobey what they say.

    Some on the Alt Right reject all of democracy, but that is like throwing the baby with the bathwater.
    The problem of Western democracies is they were founded on universal principles.
    But as Israel has shown, a democracy can be founded on particularist blood-and-soil principles. Because of the founding principles of Israel, even the Israeli left is patriotic, nationalist, and race-ist(racially conscious as opposed to ‘racist’, which means just being nastily bigoted).

    Alt Right should support the idea of democracy premised on blood-and-soil identity. A democracy for our people in our people’s land.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Andrew E. Mathis

    This strikes me as a completely dishonest line of argumentation.
     
    No, it is an honest and entirely logical line of argumentation. Follow along:

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.
    (2) Revisionists say there were no gas chambers.

    If the Revisionist argument is true, then what inferences can we logically draw about (1) above? At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.

    Clue: (2) isn't true.

    No, it is an honest and entirely logical line of argumentation.

    What I was specifically referring to was the claim that holocaust revisionists believe that all survivor testimony is false. That is not an honest argument. The revisionists are claiming that the German policy was a brutal forced labor program, and yes, many died, but no, it was not an extermination program. The revisionist position is not that nobody died, but rather that most of the deaths were due to the breakdown of German infrastructure as they began to lose the war, and most of the concentration camp inmates who died, it was from hunger and disease, particularly typhus.

    They are not claiming that all the survivor testimony is false, but rather, that it is at least as consistent with the revisionist position as the conventional narrative.

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.

    Well, first of all, what number is X? I think it’s quite a small number. Granted, if the conventional holocaust narrative is true, then millions of people saw the gas chambers, but also they were dead within a short time after seeing them!

    You see, I sense clear intent to deceive here. Yes, there is a huge amount of survivor testimony, but in only a minuscule fraction of that testimony does anybody claim to have witnessed a gassing themselves. (Obviously! If they had been present at a gassing, they would not be survivors!)

    Again, the bulk of the survivor testimony is just as consistent with the revisionist narrative as it is with the conventional narrative.

    At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.

    Well, again, how many witnesses are we talking about? Saying that there are thousands of witnesses… that’s clearly dishonest, because, yes, there are thousands of survivor witnesses, yes, but only a very small number claim to have witnessed a gassing.

    Regardless, anybody who claims that he went into a gas chamber immediately after a gassing and was pulling out bodies with his bare hands, not mentioning the use of any gas mask or other protective clothing — this is a false witness. I don’t see any way around that. There has clearly been false testimony.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    What I was specifically referring to was the claim that holocaust revisionists believe that all survivor testimony is false. That is not an honest argument.
     
    Sure it is. Visit any denier forum. The vast majority of posts that you'll see will fall into three broad categories: (1) general anti-Semitism; (2) arguments about gas chambers; and (3) attacks on eyewitnesses.

    The revisionists are claiming that the German policy was a brutal forced labor program, and yes, many died, but no, it was not an extermination program. The revisionist position is not that nobody died, but rather that most of the deaths were due to the breakdown of German infrastructure as they began to lose the war, and most of the concentration camp inmates who died, it was from hunger and disease, particularly typhus.
     
    And they're wrong. Moreover, you have a sizeable proportion of deniers who are satisfied with the claim that the forced labor program they believe in, while brutal, was wholly deserved by those that ended up in it.

    They are not claiming that all the survivor testimony is false, but rather, that it is at least as consistent with the revisionist position as the conventional narrative.
     
    But it isn't, at least with regard to the gas chambers or any other key aspect of the Holocaust that the "revisionists" are denying. In fact, regarding the gas chambers, given the essential nature of the "no gas chambers" claim of the deniers, it is absolutely, positively, 100% the case that all eyewitnesses must be lying, iff their claim is true. How could it be otherwise?

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.

    Well, first of all, what number is X? I think it’s quite a small number. Granted, if the conventional holocaust narrative is true, then millions of people saw the gas chambers, but also they were dead within a short time after seeing them!
     
    Well, precisely, but the number who saw them and survived them was, yes, comparatively small. I don't have a precise number, but for Auschwitz, it's a few dozen. For the Reinhard camps, significantly fewer, but still a handful. For Auschwitz, there are far more Jewish eyewitnesses, for several reasons. For the Reinhard camps, there are far fewer, which makes sense because of how few survivors there were. Belzec had maybe five at the absolute most. Chelmno, while not a Reinhard camp, had a similar number of survivors (i.e., a half-dozen or fewer). Sobibor and Treblinka had comparatively more because of the uprisings and escapes there, but there are still more former SS and Ukrainian eyewitnesses to the Reinhard camps than Jewish eyewitnesses. Auschwitz and Majdanek had large labor components, so there are numerous survivors but comparatively fewer witnesses specifically to the gas chambers.

    Short version: Eyewitnesses to gas chambers probably never numbered more than in three figures.

    You see, I sense clear intent to deceive here. Yes, there is a huge amount of survivor testimony, but in only a minuscule fraction of that testimony does anybody claim to have witnessed a gassing themselves. (Obviously! If they had been present at a gassing, they would not be survivors!)
     
    But you can't have it both ways, can you? You can't insist on there being eyewitnesses to gas chambers and concede at the same time that those very witnesseses must be dead.

    Saying that there are thousands of witnesses… that’s clearly dishonest, because, yes, there are thousands of survivor witnesses, yes, but only a very small number claim to have witnessed a gassing.
     
    I'm not sure what your point is? Clearly there are fewer eyewitnesses to gas chambers than to other forms of execution by their very nature. There are literally hundreds (maybe dozens today because it's been such a long time) of bystander testimonies to mass shootings in the occupied USSR, not to mention the testimonies of the men who did the shooting.

    Regardless, anybody who claims that he went into a gas chamber immediately after a gassing and was pulling out bodies with his bare hands, not mentioning the use of any gas mask or other protective clothing — this is a false witness. I don’t see any way around that. There has clearly been false testimony.
     
    Depends on the place and time, doesn't it? In particular, at Birkenau, gas chambers built later were equipped with ventilation, and the ability to remove outgassing Zyklon-B from gas chambers always existed. In the Reinhard camps and Chelmno, engine exhaust was used, so provided no single person stayed too long in the chamber to pull out a body, there was no real risk.

    All that said, of course there's been false testimony. There always is. Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, which is why it should never be relied on solely for a case such as this unless two conditions are met:

    (1) There must be internal corroboration, i.e., the testimonies must agree with one another.
    (2) There must be no evidence of orchestration of testimonies to agree.

    If testimony meets those two criteria, then it's perfectly valid. Throw in physical evidence of all kinds, and there's little doubt that there were gas chambers.

    Finally, despite false testmony, I would maintain that very little false testimony in any case -- not just the Holocaust -- amounts to lying. People give false testimony all the time fully believing that what they're saying is true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Your ignorance of evidence is not proof that no evidence exists.
     
    Classic, absolutely classic example of demanding proof of a negative.

    Fallacy, pure and unblemished.

    Classic, absolutely classic example of demanding proof of a negative.

    Um, what? No, it isn’t. I haven’t asked him to prove anything. Rather than mindlessly parroting the statements of your Nazi-loving Holocaust-denying heroes, you might want to try thinking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Nazi-loving Holocaust-denying heroes

    Knock it off, you jerk.

    To all involved: take the 'Holocaust' truth or fiction discussion somewhere else. And not just so this jerk Mathis will go away.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Priss Factor
    "Also, of six million murdered people, less than half were gassed."

    Historians say it was closer to 5 million.

    But I don't know about these numbers.

    I heard 8 million Ukrainian dead, but now historians say 3 to 4 million died.

    Number of dead in Khmer Rouge Cambodia have ranged from 3 million to 1 million.

    I'm guessing millions of Jews died, but that 6 million figure seems rather suspect, especially as number 6 is significant in Jewish culture.

    but that 6 million figure seems rather suspect, especially as number 6 is significant in Jewish culture

    This is a commonly repeated and entirely untrue assertion. The number 6 is no more “significant” in Judaism than virtually any other number. Sure there are a couple of numbers with high significance, e.g., 18 (which the letters for the word for “life” add up to), 613 (the number of commandments in the Torah), 12 (number of the tribes of Israel), etc. But 6? No, not really.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    ----------This is a commonly repeated and entirely untrue assertion. The number 6 is no more "significant" in Judaism than virtually any other number.------------

    WHAT? I took Bible and Mythology class in high school, and we learned that 6 is very very siggy figgy in Jewish theology, culture, and etc.

    For Jews, 7 is the best kind of number. 6 falls short of that, so it is the number of imperfection.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. szopen says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    According to notes in his diaries, in 1942 Rabbi Stephen Wise told Henry Morgenthau, Jr. that Germans were making soap and lampshades out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau wrote that the information sickened him and "changed my life."

    At war's end, German civilians were paraded past displays of soap and lampshades made of Jewish flesh.

    It was not until decades later that these notions were debunked for the propaganda gambits that they were.

    Nevertheless, the propaganda had powerful real-world consequences. Many people died as a result of Rabbi Stephen Wise's wild ravings that motivated Henry Morgenthau's genocidal policies.

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews. soap and lampshades being made of Jewish flesh.

    (2) Revisionists say there were no gas chambers. the story and artifacts 'proving' it are false. If the Revisionist argument is true, then what inferences can we logically draw about (1) above? At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.

    Clue: (2) (1) isn’t true.
     
    --

    PS One major failing of Nuremberg trials is that the wrong people were tried and hung.
    Rabbi Wise lived a long life, synagogues are named for him; Morgenthau is revered in the Jewish community; Ilya Ehrenburg, who propagandized Russian soldiers to "kill kill kill and rape rape rape" (although -- according to Martin Amis, Erhenberg and Hitler must have collaborated) also lived a long life and was feted by his friend, Pablo Picasso, at his death; numerous Jewish communities in USA clamored for Erich Mendelsohn to design and build their houses of worship.

    Except that there weren’t that many witnesses of soap and so one being made from Jews, and, in fact, it seems that there was experiment to made soap from human fat (failed). You are making false equivalence here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    A correction of myself: I was sloppy. There is some evidence that a soap was made from _human_ fat, not from _Jewish_. It was experimental and seem to be a pet project of one German scientist. The evidence is doubted by many, by IPN (POlish government institution) investigated the issue recently and in its report confirmed that there exists possibility, that dr Spanner did experimentally produced soap from human fat.

    On the other hand, of course there was never any large-scale production.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    my bad.
    I should have provided a link to the source for the information quoted.

    It's on p. 189 of Peter Moreira's The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War

    Executive summary: FDR and Jews started the war and won the war by lying and by terror-bombing German civilians.

    I didn't write anything about witnesses or whether soap was actually made or not. I quoted a conversation between Rabbi Stephen Wise and Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

    Wise told Henry that Germans were making soap & lampshades out of Jews.
    Morgenthau was enormously affected by the information.

    It was a lie.

    It had consequences: Morgenthau held an extremely influential position in FDR's Cabinet and had an oversized impact on FDR's decisions toward Germany.

    Those decisions were affected by a lie.

    That Rabbi Stephen Wise told that particular lie in an attempt -- successful -- to influence the policy of a nation that had the ability to obliterate Germany is doubly significant: Wise told other, similar lies; specifically, beginning in about 1900, Rabbi Stephen Wise introduced the meme that
    6 million Jews were being starved; and 6 million Jews were being persecuted; and 6 million Jews were in fear of their lives; and 6 million Jews were threatened with annihilation; and 6 million Jews were being exterminated.

    A large proportion of Wise's 6 million Jews lies were published while Hitler was still in short pants. Many of Wise's Lies were published before World War I.

    Wise and his Jewish cronies used the 6 million Jews meme as political currency. For example, New York was the most important state in any federal election. Tammany was an extremely important organization to control in order to win the state and therefore the nation. Morgenthau, Sr. was a major donor to the Democratic party, and Martin Glynn was an ambitious and accomplished political player in New York. Glynn had been governor of New York; he endorsed FDR's candidacy in an election bids; FDR's political strategist planted letters in newspapers that involved Glynn's relationships with both Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
    In an October 1919 an essay by the Catholic Martin Glynn appeared in American Hebrew magazine: The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop. The opening sentence read:

    "From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread."
     
    (The "eight hundred thousand" phrase is particularly cynical: Eight hundred thousand German civilians had died of starvation in World War I in a famine blockade that extended nine months after the German armistice.)

    It's not hard to imagine the conversation in which a Morgenthau, or perhaps Samuel Untermyer, also a player and moneyman in New York Democratic politics, delivered needed campaign funds to Glynn in exchange for his name on the "Crucifixion of Jews" article.

    All that being said, the question that demands an answer is, When did Wise stop beating his wife stop lying about 6 million Jews?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    In the pic above, that must be the homo flag, no?

    It’s strange. Pro-homos welcoming Arabs and Muslims.

    Maybe the images of all those buff guys got the song YMCA running inside German homos’ heads.

    In the US, homos were useful making race and class issues secondary to lifestyle issues(advantageous to the affluent class that shapes/defines fashion and hip living).

    In NY and other Lib cities, the combination of homo-led-gentrification and stop-and-frisk policies did much to curb black presence and crime.

    In that sense, this video with Eddie Murphy was prophetic.

    It’s about how homos do stop-and-frisk on the Negro.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. @SolontoCroesus
    According to notes in his diaries, in 1942 Rabbi Stephen Wise told Henry Morgenthau, Jr. that Germans were making soap and lampshades out of Jewish flesh. Morgenthau wrote that the information sickened him and "changed my life."

    At war's end, German civilians were paraded past displays of soap and lampshades made of Jewish flesh.

    It was not until decades later that these notions were debunked for the propaganda gambits that they were.

    Nevertheless, the propaganda had powerful real-world consequences. Many people died as a result of Rabbi Stephen Wise's wild ravings that motivated Henry Morgenthau's genocidal policies.

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews. soap and lampshades being made of Jewish flesh.

    (2) Revisionists say there were no gas chambers. the story and artifacts 'proving' it are false. If the Revisionist argument is true, then what inferences can we logically draw about (1) above? At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.

    Clue: (2) (1) isn’t true.
     
    --

    PS One major failing of Nuremberg trials is that the wrong people were tried and hung.
    Rabbi Wise lived a long life, synagogues are named for him; Morgenthau is revered in the Jewish community; Ilya Ehrenburg, who propagandized Russian soldiers to "kill kill kill and rape rape rape" (although -- according to Martin Amis, Erhenberg and Hitler must have collaborated) also lived a long life and was feted by his friend, Pablo Picasso, at his death; numerous Jewish communities in USA clamored for Erich Mendelsohn to design and build their houses of worship.

    I don’t know what to say about your lampshade and soap story except that proving one thing true doesn’t automatically prove another thing true. Proving, e.g., that curses on the part of witches didn’t cause the Black Death doesn’t mean that the Black Death didn’t happen, which is to say that disproving part of the whole doesn’t negate the whole automatically.

    I know you don’t do nuance, but that’s not my problem.

    One major failing of Nuremberg trials is that the wrong people were tried and hung.

    Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    Ilya Ehrenburg, who propagandized Russian soldiers to “kill kill kill and rape rape rape” (although — according to Martin Amis, Erhenberg and Hitler must have collaborated) also lived a long life and was feted by his friend, Pablo Picasso, at his death

    Did Ehrenburg exhort Russian soldiers to kill German soldiers? He absolutely positively did, as well they should have. Their country had been invaded by German soldiers, and killing them in turn was their patriotic duty.

    Did Ehrenburg exhort Russian soldiers to kill civilians or to rape anyone? Nope. You can’t prove otherwise.

    numerous Jewish communities in USA clamored for Erich Mendelsohn to design and build their houses of worship.

    I hear Hitler could paint, nu?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Your claim is that all witnesses testimonies are false,
     
    This strikes me as a completely dishonest line of argumentation.

    The claim has been made that something on the order of six million Jews were murdered, the principal weapon being homicidal gas chambers.

    First of all, any eyewitness accounts are just as consistent with 600 thousand killed, say, as they are with six million. So the eyewitness accounts do not prove the conjecture at hand.

    The survivor saw his loved ones being led away and he never saw them again. Presumably they were killed. He has no way of knowing how, whether by gas or some other means. Nor does he really know whether they actually died of disease or hunger or some other cause.

    By and large, the eyewitness testimony is consistent with the conventional and the revisionist narrative. The revisionists are not claiming that all the testimony is false.

    That is a blatant straw man.

    You really ought to feel that there is an onus on you to come up with an intellectually honest argument.

    That’s inaccurate. It’s hard to come with definite number of victims for any event; you can hear historians arguing about how many people were killed in such and such battle in WWII (even you could expect that having military documentation, that should be quite easy). It’s even harder when documentation was non-existent, destroyed on purpose and so on. The estimation for the Holocaust number victims vary amongst historians, simply because it’s not really possible to give a precise number. A six million number is simply the most widely known estimate which is currently deemed to be the most accurate.

    Gassing was the principal method, true, but it is estimated for example that something like 1.5 million Jews were shot, not gassed. Many were simply starved to death.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    That’s inaccurate. It’s hard to come with definite number of victims for any event; you can hear historians arguing about how many people were killed in such and such battle in WWII
     
    Well, you're just engaging in pure straw man stuff in the above, arguing with something that I never said.

    What I did say was that you were blatantly misrepresenting the revisionist position, claiming that the revisionist position is that all the survivor testimony is false.

    That said, it occurs to me that, probably your were not misrepresenting the revisionist position deliberately. Rather, I suspect that you don't really know what it is. Specifically, what revisionist material have you actually read? For example, have you read anything by Robert Faurisson?


    Gassing was the principal method, true,
     
    Well, yeah, I know this is the standard narrative. I myself believed that was incontrovertibly true for most of my life. Then I undertook to prove it to myself. (Problem ...)

    What, in your opinion, it's the strongest available evidence that this gas chamber story is true?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. szopen says:
    @HdC
    You have the cart before the horse. You accuse the German People of mass murder. You, therefore, provide incontrovertible evidence that this mass murder was indeed committed.

    Of 6,000,000 claimed gassed bodies, not a single witness got the colour of the bodies correct.

    As I have argued before, compelled confessions, by torture or other means, negates that testimony.

    Of course, original recordings may not be easily accessible, but they had better be available. Transcripts are not good enough for such a controversial subject.

    I agree that I had to rely on translations of Polish newspapers, but had been translated into English.

    HdC

    “I agree that I had to rely on translations of Polish newspapers, but had been translated into English.”

    Why you believed their veracity, when not actually seeing the real newspapers, while doubting the veracity of transcripts of recordings?

    AS for the mass murder, there is one thing: I am Polish. Polish have a lot of stories of German behaviour during the occupation. Stories about mass execution, deportations and so on. I also know that before the war some three million Jews lived here, and after the war, only something like hundred thousands could be identified.

    So the accusation are entirely believeable, especially if there is quite a lot of evidence. On the other hand, the story about world-wide conspiracy are not believeable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Since wonderful Britain was the staunch and loyal ally of Poland, an ally that would come to the defense of little ol' Poland should she so rattle the chains of big, powerful Germany that this country had no choice but to march into Poland to protect all those ugly Germans that had been thrown into Poland after the Diktat of Versailles, I believed that English translations of Polish newspapers might be reasonably accurate. Are you now claiming that these translations might not have been accurate? Why so?

    And, since beautiful Britain was the sworn enemy of Germany, a country that cost, or at least speeded up the loss of, the British Empire, you will forgive me that I view any claims of the British, in regards of WWII and most everything else, with a very healthy dose of skepticism. And that includes any translations/transcriptions of any eavesdropping recordings.

    You should hear the stories Germans tell about Poland. Ever hear about Polnische Wirtschaft? And that is the mildest criticism.

    With the German and subsequent Soviet invasions of Poland, Polish Jews moved east towards the Soviet invaders because Communism was a Jewish ideal and naturally the Polish Jews felt kinship and safety with the Soviet Communists.

    If Poland was missing so many of its citizens after the war perhaps you should take that up with the Russians now. After all, Katyn Forest was their predecessor's handywork, even though the Germans were, until quite recently, blame for that massacre also.

    Have you heard of Bletchley Park in Britain? Might be worthwhile to find out about its claims.

    Hdc
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. szopen says:
    @szopen
    Except that there weren't that many witnesses of soap and so one being made from Jews, and, in fact, it seems that there was experiment to made soap from human fat (failed). You are making false equivalence here.

    A correction of myself: I was sloppy. There is some evidence that a soap was made from _human_ fat, not from _Jewish_. It was experimental and seem to be a pet project of one German scientist. The evidence is doubted by many, by IPN (POlish government institution) investigated the issue recently and in its report confirmed that there exists possibility, that dr Spanner did experimentally produced soap from human fat.

    On the other hand, of course there was never any large-scale production.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    but that 6 million figure seems rather suspect, especially as number 6 is significant in Jewish culture
     
    This is a commonly repeated and entirely untrue assertion. The number 6 is no more "significant" in Judaism than virtually any other number. Sure there are a couple of numbers with high significance, e.g., 18 (which the letters for the word for "life" add up to), 613 (the number of commandments in the Torah), 12 (number of the tribes of Israel), etc. But 6? No, not really.

    ———-This is a commonly repeated and entirely untrue assertion. The number 6 is no more “significant” in Judaism than virtually any other number.————

    WHAT? I took Bible and Mythology class in high school, and we learned that 6 is very very siggy figgy in Jewish theology, culture, and etc.

    For Jews, 7 is the best kind of number. 6 falls short of that, so it is the number of imperfection.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Really? I'm a Jew and I've never heard this.

    Pray tell: Why, according to your high school mythology class, is 7 the "best kind of number"?
    , @Sherman
    Actually the numbers 40, 7, 8 and 613 are of significance to Jews.

    18 (and multiples of 18) is often used as a symbol of good luck.

    I'm not sure what Biblical, religious or cultural significance the number 6 has to Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. eah says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Classic, absolutely classic example of demanding proof of a negative.
     
    Um, what? No, it isn't. I haven't asked him to prove anything. Rather than mindlessly parroting the statements of your Nazi-loving Holocaust-denying heroes, you might want to try thinking.

    Nazi-loving Holocaust-denying heroes

    Knock it off, you jerk.

    To all involved: take the ‘Holocaust’ truth or fiction discussion somewhere else. And not just so this jerk Mathis will go away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Stop it or you'll hurt my feelings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. nickels says:

    At this point it really doesn’t matter if the holycause happened or not. So many years ago it was milked for all the guilt that it was worth.

    Time for the right to rise strong and destroy any who oppose them. Guilt is for little babies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    The German disease has really spread.

    I can understand why Germany would feel about about WWII,
    but what had once been the German Guilt has turned into a European-wide guilt.

    German Moral Paralysis or Moralysis has turned into a European Moralysis.

    Even non-German nations came to be blamed for the Holocaust for having been allies of Germany, not having resisted Germans hard enough(during Occupation) or for collaboration in some quarters, not having fought the Germans hard enough, or having remained neutral, like Sweden or Switzerland.

    As for Russians who suffered tremendous death during WWII, Jews don’t like it cuz it competes with the narrative of Jewish suffering. Jews want the world to know that no people suffered as much as Jews during WWII. But as the video below shows, Russians lost tremendous number of lives. Indeed, it’s interesting that given the suffering of Russians during WWII, Merkel’s Germany seems to feel no guilt as it pursues policies that hurt Russia.

    It’s a dumb video but you get the point.

    Now, German Guilt was understandable for the generation that had been supportive of and involved in Hitler’s aggression and atrocities in Europe.

    But this guilt soon turned into a national disease as generation after generation of Germans were raised with guilt as if all Germans henceforth are born with something like the ‘original sin’. Why should all Germans share in this guilt eternally?

    If only Germans felt this way, it wouldn’t have been so bad.

    But French got blamed for the Holocaust too cuz of collaboration during Vichy yrs. Up until the early 70s, the main narrative in France was COURAGEOUS FRENCH MOSTLY RESISTED THE GERMANS. But “Sorrow and the Pity” by Marcel Ophuls said, ‘No, you French mostly collaborated’. In fact, most French neither resisted nor collaborated. And speaking of collaboration, plenty of Jews collaborated with Stalin. And if Hitler hadn’t been anti-Jewish and only anti-Polish, surely many Polish Jews would have collaborated with Germans to kill Jews. People are like that all over the world. Time to let bygones be bygones.

    UK got blamed for not having fought hard enough to save Jews.

    But then, the Holocaust got associated with black slavery and Indian ‘genocide’ in the US and also with European imperialism in non-white nations. Vietnam and Algeria were seen as the new holocausts. So, other European nations got blamed for ‘racism’ as well.

    But most European nations were NOT imperialist. But the German Disease not only spread to UK and France but to nations like Sweden as well.
    And when communism fell, even Eastern European nations that joined the EU were compelled to share in this ‘white guilt’ even though they never conquered any non-white nations. It was the Imperialism of White Guilt forced on ALL whites, even whites who had nothing to do with conquest of the world.
    It’s like even Polish-Americans are blamed for black slavery when that makes no sense. But black African immigrants(who sold black slaves to whites and Arabs) get to bask in the glow of ‘noble black victimhood).

    The German Moralysis is now all over the place. It’s in Germany, France, UK, even Poland as plenty of Dumb Polacks call for open borders, homo supremacism, and surrender to globalism.

    It’s even become an element of globalist hipsterism in the form of SJW-ism, and since East Asians are so imitative of the West, they too seem to imitate this with enthusiasm even though their nations had nothing to do with ‘white guilt’. As US colleges fill up with more Asians, expect them to both attack whites for ‘racism’ and share in ‘white racism’ by attacking their own kind back home for being ‘racist’ too in not allowing more immigration.

    Anyway, as all of Europe is under the power of this moralysis, they don’t know what to do about the ‘refugee’ crisis.
    They just feel ‘guilty’ and more ‘guilty’ and wring their hands and feel that they must do everything to help and save the world.
    Dumb Sweden thinks it has a special burden to save all of black Africa.

    In some cases, certain European nations initially took on the ‘white man’s burden’ out of a certain pride and preening moral arrogance. They decided that nations like UK, France, and US had messed up the Third World with ‘racism’ and ‘imperialism’.

    In contrast, the do-goody Swedes would demonstrate how it should be done. They would shower non-whites with love & devotion and make the world bloom into a wonderful garden.
    But what they figuring out in Sweden is that Negroes are Negroes, whether you bring them in slave ships or modern cruises. They be crazy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @szopen
    That's inaccurate. It's hard to come with definite number of victims for any event; you can hear historians arguing about how many people were killed in such and such battle in WWII (even you could expect that having military documentation, that should be quite easy). It's even harder when documentation was non-existent, destroyed on purpose and so on. The estimation for the Holocaust number victims vary amongst historians, simply because it's not really possible to give a precise number. A six million number is simply the most widely known estimate which is currently deemed to be the most accurate.

    Gassing was the principal method, true, but it is estimated for example that something like 1.5 million Jews were shot, not gassed. Many were simply starved to death.

    That’s inaccurate. It’s hard to come with definite number of victims for any event; you can hear historians arguing about how many people were killed in such and such battle in WWII

    Well, you’re just engaging in pure straw man stuff in the above, arguing with something that I never said.

    What I did say was that you were blatantly misrepresenting the revisionist position, claiming that the revisionist position is that all the survivor testimony is false.

    That said, it occurs to me that, probably your were not misrepresenting the revisionist position deliberately. Rather, I suspect that you don’t really know what it is. Specifically, what revisionist material have you actually read? For example, have you read anything by Robert Faurisson?

    Gassing was the principal method, true,

    Well, yeah, I know this is the standard narrative. I myself believed that was incontrovertibly true for most of my life. Then I undertook to prove it to myself. (Problem …)

    What, in your opinion, it’s the strongest available evidence that this gas chamber story is true?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Jonathan Revusky

    No, it is an honest and entirely logical line of argumentation.
     
    What I was specifically referring to was the claim that holocaust revisionists believe that all survivor testimony is false. That is not an honest argument. The revisionists are claiming that the German policy was a brutal forced labor program, and yes, many died, but no, it was not an extermination program. The revisionist position is not that nobody died, but rather that most of the deaths were due to the breakdown of German infrastructure as they began to lose the war, and most of the concentration camp inmates who died, it was from hunger and disease, particularly typhus.

    They are not claiming that all the survivor testimony is false, but rather, that it is at least as consistent with the revisionist position as the conventional narrative.


    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.
     
    Well, first of all, what number is X? I think it's quite a small number. Granted, if the conventional holocaust narrative is true, then millions of people saw the gas chambers, but also they were dead within a short time after seeing them!

    You see, I sense clear intent to deceive here. Yes, there is a huge amount of survivor testimony, but in only a minuscule fraction of that testimony does anybody claim to have witnessed a gassing themselves. (Obviously! If they had been present at a gassing, they would not be survivors!)

    Again, the bulk of the survivor testimony is just as consistent with the revisionist narrative as it is with the conventional narrative.


    At least with regarding to the X testimonies, they must indeed be 100% false, iff (2) is true.
     
    Well, again, how many witnesses are we talking about? Saying that there are thousands of witnesses... that's clearly dishonest, because, yes, there are thousands of survivor witnesses, yes, but only a very small number claim to have witnessed a gassing.

    Regardless, anybody who claims that he went into a gas chamber immediately after a gassing and was pulling out bodies with his bare hands, not mentioning the use of any gas mask or other protective clothing -- this is a false witness. I don't see any way around that. There has clearly been false testimony.

    What I was specifically referring to was the claim that holocaust revisionists believe that all survivor testimony is false. That is not an honest argument.

    Sure it is. Visit any denier forum. The vast majority of posts that you’ll see will fall into three broad categories: (1) general anti-Semitism; (2) arguments about gas chambers; and (3) attacks on eyewitnesses.

    The revisionists are claiming that the German policy was a brutal forced labor program, and yes, many died, but no, it was not an extermination program. The revisionist position is not that nobody died, but rather that most of the deaths were due to the breakdown of German infrastructure as they began to lose the war, and most of the concentration camp inmates who died, it was from hunger and disease, particularly typhus.

    And they’re wrong. Moreover, you have a sizeable proportion of deniers who are satisfied with the claim that the forced labor program they believe in, while brutal, was wholly deserved by those that ended up in it.

    They are not claiming that all the survivor testimony is false, but rather, that it is at least as consistent with the revisionist position as the conventional narrative.

    But it isn’t, at least with regard to the gas chambers or any other key aspect of the Holocaust that the “revisionists” are denying. In fact, regarding the gas chambers, given the essential nature of the “no gas chambers” claim of the deniers, it is absolutely, positively, 100% the case that all eyewitnesses must be lying, iff their claim is true. How could it be otherwise?

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.

    Well, first of all, what number is X? I think it’s quite a small number. Granted, if the conventional holocaust narrative is true, then millions of people saw the gas chambers, but also they were dead within a short time after seeing them!

    Well, precisely, but the number who saw them and survived them was, yes, comparatively small. I don’t have a precise number, but for Auschwitz, it’s a few dozen. For the Reinhard camps, significantly fewer, but still a handful. For Auschwitz, there are far more Jewish eyewitnesses, for several reasons. For the Reinhard camps, there are far fewer, which makes sense because of how few survivors there were. Belzec had maybe five at the absolute most. Chelmno, while not a Reinhard camp, had a similar number of survivors (i.e., a half-dozen or fewer). Sobibor and Treblinka had comparatively more because of the uprisings and escapes there, but there are still more former SS and Ukrainian eyewitnesses to the Reinhard camps than Jewish eyewitnesses. Auschwitz and Majdanek had large labor components, so there are numerous survivors but comparatively fewer witnesses specifically to the gas chambers.

    Short version: Eyewitnesses to gas chambers probably never numbered more than in three figures.

    You see, I sense clear intent to deceive here. Yes, there is a huge amount of survivor testimony, but in only a minuscule fraction of that testimony does anybody claim to have witnessed a gassing themselves. (Obviously! If they had been present at a gassing, they would not be survivors!)

    But you can’t have it both ways, can you? You can’t insist on there being eyewitnesses to gas chambers and concede at the same time that those very witnesseses must be dead.

    Saying that there are thousands of witnesses… that’s clearly dishonest, because, yes, there are thousands of survivor witnesses, yes, but only a very small number claim to have witnessed a gassing.

    I’m not sure what your point is? Clearly there are fewer eyewitnesses to gas chambers than to other forms of execution by their very nature. There are literally hundreds (maybe dozens today because it’s been such a long time) of bystander testimonies to mass shootings in the occupied USSR, not to mention the testimonies of the men who did the shooting.

    Regardless, anybody who claims that he went into a gas chamber immediately after a gassing and was pulling out bodies with his bare hands, not mentioning the use of any gas mask or other protective clothing — this is a false witness. I don’t see any way around that. There has clearly been false testimony.

    Depends on the place and time, doesn’t it? In particular, at Birkenau, gas chambers built later were equipped with ventilation, and the ability to remove outgassing Zyklon-B from gas chambers always existed. In the Reinhard camps and Chelmno, engine exhaust was used, so provided no single person stayed too long in the chamber to pull out a body, there was no real risk.

    All that said, of course there’s been false testimony. There always is. Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, which is why it should never be relied on solely for a case such as this unless two conditions are met:

    (1) There must be internal corroboration, i.e., the testimonies must agree with one another.
    (2) There must be no evidence of orchestration of testimonies to agree.

    If testimony meets those two criteria, then it’s perfectly valid. Throw in physical evidence of all kinds, and there’s little doubt that there were gas chambers.

    Finally, despite false testmony, I would maintain that very little false testimony in any case — not just the Holocaust — amounts to lying. People give false testimony all the time fully believing that what they’re saying is true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Look, when revisionists say that the testimony in which people claim that they pulled out bodies immediately after a gassing, with no reference to any gas masks or protective clothing -- that this is false testimony -- they are simply pointing out the obvious.

    To say that this specific testimony is false (when it obviously is) is not the same as claiming that all testimony of all concentration camp survivors is false. That is not the revisionist position. It is a straw man.

    Of course, that you have to trot out these straw man arguments is really just a symptom of the larger problem, which is that you don't have much of an argument. I myself believed the gas chamber story for most of my life, until I tried to prove to myself that it was true. And then I discovered that I couldn't. Actually, I couldn't find any proof that withstands the laugh test.

    What you provide is familiar to me. It's called "proof by repetition". Your "proof" of the claim is simply to repeat the claim.

    But you can’t have it both ways, can you? You can’t insist on there being eyewitnesses to gas chambers and concede at the same time that those very witnesseses must be dead.
     
    Aren't you just being wilfully obtuse here? Surely you are able to understand that this is a conditional mode. IF the conventional narrative is true, I.e. IF there really were gas chambers... THEN, yes, millions of people would have seen them. But they still would not have provided any testimony because they WOULD HAVE (note the continued conditional mode) been dead shortly after seeing them.

    The point is that, basically none of the survivors would personally have ever witnessed a gassing or seen a gas chamber. Of course, if there were no gas chambers, then DEFINITELY nobody would have seen them, but even if, for the sake of argument, they did exist... Well.... surely you're not quite that dumb. You understand the argument but are pretending that you don't...

    Throw in physical evidence of all kinds, and there’s little doubt that there were gas chambers.
     
    Could you outline what "physical evidence" you are referring to?

    The testimony looks very questionable to say the least. None of the testimony of how a mass gassing and the subsequent cleanup were carried out seems physically possible.

    So, again, what physical evidence are you referring to?
    , @OutWest
    There’re some good studies. The camps were actually run day to day by inmates, i.e. capos who were largely Jews. While the camps were work camps, the young, old infirm etc. were sent to largely gas chambers, though trucks with Diesel exhaust (no CO} were used early. The infamous pictures of a medical officer pointing arrivals to the left or right was the cull of the workers from those to be killed.

    The six million figure –actually 5.8 million- was determined by subtracting the European Jewish population after the war from that before the war.

    The above is rather well documented in A History of the Holocaust by Y. Bauer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Priss Factor
    ----------This is a commonly repeated and entirely untrue assertion. The number 6 is no more "significant" in Judaism than virtually any other number.------------

    WHAT? I took Bible and Mythology class in high school, and we learned that 6 is very very siggy figgy in Jewish theology, culture, and etc.

    For Jews, 7 is the best kind of number. 6 falls short of that, so it is the number of imperfection.

    Really? I’m a Jew and I’ve never heard this.

    Pray tell: Why, according to your high school mythology class, is 7 the “best kind of number”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Really? I’m a Jew and I’ve never heard this."

    Shiite. It's like a Negro who never heard of basketball or watermelon.

    "Pray tell: Why, according to your high school mythology class, is 7 the 'best kind of number'?"

    Cuz lots of good things in the Bible comes in sevens.

    You gotta a be 'troll'. I mean how can you be Jewish and not know this?

    Come on. Yer pulling my leg. LOL.

    No more twisted logic, feigned ignorance, and/or bogus BS please.

    There is too much bogusness in the world.

    Just look at this story:

    http://newobserveronline.com/whites-to-blame-as-third-world-fgm-nightmare-engulfs-britain/#comment-639906

    Non-whites come to UK and do horrible stuff with 'female circumcision' --- though I don't know why this should be shocking in the West when trans-gender freaks cut off entire organs --- , but the victims blame WHITE people.

    What logic. Among non-white community, your own darky kind abuse you, but you don't blame your own people or your own culture. No, you blame whites for not saving you.

    PS. I know you're trolling but...

    http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-numbers/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @eah
    Nazi-loving Holocaust-denying heroes

    Knock it off, you jerk.

    To all involved: take the 'Holocaust' truth or fiction discussion somewhere else. And not just so this jerk Mathis will go away.

    Stop it or you’ll hurt my feelings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Hey, get a load of this.

    http://whitegenocideproject.com/german-schoolchildren-will-cook-and-clean-for-refugees-as-part-of-work-experience/

    German elites say ‘all those refugees will do wonders for the economy cuz they will work for us.’

    But it seems like Germans will have to work for them. Beginning in grade school.

    Jeb said Americans gotta work more.

    Merkel prolly agrees for Germans too.

    It is an act of love to work more for the sake of ‘migrants’, ‘immigrants’, ‘refugees’, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Really? I'm a Jew and I've never heard this.

    Pray tell: Why, according to your high school mythology class, is 7 the "best kind of number"?

    “Really? I’m a Jew and I’ve never heard this.”

    Shiite. It’s like a Negro who never heard of basketball or watermelon.

    “Pray tell: Why, according to your high school mythology class, is 7 the ‘best kind of number’?”

    Cuz lots of good things in the Bible comes in sevens.

    You gotta a be ‘troll’. I mean how can you be Jewish and not know this?

    Come on. Yer pulling my leg. LOL.

    No more twisted logic, feigned ignorance, and/or bogus BS please.

    There is too much bogusness in the world.

    Just look at this story:

    http://newobserveronline.com/whites-to-blame-as-third-world-fgm-nightmare-engulfs-britain/#comment-639906

    Non-whites come to UK and do horrible stuff with ‘female circumcision’ — though I don’t know why this should be shocking in the West when trans-gender freaks cut off entire organs — , but the victims blame WHITE people.

    What logic. Among non-white community, your own darky kind abuse you, but you don’t blame your own people or your own culture. No, you blame whites for not saving you.

    PS. I know you’re trolling but…

    http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/judaism-numbers/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Sherman says:
    @Priss Factor
    ----------This is a commonly repeated and entirely untrue assertion. The number 6 is no more "significant" in Judaism than virtually any other number.------------

    WHAT? I took Bible and Mythology class in high school, and we learned that 6 is very very siggy figgy in Jewish theology, culture, and etc.

    For Jews, 7 is the best kind of number. 6 falls short of that, so it is the number of imperfection.

    Actually the numbers 40, 7, 8 and 613 are of significance to Jews.

    18 (and multiples of 18) is often used as a symbol of good luck.

    I’m not sure what Biblical, religious or cultural significance the number 6 has to Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Why don't you guys cut it out?

    You think I was born yesterday?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Sherman
    Actually the numbers 40, 7, 8 and 613 are of significance to Jews.

    18 (and multiples of 18) is often used as a symbol of good luck.

    I'm not sure what Biblical, religious or cultural significance the number 6 has to Jews.

    Why don’t you guys cut it out?

    You think I was born yesterday?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Globalism gives us Insta-Identity.

    Culture should be a long-simmering stew rich in flavors and filled with organic ingredients

    Globalism turns every nation into Cup-O-Noodle.

    http://justhungry.com/instant-ramen-and-cup-noodles-are-very-very-bad-you

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. @szopen
    Except that there weren't that many witnesses of soap and so one being made from Jews, and, in fact, it seems that there was experiment to made soap from human fat (failed). You are making false equivalence here.

    my bad.
    I should have provided a link to the source for the information quoted.

    It’s on p. 189 of Peter Moreira’s The Jew Who Defeated Hitler: Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR, and How We Won the War

    Executive summary: FDR and Jews started the war and won the war by lying and by terror-bombing German civilians.

    I didn’t write anything about witnesses or whether soap was actually made or not. I quoted a conversation between Rabbi Stephen Wise and Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

    Wise told Henry that Germans were making soap & lampshades out of Jews.
    Morgenthau was enormously affected by the information.

    It was a lie.

    It had consequences: Morgenthau held an extremely influential position in FDR’s Cabinet and had an oversized impact on FDR’s decisions toward Germany.

    Those decisions were affected by a lie.

    That Rabbi Stephen Wise told that particular lie in an attempt — successful — to influence the policy of a nation that had the ability to obliterate Germany is doubly significant: Wise told other, similar lies; specifically, beginning in about 1900, Rabbi Stephen Wise introduced the meme that
    6 million Jews were being starved; and 6 million Jews were being persecuted; and 6 million Jews were in fear of their lives; and 6 million Jews were threatened with annihilation; and 6 million Jews were being exterminated.

    A large proportion of Wise’s 6 million Jews lies were published while Hitler was still in short pants. Many of Wise’s Lies were published before World War I.

    Wise and his Jewish cronies used the 6 million Jews meme as political currency. For example, New York was the most important state in any federal election. Tammany was an extremely important organization to control in order to win the state and therefore the nation. Morgenthau, Sr. was a major donor to the Democratic party, and Martin Glynn was an ambitious and accomplished political player in New York. Glynn had been governor of New York; he endorsed FDR’s candidacy in an election bids; FDR’s political strategist planted letters in newspapers that involved Glynn’s relationships with both Woodrow Wilson and FDR.
    In an October 1919 an essay by the Catholic Martin Glynn appeared in American Hebrew magazine: The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop. The opening sentence read:

    “From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread.”

    (The “eight hundred thousand” phrase is particularly cynical: Eight hundred thousand German civilians had died of starvation in World War I in a famine blockade that extended nine months after the German armistice.)

    It’s not hard to imagine the conversation in which a Morgenthau, or perhaps Samuel Untermyer, also a player and moneyman in New York Democratic politics, delivered needed campaign funds to Glynn in exchange for his name on the “Crucifixion of Jews” article.

    All that being said, the question that demands an answer is, When did Wise stop beating his wife stop lying about 6 million Jews?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. WhatEvvs [AKA "Anonymuss Annie"] says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    I’m not accusing anybody, YOU and your ilk have accused the Germans for over 70 years of God knows what crimes when in fact these crimes were committed by the Allies. Look up the definition of holocaust. Hiroshima and Dresden immediately spring to mind.
     
    Armes Deutschland!

    The Germans have admitted what happened during the Third Reich, to their great credit. That idiots elsewhere in the world try to exculpate their fascist regime does Germany no favors.

    Consequently it is up to YOU to provide incontrovertible evidence that your accusations are in fact true and have occurred in the manner you assert.
     
    No, I must only provide a logical narrative that explains the available evidence, which has been done repeatedly. For 70-plus years of "revisionism," not a single revisionist has ever offered a plausible alternative narrative for what became of millions of Jews. I suspect you're not going to be the first.

    Locking up people and their lawyers in Europe when they try to present evidence that flies in the face of the politically correct rubbish of common knowledge as propagated by the MSM no longer suffices as “evidence”.
     
    Appeal to emotion. Logical fallacy.

    Not even a witness from Israel was allowed in this particular trial. Any thinking individual must ask himself what the holocaustians are trying to hide.
     
    I have no idea what you're talking about.

    Read: “For 99% of what we know of the Holocaust no evidence exists”. This is a very famous quote from a daily paper in Toronto when it interviewed the Canadian High Priest of Holocaustianity.
     
    Actually, he said 99%% of what we know has no physical evidence. Big difference.

    I have read and tried to understand the verbiage in Nitzkor. And I have also read numerous written judgements by sitting judges as this affected my professional work. Consequently I understand very well the difference between sound judgements and empty verbiage. The latter is what passes in Nitzkor as evidence.
     
    Appeal to incredulity.

    Thanks to you and sznopen for answering the Holocaust-denying asshole. I can’t deal with people like him.

    I note that it’s really only in the US and France that you find his ilk. There are plenty of anti-Semites in Poland but you won’t find one who denies the truth of the Holocaust.

    In my own case, I’m of Greek heritage and what the Germans did to Greece in WWII was a form of extermination. Anyone who tries to deny that in the presence of any person of Greek heritage had better watch out.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stubborn in Germany
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. geokat62 says:

    There has been plenty of ink dispensed on this blog about the holocaust. While some dispute that it ever occurred, most take issue with either the numerical count or the manner in which the victims met their demise. I have no particular insights into these aspects of the holocaust. I’m more interested in having a better understanding of the events leading up to this tragedy. In short, I’m more interested in its causes.

    Now, we’re all familiar with the general contours of this historical event… that Jews had been living in Germany for centuries and although they had experienced pogroms, they also managed to achieve emancipation and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. But things changed dramatically in the early 1930s when the Nazis came to power. The Nazi Party had been founded in 1919 and Hitler took over the party in the early 20s and rebranded it the NSDAP. According to Wikipedia:

    The National Socialist Program, adopted in 1920, called for a united Greater Germany that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent, while also supporting land reform and the nationalization of some industries. In Mein Kampf, written in 1924, Hitler outlined the antisemitism and anti-communism at the heart of his political philosophy, as well as his disdain for parliamentary democracy and his belief in Germany’s right to territorial expansion….

    However, following the growth of Nazism and its antisemitic ideology and policies, the Jewish community was severely persecuted… In 1933, persecution of the Jews became an active Nazi policy. In 1935 and 1936, the pace of persecution of the Jews increased. In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them from exerting any influence in education, politics, higher education and industry.

    What I find interesting about this entry is that no mention is made of The Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933, a boycott of German products following the rise of Hitler to encourage him, according to Wikipedia, to end his “anti-Jewish practices.”

    Again, according to Wikipedia:

    The Nazis and some outside Germany portrayed the boycott as an act of aggression, with the British newspaper the Daily Express going so far as to use the headline: “Judea Declares War on Germany”.

    I think most would agree that this is the pivotal moment in the conflict. I’m not justifying in any way how the Nazis responded to the Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933, but rather than characterizing the causes of the holocaust as something driven by pure hatred alone, isn’t it more instructive to do a proper analysis of its causes, including the economic boycott, so as to leave posterity with a factual account of the events leading up to this tragedy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    isn’t it more instructive to do a proper analysis of its causes
     
    Indeed it is.

    Using wikipedia + a tinker- or- two is not that "proper analysis."
    You might as well rely on Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    A "proper analysis of its causes" must first explore the development of zionism, its origins in czarist Russia and how zionism impacted Germany. That will require exploring the competition between the German Warburgs and the Russian Weizmann (hint: Weizmann won. It's a safe bet that Warburgs would have agreed in private that Weizmann's collaboration with the British to get the Balfour declaration resulted in a stab in the back to Germans, who had previously had a relationship with Jews very close to the US-Israel SR.

    In the first of his book events to introduce "The Greater Journey," David McCullough commented that to understand the world wars (hence the holocaust) one would have to begin with the Franco-Prussian war.
    , @Art
    After WWI, Big Jew bankers put Germany in a debt situation that severally hurt its economy. Knowing the herd mentality of the Little Jews, one would doubt they objected, thus distancing themselves from the German people.

    The Jews were also known to be running commie Russia, an anti-Christian anti-European anti-free-human philosophy.

    Not unlike today in America - in 1930 there was reason to dislike the Jew!

    The banking situation is little different today in America – the Jew Fed has managed to put the American people in a debt that over burdens all, and enriches the Jew tribe. Try and find out the wealth gain of the US Jews in the last 30 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Andrew E. Mathis

    What I was specifically referring to was the claim that holocaust revisionists believe that all survivor testimony is false. That is not an honest argument.
     
    Sure it is. Visit any denier forum. The vast majority of posts that you'll see will fall into three broad categories: (1) general anti-Semitism; (2) arguments about gas chambers; and (3) attacks on eyewitnesses.

    The revisionists are claiming that the German policy was a brutal forced labor program, and yes, many died, but no, it was not an extermination program. The revisionist position is not that nobody died, but rather that most of the deaths were due to the breakdown of German infrastructure as they began to lose the war, and most of the concentration camp inmates who died, it was from hunger and disease, particularly typhus.
     
    And they're wrong. Moreover, you have a sizeable proportion of deniers who are satisfied with the claim that the forced labor program they believe in, while brutal, was wholly deserved by those that ended up in it.

    They are not claiming that all the survivor testimony is false, but rather, that it is at least as consistent with the revisionist position as the conventional narrative.
     
    But it isn't, at least with regard to the gas chambers or any other key aspect of the Holocaust that the "revisionists" are denying. In fact, regarding the gas chambers, given the essential nature of the "no gas chambers" claim of the deniers, it is absolutely, positively, 100% the case that all eyewitnesses must be lying, iff their claim is true. How could it be otherwise?

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.

    Well, first of all, what number is X? I think it’s quite a small number. Granted, if the conventional holocaust narrative is true, then millions of people saw the gas chambers, but also they were dead within a short time after seeing them!
     
    Well, precisely, but the number who saw them and survived them was, yes, comparatively small. I don't have a precise number, but for Auschwitz, it's a few dozen. For the Reinhard camps, significantly fewer, but still a handful. For Auschwitz, there are far more Jewish eyewitnesses, for several reasons. For the Reinhard camps, there are far fewer, which makes sense because of how few survivors there were. Belzec had maybe five at the absolute most. Chelmno, while not a Reinhard camp, had a similar number of survivors (i.e., a half-dozen or fewer). Sobibor and Treblinka had comparatively more because of the uprisings and escapes there, but there are still more former SS and Ukrainian eyewitnesses to the Reinhard camps than Jewish eyewitnesses. Auschwitz and Majdanek had large labor components, so there are numerous survivors but comparatively fewer witnesses specifically to the gas chambers.

    Short version: Eyewitnesses to gas chambers probably never numbered more than in three figures.

    You see, I sense clear intent to deceive here. Yes, there is a huge amount of survivor testimony, but in only a minuscule fraction of that testimony does anybody claim to have witnessed a gassing themselves. (Obviously! If they had been present at a gassing, they would not be survivors!)
     
    But you can't have it both ways, can you? You can't insist on there being eyewitnesses to gas chambers and concede at the same time that those very witnesseses must be dead.

    Saying that there are thousands of witnesses… that’s clearly dishonest, because, yes, there are thousands of survivor witnesses, yes, but only a very small number claim to have witnessed a gassing.
     
    I'm not sure what your point is? Clearly there are fewer eyewitnesses to gas chambers than to other forms of execution by their very nature. There are literally hundreds (maybe dozens today because it's been such a long time) of bystander testimonies to mass shootings in the occupied USSR, not to mention the testimonies of the men who did the shooting.

    Regardless, anybody who claims that he went into a gas chamber immediately after a gassing and was pulling out bodies with his bare hands, not mentioning the use of any gas mask or other protective clothing — this is a false witness. I don’t see any way around that. There has clearly been false testimony.
     
    Depends on the place and time, doesn't it? In particular, at Birkenau, gas chambers built later were equipped with ventilation, and the ability to remove outgassing Zyklon-B from gas chambers always existed. In the Reinhard camps and Chelmno, engine exhaust was used, so provided no single person stayed too long in the chamber to pull out a body, there was no real risk.

    All that said, of course there's been false testimony. There always is. Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, which is why it should never be relied on solely for a case such as this unless two conditions are met:

    (1) There must be internal corroboration, i.e., the testimonies must agree with one another.
    (2) There must be no evidence of orchestration of testimonies to agree.

    If testimony meets those two criteria, then it's perfectly valid. Throw in physical evidence of all kinds, and there's little doubt that there were gas chambers.

    Finally, despite false testmony, I would maintain that very little false testimony in any case -- not just the Holocaust -- amounts to lying. People give false testimony all the time fully believing that what they're saying is true.

    Look, when revisionists say that the testimony in which people claim that they pulled out bodies immediately after a gassing, with no reference to any gas masks or protective clothing — that this is false testimony — they are simply pointing out the obvious.

    To say that this specific testimony is false (when it obviously is) is not the same as claiming that all testimony of all concentration camp survivors is false. That is not the revisionist position. It is a straw man.

    Of course, that you have to trot out these straw man arguments is really just a symptom of the larger problem, which is that you don’t have much of an argument. I myself believed the gas chamber story for most of my life, until I tried to prove to myself that it was true. And then I discovered that I couldn’t. Actually, I couldn’t find any proof that withstands the laugh test.

    What you provide is familiar to me. It’s called “proof by repetition”. Your “proof” of the claim is simply to repeat the claim.

    But you can’t have it both ways, can you? You can’t insist on there being eyewitnesses to gas chambers and concede at the same time that those very witnesseses must be dead.

    Aren’t you just being wilfully obtuse here? Surely you are able to understand that this is a conditional mode. IF the conventional narrative is true, I.e. IF there really were gas chambers… THEN, yes, millions of people would have seen them. But they still would not have provided any testimony because they WOULD HAVE (note the continued conditional mode) been dead shortly after seeing them.

    The point is that, basically none of the survivors would personally have ever witnessed a gassing or seen a gas chamber. Of course, if there were no gas chambers, then DEFINITELY nobody would have seen them, but even if, for the sake of argument, they did exist… Well…. surely you’re not quite that dumb. You understand the argument but are pretending that you don’t…

    Throw in physical evidence of all kinds, and there’s little doubt that there were gas chambers.

    Could you outline what “physical evidence” you are referring to?

    The testimony looks very questionable to say the least. None of the testimony of how a mass gassing and the subsequent cleanup were carried out seems physically possible.

    So, again, what physical evidence are you referring to?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    Look, when revisionists say that the testimony in which people claim that they pulled out bodies immediately after a gassing, with no reference to any gas masks or protective clothing — that this is false testimony — they are simply pointing out the obvious.
     
    I already addressed this. Stop repeating yourself.

    To say that this specific testimony is false (when it obviously is) is not the same as claiming that all testimony of all concentration camp survivors is false. That is not the revisionist position. It is a straw man.
     
    Fine. Maybe you could post here some testimony that deniers believe is actually true.

    Of course, that you have to trot out these straw man arguments is really just a symptom of the larger problem, which is that you don’t have much of an argument. I myself believed the gas chamber story for most of my life, until I tried to prove to myself that it was true. And then I discovered that I couldn’t. Actually, I couldn’t find any proof that withstands the laugh test.
     
    That's what's called an argument from incredulity.

    What you provide is familiar to me. It’s called “proof by repetition”. Your “proof” of the claim is simply to repeat the claim.
     
    You got me now, Socrates.

    Aren’t you just being wilfully obtuse here? Surely you are able to understand that this is a conditional mode. IF the conventional narrative is true, I.e. IF there really were gas chambers… THEN, yes, millions of people would have seen them. But they still would not have provided any testimony because they WOULD HAVE (note the continued conditional mode) been dead shortly after seeing them.
     
    Right, except that there are also the perpetrators. There are also the Sonderkommando. So that doesn't rule out two whole categories of eyewitnesses.

    The point is that, basically none of the survivors would personally have ever witnessed a gassing or seen a gas chamber. Of course, if there were no gas chambers, then DEFINITELY nobody would have seen them, but even if, for the sake of argument, they did exist… Well…. surely you’re not quite that dumb. You understand the argument but are pretending that you don’t…
     
    No, you were just being unclear.

    Could you outline what “physical evidence” you are referring to?
     
    See below.

    The testimony looks very questionable to say the least. None of the testimony of how a mass gassing and the subsequent cleanup were carried out seems physically possible.
     
    Argument from incredulity.

    So, again, what physical evidence are you referring to?
     
    See:

    http://www.unz.com/emargolis/no-people-have-an-exclusive-on-suffering/#comment-935205

    Concentrate on the bolded portions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. HdC says:
    @szopen
    "I agree that I had to rely on translations of Polish newspapers, but had been translated into English."

    Why you believed their veracity, when not actually seeing the real newspapers, while doubting the veracity of transcripts of recordings?

    AS for the mass murder, there is one thing: I am Polish. Polish have a lot of stories of German behaviour during the occupation. Stories about mass execution, deportations and so on. I also know that before the war some three million Jews lived here, and after the war, only something like hundred thousands could be identified.

    So the accusation are entirely believeable, especially if there is quite a lot of evidence. On the other hand, the story about world-wide conspiracy are not believeable.

    Since wonderful Britain was the staunch and loyal ally of Poland, an ally that would come to the defense of little ol’ Poland should she so rattle the chains of big, powerful Germany that this country had no choice but to march into Poland to protect all those ugly Germans that had been thrown into Poland after the Diktat of Versailles, I believed that English translations of Polish newspapers might be reasonably accurate. Are you now claiming that these translations might not have been accurate? Why so?

    And, since beautiful Britain was the sworn enemy of Germany, a country that cost, or at least speeded up the loss of, the British Empire, you will forgive me that I view any claims of the British, in regards of WWII and most everything else, with a very healthy dose of skepticism. And that includes any translations/transcriptions of any eavesdropping recordings.

    You should hear the stories Germans tell about Poland. Ever hear about Polnische Wirtschaft? And that is the mildest criticism.

    With the German and subsequent Soviet invasions of Poland, Polish Jews moved east towards the Soviet invaders because Communism was a Jewish ideal and naturally the Polish Jews felt kinship and safety with the Soviet Communists.

    If Poland was missing so many of its citizens after the war perhaps you should take that up with the Russians now. After all, Katyn Forest was their predecessor’s handywork, even though the Germans were, until quite recently, blame for that massacre also.

    Have you heard of Bletchley Park in Britain? Might be worthwhile to find out about its claims.

    Hdc

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Germans were not blamed for Katyń except in 1945 and in darkest Stalinist times. My father knew who was responsible for Katyń, as were all Polish historians writing in the west. In Poland the knowledge was common, though silenced.

    As for the rest, the transcription of Polish newspapers is laughable. I've actually read some real Polish newspapers from 1939. They had a bombastic tone, but the tone was "if the Germans want war, we are ready and because we have powerful allies, we will win" and not "we want war". You can even go and hear actual radio transmissions of some speeches of Polish politicians (in Polish) and the tone was the same: "we want peace, but if you will come to attack us, we will defend ourselves". As you probably know until 1934 or so, Poland had superiority in arms over Germany and was allied with France. If Poland would attack in 1933, German army would collapse within weeks - I think it wasn't until 1936 when Germany achieved military supremacy. Moreover, if you look at the Polish plans for 1939, they included only plans of limited intervention in Gdańsk, but no plans of any offensive whatsoever.

    In other words, most likely you read propaganda and you just want to believe that, even though this propaganda makes no sense. Why would Poland want to go to war in 1939, when it had long lost military superiority, instead of going to war in say 1934, when it had all the chances to win the war (and, in fact, when Pilsudski bluffed about this, French diplomats seem to believe him he is real thing and he would easily defeat Germany)?

    Unless you mean some fringe newspapers from extreme right. There were nuts in Polish politics, but they had _no influence_ on politics. Just like I could find nuts in German politics before WWI with the plans to resettle all Poles - it does not mean German government at the time actually thought about resettling the Poles.

    As you probably also know, Germans were pretty much ok with oppressing Polish minority in Germany (e.g. closing Polish schools or arresting polish minority activists), which was the reason Polish state sometimes took the measures against German minority.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. OutWest says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    What I was specifically referring to was the claim that holocaust revisionists believe that all survivor testimony is false. That is not an honest argument.
     
    Sure it is. Visit any denier forum. The vast majority of posts that you'll see will fall into three broad categories: (1) general anti-Semitism; (2) arguments about gas chambers; and (3) attacks on eyewitnesses.

    The revisionists are claiming that the German policy was a brutal forced labor program, and yes, many died, but no, it was not an extermination program. The revisionist position is not that nobody died, but rather that most of the deaths were due to the breakdown of German infrastructure as they began to lose the war, and most of the concentration camp inmates who died, it was from hunger and disease, particularly typhus.
     
    And they're wrong. Moreover, you have a sizeable proportion of deniers who are satisfied with the claim that the forced labor program they believe in, while brutal, was wholly deserved by those that ended up in it.

    They are not claiming that all the survivor testimony is false, but rather, that it is at least as consistent with the revisionist position as the conventional narrative.
     
    But it isn't, at least with regard to the gas chambers or any other key aspect of the Holocaust that the "revisionists" are denying. In fact, regarding the gas chambers, given the essential nature of the "no gas chambers" claim of the deniers, it is absolutely, positively, 100% the case that all eyewitnesses must be lying, iff their claim is true. How could it be otherwise?

    (1) X number of people say that they are eyewitnesses to gas chambers being used to kill Jews.

    Well, first of all, what number is X? I think it’s quite a small number. Granted, if the conventional holocaust narrative is true, then millions of people saw the gas chambers, but also they were dead within a short time after seeing them!
     
    Well, precisely, but the number who saw them and survived them was, yes, comparatively small. I don't have a precise number, but for Auschwitz, it's a few dozen. For the Reinhard camps, significantly fewer, but still a handful. For Auschwitz, there are far more Jewish eyewitnesses, for several reasons. For the Reinhard camps, there are far fewer, which makes sense because of how few survivors there were. Belzec had maybe five at the absolute most. Chelmno, while not a Reinhard camp, had a similar number of survivors (i.e., a half-dozen or fewer). Sobibor and Treblinka had comparatively more because of the uprisings and escapes there, but there are still more former SS and Ukrainian eyewitnesses to the Reinhard camps than Jewish eyewitnesses. Auschwitz and Majdanek had large labor components, so there are numerous survivors but comparatively fewer witnesses specifically to the gas chambers.

    Short version: Eyewitnesses to gas chambers probably never numbered more than in three figures.

    You see, I sense clear intent to deceive here. Yes, there is a huge amount of survivor testimony, but in only a minuscule fraction of that testimony does anybody claim to have witnessed a gassing themselves. (Obviously! If they had been present at a gassing, they would not be survivors!)
     
    But you can't have it both ways, can you? You can't insist on there being eyewitnesses to gas chambers and concede at the same time that those very witnesseses must be dead.

    Saying that there are thousands of witnesses… that’s clearly dishonest, because, yes, there are thousands of survivor witnesses, yes, but only a very small number claim to have witnessed a gassing.
     
    I'm not sure what your point is? Clearly there are fewer eyewitnesses to gas chambers than to other forms of execution by their very nature. There are literally hundreds (maybe dozens today because it's been such a long time) of bystander testimonies to mass shootings in the occupied USSR, not to mention the testimonies of the men who did the shooting.

    Regardless, anybody who claims that he went into a gas chamber immediately after a gassing and was pulling out bodies with his bare hands, not mentioning the use of any gas mask or other protective clothing — this is a false witness. I don’t see any way around that. There has clearly been false testimony.
     
    Depends on the place and time, doesn't it? In particular, at Birkenau, gas chambers built later were equipped with ventilation, and the ability to remove outgassing Zyklon-B from gas chambers always existed. In the Reinhard camps and Chelmno, engine exhaust was used, so provided no single person stayed too long in the chamber to pull out a body, there was no real risk.

    All that said, of course there's been false testimony. There always is. Eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, which is why it should never be relied on solely for a case such as this unless two conditions are met:

    (1) There must be internal corroboration, i.e., the testimonies must agree with one another.
    (2) There must be no evidence of orchestration of testimonies to agree.

    If testimony meets those two criteria, then it's perfectly valid. Throw in physical evidence of all kinds, and there's little doubt that there were gas chambers.

    Finally, despite false testmony, I would maintain that very little false testimony in any case -- not just the Holocaust -- amounts to lying. People give false testimony all the time fully believing that what they're saying is true.

    There’re some good studies. The camps were actually run day to day by inmates, i.e. capos who were largely Jews. While the camps were work camps, the young, old infirm etc. were sent to largely gas chambers, though trucks with Diesel exhaust (no CO} were used early. The infamous pictures of a medical officer pointing arrivals to the left or right was the cull of the workers from those to be killed.

    The six million figure –actually 5.8 million- was determined by subtracting the European Jewish population after the war from that before the war.

    The above is rather well documented in A History of the Holocaust by Y. Bauer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    "The six million figure –actually 5.8 million- was determined by subtracting the European Jewish population after the war from that before the war."

    What do you know, the Big Jews have produced a new big lie about the so called holocaust. The old one was not working any more.

    Believe it or they will kill you one way or another!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @geokat62
    There has been plenty of ink dispensed on this blog about the holocaust. While some dispute that it ever occurred, most take issue with either the numerical count or the manner in which the victims met their demise. I have no particular insights into these aspects of the holocaust. I'm more interested in having a better understanding of the events leading up to this tragedy. In short, I'm more interested in its causes.

    Now, we're all familiar with the general contours of this historical event... that Jews had been living in Germany for centuries and although they had experienced pogroms, they also managed to achieve emancipation and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. But things changed dramatically in the early 1930s when the Nazis came to power. The Nazi Party had been founded in 1919 and Hitler took over the party in the early 20s and rebranded it the NSDAP. According to Wikipedia:

    The National Socialist Program, adopted in 1920, called for a united Greater Germany that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent, while also supporting land reform and the nationalization of some industries. In Mein Kampf, written in 1924, Hitler outlined the antisemitism and anti-communism at the heart of his political philosophy, as well as his disdain for parliamentary democracy and his belief in Germany’s right to territorial expansion....

    However, following the growth of Nazism and its antisemitic ideology and policies, the Jewish community was severely persecuted... In 1933, persecution of the Jews became an active Nazi policy. In 1935 and 1936, the pace of persecution of the Jews increased. In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them from exerting any influence in education, politics, higher education and industry.
     
    What I find interesting about this entry is that no mention is made of The Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933, a boycott of German products following the rise of Hitler to encourage him, according to Wikipedia, to end his "anti-Jewish practices."

    Again, according to Wikipedia:

    The Nazis and some outside Germany portrayed the boycott as an act of aggression, with the British newspaper the Daily Express going so far as to use the headline: "Judea Declares War on Germany".
     
    I think most would agree that this is the pivotal moment in the conflict. I'm not justifying in any way how the Nazis responded to the Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933, but rather than characterizing the causes of the holocaust as something driven by pure hatred alone, isn't it more instructive to do a proper analysis of its causes, including the economic boycott, so as to leave posterity with a factual account of the events leading up to this tragedy?

    isn’t it more instructive to do a proper analysis of its causes

    Indeed it is.

    Using wikipedia + a tinker- or- two is not that “proper analysis.”
    You might as well rely on Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    A “proper analysis of its causes” must first explore the development of zionism, its origins in czarist Russia and how zionism impacted Germany. That will require exploring the competition between the German Warburgs and the Russian Weizmann (hint: Weizmann won. It’s a safe bet that Warburgs would have agreed in private that Weizmann’s collaboration with the British to get the Balfour declaration resulted in a stab in the back to Germans, who had previously had a relationship with Jews very close to the US-Israel SR.

    In the first of his book events to introduce “The Greater Journey,” David McCullough commented that to understand the world wars (hence the holocaust) one would have to begin with the Franco-Prussian war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Using wikipedia + a tinker- or- two is not that “proper analysis.”
    You might as well rely on Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
     
    Take another read of my post. Rather than suggesting that my few paragraphs constituted a "proper analysis," I was merely highlighting that what is currently available to the casual observer (which most on this blog are) somehow omits a crucial piece of the puzzle - i.e., the anti-nazi boycott of 1933.

    So I was basically inviting others to comment on the causes, which you graciously accepted.

    But now that we're on the topic of a "proper analysis," here's the central question as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of how the two protagonists arrived at the point they did in this conflict - and both sides can point to all sorts of evidence that supports their case that they were in the right and the other side was in the wrong - let's assume for the moment that your "proper analysis" suggests the Nazis were in the right and the Jews were in the wrong. The central question is this: even if this were the case, is the "right side" in this conflict justified in exterminating the "wrong side" in the manner they did? I happen to believe that while a Machiavellian case could be made that vanquishing your enemies by any means necessary is justifiable, the "final solution" was wrong because it violated moral principles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Art says:
    @geokat62
    There has been plenty of ink dispensed on this blog about the holocaust. While some dispute that it ever occurred, most take issue with either the numerical count or the manner in which the victims met their demise. I have no particular insights into these aspects of the holocaust. I'm more interested in having a better understanding of the events leading up to this tragedy. In short, I'm more interested in its causes.

    Now, we're all familiar with the general contours of this historical event... that Jews had been living in Germany for centuries and although they had experienced pogroms, they also managed to achieve emancipation and prosperity in the 19th and 20th centuries. But things changed dramatically in the early 1930s when the Nazis came to power. The Nazi Party had been founded in 1919 and Hitler took over the party in the early 20s and rebranded it the NSDAP. According to Wikipedia:

    The National Socialist Program, adopted in 1920, called for a united Greater Germany that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent, while also supporting land reform and the nationalization of some industries. In Mein Kampf, written in 1924, Hitler outlined the antisemitism and anti-communism at the heart of his political philosophy, as well as his disdain for parliamentary democracy and his belief in Germany’s right to territorial expansion....

    However, following the growth of Nazism and its antisemitic ideology and policies, the Jewish community was severely persecuted... In 1933, persecution of the Jews became an active Nazi policy. In 1935 and 1936, the pace of persecution of the Jews increased. In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them from exerting any influence in education, politics, higher education and industry.
     
    What I find interesting about this entry is that no mention is made of The Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933, a boycott of German products following the rise of Hitler to encourage him, according to Wikipedia, to end his "anti-Jewish practices."

    Again, according to Wikipedia:

    The Nazis and some outside Germany portrayed the boycott as an act of aggression, with the British newspaper the Daily Express going so far as to use the headline: "Judea Declares War on Germany".
     
    I think most would agree that this is the pivotal moment in the conflict. I'm not justifying in any way how the Nazis responded to the Anti-Nazi Boycott of 1933, but rather than characterizing the causes of the holocaust as something driven by pure hatred alone, isn't it more instructive to do a proper analysis of its causes, including the economic boycott, so as to leave posterity with a factual account of the events leading up to this tragedy?

    After WWI, Big Jew bankers put Germany in a debt situation that severally hurt its economy. Knowing the herd mentality of the Little Jews, one would doubt they objected, thus distancing themselves from the German people.

    The Jews were also known to be running commie Russia, an anti-Christian anti-European anti-free-human philosophy.

    Not unlike today in America – in 1930 there was reason to dislike the Jew!

    The banking situation is little different today in America – the Jew Fed has managed to put the American people in a debt that over burdens all, and enriches the Jew tribe. Try and find out the wealth gain of the US Jews in the last 30 years.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Art says:
    @OutWest
    There’re some good studies. The camps were actually run day to day by inmates, i.e. capos who were largely Jews. While the camps were work camps, the young, old infirm etc. were sent to largely gas chambers, though trucks with Diesel exhaust (no CO} were used early. The infamous pictures of a medical officer pointing arrivals to the left or right was the cull of the workers from those to be killed.

    The six million figure –actually 5.8 million- was determined by subtracting the European Jewish population after the war from that before the war.

    The above is rather well documented in A History of the Holocaust by Y. Bauer.

    “The six million figure –actually 5.8 million- was determined by subtracting the European Jewish population after the war from that before the war.”

    What do you know, the Big Jews have produced a new big lie about the so called holocaust. The old one was not working any more.

    Believe it or they will kill you one way or another!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Transcript of Secrets Of The Dead program on British bugging of Wehrmacht POW’s: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/bugging-hitler%E2%80%99s-soldiers-program-transcript/950/

    Preview of that same program: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/bugging-hitler%e2%80%99s-soldiers-about-this-episode/924/

    More here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/24/soldaten-secret-wwii-transcripts-of-german-pows-by-soenke-neitzel-harald-welzer.html

    More here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1848327153/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2?pf_rd_p=1944687462&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0307958124&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1JQJ3YZN12JA6ZWESY3J

    The British had no reason to falsify their recordings of their German POW’s (or to falsify the transcripts of those recordings) because Britain’s leaders used this POW intelligence bonanza to craft Allied war strategy, which would not have served the Allies at all had the British falsified this “from the horses’ mouth” record. Bear in mind that, unlike Britain’s elite today, in WWII Britain’s leaders still stood up for Britain and Britons and, of course, for what they could still do to prevent the Empire from disintegrating.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    isn’t it more instructive to do a proper analysis of its causes
     
    Indeed it is.

    Using wikipedia + a tinker- or- two is not that "proper analysis."
    You might as well rely on Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    A "proper analysis of its causes" must first explore the development of zionism, its origins in czarist Russia and how zionism impacted Germany. That will require exploring the competition between the German Warburgs and the Russian Weizmann (hint: Weizmann won. It's a safe bet that Warburgs would have agreed in private that Weizmann's collaboration with the British to get the Balfour declaration resulted in a stab in the back to Germans, who had previously had a relationship with Jews very close to the US-Israel SR.

    In the first of his book events to introduce "The Greater Journey," David McCullough commented that to understand the world wars (hence the holocaust) one would have to begin with the Franco-Prussian war.

    Using wikipedia + a tinker- or- two is not that “proper analysis.”
    You might as well rely on Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Take another read of my post. Rather than suggesting that my few paragraphs constituted a “proper analysis,” I was merely highlighting that what is currently available to the casual observer (which most on this blog are) somehow omits a crucial piece of the puzzle – i.e., the anti-nazi boycott of 1933.

    So I was basically inviting others to comment on the causes, which you graciously accepted.

    But now that we’re on the topic of a “proper analysis,” here’s the central question as far as I’m concerned. Regardless of how the two protagonists arrived at the point they did in this conflict – and both sides can point to all sorts of evidence that supports their case that they were in the right and the other side was in the wrong – let’s assume for the moment that your “proper analysis” suggests the Nazis were in the right and the Jews were in the wrong. The central question is this: even if this were the case, is the “right side” in this conflict justified in exterminating the “wrong side” in the manner they did? I happen to believe that while a Machiavellian case could be made that vanquishing your enemies by any means necessary is justifiable, the “final solution” was wrong because it violated moral principles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    The central question is this: even if this were the case, is the “right side” in this conflict justified in exterminating the “wrong side” in the manner they did? I happen to believe that while a Machiavellian case could be made that vanquishing your enemies by any means necessary is justifiable, the “final solution” was wrong because it violated moral principles.
     
    The assumption in the bolded phrase is that Germans "exterminated" Jews in some manner.

    I reject that assumption.
    USHMM defines the holocaust as

    the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.. . . The Nazis, w ho came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community.
     
    I do not believe the major terms of that definition can be substantiated and applied to Nazi treatment of Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

    There was no "systematic" killing of Jews: many Jews were killed in various places and ways, but not "systematically." To the extent that "bureaucratic" implies that there was a pre-ordained plan, that also is unsubstantiated.

    It's hard to figure out the purpose of the last sentence in the definition -- it sounds petulant, like Jews are miffed because Germans felt they were superior. That may be annoying but it's not a hanging offense.

    If, however, the implication is that Germans killed Jews because Jews were inferior, it's a bogus claim, as is much of the racial argument surrounding the war. For one thing, Jews had long kept themselves separate and apart from many of the communities in which they dwelt, and have a long tradition of thinking of themselves as "chosen".
    In addition, eugenics was studied and practiced by Jews as well as by Germans: Arthur Ruppin, who establish "Hebrew culture in Palestine," was an award-winning eugenicist and applied eugenic principles to selection of the "human material" selected for the "new Jew" and to populate the various aliyehs. To the extent that Germans killed Jews, it is ludicrous to suggest that the killing was carried out on a eugenic basis: it is more likely that killing was carried out against Jews in a village that had attacked Germans, or that were harboring elements considered a threat to Germans, or partisans.

    I reject out of hand the notion that Jews were killed in gas chambers. I hold Bishop Williamson's position:

    "the historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been killed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. . . . Not one Jew was killed in a gas chamber; I believe there were no gas chambers. . . . as far as I understand the evidence." https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=55&v=eQ3ObrgaWnc
     
    Many, perhaps most Jews who died in the war died in concentration camps. Based on a number of studies, including those by David Cole and Nicholas Kollerstrom, and others who have studied the British intercepts of routine German reports, it seems most plausible the Jews who died in concentration camps died of illness; disease, especially typhus; some were undoubtedly murdered in a manner that would be considered war crimes, others were deliberately killed as punishment.

    I maintain a counter-assumption: the existence of the concentration camps should be studied in parallel with the "systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored killing of working-class German civilians and the destruction of German manufacturing facilities. Allied war planners had strategized, even before the first shot was contemplated, that increasingly sophisticated aircraft made it possible and desirable to destroy the adversary's ability to manufacture war materiel, and also to destroy their fuel sources.

    The US "arsenal of democracy" was beyond the reach of German air or sea power, but Allied planes based in Italy and Britain made many thousands of flights over German territory and destroyed shipping, manufacturing, and fuel depots.

    In addition, the US and the British formed the deliberate plan to target German civilians, and the formed the deliberate plan to destroy as much of Germany's civilian, cultural, as well as industrial infrastructure as possible. From the beginning the plan was to reduce Germany to rubble.

    Concentration camps can be viewed as the German response to that Allied strategy.

    It should also be noted that detention in a concentration camp may well have saved the lives of very many Jews: I am not aware of any records of Jews who died in the Allied firebombing raids that killed at least 600,000 German civilians.

    Cycling back to your original statement,

    "is the “right side” in this conflict justified in exterminating the “wrong side” in the manner they did?
     
    I would not use the words "right" and "wrong." I believe that a more appropriate way to analyze the situation is in terms of causality: who caused the war, or who provoked a military confrontation. There is plenty of recorded and documentary evidence to support the proposition that Germany worked diligently to resolve conflicts without violence, and offered favorable negotiated terms and peace at numerous times, while the Allies rejected negotiations, rejected peace offers, and demanded war.

    Jewish leaders played critical roles in the decision-making process to provoke a war -- as you said, by declaring and carrying out an economic boycott of Germany designed and intended to destroy the German economy and induce a state of terror and panic -- and in waging the war, including in those tactics of war such as firebombing of civilians that were, without a doubt, crimes against humanity.

    All that being said, I must admit that I have not studied carefully all of Germany's military actions. There is so much bogus information about Germany, Nazis and Hitler -- for example, the video discussion of books by authors Ron Rosenbaum and Martin Amis -- that are ludicrous- bordering- on- pathological, that the vast majority of the volumes and volumes of writing on the holocaust simply cannot be considered credible. There are just too many lies and too much emotion to the extent that the entire pool of evidence must be evaluated with a great deal of skepticism.

    I do not believe Jews are entitled to special consideration or sympathy.

    I do believe the Allies should be held accountable for their war crimes against the German people, in fact, given that Germany is systematically blackmailed into supplying Israel with weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions and even cause a global conflagration, I believe it is a moral imperative to demand a full and fair process of Truth and Reconciliation, with punitive action against Anglo-zionist perpetrators and reparations to Germany and any other country that has been harmed by Allied/Anglo-zionist war crimes.

    Holocaustism is as pernicious as zionism; justice and peace demand that both must end.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    PS A proper discussion of Machiavelli would involve more time and space than is available at the moment.

    Concepts that Machiavelli taught should be used with care.
    Similarly, the concept "final solution" has many meanings; it was first and most frequently used by Jews to explain their "final solution" to the "Jewish problem" of not having a homeland of their own.

    Beyond that, the moral principles involved are far more complicated than a simple "right or wrong."

    If a war is started on the basis of lies, making the war itself an unjust war, what are the implications for things that happens in the course of the war?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    The paradox of free speech in the West:

    Truth is costly and expensive—see what happens to your career if you say the ‘incorrect’ thing—, so only those who have nothing to lose can afford it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. Mark Green says: • Website
    @szopen
    The links is http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leuchter/ ; sorry for the typo.

    And you can easily find literally HUNDREDS of sites which debate holocaust denial claims.

    I agree that Jews were targeted, and many killed. And why not? The were in the middle of WWII–a cataclysmic event that claimed some 50,000,000 lives. Untold millions of civilians were slaughtered during WWII. And the Jews were players. Many revolutionary communists were Jewish. They had blood on their hands, too. Jews were not merely a collection of innocent shop-keepers.

    But the claim that six million (6,000,000) Jews were gassed or burned alive is, I believe, a grotesque exaggeration used for political purposes. The Holocaust myth is essential to 1) the legitimacy a race-based, ‘Jews Only’ state created through violence, and the establishment of new taboos that permit non-white ethno-racial cohesion while simultaneously linking white racial cohesion with fascism, xenophobia and genocide.

    It is UNDENIABLE that claims were made about six million Jews being slaughtered before and during WWI! Please google it. The evidence is everywhere. Even on YouTube. All these absurd stories turned out to be false.

    Indeed, there are scores or surviving newspaper stories, headlines and even letters by prominent Americans claiming that six million Jews were dead or dying–this long before the end of WWI. Some stories go back to the 19th century! I’ve seen them myself.

    There’s also a book on this subject called ‘The First Holocaust’.

    These dishonest and defamatory fables–promulgated by leading Jewish figures–must be examined and explained. It indicates a serious and ongoing pattern of deception.

    Enormous, defamatory lies by the same clique over and over cannot be ignored.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    There is no evidence about 6 millions Jews killed during First World War - for the first thing, people in Poland and elsewhere were not aware of this happening. That was propaganda. On the other hand, there are official reports from Polish underground about extermination of Polish Jews from WWII.
    , @MQ
    But the claim that six million (6,000,000) Jews were gassed or burned alive is, I believe, a grotesque exaggeration used for political purposes.

    The six million figure totals all those who were shot in mass executions by Einsatzgruppen, starved or worked to death, and also gassed and burned alive. So the total that were gassed and burned alive is a subset. Someone who wants to use that as leverage for Holocaust denial is obviously operating from another agenda.

    There is every kind of testimony to this, and to every method of killing involved, from eyewitnesses, from the recorded descriptions of German prisoners, from German records, from discovered bodies. I suppose it is possible to discuss exactly how many millions, and also to point out the many deaths among other ethnic groups, but the mass killing of Jews on a very large scale is an irrefutable fact.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @geokat62

    Using wikipedia + a tinker- or- two is not that “proper analysis.”
    You might as well rely on Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
     
    Take another read of my post. Rather than suggesting that my few paragraphs constituted a "proper analysis," I was merely highlighting that what is currently available to the casual observer (which most on this blog are) somehow omits a crucial piece of the puzzle - i.e., the anti-nazi boycott of 1933.

    So I was basically inviting others to comment on the causes, which you graciously accepted.

    But now that we're on the topic of a "proper analysis," here's the central question as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of how the two protagonists arrived at the point they did in this conflict - and both sides can point to all sorts of evidence that supports their case that they were in the right and the other side was in the wrong - let's assume for the moment that your "proper analysis" suggests the Nazis were in the right and the Jews were in the wrong. The central question is this: even if this were the case, is the "right side" in this conflict justified in exterminating the "wrong side" in the manner they did? I happen to believe that while a Machiavellian case could be made that vanquishing your enemies by any means necessary is justifiable, the "final solution" was wrong because it violated moral principles.

    The central question is this: even if this were the case, is the “right side” in this conflict justified in exterminating the “wrong side” in the manner they did? I happen to believe that while a Machiavellian case could be made that vanquishing your enemies by any means necessary is justifiable, the “final solution” was wrong because it violated moral principles.

    The assumption in the bolded phrase is that Germans “exterminated” Jews in some manner.

    I reject that assumption.
    USHMM defines the holocaust as

    the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.. . . The Nazis, w ho came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were “racially superior” and that the Jews, deemed “inferior,” were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community.

    I do not believe the major terms of that definition can be substantiated and applied to Nazi treatment of Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

    There was no “systematic” killing of Jews: many Jews were killed in various places and ways, but not “systematically.” To the extent that “bureaucratic” implies that there was a pre-ordained plan, that also is unsubstantiated.

    It’s hard to figure out the purpose of the last sentence in the definition — it sounds petulant, like Jews are miffed because Germans felt they were superior. That may be annoying but it’s not a hanging offense.

    If, however, the implication is that Germans killed Jews because Jews were inferior, it’s a bogus claim, as is much of the racial argument surrounding the war. For one thing, Jews had long kept themselves separate and apart from many of the communities in which they dwelt, and have a long tradition of thinking of themselves as “chosen”.
    In addition, eugenics was studied and practiced by Jews as well as by Germans: Arthur Ruppin, who establish “Hebrew culture in Palestine,” was an award-winning eugenicist and applied eugenic principles to selection of the “human material” selected for the “new Jew” and to populate the various aliyehs. To the extent that Germans killed Jews, it is ludicrous to suggest that the killing was carried out on a eugenic basis: it is more likely that killing was carried out against Jews in a village that had attacked Germans, or that were harboring elements considered a threat to Germans, or partisans.

    I reject out of hand the notion that Jews were killed in gas chambers. I hold Bishop Williamson’s position:

    “the historical evidence is hugely against 6 million Jews having been killed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. . . . Not one Jew was killed in a gas chamber; I believe there were no gas chambers. . . . as far as I understand the evidence.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=55&v=eQ3ObrgaWnc

    Many, perhaps most Jews who died in the war died in concentration camps. Based on a number of studies, including those by David Cole and Nicholas Kollerstrom, and others who have studied the British intercepts of routine German reports, it seems most plausible the Jews who died in concentration camps died of illness; disease, especially typhus; some were undoubtedly murdered in a manner that would be considered war crimes, others were deliberately killed as punishment.

    I maintain a counter-assumption: the existence of the concentration camps should be studied in parallel with the “systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored killing of working-class German civilians and the destruction of German manufacturing facilities. Allied war planners had strategized, even before the first shot was contemplated, that increasingly sophisticated aircraft made it possible and desirable to destroy the adversary’s ability to manufacture war materiel, and also to destroy their fuel sources.

    The US “arsenal of democracy” was beyond the reach of German air or sea power, but Allied planes based in Italy and Britain made many thousands of flights over German territory and destroyed shipping, manufacturing, and fuel depots.

    In addition, the US and the British formed the deliberate plan to target German civilians, and the formed the deliberate plan to destroy as much of Germany’s civilian, cultural, as well as industrial infrastructure as possible. From the beginning the plan was to reduce Germany to rubble.

    Concentration camps can be viewed as the German response to that Allied strategy.

    It should also be noted that detention in a concentration camp may well have saved the lives of very many Jews: I am not aware of any records of Jews who died in the Allied firebombing raids that killed at least 600,000 German civilians.

    Cycling back to your original statement,

    is the “right side” in this conflict justified in exterminating the “wrong side” in the manner they did?

    I would not use the words “right” and “wrong.” I believe that a more appropriate way to analyze the situation is in terms of causality: who caused the war, or who provoked a military confrontation. There is plenty of recorded and documentary evidence to support the proposition that Germany worked diligently to resolve conflicts without violence, and offered favorable negotiated terms and peace at numerous times, while the Allies rejected negotiations, rejected peace offers, and demanded war.

    Jewish leaders played critical roles in the decision-making process to provoke a war — as you said, by declaring and carrying out an economic boycott of Germany designed and intended to destroy the German economy and induce a state of terror and panic — and in waging the war, including in those tactics of war such as firebombing of civilians that were, without a doubt, crimes against humanity.

    All that being said, I must admit that I have not studied carefully all of Germany’s military actions. There is so much bogus information about Germany, Nazis and Hitler — for example, the video discussion of books by authors Ron Rosenbaum and Martin Amis — that are ludicrous- bordering- on- pathological, that the vast majority of the volumes and volumes of writing on the holocaust simply cannot be considered credible. There are just too many lies and too much emotion to the extent that the entire pool of evidence must be evaluated with a great deal of skepticism.

    I do not believe Jews are entitled to special consideration or sympathy.

    I do believe the Allies should be held accountable for their war crimes against the German people, in fact, given that Germany is systematically blackmailed into supplying Israel with weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions and even cause a global conflagration, I believe it is a moral imperative to demand a full and fair process of Truth and Reconciliation, with punitive action against Anglo-zionist perpetrators and reparations to Germany and any other country that has been harmed by Allied/Anglo-zionist war crimes.

    Holocaustism is as pernicious as zionism; justice and peace demand that both must end.

    Read More
    • Agree: HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @geokat62

    Using wikipedia + a tinker- or- two is not that “proper analysis.”
    You might as well rely on Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
     
    Take another read of my post. Rather than suggesting that my few paragraphs constituted a "proper analysis," I was merely highlighting that what is currently available to the casual observer (which most on this blog are) somehow omits a crucial piece of the puzzle - i.e., the anti-nazi boycott of 1933.

    So I was basically inviting others to comment on the causes, which you graciously accepted.

    But now that we're on the topic of a "proper analysis," here's the central question as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of how the two protagonists arrived at the point they did in this conflict - and both sides can point to all sorts of evidence that supports their case that they were in the right and the other side was in the wrong - let's assume for the moment that your "proper analysis" suggests the Nazis were in the right and the Jews were in the wrong. The central question is this: even if this were the case, is the "right side" in this conflict justified in exterminating the "wrong side" in the manner they did? I happen to believe that while a Machiavellian case could be made that vanquishing your enemies by any means necessary is justifiable, the "final solution" was wrong because it violated moral principles.

    PS A proper discussion of Machiavelli would involve more time and space than is available at the moment.

    Concepts that Machiavelli taught should be used with care.
    Similarly, the concept “final solution” has many meanings; it was first and most frequently used by Jews to explain their “final solution” to the “Jewish problem” of not having a homeland of their own.

    Beyond that, the moral principles involved are far more complicated than a simple “right or wrong.”

    If a war is started on the basis of lies, making the war itself an unjust war, what are the implications for things that happens in the course of the war?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. szopen says:
    @HdC
    Since wonderful Britain was the staunch and loyal ally of Poland, an ally that would come to the defense of little ol' Poland should she so rattle the chains of big, powerful Germany that this country had no choice but to march into Poland to protect all those ugly Germans that had been thrown into Poland after the Diktat of Versailles, I believed that English translations of Polish newspapers might be reasonably accurate. Are you now claiming that these translations might not have been accurate? Why so?

    And, since beautiful Britain was the sworn enemy of Germany, a country that cost, or at least speeded up the loss of, the British Empire, you will forgive me that I view any claims of the British, in regards of WWII and most everything else, with a very healthy dose of skepticism. And that includes any translations/transcriptions of any eavesdropping recordings.

    You should hear the stories Germans tell about Poland. Ever hear about Polnische Wirtschaft? And that is the mildest criticism.

    With the German and subsequent Soviet invasions of Poland, Polish Jews moved east towards the Soviet invaders because Communism was a Jewish ideal and naturally the Polish Jews felt kinship and safety with the Soviet Communists.

    If Poland was missing so many of its citizens after the war perhaps you should take that up with the Russians now. After all, Katyn Forest was their predecessor's handywork, even though the Germans were, until quite recently, blame for that massacre also.

    Have you heard of Bletchley Park in Britain? Might be worthwhile to find out about its claims.

    Hdc

    Germans were not blamed for Katyń except in 1945 and in darkest Stalinist times. My father knew who was responsible for Katyń, as were all Polish historians writing in the west. In Poland the knowledge was common, though silenced.

    As for the rest, the transcription of Polish newspapers is laughable. I’ve actually read some real Polish newspapers from 1939. They had a bombastic tone, but the tone was “if the Germans want war, we are ready and because we have powerful allies, we will win” and not “we want war”. You can even go and hear actual radio transmissions of some speeches of Polish politicians (in Polish) and the tone was the same: “we want peace, but if you will come to attack us, we will defend ourselves”. As you probably know until 1934 or so, Poland had superiority in arms over Germany and was allied with France. If Poland would attack in 1933, German army would collapse within weeks – I think it wasn’t until 1936 when Germany achieved military supremacy. Moreover, if you look at the Polish plans for 1939, they included only plans of limited intervention in Gdańsk, but no plans of any offensive whatsoever.

    In other words, most likely you read propaganda and you just want to believe that, even though this propaganda makes no sense. Why would Poland want to go to war in 1939, when it had long lost military superiority, instead of going to war in say 1934, when it had all the chances to win the war (and, in fact, when Pilsudski bluffed about this, French diplomats seem to believe him he is real thing and he would easily defeat Germany)?

    Unless you mean some fringe newspapers from extreme right. There were nuts in Polish politics, but they had _no influence_ on politics. Just like I could find nuts in German politics before WWI with the plans to resettle all Poles – it does not mean German government at the time actually thought about resettling the Poles.

    As you probably also know, Germans were pretty much ok with oppressing Polish minority in Germany (e.g. closing Polish schools or arresting polish minority activists), which was the reason Polish state sometimes took the measures against German minority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    During the Nuremberg trials German officers were judged guilty of the Katyn massacre. Probably executed, too, but I don't recall this for sure.

    The Soviet Generals who sat in judgement turned out to be responsible for that massacre.

    Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union was it acknowledged that the Soviets had been responsible for that murder scene.

    Agreed that the powers-that-be in most western countries knew who the real perpetrators were but chose to keep quiet because it was more politically expedient to blame the Germans. Sound familiar?

    BTW you forgot to answer my position on where the Polish Jews went during the war; any reasoned thoughts on this?

    In the oppression of minorities in their respective countries, the Poles take a back seat to no one. 35,000 German ex-patriates murdered in Poland, and Germany is the bad guy here for trying to stop that?

    I have read some of the so-called rebuttals to the positions taken by so-called revisionists; I have found them to be incomprehensible. This might not mean much to you but I do have considerable knowledge and ability in sorting the wheat from the chaff. Occams Razor is of considerable help here.

    HdC

    , @SolontoCroesus

    “if the Germans want war, we are ready and because we have powerful allies, we will win”
     
    How did that work out for ya?


    ---

    Were there differences between Polish Catholics and Polish Jews in their attitude toward Germany in the 1930s?

    Edwin Black writes in "The Transfer Agreement" that Poles (presumably Polish Jews) were early and passionate participants in the Judean economic war on Germany. Poles were so riled by the boycott frenzy that the threat of a Polish invasion of Germany in 1933 was very real.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. szopen says:
    @Mark Green
    I agree that Jews were targeted, and many killed. And why not? The were in the middle of WWII--a cataclysmic event that claimed some 50,000,000 lives. Untold millions of civilians were slaughtered during WWII. And the Jews were players. Many revolutionary communists were Jewish. They had blood on their hands, too. Jews were not merely a collection of innocent shop-keepers.

    But the claim that six million (6,000,000) Jews were gassed or burned alive is, I believe, a grotesque exaggeration used for political purposes. The Holocaust myth is essential to 1) the legitimacy a race-based, 'Jews Only' state created through violence, and the establishment of new taboos that permit non-white ethno-racial cohesion while simultaneously linking white racial cohesion with fascism, xenophobia and genocide.

    It is UNDENIABLE that claims were made about six million Jews being slaughtered before and during WWI! Please google it. The evidence is everywhere. Even on YouTube. All these absurd stories turned out to be false.

    Indeed, there are scores or surviving newspaper stories, headlines and even letters by prominent Americans claiming that six million Jews were dead or dying--this long before the end of WWI. Some stories go back to the 19th century! I've seen them myself.

    There's also a book on this subject called 'The First Holocaust'.

    These dishonest and defamatory fables--promulgated by leading Jewish figures--must be examined and explained. It indicates a serious and ongoing pattern of deception.

    Enormous, defamatory lies by the same clique over and over cannot be ignored.

    There is no evidence about 6 millions Jews killed during First World War – for the first thing, people in Poland and elsewhere were not aware of this happening. That was propaganda. On the other hand, there are official reports from Polish underground about extermination of Polish Jews from WWII.

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

    For the record, when I was younger (something like 15 years ago) I did argue a lot with Holocaust deniers and I read quite a lot of the material they directed me to. I can’t remember right now the names, but I google Faurisson and it seems that it comes from 90s, so most likely I’ve read it, though I do not remember the name (I remeber Irving and Leuchter all to well, as they were both treated as some kind of saints). However it seems to me that none of the arguments I faced 15 years ago have changed at all. HEre is one quote I saved, to show why I, generally, stopped respect Holocaust deniers:

    “The Holocaust deniers are individuals with an idee fixe.
    They reject all evidence which undermines their so-called
    thesis. Documents and photographs are all forgeries.
    Survivor eyewitnesses are all victims of mass delusion and
    indoctrination. Confessions of Nazi war criminals are
    invalid because they were all extracted by torture or were
    the result of plea bargaining. The scholar Nadine Fresco has
    looked at the work of the Holocaust deniers, and written
    that in their “research the only ethic is suspicion…
    distrust is the only certitude.” This does not make for a
    workable, honest methodology of history.”

    And that’s true. For example, when faced with report like this http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml, which thouroughly debunks Rudolf’s and earlier Leuchter claims, all I received was “this is fabricated” and “part of the conspiracy”.

    As for the “wrong body color” in witnesses testimony, read this:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust_6507.html

    Sorry, I have no patience for further discussion with people, who do not really want the discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I can’t remember right now the names, but I google Faurisson and it seems that ...
     
    Look, if you don't know who Robert Faurisson is, I.e. the name didn't ring a bell when I mentioned it, it means that you are absolutely uneducated about this issue. So your subsequent claim that you've made some deep study of the other side of the debate rings completely false. In fact, I now realize that you don't really know what the basic contours of the debate even are.

    In the absence of real knowledge about what the other side of the debate is even claiming, you invent claims, straw men, that you construct and then try to demolish. For example, you profess to believe that the so-called "deniers" are claiming that ALL survivor testimony is false. This is a straw man. It is not what is being claimed.

    The revisionists are not arguing that all the documentation/testimony is fake. The point is that, by and large, it is just as consistent with the revisionist narrative as the conventional one, if not more so. For example, any eyewitness testimony of massacres, that doubtless occurred, is just as consistent with 600 thousand dead as 6 million. Nor does it prove that the German government really had an exterminationist policy. The My Lei massacre and others definitely occurred, unfortunately, yet nobody is arguing that the U.S. government had the goal of killing every last Vietnamese peasant. No, as brutal as their policy was, it still was not an extermination program.

    Anyway, I'll close the note here. You know, you're making an ass of yourself. You can't claim that you are familiar with the revisionist position and then admit that you don't know who Robert Faurrisson is.

    Oh, just one more question to ponder: "if there is such overwhelming evidence that millions of Jews were murdered in gas chambers, why did anybody ever feel a need to make denial of this a criminal offense? To anybody in possession of common sense, shouldn't this raise huge warning flags?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. MQ says:
    @HdC
    Szopen, answer this if you can:

    How come that not a single eyewitness to the alleged gassings got the colour of the alleged corpses right?

    How come that in the locations where eye witnesses testified as to the location of mass burning pits and mass burial sites, nothing of substance was found that would support the claim of mass killings?

    Then of course there is the Leuchter report and Rudolf report that put the final coffin nail into the claims of the "holocaust" gassings.

    Finally, why has there NEVER been a broadcast debate between holocaustians and those questioning their claims?

    And from a purely intellectual perspective, why must holocaustians practically always resort to ad hominem attacks instead of refuting the mostly scientific and forensic facts of the questioners with better arguments and facts???

    It is for these reasons, and numerous others, that this individual no longer believes any of the assertions regarding Germany and its actions during WWI and WWII. For anything relating to these times I would want to see hard and verifiable evidence, not arm waving, synthetic outrage, crocodile tears nor curtailment of free speech or free inquiry.

    What do the holocaustians have to hide?

    HdC

    You’re delusional. There is apparently no amount of photographs or films of mass graves, massive stacks of corpses, eyewitness accounts, bureaucratic records, etc. that will convince you or others like you, since your ‘denial’ is motivated not by evidence but by anti-semitism.

    One odd thing is that the Holocaust deniers are also often those who most transparently wish to kill some Jews themselves. “The Holocaust didn’t happen…but just give me a chance and I’ll make it happen!”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    yo.
    MQ

    in any given photo of any given stack of corpses or mass graves, or fictional descriptions of "heaving steaming fields like Spring Meadow," what should one look for to determine Jewishness?

    In Amis's fictional account of a love affair at Auschwitz in 1942, "when the Germans were trying to hide the evidence" by exhuming corpses that had been buried because there had not been time to burn them all so they were being dug up to be burned quickly (surely you follow the logic in that plan. Typically German.), the only way the number of bodies in Spring Meadow could be ascertained was by counting the femurs and dividing by two. Thus, it was calculated that 107,000 bodies were buried at Spring Meadow.

    Do Jews have distinctive femurs?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. MQ says:
    @Mark Green
    I agree that Jews were targeted, and many killed. And why not? The were in the middle of WWII--a cataclysmic event that claimed some 50,000,000 lives. Untold millions of civilians were slaughtered during WWII. And the Jews were players. Many revolutionary communists were Jewish. They had blood on their hands, too. Jews were not merely a collection of innocent shop-keepers.

    But the claim that six million (6,000,000) Jews were gassed or burned alive is, I believe, a grotesque exaggeration used for political purposes. The Holocaust myth is essential to 1) the legitimacy a race-based, 'Jews Only' state created through violence, and the establishment of new taboos that permit non-white ethno-racial cohesion while simultaneously linking white racial cohesion with fascism, xenophobia and genocide.

    It is UNDENIABLE that claims were made about six million Jews being slaughtered before and during WWI! Please google it. The evidence is everywhere. Even on YouTube. All these absurd stories turned out to be false.

    Indeed, there are scores or surviving newspaper stories, headlines and even letters by prominent Americans claiming that six million Jews were dead or dying--this long before the end of WWI. Some stories go back to the 19th century! I've seen them myself.

    There's also a book on this subject called 'The First Holocaust'.

    These dishonest and defamatory fables--promulgated by leading Jewish figures--must be examined and explained. It indicates a serious and ongoing pattern of deception.

    Enormous, defamatory lies by the same clique over and over cannot be ignored.

    But the claim that six million (6,000,000) Jews were gassed or burned alive is, I believe, a grotesque exaggeration used for political purposes.

    The six million figure totals all those who were shot in mass executions by Einsatzgruppen, starved or worked to death, and also gassed and burned alive. So the total that were gassed and burned alive is a subset. Someone who wants to use that as leverage for Holocaust denial is obviously operating from another agenda.

    There is every kind of testimony to this, and to every method of killing involved, from eyewitnesses, from the recorded descriptions of German prisoners, from German records, from discovered bodies. I suppose it is possible to discuss exactly how many millions, and also to point out the many deaths among other ethnic groups, but the mass killing of Jews on a very large scale is an irrefutable fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    "Wrong about body colour".

    If you were to peruse any handbook on pathology and forensics you would be informed that one of the PRIMARY indications of Cyanide or Carbon Monoxide poisoning is the pink to red appearance of the body of the individual so poisoned.

    To now claim that "Gee willikers", the colour of the bodies is not really relevant and has little to do with what happened to all those Jews when practically everyone else pounds the drum about gassings by the nasty Nazis, simply means that the multitude of the holocaust hallelujah chorus is WRONG. A million so-called witnesses cannot refute one single solitary scientific fact, and that is the colour of the gassed bodies.

    For crying out loud man, 6 million gassed bodies (from the holocaust museum in Washington) and not one Jewish witness got the colour right? Simply incredible!

    And that, my dear sir, is one of the many reasons why so-called Deniers are so bloody stubborn and persistent.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. HdC says:
    @szopen
    Germans were not blamed for Katyń except in 1945 and in darkest Stalinist times. My father knew who was responsible for Katyń, as were all Polish historians writing in the west. In Poland the knowledge was common, though silenced.

    As for the rest, the transcription of Polish newspapers is laughable. I've actually read some real Polish newspapers from 1939. They had a bombastic tone, but the tone was "if the Germans want war, we are ready and because we have powerful allies, we will win" and not "we want war". You can even go and hear actual radio transmissions of some speeches of Polish politicians (in Polish) and the tone was the same: "we want peace, but if you will come to attack us, we will defend ourselves". As you probably know until 1934 or so, Poland had superiority in arms over Germany and was allied with France. If Poland would attack in 1933, German army would collapse within weeks - I think it wasn't until 1936 when Germany achieved military supremacy. Moreover, if you look at the Polish plans for 1939, they included only plans of limited intervention in Gdańsk, but no plans of any offensive whatsoever.

    In other words, most likely you read propaganda and you just want to believe that, even though this propaganda makes no sense. Why would Poland want to go to war in 1939, when it had long lost military superiority, instead of going to war in say 1934, when it had all the chances to win the war (and, in fact, when Pilsudski bluffed about this, French diplomats seem to believe him he is real thing and he would easily defeat Germany)?

    Unless you mean some fringe newspapers from extreme right. There were nuts in Polish politics, but they had _no influence_ on politics. Just like I could find nuts in German politics before WWI with the plans to resettle all Poles - it does not mean German government at the time actually thought about resettling the Poles.

    As you probably also know, Germans were pretty much ok with oppressing Polish minority in Germany (e.g. closing Polish schools or arresting polish minority activists), which was the reason Polish state sometimes took the measures against German minority.

    During the Nuremberg trials German officers were judged guilty of the Katyn massacre. Probably executed, too, but I don’t recall this for sure.

    The Soviet Generals who sat in judgement turned out to be responsible for that massacre.

    Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union was it acknowledged that the Soviets had been responsible for that murder scene.

    Agreed that the powers-that-be in most western countries knew who the real perpetrators were but chose to keep quiet because it was more politically expedient to blame the Germans. Sound familiar?

    BTW you forgot to answer my position on where the Polish Jews went during the war; any reasoned thoughts on this?

    In the oppression of minorities in their respective countries, the Poles take a back seat to no one. 35,000 German ex-patriates murdered in Poland, and Germany is the bad guy here for trying to stop that?

    I have read some of the so-called rebuttals to the positions taken by so-called revisionists; I have found them to be incomprehensible. This might not mean much to you but I do have considerable knowledge and ability in sorting the wheat from the chaff. Occams Razor is of considerable help here.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    " 35,000 German ex-patriates murdered in Poland, and Germany is the bad guy here for trying to stop that?"

    What are you talking about? You meant you actually think that Poles murdered 35.000 Germans BEFORE the war started? Jesus Christ. I mean, I've met revisionist claiming that Poles murdered ethnic Germans after the war started, but first time I saw someone who actually thinks Germans were murdered before the war.
    (There is no evidence of that happening; a lot of envoys from Italy, UK, France and elsewhere were in Poland before 1939 and none of them heard or saw anything. Saying that this happened, while at the same time not believing the Holocaust because "witnesses were wrong about body color" is, how to say it politely, unusual).

    As for where the Jews went, yes, quite a lot of them went to the soviet part. QUite a lot of them actually participated willingly in new regime, including participation in deporting of their former Polish neighbours. But most didn't. What does that to do with anything, anyway? Most of Jews have not left German occupation, and from those who did that, quite a lot were later in German hands anyway.
    , @Andrew E. Mathis

    During the Nuremberg trials German officers were judged guilty of the Katyn massacre. Probably executed, too, but I don’t recall this for sure.

    The Soviet Generals who sat in judgement turned out to be responsible for that massacre.

    Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union was it acknowledged that the Soviets had been responsible for that murder scene.
     
    Red herring.

    By the way, it was the NKVD who did Katyn -- not the Red Army.

    Agreed that the powers-that-be in most western countries knew who the real perpetrators were but chose to keep quiet because it was more politically expedient to blame the Germans. Sound familiar?
     
    Nope.

    BTW you forgot to answer my position on where the Polish Jews went during the war; any reasoned thoughts on this?
     
    Is it your assertion that the NKVD shot three million Polish Jews? You'd really, really need to prove that.

    In the oppression of minorities in their respective countries, the Poles take a back seat to no one. 35,000 German ex-patriates murdered in Poland, and Germany is the bad guy here for trying to stop that?
     
    Even assuming your figure of 35,000 Germans is correct, there's such a thing as proportionality. Six million Polish citizens died in the war. The Germans leveled Warsaw. You're going to be hard-pressed to find a country outside of the USSR that suffered more than Poland.

    I have read some of the so-called rebuttals to the positions taken by so-called revisionists; I have found them to be incomprehensible. This might not mean much to you but I do have considerable knowledge and ability in sorting the wheat from the chaff. Occams Razor is of considerable help here.
     
    Indeed, Occam's razor states that when explanations are competing, the simpler explanation that covers the evidence is usually right.

    So six million Jews went missing. A ton of evidence suggests they were killed by various means. Occam's razor says you must conclude they were killed, absent any evidence they survived.

    So unless you have some evidence of survival to provide, that seems like game over to me, nu?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @szopen
    Germans were not blamed for Katyń except in 1945 and in darkest Stalinist times. My father knew who was responsible for Katyń, as were all Polish historians writing in the west. In Poland the knowledge was common, though silenced.

    As for the rest, the transcription of Polish newspapers is laughable. I've actually read some real Polish newspapers from 1939. They had a bombastic tone, but the tone was "if the Germans want war, we are ready and because we have powerful allies, we will win" and not "we want war". You can even go and hear actual radio transmissions of some speeches of Polish politicians (in Polish) and the tone was the same: "we want peace, but if you will come to attack us, we will defend ourselves". As you probably know until 1934 or so, Poland had superiority in arms over Germany and was allied with France. If Poland would attack in 1933, German army would collapse within weeks - I think it wasn't until 1936 when Germany achieved military supremacy. Moreover, if you look at the Polish plans for 1939, they included only plans of limited intervention in Gdańsk, but no plans of any offensive whatsoever.

    In other words, most likely you read propaganda and you just want to believe that, even though this propaganda makes no sense. Why would Poland want to go to war in 1939, when it had long lost military superiority, instead of going to war in say 1934, when it had all the chances to win the war (and, in fact, when Pilsudski bluffed about this, French diplomats seem to believe him he is real thing and he would easily defeat Germany)?

    Unless you mean some fringe newspapers from extreme right. There were nuts in Polish politics, but they had _no influence_ on politics. Just like I could find nuts in German politics before WWI with the plans to resettle all Poles - it does not mean German government at the time actually thought about resettling the Poles.

    As you probably also know, Germans were pretty much ok with oppressing Polish minority in Germany (e.g. closing Polish schools or arresting polish minority activists), which was the reason Polish state sometimes took the measures against German minority.

    “if the Germans want war, we are ready and because we have powerful allies, we will win”

    How did that work out for ya?

    Were there differences between Polish Catholics and Polish Jews in their attitude toward Germany in the 1930s?

    Edwin Black writes in “The Transfer Agreement” that Poles (presumably Polish Jews) were early and passionate participants in the Judean economic war on Germany. Poles were so riled by the boycott frenzy that the threat of a Polish invasion of Germany in 1933 was very real.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    "How did that work out for ya?"

    It didn't. No question about it. There is no question that there was Polish propaganda before the war and that many aspects of this propaganda were stupid. No question that many people believed in that. What I find questionable is that some people find out Polish propaganda and it is is outrageous, while at the same time not questioning German propaganda.

    As for the economic boycott, do you mean the custom war started by Germany in order to disrupt Polish economy?

    As for the Jews, I think it depends on the area. I know only Greater Poland area - here many Jews were previously quite well assimilated into Prussian society and were strongly pro-German up to the early 30s. I've read also that this was contrasted with attitudes of Jews coming from the former Russian partition, who were somewhat less pro-German, and were sometimes conflicted with their brethren, as they sometimes considered them barbaric.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @MQ
    You're delusional. There is apparently no amount of photographs or films of mass graves, massive stacks of corpses, eyewitness accounts, bureaucratic records, etc. that will convince you or others like you, since your 'denial' is motivated not by evidence but by anti-semitism.

    One odd thing is that the Holocaust deniers are also often those who most transparently wish to kill some Jews themselves. "The Holocaust didn't happen...but just give me a chance and I'll make it happen!".

    yo.
    MQ

    in any given photo of any given stack of corpses or mass graves, or fictional descriptions of “heaving steaming fields like Spring Meadow,” what should one look for to determine Jewishness?

    In Amis’s fictional account of a love affair at Auschwitz in 1942, “when the Germans were trying to hide the evidence” by exhuming corpses that had been buried because there had not been time to burn them all so they were being dug up to be burned quickly (surely you follow the logic in that plan. Typically German.), the only way the number of bodies in Spring Meadow could be ascertained was by counting the femurs and dividing by two. Thus, it was calculated that 107,000 bodies were buried at Spring Meadow.

    Do Jews have distinctive femurs?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. szopen says:
    @HdC
    During the Nuremberg trials German officers were judged guilty of the Katyn massacre. Probably executed, too, but I don't recall this for sure.

    The Soviet Generals who sat in judgement turned out to be responsible for that massacre.

    Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union was it acknowledged that the Soviets had been responsible for that murder scene.

    Agreed that the powers-that-be in most western countries knew who the real perpetrators were but chose to keep quiet because it was more politically expedient to blame the Germans. Sound familiar?

    BTW you forgot to answer my position on where the Polish Jews went during the war; any reasoned thoughts on this?

    In the oppression of minorities in their respective countries, the Poles take a back seat to no one. 35,000 German ex-patriates murdered in Poland, and Germany is the bad guy here for trying to stop that?

    I have read some of the so-called rebuttals to the positions taken by so-called revisionists; I have found them to be incomprehensible. This might not mean much to you but I do have considerable knowledge and ability in sorting the wheat from the chaff. Occams Razor is of considerable help here.

    HdC

    ” 35,000 German ex-patriates murdered in Poland, and Germany is the bad guy here for trying to stop that?”

    What are you talking about? You meant you actually think that Poles murdered 35.000 Germans BEFORE the war started? Jesus Christ. I mean, I’ve met revisionist claiming that Poles murdered ethnic Germans after the war started, but first time I saw someone who actually thinks Germans were murdered before the war.
    (There is no evidence of that happening; a lot of envoys from Italy, UK, France and elsewhere were in Poland before 1939 and none of them heard or saw anything. Saying that this happened, while at the same time not believing the Holocaust because “witnesses were wrong about body color” is, how to say it politely, unusual).

    As for where the Jews went, yes, quite a lot of them went to the soviet part. QUite a lot of them actually participated willingly in new regime, including participation in deporting of their former Polish neighbours. But most didn’t. What does that to do with anything, anyway? Most of Jews have not left German occupation, and from those who did that, quite a lot were later in German hands anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. szopen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    “if the Germans want war, we are ready and because we have powerful allies, we will win”
     
    How did that work out for ya?


    ---

    Were there differences between Polish Catholics and Polish Jews in their attitude toward Germany in the 1930s?

    Edwin Black writes in "The Transfer Agreement" that Poles (presumably Polish Jews) were early and passionate participants in the Judean economic war on Germany. Poles were so riled by the boycott frenzy that the threat of a Polish invasion of Germany in 1933 was very real.

    “How did that work out for ya?”

    It didn’t. No question about it. There is no question that there was Polish propaganda before the war and that many aspects of this propaganda were stupid. No question that many people believed in that. What I find questionable is that some people find out Polish propaganda and it is is outrageous, while at the same time not questioning German propaganda.

    As for the economic boycott, do you mean the custom war started by Germany in order to disrupt Polish economy?

    As for the Jews, I think it depends on the area. I know only Greater Poland area – here many Jews were previously quite well assimilated into Prussian society and were strongly pro-German up to the early 30s. I’ve read also that this was contrasted with attitudes of Jews coming from the former Russian partition, who were somewhat less pro-German, and were sometimes conflicted with their brethren, as they sometimes considered them barbaric.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stubborn in Germany
    I think you had it right earlier when you said that discussion with holocaust deniers is pointless.

    This website allows holocaust deniers to spout their lies. (The exception is Steve Sailer who deletes every holocaust denial comment (but not in the Disqus comments below his Takimag articles).)

    As this policy is unlikely to change, options besides discussing with them (which, as I said, is pointless in my opinion) are either to quit reading Unz.com altogether or to ignore the holocaust deniers. On every website where they are allowed, they show up in numbers and try to disrupt the comments section (as here, though the article was not about the holocaust). It's unpleasant but I trust that most people know enough to see that they are a sad, pathetic minority.

    Give them a wide berth as you would do if a smelly bum plonked himself down next to your seat on the subway.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    PS are you aware of the Polish people, including many Jews, who fled Poland after Stalin's invasion, walked across the land, crossed the Caspian Sea and found refuge in Iran? "Forgotten Odyssey," a film by Jagna Wright, records the hazards of the journey; how they were treated upon arrival in Iran: Iranians were most hospitable but British were the controlling occupiers who took charge of the refugees. They overfed them and many who had endured weeks of extreme hardship died the same way Dostoevsky's wife did -- of overfeeding after deprivation.

    NYTimes did a short piece on the film but it is egregiously biased. I was able to contact Jagna Wright and obtained a copy of the DVD (she has since died). I'm fuzzy on the details but I recall that one element of the film is the presence among the refugees of Polish military officers who, after their arrival in Iran and a short period of recuperation, joined the battle on the side of the Allies. They were never recognized for their service.

    According to the best information I could obtain, the few Poles who remained in Iran were not all that happy to be there, but the Iranian state still maintains the Polish cemetery in Isfehan in good order.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @szopen
    "How did that work out for ya?"

    It didn't. No question about it. There is no question that there was Polish propaganda before the war and that many aspects of this propaganda were stupid. No question that many people believed in that. What I find questionable is that some people find out Polish propaganda and it is is outrageous, while at the same time not questioning German propaganda.

    As for the economic boycott, do you mean the custom war started by Germany in order to disrupt Polish economy?

    As for the Jews, I think it depends on the area. I know only Greater Poland area - here many Jews were previously quite well assimilated into Prussian society and were strongly pro-German up to the early 30s. I've read also that this was contrasted with attitudes of Jews coming from the former Russian partition, who were somewhat less pro-German, and were sometimes conflicted with their brethren, as they sometimes considered them barbaric.

    I think you had it right earlier when you said that discussion with holocaust deniers is pointless.

    This website allows holocaust deniers to spout their lies. (The exception is Steve Sailer who deletes every holocaust denial comment (but not in the Disqus comments below his Takimag articles).)

    As this policy is unlikely to change, options besides discussing with them (which, as I said, is pointless in my opinion) are either to quit reading Unz.com altogether or to ignore the holocaust deniers. On every website where they are allowed, they show up in numbers and try to disrupt the comments section (as here, though the article was not about the holocaust). It’s unpleasant but I trust that most people know enough to see that they are a sad, pathetic minority.

    Give them a wide berth as you would do if a smelly bum plonked himself down next to your seat on the subway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Germans.

    still burning books after all these years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. many Jews were previously quite well assimilated into Prussian society and were strongly pro-German up to the early 30s. I’ve read also that this was contrasted with attitudes of Jews coming from the former Russian partition, who were somewhat less pro-German, and were sometimes conflicted with their brethren, as they sometimes considered them barbaric.

    You have touched upon the heart of the matter, szopen: German Jews, in US as well as in Europe, were not pro-zionist — in fact were ardently anti-zionist, like Gertrude Stein — and in many many instances were appalled by their Slavic Jewish brethren. Toss in the tensions between capitalist Jews and Marxist/Bolshevik Jews, and the tremendous disparities between impoverished Jews in all categories vs. the wealthy and politically connected Jews in Britain and USA who were calling the shots, and some important details begin to stand out.

    The Jewish Telegraph Agency posted this report on a statement by Hans Luther, the German ambassador to USA in a 1933 visit to Upstate New York:

    Nazi Jewish Policies Political, Not Religious, Dr. Luther Asserts – May 26, 1933

    A strong defense of the anti-Semitic policies of the Nazi regime in Germany was made here last night by Dr. Hans Luther, German ambsasador to this country. Speaking before over a thousand people attending the 67th anniversary of the Wartburg Orphans Farm School, Dr. Luther asserted that these policies were political and not religious.

    Prejudice against the Jews, he said, was due to their tendency toward movements of a communistic nature, and to the fact that nearly fifty percent of the government officails have been Jews, although the total Jewish population was only one percent. He denied emphatically that there had been any “atrocities”.

    He asserted that limitation of Jewish influence in Germany was being conducted with the greatest possible consideration toward the old native Jewish families who, he said; had proven themselves good Germans and indicated that it was directed against the Eastern European Jews who had overflooded the country since the War. Dr. Luther was accompanied to Mt. Vernon by Victor Ridder, co-publisher of the Staats Zeitung, German language paper of New York.

    MONOPOLY IN PROFESSIONS
    Dr. Luther described the misery of German students who had to wait for years after graduating in order to obtain positions in the professions. Even before the War, he said, the legal and medical professions in Berlin, Frankfurt and other large cities were almost monopolized by certain people whose activities the German people could not consider as German.

    After the War, came the influx of East European Jews, he declared. Because of Germany’s political prostration, there was no means of excluding undesirable immigrants such as other nations had. Before the War, he said, anti-Semitism in Germany had no political importance. Later, this inclination against the elements which had a leading role in Marxist stories contributed greatly to the embitterment of the people.

    Dr. Luther asked newspapermen present not to forget that of 1,700 Jewish lawyers in Berlin, 1,200 had been considered worthy of being readmitted to practice. The measures against the Jews, he asserted, were taken only that those Jews who are alien to the German nation, should not continue any longer in important judicial and administrative posts.

    He also praised the character of the Nazi revolution which he described as bloodless.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. @szopen
    "How did that work out for ya?"

    It didn't. No question about it. There is no question that there was Polish propaganda before the war and that many aspects of this propaganda were stupid. No question that many people believed in that. What I find questionable is that some people find out Polish propaganda and it is is outrageous, while at the same time not questioning German propaganda.

    As for the economic boycott, do you mean the custom war started by Germany in order to disrupt Polish economy?

    As for the Jews, I think it depends on the area. I know only Greater Poland area - here many Jews were previously quite well assimilated into Prussian society and were strongly pro-German up to the early 30s. I've read also that this was contrasted with attitudes of Jews coming from the former Russian partition, who were somewhat less pro-German, and were sometimes conflicted with their brethren, as they sometimes considered them barbaric.

    PS are you aware of the Polish people, including many Jews, who fled Poland after Stalin’s invasion, walked across the land, crossed the Caspian Sea and found refuge in Iran? “Forgotten Odyssey,” a film by Jagna Wright, records the hazards of the journey; how they were treated upon arrival in Iran: Iranians were most hospitable but British were the controlling occupiers who took charge of the refugees. They overfed them and many who had endured weeks of extreme hardship died the same way Dostoevsky’s wife did — of overfeeding after deprivation.

    NYTimes did a short piece on the film but it is egregiously biased. I was able to contact Jagna Wright and obtained a copy of the DVD (she has since died). I’m fuzzy on the details but I recall that one element of the film is the presence among the refugees of Polish military officers who, after their arrival in Iran and a short period of recuperation, joined the battle on the side of the Allies. They were never recognized for their service.

    According to the best information I could obtain, the few Poles who remained in Iran were not all that happy to be there, but the Iranian state still maintains the Polish cemetery in Isfehan in good order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    No, that is not really happened. There was agreement between Sikorsky and Stalin, that Stalin would release Polish citizens who would want to volunteer to Polish army. Polish army initially would be formed in southern regions of USSR. After quite complicated run of things (mostly, Stalin cut food ration to 26 thousand people, despite there were some five times that many civilians and soldiers), the decision was finally to move the camps to Iran. I've read that the factor was British wanting to free their own units staying there to fight in other fronts.

    So, the "military officers" amongst the refugees were not accidental - they were the reason anyone would be allowed to leave USSR. In short, only soldiers' families were allowed to leave and military age men. Anders, the commander of the organized force, conspired (for lack of the better word) to allow also more civilians to escape USSR. All in all, some 78 thousand soldiers and 37 thousand civilians left USSR.

    So Polish citizens all across USSR were freed, from prisons, gulags and so on, and they marched across whole USSR to get to the Polish camps. Some died immedietely after getting there; the conditions in the camps were, in fact, not that healthy. SOme died in a way you've said.

    Actually the officers were the problem, because Polish side had not enough officers and Sikorski constantly asked Stalin: hey, according to our data, you should have at least ten thousand of our officers, but it seems you have released almost no one. Where are they? Stalin said that they probably escaped to Manjuria.

    Amongst the released soldiers was Menachem Begin, BTW, a corporal at the time, released (not quite legally) together with few hundred of other Polish-Jewish soldiers when Anders army arrived to Palestine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Stubborn in Germany
    I think you had it right earlier when you said that discussion with holocaust deniers is pointless.

    This website allows holocaust deniers to spout their lies. (The exception is Steve Sailer who deletes every holocaust denial comment (but not in the Disqus comments below his Takimag articles).)

    As this policy is unlikely to change, options besides discussing with them (which, as I said, is pointless in my opinion) are either to quit reading Unz.com altogether or to ignore the holocaust deniers. On every website where they are allowed, they show up in numbers and try to disrupt the comments section (as here, though the article was not about the holocaust). It's unpleasant but I trust that most people know enough to see that they are a sad, pathetic minority.

    Give them a wide berth as you would do if a smelly bum plonked himself down next to your seat on the subway.

    Germans.

    still burning books after all these years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Agreed. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Goethe, I think. HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. szopen says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    PS are you aware of the Polish people, including many Jews, who fled Poland after Stalin's invasion, walked across the land, crossed the Caspian Sea and found refuge in Iran? "Forgotten Odyssey," a film by Jagna Wright, records the hazards of the journey; how they were treated upon arrival in Iran: Iranians were most hospitable but British were the controlling occupiers who took charge of the refugees. They overfed them and many who had endured weeks of extreme hardship died the same way Dostoevsky's wife did -- of overfeeding after deprivation.

    NYTimes did a short piece on the film but it is egregiously biased. I was able to contact Jagna Wright and obtained a copy of the DVD (she has since died). I'm fuzzy on the details but I recall that one element of the film is the presence among the refugees of Polish military officers who, after their arrival in Iran and a short period of recuperation, joined the battle on the side of the Allies. They were never recognized for their service.

    According to the best information I could obtain, the few Poles who remained in Iran were not all that happy to be there, but the Iranian state still maintains the Polish cemetery in Isfehan in good order.

    No, that is not really happened. There was agreement between Sikorsky and Stalin, that Stalin would release Polish citizens who would want to volunteer to Polish army. Polish army initially would be formed in southern regions of USSR. After quite complicated run of things (mostly, Stalin cut food ration to 26 thousand people, despite there were some five times that many civilians and soldiers), the decision was finally to move the camps to Iran. I’ve read that the factor was British wanting to free their own units staying there to fight in other fronts.

    So, the “military officers” amongst the refugees were not accidental – they were the reason anyone would be allowed to leave USSR. In short, only soldiers’ families were allowed to leave and military age men. Anders, the commander of the organized force, conspired (for lack of the better word) to allow also more civilians to escape USSR. All in all, some 78 thousand soldiers and 37 thousand civilians left USSR.

    So Polish citizens all across USSR were freed, from prisons, gulags and so on, and they marched across whole USSR to get to the Polish camps. Some died immedietely after getting there; the conditions in the camps were, in fact, not that healthy. SOme died in a way you’ve said.

    Actually the officers were the problem, because Polish side had not enough officers and Sikorski constantly asked Stalin: hey, according to our data, you should have at least ten thousand of our officers, but it seems you have released almost no one. Where are they? Stalin said that they probably escaped to Manjuria.

    Amongst the released soldiers was Menachem Begin, BTW, a corporal at the time, released (not quite legally) together with few hundred of other Polish-Jewish soldiers when Anders army arrived to Palestine.

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

    My appreciation to the brave souls who have the strength to wade in the cesspool of holocaust deniers.

    Not being made of quite the same stern stuff, I will only address a minor point.

    “but that 6 million figure seems rather suspect, especially as number 6 is significant in Jewish culture.”

    It’s incredible to think that someone actually believes that some secret cabal sat around one day and had a discussion to this effect –

    - Gee, Moses, how many dead Jews did you manage to count?
    - Um, about 250,000
    - That’s all?
    - Sorry, Abe.
    - So how many should we say the Germans killed?
    - Um, how about 5,000,000?
    - Nah, that number doesn’t feel so right to me.
    - 7,000,000?
    - Nope, still –
    - I know! 6,000,000!
    - Oh yeah, that’s it!
    - Heh heh.
    - Our private joke on the Goyim.

    And not only imagine it, but cling to it so fiercely that the blandest statement that the number six is not particularly significant in Judaism must be part of the conspiracy! It’s not possible, for example, that wicked Jews reached the number 6,000,000 in some other nefarious way (for example, a committee arguing endlessly until they were too tired to continue, and settled on the last number which was mentioned – a much more reasonable notion for anyone who has seen Jews arguing).

    For what it’s worth, the children’s song sung at the end of the passover meal should convince any objective mind that the number 6 is one of the least religiously significant numbers this side of 13:

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

    Numbers 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12 all refer to events in the Pentateuch, or to parts of it.
    Number 6 was not associated with any sufficiently significant event, so it was given the number of books of the Mishnah, quite secondary in holiness to the bible.
    Numbers 9 and 13 had similar problems.

    No-one who knows anything about Judaism would think that if Jews were going to freely choose a small “culturally significant number” independently of any other consideration, that they would choose 6 and not 7.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    May I respectfully point you to the archives of the New York Times newspaper where, since about 1870 or so, 6 million Jews being subjected to various deprivations including holocausts, has been written about perhaps 5 times. This from memory.

    Glad you mention cess pool. In whose memoirs does it appear about swallowing diamonds that were defecated? Who wrote that she had to defecate and eat from the same bowl? Etc., etc.

    Methinks the holocaustians fall distinctly into the category you so picturesquely describe.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. HdC says:
    @Anonymous
    My appreciation to the brave souls who have the strength to wade in the cesspool of holocaust deniers.

    Not being made of quite the same stern stuff, I will only address a minor point.

    "but that 6 million figure seems rather suspect, especially as number 6 is significant in Jewish culture."

    It's incredible to think that someone actually believes that some secret cabal sat around one day and had a discussion to this effect -

    - Gee, Moses, how many dead Jews did you manage to count?
    - Um, about 250,000
    - That's all?
    - Sorry, Abe.
    - So how many should we say the Germans killed?
    - Um, how about 5,000,000?
    - Nah, that number doesn't feel so right to me.
    - 7,000,000?
    - Nope, still -
    - I know! 6,000,000!
    - Oh yeah, that's it!
    - Heh heh.
    - Our private joke on the Goyim.

    And not only imagine it, but cling to it so fiercely that the blandest statement that the number six is not particularly significant in Judaism must be part of the conspiracy! It's not possible, for example, that wicked Jews reached the number 6,000,000 in some other nefarious way (for example, a committee arguing endlessly until they were too tired to continue, and settled on the last number which was mentioned - a much more reasonable notion for anyone who has seen Jews arguing).

    For what it's worth, the children's song sung at the end of the passover meal should convince any objective mind that the number 6 is one of the least religiously significant numbers this side of 13:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echad_Mi_Yodea

    Numbers 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12 all refer to events in the Pentateuch, or to parts of it.
    Number 6 was not associated with any sufficiently significant event, so it was given the number of books of the Mishnah, quite secondary in holiness to the bible.
    Numbers 9 and 13 had similar problems.

    No-one who knows anything about Judaism would think that if Jews were going to freely choose a small "culturally significant number" independently of any other consideration, that they would choose 6 and not 7.

    May I respectfully point you to the archives of the New York Times newspaper where, since about 1870 or so, 6 million Jews being subjected to various deprivations including holocausts, has been written about perhaps 5 times. This from memory.

    Glad you mention cess pool. In whose memoirs does it appear about swallowing diamonds that were defecated? Who wrote that she had to defecate and eat from the same bowl? Etc., etc.

    Methinks the holocaustians fall distinctly into the category you so picturesquely describe.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Great, so you search the Times archive for references to six million Jews and you find five or so references.

    Now run this Boolean search:

    ("million Jews") OR ("millions of Jews") AND PDN(>1/1/1900) AND PDN(<8/31/1939) AND NOT ("six million Jews") AND NOT ("6 million Jews")

    and tell us all how many hits.

    Wait, I'll spoil it for you: 220.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. HdC says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Germans.

    still burning books after all these years.

    Agreed. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Goethe, I think. HdC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. HdC says:
    @MQ
    But the claim that six million (6,000,000) Jews were gassed or burned alive is, I believe, a grotesque exaggeration used for political purposes.

    The six million figure totals all those who were shot in mass executions by Einsatzgruppen, starved or worked to death, and also gassed and burned alive. So the total that were gassed and burned alive is a subset. Someone who wants to use that as leverage for Holocaust denial is obviously operating from another agenda.

    There is every kind of testimony to this, and to every method of killing involved, from eyewitnesses, from the recorded descriptions of German prisoners, from German records, from discovered bodies. I suppose it is possible to discuss exactly how many millions, and also to point out the many deaths among other ethnic groups, but the mass killing of Jews on a very large scale is an irrefutable fact.

    “Wrong about body colour”.

    If you were to peruse any handbook on pathology and forensics you would be informed that one of the PRIMARY indications of Cyanide or Carbon Monoxide poisoning is the pink to red appearance of the body of the individual so poisoned.

    To now claim that “Gee willikers”, the colour of the bodies is not really relevant and has little to do with what happened to all those Jews when practically everyone else pounds the drum about gassings by the nasty Nazis, simply means that the multitude of the holocaust hallelujah chorus is WRONG. A million so-called witnesses cannot refute one single solitary scientific fact, and that is the colour of the gassed bodies.

    For crying out loud man, 6 million gassed bodies (from the holocaust museum in Washington) and not one Jewish witness got the colour right? Simply incredible!

    And that, my dear sir, is one of the many reasons why so-called Deniers are so bloody stubborn and persistent.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust_6507.html

    "When the victim is anaemic the (classical ‘cherry-pink’) _color may be faint or even absent_ because insufficient haemoglobin is present to display the color. In racially-pigmented victims the color may obviously be masked, though may still be seen on the inner aspect of the lips, the nail-beds, tongue, and palms and soles of hands and feet. It is also seen inside the eyelids, but rarely in the sclera"

    I guess reading the whole thing is bothersome because there is too much verbiage there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Jonathan Revusky
    Look, when revisionists say that the testimony in which people claim that they pulled out bodies immediately after a gassing, with no reference to any gas masks or protective clothing -- that this is false testimony -- they are simply pointing out the obvious.

    To say that this specific testimony is false (when it obviously is) is not the same as claiming that all testimony of all concentration camp survivors is false. That is not the revisionist position. It is a straw man.

    Of course, that you have to trot out these straw man arguments is really just a symptom of the larger problem, which is that you don't have much of an argument. I myself believed the gas chamber story for most of my life, until I tried to prove to myself that it was true. And then I discovered that I couldn't. Actually, I couldn't find any proof that withstands the laugh test.

    What you provide is familiar to me. It's called "proof by repetition". Your "proof" of the claim is simply to repeat the claim.

    But you can’t have it both ways, can you? You can’t insist on there being eyewitnesses to gas chambers and concede at the same time that those very witnesseses must be dead.
     
    Aren't you just being wilfully obtuse here? Surely you are able to understand that this is a conditional mode. IF the conventional narrative is true, I.e. IF there really were gas chambers... THEN, yes, millions of people would have seen them. But they still would not have provided any testimony because they WOULD HAVE (note the continued conditional mode) been dead shortly after seeing them.

    The point is that, basically none of the survivors would personally have ever witnessed a gassing or seen a gas chamber. Of course, if there were no gas chambers, then DEFINITELY nobody would have seen them, but even if, for the sake of argument, they did exist... Well.... surely you're not quite that dumb. You understand the argument but are pretending that you don't...

    Throw in physical evidence of all kinds, and there’s little doubt that there were gas chambers.
     
    Could you outline what "physical evidence" you are referring to?

    The testimony looks very questionable to say the least. None of the testimony of how a mass gassing and the subsequent cleanup were carried out seems physically possible.

    So, again, what physical evidence are you referring to?

    Look, when revisionists say that the testimony in which people claim that they pulled out bodies immediately after a gassing, with no reference to any gas masks or protective clothing — that this is false testimony — they are simply pointing out the obvious.

    I already addressed this. Stop repeating yourself.

    To say that this specific testimony is false (when it obviously is) is not the same as claiming that all testimony of all concentration camp survivors is false. That is not the revisionist position. It is a straw man.

    Fine. Maybe you could post here some testimony that deniers believe is actually true.

    Of course, that you have to trot out these straw man arguments is really just a symptom of the larger problem, which is that you don’t have much of an argument. I myself believed the gas chamber story for most of my life, until I tried to prove to myself that it was true. And then I discovered that I couldn’t. Actually, I couldn’t find any proof that withstands the laugh test.

    That’s what’s called an argument from incredulity.

    What you provide is familiar to me. It’s called “proof by repetition”. Your “proof” of the claim is simply to repeat the claim.

    You got me now, Socrates.

    Aren’t you just being wilfully obtuse here? Surely you are able to understand that this is a conditional mode. IF the conventional narrative is true, I.e. IF there really were gas chambers… THEN, yes, millions of people would have seen them. But they still would not have provided any testimony because they WOULD HAVE (note the continued conditional mode) been dead shortly after seeing them.

    Right, except that there are also the perpetrators. There are also the Sonderkommando. So that doesn’t rule out two whole categories of eyewitnesses.

    The point is that, basically none of the survivors would personally have ever witnessed a gassing or seen a gas chamber. Of course, if there were no gas chambers, then DEFINITELY nobody would have seen them, but even if, for the sake of argument, they did exist… Well…. surely you’re not quite that dumb. You understand the argument but are pretending that you don’t…

    No, you were just being unclear.

    Could you outline what “physical evidence” you are referring to?

    See below.

    The testimony looks very questionable to say the least. None of the testimony of how a mass gassing and the subsequent cleanup were carried out seems physically possible.

    Argument from incredulity.

    So, again, what physical evidence are you referring to?

    See:

    http://www.unz.com/emargolis/no-people-have-an-exclusive-on-suffering/#comment-935205

    Concentrate on the bolded portions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    I already addressed this. Stop repeating yourself.
     
    I have no idea what you are talking about when you say you "already addressed this". As best I can figure, you "address" the issue by claiming there is no issue.

    But there is an issue! A huge one! The sheer volume of false testimony. Just search in Google a string like "false holocaust memoir" and a huge amount of material comes up. Fantastical stories, such as a woman claiming she was raised by wolves. That was even made into a movie... a Swiss dude whose real name was Grosjean, I think not even Jewish, who spent the whole of the time as a pampered child in Switzerland, writing a holocaust memoir. There is a woman, Irene Zisblatt, a Hungarian Jewess, who claims she swallowed, defecated, and re-swallowed diamonds for years. And escaped from the inside of a gas chamber!

    There really, really are a lot of false witnesses. And to be fair about this, it's not solely a holocaust phenomenon. There are fake war memoirs too, somebody says he was at such and such battle and killed so many Germans with his bare hands... And the guy was a clerk in an office job stateside the whole time... things like this...

    In any case, there is a context at this point where a sane person would tend to look at holocaust survivor testimony with some skepticism.

    Still, note, that, to say there is a lot of false testimony is not the same as saying that ALL testimony is false! That is clearly a straw man that you are setting up continually.


    That’s what’s called an argument from incredulity.
     
    I am pretty certain that you don't know what "argument from incredulity" really means. It refers to a certain sort of logical fallacy. It doesn't refer to a case where somebody tells an obvious lie and you decline to believe the lie.

    The testimony in which people claim to have removed thousands of dead bodies from a gassing, using their bare hands -- this is clearly false testimony! When you read any description of the protocols, safety procedures in place for the gassing of a single man in the U.S. and compare it to how these false witnesses are claiming that the gassing worked in Auschwitz, you see it's just not possible. This is false testimony.


    Fine. Maybe you could post here some testimony that deniers believe is actually true.
     
    I'm pretty sure that typical survivor testimony where the person describes having been crowded onto a train and taken to a concentration camp, separated from their family... most such testimony is not really in dispute. No, the problem is obviously testimony in which people describe things that are not possible, because no real mass execution using poison gas could operate that way.

    Of course, that people don't believe the woman who says she was raised by wolves or the holocaust survivor who spent the entire war in a Swiss boarding school... or that some woman escaped from a gas chamber...

    I'm sorry, man. I'm of Jewish descent myself, but I can't stomach this vicious canard where you claim that the people who denounce all these charlatans are antisemites, blah blah. Well, hey, maybe they are, but maybe they just don't like liars -- irrespective of ethnic background! Seriously, have you considered that possibility?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. szopen says:
    @HdC
    "Wrong about body colour".

    If you were to peruse any handbook on pathology and forensics you would be informed that one of the PRIMARY indications of Cyanide or Carbon Monoxide poisoning is the pink to red appearance of the body of the individual so poisoned.

    To now claim that "Gee willikers", the colour of the bodies is not really relevant and has little to do with what happened to all those Jews when practically everyone else pounds the drum about gassings by the nasty Nazis, simply means that the multitude of the holocaust hallelujah chorus is WRONG. A million so-called witnesses cannot refute one single solitary scientific fact, and that is the colour of the gassed bodies.

    For crying out loud man, 6 million gassed bodies (from the holocaust museum in Washington) and not one Jewish witness got the colour right? Simply incredible!

    And that, my dear sir, is one of the many reasons why so-called Deniers are so bloody stubborn and persistent.

    HdC

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust_6507.html

    “When the victim is anaemic the (classical ‘cherry-pink’) _color may be faint or even absent_ because insufficient haemoglobin is present to display the color. In racially-pigmented victims the color may obviously be masked, though may still be seen on the inner aspect of the lips, the nail-beds, tongue, and palms and soles of hands and feet. It is also seen inside the eyelids, but rarely in the sclera”

    I guess reading the whole thing is bothersome because there is too much verbiage there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    In the book I perused it stated that in 93% of such poisoned cases one would see pink to red colouration. 6,000,000 x 93/100 = (you figure it out).

    Now then, following your position: Out of 6 million gassed bodies no Jewish witness ever mentioned a reddish hue, even allowing for the variation you mentioned. Simply incredible. But I am repeating myself, sorry.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @szopen
    For the record, when I was younger (something like 15 years ago) I did argue a lot with Holocaust deniers and I read quite a lot of the material they directed me to. I can't remember right now the names, but I google Faurisson and it seems that it comes from 90s, so most likely I've read it, though I do not remember the name (I remeber Irving and Leuchter all to well, as they were both treated as some kind of saints). However it seems to me that none of the arguments I faced 15 years ago have changed at all. HEre is one quote I saved, to show why I, generally, stopped respect Holocaust deniers:

    "The Holocaust deniers are individuals with an idee fixe.
    They reject all evidence which undermines their so-called
    thesis. Documents and photographs are all forgeries.
    Survivor eyewitnesses are all victims of mass delusion and
    indoctrination. Confessions of Nazi war criminals are
    invalid because they were all extracted by torture or were
    the result of plea bargaining. The scholar Nadine Fresco has
    looked at the work of the Holocaust deniers, and written
    that in their "research the only ethic is suspicion...
    distrust is the only certitude." This does not make for a
    workable, honest methodology of history."

    And that's true. For example, when faced with report like this http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml, which thouroughly debunks Rudolf's and earlier Leuchter claims, all I received was "this is fabricated" and "part of the conspiracy".

    As for the "wrong body color" in witnesses testimony, read this:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust_6507.html

    Sorry, I have no patience for further discussion with people, who do not really want the discussion.

    I can’t remember right now the names, but I google Faurisson and it seems that …

    Look, if you don’t know who Robert Faurisson is, I.e. the name didn’t ring a bell when I mentioned it, it means that you are absolutely uneducated about this issue. So your subsequent claim that you’ve made some deep study of the other side of the debate rings completely false. In fact, I now realize that you don’t really know what the basic contours of the debate even are.

    In the absence of real knowledge about what the other side of the debate is even claiming, you invent claims, straw men, that you construct and then try to demolish. For example, you profess to believe that the so-called “deniers” are claiming that ALL survivor testimony is false. This is a straw man. It is not what is being claimed.

    The revisionists are not arguing that all the documentation/testimony is fake. The point is that, by and large, it is just as consistent with the revisionist narrative as the conventional one, if not more so. For example, any eyewitness testimony of massacres, that doubtless occurred, is just as consistent with 600 thousand dead as 6 million. Nor does it prove that the German government really had an exterminationist policy. The My Lei massacre and others definitely occurred, unfortunately, yet nobody is arguing that the U.S. government had the goal of killing every last Vietnamese peasant. No, as brutal as their policy was, it still was not an extermination program.

    Anyway, I’ll close the note here. You know, you’re making an ass of yourself. You can’t claim that you are familiar with the revisionist position and then admit that you don’t know who Robert Faurrisson is.

    Oh, just one more question to ponder: “if there is such overwhelming evidence that millions of Jews were murdered in gas chambers, why did anybody ever feel a need to make denial of this a criminal offense? To anybody in possession of common sense, shouldn’t this raise huge warning flags?

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Look, I discussed with denialists some decade ago. Moreover, I've read "revisionists" other texts and I saw them debunked. How should I know which revisionist is "the real thing" if one says "look at Leuchter!", when he is shown to be wrong someone else jumps and screams "no, look at Rudolf!" and so on. Moreover, if he is absolutely fundamental to revisionists, I am sure those denialists I saw would use arguments from him even without giving him credentials. And indeed, googling now and seeing his arguments, I saw them many times before (i.e. the false claim that personnel need to use gas masks,while even cursory revision of the literature shows that the dangers are far less that he claimed and even nonsensical given that most of the personnel, IIRC, was then scheduled to be killed too; or that the cyanide gas is explosive). If Faurisson is so essential, then the case is really weak.

    I am not making a strawman, BTW. There are witnesses who claimed they saw gas chambers, those who saw gassed victims and so on. I do not see how you can maintain their testimonies are consistent with denialist position without claiming that their testimony is false.

    Finally, let's say that indeed, there were no gas chambers. In my opinion, that wouldn't change that much, as hundreds and hundreds of thousands people (Jewish and non-Jewish) were simply shot and that's still a genocide.

    There are documents about einsatzgruppen actions and testimonies about what einsatzgruppen were doing. I mean, OK, you can doubt reports from Polish underground, because AK was not posting the copies of captured letters or documents, just the abstracts of them, but what about witnesses and documents?

    So, you can argue that:

    (1) Those testimonies and document related to einsatzgruppen are false, but then you are in contradiction with your claim "you are making a strawman, testimonies are compatible with our position".

    (2) Documents and testimonies are true (aka "you have only photocopies, not the originals!"). Therefore, you are admit that there were units whose main activity was shooting people and that those units did, indeed, shoot hundreds thousands of people. However you would want us to believe, that despite those units existed, the authorities were not aware of them. You have to claim the unawareness, because if the authorities were aware and did nothing to prevent the atrocities, then the authorities were at least complicit. Moreover, you would have to explain how it is possible that despite all the rhetoric from the highest authorities about how Jewry has to be destroyed, they actually were against what their own soldiers were doing.

    If you are saying "witnesses are ok, but documents are false" or "they exxagerated everything" it doesn't change much, as witnesses quite often see organized units doing very effectively just one thing, and still you have authorities allowing death squads to operate FOR YEARS. Similarly, there are witnesses to shootings in ghettos. Either witnesses were all confused or wrong, or you have to explain how it is possible that authorities didn't know about what was happening there, or if they know, why no one was punished, and there was no effort to prevent those activities.

    With My Lai, government has no rhetoric about Vietnamese people had to be destroyed, and the effort was done (even if only half-arsed) to stop the crimes, and responsible soldiers and officers were court-martialed for their acts.

    Note that this is not just about Jews. Poles were shot too by Einsatzgruppen; about 50 thousands intelligentsia was shot during intelligentzaktion alone, and another 50 thousand was shipped to concetration camps, with majority dying there.

    Note that if only 600.000 Jews were killed, then you have to explain what happened to some 5.000.000 others.

    And finally, even if I am an ass and I do not know revisionist position, it doesn't change one thing: Mathis invited you (all the deniers) to the discussion and was ignored, while at the same time some of you were saying that no discussion is allowed.

    , @Jonathan Revusky
    I shall respond with 4 points and I don't anticipate much further discussion because I don't see how it would be productive.

    FIRST POINT: Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. The minute you say that you don't recognize the name "Robert Faurisson" and had to google the name, this tells anybody with the minimal familiarity with these issues, that you just don't know very much.

    If somebody claims expertise in economic policy issues but doesn't know the name "John Maynard Keynes", this person lacks said expertise.

    SECOND POINT: Yes, the revisionist position is that the people who claim they saw gas chambers are false witnesses. However, very few people claim to have seen gas chambers.

    The revisionists are not claiming that all eyewitness testimony of the events of this period is false. That is a straw man misrepresentation on your part.

    THIRD POINT: I do not believe Leuchter was ever refuted. They may have made some nth order debating points, but the basic problem that the procedure for mass gassing, as described, is technically impossible -- for really major first order reasons.... I don't think the thrust of his argument was ever refuted.

    FOURTH POINT: The point I made regarding the My Lei massacre is not that there was absolute equivalence. The point is simply that the fact that massacres did occur is not the same thing as a systematic exterminationist policy.

    I'll just closer this by asking a simple question: If the revisionist position had been so decisively refuted, why do the defenders of the official orthodoxy feel compelled to pass laws criminalizing said refuted idea, and seeking to imprison people for figuring their orthodox view? If the orthodox view is so well established by the facts, why is there a need for this?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I can’t remember right now the names, but I google Faurisson and it seems that ...
     
    Look, if you don't know who Robert Faurisson is, I.e. the name didn't ring a bell when I mentioned it, it means that you are absolutely uneducated about this issue. So your subsequent claim that you've made some deep study of the other side of the debate rings completely false. In fact, I now realize that you don't really know what the basic contours of the debate even are.

    In the absence of real knowledge about what the other side of the debate is even claiming, you invent claims, straw men, that you construct and then try to demolish. For example, you profess to believe that the so-called "deniers" are claiming that ALL survivor testimony is false. This is a straw man. It is not what is being claimed.

    The revisionists are not arguing that all the documentation/testimony is fake. The point is that, by and large, it is just as consistent with the revisionist narrative as the conventional one, if not more so. For example, any eyewitness testimony of massacres, that doubtless occurred, is just as consistent with 600 thousand dead as 6 million. Nor does it prove that the German government really had an exterminationist policy. The My Lei massacre and others definitely occurred, unfortunately, yet nobody is arguing that the U.S. government had the goal of killing every last Vietnamese peasant. No, as brutal as their policy was, it still was not an extermination program.

    Anyway, I'll close the note here. You know, you're making an ass of yourself. You can't claim that you are familiar with the revisionist position and then admit that you don't know who Robert Faurrisson is.

    Oh, just one more question to ponder: "if there is such overwhelming evidence that millions of Jews were murdered in gas chambers, why did anybody ever feel a need to make denial of this a criminal offense? To anybody in possession of common sense, shouldn't this raise huge warning flags?

    Look, I discussed with denialists some decade ago. Moreover, I’ve read “revisionists” other texts and I saw them debunked. How should I know which revisionist is “the real thing” if one says “look at Leuchter!”, when he is shown to be wrong someone else jumps and screams “no, look at Rudolf!” and so on. Moreover, if he is absolutely fundamental to revisionists, I am sure those denialists I saw would use arguments from him even without giving him credentials. And indeed, googling now and seeing his arguments, I saw them many times before (i.e. the false claim that personnel need to use gas masks,while even cursory revision of the literature shows that the dangers are far less that he claimed and even nonsensical given that most of the personnel, IIRC, was then scheduled to be killed too; or that the cyanide gas is explosive). If Faurisson is so essential, then the case is really weak.

    I am not making a strawman, BTW. There are witnesses who claimed they saw gas chambers, those who saw gassed victims and so on. I do not see how you can maintain their testimonies are consistent with denialist position without claiming that their testimony is false.

    Finally, let’s say that indeed, there were no gas chambers. In my opinion, that wouldn’t change that much, as hundreds and hundreds of thousands people (Jewish and non-Jewish) were simply shot and that’s still a genocide.

    There are documents about einsatzgruppen actions and testimonies about what einsatzgruppen were doing. I mean, OK, you can doubt reports from Polish underground, because AK was not posting the copies of captured letters or documents, just the abstracts of them, but what about witnesses and documents?

    So, you can argue that:

    (1) Those testimonies and document related to einsatzgruppen are false, but then you are in contradiction with your claim “you are making a strawman, testimonies are compatible with our position”.

    (2) Documents and testimonies are true (aka “you have only photocopies, not the originals!”). Therefore, you are admit that there were units whose main activity was shooting people and that those units did, indeed, shoot hundreds thousands of people. However you would want us to believe, that despite those units existed, the authorities were not aware of them. You have to claim the unawareness, because if the authorities were aware and did nothing to prevent the atrocities, then the authorities were at least complicit. Moreover, you would have to explain how it is possible that despite all the rhetoric from the highest authorities about how Jewry has to be destroyed, they actually were against what their own soldiers were doing.

    If you are saying “witnesses are ok, but documents are false” or “they exxagerated everything” it doesn’t change much, as witnesses quite often see organized units doing very effectively just one thing, and still you have authorities allowing death squads to operate FOR YEARS. Similarly, there are witnesses to shootings in ghettos. Either witnesses were all confused or wrong, or you have to explain how it is possible that authorities didn’t know about what was happening there, or if they know, why no one was punished, and there was no effort to prevent those activities.

    With My Lai, government has no rhetoric about Vietnamese people had to be destroyed, and the effort was done (even if only half-arsed) to stop the crimes, and responsible soldiers and officers were court-martialed for their acts.

    Note that this is not just about Jews. Poles were shot too by Einsatzgruppen; about 50 thousands intelligentsia was shot during intelligentzaktion alone, and another 50 thousand was shipped to concetration camps, with majority dying there.

    Note that if only 600.000 Jews were killed, then you have to explain what happened to some 5.000.000 others.

    And finally, even if I am an ass and I do not know revisionist position, it doesn’t change one thing: Mathis invited you (all the deniers) to the discussion and was ignored, while at the same time some of you were saying that no discussion is allowed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    "Note that if only 600.000 Jews were killed, then you have to explain what happened to some 5.000.000 others. "

    Why do the Deniers have to explain anything? You are the accuser, you prove your assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. The defender (Deniers) are within their rights to question everything that is being thrown at them; that's how it works in a fair court of law.

    But nooo, the Deniers are thrown in jail, for 14 years no less, for a recent case in Austria! Way to make your case. Not.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Look, when revisionists say that the testimony in which people claim that they pulled out bodies immediately after a gassing, with no reference to any gas masks or protective clothing — that this is false testimony — they are simply pointing out the obvious.
     
    I already addressed this. Stop repeating yourself.

    To say that this specific testimony is false (when it obviously is) is not the same as claiming that all testimony of all concentration camp survivors is false. That is not the revisionist position. It is a straw man.
     
    Fine. Maybe you could post here some testimony that deniers believe is actually true.

    Of course, that you have to trot out these straw man arguments is really just a symptom of the larger problem, which is that you don’t have much of an argument. I myself believed the gas chamber story for most of my life, until I tried to prove to myself that it was true. And then I discovered that I couldn’t. Actually, I couldn’t find any proof that withstands the laugh test.
     
    That's what's called an argument from incredulity.

    What you provide is familiar to me. It’s called “proof by repetition”. Your “proof” of the claim is simply to repeat the claim.
     
    You got me now, Socrates.

    Aren’t you just being wilfully obtuse here? Surely you are able to understand that this is a conditional mode. IF the conventional narrative is true, I.e. IF there really were gas chambers… THEN, yes, millions of people would have seen them. But they still would not have provided any testimony because they WOULD HAVE (note the continued conditional mode) been dead shortly after seeing them.
     
    Right, except that there are also the perpetrators. There are also the Sonderkommando. So that doesn't rule out two whole categories of eyewitnesses.

    The point is that, basically none of the survivors would personally have ever witnessed a gassing or seen a gas chamber. Of course, if there were no gas chambers, then DEFINITELY nobody would have seen them, but even if, for the sake of argument, they did exist… Well…. surely you’re not quite that dumb. You understand the argument but are pretending that you don’t…
     
    No, you were just being unclear.

    Could you outline what “physical evidence” you are referring to?
     
    See below.

    The testimony looks very questionable to say the least. None of the testimony of how a mass gassing and the subsequent cleanup were carried out seems physically possible.
     
    Argument from incredulity.

    So, again, what physical evidence are you referring to?
     
    See:

    http://www.unz.com/emargolis/no-people-have-an-exclusive-on-suffering/#comment-935205

    Concentrate on the bolded portions.

    I already addressed this. Stop repeating yourself.

    I have no idea what you are talking about when you say you “already addressed this”. As best I can figure, you “address” the issue by claiming there is no issue.

    But there is an issue! A huge one! The sheer volume of false testimony. Just search in Google a string like “false holocaust memoir” and a huge amount of material comes up. Fantastical stories, such as a woman claiming she was raised by wolves. That was even made into a movie… a Swiss dude whose real name was Grosjean, I think not even Jewish, who spent the whole of the time as a pampered child in Switzerland, writing a holocaust memoir. There is a woman, Irene Zisblatt, a Hungarian Jewess, who claims she swallowed, defecated, and re-swallowed diamonds for years. And escaped from the inside of a gas chamber!

    There really, really are a lot of false witnesses. And to be fair about this, it’s not solely a holocaust phenomenon. There are fake war memoirs too, somebody says he was at such and such battle and killed so many Germans with his bare hands… And the guy was a clerk in an office job stateside the whole time… things like this…

    In any case, there is a context at this point where a sane person would tend to look at holocaust survivor testimony with some skepticism.

    Still, note, that, to say there is a lot of false testimony is not the same as saying that ALL testimony is false! That is clearly a straw man that you are setting up continually.

    That’s what’s called an argument from incredulity.

    I am pretty certain that you don’t know what “argument from incredulity” really means. It refers to a certain sort of logical fallacy. It doesn’t refer to a case where somebody tells an obvious lie and you decline to believe the lie.

    The testimony in which people claim to have removed thousands of dead bodies from a gassing, using their bare hands — this is clearly false testimony! When you read any description of the protocols, safety procedures in place for the gassing of a single man in the U.S. and compare it to how these false witnesses are claiming that the gassing worked in Auschwitz, you see it’s just not possible. This is false testimony.

    Fine. Maybe you could post here some testimony that deniers believe is actually true.

    I’m pretty sure that typical survivor testimony where the person describes having been crowded onto a train and taken to a concentration camp, separated from their family… most such testimony is not really in dispute. No, the problem is obviously testimony in which people describe things that are not possible, because no real mass execution using poison gas could operate that way.

    Of course, that people don’t believe the woman who says she was raised by wolves or the holocaust survivor who spent the entire war in a Swiss boarding school… or that some woman escaped from a gas chamber…

    I’m sorry, man. I’m of Jewish descent myself, but I can’t stomach this vicious canard where you claim that the people who denounce all these charlatans are antisemites, blah blah. Well, hey, maybe they are, but maybe they just don’t like liars — irrespective of ethnic background! Seriously, have you considered that possibility?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    In my last post, I provided a link to the body of evidence for a certain gas chamber at Birkenau. I notice you didn't address that. In particular, I expect you to be able to plausibly tell me what that room was, if it wasn't a gas chamber.

    Unless and until you do that, I'm not interested in playing with you anymore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Jonathan Revusky

    I already addressed this. Stop repeating yourself.
     
    I have no idea what you are talking about when you say you "already addressed this". As best I can figure, you "address" the issue by claiming there is no issue.

    But there is an issue! A huge one! The sheer volume of false testimony. Just search in Google a string like "false holocaust memoir" and a huge amount of material comes up. Fantastical stories, such as a woman claiming she was raised by wolves. That was even made into a movie... a Swiss dude whose real name was Grosjean, I think not even Jewish, who spent the whole of the time as a pampered child in Switzerland, writing a holocaust memoir. There is a woman, Irene Zisblatt, a Hungarian Jewess, who claims she swallowed, defecated, and re-swallowed diamonds for years. And escaped from the inside of a gas chamber!

    There really, really are a lot of false witnesses. And to be fair about this, it's not solely a holocaust phenomenon. There are fake war memoirs too, somebody says he was at such and such battle and killed so many Germans with his bare hands... And the guy was a clerk in an office job stateside the whole time... things like this...

    In any case, there is a context at this point where a sane person would tend to look at holocaust survivor testimony with some skepticism.

    Still, note, that, to say there is a lot of false testimony is not the same as saying that ALL testimony is false! That is clearly a straw man that you are setting up continually.


    That’s what’s called an argument from incredulity.
     
    I am pretty certain that you don't know what "argument from incredulity" really means. It refers to a certain sort of logical fallacy. It doesn't refer to a case where somebody tells an obvious lie and you decline to believe the lie.

    The testimony in which people claim to have removed thousands of dead bodies from a gassing, using their bare hands -- this is clearly false testimony! When you read any description of the protocols, safety procedures in place for the gassing of a single man in the U.S. and compare it to how these false witnesses are claiming that the gassing worked in Auschwitz, you see it's just not possible. This is false testimony.


    Fine. Maybe you could post here some testimony that deniers believe is actually true.
     
    I'm pretty sure that typical survivor testimony where the person describes having been crowded onto a train and taken to a concentration camp, separated from their family... most such testimony is not really in dispute. No, the problem is obviously testimony in which people describe things that are not possible, because no real mass execution using poison gas could operate that way.

    Of course, that people don't believe the woman who says she was raised by wolves or the holocaust survivor who spent the entire war in a Swiss boarding school... or that some woman escaped from a gas chamber...

    I'm sorry, man. I'm of Jewish descent myself, but I can't stomach this vicious canard where you claim that the people who denounce all these charlatans are antisemites, blah blah. Well, hey, maybe they are, but maybe they just don't like liars -- irrespective of ethnic background! Seriously, have you considered that possibility?

    In my last post, I provided a link to the body of evidence for a certain gas chamber at Birkenau. I notice you didn’t address that. In particular, I expect you to be able to plausibly tell me what that room was, if it wasn’t a gas chamber.

    Unless and until you do that, I’m not interested in playing with you anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    In my last post, I provided a link to the body of evidence for a certain gas chamber at Birkenau.
     
    No, you didn't. You simply made a series of claims and provided no evidence.

    In particular, I expect you to be able to plausibly tell me what that room was, if it wasn’t a gas chamber.
     
    Oh, the good old "argument from ignorance" trick. If I can't tell you what the room was, then it MUST have been a gas chamber!


    Unless and until you do that, I’m not interested in playing with you anymore.
     
    Are you "threatening" to STFU now? What a terrifying threat!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Jonathan Revusky

    I can’t remember right now the names, but I google Faurisson and it seems that ...
     
    Look, if you don't know who Robert Faurisson is, I.e. the name didn't ring a bell when I mentioned it, it means that you are absolutely uneducated about this issue. So your subsequent claim that you've made some deep study of the other side of the debate rings completely false. In fact, I now realize that you don't really know what the basic contours of the debate even are.

    In the absence of real knowledge about what the other side of the debate is even claiming, you invent claims, straw men, that you construct and then try to demolish. For example, you profess to believe that the so-called "deniers" are claiming that ALL survivor testimony is false. This is a straw man. It is not what is being claimed.

    The revisionists are not arguing that all the documentation/testimony is fake. The point is that, by and large, it is just as consistent with the revisionist narrative as the conventional one, if not more so. For example, any eyewitness testimony of massacres, that doubtless occurred, is just as consistent with 600 thousand dead as 6 million. Nor does it prove that the German government really had an exterminationist policy. The My Lei massacre and others definitely occurred, unfortunately, yet nobody is arguing that the U.S. government had the goal of killing every last Vietnamese peasant. No, as brutal as their policy was, it still was not an extermination program.

    Anyway, I'll close the note here. You know, you're making an ass of yourself. You can't claim that you are familiar with the revisionist position and then admit that you don't know who Robert Faurrisson is.

    Oh, just one more question to ponder: "if there is such overwhelming evidence that millions of Jews were murdered in gas chambers, why did anybody ever feel a need to make denial of this a criminal offense? To anybody in possession of common sense, shouldn't this raise huge warning flags?

    I shall respond with 4 points and I don’t anticipate much further discussion because I don’t see how it would be productive.

    FIRST POINT: Unfortunately, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The minute you say that you don’t recognize the name “Robert Faurisson” and had to google the name, this tells anybody with the minimal familiarity with these issues, that you just don’t know very much.

    If somebody claims expertise in economic policy issues but doesn’t know the name “John Maynard Keynes”, this person lacks said expertise.

    SECOND POINT: Yes, the revisionist position is that the people who claim they saw gas chambers are false witnesses. However, very few people claim to have seen gas chambers.

    The revisionists are not claiming that all eyewitness testimony of the events of this period is false. That is a straw man misrepresentation on your part.

    THIRD POINT: I do not believe Leuchter was ever refuted. They may have made some nth order debating points, but the basic problem that the procedure for mass gassing, as described, is technically impossible — for really major first order reasons…. I don’t think the thrust of his argument was ever refuted.

    FOURTH POINT: The point I made regarding the My Lei massacre is not that there was absolute equivalence. The point is simply that the fact that massacres did occur is not the same thing as a systematic exterminationist policy.

    I’ll just closer this by asking a simple question: If the revisionist position had been so decisively refuted, why do the defenders of the official orthodoxy feel compelled to pass laws criminalizing said refuted idea, and seeking to imprison people for figuring their orthodox view? If the orthodox view is so well established by the facts, why is there a need for this?

    Read More
    • Agree: HdC
    • Replies: @szopen
    Actually I am of opinion that thre should be no laws penalizing for "Holocaust denial". However, the existence of such laws is not a proof of Holocaust being fake, or that there is no evidence. If we would suddenly make a law that it is forbidden to claim that Holocaust was true, would taht convince you of anything?
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
    There really is a very easy way to settle this once and for all.

    You say the gas chambers are technically impossible.

    So round up 1,000 like-minded people, put yourself into a room the size of the gas chambers, and have someone throw in some industrial-strength pesticide for a half-hour or so. When you come out alive, you can claim victory once and for all, having proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you were right -- gassings as described by dozens of eyewitnesses were impossible.

    Unless and until you do that, you have nothing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. HdC says:
    @szopen
    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust_6507.html

    "When the victim is anaemic the (classical ‘cherry-pink’) _color may be faint or even absent_ because insufficient haemoglobin is present to display the color. In racially-pigmented victims the color may obviously be masked, though may still be seen on the inner aspect of the lips, the nail-beds, tongue, and palms and soles of hands and feet. It is also seen inside the eyelids, but rarely in the sclera"

    I guess reading the whole thing is bothersome because there is too much verbiage there.

    In the book I perused it stated that in 93% of such poisoned cases one would see pink to red colouration. 6,000,000 x 93/100 = (you figure it out).

    Now then, following your position: Out of 6 million gassed bodies no Jewish witness ever mentioned a reddish hue, even allowing for the variation you mentioned. Simply incredible. But I am repeating myself, sorry.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    (1) _color may be faint or even absent_
    (2) If you even cared to read the linked site, you will see that for a lot of victims oxygen deprivation could play a major factor, which would readily explain "blueish" faces as noted by some witnesses.
    (3) Six millions killed, not gassed.

    EOT
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
    Why do you continue to repeat the same thing when it's been demonstrated to you over and over again that even your assertions of the "orthodox" history are incorrect?

    That's called a straw man, and it doesn't play well with the adults.

    First, no one says six million Jews were gassed. Three million is an absolute upper bound.

    Second, Höss said the bodies with pink with green spots.

    Third, you've been told that anemia would affect rates of red or pink coloring. Moreover, we also know that the more crowded a gas chamber was, the more likely it was that people would suffocate, rather than be poisoned, in which case, they'd turn blue -- not red.

    Stop ignoring the refutations here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. HdC says:
    @szopen
    Look, I discussed with denialists some decade ago. Moreover, I've read "revisionists" other texts and I saw them debunked. How should I know which revisionist is "the real thing" if one says "look at Leuchter!", when he is shown to be wrong someone else jumps and screams "no, look at Rudolf!" and so on. Moreover, if he is absolutely fundamental to revisionists, I am sure those denialists I saw would use arguments from him even without giving him credentials. And indeed, googling now and seeing his arguments, I saw them many times before (i.e. the false claim that personnel need to use gas masks,while even cursory revision of the literature shows that the dangers are far less that he claimed and even nonsensical given that most of the personnel, IIRC, was then scheduled to be killed too; or that the cyanide gas is explosive). If Faurisson is so essential, then the case is really weak.

    I am not making a strawman, BTW. There are witnesses who claimed they saw gas chambers, those who saw gassed victims and so on. I do not see how you can maintain their testimonies are consistent with denialist position without claiming that their testimony is false.

    Finally, let's say that indeed, there were no gas chambers. In my opinion, that wouldn't change that much, as hundreds and hundreds of thousands people (Jewish and non-Jewish) were simply shot and that's still a genocide.

    There are documents about einsatzgruppen actions and testimonies about what einsatzgruppen were doing. I mean, OK, you can doubt reports from Polish underground, because AK was not posting the copies of captured letters or documents, just the abstracts of them, but what about witnesses and documents?

    So, you can argue that:

    (1) Those testimonies and document related to einsatzgruppen are false, but then you are in contradiction with your claim "you are making a strawman, testimonies are compatible with our position".

    (2) Documents and testimonies are true (aka "you have only photocopies, not the originals!"). Therefore, you are admit that there were units whose main activity was shooting people and that those units did, indeed, shoot hundreds thousands of people. However you would want us to believe, that despite those units existed, the authorities were not aware of them. You have to claim the unawareness, because if the authorities were aware and did nothing to prevent the atrocities, then the authorities were at least complicit. Moreover, you would have to explain how it is possible that despite all the rhetoric from the highest authorities about how Jewry has to be destroyed, they actually were against what their own soldiers were doing.

    If you are saying "witnesses are ok, but documents are false" or "they exxagerated everything" it doesn't change much, as witnesses quite often see organized units doing very effectively just one thing, and still you have authorities allowing death squads to operate FOR YEARS. Similarly, there are witnesses to shootings in ghettos. Either witnesses were all confused or wrong, or you have to explain how it is possible that authorities didn't know about what was happening there, or if they know, why no one was punished, and there was no effort to prevent those activities.

    With My Lai, government has no rhetoric about Vietnamese people had to be destroyed, and the effort was done (even if only half-arsed) to stop the crimes, and responsible soldiers and officers were court-martialed for their acts.

    Note that this is not just about Jews. Poles were shot too by Einsatzgruppen; about 50 thousands intelligentsia was shot during intelligentzaktion alone, and another 50 thousand was shipped to concetration camps, with majority dying there.

    Note that if only 600.000 Jews were killed, then you have to explain what happened to some 5.000.000 others.

    And finally, even if I am an ass and I do not know revisionist position, it doesn't change one thing: Mathis invited you (all the deniers) to the discussion and was ignored, while at the same time some of you were saying that no discussion is allowed.

    “Note that if only 600.000 Jews were killed, then you have to explain what happened to some 5.000.000 others. ”

    Why do the Deniers have to explain anything? You are the accuser, you prove your assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. The defender (Deniers) are within their rights to question everything that is being thrown at them; that’s how it works in a fair court of law.

    But nooo, the Deniers are thrown in jail, for 14 years no less, for a recent case in Austria! Way to make your case. Not.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    Why do the Deniers have to explain anything? You are the accuser, you prove your assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. The defender (Deniers) are within their rights to question everything that is being thrown at them; that’s how it works in a fair court of law.
     
    But history isn't a court of law. Moreover, any responsible historian seeking to sustain a particular point of view must provide a narrative that connects the available evidence. The deniers have NEVER provided such a narrative. Ever. Period. The End.

    But nooo, the Deniers are thrown in jail, for 14 years no less, for a recent case in Austria! Way to make your case. Not.
     
    Appeal to sympathy. This says nothing about the accuracy of their views, logically speaking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    I shall respond with 4 points and I don't anticipate much further discussion because I don't see how it would be productive.

    FIRST POINT: Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. The minute you say that you don't recognize the name "Robert Faurisson" and had to google the name, this tells anybody with the minimal familiarity with these issues, that you just don't know very much.

    If somebody claims expertise in economic policy issues but doesn't know the name "John Maynard Keynes", this person lacks said expertise.

    SECOND POINT: Yes, the revisionist position is that the people who claim they saw gas chambers are false witnesses. However, very few people claim to have seen gas chambers.

    The revisionists are not claiming that all eyewitness testimony of the events of this period is false. That is a straw man misrepresentation on your part.

    THIRD POINT: I do not believe Leuchter was ever refuted. They may have made some nth order debating points, but the basic problem that the procedure for mass gassing, as described, is technically impossible -- for really major first order reasons.... I don't think the thrust of his argument was ever refuted.

    FOURTH POINT: The point I made regarding the My Lei massacre is not that there was absolute equivalence. The point is simply that the fact that massacres did occur is not the same thing as a systematic exterminationist policy.

    I'll just closer this by asking a simple question: If the revisionist position had been so decisively refuted, why do the defenders of the official orthodoxy feel compelled to pass laws criminalizing said refuted idea, and seeking to imprison people for figuring their orthodox view? If the orthodox view is so well established by the facts, why is there a need for this?

    Actually I am of opinion that thre should be no laws penalizing for “Holocaust denial”. However, the existence of such laws is not a proof of Holocaust being fake, or that there is no evidence. If we would suddenly make a law that it is forbidden to claim that Holocaust was true, would taht convince you of anything?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    However, the existence of such laws is not a proof of Holocaust being fake, or that there is no evidence.
     
    In what other cases do you see one side of an historical debate criminalizing the other side?

    Do real, established facts need laws like this? "Paris is the capital city of France, it's a fact, and furthermore, if you claim otherwise, we'll throw you in prison."

    If we would suddenly make a law that it is forbidden to claim that Holocaust was true, would taht convince you of anything?
     
    Hmmm, let me put it this way. If they passed a law forbidding you from saying that women have (at least, on average) less aptitude for mathematics than men, that would not prove anything, in and of itself, I suppose. But let's be honest here... wouldn't it augment your already existing suspicions? You would think: If women really are as good at math, why the need for the law?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. szopen says:
    @HdC
    In the book I perused it stated that in 93% of such poisoned cases one would see pink to red colouration. 6,000,000 x 93/100 = (you figure it out).

    Now then, following your position: Out of 6 million gassed bodies no Jewish witness ever mentioned a reddish hue, even allowing for the variation you mentioned. Simply incredible. But I am repeating myself, sorry.

    HdC

    (1) _color may be faint or even absent_
    (2) If you even cared to read the linked site, you will see that for a lot of victims oxygen deprivation could play a major factor, which would readily explain “blueish” faces as noted by some witnesses.
    (3) Six millions killed, not gassed.

    EOT

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Check with the Holocaust museum in Washington DC, USA. The official party line is 6 million Jews gassed.

    Go and argue with them.

    Every time you offer another "explanation" as to why the gassed bodies would not be pink - red, you will need to provide evidence, nay proof, that the exceptions noted in whatever tome you are referring to, applies to this case.

    This is the weakness of the holocaust narrative: Every time a Denier presents a fact in defense of his position and substantiates this fact with publicly available information, the holocaustians need to dream up another explanation to try and refute these new facts and, ofttime, throw other claims in question.

    So now it is oxygen deprivation. Your eyewitnesses claimed that the victims died in a few minutes, so how did this oxygen deprivation come about? Where they in the "gas chambers" for hours, thus running out of oxygen? Funny no holocaustian has ever claimed this. Proof?

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @HdC
    "Note that if only 600.000 Jews were killed, then you have to explain what happened to some 5.000.000 others. "

    Why do the Deniers have to explain anything? You are the accuser, you prove your assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. The defender (Deniers) are within their rights to question everything that is being thrown at them; that's how it works in a fair court of law.

    But nooo, the Deniers are thrown in jail, for 14 years no less, for a recent case in Austria! Way to make your case. Not.

    HdC

    Why do the Deniers have to explain anything? You are the accuser, you prove your assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. The defender (Deniers) are within their rights to question everything that is being thrown at them; that’s how it works in a fair court of law.

    But history isn’t a court of law. Moreover, any responsible historian seeking to sustain a particular point of view must provide a narrative that connects the available evidence. The deniers have NEVER provided such a narrative. Ever. Period. The End.

    But nooo, the Deniers are thrown in jail, for 14 years no less, for a recent case in Austria! Way to make your case. Not.

    Appeal to sympathy. This says nothing about the accuracy of their views, logically speaking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    "But history isn’t a court of law." Agreed, but then history does not compel an entire nation, now for the third generation, to pay Blackmail ahem "reparations" for some trumped up fable of sick minds.

    The person jailed in Austria is a Professional Engineer, as am I. You know, those guys who make damn sure that the bridges you cross do not collapse, the elevator you use does its job, airplanes are ok to use, hoist and lifts are safe to use etc. etc. (Of course, neglect recommended maintenance and all bets are off).

    We use the laws of physics and mathematics to ensure the foregoing, and and when the same principles are applied to the claims of the holocaust that narrative is found wanting.

    You must be deaf, dumb, and blind, if you have never heard or read a Denier's narrative, to wit:

    The Hoax of the 20th Century
    Did 6 million really die?
    Witness to History
    How Wars are Made
    Debating the Holocaust
    Lectures on the Holocaust

    Then there are:
    Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War
    Profiles in Courage
    Icebreaker

    And on a more humerous note: Hitler visits Oprah

    Have a nice read.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @HdC
    In the book I perused it stated that in 93% of such poisoned cases one would see pink to red colouration. 6,000,000 x 93/100 = (you figure it out).

    Now then, following your position: Out of 6 million gassed bodies no Jewish witness ever mentioned a reddish hue, even allowing for the variation you mentioned. Simply incredible. But I am repeating myself, sorry.

    HdC

    Why do you continue to repeat the same thing when it’s been demonstrated to you over and over again that even your assertions of the “orthodox” history are incorrect?

    That’s called a straw man, and it doesn’t play well with the adults.

    First, no one says six million Jews were gassed. Three million is an absolute upper bound.

    Second, Höss said the bodies with pink with green spots.

    Third, you’ve been told that anemia would affect rates of red or pink coloring. Moreover, we also know that the more crowded a gas chamber was, the more likely it was that people would suffocate, rather than be poisoned, in which case, they’d turn blue — not red.

    Stop ignoring the refutations here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @HdC
    During the Nuremberg trials German officers were judged guilty of the Katyn massacre. Probably executed, too, but I don't recall this for sure.

    The Soviet Generals who sat in judgement turned out to be responsible for that massacre.

    Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union was it acknowledged that the Soviets had been responsible for that murder scene.

    Agreed that the powers-that-be in most western countries knew who the real perpetrators were but chose to keep quiet because it was more politically expedient to blame the Germans. Sound familiar?

    BTW you forgot to answer my position on where the Polish Jews went during the war; any reasoned thoughts on this?

    In the oppression of minorities in their respective countries, the Poles take a back seat to no one. 35,000 German ex-patriates murdered in Poland, and Germany is the bad guy here for trying to stop that?

    I have read some of the so-called rebuttals to the positions taken by so-called revisionists; I have found them to be incomprehensible. This might not mean much to you but I do have considerable knowledge and ability in sorting the wheat from the chaff. Occams Razor is of considerable help here.

    HdC

    During the Nuremberg trials German officers were judged guilty of the Katyn massacre. Probably executed, too, but I don’t recall this for sure.

    The Soviet Generals who sat in judgement turned out to be responsible for that massacre.

    Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union was it acknowledged that the Soviets had been responsible for that murder scene.

    Red herring.

    By the way, it was the NKVD who did Katyn — not the Red Army.

    Agreed that the powers-that-be in most western countries knew who the real perpetrators were but chose to keep quiet because it was more politically expedient to blame the Germans. Sound familiar?

    Nope.

    BTW you forgot to answer my position on where the Polish Jews went during the war; any reasoned thoughts on this?

    Is it your assertion that the NKVD shot three million Polish Jews? You’d really, really need to prove that.

    In the oppression of minorities in their respective countries, the Poles take a back seat to no one. 35,000 German ex-patriates murdered in Poland, and Germany is the bad guy here for trying to stop that?

    Even assuming your figure of 35,000 Germans is correct, there’s such a thing as proportionality. Six million Polish citizens died in the war. The Germans leveled Warsaw. You’re going to be hard-pressed to find a country outside of the USSR that suffered more than Poland.

    I have read some of the so-called rebuttals to the positions taken by so-called revisionists; I have found them to be incomprehensible. This might not mean much to you but I do have considerable knowledge and ability in sorting the wheat from the chaff. Occams Razor is of considerable help here.

    Indeed, Occam’s razor states that when explanations are competing, the simpler explanation that covers the evidence is usually right.

    So six million Jews went missing. A ton of evidence suggests they were killed by various means. Occam’s razor says you must conclude they were killed, absent any evidence they survived.

    So unless you have some evidence of survival to provide, that seems like game over to me, nu?

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    "A ton of evidence suggests...."

    There you go again with your assertions; there is not single solitary shred of forensic evidence to support your continuous fable.

    Where are these facts you keep pontificating about???

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @HdC
    May I respectfully point you to the archives of the New York Times newspaper where, since about 1870 or so, 6 million Jews being subjected to various deprivations including holocausts, has been written about perhaps 5 times. This from memory.

    Glad you mention cess pool. In whose memoirs does it appear about swallowing diamonds that were defecated? Who wrote that she had to defecate and eat from the same bowl? Etc., etc.

    Methinks the holocaustians fall distinctly into the category you so picturesquely describe.

    HdC

    Great, so you search the Times archive for references to six million Jews and you find five or so references.

    Now run this Boolean search:

    (“million Jews”) OR (“millions of Jews”) AND PDN(>1/1/1900) AND PDN(<8/31/1939) AND NOT ("six million Jews") AND NOT ("6 million Jews")

    and tell us all how many hits.

    Wait, I'll spoil it for you: 220.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    They are more than references, more like full length articles lamenting how 6 million were being holocausted or whatever.

    You might make an effort to look them up as they are on-line and easily available.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Andrew E. Mathis
    In my last post, I provided a link to the body of evidence for a certain gas chamber at Birkenau. I notice you didn't address that. In particular, I expect you to be able to plausibly tell me what that room was, if it wasn't a gas chamber.

    Unless and until you do that, I'm not interested in playing with you anymore.

    In my last post, I provided a link to the body of evidence for a certain gas chamber at Birkenau.

    No, you didn’t. You simply made a series of claims and provided no evidence.

    In particular, I expect you to be able to plausibly tell me what that room was, if it wasn’t a gas chamber.

    Oh, the good old “argument from ignorance” trick. If I can’t tell you what the room was, then it MUST have been a gas chamber!

    Unless and until you do that, I’m not interested in playing with you anymore.

    Are you “threatening” to STFU now? What a terrifying threat!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    I freaking HATE repeating myself.

    * There are several dozen eyewitnesses, including not only surviving Sonderkommando, but also SS officers. These eyewitneses have testified over the course of 70 years on five continents without any evidence WHATSOEVER of coordination of their testimonies.

    * Four forensic examinations have found cyanide on the walls of the gas chamber. These levels are higher than would be there for a single fumigation but lower for what would be there were the room used as a fumigation chamber on a regular basis. The levels are consistent with the use of the room as a gas chamber as described by the dozens of eyewitnesses.

    * A document refers to this room as a Vergasungskeller. We know the room wasn't a fumigation chamber, because they were in a different building. We also know it wasn't an air raid shelter, because there's no testimony to that effect. We know no gas was produced there because it would have been dangerous to do so in such close proximity to cremation ovens. That leaves essentially only one alternative.

    You have to answer that evidence with another plausible explanation.

    You cannot do it. You know that, so you won't even try.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Jonathan Revusky

    In my last post, I provided a link to the body of evidence for a certain gas chamber at Birkenau.
     
    No, you didn't. You simply made a series of claims and provided no evidence.

    In particular, I expect you to be able to plausibly tell me what that room was, if it wasn’t a gas chamber.
     
    Oh, the good old "argument from ignorance" trick. If I can't tell you what the room was, then it MUST have been a gas chamber!


    Unless and until you do that, I’m not interested in playing with you anymore.
     
    Are you "threatening" to STFU now? What a terrifying threat!

    I freaking HATE repeating myself.

    * There are several dozen eyewitnesses, including not only surviving Sonderkommando, but also SS officers. These eyewitneses have testified over the course of 70 years on five continents without any evidence WHATSOEVER of coordination of their testimonies.

    * Four forensic examinations have found cyanide on the walls of the gas chamber. These levels are higher than would be there for a single fumigation but lower for what would be there were the room used as a fumigation chamber on a regular basis. The levels are consistent with the use of the room as a gas chamber as described by the dozens of eyewitnesses.

    * A document refers to this room as a Vergasungskeller. We know the room wasn’t a fumigation chamber, because they were in a different building. We also know it wasn’t an air raid shelter, because there’s no testimony to that effect. We know no gas was produced there because it would have been dangerous to do so in such close proximity to cremation ovens. That leaves essentially only one alternative.

    You have to answer that evidence with another plausible explanation.

    You cannot do it. You know that, so you won’t even try.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    You do know what "Offenkundig" means in German jurisprudence?

    It means that the claptrap propagated by the holocaustians and their hangers-on is accepted as prima facie evidence of the holocaust by the court! Any lawyer who tries to introduce evidence to the contrary is jailed.

    Consequently the only defence an accused can enter is of the yes... but type. Yes it happened as you say, but I was following orders or, I had nothing to do with it or I didn't know about it.

    Hence you get all these "confessions" in order to mitigate personal culpability because that is the defense forced by the court's intransigence. Trying to present rock-hard evidence that certain things did not or could not have happened as charged automatically results in a "guilty" verdict.

    There were over 8,000 cases a year in Germany trying to nip questioning in the bud.

    But that, of course cannot be tolerated, the flow billions of Euros must be kept going to Israel -submarines at rock-bottom prices- and now requested by the third generation of "survivors.

    What a pathetic bunch the holocaustians are, especially those Germans that swallowed that line of Greuelpropaganda hook, line, and sinker.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. HdC says:
    @szopen
    (1) _color may be faint or even absent_
    (2) If you even cared to read the linked site, you will see that for a lot of victims oxygen deprivation could play a major factor, which would readily explain "blueish" faces as noted by some witnesses.
    (3) Six millions killed, not gassed.

    EOT

    Check with the Holocaust museum in Washington DC, USA. The official party line is 6 million Jews gassed.

    Go and argue with them.

    Every time you offer another “explanation” as to why the gassed bodies would not be pink – red, you will need to provide evidence, nay proof, that the exceptions noted in whatever tome you are referring to, applies to this case.

    This is the weakness of the holocaust narrative: Every time a Denier presents a fact in defense of his position and substantiates this fact with publicly available information, the holocaustians need to dream up another explanation to try and refute these new facts and, ofttime, throw other claims in question.

    So now it is oxygen deprivation. Your eyewitnesses claimed that the victims died in a few minutes, so how did this oxygen deprivation come about? Where they in the “gas chambers” for hours, thus running out of oxygen? Funny no holocaustian has ever claimed this. Proof?

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    The official party line is 6 million Jews gassed.
     
    This isn't even remotely true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Why do the Deniers have to explain anything? You are the accuser, you prove your assertions beyond a reasonable doubt. The defender (Deniers) are within their rights to question everything that is being thrown at them; that’s how it works in a fair court of law.
     
    But history isn't a court of law. Moreover, any responsible historian seeking to sustain a particular point of view must provide a narrative that connects the available evidence. The deniers have NEVER provided such a narrative. Ever. Period. The End.

    But nooo, the Deniers are thrown in jail, for 14 years no less, for a recent case in Austria! Way to make your case. Not.
     
    Appeal to sympathy. This says nothing about the accuracy of their views, logically speaking.

    “But history isn’t a court of law.” Agreed, but then history does not compel an entire nation, now for the third generation, to pay Blackmail ahem “reparations” for some trumped up fable of sick minds.

    The person jailed in Austria is a Professional Engineer, as am I. You know, those guys who make damn sure that the bridges you cross do not collapse, the elevator you use does its job, airplanes are ok to use, hoist and lifts are safe to use etc. etc. (Of course, neglect recommended maintenance and all bets are off).

    We use the laws of physics and mathematics to ensure the foregoing, and and when the same principles are applied to the claims of the holocaust that narrative is found wanting.

    You must be deaf, dumb, and blind, if you have never heard or read a Denier’s narrative, to wit:

    The Hoax of the 20th Century
    Did 6 million really die?
    Witness to History
    How Wars are Made
    Debating the Holocaust
    Lectures on the Holocaust

    Then there are:
    Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War
    Profiles in Courage
    Icebreaker

    And on a more humerous note: Hitler visits Oprah

    Have a nice read.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    “But history isn’t a court of law.” Agreed, but then history does not compel an entire nation, now for the third generation, to pay Blackmail ahem “reparations” for some trumped up fable of sick minds.
     
    You're aware that reparations are paid to SURVIVORS, right?

    The person jailed in Austria is a Professional Engineer, as am I. You know, those guys who make damn sure that the bridges you cross do not collapse, the elevator you use does its job, airplanes are ok to use, hoist and lifts are safe to use etc. etc. (Of course, neglect recommended maintenance and all bets are off).

    We use the laws of physics and mathematics to ensure the foregoing, and and when the same principles are applied to the claims of the holocaust that narrative is found wanting.
     
    Please provide an example. Also, you'll need to specify which type of engineer you are. Expertise in one area does not mean expertise in all.

    You must be deaf, dumb, and blind, if you have never heard or read a Denier’s narrative, to wit:

    The Hoax of the 20th Century
    Did 6 million really die?
    Witness to History
    How Wars are Made
    Debating the Holocaust
    Lectures on the Holocaust

     

    None of these books suggests a narrative. All they do is attempt to impeach individual sources.

    Then there are:
    Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War
    Profiles in Courage
    Icebreaker
     
    These are not books about the Holocaust.

    Wanna try again?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Great, so you search the Times archive for references to six million Jews and you find five or so references.

    Now run this Boolean search:

    ("million Jews") OR ("millions of Jews") AND PDN(>1/1/1900) AND PDN(<8/31/1939) AND NOT ("six million Jews") AND NOT ("6 million Jews")

    and tell us all how many hits.

    Wait, I'll spoil it for you: 220.

    They are more than references, more like full length articles lamenting how 6 million were being holocausted or whatever.

    You might make an effort to look them up as they are on-line and easily available.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    You haven't addressed my argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    During the Nuremberg trials German officers were judged guilty of the Katyn massacre. Probably executed, too, but I don’t recall this for sure.

    The Soviet Generals who sat in judgement turned out to be responsible for that massacre.

    Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union was it acknowledged that the Soviets had been responsible for that murder scene.
     
    Red herring.

    By the way, it was the NKVD who did Katyn -- not the Red Army.

    Agreed that the powers-that-be in most western countries knew who the real perpetrators were but chose to keep quiet because it was more politically expedient to blame the Germans. Sound familiar?
     
    Nope.

    BTW you forgot to answer my position on where the Polish Jews went during the war; any reasoned thoughts on this?
     
    Is it your assertion that the NKVD shot three million Polish Jews? You'd really, really need to prove that.

    In the oppression of minorities in their respective countries, the Poles take a back seat to no one. 35,000 German ex-patriates murdered in Poland, and Germany is the bad guy here for trying to stop that?
     
    Even assuming your figure of 35,000 Germans is correct, there's such a thing as proportionality. Six million Polish citizens died in the war. The Germans leveled Warsaw. You're going to be hard-pressed to find a country outside of the USSR that suffered more than Poland.

    I have read some of the so-called rebuttals to the positions taken by so-called revisionists; I have found them to be incomprehensible. This might not mean much to you but I do have considerable knowledge and ability in sorting the wheat from the chaff. Occams Razor is of considerable help here.
     
    Indeed, Occam's razor states that when explanations are competing, the simpler explanation that covers the evidence is usually right.

    So six million Jews went missing. A ton of evidence suggests they were killed by various means. Occam's razor says you must conclude they were killed, absent any evidence they survived.

    So unless you have some evidence of survival to provide, that seems like game over to me, nu?

    “A ton of evidence suggests….”

    There you go again with your assertions; there is not single solitary shred of forensic evidence to support your continuous fable.

    Where are these facts you keep pontificating about???

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Here you go:

    http://www.unz.com/ldinh/flagless-germany/#comment-1187081
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/world/australia/australia-feral-cat-cull-brigitte-bardot-morrissey.html

    Eco-systems are destroyed by invasive species.

    Geno-systems are destroyed by invasive migrations.

    Look what happened to Kosovo as the result of Albanian Muslim migrations and takeover. Serbs lost their ancestral land forever. To reclaim it, they would have to do to Kosovo Albanians what the Jews did to Palestinians, and that would be too bloody. Not worth it.

    Kosovo now has a new geno-system.

    Native Australian mammals are being destroyed by cats introduced by Anglos.

    Still, they should just trap the cats, round them up and put them in giant cat farms where they will be sterilized and left to live out in peace with cat food.

    Too unpleasant to kill all those gatos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. @HdC
    Check with the Holocaust museum in Washington DC, USA. The official party line is 6 million Jews gassed.

    Go and argue with them.

    Every time you offer another "explanation" as to why the gassed bodies would not be pink - red, you will need to provide evidence, nay proof, that the exceptions noted in whatever tome you are referring to, applies to this case.

    This is the weakness of the holocaust narrative: Every time a Denier presents a fact in defense of his position and substantiates this fact with publicly available information, the holocaustians need to dream up another explanation to try and refute these new facts and, ofttime, throw other claims in question.

    So now it is oxygen deprivation. Your eyewitnesses claimed that the victims died in a few minutes, so how did this oxygen deprivation come about? Where they in the "gas chambers" for hours, thus running out of oxygen? Funny no holocaustian has ever claimed this. Proof?

    HdC

    The official party line is 6 million Jews gassed.

    This isn’t even remotely true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @HdC
    They are more than references, more like full length articles lamenting how 6 million were being holocausted or whatever.

    You might make an effort to look them up as they are on-line and easily available.

    HdC

    You haven’t addressed my argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stubborn in Germany
    Andrew, I hope you don't mind my curiosity, but why are you doing this?

    It's impossible to change the mind of a holocaust denier, I think you know this.

    Are you persisting because you are concerned about innocent minds being poisoned if you let the lies go unopposed? There can't be more than a handful of lurkers left still reading this thread, it's unlikely even one of them will be swayed.

    Aren't there more valuable things for you to do with your time than grapple with tar babies? (If you're British, it's an American folk tale: Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @HdC
    "But history isn’t a court of law." Agreed, but then history does not compel an entire nation, now for the third generation, to pay Blackmail ahem "reparations" for some trumped up fable of sick minds.

    The person jailed in Austria is a Professional Engineer, as am I. You know, those guys who make damn sure that the bridges you cross do not collapse, the elevator you use does its job, airplanes are ok to use, hoist and lifts are safe to use etc. etc. (Of course, neglect recommended maintenance and all bets are off).

    We use the laws of physics and mathematics to ensure the foregoing, and and when the same principles are applied to the claims of the holocaust that narrative is found wanting.

    You must be deaf, dumb, and blind, if you have never heard or read a Denier's narrative, to wit:

    The Hoax of the 20th Century
    Did 6 million really die?
    Witness to History
    How Wars are Made
    Debating the Holocaust
    Lectures on the Holocaust

    Then there are:
    Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War
    Profiles in Courage
    Icebreaker

    And on a more humerous note: Hitler visits Oprah

    Have a nice read.

    HdC

    “But history isn’t a court of law.” Agreed, but then history does not compel an entire nation, now for the third generation, to pay Blackmail ahem “reparations” for some trumped up fable of sick minds.

    You’re aware that reparations are paid to SURVIVORS, right?

    The person jailed in Austria is a Professional Engineer, as am I. You know, those guys who make damn sure that the bridges you cross do not collapse, the elevator you use does its job, airplanes are ok to use, hoist and lifts are safe to use etc. etc. (Of course, neglect recommended maintenance and all bets are off).

    We use the laws of physics and mathematics to ensure the foregoing, and and when the same principles are applied to the claims of the holocaust that narrative is found wanting.

    Please provide an example. Also, you’ll need to specify which type of engineer you are. Expertise in one area does not mean expertise in all.

    You must be deaf, dumb, and blind, if you have never heard or read a Denier’s narrative, to wit:

    The Hoax of the 20th Century
    Did 6 million really die?
    Witness to History
    How Wars are Made
    Debating the Holocaust
    Lectures on the Holocaust

    None of these books suggests a narrative. All they do is attempt to impeach individual sources.

    Then there are:
    Churchill and Hitler, the Unnecessary War
    Profiles in Courage
    Icebreaker

    These are not books about the Holocaust.

    Wanna try again?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @HdC
    "A ton of evidence suggests...."

    There you go again with your assertions; there is not single solitary shred of forensic evidence to support your continuous fable.

    Where are these facts you keep pontificating about???

    HdC
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Andrew E. Mathis
    You haven't addressed my argument.

    Andrew, I hope you don’t mind my curiosity, but why are you doing this?

    It’s impossible to change the mind of a holocaust denier, I think you know this.

    Are you persisting because you are concerned about innocent minds being poisoned if you let the lies go unopposed? There can’t be more than a handful of lurkers left still reading this thread, it’s unlikely even one of them will be swayed.

    Aren’t there more valuable things for you to do with your time than grapple with tar babies? (If you’re British, it’s an American folk tale: Br’er Rabbit and the briar patch.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    My target is always the lurker. But you're probably right...
    , @William
    I think that Stubborn in Germany has things exactly backward. The fact is that one can never convince a Holocaust believer that 6 million Jews did not die by one means or another in Nazi concentration camps just as majority opinion says. I was not an eye witness when the horrible events supposedly occurred and consequently do not know what actually happened or did not happen. What I do know is that every method of political and moral pressure has been constantly exerted to reinforce the view that the Holocaust happened precisely as books and films tell us it did and that it is literally against the law in Canada, Germany, and dozens of other countries to deny the Holocaust. That is where I come in. Such laws are the death of free speech and inquiry and are a disgrace to the countries that have them. Such laws are truly the substance of dictatorship, the very sort of thing we would expect from Stalin or Hitler.
    No one, no government, can tell anyone what opinions he can or can not say or write. Such laws negate the concept of freedom.
    The world will never know the truth of what happened if all discussion is banned.
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    It's impossible to change the mind of a holocaust denier, I think you know this.
     
    It's exceedingly hard to change anybody's opinion about anything in an internet discussion, but if you were to do so, surely you would need some actual arguments, no? Mathis's approach to pricing the conventional line is simply to repeat the story.

    It's actually quite the same as the approach of a religious fanatic. You ask him what the proof is that some story in the bible is true, and the person's "proof" is simply to repeat the bible story.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Diversity and Perversity!!!

    Bring in Third World hordes and celebrate ‘gay gay gay’.

    That’s what the West is all about. Invite the World to a ‘Gay Pride’ Festival.

    Both Diversity and Perversity are heavily funded by Jews.

    http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/lost-in-trans-nation/Content?oid=3027282

    http://www.texasobserver.org/book-review-queer-brown-voices/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  150. @Stubborn in Germany
    Andrew, I hope you don't mind my curiosity, but why are you doing this?

    It's impossible to change the mind of a holocaust denier, I think you know this.

    Are you persisting because you are concerned about innocent minds being poisoned if you let the lies go unopposed? There can't be more than a handful of lurkers left still reading this thread, it's unlikely even one of them will be swayed.

    Aren't there more valuable things for you to do with your time than grapple with tar babies? (If you're British, it's an American folk tale: Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch.)

    My target is always the lurker. But you’re probably right…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. William says:
    @Stubborn in Germany
    Andrew, I hope you don't mind my curiosity, but why are you doing this?

    It's impossible to change the mind of a holocaust denier, I think you know this.

    Are you persisting because you are concerned about innocent minds being poisoned if you let the lies go unopposed? There can't be more than a handful of lurkers left still reading this thread, it's unlikely even one of them will be swayed.

    Aren't there more valuable things for you to do with your time than grapple with tar babies? (If you're British, it's an American folk tale: Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch.)

    I think that Stubborn in Germany has things exactly backward. The fact is that one can never convince a Holocaust believer that 6 million Jews did not die by one means or another in Nazi concentration camps just as majority opinion says. I was not an eye witness when the horrible events supposedly occurred and consequently do not know what actually happened or did not happen. What I do know is that every method of political and moral pressure has been constantly exerted to reinforce the view that the Holocaust happened precisely as books and films tell us it did and that it is literally against the law in Canada, Germany, and dozens of other countries to deny the Holocaust. That is where I come in. Such laws are the death of free speech and inquiry and are a disgrace to the countries that have them. Such laws are truly the substance of dictatorship, the very sort of thing we would expect from Stalin or Hitler.
    No one, no government, can tell anyone what opinions he can or can not say or write. Such laws negate the concept of freedom.
    The world will never know the truth of what happened if all discussion is banned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Hey, looky here:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_Holocaust_denial_is_legal
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    I freaking HATE repeating myself.

    * There are several dozen eyewitnesses, including not only surviving Sonderkommando, but also SS officers. These eyewitneses have testified over the course of 70 years on five continents without any evidence WHATSOEVER of coordination of their testimonies.

    * Four forensic examinations have found cyanide on the walls of the gas chamber. These levels are higher than would be there for a single fumigation but lower for what would be there were the room used as a fumigation chamber on a regular basis. The levels are consistent with the use of the room as a gas chamber as described by the dozens of eyewitnesses.

    * A document refers to this room as a Vergasungskeller. We know the room wasn't a fumigation chamber, because they were in a different building. We also know it wasn't an air raid shelter, because there's no testimony to that effect. We know no gas was produced there because it would have been dangerous to do so in such close proximity to cremation ovens. That leaves essentially only one alternative.

    You have to answer that evidence with another plausible explanation.

    You cannot do it. You know that, so you won't even try.

    You do know what “Offenkundig” means in German jurisprudence?

    It means that the claptrap propagated by the holocaustians and their hangers-on is accepted as prima facie evidence of the holocaust by the court! Any lawyer who tries to introduce evidence to the contrary is jailed.

    Consequently the only defence an accused can enter is of the yes… but type. Yes it happened as you say, but I was following orders or, I had nothing to do with it or I didn’t know about it.

    Hence you get all these “confessions” in order to mitigate personal culpability because that is the defense forced by the court’s intransigence. Trying to present rock-hard evidence that certain things did not or could not have happened as charged automatically results in a “guilty” verdict.

    There were over 8,000 cases a year in Germany trying to nip questioning in the bud.

    But that, of course cannot be tolerated, the flow billions of Euros must be kept going to Israel -submarines at rock-bottom prices- and now requested by the third generation of “survivors.

    What a pathetic bunch the holocaustians are, especially those Germans that swallowed that line of Greuelpropaganda hook, line, and sinker.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Well then it's a good thing that much of that testimony came from outside courtrooms in Germany, eh? Five continents, seventy years.

    You have no argument.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @HdC
    You do know what "Offenkundig" means in German jurisprudence?

    It means that the claptrap propagated by the holocaustians and their hangers-on is accepted as prima facie evidence of the holocaust by the court! Any lawyer who tries to introduce evidence to the contrary is jailed.

    Consequently the only defence an accused can enter is of the yes... but type. Yes it happened as you say, but I was following orders or, I had nothing to do with it or I didn't know about it.

    Hence you get all these "confessions" in order to mitigate personal culpability because that is the defense forced by the court's intransigence. Trying to present rock-hard evidence that certain things did not or could not have happened as charged automatically results in a "guilty" verdict.

    There were over 8,000 cases a year in Germany trying to nip questioning in the bud.

    But that, of course cannot be tolerated, the flow billions of Euros must be kept going to Israel -submarines at rock-bottom prices- and now requested by the third generation of "survivors.

    What a pathetic bunch the holocaustians are, especially those Germans that swallowed that line of Greuelpropaganda hook, line, and sinker.

    HdC

    Well then it’s a good thing that much of that testimony came from outside courtrooms in Germany, eh? Five continents, seventy years.

    You have no argument.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    Read up on "Invented memory Syndrome".

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Jonathan Revusky
    I shall respond with 4 points and I don't anticipate much further discussion because I don't see how it would be productive.

    FIRST POINT: Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. The minute you say that you don't recognize the name "Robert Faurisson" and had to google the name, this tells anybody with the minimal familiarity with these issues, that you just don't know very much.

    If somebody claims expertise in economic policy issues but doesn't know the name "John Maynard Keynes", this person lacks said expertise.

    SECOND POINT: Yes, the revisionist position is that the people who claim they saw gas chambers are false witnesses. However, very few people claim to have seen gas chambers.

    The revisionists are not claiming that all eyewitness testimony of the events of this period is false. That is a straw man misrepresentation on your part.

    THIRD POINT: I do not believe Leuchter was ever refuted. They may have made some nth order debating points, but the basic problem that the procedure for mass gassing, as described, is technically impossible -- for really major first order reasons.... I don't think the thrust of his argument was ever refuted.

    FOURTH POINT: The point I made regarding the My Lei massacre is not that there was absolute equivalence. The point is simply that the fact that massacres did occur is not the same thing as a systematic exterminationist policy.

    I'll just closer this by asking a simple question: If the revisionist position had been so decisively refuted, why do the defenders of the official orthodoxy feel compelled to pass laws criminalizing said refuted idea, and seeking to imprison people for figuring their orthodox view? If the orthodox view is so well established by the facts, why is there a need for this?

    There really is a very easy way to settle this once and for all.

    You say the gas chambers are technically impossible.

    So round up 1,000 like-minded people, put yourself into a room the size of the gas chambers, and have someone throw in some industrial-strength pesticide for a half-hour or so. When you come out alive, you can claim victory once and for all, having proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you were right — gassings as described by dozens of eyewitnesses were impossible.

    Unless and until you do that, you have nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky

    So round up 1,000 like-minded people, put yourself into a room the size of the gas chambers, and have someone throw in some industrial-strength pesticide for a half-hour or so.
     
    Well, you see, the above shows clearly that you've never really made any honest intellectual attempt to understand the basic contours of the debate.

    The issue is NOT whether it is possible to kill people with poison gas. The issue is that you have to be able to poison them AND subsequently do a cleanup WITHOUT poisoning yourself! If you really believe, as you are representing, that this is something technically trivial, it means that you have never seriously studied the question. You discredit yourself in the same way @szopen did when he claimed that he had studied the revisionist position but then admitted that he did not know the name Robert Faurisson, had to google it.

    So we have eyewitness testimony from the Nuremberg trial and elsewhere that describes a gassing and subsequent cleanup procedure that is clearly impossible. (Though, regardless, even if it were possible, that would not constitute proof that it really happened.)

    Moreover, there is another very puzzling issue. Given how relatively easy it would be just to machine gun the people crowded into this small space, why would they ever opt for such a novel killing method? It doesn't really make an awful lot of sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @William
    I think that Stubborn in Germany has things exactly backward. The fact is that one can never convince a Holocaust believer that 6 million Jews did not die by one means or another in Nazi concentration camps just as majority opinion says. I was not an eye witness when the horrible events supposedly occurred and consequently do not know what actually happened or did not happen. What I do know is that every method of political and moral pressure has been constantly exerted to reinforce the view that the Holocaust happened precisely as books and films tell us it did and that it is literally against the law in Canada, Germany, and dozens of other countries to deny the Holocaust. That is where I come in. Such laws are the death of free speech and inquiry and are a disgrace to the countries that have them. Such laws are truly the substance of dictatorship, the very sort of thing we would expect from Stalin or Hitler.
    No one, no government, can tell anyone what opinions he can or can not say or write. Such laws negate the concept of freedom.
    The world will never know the truth of what happened if all discussion is banned.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Stubborn in Germany
    Andrew, I hope you don't mind my curiosity, but why are you doing this?

    It's impossible to change the mind of a holocaust denier, I think you know this.

    Are you persisting because you are concerned about innocent minds being poisoned if you let the lies go unopposed? There can't be more than a handful of lurkers left still reading this thread, it's unlikely even one of them will be swayed.

    Aren't there more valuable things for you to do with your time than grapple with tar babies? (If you're British, it's an American folk tale: Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch.)

    It’s impossible to change the mind of a holocaust denier, I think you know this.

    It’s exceedingly hard to change anybody’s opinion about anything in an internet discussion, but if you were to do so, surely you would need some actual arguments, no? Mathis’s approach to pricing the conventional line is simply to repeat the story.

    It’s actually quite the same as the approach of a religious fanatic. You ask him what the proof is that some story in the bible is true, and the person’s “proof” is simply to repeat the bible story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Andrew E. Mathis
    There really is a very easy way to settle this once and for all.

    You say the gas chambers are technically impossible.

    So round up 1,000 like-minded people, put yourself into a room the size of the gas chambers, and have someone throw in some industrial-strength pesticide for a half-hour or so. When you come out alive, you can claim victory once and for all, having proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that you were right -- gassings as described by dozens of eyewitnesses were impossible.

    Unless and until you do that, you have nothing.

    So round up 1,000 like-minded people, put yourself into a room the size of the gas chambers, and have someone throw in some industrial-strength pesticide for a half-hour or so.

    Well, you see, the above shows clearly that you’ve never really made any honest intellectual attempt to understand the basic contours of the debate.

    The issue is NOT whether it is possible to kill people with poison gas. The issue is that you have to be able to poison them AND subsequently do a cleanup WITHOUT poisoning yourself! If you really believe, as you are representing, that this is something technically trivial, it means that you have never seriously studied the question. You discredit yourself in the same way did when he claimed that he had studied the revisionist position but then admitted that he did not know the name Robert Faurisson, had to google it.

    So we have eyewitness testimony from the Nuremberg trial and elsewhere that describes a gassing and subsequent cleanup procedure that is clearly impossible. (Though, regardless, even if it were possible, that would not constitute proof that it really happened.)

    Moreover, there is another very puzzling issue. Given how relatively easy it would be just to machine gun the people crowded into this small space, why would they ever opt for such a novel killing method? It doesn’t really make an awful lot of sense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    You are saying: "he claimed that he had studied the revisionist position"

    I said: "when I was younger (something like 15 years ago) __I did argue a lot__ with Holocaust deniers and __I read quite a lot__ of the material they directed me to. I can’t remember right now the names, but I google Faurisson and it seems that it comes from 90s, so __most likely I’ve read it__, though I do not remember the name "

    And, in fact, since I started this discussion and started reading faurisson pieces which popped in google, I see nothing I had not seen before. Yes, I forgot the name - but I remembered his arguments, at least those which I found when I started googling him.
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
    Wow, it's like you've never cracked a book before.

    Shooting women, children, and the elderly was terrible for the morale of German soldiers.

    At any rate, way to move the goalposts.

    Also: Another argument from incredulity. Your belief that it's impossible doesn't make it impossible.

    Only one way to prove it's impossible. So how's it going rounding up those 999 friends or so?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @szopen
    Actually I am of opinion that thre should be no laws penalizing for "Holocaust denial". However, the existence of such laws is not a proof of Holocaust being fake, or that there is no evidence. If we would suddenly make a law that it is forbidden to claim that Holocaust was true, would taht convince you of anything?

    However, the existence of such laws is not a proof of Holocaust being fake, or that there is no evidence.

    In what other cases do you see one side of an historical debate criminalizing the other side?

    Do real, established facts need laws like this? “Paris is the capital city of France, it’s a fact, and furthermore, if you claim otherwise, we’ll throw you in prison.”

    If we would suddenly make a law that it is forbidden to claim that Holocaust was true, would taht convince you of anything?

    Hmmm, let me put it this way. If they passed a law forbidding you from saying that women have (at least, on average) less aptitude for mathematics than men, that would not prove anything, in and of itself, I suppose. But let’s be honest here… wouldn’t it augment your already existing suspicions? You would think: If women really are as good at math, why the need for the law?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Appeal to emotion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    So round up 1,000 like-minded people, put yourself into a room the size of the gas chambers, and have someone throw in some industrial-strength pesticide for a half-hour or so.
     
    Well, you see, the above shows clearly that you've never really made any honest intellectual attempt to understand the basic contours of the debate.

    The issue is NOT whether it is possible to kill people with poison gas. The issue is that you have to be able to poison them AND subsequently do a cleanup WITHOUT poisoning yourself! If you really believe, as you are representing, that this is something technically trivial, it means that you have never seriously studied the question. You discredit yourself in the same way @szopen did when he claimed that he had studied the revisionist position but then admitted that he did not know the name Robert Faurisson, had to google it.

    So we have eyewitness testimony from the Nuremberg trial and elsewhere that describes a gassing and subsequent cleanup procedure that is clearly impossible. (Though, regardless, even if it were possible, that would not constitute proof that it really happened.)

    Moreover, there is another very puzzling issue. Given how relatively easy it would be just to machine gun the people crowded into this small space, why would they ever opt for such a novel killing method? It doesn't really make an awful lot of sense.

    You are saying: “he claimed that he had studied the revisionist position”

    I said: “when I was younger (something like 15 years ago) __I did argue a lot__ with Holocaust deniers and __I read quite a lot__ of the material they directed me to. I can’t remember right now the names, but I google Faurisson and it seems that it comes from 90s, so __most likely I’ve read it__, though I do not remember the name ”

    And, in fact, since I started this discussion and started reading faurisson pieces which popped in google, I see nothing I had not seen before. Yes, I forgot the name – but I remembered his arguments, at least those which I found when I started googling him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    I have just skimmed over the various comments you have made on this page. There is a problem here. There is simply no sign that you know what the revisionist thesis even is.

    My interaction with you began when you claimed that the revisionists (you call them "deniers") were claiming that all survivor testimony is false. I pointed out to you that this was a straw man. That is most certainly not the revisionist position. I pointedly asked you whether you had read any of the revisionist literature, and mentioned the name of Faurisson. You admitted that you did not know the name and had had to google it.

    Based on this alone, it is very hard, nigh impossible, to take you seriously in this conversation. In any case, your claim that you have made a serious study of the revisionist position seems to be a false claim. This is the conclusion I have drawn. I don't take any pleasure in it or anything. That's just the way it is. I'm being completely honest with you.

    Maybe I'm being unfair, but regardless, there is no point in your repeating the claim that you have made a serious study of holocaust revisionism, because I don't believe this to be true. For you to repeat this claim will not cause me to change my view.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Jonathan Revusky

    So round up 1,000 like-minded people, put yourself into a room the size of the gas chambers, and have someone throw in some industrial-strength pesticide for a half-hour or so.
     
    Well, you see, the above shows clearly that you've never really made any honest intellectual attempt to understand the basic contours of the debate.

    The issue is NOT whether it is possible to kill people with poison gas. The issue is that you have to be able to poison them AND subsequently do a cleanup WITHOUT poisoning yourself! If you really believe, as you are representing, that this is something technically trivial, it means that you have never seriously studied the question. You discredit yourself in the same way @szopen did when he claimed that he had studied the revisionist position but then admitted that he did not know the name Robert Faurisson, had to google it.

    So we have eyewitness testimony from the Nuremberg trial and elsewhere that describes a gassing and subsequent cleanup procedure that is clearly impossible. (Though, regardless, even if it were possible, that would not constitute proof that it really happened.)

    Moreover, there is another very puzzling issue. Given how relatively easy it would be just to machine gun the people crowded into this small space, why would they ever opt for such a novel killing method? It doesn't really make an awful lot of sense.

    Wow, it’s like you’ve never cracked a book before.

    Shooting women, children, and the elderly was terrible for the morale of German soldiers.

    At any rate, way to move the goalposts.

    Also: Another argument from incredulity. Your belief that it’s impossible doesn’t make it impossible.

    Only one way to prove it’s impossible. So how’s it going rounding up those 999 friends or so?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    Why do you post such a response if you're not even going to address a single point I made?

    Shooting women, children, and the elderly was terrible for the morale of German soldiers.
     
    What point are you trying to make here? Are you saying that the Germans chose to gas the Jews as an execution method rather than shooting them because shooting them would be "terrible for morale"??!! (But gassing somehow wouldn't be....)

    That may be the first thing you've said that I never heard before! It's quite an extraordinary argument. I never heard that before. It's really quite extraordinary....


    Only one way to prove it’s impossible. So how’s it going rounding up those 999 friends or so?
     
    I think you should be more respectful. Not towards me, mind you, but towards the topic of conversation. It is a very serious matter and to turn the discussion into a pathetic childish farce the way you are doing now -- I actually find this highly offensive.

    I already addressed the point you are attempting to make. The issue is not whether you could kill people this way. The issue is that you have to have a streamlined process whereby the executioners gas the people, remove and dispose of the bodies, all without poisoning themselves. Even executing a single individual by gassing is, apparently, not at all technically trivial.

    So when you have eyewitness testimony that describes a slapdash procedure that could never work, it really is hard not to come to the conclusion that said testimony is false, that these are false witnesses. At least, I do not see how any intellectually honest person could look at this and come to any other conclusion. But, to make matters worse, when the defenders of this gas chamber narrative use their political power to pass laws making it a criminal offense to question their story, it really should be fairly obvious to anybody with a grain of common sense that the story is just false, the witnesses are false witnesses...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Jonathan Revusky

    However, the existence of such laws is not a proof of Holocaust being fake, or that there is no evidence.
     
    In what other cases do you see one side of an historical debate criminalizing the other side?

    Do real, established facts need laws like this? "Paris is the capital city of France, it's a fact, and furthermore, if you claim otherwise, we'll throw you in prison."

    If we would suddenly make a law that it is forbidden to claim that Holocaust was true, would taht convince you of anything?
     
    Hmmm, let me put it this way. If they passed a law forbidding you from saying that women have (at least, on average) less aptitude for mathematics than men, that would not prove anything, in and of itself, I suppose. But let's be honest here... wouldn't it augment your already existing suspicions? You would think: If women really are as good at math, why the need for the law?

    Appeal to emotion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Well then it's a good thing that much of that testimony came from outside courtrooms in Germany, eh? Five continents, seventy years.

    You have no argument.

    Read up on “Invented memory Syndrome”.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Can Invented Memory Syndrome produce documents and chemical evidence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @HdC
    Read up on "Invented memory Syndrome".

    HdC

    Can Invented Memory Syndrome produce documents and chemical evidence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    We were discussing what people confessed to.

    The other issues you mention have no physical proof to substantiate your claim.

    HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Incredible.

    http://pamelageller.com/2015/10/town-of-4000-finds-out-it-will-receive-3000-refugees-if-you-dont-like-hosting-refugees-in-your-town-you-can-leave-the-country.html/

    THIS is happening to Europe, but dumb Germans think Russians are the bad guys.

    Russians left a long time ago, dummies!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  165. Christian says:

    Soon it will be illegal in the US to fly anything but a rainbow flag too, since it is all ready de-facto illegal to fly the confederate flag.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-confederate-flag-supporters-face-terrorism-charges/
    If they have to reach to the bottom of the barrel for “terrorism charges” it is because they didn’t actually do anything illegal. They are being indited on a thought crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Did you forget to read this part?

    "One had a gun, saying he was gonna kill the n******," Melissa Alford, who was holding the birthday party, told the paper. "Then one of them said, 'Gimme the gun, I'll shoot them n******."
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Andrew E. Mathis
    Wow, it's like you've never cracked a book before.

    Shooting women, children, and the elderly was terrible for the morale of German soldiers.

    At any rate, way to move the goalposts.

    Also: Another argument from incredulity. Your belief that it's impossible doesn't make it impossible.

    Only one way to prove it's impossible. So how's it going rounding up those 999 friends or so?

    Why do you post such a response if you’re not even going to address a single point I made?

    Shooting women, children, and the elderly was terrible for the morale of German soldiers.

    What point are you trying to make here? Are you saying that the Germans chose to gas the Jews as an execution method rather than shooting them because shooting them would be “terrible for morale”??!! (But gassing somehow wouldn’t be….)

    That may be the first thing you’ve said that I never heard before! It’s quite an extraordinary argument. I never heard that before. It’s really quite extraordinary….

    Only one way to prove it’s impossible. So how’s it going rounding up those 999 friends or so?

    I think you should be more respectful. Not towards me, mind you, but towards the topic of conversation. It is a very serious matter and to turn the discussion into a pathetic childish farce the way you are doing now — I actually find this highly offensive.

    I already addressed the point you are attempting to make. The issue is not whether you could kill people this way. The issue is that you have to have a streamlined process whereby the executioners gas the people, remove and dispose of the bodies, all without poisoning themselves. Even executing a single individual by gassing is, apparently, not at all technically trivial.

    So when you have eyewitness testimony that describes a slapdash procedure that could never work, it really is hard not to come to the conclusion that said testimony is false, that these are false witnesses. At least, I do not see how any intellectually honest person could look at this and come to any other conclusion. But, to make matters worse, when the defenders of this gas chamber narrative use their political power to pass laws making it a criminal offense to question their story, it really should be fairly obvious to anybody with a grain of common sense that the story is just false, the witnesses are false witnesses…

    Read More
    • Agree: HdC
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @szopen
    You are saying: "he claimed that he had studied the revisionist position"

    I said: "when I was younger (something like 15 years ago) __I did argue a lot__ with Holocaust deniers and __I read quite a lot__ of the material they directed me to. I can’t remember right now the names, but I google Faurisson and it seems that it comes from 90s, so __most likely I’ve read it__, though I do not remember the name "

    And, in fact, since I started this discussion and started reading faurisson pieces which popped in google, I see nothing I had not seen before. Yes, I forgot the name - but I remembered his arguments, at least those which I found when I started googling him.

    I have just skimmed over the various comments you have made on this page. There is a problem here. There is simply no sign that you know what the revisionist thesis even is.

    My interaction with you began when you claimed that the revisionists (you call them “deniers”) were claiming that all survivor testimony is false. I pointed out to you that this was a straw man. That is most certainly not the revisionist position. I pointedly asked you whether you had read any of the revisionist literature, and mentioned the name of Faurisson. You admitted that you did not know the name and had had to google it.

    Based on this alone, it is very hard, nigh impossible, to take you seriously in this conversation. In any case, your claim that you have made a serious study of the revisionist position seems to be a false claim. This is the conclusion I have drawn. I don’t take any pleasure in it or anything. That’s just the way it is. I’m being completely honest with you.

    Maybe I’m being unfair, but regardless, there is no point in your repeating the claim that you have made a serious study of holocaust revisionism, because I don’t believe this to be true. For you to repeat this claim will not cause me to change my view.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    You seem to misunderstood. I have not claimed to "study" your position. I have claimed to argue in the past with revisionists and that I have read a lot of the material they have send me. My impression of revisionist position is the impression created by the denialist. If they wanted to convince me, they have to bring the best artillery they got - and you are the first "revisionist" I talked to, who claims that witnesses testimonies are actually compatible with your position.

    Moreover, you admitted you think that you think testimonies about gassing are false, so I am not strawmanning that much.

    OTOH, even without gassing there is a lot of testimonies and documents about mass-shooting of Jews. This mass-shooting was widespread, affected hundreds of thousands of people and lasted over many years. The testimonies are also about arresting people by German authorities and then shooting those people (e.g. in case of intelligenzaktion). There is no escape to conclude that even without gassing, Germans were responsible for mass murder. But you claimed that there was no such thing.

    Why you are now claiming that I misrepresent your position? I mean, how can you say "testimonies are compatible with revisionist position" while at the same time thinking, that there was no deliberate effort to murder people?

    But ok, please clarify your position to me. Which of the below is your opinion:
    (1) Jews and Poles were murdered by Germans on a mass scale, and this was German policy
    (2) Jews and Poles were murdered on a mass scale, but authorities were unaware
    (3) Jews and Poles were murdered, but not on a mass scale
    (4) Jews and Poles were not murdered at all, and deaths happened as a result of war condition.

    In my opinion, (1) means you believe in Holocaust, but you contest number of victims and methods. (2) means you have to explain how it is possible that authorities were unaware of something which happened over course of many years and resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. (3) and (4) means you have to think that testimonies are, in fact, false and this is in contradiction to your claim you have made here, especially (4) is blatantly in contradiction to the testimonies, while (3) is barely defensible only by assuming a lot of testimonies are either false or exxagerated (and by handwaving documents as falsified, and ignoring mass graves).

    So, which is your position? Or maybe it is different from the all four above? Please, clarify it for me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Why do you post such a response if you’re not even going to address a single point I made?

    Pot… kettle… black.

    What point are you trying to make here? Are you saying that the Germans chose to gas the Jews as an execution method rather than shooting them because shooting them would be “terrible for morale”??!! (But gassing somehow wouldn’t be….)

    It takes far fewer people to run a gas chamber than it does to shoot all the people in a village. Moreover, the latter action must usually be done by soldiers because it’s happening close to the front.

    If you’d read anything about the Holocaust, you’d know that gassing was adopted from the T4 program for the Final Solution because there were serious morale problems based on the shooting of women and children. It is a major development in the fall and early winter of 1941.

    That may be the first thing you’ve said that I never heard before! It’s quite an extraordinary argument. I never heard that before. It’s really quite extraordinary….

    I’m not surprised.

    I think you should be more respectful. Not towards me, mind you, but towards the topic of conversation. It is a very serious matter and to turn the discussion into a pathetic childish farce the way you are doing now — I actually find this highly offensive.

    Bite me.

    I already addressed the point you are attempting to make. The issue is not whether you could kill people this way. The issue is that you have to have a streamlined process whereby the executioners gas the people, remove and dispose of the bodies, all without poisoning themselves. Even executing a single individual by gassing is, apparently, not at all technically trivial.

    I already discussed how this was possible. I’m not going to repeat myself.

    So when you have eyewitness testimony that describes a slapdash procedure that could never work,

    Come on… give it a whirl.

    it really is hard not to come to the conclusion that said testimony is false, that these are false witnesses. At least, I do not see how any intellectually honest person could look at this and come to any other conclusion.

    Pot… kettle…

    But, to make matters worse, when the defenders of this gas chamber narrative use their political power to pass laws making it a criminal offense to question their story, it really should be fairly obvious to anybody with a grain of common sense that the story is just false, the witnesses are false witnesses…

    Appeal to pity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. @Christian
    Soon it will be illegal in the US to fly anything but a rainbow flag too, since it is all ready de-facto illegal to fly the confederate flag.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-confederate-flag-supporters-face-terrorism-charges/
    If they have to reach to the bottom of the barrel for "terrorism charges" it is because they didn't actually do anything illegal. They are being indited on a thought crime.

    Did you forget to read this part?

    “One had a gun, saying he was gonna kill the n******,” Melissa Alford, who was holding the birthday party, told the paper. “Then one of them said, ‘Gimme the gun, I’ll shoot them n******.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Europeans have lost faith in their Old World formulation.

    As the US, the New World nation, became the richest, most powerful, most creative, most fun, most dynamic, and most productive nation in the 20th century — whereas Old World rivalries tore Europe apart in two great wars — , Europe wants to do away with the Old and bring in the New. US is the template for Europe. Europe must be reinvented like America constantly is. It’s old roots, bonds, histories, and identities must go.

    Since US bills itself as a nation founded on an Idea(proposition) and as a Nation of Immigrants — and a nation that reinvents itself like the fashion industry —, Europe feels it must to do the same(to survive and compete). Besides, there’s Hollywood, American pop music(with considerable black roots), and American domination in sports, in no small part to its black population. (If American blacks beat up white Europeans for American pride, why shouldn’t Europeans make black Africans into black Europeans and win for the pride of Europe?)

    European Right is dead and gone. So, the idea of European tradition and community is buried and gone. In our consumerist age, constancy and consistency are boring. Everyone wants something new, flashy, and glitzy.

    There was the European Left, but that too went away with the fall of Marxism and communism. There is still social-democracy, but with massive immigration, the social-democratic model will also fade away as Europe will become Third-World-ized. Only the globalist elites will gain something by pools of cheaper labor. In a way, the rise of immigration and the ‘rightward’ shift of European politics will be good for elites. As the population grows darker, whites will be less willing to pay taxes to support the darkies. Social-democracy will weaken as people vote against social-democracy. As white ‘right-wingers’ vote for smaller government, elites will have to pay less in taxes. And as the population diversifies, the elites will be met with less class conflict since the white masses and non-white masses will be at odds with one another than with the elites(that will be globalized and made up of whites and non-whites; chances diversity will be more harmonious at the top than in the middle and the bottom cuz the rich classes have more wealth and privilege to share among themselves). But this ‘rightward’ turn in politics won’t do much to stem the tide of immigration since even the elites of ‘rightist’ parties are committed, more or less, to ‘diversity’. Since when has any ‘right’ party in US, Canada, or EU managed to slow, let alone, slow immigration. Look at UK under ‘rightist’ Cameron.

    What now goes by progressivism and leftism is ‘gay rights’ and ‘tranny’ decadence. It’s just Hollywood and Las Vegas values. The symbols of today’s ‘progressivism’ would have been most welcome in Batista’s casinos in Havana prior to the Revolution.

    [MORE]

    Decadence is the ‘new revolution’. It wants Che Guevara in a dress, wig, and make-up than with an AK-47 and puritanical devotion to the struggle.

    Europe’s idea of ‘progressivism’ is cheering for the Bearded ‘Lady’ on Eurovision.

    So, the true European Left is gone and lost forever. LA CAGE AUX FOLLES is the new Battleship Potemkin, the new Battle of Algiers. Neo-aristocratic Flamboyant Fruitkins now dictate what the Revolution is all about, and they have the full backing of super-rich Jews on Wall Street, Las Vegas, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.

    As Europeans have lost faith and commitment to Old World history, identity, culture, and territoriality, they just look to America for all the answers.
    As Europeans have lost faith in the classic Revolution based on Reason, Intellect, Philosophy, Serious Learning, and etc, again, they gaze across the Atlantic for the thrills. Whatever one may say of Marx, Gramsci, Sartre, and etc. they were part of a serious European tradition that revered book learning, essay writing, intellectual seriousness, and commitment to the life of the mind. As such, this form of leftism was immune to the power of American Pop Culture. Jean-Luc Godard had great admiration of American Cinema, but his serious European intellectual side equipped him with the means to resist the American cultural onslaught. This was also true of leftist European artists/intellectuals like Pier Paolo Pasolini and Michel Foucault. Like them or not, they formulated a manner of European thought and ideology that was independent of and resistant to the American Cultural and Political Empire.

    http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/pasolinis-theorem

    But with the fading of the last Old Rightists like Charles De Gaulle (his kind would never rise again) and the decline of European Revolutionary thought (owing to the failure of Soviet communism, disastrous consequences of Third World movements, and self-defeating esotericism of intellectualism that began to chase its own tail with ever more highfalutin theorizing that one could understand), the sense of distinct European pride and confidence in culture and ideas grew weaker. Europeans got tired of tradition, territorialism, and identity as not only boring, dead, and dull but evil, ‘racist’, and ‘hateful’(as PC took hold of Europe as the May 68 generation began to take over).
    They began to see Europe less as a fortress than as a prison.

    Many Europeans dreamed of traveling all over the world, maybe immigrating to America or Canada or living as ex-patriots in Asia or Africa. Why be stuck in Europe? What once seemed like a homeland seemed like a prison for small-minded people. So, let’s have globalism that opens up all the world to Europeans, and let’s open up Europe to all the world. Let’s build ‘bridges’, the favorite motif of Clinton, Obama, and Remnick.
    Each European nation is tiny compared to the US and Canada and Latin America. Even with all those nations together, Western Europe looks and feels small compared to the rest of the world. Being ‘stuck’ in Europe feels like a prison.
    In contrast, the idea of traveling in America feels like the world. And indeed, living in America does feel like you’re in a world unto yourself as it is so big, with 50 states and with vast oceans on both sides. Europeans want that feeling failed to get it even with the creation of EU. So, American-ness became the new template for European mind-set. Even in Europe, Europeans wanted to feel as if they were living in an infinitely expansive world-nation without limits(and who can deny that that is a great feature of Americanism?).

    And even though Europeans like to think of themselves as more learned than Americans, no one could make any sense of the new intellectualism that arose in the 70s. Some people credit the rise of pop culture consciousness among the educated classes to the fading of distinction between highbrow art and lowbrow entertainment, but it also had something to do with the fact that serious culture and intellectual community became too obfuscatory, opaque, jargon-laden, highfalutin, esoteric, specialist, and impenetrable. As Sokal proved, even the academics came to lose sight of what means what.

    http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/weinberg.html

    Just like Third Wave feminism steeped in pop culture was a reaction to Second Wave feminism that became overly radical, intellectual, puritanical, and theoretical, the rise of Pop Culture consciousness among the cultural elites owed partly to the fact tha even intellectuals and cultured folks got tired of trying to make sense out of Derrida or the next Godard film, which made less and less sense. At least in the 60s, young people were looking forward to the Revolution and carried by its spirit.
    By the 80s when the Revolution failed to materialize and communism crumbled all over the world, there was no more excitement in theories, intellectualism, and etc. People just wanted to have power, privilege, and fun. So, the new Leftism favored stuff like ‘gay agenda’, third world slut-skank feminism, rap-as-revolution, and other antic-laden silliness. Warhol had foreseen this.

    And professors learned that they couldn’t engage young people with Derrida and Godard and that stuff. If you want to engage the masses of young people, you had to promote stuff like politics of porn, ‘gay’ flamboyance, and Negro antics.
    It’s no wonder that the thinkers of the millen-generation are idiots like Amanda Marcotte and The Hissy Coates who be yapping about ‘black body’, sheeeeiiiiit.
    Even though most people aren’t homo, that ‘gay’ stuff appeals to young people cuz homos are so colorful, vain, narcissistic, and expressive. More fun to watch a homo act it up than read a long serious essay about art, culture, and history. Also, the subject of sex is must more salacious, sensationalist, and fun than other subjects. So, if the new Left invokes ‘racism’ to morally browbeat everyone, it also injects sexology into everything to liven it up with ‘boing’ and ‘buru buru’.

    With loss of respect/reverence for their past(which is now seen as old, crusty, reactionary, atavistic, tribal, ‘racist’, and ‘nationalist’), Europeans have lost their sense of patriotism and heritage. So, they look to the American model of having a fun and exciting time by ‘reinventing’ oneself and one’s nation.

    And as Europeans have lost their intellectual culture — due to too much radical highfalutin obfuscation-ism that lost the interest of young people and folks at large — , they no longer know what tools to use to critique and resist the American Empire(controlled by Jews). Besides, with US universities leading the world in everything, most social/political theories that shape Europe now come from America(especially its Jewish folks who dominate US colleges and media).
    Also, gradually, Jewish finance and networks have gained control of European elites who no longer represent their own people but serve the Zio-globalists.
    There are no more Charles DeGaulles, not even Margaret Thatchers. You have cucks all over.
    George W. Bush the cowboy offered a golden opportunity for Europeans to hate the vulgar trashy Americans and feel culturally, politically, & morally superior for awhile, but once US got itself a cosmo-Negro president, Europeans have been feeling rather weak and inferior on matters of political morality. I mean Europe has yet to elect non-white national leaders. Gee whiz.

    As for spirituality, Christianity is totally dead, and the new faith is Holocaustianity, especially in Germany where young kids are raised with the conviction of white original sin of murdering Jews. So, white Europeans feel that they must revere Jews at all times and forever atone for the crime that can never be cleansed from their souls.
    This is crazy since no people hate Europeans more than Jews do.

    In this light, the only governing ideology of Europe is Americanism versus True Americanism. Americanism is what America is about. True Americanism is what the Ideal America should really be like(according to Europeans), and Europeans hope to represent and realize this dream of True Americanism before Americans do.

    It’s sort of like the difference between American Liberals and American Conservatives. It’s not really a war between Liberalism and Conservatism but between Liberalism and True Liberalism(represented by Conservatives). It’s like Liberals say ‘we are anti-racist’, and Conservatives says, ‘no, you Liberals are closet-racist, and we conservatives are the true anti-racists because we love blacks more than you do.’ For example, Conservatives claim to revere MLK more than Liberals so; Conservatives claim to send more aid and charity to Africa; Conservatives claim to oppose abortion because it kills so many innocent black babies; Conservative men claim to be proud to have a Negro knock up his daughter; John Boehner even cried with joy when his daughter decided to become a mudshark. And of course, Conservatives accuse Liberals of being ‘antisemitic’ because Liberals are for Israel only 100% whereas Conservatives are for Israel 1000%. If Israeli Jews killed all the Palestinians, Liberals might grumble and complain a little. Those antisemites!!! In contrast, Conservatives would sing hosannas to the Jews who wiped out the Palestinians. They would be the true lovers of Jews.

    A similar mentality prevails among Europeans who are now totally invested in the American Proposition. Europeans sometimes hate America not because Americanism is contrary to Europeanism but because Americanism has yet to fulfill its True Americanism. As far as Europeans are concerned, US is still too white, too ‘racist’, too ‘reactionary’, and too ‘conservative’. US has yet to become a total nation of immigrants, a totally globalist nation where everyone is racially mixed like into a human mongrel.
    So, what Europeans hope to do is to achieve True Americanism in Europe before Americans get around to doing it in America.
    True Americanism is the New Europeanism.
    So, Europeans will increase diversity faster than Americans do. Europeans will muddy their blood by race-mixing faster than Americans will. And maybe Europeans can elect non-white presidents who are not only half-black but fully black or Arab or Pakistani. And maybe every European woman will have a kid with non-white man, especially a Negro. And maybe every European will listen to reggae more than to any other kind of music.

    That is all that is left in Europe. Sure, there are pockets of resistance like Hungary, but the prevailing EU ideology and trends comes from Germany, UK, and France(t0tal cuck-nations of Jewish-America) than from backwater Eastern European nations.

    Though Russia stands for a different kind of civilizational ideal, most Russians are also pretty much slaves of American-style popular culture, and Russian elites get most of their ideas from the West that is controlled by the US. So, in the long run, the counter-model of Russia may fail in Russia itself.

    We have this idea that Europeans are anti-American, but the paradox is the main reason why Europeans sometimes hate America is because America isn’t (True)American enough. Europeans have totally imbibed the American Proposition. Now, they see American Civilization as superior in every way to European Civilization. Americanism stands for the vibrant future, Europeanism stands for the mummified past(and European landmarks are just vacation spots for tourists from all over than sacred places to Europeans).
    But of course, it pains the Europeans on some level to feel that America, a young nation, has bested the Europeans in just about everything. So, the ONLY way that Europeans can feel superior to Americans is by claiming that “we are more Truly American than you Americans.”

    Obama understands this psychology. He recently went to Sweden and flattered the Swedish by suggesting that Swedes would make better Americans than real Americans do. You see, unlike the wonderful Swedes who are truly committed to globalism and interracism, there are still too many Americans who are ‘racist’ and give Negrobama a hard time and call him names.

    When Swedes hear this, they feel, “Oh, if only WE were Americans because we are far less racist than those hypocritical white Americans, and we would have done our utmost to do everything to help the first black president.”

    It’s all very icky.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Can Invented Memory Syndrome produce documents and chemical evidence?

    We were discussing what people confessed to.

    The other issues you mention have no physical proof to substantiate your claim.

    HdC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    1. Where was this Krematoria?

    2. What was its size?

    3. What was its configuration?

    4. Italy was in the grip of a typhus epidemic 1943 - 1945. Germans were planning and ultimately did deport about 5000 Jews (supposedly) to Auschwitz in 1943. Having experienced a severe epidemic at Auschwitz in 1942 --

    THERE WERE other matters concerning German prison camps on which Whitehall preferred to turn a blind eye. Rumours were still trickling out of Hitler's empire about things happening to the Jews.

    Britain already had evidence from codebreaking and diplomatic sources that the Germans were deporting the Jews from Germany and other parts of Europe under their control to ghettoes and camps in the Government-General (formerly Poland) where malnutrition, epidemics, brutal conditions, and executions were taking an immense toll.[1]

    There was no shortage of Intelligence about the continued 'cleaning-up' operations in the east.

    Minute by D Allen, Sep 10, 1942 (PRO file FO.371/30917).
    GC&CS German Police section, report ZIP/MSGP.37, dated Aug 11, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/6, part i).

    The codebreakers had only just intercepted a message from the southern Russian front, reporting a Judenaktion on July 23 forty miles south-west of Kamenets, during which seven hundred Jews found incapable of work had been shot. [2]



    FO to Quito, No. 105, Dec 27, 1941 (PRO file FO.371/26515); Mr Hughes Hallett had inquired what questions to ask 100 German Jewish refugees shortly arriving in Ecuador.
    Tel. Norton (Berne) to FO, No. 2831, Aug 10, 1942, with the text of a telegram from Riegner to Sydney Silverman MP (PRO file FO.371/30917). The 30-year-old Riegner claimed to have the report from a 'German industrialist,' whom he has refused to identify. Dr Benjamin Sagalowitz, press officer of the Swiss Jewish community, claimed to have given the name to Leland Harrison, the American ambassador in Berne, to place in a sealed envelope; there is no archival evidence to support this. Walter Laqueur, writing in Encounter, Jul 1980, page 13, expressed doubts that the man was German or an industrialist. Harrison regarded Riegner's story as a 'wild rumor inspired by Jewish fears' (ibid.; NA: RG.226, Berne, folder 2, box 2, entry 4).


    Despite this, the foreign office was inclined to treat the more lurid public reports with scepticism. They were regarded as part of the international Zionist campaign which was continuing regardless of the war effort. 'Information from Jewish refugees is generally coloured and frequently unreliable,' the F.O. had reminded one diplomatic outpost in December 1941.[1]

    When such a telegram arrived from Geneva on August 10, 1942, composed by Gerhart Riegner, the youthful secretary of the World Jewish Congress, it ran into this wall of institutional disbelief: Riegner claimed that Hitler's headquarters was planning to deport up to four million Jews from Nazi-occupied countries to the east during the coming autumn, where they were to be exterminated 'in order to resolve, once and for all, the Jewish question in Europe.' Killing methods under discussion included, claimed Riegner, the use of hydrogen-cyanide.[2]

    . . .

    There was nothing new in such allegations: after World War One the American Jewish community had raised a similar outcry about what they had even then called a 'holocaust'; the governor of New York had claimed in a 1919 speech that 'six million' Jews were being exterminated.[1] In 1936, three years before the war, Victor Gollancz Ltd. had published a book entitled The Extermination of the Jews in Germany. In April 1937 a typical article in Breslau's Jewish newspaper had been headline, "The Liquidation Campaign against the Jews in Poland."[2] They had cried wolf too often before. In internal papers, the F.O. remarked that there was no confirmation for Riegner's story from 'other sources' - a hint at ULTRA.[3]

    There was a marked reluctance to exploit the stories for propaganda, and the files show that there was little public sympathy with the Jews in wartime Britain. A year before, the ministry of information had directed the horror stories were to be used only sparing, and they must always deal with the maltreatment of 'indisputably innocent' people - 'not with violent political opponents,' they amplified. 'And not with Jews.'[4]

    Sydney Silverman, a Labour member of Parliament, asked permission to phone Riegner's report through to Rabbi Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress in New York; the foreign office disallowed this, arguing quaintly that this would merely provoke the Germans who 'always listen to such conversations.'[5] While they felt that they might profitably consult PWE (their own Political Warfare Executive) about Riegner's 'rather wild story,' that was the only further action they would take.[6] There is no indication that Riegner's message was ever put before Churchill, who was in Cairo and Moscow at that time.



    . . .

    Similar 'wild stories' did however reach the United States. On September 4 the Polish ambassador in Washington produced to Lord Halifax 'an awful report about the Germans exterminating all the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto at the rate of 100,000 a month.' Halifax added: 'They are supposed to make various things they want out of the boiled-down corpses. I wonder whether this horror is true.* A good deal more likely to be true, I fancy, than it was in the last war.'[1]

    A few mornings later he noted heartlessly a visit by Rabbi Wise and a colleague 'whose talk was exactly like that of a stage Jew.' Grim though the subject-matter of their visit was, as the ambassador privately recorded, 'it was all I could do to keep a straight face when he chipped in.' They depicted in vivid detail how the Nazis were deporting French Jews to the east to kill them. 'If this is true,' Halifax cautioned himself, 'how vile it is of Laval to hand any more poor wretches over.'[2] Again the foreign office line was one of scepticism. In September 1944 a British diplomat would argue against publicising the atrocity stories on the heartless ground that it would compel officials to 'waste a disproportionate amount of their time dealing with wailing Jews.'

    * It was not true.

    GC&CS German police section report No. 40/42, dated Sep 26 (PRO file HW.16/6, part ii; and HW1/929). The intercepts also established that as from Sep 1, 1942 'deaths from natural causes' among prisoners in concentration camps were to be reported 'only on pro-formas (durch Formblatt).' The typhus epidemic that ravaged Nazi-controlled Europe from late 1941 to the end of the war was very real, and GC&CS was evidently briefed to focus attention on it. See e.g. 'Police Report,' Oct 17, 1941 ('There has been noted a pretty consistent demand for Anti-typhoid lymph in the eastern areas for the inoculation of Police units. It is difficult to know whether these demands in any way exceed the normal, given the conditions occasioned by war') and the report 'Typhus III,' signed by [Nigel] de G[rey], Jan 24, 1942, in PRO files HW1/148 and HW.16/6 part ii respectively.

    The Polish under-ground deliberately spread typhus among German occupation forces: see e.g. the report from the SS Polizeiführer in Galicia to SS OGruf. Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger, Jun 30, 1943 (Hoover Library, Ms. DS 135, G2G37).

    Col. L Mitkiewicz, Polish liaison officer to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to the CCS (100th Mtg, Jul 2, 1943) that in the first four months of 1943 the Polish underground had poisoned 526 Germans and administered 'typhoid fever microbes and typhoid fever lice' to Germans 'in a few hundred cases.'

    See too Report on The Polish Secret Army to Brig Gen John R Deane, JCS Secretariat, Sep 7, 1943 (NA, RG.218, Joints Chiefs of Staff, file CCS/381 'Poland - 6.30.1943 - Sec.1'). Such methods may have backfired on the Poles, as epidemics are poor respecters of persons.
    See Reader's letter: Frank Lowe Jr has information on Hitler's order, Wannsee; and the Typhus War

    Later in September 1942 information did reach Churchill from his secret sources lifting a corner of the veil on Hitler's concentration camps. Analysis of their commandants' secret returns, transmitted in cypher to Berlin, had begun yielding daily figures for the death rates in a dozen such camps.
    These included twenty-one deaths during August at Niederhagen,
    eighty-eight at Flossenbürg, and
    seventy-four at Buchenwald;
    in a fast-growing camp at Auschwitz in Upper Silesia the intercepts revealed the notable totals of 6,829 male and 1,525 female fatalities.

    There was evidently a deadly epidemic raging at the camp since a message of September 4, in reply to a request for a thousand prisoners for building the Danube railway, stated that Auschwitz could not provide them until the 'ban' (Lagersperre) on the camp had been lifted.


    It was an odd, one-way kind of quarantine: 'It appears that although typhus is still rife at Auschwitz,' the Intelligence report pointed out, 'new arrivals continue to come in.'[1]

    GC&CS German Police report No. 41, 1942, Oct 5, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/6, part ii).
    GC&CS German Police Section intercept: Lolling, Amt D III, to Auschwitz, Oct 26, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).
    GC&CS German Police Section intercept: KL Sachsenhausen (gez. Liebehenschel) an Amt D III, Oct 27, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).
    SS WVHA, Amtsgruppenchef D (Glücks) to all major concentration camp commandants, betr. Meldeverfahren bei Todesfällen in Konzentrationlagern, Nov 21 (Yivo archives, G - 207); GC&CS German Police Section intercept: KL Buchenwald (gez. Hoven) to Amt D III, betr Meldung der Todesfällen von Häftlingen, Dec 1, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).
    GC&CS German Police Section intercept: KL Auschwitz, signed Dr Wirths, an Amt D III, btr Stand der Fleckfiebererkrankungen, Dec 8, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).

    'The returns from Auschwitz, the largest of the camps with 20,000 prisoners, mentioned illness as the main cause of death, but included references to shootings and hangings. There were no references in the decrypts to gassing.' Professor Sir Frank H Hinsley et al., British Intelligence in the Second World War: Its Influence on Strategy and Operations, Cambridge, 1979 - 84, 3 vols., vol. ii, appendix, page 673.

    Every other detail, however trivial, was reflected in these intercepts, including a signal to Auschwitz commandant S.S. Sturmbannführer Rudolf Höss in September 1942 regretting that rubber truncheons were unobtainable in Breslau.'[1] On October 26 the codebreakers found Berlin warning Auschwitz to stand by to receive two visitors from the Führer's Chancellery in Berlin - the agency supervising euthanasia and various other killing schemes - for a lengthy stay, as the radio signal said: they would be setting up an X-ray sterilisation operation (this being the method chosen by the S.S. to keep the Jews from breeding).[2] On October 27 Sachsenhausen reported that it was shipping to Auschwitz two hundred Soviet prisoners of war found to have contracted tuberculosis.[3] After Berlin ordered that all camp fatalities were to be reported, on December 1 Buchenwald dutifully reported, in their secret code, a total of 134 deaths from natural causes during November including four Jews.[4] On December 8 Dr Wirths reported twenty-seven male and thirty-six female typhus deaths in Auschwitz during the previous week.[5] It is worth noting, as the official historian does, that nowhere in these myriads of intercepted German messages was there any reference to gas chambers or gassings, so the official scepticism which greeted Riegner's report from Geneva is understandable.[6]
     
    is it implausible that the Germans were taking precautions to keep their forced laborers alive and disease-free, and that the Krematoria was for delousing?

    The history of large gas chambers (more than 200 cubic meters in volume) goes back to at least the early 1920's, when tunnels were used by the British to fumigate railroad trains in Russia and Poland, when the British had a military presence there during the chaotic post World War I period. The standard procedure then was to fumigate an entire railroad train at one time within a sealed tunnel with hydrocyanic acid (also referred to simply as cyanide or cyanide gas). Zyklon-B had not yet been invented and so the cyanide had to be introduced into the tunnels either from gas-filled tanks or else generated within the tunnels by the dropping of cyanide salt into barrels filled with sulfuric acid (the so-called "barrel method").

    The British experience with typhus in Poland and Russia during that period was described many years later in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine as follows: [1]

    Administrative Measures of Control of Widespread Epidemics

    Though the measures taken are not likely to be applicable to Great Britain it may be of interest to outline the broader administrative steps we took when dealing with widespread epidemics of typhus fever.

    The personnel of a number of units was established, including doctors, nurses, and subordinate medical auxiliaries. All were young and all were protected by the use of special clothing. Arrangements were made for the regular disinfestation of the garments and for bathing the personnel. The stores required included portable baths and showers, fuel for heating water, soap, hair clippers and scissors, nail brushes, towels, etc., in addition to as good rations as it was possible to obtain. Units were sent into the various regions and were administered centrally in Poland from Warsaw, in Russia from Moscow and Kuibyshev, and, two years ago, in China from Chungking and Sian.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. HdC says:

    It says, among other things, that the Vergasungskeller may be used as a morgue.

    So?

    How did the bodies from the supposed homicidal gas chamber get to the crematory?

    What you may have missed is the critique of Hoess’ diary. Near the end it laments that his writings could not be independently verified.

    Recall that I quoted earlier that that eye witness testimony that cannot be corroborated with physical evidence is worthless. Applies in this instance in spades.

    Please spare me your endless repetition of so-called “proof” or “evidence”, which has been disproven time and time again.

    HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis

    It says, among other things, that the Vergasungskeller may be used as a morgue.
     
    Indeed. More specifically it states that the roof of the morgue is unfinished due to the freezing conditions, but not to worry -- in the meantime, bodies can be stored in the gas chamber.

    Here's the problem. There are two rooms on the blueprint labeled "morgue" and none labeled "Vergasungskeller." So what room is he talking about? Luckily, it's the same room a few dozen eyewitnesses ID'ed as the gas chamber. Funny how that works out, eh?

    And don't pretend you read the Hoess diary.

    lease spare me your endless repetition of so-called “proof” or “evidence”, which has been disproven time and time again.
     
    Don't give you evidence because you're mind is made up?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Andrew E. Mathis
    Really?

    http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/19430129-vergasungskeller/

    1. Where was this Krematoria?

    2. What was its size?

    3. What was its configuration?

    4. Italy was in the grip of a typhus epidemic 1943 – 1945. Germans were planning and ultimately did deport about 5000 Jews (supposedly) to Auschwitz in 1943. Having experienced a severe epidemic at Auschwitz in 1942 –

    [MORE]

    THERE WERE other matters concerning German prison camps on which Whitehall preferred to turn a blind eye. Rumours were still trickling out of Hitler’s empire about things happening to the Jews.

    Britain already had evidence from codebreaking and diplomatic sources that the Germans were deporting the Jews from Germany and other parts of Europe under their control to ghettoes and camps in the Government-General (formerly Poland) where malnutrition, epidemics, brutal conditions, and executions were taking an immense toll.[1]

    There was no shortage of Intelligence about the continued ‘cleaning-up’ operations in the east.

    Minute by D Allen, Sep 10, 1942 (PRO file FO.371/30917).
    GC&CS German Police section, report ZIP/MSGP.37, dated Aug 11, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/6, part i).

    The codebreakers had only just intercepted a message from the southern Russian front, reporting a Judenaktion on July 23 forty miles south-west of Kamenets, during which seven hundred Jews found incapable of work had been shot. [2]

    FO to Quito, No. 105, Dec 27, 1941 (PRO file FO.371/26515); Mr Hughes Hallett had inquired what questions to ask 100 German Jewish refugees shortly arriving in Ecuador.
    Tel. Norton (Berne) to FO, No. 2831, Aug 10, 1942, with the text of a telegram from Riegner to Sydney Silverman MP (PRO file FO.371/30917). The 30-year-old Riegner claimed to have the report from a ‘German industrialist,’ whom he has refused to identify. Dr Benjamin Sagalowitz, press officer of the Swiss Jewish community, claimed to have given the name to Leland Harrison, the American ambassador in Berne, to place in a sealed envelope; there is no archival evidence to support this. Walter Laqueur, writing in Encounter, Jul 1980, page 13, expressed doubts that the man was German or an industrialist. Harrison regarded Riegner’s story as a ‘wild rumor inspired by Jewish fears’ (ibid.; NA: RG.226, Berne, folder 2, box 2, entry 4).

    Despite this, the foreign office was inclined to treat the more lurid public reports with scepticism. They were regarded as part of the international Zionist campaign which was continuing regardless of the war effort. ‘Information from Jewish refugees is generally coloured and frequently unreliable,’ the F.O. had reminded one diplomatic outpost in December 1941.[1]

    When such a telegram arrived from Geneva on August 10, 1942, composed by Gerhart Riegner, the youthful secretary of the World Jewish Congress, it ran into this wall of institutional disbelief: Riegner claimed that Hitler’s headquarters was planning to deport up to four million Jews from Nazi-occupied countries to the east during the coming autumn, where they were to be exterminated ‘in order to resolve, once and for all, the Jewish question in Europe.’ Killing methods under discussion included, claimed Riegner, the use of hydrogen-cyanide.[2]

    . . .

    There was nothing new in such allegations: after World War One the American Jewish community had raised a similar outcry about what they had even then called a ‘holocaust’; the governor of New York had claimed in a 1919 speech that ‘six million’ Jews were being exterminated.[1] In 1936, three years before the war, Victor Gollancz Ltd. had published a book entitled The Extermination of the Jews in Germany. In April 1937 a typical article in Breslau’s Jewish newspaper had been headline, “The Liquidation Campaign against the Jews in Poland.”[2] They had cried wolf too often before. In internal papers, the F.O. remarked that there was no confirmation for Riegner’s story from ‘other sources’ – a hint at ULTRA.[3]

    There was a marked reluctance to exploit the stories for propaganda, and the files show that there was little public sympathy with the Jews in wartime Britain. A year before, the ministry of information had directed the horror stories were to be used only sparing, and they must always deal with the maltreatment of ‘indisputably innocent’ people – ‘not with violent political opponents,’ they amplified. ‘And not with Jews.‘[4]

    Sydney Silverman, a Labour member of Parliament, asked permission to phone Riegner’s report through to Rabbi Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress in New York; the foreign office disallowed this, arguing quaintly that this would merely provoke the Germans who ‘always listen to such conversations.’[5] While they felt that they might profitably consult PWE (their own Political Warfare Executive) about Riegner’s ‘rather wild story,’ that was the only further action they would take.[6] There is no indication that Riegner’s message was ever put before Churchill, who was in Cairo and Moscow at that time.

    . . .

    Similar ‘wild stories’ did however reach the United States. On September 4 the Polish ambassador in Washington produced to Lord Halifax ‘an awful report about the Germans exterminating all the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto at the rate of 100,000 a month.’ Halifax added: ‘They are supposed to make various things they want out of the boiled-down corpses. I wonder whether this horror is true.* A good deal more likely to be true, I fancy, than it was in the last war.’[1]

    A few mornings later he noted heartlessly a visit by Rabbi Wise and a colleague ‘whose talk was exactly like that of a stage Jew.’ Grim though the subject-matter of their visit was, as the ambassador privately recorded, ‘it was all I could do to keep a straight face when he chipped in.’ They depicted in vivid detail how the Nazis were deporting French Jews to the east to kill them. ‘If this is true,’ Halifax cautioned himself, ‘how vile it is of Laval to hand any more poor wretches over.’[2] Again the foreign office line was one of scepticism. In September 1944 a British diplomat would argue against publicising the atrocity stories on the heartless ground that it would compel officials to ‘waste a disproportionate amount of their time dealing with wailing Jews.’

    * It was not true.

    GC&CS German police section report No. 40/42, dated Sep 26 (PRO file HW.16/6, part ii; and HW1/929). The intercepts also established that as from Sep 1, 1942 ‘deaths from natural causes’ among prisoners in concentration camps were to be reported ‘only on pro-formas (durch Formblatt).’ The typhus epidemic that ravaged Nazi-controlled Europe from late 1941 to the end of the war was very real, and GC&CS was evidently briefed to focus attention on it. See e.g. ‘Police Report,’ Oct 17, 1941 (‘There has been noted a pretty consistent demand for Anti-typhoid lymph in the eastern areas for the inoculation of Police units. It is difficult to know whether these demands in any way exceed the normal, given the conditions occasioned by war’) and the report ‘Typhus III,’ signed by [Nigel] de G[rey], Jan 24, 1942, in PRO files HW1/148 and HW.16/6 part ii respectively.

    The Polish under-ground deliberately spread typhus among German occupation forces: see e.g. the report from the SS Polizeiführer in Galicia to SS OGruf. Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger, Jun 30, 1943 (Hoover Library, Ms. DS 135, G2G37).

    Col. L Mitkiewicz, Polish liaison officer to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to the CCS (100th Mtg, Jul 2, 1943) that in the first four months of 1943 the Polish underground had poisoned 526 Germans and administered ‘typhoid fever microbes and typhoid fever lice’ to Germans ‘in a few hundred cases.

    See too Report on The Polish Secret Army to Brig Gen John R Deane, JCS Secretariat, Sep 7, 1943 (NA, RG.218, Joints Chiefs of Staff, file CCS/381 ‘Poland – 6.30.1943 – Sec.1′). Such methods may have backfired on the Poles, as epidemics are poor respecters of persons.
    See Reader’s letter: Frank Lowe Jr has information on Hitler’s order, Wannsee; and the Typhus War

    Later in September 1942 information did reach Churchill from his secret sources lifting a corner of the veil on Hitler’s concentration camps. Analysis of their commandants’ secret returns, transmitted in cypher to Berlin, had begun yielding daily figures for the death rates in a dozen such camps.
    These included twenty-one deaths during August at Niederhagen,
    eighty-eight at Flossenbürg, and
    seventy-four at Buchenwald;
    in a fast-growing camp at Auschwitz in Upper Silesia the intercepts revealed the notable totals of 6,829 male and 1,525 female fatalities.

    There was evidently a deadly epidemic raging at the camp since a message of September 4, in reply to a request for a thousand prisoners for building the Danube railway, stated that Auschwitz could not provide them until the ‘ban’ (Lagersperre) on the camp had been lifted.

    It was an odd, one-way kind of quarantine: ‘It appears that although typhus is still rife at Auschwitz,’ the Intelligence report pointed out, ‘new arrivals continue to come in.’[1]

    GC&CS German Police report No. 41, 1942, Oct 5, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/6, part ii).
    GC&CS German Police Section intercept: Lolling, Amt D III, to Auschwitz, Oct 26, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).
    GC&CS German Police Section intercept: KL Sachsenhausen (gez. Liebehenschel) an Amt D III, Oct 27, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).
    SS WVHA, Amtsgruppenchef D (Glücks) to all major concentration camp commandants, betr. Meldeverfahren bei Todesfällen in Konzentrationlagern, Nov 21 (Yivo archives, G – 207); GC&CS German Police Section intercept: KL Buchenwald (gez. Hoven) to Amt D III, betr Meldung der Todesfällen von Häftlingen, Dec 1, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).
    GC&CS German Police Section intercept: KL Auschwitz, signed Dr Wirths, an Amt D III, btr Stand der Fleckfiebererkrankungen, Dec 8, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).

    ‘The returns from Auschwitz, the largest of the camps with 20,000 prisoners, mentioned illness as the main cause of death, but included references to shootings and hangings. There were no references in the decrypts to gassing.’ Professor Sir Frank H Hinsley et al., British Intelligence in the Second World War: Its Influence on Strategy and Operations, Cambridge, 1979 – 84, 3 vols., vol. ii, appendix, page 673.

    Every other detail, however trivial, was reflected in these intercepts, including a signal to Auschwitz commandant S.S. Sturmbannführer Rudolf Höss in September 1942 regretting that rubber truncheons were unobtainable in Breslau.’[1] On October 26 the codebreakers found Berlin warning Auschwitz to stand by to receive two visitors from the Führer’s Chancellery in Berlin – the agency supervising euthanasia and various other killing schemes – for a lengthy stay, as the radio signal said: they would be setting up an X-ray sterilisation operation (this being the method chosen by the S.S. to keep the Jews from breeding).[2] On October 27 Sachsenhausen reported that it was shipping to Auschwitz two hundred Soviet prisoners of war found to have contracted tuberculosis.[3] After Berlin ordered that all camp fatalities were to be reported, on December 1 Buchenwald dutifully reported, in their secret code, a total of 134 deaths from natural causes during November including four Jews.[4] On December 8 Dr Wirths reported twenty-seven male and thirty-six female typhus deaths in Auschwitz during the previous week.[5] It is worth noting, as the official historian does, that nowhere in these myriads of intercepted German messages was there any reference to gas chambers or gassings, so the official scepticism which greeted Riegner’s report from Geneva is understandable.[6]

    is it implausible that the Germans were taking precautions to keep their forced laborers alive and disease-free, and that the Krematoria was for delousing?

    The history of large gas chambers (more than 200 cubic meters in volume) goes back to at least the early 1920′s, when tunnels were used by the British to fumigate railroad trains in Russia and Poland, when the British had a military presence there during the chaotic post World War I period. The standard procedure then was to fumigate an entire railroad train at one time within a sealed tunnel with hydrocyanic acid (also referred to simply as cyanide or cyanide gas). Zyklon-B had not yet been invented and so the cyanide had to be introduced into the tunnels either from gas-filled tanks or else generated within the tunnels by the dropping of cyanide salt into barrels filled with sulfuric acid (the so-called “barrel method”).

    The British experience with typhus in Poland and Russia during that period was described many years later in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine as follows: [1]

    Administrative Measures of Control of Widespread Epidemics

    Though the measures taken are not likely to be applicable to Great Britain it may be of interest to outline the broader administrative steps we took when dealing with widespread epidemics of typhus fever.

    The personnel of a number of units was established, including doctors, nurses, and subordinate medical auxiliaries. All were young and all were protected by the use of special clothing. Arrangements were made for the regular disinfestation of the garments and for bathing the personnel. The stores required included portable baths and showers, fuel for heating water, soap, hair clippers and scissors, nail brushes, towels, etc., in addition to as good rations as it was possible to obtain. Units were sent into the various regions and were administered centrally in Poland from Warsaw, in Russia from Moscow and Kuibyshev, and, two years ago, in China from Chungking and Sian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    This is Krema II at Birkenau.

    Is it possible that the Nazis built Krema II to prepare for the delousing of Jews arriving there? No. Delousing was performed in a different building.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @HdC
    It says, among other things, that the Vergasungskeller may be used as a morgue.

    So?

    How did the bodies from the supposed homicidal gas chamber get to the crematory?

    What you may have missed is the critique of Hoess' diary. Near the end it laments that his writings could not be independently verified.

    Recall that I quoted earlier that that eye witness testimony that cannot be corroborated with physical evidence is worthless. Applies in this instance in spades.

    Please spare me your endless repetition of so-called "proof" or "evidence", which has been disproven time and time again.

    HdC

    It says, among other things, that the Vergasungskeller may be used as a morgue.

    Indeed. More specifically it states that the roof of the morgue is unfinished due to the freezing conditions, but not to worry — in the meantime, bodies can be stored in the gas chamber.

    Here’s the problem. There are two rooms on the blueprint labeled “morgue” and none labeled “Vergasungskeller.” So what room is he talking about? Luckily, it’s the same room a few dozen eyewitnesses ID’ed as the gas chamber. Funny how that works out, eh?

    And don’t pretend you read the Hoess diary.

    lease spare me your endless repetition of so-called “proof” or “evidence”, which has been disproven time and time again.

    Don’t give you evidence because you’re mind is made up?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @SolontoCroesus
    1. Where was this Krematoria?

    2. What was its size?

    3. What was its configuration?

    4. Italy was in the grip of a typhus epidemic 1943 - 1945. Germans were planning and ultimately did deport about 5000 Jews (supposedly) to Auschwitz in 1943. Having experienced a severe epidemic at Auschwitz in 1942 --

    THERE WERE other matters concerning German prison camps on which Whitehall preferred to turn a blind eye. Rumours were still trickling out of Hitler's empire about things happening to the Jews.

    Britain already had evidence from codebreaking and diplomatic sources that the Germans were deporting the Jews from Germany and other parts of Europe under their control to ghettoes and camps in the Government-General (formerly Poland) where malnutrition, epidemics, brutal conditions, and executions were taking an immense toll.[1]

    There was no shortage of Intelligence about the continued 'cleaning-up' operations in the east.

    Minute by D Allen, Sep 10, 1942 (PRO file FO.371/30917).
    GC&CS German Police section, report ZIP/MSGP.37, dated Aug 11, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/6, part i).

    The codebreakers had only just intercepted a message from the southern Russian front, reporting a Judenaktion on July 23 forty miles south-west of Kamenets, during which seven hundred Jews found incapable of work had been shot. [2]



    FO to Quito, No. 105, Dec 27, 1941 (PRO file FO.371/26515); Mr Hughes Hallett had inquired what questions to ask 100 German Jewish refugees shortly arriving in Ecuador.
    Tel. Norton (Berne) to FO, No. 2831, Aug 10, 1942, with the text of a telegram from Riegner to Sydney Silverman MP (PRO file FO.371/30917). The 30-year-old Riegner claimed to have the report from a 'German industrialist,' whom he has refused to identify. Dr Benjamin Sagalowitz, press officer of the Swiss Jewish community, claimed to have given the name to Leland Harrison, the American ambassador in Berne, to place in a sealed envelope; there is no archival evidence to support this. Walter Laqueur, writing in Encounter, Jul 1980, page 13, expressed doubts that the man was German or an industrialist. Harrison regarded Riegner's story as a 'wild rumor inspired by Jewish fears' (ibid.; NA: RG.226, Berne, folder 2, box 2, entry 4).


    Despite this, the foreign office was inclined to treat the more lurid public reports with scepticism. They were regarded as part of the international Zionist campaign which was continuing regardless of the war effort. 'Information from Jewish refugees is generally coloured and frequently unreliable,' the F.O. had reminded one diplomatic outpost in December 1941.[1]

    When such a telegram arrived from Geneva on August 10, 1942, composed by Gerhart Riegner, the youthful secretary of the World Jewish Congress, it ran into this wall of institutional disbelief: Riegner claimed that Hitler's headquarters was planning to deport up to four million Jews from Nazi-occupied countries to the east during the coming autumn, where they were to be exterminated 'in order to resolve, once and for all, the Jewish question in Europe.' Killing methods under discussion included, claimed Riegner, the use of hydrogen-cyanide.[2]

    . . .

    There was nothing new in such allegations: after World War One the American Jewish community had raised a similar outcry about what they had even then called a 'holocaust'; the governor of New York had claimed in a 1919 speech that 'six million' Jews were being exterminated.[1] In 1936, three years before the war, Victor Gollancz Ltd. had published a book entitled The Extermination of the Jews in Germany. In April 1937 a typical article in Breslau's Jewish newspaper had been headline, "The Liquidation Campaign against the Jews in Poland."[2] They had cried wolf too often before. In internal papers, the F.O. remarked that there was no confirmation for Riegner's story from 'other sources' - a hint at ULTRA.[3]

    There was a marked reluctance to exploit the stories for propaganda, and the files show that there was little public sympathy with the Jews in wartime Britain. A year before, the ministry of information had directed the horror stories were to be used only sparing, and they must always deal with the maltreatment of 'indisputably innocent' people - 'not with violent political opponents,' they amplified. 'And not with Jews.'[4]

    Sydney Silverman, a Labour member of Parliament, asked permission to phone Riegner's report through to Rabbi Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress in New York; the foreign office disallowed this, arguing quaintly that this would merely provoke the Germans who 'always listen to such conversations.'[5] While they felt that they might profitably consult PWE (their own Political Warfare Executive) about Riegner's 'rather wild story,' that was the only further action they would take.[6] There is no indication that Riegner's message was ever put before Churchill, who was in Cairo and Moscow at that time.



    . . .

    Similar 'wild stories' did however reach the United States. On September 4 the Polish ambassador in Washington produced to Lord Halifax 'an awful report about the Germans exterminating all the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto at the rate of 100,000 a month.' Halifax added: 'They are supposed to make various things they want out of the boiled-down corpses. I wonder whether this horror is true.* A good deal more likely to be true, I fancy, than it was in the last war.'[1]

    A few mornings later he noted heartlessly a visit by Rabbi Wise and a colleague 'whose talk was exactly like that of a stage Jew.' Grim though the subject-matter of their visit was, as the ambassador privately recorded, 'it was all I could do to keep a straight face when he chipped in.' They depicted in vivid detail how the Nazis were deporting French Jews to the east to kill them. 'If this is true,' Halifax cautioned himself, 'how vile it is of Laval to hand any more poor wretches over.'[2] Again the foreign office line was one of scepticism. In September 1944 a British diplomat would argue against publicising the atrocity stories on the heartless ground that it would compel officials to 'waste a disproportionate amount of their time dealing with wailing Jews.'

    * It was not true.

    GC&CS German police section report No. 40/42, dated Sep 26 (PRO file HW.16/6, part ii; and HW1/929). The intercepts also established that as from Sep 1, 1942 'deaths from natural causes' among prisoners in concentration camps were to be reported 'only on pro-formas (durch Formblatt).' The typhus epidemic that ravaged Nazi-controlled Europe from late 1941 to the end of the war was very real, and GC&CS was evidently briefed to focus attention on it. See e.g. 'Police Report,' Oct 17, 1941 ('There has been noted a pretty consistent demand for Anti-typhoid lymph in the eastern areas for the inoculation of Police units. It is difficult to know whether these demands in any way exceed the normal, given the conditions occasioned by war') and the report 'Typhus III,' signed by [Nigel] de G[rey], Jan 24, 1942, in PRO files HW1/148 and HW.16/6 part ii respectively.

    The Polish under-ground deliberately spread typhus among German occupation forces: see e.g. the report from the SS Polizeiführer in Galicia to SS OGruf. Friedrich-Wilhelm Krüger, Jun 30, 1943 (Hoover Library, Ms. DS 135, G2G37).

    Col. L Mitkiewicz, Polish liaison officer to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to the CCS (100th Mtg, Jul 2, 1943) that in the first four months of 1943 the Polish underground had poisoned 526 Germans and administered 'typhoid fever microbes and typhoid fever lice' to Germans 'in a few hundred cases.'

    See too Report on The Polish Secret Army to Brig Gen John R Deane, JCS Secretariat, Sep 7, 1943 (NA, RG.218, Joints Chiefs of Staff, file CCS/381 'Poland - 6.30.1943 - Sec.1'). Such methods may have backfired on the Poles, as epidemics are poor respecters of persons.
    See Reader's letter: Frank Lowe Jr has information on Hitler's order, Wannsee; and the Typhus War

    Later in September 1942 information did reach Churchill from his secret sources lifting a corner of the veil on Hitler's concentration camps. Analysis of their commandants' secret returns, transmitted in cypher to Berlin, had begun yielding daily figures for the death rates in a dozen such camps.
    These included twenty-one deaths during August at Niederhagen,
    eighty-eight at Flossenbürg, and
    seventy-four at Buchenwald;
    in a fast-growing camp at Auschwitz in Upper Silesia the intercepts revealed the notable totals of 6,829 male and 1,525 female fatalities.

    There was evidently a deadly epidemic raging at the camp since a message of September 4, in reply to a request for a thousand prisoners for building the Danube railway, stated that Auschwitz could not provide them until the 'ban' (Lagersperre) on the camp had been lifted.


    It was an odd, one-way kind of quarantine: 'It appears that although typhus is still rife at Auschwitz,' the Intelligence report pointed out, 'new arrivals continue to come in.'[1]

    GC&CS German Police report No. 41, 1942, Oct 5, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/6, part ii).
    GC&CS German Police Section intercept: Lolling, Amt D III, to Auschwitz, Oct 26, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).
    GC&CS German Police Section intercept: KL Sachsenhausen (gez. Liebehenschel) an Amt D III, Oct 27, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).
    SS WVHA, Amtsgruppenchef D (Glücks) to all major concentration camp commandants, betr. Meldeverfahren bei Todesfällen in Konzentrationlagern, Nov 21 (Yivo archives, G - 207); GC&CS German Police Section intercept: KL Buchenwald (gez. Hoven) to Amt D III, betr Meldung der Todesfällen von Häftlingen, Dec 1, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).
    GC&CS German Police Section intercept: KL Auschwitz, signed Dr Wirths, an Amt D III, btr Stand der Fleckfiebererkrankungen, Dec 8, 1942 (PRO file HW.16/11).

    'The returns from Auschwitz, the largest of the camps with 20,000 prisoners, mentioned illness as the main cause of death, but included references to shootings and hangings. There were no references in the decrypts to gassing.' Professor Sir Frank H Hinsley et al., British Intelligence in the Second World War: Its Influence on Strategy and Operations, Cambridge, 1979 - 84, 3 vols., vol. ii, appendix, page 673.

    Every other detail, however trivial, was reflected in these intercepts, including a signal to Auschwitz commandant S.S. Sturmbannführer Rudolf Höss in September 1942 regretting that rubber truncheons were unobtainable in Breslau.'[1] On October 26 the codebreakers found Berlin warning Auschwitz to stand by to receive two visitors from the Führer's Chancellery in Berlin - the agency supervising euthanasia and various other killing schemes - for a lengthy stay, as the radio signal said: they would be setting up an X-ray sterilisation operation (this being the method chosen by the S.S. to keep the Jews from breeding).[2] On October 27 Sachsenhausen reported that it was shipping to Auschwitz two hundred Soviet prisoners of war found to have contracted tuberculosis.[3] After Berlin ordered that all camp fatalities were to be reported, on December 1 Buchenwald dutifully reported, in their secret code, a total of 134 deaths from natural causes during November including four Jews.[4] On December 8 Dr Wirths reported twenty-seven male and thirty-six female typhus deaths in Auschwitz during the previous week.[5] It is worth noting, as the official historian does, that nowhere in these myriads of intercepted German messages was there any reference to gas chambers or gassings, so the official scepticism which greeted Riegner's report from Geneva is understandable.[6]
     
    is it implausible that the Germans were taking precautions to keep their forced laborers alive and disease-free, and that the Krematoria was for delousing?

    The history of large gas chambers (more than 200 cubic meters in volume) goes back to at least the early 1920's, when tunnels were used by the British to fumigate railroad trains in Russia and Poland, when the British had a military presence there during the chaotic post World War I period. The standard procedure then was to fumigate an entire railroad train at one time within a sealed tunnel with hydrocyanic acid (also referred to simply as cyanide or cyanide gas). Zyklon-B had not yet been invented and so the cyanide had to be introduced into the tunnels either from gas-filled tanks or else generated within the tunnels by the dropping of cyanide salt into barrels filled with sulfuric acid (the so-called "barrel method").

    The British experience with typhus in Poland and Russia during that period was described many years later in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine as follows: [1]

    Administrative Measures of Control of Widespread Epidemics

    Though the measures taken are not likely to be applicable to Great Britain it may be of interest to outline the broader administrative steps we took when dealing with widespread epidemics of typhus fever.

    The personnel of a number of units was established, including doctors, nurses, and subordinate medical auxiliaries. All were young and all were protected by the use of special clothing. Arrangements were made for the regular disinfestation of the garments and for bathing the personnel. The stores required included portable baths and showers, fuel for heating water, soap, hair clippers and scissors, nail brushes, towels, etc., in addition to as good rations as it was possible to obtain. Units were sent into the various regions and were administered centrally in Poland from Warsaw, in Russia from Moscow and Kuibyshev, and, two years ago, in China from Chungking and Sian.
     

    This is Krema II at Birkenau.

    Is it possible that the Nazis built Krema II to prepare for the delousing of Jews arriving there? No. Delousing was performed in a different building.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Is it possible that the Nazis built Krema II to prepare for the delousing of Jews arriving there? No. Delousing was performed in a different building.
     
    How do you know that?

    show me the evidence.

    even a f%&king parking court magistrate demands evidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky
    I have just skimmed over the various comments you have made on this page. There is a problem here. There is simply no sign that you know what the revisionist thesis even is.

    My interaction with you began when you claimed that the revisionists (you call them "deniers") were claiming that all survivor testimony is false. I pointed out to you that this was a straw man. That is most certainly not the revisionist position. I pointedly asked you whether you had read any of the revisionist literature, and mentioned the name of Faurisson. You admitted that you did not know the name and had had to google it.

    Based on this alone, it is very hard, nigh impossible, to take you seriously in this conversation. In any case, your claim that you have made a serious study of the revisionist position seems to be a false claim. This is the conclusion I have drawn. I don't take any pleasure in it or anything. That's just the way it is. I'm being completely honest with you.

    Maybe I'm being unfair, but regardless, there is no point in your repeating the claim that you have made a serious study of holocaust revisionism, because I don't believe this to be true. For you to repeat this claim will not cause me to change my view.

    You seem to misunderstood. I have not claimed to “study” your position. I have claimed to argue in the past with revisionists and that I have read a lot of the material they have send me. My impression of revisionist position is the impression created by the denialist. If they wanted to convince me, they have to bring the best artillery they got – and you are the first “revisionist” I talked to, who claims that witnesses testimonies are actually compatible with your position.

    Moreover, you admitted you think that you think testimonies about gassing are false, so I am not strawmanning that much.

    OTOH, even without gassing there is a lot of testimonies and documents about mass-shooting of Jews. This mass-shooting was widespread, affected hundreds of thousands of people and lasted over many years. The testimonies are also about arresting people by German authorities and then shooting those people (e.g. in case of intelligenzaktion). There is no escape to conclude that even without gassing, Germans were responsible for mass murder. But you claimed that there was no such thing.

    Why you are now claiming that I misrepresent your position? I mean, how can you say “testimonies are compatible with revisionist position” while at the same time thinking, that there was no deliberate effort to murder people?

    But ok, please clarify your position to me. Which of the below is your opinion:
    (1) Jews and Poles were murdered by Germans on a mass scale, and this was German policy
    (2) Jews and Poles were murdered on a mass scale, but authorities were unaware
    (3) Jews and Poles were murdered, but not on a mass scale
    (4) Jews and Poles were not murdered at all, and deaths happened as a result of war condition.

    In my opinion, (1) means you believe in Holocaust, but you contest number of victims and methods. (2) means you have to explain how it is possible that authorities were unaware of something which happened over course of many years and resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. (3) and (4) means you have to think that testimonies are, in fact, false and this is in contradiction to your claim you have made here, especially (4) is blatantly in contradiction to the testimonies, while (3) is barely defensible only by assuming a lot of testimonies are either false or exxagerated (and by handwaving documents as falsified, and ignoring mass graves).

    So, which is your position? Or maybe it is different from the all four above? Please, clarify it for me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    As stated before, eye witness testimony is worthless without corroborating physical evidence.

    Poland threw in its fortunes with the British, French, and Americans, who sold you down the river as we say around here.

    Poland, in "compensation" for its aggressive, chauvinistic stance, received some of the most fertile lands from Germany.

    But it is well known that for those who receive stuff for free, it is never enough. Gimme moah, moah.

    There was a fucking war going on, remember? What were the Poles, Brits, Americans, etc. etc. doing to the Germans and Germany?

    Did you (conveniently) forget that it was Britain, France, and the USA in fact if not in law, declared war on Germany, all because of border disputes with Poland?

    That the Germans were not choir boys handling partisan fighters with kid gloves, nobody denies.

    You do remember there was a war going on, right?

    HdC
    , @Jonathan Revusky

    You seem to misunderstood.
     
    That is always possible, but I honestly don't think so.

    I have not claimed to “study” your position.
     
    Okay, first of all, it is not my position. I am not a specialist, scholar, or researcher. Until maybe a couple of years ago, I believed the conventional narrative, and -- though I am not proud of this -- I simply assumed, as you do, that the revisionist position had no merit whatsoever. I believe the relevant legal term is "contempt prior to investigation".

    My current understanding of the basic debate is that it centers around 3 central claims.

    1. The German government had an explicit exterminationist policy. The idea is that German government officials had meetings presumably, and planned how they were going to murder every last Jew in Europe.

    2. The death toll was something around 6 million. (Maybe five point something, but in that order of magnitude.)

    3. Of those approximately 6 million, the majority were murdered in gas chambers.

    The revisionist position contests all three of the above points. Now you claim that you debated with revisionists, but you also seem to be admitting that you don't really know what their position is! So it seems to be necessary to outline it for you.

    So, for example, on point 1, the revisionists are not claiming that the Nazis did not have a brutal policy of forced deportations, forced labor. And they are not claiming that nobody at all was killed. They are claiming that the number was probably nowhere near six million though. Also, while the revisionists are claiming that the gas chamber story is a hoax, they are not claiming there were no shootings.

    Perhaps the most basic misconception to dispel is the notion that revisionists are claiming that nobody died. They think plenty of people did die, but mostly from hunger and disease. I'm particular, there were some horrific typhus epidemics in the camps.

    Now, I'll answer the points you bring up, but I will ask you a few questions and expect you, on the basis of some sense of fair play, to answer them. And honestly even...

    (1) Jews and Poles were murdered by Germans on a mass scale, and this was German policy
    (2) Jews and Poles were murdered on a mass scale, but authorities were unaware
    (3) Jews and Poles were murdered, but not on a mass scale
    (4) Jews and Poles were not murdered at all, and deaths happened as a result of war condition.
     

    First of all, as regards the Poles, neither the conventional historians nor the revisionists are claiming that the German government had an exterminationist policy -- that they were trying to kill every last Pole.

    The revisionist position is that the German government did not have an exterminationist policy against the Jews either.

    Of your four points above, point 4 is a lame straw man. It's unserious really, you should knock it off basically. The issue at hand is not whether there were any killings. Of course there were. The question is whether there really was an exterminationist policy.

    The problem with the first three points is that they all contain the term "on a mass scale" without defining what a mass scale is. Really, what you are doing in the above is that you are avoiding the key issue, the presence or not of an exterminationist