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 ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

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
Trim Comments?
    []
  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.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    , @AriusArmenian
  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.

  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.

  4. Tom_R says:
    @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.

  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Flagless Germany”?

    Spineless Germany.

    There. Fixed it for you.

  6. el topo says:
    @Tom_R

    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.

  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

  8. marylou says:

    check out Roy beck gumballs for a practical eyeopener.

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

  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.

  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.

  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.

    • Replies: @random observer
  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

  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.

    • Replies: @szopen
  14. @German_reader

    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.

    • Replies: @eah
  15. szopen says:
    @Wally

    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.

  16. HdC says:
    @szopen

    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

    • Replies: @Szopen
    , @MQ
  17. @szopen

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

  18. @szopen

    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

  19. @Tom_R

    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.

  20. @Kevin O'Keeffe

    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.

  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 .

  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).

  23. Szopen says:
    @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)

    • Replies: @HdC
    , @SolontoCroesus
  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.

    • Replies: @Mark Green
  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.

  26. HdC says:
    @Szopen

    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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  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.

    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?

    • Replies: @HdC
  28. HdC 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.

    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

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
  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/

    • Replies: @HdC
  30. szopen says:
    @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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  31. HdC says:
    @Auntie Analogue

    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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  32. HdC says:
    @szopen

    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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  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.

    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.

    • Agree: Sam Shama
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
  34. @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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  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”?

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  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.

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

    Assertions from 85 year olds just does not cut it.

    Really? Why not?

    • Replies: @HdC
  37. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    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

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
  38. @Auntie Analogue

    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.

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  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.

  40. @German_reader

    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.

  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.

    • Replies: @Sherman
  42. szopen says:
    @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”?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @HdC
  43. eah says:
    @Bill Jones

    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.

    • Replies: @Friedrich
  44. @szopen

    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.

  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.

  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.

  47. HdC says:
    @szopen

    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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    , @szopen
  48. JustJeff says:

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

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  49. Sherman says:
    @Art

    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

    • Replies: @Art
    , @Priss Factor
  50. @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.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  51. @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.

  52. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

  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.

  54. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    “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.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  55. 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.”

    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.

  56. @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  57. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  58. 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

  59. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
  60. Friedrich says:
    @eah

    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]).

    • Replies: @eah
  61. Art says:
    @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

  62. @SolontoCroesus

    . . . 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…

  63. eah says:
    @Friedrich

    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.

  64. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @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.

  65. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  66. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @eah
  67. @Priss Factor

    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.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  68. szopen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @SolontoCroesus
  69. 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.

  70. @SolontoCroesus

    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?

  71. szopen says:
    @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 (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.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  72. szopen says:
    @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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  73. szopen says:
    @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.

  74. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    ———-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.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    , @Sherman
  75. eah says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. @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

    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?

  79. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @OutWest
  80. @Priss Factor

    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”?

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  81. @eah

    Stop it or you’ll hurt my feelings.

  82. 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.

  83. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    “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/

  84. Sherman says:
    @Priss Factor

    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.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  85. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website
    @Sherman

    Why don’t you guys cut it out?

    You think I was born yesterday?

  86. 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

  87. @szopen

    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?

  88. WhatEvvs [AKA "Anonymuss Annie"] says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.

    • Agree: Stubborn in Germany
  89. 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?

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @Art
  90. @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.

    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?

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  91. HdC says:
    @szopen

    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

    • Replies: @szopen
  92. OutWest says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.

    • Replies: @Art
  93. @geokat62

    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.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  94. Art says:
    @geokat62

    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.

  95. Art says:
    @OutWest

    “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!

  96. 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.

  97. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

  98. 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.

  99. Mark Green says: • Website
    @szopen

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @MQ
  100. @geokat62

    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.

    • Agree: HdC
  101. @geokat62

    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?

  102. szopen says:
    @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.

    • Replies: @HdC
    , @SolontoCroesus
  103. szopen says:
    @Mark Green

    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.

  104. 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.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  105. MQ says:
    @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!”.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  106. MQ says:
    @Mark Green

    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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  107. HdC says:
    @szopen

    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

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
  108. @szopen

    “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.

    • Replies: @szopen
  109. @MQ

    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?

  110. szopen says:
    @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.

  111. szopen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    “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.

  112. @szopen

    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.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  113. 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.

  114. @szopen

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
  115. @Stubborn in Germany

    Germans.

    still burning books after all these years.

    • Replies: @HdC
  116. szopen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    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.

  117. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  118. HdC says:
    @Anonymous

    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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  119. HdC says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Agreed. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Goethe, I think. HdC

  120. HdC says:
    @MQ

    “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

    • Replies: @szopen
  121. @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.

    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.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  122. szopen says:
    @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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  123. @szopen

    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?

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  124. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  125. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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?

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  126. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  127. @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?

    • Agree: HdC
    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
  128. HdC says:
    @szopen

    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

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
  129. HdC says:
    @szopen

    “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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  130. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  131. szopen says:
    @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

    • Replies: @HdC
  132. @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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  133. @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.

  134. @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?

    • Replies: @HdC
  135. @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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  136. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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!

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  137. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  138. HdC says:
    @szopen

    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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  139. HdC says:
    @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.

    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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  140. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  141. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    “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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  142. 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.

  143. @HdC

    The official party line is 6 million Jews gassed.

    This isn’t even remotely true.

  144. @HdC

    You haven’t addressed my argument.

    • Replies: @Stubborn in Germany
  145. @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?

  146. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.)

  147. 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/

  148. @Stubborn in Germany

    My target is always the lurker. But you’re probably right…

  149. William says:
    @Stubborn in Germany

    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.

  150. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  151. @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.

    • Replies: @HdC
  152. @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  153. @Stubborn in Germany

    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.

  154. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @Andrew E. Mathis
  155. @szopen

    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?

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  156. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  157. @Jonathan Revusky

    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?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  158. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Read up on “Invented memory Syndrome”.

    HdC

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  159. @HdC

    Can Invented Memory Syndrome produce documents and chemical evidence?

    • Replies: @HdC
  160. 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!!

  161. 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.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  162. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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…

    • Agree: HdC
  163. @szopen

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
  164. 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.

  165. @Christian

    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******.”

  166. 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.

  167. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    We were discussing what people confessed to.

    The other issues you mention have no physical proof to substantiate your claim.

    HdC

  168. 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

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  169. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  170. @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?

  171. @SolontoCroesus

    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.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  172. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    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.

    • Replies: @HdC
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  173. HdC says:
    @szopen

    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

    • Replies: @szopen
  174. szopen says:
    @HdC

    Is your position that since there was a war, so mass-killings of innocent people are justified?

    And have you forgotten that Germany KNEW that UK and France had alliance with Poland, guaranteed Polish borders, and make it very explicit that attacking Poland would mean war? I mean, imagine I would come to you and told you “listen, give me your watch. It belonged to my grandfather. If not, I will beat you”. Revusky would come and said “szopen, if you will touch HdC, I will support him. He is my friend. I mean it. Beat him, I will beat you”. I started a fight with you, Revusky keeps his word and attacks me… and then I start to whine: OMIGOD Revusky started a fight!!

    And I find it really strange that you think that Poland refusing to give its legally possessed lands to Germany means Poland was aggressive.

    Finally, if you think that testimonies are worthless without corroborating physical evidence, and you think that evidence is falsified, how in earth you can think Poles “were doing something to Germans?” Do you, perhaps, think about events in Bydgoszcz, where between 300 to 700 Germans died (including most likely victims of bombardings, as Bydgoszcz was bombed), and which to this day is multiplied hundredfold by some nazi apologists?

  175. @szopen

    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 policy, the intent to kill every last person a given ethnic group.

    Everybody accepts that the U.S. killed civilians on a mass scale in Vietnam. And Cambodia and Laos. Nobody contests this. But if I then argue that, therefore, the U.S. had an exterminationist policy, i.e. they intended to murder every last southeast Asian peasant, would that be a correct conclusion?

    Look, in every iteration of this discussion, you show ever more clearly, that you don’t know what the broad outlines of the debate are. This is because you don’t know what the revisionist position really is.

    IN my opinion, (1) means you believe in Holocaust, but….

    I think you’re playing something of a “moving the goalposts” game here. I think that it’s quite clear that the Holocaust narrative with the capital H is basically the three claims outlined above: (I) an exterminationist policy (not just that Jews were killed, but there was a policy of killing every last Jew), (ii) six million Jews dead (more or less anyway….) AND (iii) the gas chambers. No getting around the gas chambers issue. People have been imprisoned for denying the gas chambers, so it’s obviously a key part of the big H conventional narrative.

    To claim that, if you believe that a lot of Jews (and Poles) were killed (without saying how many “a lot” is or exactly how they were killed, I.e. being agnostic about the gas chambers), then you believe in the Holocaust with the capital H — that is clearly false. I am pretty sure that the big H really is the three claims I outlined above: exterminationist intent + six million victims (Jewish victims) + gas chambers as the main murder tool.

    The revisionists deny all three, but I would say that if you deny even one of the three, you are basically saying that you don’t really believe the big H. At least not the full Monty…, :-)

    As for the questions I was going to pose to you, I’ll do that separately when I get a chance, because this response is already quite long, and has taken quite a chunk of my time.

    • Replies: @szopen
  176. @Andrew E. Mathis

    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.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  177. @szopen

    The first part of my education was in a Polish Catholic school; teachers were fresh off the boat from Poland.

    You think like a Pollock — backward.

    have you forgotten that Germany KNEW that UK and France had alliance with Poland, guaranteed Polish borders, and make it very explicit that attacking Poland would mean war?

    First of all, yes, the territory became Polish territory via Versailles Treaty. But the same treaty also guaranteed full rights to minorities within the territory — zionist jews at Versailles were among those who demanded that guarantee — see Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement.

    Poland refuse to honor THAT part of Versailles; they did not respect the rights of German minorities in Poland.

    Second, re the UK-French alliance w/ Poland — NSDAP had ben negotiating with Poland to protect the rights of Germans in Poland, and to ensure transit of needed coal through the Danzig corridor. NSDAP made numerous offers, very generous offers. Poland refused. THEN the Polish made a deal with UK-French, as part of Churchill’s intention to engage a war come hell or high water.

    German offers to Poland came BEFORE UK “alliance” with Poland, and, as Pat Buchanan has argued, disincentivized the Poles from considering any offer Germany might make; rather, the Poles were induced to see war as a favorable outcome. You yourself wrote that — Poland thought it had a rough-tough army and great allies — BUT THOSE “ALLIES” were perfidious! You acknowledged that!

    Churchill wanted a war. FDR wanted a war. Hitler & NSDAP knew that; you’d have to have been blind not to have read the tea leaves and figured that out.

    • Replies: @szopen
  178. @szopen

    “listen, give me your watch. It belonged to my grandfather. If not, I will beat you”

    To me, your analogy misses the main aspect of what is going on here. I mean, regardless of who the “watch” rightfully belongs to, why should a third party, very far away, give a damn?

    Why should the British or French care at all about the Polish corridor or the Sudetenland for that matter?

    We have a similar situation on the world scene now. The U.S. and NATO are so very very concerned about Crimea…. The Donbass… So they say… Surely you are not naive enough to think that the leadership in the western countries actually cares at all about the people in these places, are you?

    Or does it all just amount to a phony pretext? (I mean, both then and now?)

    The British entered ww1 because they were so concerned about little Belgium, remember? Do you think they gave a damn about Belgium or was it a pretext and their real reasons were not that at all?

    You think the western powers declared war on Germany in 1939 because they really cared about Poland, about your people? Or was there another reason and this was just a pretext?

    • Replies: @szopen
  179. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    THank you for the answers.

    Just few points. (4) is not a strawman. I met people on the internet who sincerely believed that (i.e. that while they may be some rogue elements, and maybe some soldier occasionaly shoot someone, it was very limited in scale and even smaller than similar actions on the allied side).

    Agree wrt to extermination of Poles – but, in the same time, there were action directed at Poles solely because they were Poles. Intelligenzaktion is one example – shooting old university professors simply cannot be considered anything less than a war crime. I am not aware of any similar, comparable action of Americans in Vietnam – i.e. inviting professors, arresting them and shooting – with no one being punished for that.

    There is a difference between individual actions of soldiers and even units, especially when on a frontline, and a policy. If soldiers or units kill civilians, but government tries to stop it, punishes guilty, and tries to prevent that in future, then you cannot blame the government. OTOH, if government does nothing to stop it, uses propaganda which encourages such killings, does not punish anyone, then government is complicit.

  180. @SolontoCroesus

    Here’s a map of Birkenau.

    Krema II is labeled “a.” The delousing chambers were in the sauna, labeled “e.” They were perhaps half a kilometer distant.

    I’m not going to make an extended case for you unless you give me some reason to think you’re open to hearing it.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  181. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Thanks, Andrew

    But what does the picture/map prove?

    Your assertion that e. = the delousing chamber is not dispositive, it’s just your assertion; US reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz show pretty much the same configuration and label that building an “undressing room.”
    It seems to follow logically that one would first disrobe, then wash, then be de-loused in a “gas chamber” and also have clothing de-loused, in a gas chamber.

    As noted in the extended quote above, the British built chambers large enough to fit a railroad car in order delouse it and its inhabitants.

    I’m open to sound reasoning based on facts and evidence, but if you mean am I going to be resistant to persuasion by means short of facts, logic and evidence, the answer is yes.

    In any event, I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about holocaustism in terms of the concentration camps and the notion of Jews as unique victims. That meme, that Jews are unique victims, is explained quite satisfactorily in David Biale’s “Cultures of the Jews.” As well, Isaiah Gafney’s history of Jews concedes that Heinrich Graetz’s multi-volume History of the Jews focused on Jewish victimhood; consequently, Graetz’s many readers (two of whom were Rabbi Stephen Wise and his wife) similarly dwell on victimhood as a key element of Jewish identity. Cycle back to Biale and “Cultures of the Jews;” that text deconstructs Graetz’s narrative.

    My special interest is Who Started WWII, when and why?

    It is unavoidable that Jewish leaders — like Rabbi Wise — are implicated up to their necks in evil acts in starting a war with the deliberate intent to destroy Germany and the German people.

    If Germans fought back or retaliated, well, hasn’t Benjamin Netanyahu insisted to the world that states have the right to defend themselves?

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  182. @szopen

    re Intelligenzaktion: that’s harsh.

    This topic demands extended treatment, and I’m supposed to be someplace else an hour ago — but here’s the gist of the argument:

    Earlier I posted Michael Ledeen’s version of Machiavelli. I think he got The Prince wrong. geokat62 followed up with what (with all respect) I consider a surface reading of Machiavelli and likewise got it wrong.

    There is no doubt that Machivellian principles — or theories claimed to be Machiavellian — were at work in starting and carrying on WW2. Irving Kristol says that very thing in his statement that “FDR lied, deceived, … was Machiavellian … in getting US into WW2.”

    C Bradley Thompson argued compellingly that neoconservatives rely heavily on Machiavelli; in his MOOC on Machiavelli, Prof. Steven Smith says that Leo Strauss was the preeminent scholar on Machiavelli. I would dispute that but the point remains that Machiavelli was central to neoconservative thinking. Leo Strauss was part of the “intelligentsia” that informed Weimar; his defenders fight valiantly to refute this, but it is a fact that Strauss was a disciple and adherent of Carl Schmitt, a scholar of The Prince.

    That is the damning point that Bradley Thompson made in this CATO colloquy — http://www.cato.org/events/neoconservatism-obituary-idea# Thompson pointed out that (I’m winging it here) Strauss acquiesced to theories Mussolini spelled out in an extensive essay on Machiavelli.

    Bet you didn’t know Mussolini was an intellectual; it’s true. He was also deeply aware of The Prince and its principles.
    Hitler understood his limitations and took his cues from Mussolini (so did Vladimir Jabotinsky, btw).

    What all this is getting to is a cookie-crumb trail to claim that Hitler was following Machiavellian principles in his actions.

    Wiping out the intellectuals of a conquered people is pure, classic Machiavelli.

    If it’s hunky-dory for FDR to involve USA in a war against Germany by Machiavellian means, why is it not equally appropriate for Germany to respond with equally Machiavellian means, particularly in the situation where Germany had worked valiantly to settle its differences with Poland nonviolently, but FDR & Churchill made that impossible?
    —–
    That’s point one.
    Point two; your wrote:

    I am not aware of any similar, comparable action of Americans in Vietnam – i.e. inviting professors, arresting them and shooting – with no one being punished for that.

    There is a difference between individual actions of soldiers and even units, especially when on a frontline, and a policy. If soldiers or units kill civilians, but government tries to stop it, punishes guilty, and tries to prevent that in future, then you cannot blame the government. OTOH, if government does nothing to stop it, uses propaganda which encourages such killings, does not punish anyone, then government is complicit.

    In “Fog of War” Robert McNamara quotes Curtiss LeMay at some point shortly after WW2, reflecting on the firebombing of Germany and Japan:

    @ 42 min: “LeMay said if we’d lost the war we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he’s right: he and I were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost.

    But what makes it immoral if you lose but not immoral if you win?”

    Firebombing Germany and Japan was a government policy; it was planned and set in motion before Sept. 1, 1939.
    No one was punished for the “war criminal” “immoral” behavior of USA in WW2.

    fast forward to about 1:30 in the Fog of War documentary:

    McNamara says:

    We introduced what we called Rolling Thunder which over the years became a very, very heavy bombing program — 2 to 3 times as many bombs as were dropped over Western Europe during all of WWII.

    LBJ’s American administration carried out a government policy of firebombing the Viet Namese people that was two or three times as destructive as that carried out against Germany in WW2 — the policy that was understood to be a “war crime” and “immoral” by the people who conducted it.

    Who was punished for that government policy?

    Subsequent US foreign policy/activity has hewn very closely to the genocidal policies crafted by FDR and his administration.

    The US does not follow “Constitutional” principles, or the “values of the Founders,” it follows FDRism (and the Dulles Brothers).

    Nothing in US foreign policy — and nothing that ANY candidate for pres, Repub or Dem, has said, indicates that they are even aware of George Washington’s Farewell Address with its prescriptions for respectful US relations with foreign governments. http://www.earlyamerica.com/milestone-events/george-washingtons-farewell-address-full-text/

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    , @geokat62
  183. szopen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    (1) Why would Poland shoudl honour the treaty, when this treaty was not signed by Germany, UK or France? WHy it should honour the treaty when Germans were mistreating Polish minority in Germany?
    (2) Poland would not bow to German demands, no matter whether it would receive UK guarantees or not. Even if France would not honour our alliance, we would still fight. Geez. Is this that hard to get?
    (3) Poland was not seeing war as favourable outcome. Far from that. Simply, we were prepared to fight.
    (4) German demands were not just “let’s discuss minority”, as we were fully prepared to discuss that, provided the guarantees would be mutual. Germany demanded also that we would in effect join axis, making transnational highway (to Prussia) and referendum in Pomerania, with astoundingly stupid demands that while German colonists who settled there before 1918 (and soldiers and officials who were garrisoned there in 1918) would have right of vote, while Poles who settled there after 1918 would have no right to vote.

    In short, German demands were so absurd that anyone with half of mind clearly see that Germany simply wanted war, not compromise. In short, Germany demanded: obey us or die.

    Finally, fuck you. I won’t discuss with someone who uses ethnic slurs on me. You don’t have to even answer. I won’t read it.

    • Replies: @HdC
  184. geokat62 says:

    If Germans fought back or retaliated, well, hasn’t Benjamin Netanyahu insisted to the world that states have the right to defend themselves?

    Quite true. But aren’t most of us condemning him for punishing a collective for the actions of a few. Doesn’t this rule also apply to the Germans? Even if you were right that “Jewish leaders… are implicated up to their necks in evil acts in starting a war,” does this mean they were justified in punishing the collective for the actions of the few?

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  185. @SolontoCroesus

    edit:

    Leo Strauss was part of the “intelligentsia” that informed Weimar; his defenders fight valiantly to refute this, but it is a fact that Strauss was a disciple and adherent of Carl Schmitt, who was a scholar of The Prince, and a supporter of Hitler and of German National Socialism.

  186. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    France was allied with us, for a quite long time. Why? BEcause they were affraid that Germany would one day attack them and they needed an ally. Sure, they could dishonour they promises, but they were our allies.

    As for UK, I think “Failure of a mission” by Neville Henderson answers at least some of those questions.

    I think Czechoslovakia was allied with France too. Then came Munich Agreement. Germany took Sudetenland and promised that’s it. Then they violated their word and took the rest of Czechia. Clearly, at this point no one will trust Hitler if he would say “OK, now it’s the end of my demands, let’s celebrate long-awaited peace”. Everyone expects him to press new demands.

    Now imagine UK and France would back off. Just, for the sake of argument, let’s imagine that our government consisted of completely different people, the kind which would cower to the aggression, and Hitler’s demands would be met. What next? I would say Greater Poland is the next goal, as still there are some minorities there. Then Poland has no choice as to become Hitler’s satellite.

    Germany now controls whole central Europe. French politicians now turn to the mein kampf and they see that the next goals would be probably Alsatia-Lorraine (and Germany avenging WWI). Why not? Germany is now strong, has aggressive, militaristic leader with strong army. The only conclusion is that the war is inevitable. And France is in awful situation, much worse than in 1939, without an ally on the east flank. In fact, it is in much worse situation than in 1914.

    Simply, France pretty much has every reason to stand by Poland. She had every reason to stand by Czechoslovakia too, BTW. I mean – surely, the scenario I’ve sketched is just probability. But skilled politician must prevent this nightmarish scenario.

    As for UK – there is a question what to do if Germany becomes European hegemon. UK always fought to prevent this situation and always succeed. Why it suddenly should accept Germany’s hegemony? A single hegemon in Europe clearly poses danger to British empire – unless British decide that they, without a fight, give up their first power status. I simply do not see them doing that in 1939 (today, probably they would do that without a second thought).

  187. @geokat62

    Even if you were right that “Jewish leaders… are implicated up to their necks in evil acts in starting a war,” does this mean they were justified in punishing the collective for the actions of the few?

    That’s one perspective, but I think it is inappropriate.

    One major difference is that Netanyahu is the aggressor.

    I argue that the Germans were defending their nation.
    The notion that Germany sought out Jews to “punish” is bogus. Allies brought war to Germany and Germans fought it. You got in the way, or if you pissed someone off, you got killed. That’s what happens in a war. You don’t want to get killed, or you don’t want your people to get killed, don’t start a war.
    Maybe it’s too simple a concept for “high-IQ Jews” to absorb.

    I’d still like someone to answer this question: How many Jews died in the Allied firebombing of German cities and civilians that destroyed 131 cites — 75% of Germany — killed at least 600,000 German civilians, and de-housed 7 million Germans?

    Are there sections in holocaust museums that commemorate Jews who were among the 7 million de-housed by Allied firebombing?

    How about all those oxymoronic holocaust survivors — how many of them have recorded oral histories of their experiences in Allied terror-bombing of Germany?

    btw, I am right: “Jewish leaders… are implicated up to their necks in evil acts in starting a war,”

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  188. @SolontoCroesus

    But aren’t most of us condemning him [Netanyahu] for punishing a collective for the actions of a few. Doesn’t this rule also apply to the Germans?. . . Even if you were right that “Jewish leaders… are implicated up to their necks in evil acts in starting a war,” does this mean they were justified in punishing the collective for the actions of the few?

    1. Perhaps you did not notice — the Germans were punished.
    As Dinh reported of his travels in Germany, they are still being punished. From statements such as

    “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?”

    I can’t conclude anything but that not only German culture but the German psyche has been subjected to genocide, an outcome that was advocated and implemented in no small part by Jews in FDR’s administration (as well as Churchill, tho to their credit the British rejected Churchill, while USA voted twice for war crimes perpetrator Eisenhower.

    At war’s end, Jews were afforded refuge in Germany and elsewhere; Germans were removed from their homes and replaced by Jews.

    At war’s end, 75% of Germany was rubble; 10 million or more Germans were homeless; 15 million Germans were “transferred” from their ancient homes.
    Jews, on the other hand, had conquered that much of Palestine during the pre-war and war years that Jews had a new state, with many lavish new buildings. It was another people’s land (Germans were displaced from their own land, as were Palestinians).

    At war’s end, Jews declared a state of their own governed by leaders of their own under rules they crafted, built their own infrastructure and institutions.
    Jews won WW2.

    On the other hand,
    At war’s end, Allies planted themselves in Germany and stayed — until today; they divided Germany’s land, “de-Nazified” — i.e. brainwashed under threat the German people; dictated Germany’s rules and constitution; selected Germany’s leaders, plundered Germany’s industrial resources, removing both in physical facilities and in intellectual — i.e. patents as well as brain-power for the benefit of others, primarily the USA and Russia.

    2. Isn’t Netanyahu the leader of the people whose rallying cry is “Never again?”

    In other words, we have failed to learn from history because the history has been systematically distorted.

    Who is insisting on protecting that distorted narrative?

    It is the very same people who, as I argue, started an immoral war against Germany in 1933 and have been lying to cover it up ever since.

    The longest-running massively-major cold-case in history.

  189. @szopen

    Norman Finkelstein observed something interesting about France during the war: the Resistance was a joke.

    The French preferred living under German Vichy.

    Frenchmen who ended up in Britain after Dunkirk preferred to return to France rather than accept the offer of shelter in England.

  190. @szopen

    A single hegemon in Europe clearly poses danger to British empire – unless British decide that they, without a fight, give up their first power status. I simply do not see them doing that in 1939 (today, probably they would do that without a second thought).

    Ya, that was a primary motive for the British: to destroy Germany lest it pose a threat to British hegemony.

    Curious that the British did not absorb Hitler’s numerous speeches stating how Germany recognized the British empire’s superpower status and sought to work within that sphere, not oppose it.

    Curious that the British did not reflect on their escape from Dunkirk as a gift from an “adversary,” followed by an offer of peace — several offers, actually.

    And ironic, or something, how the British lost their empire anyway.

    That’s the lesson of Croesus: when you misinterpret the oracle — or the history — you lose your nation.

  191. HdC says:
    @szopen

    OK, I’ll bite.

    Where can I read credible translations of the original Polish documents of what you claim? And the German documents supporting the German action taken? I’d really like to read them. Because what I read in How Wars are Made and Witness to History (both by English speaking authors), state the exact opposite of what you claim.

    HdC

    • Replies: @szopen
  192. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Earlier I posted Michael Ledeen’s version of Machiavelli. I think he got The Prince wrong. geokat62 followed up with what (with all respect) I consider a surface reading of Machiavelli and likewise got it wrong.

    Eager to see a deeper reading of M., when opportunity permits.

  193. szopen says:
    @HdC

    WHich documents? You mean Beck speeches, or German demands, or what? And what would you accept as “credible” translation? Do you consider memoires by e.g. Ciano to be credible? If you accept White Book, do you accept British Blue Book (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blbkmenu.asp) as a credible source?

    German demands are described pretty much everywhere. If you want an eyewitness perspective (though not impartial, as he was British diplomat) start with “Failure of the Mission” by Neville Henderson.

    • Replies: @HdC
  194. @SolontoCroesus

    Your assertion that e. = the delousing chamber is not dispositive, it’s just your assertion; US reconnaissance photos of Auschwitz show pretty much the same configuration and label that building an “undressing room.”
    It seems to follow logically that one would first disrobe, then wash, then be de-loused in a “gas chamber” and also have clothing de-loused, in a gas chamber.

    That’s incorrect. The image you’ve posted includes only Kremas II and III; the Sauna would be out of frame, specifically below, in the picture you’ve posted.

    Take my picture:

    Rotate it 180 degrees. Your picture is now a close-up of (a) and (b) on my image. Note the train tracks runnning between (a) and (b). Those tracks are on your image between the two gas chambers.

  195. @szopen

    Just few points. (4) is not a strawman. I met people on the internet who sincerely believed that

    Excuse me… yes, it is a straw man. Look, when you say that you “met people on the internet” who believe there were no killings at all, this really is very sloppy argumentation.

    For example, this Mathis idiot just claimed that the Nazis opted to use gassing as a killing method because shooting was hard on morale. I had never heard this claim before, but should I now believe that this is a part of the conventional narrative because I have now come across one idiot who claims this?

    As for the rest of what you write, it seems that you are engaging in wilful obtuseness. You basically refuse to understand what the Holocaust revisionism debate is really about. You still write as if you believe that the revisionist thesis is that there were no atrocities at all!

    Well, okay, I guess I’ll just ask you: do you believe that? Is this what the revisionists are arguing? That there were no atrocities at all?

    The above is a question that admits yes or no as an answer. Though, that said, there are three possible answers: Yes, no, and I dunno.

    Let me ask you another such question: do you believe that the testimony given at the Nuremberg trials and elsewhere regarding the execution of people using gas is broadly true? Specifically, when a man claims that shortly after a mass gassing, he entered a gas chamber and started removing bodies, and in said testimony, no mention is made of the use of gas masks or any other protective equipment — he just goes in there and starts pulling out the dead bodies with his bare hands.

    In your opinion, is such testimony truthful?

    Again, there are three possible answers: Yes, no, and I dunno. Could you answer this question also please? (Anybody else is welcome to answer it as well, of course.)

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    , @szopen
  196. @Jonathan Revusky

    For example, this Mathis idiot just claimed that the Nazis opted to use gassing as a killing method because shooting was hard on morale. I had never heard this claim before, but should I now believe that this is a part of the conventional narrative because I have now come across one idiot who claims this?

    There is a famous incident that occurred in Minsk, in occupied Belarus, in August 1941. Himmler had gone there to witness a shooting being conducted by Einsatzgruppen B under the arrangement of SS-Obengruppenführer Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski. The demonstration was done both for Himmler to see how the process was going, as well as to impress upon him how terrible the work was that the Reichsführer-SS was asking that they do. Himmler was appalled at what he saw, and Bach-Zelewski told him that unless other means were found, the men conducting these mass shooting incidents would end up criminals or lunatics.

    You can read more first-person accounts on this topic here:

    http://www.faculty.umb.edu/lawrence_blum/courses/290h_09/readings/klee_pushed_to_their_psychological_limits.pdf

    Interestingly, the incident in Minsk was followed in subsequent weeks by two important developments. First was the deployment of mobile gas vans to Belarus and other occupied regions in the USSR; these had already begun being used at Chelmno in Reichsgau Wartheland. Second was the planning of a death camp with gas chamber installations at Mogilev, also in Belarus. It was argued at the time by Himmler and authors that such installations should at least be used to kill women, children, and the elderly, as these were the most difficult tasks being asked of the Einsatzgruppen.

    It’s helpful to have knowledge on one’s side when casting aspersions at others.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  197. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Yes, I understand the rotation.

    I did mistake the description of Bldg e – In your picture, Bldg e is labeled entwesungsanlage – “disinfestation.”

    In my picture, the same building is labeled “undressing room.”
    My picture bears the caption: “Enlarged from the original negative and captioned by the CIA in 1978.”

    What is the provenance of your picture?

  198. @Andrew E. Mathis

    PS

    Your picture labels two other buildings — the q units — as entwesungsanlage – “disinfestation.” or “insecticide equipment”
    CIA did not label those buildings in its photo.

    the e building is a combination of bad — bathroom, bathe, pool, spa, plus disinfestation.

    the q buildings are only entwesungsanlage — disinfestation.

    It makes more sense that e, at the intake section where trains disembark, would be heavy-duty “bathe + disinfect” and the q buildings would be routine bathing facilities servicing the two sections of the prisoners’s dormitories.

  199. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You know what, I have read that shooting was hard on morale many times. If that is the first time you have read this, maybe you were never studying the literature enough (cough, cough). In fact I thought that it is quite common knowledge amongst people who read something about Holocaust (it’s on wikipedia, for example, not that wikipedia is reliable source, just to show that it’s not really something like secret knowledge).

    As for the answer: I don’t know. Of course, removing corpses with bare hands is possible, as demonstrated in a article I linked to earlier in this thread. I have no knowledge pertaining the rest.

    As for my understanding revisionist position: My understanding is that you argue that there was no exterminationist policy. My answer is that it’s hard to justify this position with the fact of shooting people by official units, with no trace of any repercussions against commanders of those units.

    But please, clarify it for me further: do you accept that there were actions resulting in shooting of people from carefully prepared lists (in case of Polish victims of intelligenzaktion), and actions in which hundreds of thousands were shot to death by special units which seem to have no other role except shooting, with no evidence of any kind of effort to prevent such actions, and no evidence of any martial courts for people responsible for such actions? I am not asking now about Holocaust, gas chambers: just I want to clarify your position in this particular matter.

  200. Because clothes were deloused in the Sauna building, there were deinfestation works there too — specifically of the clothes of people killed in the gas chambers. Uniforms, linens, etc., were deloused elsewhere.

    The undressing rooms in your pic are adjacent to the gas chambers in Krema II and III, I.e., same buildings, different rooms. Sauna was a different building altogether off to the north (down in your pic).

    Don’t know the provenance of my pic. I chose it because it shows all of Birkenau and is labeled.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  201. @szopen

    You know what, I have read that shooting was hard on morale many times.

    Well, yeah, actually, I heard that too. What I had never heard, though, was that shooting was hard on morale, and that’s the reason they switched to gassing! (Because, presumably, somebody thought that killing people with gas rather than shooting them was less demoralizing…) The only time I have ever heard this claimed is from this Mathis jerkoff.

    As for the answer: I don’t know.

    Okay, you don’t know whether it is possible to go into a gas chamber minutes after a gassing and pull out the bodies with your bare hands… You just dunno… Okay, fine…

    I shall request a further clarification: why don’t you know? Is it

    (A) because you just never thought about… never studied the question….

    Or:

    (B) you seriously thought about it but could not decide whether it was possible or not…

    Is it (A) or (B)?

    Of course, removing corpses with bare hands is possible,

    Right after a gassing??? Uh, no, it’s not possible. The people in question would poison themselves in short order.

    My understanding is that you argue that there was no exterminationist policy. My answer is that it’s hard to justify this position with the fact of shooting people by official units, with no trace of any repercussions against commanders of those units.

    So then your position would be that, since, when the Red Army entered Germany in 1945 they did a lot of killing (and raping) and there were no repercussions, the Soviets had an exterminationist policy… is that your position then? Or is it that you’re so careless and sloppy that you don’t even bother to knew what the term “extermination” means?

    do you accept that there were actions resulting in shooting of people from carefully prepared list

    Do you realize that you are on the verge of completely conceding the debate now (if you haven’t already)?

    Look, obviously, if you’re drawing up a “carefully prepared list” of who you’re going to kill, it means that you DO NOT have an exterminationist policy! An exterminationist policy means you’re killing EVERYBODY!

    In any case, I don’t contest it. The CIA had a similar policy in Vietnam. They drew up lists of people who would be assassinated. That was called operation Phoenix. I have no doubt that the Nazis had a similar policy in places they occupied. So did the Bolsheviks.

    But that’s not an exterminationist policy! It’s brutal and nasty, yes, but it’s not a policy of genocide of an entire ethnic group. You see the problem here is that you don’t even really understand what the debate is about!

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    , @szopen
  202. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Don’t know the provenance of my pic.

    then it’s useless.

    the pic I posted is equally suspect therefore useless: CIA labeled it in 1978. Based on what, a Hollywood script? Memoirs of a Diamond Crapper? the inventory of Rabbi Stephen Wise’s Jewish skin lampshade emporium (or emptorium, as Scarlett O’Hara named it)?

    just as useless as your forced interpretation

    “clothes were deloused in the Sauna building, there were deinfestation works there too — specifically of the clothes of people killed in the gas chambers. “

    If you’re going to kill people who have lice that carry a deadly disease, and you’re going to use a chemical — Xyklon-B whose function is to kill lice, why would you have the people you are going to kill take off their lousy clothes, which other people are going to have to handle to get them to a delousing chamber, thus putting those handlers at risk of catching typhus?

    Makes no sense.

    you’re making it up. it doesn’t make sense and you’ve presented no convincing evidence.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  203. HdC says:
    @szopen

    OK, I shall read the documents you suggest.

    Why don’t you read How Wars are Made.

    HdC

  204. @SolontoCroesus

    If you’re going to kill people who have lice that carry a deadly disease, and you’re going to use a chemical — Xyklon-B whose function is to kill lice, why would you have the people you are going to kill take off their lousy clothes, which other people are going to have to handle to get them to a delousing chamber, thus putting those handlers at risk of catching typhus?

    So your suggestion is that you should gas people with their clothes on? I submit the soiling that was likely would render the clothes useless.

    The Nazis were not concerned with the health of the people that sorted the clothes, considering they were also Jews.

    You’ve grown tiresome so I probably won’t respond further.

  205. @szopen

    and actions in which hundreds of thousands were shot to death by special units which seem to have no other role except shooting, with no evidence of any kind of effort to prevent such actions, and no evidence of any martial courts for people responsible for such actions? I am not asking now about Holocaust, gas chambers: just I want to clarify your position in this particular matter.

    Any comment on US/Allies (later to include Israel) committing the very same acts — “mass shooting . . . no effort to prevent . . .no evidence of any martial courts for people responsible” — to which the facts have to add: that were deliberate, stated, practiced, rehearsed and perfected state policy and strategy — see here: http://www.unz.com/ldinh/flagless-germany/#comment-1190129

    In “Fog of War” Robert McNamara quotes Curtiss LeMay at some point shortly after WW2, reflecting on the firebombing of Germany and Japan:

    @ 42 min: “LeMay said if we’d lost the war we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he’s right: he and I were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost.

    But what makes it immoral if you lose but not immoral if you win?”

    Firebombing Germany and Japan was a government policy; it was planned and set in motion before Sept. 1, 1939.
    No one was punished for the “war criminal” “immoral” behavior of USA in WW2.

    fast forward to about 1:30 in the Fog of War documentary:

    McNamara says:

    We introduced what we called Rolling Thunder which over the years became a very, very heavy bombing program — 2 to 3 times as many bombs as were dropped over Western Europe during all of WWII.

    Who of Bolshevik Russia’s leaders were punished for the famine-starvation that claimed more lives than were lost by all sides combined in the Great War? That was a deliberate state policy.

    (as an aside: in a talk at the Jewish Heritage Museum in December 2014, Martin Amis observed that the famine was necessary:

    “The Stalin crime that most neatly corresponds to the holocaust is the terror famine in the Ukraine in 1933 where — it’s not known but something like, 7- 8- 9-million peasants were starved to death, even tho the granaries were full. . . .
    [The terror famine was] very comparable to the holocaust, but, the difference is, Stalin really had no choice: his intention was to break the peasantry and 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.” http://www.c-span.org/video/?322861-1/book-discussion-explaining-hitler-zone-interest

    What is even more noteworthy is that neither Amis’s interlocutor nor any of those of the audience at the Jewish Heritage Museum who asked questions, no one challenged the judgment that “Stalin’s crime . . .which corresponds to the holocaust. . . was necessary. . . .Stalin had to do it, he had no choice.” )

  206. @Jonathan Revusky

    The only time I have ever heard this claimed is from this Mathis jerkoff.

    You mad bro?

  207. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Actually, regarding the claim that they switched to gassing from shooting because shooting was too demoralizing — after a bit of googling, I see that this is not something you came up. Others have said this. I still don’t think it is a central holocaustian claim.

    It doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Once you’ve rounded people up into an enclosed space where they would be gassed, I assume they could also be machine gunned. The notion that it would be better for morale to gas the people rather than shoot them seems very odd.

    What is also odd is the claim that this is such an efficient way of killing large numbers of people. If this is so, why has this method never been use before or since?

    The “mobile gas vans”… Let me guess… They were all destroyed, right? Not a single one survived the war so that we could look at it… But again, in the seventy years since, has anybody used mobile gas vans to kill people? Lots of folks have been shot. Why shoot people when there is this technically far more efficient method? Mobile gas vans!

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  208. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “The only time I have ever heard this claimed is from this Mathis”

    That only means that you have never actually read any history about Holocaust.
    I mean, it’s of effing wikipedia. I am amateur, not a historian, and I’ve
    heard about it (i.e. that because shooting of Jews was bad for German
    soldiers morale, they moved to gassing) dozens of time.

    “Do you realize that you are on the verge of completely conceding the debate now”

    No. I think there is a misunderstanding here. You have said that I do not know
    what is your position in a debate. So I am now trying to understand what is your
    position. I am not arguing now anything (i.e. whether intelligenzaktions are genocidal). If you would ask me whether I think
    gassing happened, would that mean you conceding the debate? I repeat: I am
    now trying to clarify your position, so I would avoid making “strawmans” in
    the future.

    If I understood correctly, you admit that intelligenzaktions happened: that is,
    German authorities shot, in very short period of time, at least some 50 thousand people (My net connection sucks right now and googling exact numbers lasts like forever, so I am using number from my memory), according to earlier prepared list. Those list included not just political activists, but also teachers, nobles and so on. Of course, it is obvious that preparing those lists and carrying over that actions wouldn’t be possible without authorities participation. Meaning that Nazi Germany was fully prepared to carry large-scale killing operation of people who were arbitrarily recognised as possible dangers, even if that danger resulted only from the said people being members of intelligentsia.

    I am not sure whether CIA assasination plan included 50 thousand targets, but let’s move on.

    (1) what about einsatzgruppen? Do you believe that einsatzgruppen shot several
    hundred thousands Jews? (2) What about ghetto liquidation? There are witnesses
    about mass shootings in several ghettoes. The actions of ghetto liquidation
    had to be prepared in advance. People responsible were sometimes moved to better
    positions. Remember, I want to clarify you position, not arguing anything.

    “Right after a gassing??? Uh, no, it’s not possible. The people in question would poison themselves in short order.”

    (3) Ignoring right now the breathing (i.e. concentrating just on “it’s impossible to use just bare hands”), actually it is possible if you would care to read the linked material.

    “(B) you seriously thought about it but could not decide whether it was possible or not…”

    Yes. Touching the corpses of the gassed victims and so on is not enough to kill
    personel immedietely (as explained in the material I have linked before).
    Moreover, the personel in question was scheduled to be killed, so even if
    long-term exposition would be deadly, who cares? As for need for gas
    masks, I do not know exact procedure, gas concentration and so on. It is not
    comparable to gas execution in US (as it’s clear from the material I linked
    previously) since executioners had not cared about deaths being fast or
    painless, therefore the gas concentration was much lower and we may never know about how low it was. Hence I would have to
    read more about the topic. However, since I read carefully the claim about
    “using bare hands was impossible” and I came to the conclusion that yes, it was
    possible, I am of opinion that maybe investing my time to investigate the
    second part of this argument is not worth the time.

    • Replies: @HdC
    , @Jonathan Revusky
  209. Erebus says:

    I think a lot of the above Holocaust discussion could be short circuited by coming to agreement on the nature of the subject.

    In its original guise, the Holocaust referred to “The state mandated, systematic attempt by the German Nazi government to eliminate all or a significant part of the Jewish population in Europe”, often rounded out with “principally by means of gassing in purpose-built facilities, and ultimately eliminating millions of victims”.
    Let’s call that the “hard definition”. It’s advantage lies in that it can be proven, but remains an empty statement if sufficient evidence to prove it is not forthcoming. This lack of evidence, and the unlikelihood of any ever being found, is now acknowledged by most serious Holocaust scholars. Indeed, even the godfather of Holocaust scholarship asserted in public court that “there is no documentary evidence” to support the hard definition (Hilberg, in testimony under examination during Zundel’s trial in Toronto).

    Perhaps responding to the collapse of the hard definition, Yad Vashem changed their definition to “The Holocaust, as presented in this resource center, is defined as the sum total of all anti-Jewish actions carried out by the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945: from stripping the German Jews of their legal and economic status in the 1930s`; segregating and starvation in the various occupied countries; the murder of close to six million Jews in Europe.”

    This new definition (there was a “harder” version previously) opens the backdoor, allowing the Holocaust to slip out of the realm of historical inquiry, and into the realm of tribal lore. Though their website goes on to assert almost all of the salient points in our “hard definition” (and throws in a few extra, absurd ones), it does so almost completely without reference to any evidence whatsoever. Interestingly, university Holocaust Studies programs tend to follow this lead (so far as my experience goes). They treat the subject as if the course was about the adventures of Odysseus, rather than a recent and ostensibly real event. Sometime over the course of the last 4 or 5 decades, the Holocaust narrative has evolved. For most students of the subject, it has abandoned the historicity of its original assertions of gas chambers and state orders in favor of studying them as the minutiae of a tribal saga. For the purposes of understanding the ancient world, whether Odysseus can be traced to a real person or not matters little, and so it is with the Holocaust as tribal saga.

    Otherwise, treating the VY definition as a historical assertion immediately begs the question of how much of the defining “sum total” can be removed before the narrative dissolves into a laundry list of nasty things that happened to Jews in WWII. Stripped of its “hard” claims, it falls to Antony Flew’s dilemma: How is a Holocaust without state mandated, systematically operated death camps, featuring gas chambers, diesel asphyxiations, mass executions / graves / cremations (and/or suitable variants thereof), different from an imaginary Holocaust, or indeed from no Holocaust at all?

    Thus, an immediate requirement should one be tempted to enter a debate on the topic is to ascertain which “Holocaust” is to be discussed – the Holocaust as a collection of historical events, or the Holocaust of tribal lore? The former is simplicity itself and is normally a very short discussion if the participants are rational. The latter is vastly complex and the wise man goes down that rabbit hole prepared for long and arduous travels.

    • Agree: HdC
  210. HdC says:
    @szopen

    “since executioners had not cared about deaths being fast…”

    Methinks you lost the debate, also. Eyewitnesses swore that the deaths occurred immediately or within a few minutes. If it took a long time then the whole idea of mass gassings falls down.

    Remember, all that gassing was to have happened over a 2 year period or so. Simple calculations would show that from a logistics perspective this was impossible. Mind you, the original claims are impossible, also.

    The Einsatz Gruppen were there to protect the Wehrmacht troops against partisan attacks from the rear, orchestrated by communist commissars who, as luck would have it, were often Jewish. Caught with weapons and out of uniform these types were executed on the spot. All armies did this.

    Just to deflate your bubble on the faultless Poles, do your newspapers have any stories on a Polish/Jewish history professor in the USA who wrote that the Poles, in all likelihood, murdered more Jews than the Germans? Ain’t history great? Oh yes, this historian, Gross is his name, is to be prosecuted by the Polish government for defaming that nation. Hmmm, I wonder what Poland has to hide?

    On a previous issue, The website thread How Wars are Made is a little broad and lengthy, Thus I suggest that you read the books England and Germany by Nesta Webster, and Witness to History by Michael Walsh.

    Another interesting book is The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson. This tome deals with WWI and the lead-up thereto.

    Happy reading!

    HdC

  211. @Erebus

    Thank you for an astute and acute analysis, tracing how the holocaust narrative evolved from the “mystic chords of memory” (borrowing from the title of a book by Michael Kammen ) to tribal lore, to which I would add the further evolution to myth and thence to religious dogma.

    In (editor) David Biale’s “The Cultures of the Jews,” essayist Ivan Marcus explained how the Jewish people have throughout their history transmuted episodic and relatively rare experiences of negative events into a prevailing narrative of victimization and persecution through the process of commemorating the event liturgically. Those prayer rituals became cemented in the cycle of worship, then researchers called upon the liturgy as a source for history.

    One pernicious practice that holocaustism engages is controlling the history and commemorative “liturgy” of the Other.

    Why should the American people be forced to teach their children the religious doctrine of the Jewish people (however distorted), at the expense of the American taxpayer?

    Why in the world should the German people be cut off from their own history, cut off from the right to correct the distortions of their history; cut off from their Hakenkreuz and the music and liturgy that reflects their times of trouble and struggle?

    Oh Flagless Germany: Die Fahne hoch!

    • Replies: @Erebus
  212. @Erebus

    Let’s call that the “hard definition”. It’s advantage lies in that it can be proven, but remains an empty statement if sufficient evidence to prove it is not forthcoming. This lack of evidence, and the unlikelihood of any ever being found, is now acknowledged by most serious Holocaust scholars. Indeed, even the godfather of Holocaust scholarship asserted in public court that “there is no documentary evidence” to support the hard definition (Hilberg, in testimony under examination during Zundel’s trial in Toronto).

    There’s nothing like good, up-to-date commentary on a topic. I mean, Hilberg testified in the Zündel trial in 1985. Let’s see what we’ve found out about the Holocaust in the THIRTY YEARS since then, what scholarly works have been published on the topic, etc., shall we?

    On the issue of documentary evidence, a single book published since 1985 renders Hilberg’s testimony obsolete. This is Jean-Claude Pressac’s Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (available online here: http://holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/).

    Were this the only work published on the matter or the only documentation identified since 1985, it would disprove this post. Of course, it isn’t the only work nor what it discusses the only sources. First, I’d remind readers that Soviet archives did not open to the west until 1991. I’d point interested readers in particular to the following:

    Gerald Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution
    Christopher Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution
    Henry Friedlander, The Origins of Nazi Genocide

    Any person not having read at least one of these works — but preferrably all three — and definitely Pressac doesn’t really know what s/he’s talking about.

    {big snip of nonsense}

    Otherwise, treating the VY definition as a historical assertion immediately begs the question of how much of the defining “sum total” can be removed before the narrative dissolves into a laundry list of nasty things that happened to Jews in WWII.

    In so far as those things were done by the Nazis and the Jews in question died, I’m not sure whether it matters.

    Stripped of its “hard” claims, it falls to Antony Flew’s dilemma: How is a Holocaust without state mandated, systematically operated death camps, featuring gas chambers, diesel asphyxiations, mass executions / graves / cremations (and/or suitable variants thereof), different from an imaginary Holocaust, or indeed from no Holocaust at all?

    Well, then it’s a good thing that this is not the case.

    Thus, an immediate requirement should one be tempted to enter a debate on the topic is to ascertain which “Holocaust” is to be discussed – the Holocaust as a collection of historical events, or the Holocaust of tribal lore? The former is simplicity itself and is normally a very short discussion if the participants are rational. The latter is vastly complex and the wise man goes down that rabbit hole prepared for long and arduous travels.

    OK, then smart guy, where would you like to begin?

    • Replies: @Erebus
  213. @HdC

    The Einsatz Gruppen were there to protect the Wehrmacht troops against partisan attacks from the rear, orchestrated by communist commissars who, as luck would have it, were often Jewish. Caught with weapons and out of uniform these types were executed on the spot. All armies did this.

    Perhaps the best documented of all Einsatzgruppen actions was that conducted in Riga on two dates: November 30 and December 8, 1941. On these two dates, roughly 25,000 Jews were shot by Einsatzgruppen and Order Police working under the auspices of SS and Police Leader Friedrich Jeckeln and Rudolf Lange of the SS-Reichssicherheithauptamt.

    We know two things about the actions in Riga that render your argument untenable:

    (1) The vast majority of Jews that were shot were women, children under 15 years old, and the elderly.
    (2) Among the thousands of Jews shot in Riga were Jews that had arrived overnight on November 29-30 from Berlin who could not possibly have been partisans.

    So you’re demostrably wrong. I imagine you’re used to that.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  214. Jean-Claude Pressac’s Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.

    {big snip of nonsense}

    definitely Pressac doesn’t really know what s/he’s talking about.

  215. szopen says:
    @HdC

    Fast == within seconds. “Few minutes” is a very slow death i.e. “few minutes” is a “very long time”.

    About einsatzgruppen – that’s not what the witnesses saw. Einsatzgruppen seem to be rather concerned in shooting civilians, including children and women, on a mass scale. If you refuse to believe this, then you have to argue that witnesses’s testimonies are false and the documents were falsified.

    Not to mention einsatzgruppen acted also in 1939, shooting Poles and Jews alike.
    No communist commissars there.

    “Just to deflate your bubble on the faultless Poles”

    Can’t you read? Go back to this thread when I admitted for example one very shameful act by my compatriots: “gold rush” in Treblinka. I also admitted that most likely German civilians were killed in Bydgoszcz after war started in 1939 (though 1000, as reported by some German historians, seem inflated; From my own reading it seems rather as the number would be close to 150-300, including deaths from bombardment of Bydgoszcz). There is no nation of heroes, which could not claim its own share of bandits and murderers.

    As about Gross, “who wrote that the Poles, in all likelihood, murdered more Jews than the Germans” i.e. that “Poles murdered more Jews than they killed Germans”, he is not a historian. For example, the historian I’ve read wrote of about at most 300-2000 (327 documented cases) Jews killed after the war, the number which include also communists (as well as innocent man, women and children). Gross took the largest estimate, it seems, to get his estimate of Jews killed after the war. The same for Jedwabne – his estimate of number of victims (IIRC 1600) is the highest estimate of almost all other historians (other generally think about 300 victims).

    In addition, he seems to count Jews which were denounced to Nazis by some Poles as being “killed” by Poles (his way of calculation: he estimated that 10% of Jews escaped from ghettos – 200-250 thousands, then he estimates how many of them survived – 40.000, than subtracts that those two guesstimates and voila – the result are Jews killed by Poles). From that he concluded that Poles murdered 100-200 thousand Jews. This is absurd. I’d say that maybe 20-40 thousand at most could be directly killed by Poles, and I say that because I wanted to play it safe – in reality the number of Jews directly killed by Poles would be more like 10 thousands, maybe.

    He does not count Germans killed by Polish armed forces outside Poland – almost as if he was unaware that there were Polish armies in the west and in the USSR, fighting the Germans.

    I wonder what would happened if we would started to count the number of Poles killed by those few Jews who participated in communist regime (or in massacres like in Koniuchy) and how that number would compare to the number of Germans killed by Polish Jews.

    All in all, his claim is rather improbable (though not impossible), given that Poles were killing Germans during September campaign (exact number not known, but 10-16 thousand is probable), campaign in France 1940 (several battles), in Norway (Narvik), in Tobruk (all short fights, in total maybe 1000 killed), Italy ’44 (Monte Cassino! Bologne!) and France (Falaise! Market-Garden!), Belgium, Netherlands in 1944, and throughout the whole offensive from Lenino to Berlin. Not to mention partisan activities and Warsaw Uprising – I guess any number between 3000 to 10.000 is quite probable guesstimate . Then you have to add of course Germans killed by our Navy and air forces (with all our fighter and bombing squads). Ultimately, I don’t know how many Germans were killed by Poles, and how many Jews (or Russians, or Ukrainians). I’d say the number of 40 thousand Germans directly killed by Poles in military operations is a safe lower bound. After all, more than half of Polish military losses were after 1939.

    Which is not to deny that some Poles, unfortunately, took part in the Holocaust. Father of Gross, fortunately, was saved by Polish women from the death (she married him after the war – Gross is 1/2 Polish).

    On the other hand, this has nothing to do with the question whether Holocaust took place or not. If Gross is right, this still has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove here.

    • Agree: Andrew E. Mathis
    • Replies: @HdC
  216. @Andrew E. Mathis

    (2) Among the thousands of Jews shot in Riga were Jews that had arrived overnight on November 29-30 from Berlin who could not possibly have been partisans.

    Berlin was center of Jewish Bolshevik activity seeking to overthrow Germany.

    If what you say is factual, it may be the case that the transported Jews were not precisely partisans but that does not mean they were not enemies of the state.

    Have they been identified as old-line German Jews? Or were they recent immigrants (i.e. Israeli art students) from Poland or Stalin’s Russia; or Irgun/Mossad el-Aliyeh-bet agents whose agenda was nefarious?

    Part of the holocaustism meme is that Jews were killed “just because they were Jews.” Otherwise, pure as the driven snow, just minding their business, not seeking in any way to participate in a plot to assassinate anyone or subvert any government — heavens forfend.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  217. @HdC

    Remember, all that gassing was to have happened over a 2 year period or so. Simple calculations would show that from a logistics perspective this was impossible. Mind you, the original claims are impossible, also.

    Wrong again. Gassing began at Chelmno in the fall of 1941; gassing ended at Birkenau in November 1944. I count three full years.

    • Replies: @HdC
  218. szopen says:

    You know what, after reading a bit more, I must say that Gross may be right. He may be wrong. I think that whatever number you would throw between 10 and 150 thousands, this number could be correct.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  219. @SolontoCroesus

    Berlin was center of Jewish Bolshevik activity seeking to overthrow Germany.

    Really? Eight years after the banning of the KPD? In November 1941, Ernst Thälmann was entering his ninth year of solitary confinentment. But do tell us more. When responding, please bear in mind that among the Jews deported in November 1941 were Jews who held the Iron Cross First Class from World War I.

    If what you say is factual, it may be the case that the transported Jews were not precisely partisans but that does not mean they were not enemies of the state.

    See above: Many were decorated and had therefore had avoided deportation until that point.

    Have they been identified as old-line German Jews? Or were they recent immigrants (i.e. Israeli art students) from Poland or Stalin’s Russia; or Irgun/Mossad el-Aliyeh-bet agents whose agenda was nefarious?

    You really know nothing about anything, do you? Jews of non-German citizenship had been stripped of their rights and rounded up years earlier.

    Part of the holocaustism meme is that Jews were killed “just because they were Jews.” Otherwise, pure as the driven snow, just minding their business, not seeking in any way to participate in a plot to assassinate anyone or subvert any government — heavens forfend.

    So if I may paraphrase your viewpoint: There was no Holocaust but the Jews deserved it.

  220. @szopen

    Sorry to butt in, and if this has already been stated, I apologize, but what Gross wrote is that Poles killed a greater number of Jews in Poland during WWII than the number of German soldiers and settlers that Poles killed in Poland during the same period. Whether it’s true or not, I personally can’t say, but he was roundly criticized for making the remark.

  221. @szopen

    It only means that you have never actually read any history about Holocaust.

    Well, I believed the standard holocaust narrative for most of my life and have no recollection of this. I had always inferred that the reason for the use of gas was that this, presumably, is a very efficient, cost-effective method of killing large numbers of people.

    Regardless, the issue under debate is whether they actually did use gas chambers as a mass killing method or not.

    No. I think there is a misunderstanding here. You have said that I do not know what is your position in a debate. So I am now trying to understand what is your
    position.

    LOL. That’s funny. It’s an interesting example of a psychological phenomenon. I mean, when people, who are behaving in a less than honest manner (consciously or not) say the exact opposite of the truth. Of course, the truthful statement would be: “I’m trying my absolute hardest NOT to understand your position.”

    That’s why you persist in posing obviously irrelevant questions that amount to: “Do you believe there were no atrocities at all?”

    Look at it this way. Suppose somebody told you: “in 1945 the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Berlin”. I assume you would react by immediately denying this: “but that never happened!”

    And then the person immediately responds angrily: “But then do you deny the fire bombing of Hamburg, of Dresden….?” Well, no you don’t….

    The above discussion is absurd, right? But how does it differ from how you are behaving here? It’s the exact same line of argument basically.

    I am not sure whether CIA assasination plan included 50 thousand targets, but let’s move on.

    It is not central to the discussion, but, as a matter of fact, the Phoenix Program was on approximately that scale, apparently. According to the Wikipedia page on the Phoenix Program:

    By 1972, Phoenix operatives had neutralized 81,740 suspected NLF operatives, informants and supporters, of whom between 26,000 and 41,000 were killed.[8][9]

    “And therefore, we can logically conclude that they also killed millions of Vietnamese in gas chambers….”

    Right? Is that your argument? It seems like that is your argument….

    (I intend to respond to the rest of your comment separately.)

    • Replies: @szopen
  222. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    I was commenting from memory as I am in the middle of moving residence.

    2 years or 3 years, the claims are still ridiculous as anyone who has ever planned, scheduled, and executed real-world projects would understand.

    The interesting thing about the Zuendel trials in Toronto, and I read the transcripts, is the absence of real, hard, evidence. Heck, the judge, no friend of Zuendel, had to step in and compel the witness to answer the question posed by the defence lawyer Doug Christi: Is there or is there not a document signed by Adolph Hitler with orders to round up all Jews and to kill them. Very reluctantly the witness admitted that no such document had been found.

    30 years later, and as far as I know, no such document has yet been found.

    And speaking of the lack of real, hard, evidence; the trial judge in the case of Irving vs Lipstadt in Britain said much the same thing in his notes. He was also astounded by the lack of any kind forensic, documentary, or any kind of physical evidence to substantiate the claims of holocaustians. Yes, yes, I know that Irving lost his libel case but that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

    Here is a point to ponder. There is a book entitled Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers or something like that. The numbers given are 150,000 or so Jewish soldiers in the German armed forces. What are the implications for this regarding the Jewish population in Germany during the war? Why did these soldiers not desert, considering how badly, it is claimed, their parents were being treated back home?

    HdC

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  223. @HdC

    2 years or 3 years, the claims are still ridiculous as anyone who has ever planned, scheduled, and executed real-world projects would understand.

    Really? Three years is 50% longer than two years, which is a significant amount of time more. You claimed to be an engineer so I presume you know something about math?

    The interesting thing about the Zuendel trials in Toronto, and I read the transcripts, is the absence of real, hard, evidence. Heck, the judge, no friend of Zuendel, had to step in and compel the witness to answer the question posed by the defence lawyer Doug Christi: Is there or is there not a document signed by Adolph Hitler with orders to round up all Jews and to kill them. Very reluctantly the witness admitted that no such document had been found.

    30 years later, and as far as I know, no such document has yet been found.

    I’m always curious to know why the lack of such a document matters. Hilberg said 30 years ago that the order was given orally rather than written, and I see no reason to doubt that, although I would say that I agree with later scholars that there were probably a series of orders — at least two — and that the last one came in mid-December 1941.

    And speaking of the lack of real, hard, evidence; the trial judge in the case of Irving vs Lipstadt in Britain said much the same thing in his notes. He was also astounded by the lack of any kind forensic, documentary, or any kind of physical evidence to substantiate the claims of holocaustians. Yes, yes, I know that Irving lost his libel case but that has nothing to do with the debate at hand.

    It has absolutely everything to do with it, considering that, had he proved his case on the basis of the evidence, Irving wouldn’t have lost.

    Given the amount of time that was spent by Irving, van Pelt, Evans, and others testifying about documents, I’m going to challenge you on the judge remarking on the lack of physical evidence.

    Here is a point to ponder. There is a book entitled Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers or something like that. The numbers given are 150,000 or so Jewish soldiers in the German armed forces. What are the implications for this regarding the Jewish population in Germany during the war? Why did these soldiers not desert, considering how badly, it is claimed, their parents were being treated back home?

    Why cite a book you haven’t read? If you’d read it, you’d know that no single soldier in that book was more than one-quarter Jewish. Two officers, I think, might have been half-Jewish (Erhard Milch was definitely one of them), but their parents were dead.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @HdC
  224. Erebus says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    I’m always curious to know why the lack of such a document matters. Hilberg said 30 years ago that the order was given orally rather than written, and I see no reason to doubt that…

    … and Homer said 2.5 millennia ago that Odysseus lost six men to Scylla prior to landing on Thrinacia. I see no reason to doubt that either…

    • Replies: @Sam Shama
  225. Erebus says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Pressac is the odd man out in your list. His work was one of the few honest attempts at coming to the historical truth, and his work uncovered many important details of camp operations. Insofar, it is a work of real historical value. His honesty was, of course tempered by the fact that he was sponsored by the Klarsfeld Nazi hunters, and he did his best to satisfy them by producing a massive 500+ page book. Even so, he could produce only a small number of what he called “criminal traces” – run of the mill memos referring to gas detectors, facility doors, etc that fall far short of the mark of evidencing the existence, much less explicating the operation of, any “homicidal gas chambers”. Pressac’s painstaking work comes close to proving a negative, and to claim his work makes Hilberg’s testimony obsolete is either disingenuous, misunderstands the word “evidence”, or reveals that you haven’t read the book.
    His book remains important despite its progeny and deceptive title.

    Perhaps you are unaware that Fleming’s work was published prior to Hilberg’s Toronto testimony. Be that as it may, I had long since read & dismissed your next 3 as proselytizers of tribal lore. Some are sillier than others, but they share one primary trait – there is not a shred of evidence supporting the “hard” Holocaust to be encountered anywhere in them. Zero, Nada, MeiYou.
    Hilsberg’s ultimate conjecture of how the Holocaust was managed with such uncanny stealth remains the most plausible. It was managed by “…an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus — mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”.
    Voila!, it was all done by ESP. It remained only for Hilberg’s successors to similarly explain the paucity of forensic evidence. Teleportation perhaps? Or, more mundanely, transmutation?

    OK, then smart guy, where would you like to begin?

    Aristotle: ‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.’
    The start lies exactly at the point where you are seriously able to entertain the idea that the “hard” Holocaust is a narrative conjured from thin air, with the most tenuous connection to historical fact. IOW, where the implications of it being fiction become visible. Should you get there, let us know.

    By way of encouragement, I submit that an unprecedented mass murder of multi-millions across several years, marshaling state & industrial scale resources across a continent within living memory, and the subject of countless books, papers & studies including 7000 pgs of court proceedings yields not one, single, solitary piece of hard evidence supporting it should astonish even yourself. At the very least, it should suggest that an inquiry into the narrative’s origins, how and to what end(s) it was proselytized, and the social, cultural and psychological mechanisms involved in getting it widely propagated & accepted, would bear valuable fruit.

    This is surely of interest to us all, and in all humility I encourage you to lead the way.

    • Agree: HdC
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  226. Erebus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    … to which I would add the further evolution to myth and thence to religious dogma.

    Patience grasshopper, we’re getting there. In fact, I fear that it’ll evolve to a status akin to the state religious dogma of medieval times.

  227. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “That’s why you persist in posing obviously irrelevant questions ”

    Trying to understand your position is “posing irrevelant questions”? Wow. Let me further clarify: there is a difference between “there wre atrocities” and “there wre atrocities committed with approval of the government”.

    For example, in 1921, a number of Russian prisoners died in Polish camps. Number of them could be even killed. However, this was not an effect of a policy; there were Red Cross investigation, government investigations, parliament debate about conditions in that camps and systematic effort to decrease the mortality there and to prevent further atrocities.

    So there is a difference between “atrocities happened” and “atrocities happened and were approved”.

    I just wanted to clarify whether you admit that some atrocities were actually approved by authorities, not whether there were atrocities at all. During war, it is pretty much inevitable that there will be atrocities and massacres. The crucial difference is how widespread they are, and what is the authorities response.
    So, if you would say “yes, some Poles and Jews were shot”, then this is different from “yes, intelligenzaktion had happened”. In the former, you are stating the obvious; in second, you are admitting German government was willing to participate in large scale massacre of innocent people.

    As for Phoenix, yes, I’ve read about it when my network connection returned to more normal. It was between 20 to 82 thousand people during 3 years or so; intelligenzaktion consumed 50000 people over course of few months, in a period when partisan activity was almost absent (only Hubal and few several parties), and were clearly not caused by partisan activity.

    Moreover, after reading about Phoenix action, I am disgusted with US government and I am of opinion that this clearly was war crime and people responsible should be court martialed. Since most of them weren’t, seems to me US was responsible for covering criminals and is complicit.

    Neither intelligenzaktion or operation Phoenix constitute a proof of “Jews were gassed” or “Vietnamese were gassed”. However intelligenzaktions establish that German government was willing to shot innocent people just because they were considered potentially dangerous (we are not talking about separate activities of German courts, which issued thousands of death verdicts for real or imagined crimes for Polish people). We may then see how common those actions were, what was German propaganda, and what kind of people was considered dangerous. This then may allow us to make a first-level estimation whether claims about mass murder are credible and deserve further examination, or not.

    Of course, there are many similar actions to intelligenzaktion, resulting in deaths of thousands of people. We may go through all of them, if you wish. Alltogether they establish that German government was repeatedly willing to engage in actions, one after another, of shooting of thousands of people even when the “danger” they posed was clearly hypothetical. And that without even talking anything about communists or Jews.

    At any point, when you say “yes, I agree A happened, but I do not agree B happened” we may then discuss why you consider evidence for A being substantial enough to convince you, while evidence for B is not enough.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  228. @szopen

    Trying to understand your position is “posing irrevelant questions”? Wow

    Well, except that is painfully obvious that you are NOT “trying to understand” my position or the revisionist position generally. No. You are trying very hard, desperately even, NOT to understand it, or even what the debate is really about.

    Again, the Holocaust debate centers around what “Erebus” calls “the hard holocaust”. That is (a) a government policy emanating from the very top to kill every last Jew, (b) the death of approximately six million Jews (c) primarily in gas chambers. The revisionist position is that they dispute all three points, a, b, and c. When you continually pose questions that do not address any of those points, you are not doing so in order to clarify anything or to achieve a better understanding of the debate. You are doing this — consciously or not, I don’t know — in order to obfuscate matters.

    Moreover, after reading about Phoenix action,… seems to me US was responsible for covering criminals and is complicit.

    Yeah, no shit! So you really just figured that out just now… Well, okay… better late than never… congratulations!

    Neither intelligenzaktion or operation Phoenix constitute a proof of “Jews were gassed” or “Vietnamese were gassed”.

    Uh, correct… of course not. Nor do they constitute proof of an exterminationist policy. In fact, as horrendous as it all is, it actually kind of suggests the LACK of an exterminationist policy, does it not? If you’re drawing up lists of who is to be shot, even in the tens of thousands, it means you are not shooting everybody, i.e. you don’t have an exterminationist policy…

    But if this isn’t proof of the issue at hand (what Erebus calls the “hard holocaust”) then why do you keep insistently coming back to this?

    This then may allow us to make a first-level estimation whether claims about mass murder are credible and deserve further examination, or not.

    Excuse me, the conventional position on this matter is NOT that the Nazis were brutal and murderous and therefore it is believable that they could have gassed millions of people. NO, the conventional holocaustian position is more like: “it is so well established, so far beyond any reasonable doubt, that the ‘hard holocaust’ happened exactly as we say it did, that anybody who says otherwise could only be doing so with malicious intent, and thus, should be considered a criminal.”

    If your position is simply: “it is reasonable to think, based on other things we know they did, that they were also capable of doing this…” then you really have conceded the debate. In fact, your position is actually far closer to the revisionist position than it is to the orthodox one.

    • Replies: @szopen
  229. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    “Given the amount of time that was spent by Irving, van Pelt, Evans, and others testifying about documents, I’m going to challenge you on the judge remarking on the lack of physical evidence.”

    3 minute’s search disclosed the following:

    The judge dug deeply into Irving’s contention that Jews were not killed in gas chambers at the Auschwitz death camp, in Nazi-occupied Poland. “In common I suspect with most other people,” Gray said, “I had supposed the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception.”

    Justice Gray on gas chambers: “[Irving] is right to point out that the contemporaneous documents, such as drawings, plans, correspondence with contractors and the like, yield little clear evidence of the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans. Such isolated references to the use of gas as are to be found amongst these documents can be explained by the need to fumigate clothes so as to reduce the incidence of diseases such as typhus. The quantities of Zyklon-B delivered to the camp may arguably be explained by the need to fumigate clothes and other objects.”

    HdC

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  230. HdC says:
    @szopen

    Fast == within seconds. “Few minutes” is a very slow death i.e. “few minutes” is a “very long time”.

    Why don’t you do a little reading to find out how long it took to execute prisoners in American gas chambers from the release of the gas to when the prisoner stopped struggling?

    HdC

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @szopen
  231. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “You are doing this — consciously or not, I don’t know — in order to obfuscate matters.”

    Not really. You see, we start from lesser crimes, moving to larger. E.g. I could ask you whether you believe that Geiser decided to kill about 1000 POlish patients with … I think pneumonia or something like that. If you say no, we may discuss the evidence. If you say yes, then me move on on Greiser policy wrt Jews, when exactly the same language was used to describe “special treatment” for Polish patients and Jews. And so on, and so on. The same is about einsatzgruppen, and the related testimonies and evidence. Sooner or later you will be forced to either say “yes, in this case I accept evidence and testimonies, but in this case I reject testimonies and witnesses”. And then we may discuss WHY you accept those testimonies in one case, and not in another.

    And I am aiming at point (a) that is, that Nazis indeed aimed to kill every last Jews.

    As for my point about Nazi regime being cruel and being able to mass murder innocent people:
    Remember, I am amateur, not a historian. I had to rely on historian works, and I have to establish somehow whether those work are believeable.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  232. @HdC

    You left out this:

    While some of the evidence on Auschwitz is “variable,” the judge said, a review of documents, photographs and eyewitness testimony led him to conclude that “no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that . . . gas chambers at Auschwitz . . . operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.”

    and this:

    Vulnerable though the individual categories of evidence may be to criticisms of the kind mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, it appears to me that the cumulative effect of the documentary evidence for the genocidal operation of gas chambers at Auschwitz is considerable.

    Wanna try again?

    • Replies: @HdC
  233. @Erebus

    Pressac is the odd man out in your list. His work was one of the few honest attempts at coming to the historical truth, and his work uncovered many important details of camp operations. Insofar, it is a work of real historical value. His honesty was, of course tempered by the fact that he was sponsored by the Klarsfeld Nazi hunters, and he did his best to satisfy them by producing a massive 500+ page book. Even so, he could produce only a small number of what he called “criminal traces” – run of the mill memos referring to gas detectors, facility doors, etc that fall far short of the mark of evidencing the existence, much less explicating the operation of, any “homicidal gas chambers”.

    I think that’s a matter of opinion. Given that my evocation of Pressac’s work was based on Hilberg’s allegation in 1985 that the documentary record for gas chambers was lacking, I think Pressac rose to the occasion. Indeed, based on the application of Occam’s razor to the totality of the evidence brought to bear by Pressac, I think that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau is the best conclusion.

    Pressac’s painstaking work comes close to proving a negative, and to claim his work makes Hilberg’s testimony obsolete is either disingenuous, misunderstands the word “evidence”, or reveals that you haven’t read the book.

    Oh dear. Projection. How quaint.

    Again, review the post to which I responded in evoking Pressac. It’s perfectly on topic and relevant and my conclusion is a fair one.
     

    His book remains important despite its progeny and deceptive title.

    I’m quite certain his soul rests easy knowing that you think so.

    Perhaps you are unaware that Fleming’s work was published prior to Hilberg’s Toronto testimony.

    No, I’m quite aware of that. I mentioned it for a few reasons. First and foremost, it’s among the first works by a western historian that engages Soviet documentation, so it’s important for that reason alone. Also, it was published it in late 1984, so I’m willing to entertain the notion that Hilberg might not have read it by the time he testified a mere two months later.

    Be that as it may, I had long since read & dismissed your next 3 as proselytizers of tribal lore.

    That is a non-argument.

    Some are sillier than others, but they share one primary trait – there is not a shred of evidence supporting the “hard” Holocaust to be encountered anywhere in them. Zero, Nada, MeiYou.

    That is an opinion with no substantive evidence brought in its support.

    Hilsberg’s ultimate conjecture of how the Holocaust was managed with such uncanny stealth remains the most plausible. It was managed by“…an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus — mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”. 
    Voila!, it was all done by ESP. It remained only for Hilberg’s successors to similarly explain the paucity of forensic evidence. Teleportation perhaps? Or, more mundanely, transmutation?

    May I summarize your argument thus far? You seem to want to focus on Hilberg — who published 54 years ago — rather than address directly any of the scholarship published since then, any of the sources discovered since then, etc. That’s convenient for your thesis, I suppose, but incredibly dishonest and (quite typically) intellectually lazy.

    Aristotle: ‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.’ 

    Oh goody. You’re educated, it would seem, at least at a surface level. You will at least be temporarily entertaining.

    The start lies exactly at the point where you are seriously able to entertain the idea that the “hard” Holocaust is a narrative conjured from thin air, with the most tenuous connection to historical fact. IOW, where the implications of it being fiction become visible. Should you get there, let us know.

    The first thing to do, I suppose, would be for you to define this “hard” Holocaust of which you speak.

    By way of encouragement, I submit that an unprecedented mass murder of multi-millions across several years, marshaling state & industrial scale resources across a continent within living memory, and the subject of countless books, papers & studies including 7000 pgs of court proceedings yields not one, single, solitary piece of hard evidence supporting it should astonish even yourself.

    That looks remarkably like begging the question.

    At the very least, it should suggest that an inquiry into the narrative’s origins, how and to what end(s) it was proselytized, and the social, cultural and psychological mechanisms involved in getting it widely propagated & accepted, would bear valuable fruit.

    That looks remarkably like an attempt to frame the debate on something other than evidence.

    This is surely of interest to us all, and in all humility I encourage you to lead the way.

    Sorry to disappoint you, then. I’m not here to put on a show for you. I have yet to see any concrete argument made by you. I’ve made several in this forum that you can review. Respond to one or more and I’ll grade you accordingly.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  234. szopen says:
    @HdC

    Point to you. I was wrong – it took 10 minutes to kill people during US executions. You have forced me to actually read quite a lot, including Pressac. Thank you. I always strive to know more.

    Starting with this page here:

    http://holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0016.shtml

    OTOH, I cannot find the link where it was shown that HCN concentration was too low to kill a man via skin exposure. Mr Mathis, could you please help? I thought I found this on holocaustcontroversies site, and I’ve noticed you are involved in this site… THere is a witness testimony in Pressac’s book who participated in delousing gassing operation “half-naked”, but I swear I read a whole beatiful article about this very topic…

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  235. szopen says:
    @HdC

    I am now still reading Pressac book, not in order, just some interesting passages. Right now I am at the testimony of Tauber:

    ” After we had waited for two hours [see Document 29, a David Olère’s sketch of a scene that the temporarily imprisoned Sonderkonimando could not see] in the pathologists’ room, we were let out and ordered to go to the gas chamber. We found heaps of naked bodies, doubled up. __They were pinkish, and in places red__.”

    Does that mean this witness got the colour of bodies right, as the colour may be “faint and sometimes absent” ?

    He also testified that “we became convinced that many people died of suffocation, due to lack of air, just before the gassing. ” He also testified that sonderkommando wear masks.

    Earlier there were testimonies for people working in delousing, quite compatible with Tauber’s description. I wonder whether you think that testimonies of witnesses of using gass for delousing also were lying?

    • Replies: @HdC
  236. Sean says:

    There is no doubt that Hitler saw himself in the tradition of Indo Europeans and the Yamnaya killed most of the population of Europe.

    THE edgiest parts of Tragedy are when Mearsheimer presents full-bore rationales for the aggression of … Nazi Germany, …. The German decision to push for war in 1914 was not a case of wacky strategic ideas pushing a state to start a war it was sure to lose. It was … a calculated risk motivated in large part by Germany’s desire to break its encirclement by the Triple Entente, prevent the growth of Russian power, and become Europe’s hegemon. As for Hitler, he “did indeed learn from World War I.” Hitler learned that Germany could not fight on two fronts at the same time, and he would have to win quick, successive victories, which, in fact, he achieved early in World War II.

    <a title=”"“Europe:” href="“Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy, 1453 to the Present by Brendan Simms.. SIMMS shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary:””>Review of Europe: The Struggle for Supremacy, 1453 to the Present by Brendan Simms. SIMMS shows how both winners and losers were preoccupied, more or less effectively, with enhancing their economic capacity and administrative efficiency in order to withstand external pressure, or to exert it. Sometimes the domestic changes were revolutionary:”

    Bearing in mind that Hitler’s policy was amoral though logical in the circumstances, one would expect that in a totaly difference strategic situation Germans might seem to be proceding as if morality was paramout but actually just be doing the logical thing in the new situation

    Simms: Germany’s power isn’t expressed militarily. It’s more of a structural increase in power, which can be clearly seen on an economic level. We also have an entirely new political situation. For the first time in its history, Germany is surrounded only by democratic allies, countries with which it has friendly relations. But this has also blunted Germany’s ability to assess risk. Germany’s refusal to continue with the planned expansion of NATO, to give serious consideration to a Russian threat or to participate in the intervention in Libya — all these are symptomatic of this lessened risk-assessment ability.

    http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057395 Drawing on a wealth of new sources, McMeekin forces us to re-examine Western interference in the Middle East and its lamentable results. It is an epic tragicomedy of unintended consequences, as Turkish nationalists give Russia the war it desperately wants, jihad begets an Islamic insurrection in Mecca, German sabotage plots upend the Tsar delivering Turkey from Russia’s yoke, and German Zionism midwifes the Balfour Declaration.

    In the old strategic situation, Wilhelmine Germany made efforts to complete “the Berlin to Baghdad railway, the weapon designed to win the war and assure German hegemony over the Middle East” . Germany will never be in another real war, and there can’t be a nationalist turn because revolutionary political change requires a youth bulge to get of the ground (Heinsohn). Germany is nonetheless trying to dominate all of Europe, and now with reversed strategic polarity, they are using a Baghdad to Berlin express through Turkey. A blitzkrieg of soft power, and Merkel has already won Germany a new hegemony.

  237. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Sure, he had to back-pedal. Not at all surprising. If you were to peruse the British Press at the time of the trial you would know that the Jewish community of Britain exerted enormous pressure on the courts and politicians.

    As I said, hardly surprising, and no forensic evidence nor Hitler’s signature on relevant documents was produced in the court.

    HdC

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  238. HdC says:
    @szopen

    Who is Tauber? When and where did he testify? HdC

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  239. @HdC

    Define “forensic.”

    • Replies: @HdC
  240. @HdC

    Need we any more evidence that we are dealing with someone totally ignorant of that which he denies?

    • Replies: @HdC
  241. @szopen

    Hi there. On the same web site I’d recommend going over the materials by Richard Green. If you don’t find it there, let me know.

    • Replies: @szopen
  242. Erebus says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    The first thing to do, I suppose, would be for you to define this “hard” Holocaust of which you speak.

    Umm, I did. I refer you to #214, my original post. (Others have noted, and even referenced it.)
    I followed that (also in #214) with Yad Vashem’s definition.

    In an effort to short circuit precisely the type of discussion you’re trying to have, I then went on to point out that, when these definitions form the basis of assertions, the difference in their status is critical to the kind of inquiry that can explore them, and to the kinds of truths that may result.

    In case that’s obscure, I will clarify:
    An assertion based on the first definition makes a specific claim of historical fact, and is therefore verifiable. The specificity of the claim demands similar specificity of evidence – in this case original documents, and the results of forensic examination.
    Assertions based on Yad Vashem’s definition can make no specific claim of historical fact and are unverifiable. Ipso facto, they are of little interest to the historical record.
    Verifiable claims gain standing (as being “true”) when they are backed by adequate evidence. Until then, their status is “unproven”. This is how all scientific, indeed honest, exploration works.
    Unverifiable assertions have no standing in research in any field I’m aware of. Typically, they depend on their utility in the social / cultural / political arenas for their currency. Any scientific research regarding them necessarily then explores only their utility, and/or the implications of their social / cultural / political effects.

    Summa Summarum:
    My position is that the claim: “The “hard” Holocaust (as defined) is a matter of historical fact” is unproven.
    Going further, I state that the documentary and forensic evidence that exists, and especially the latter, strongly suggests (though of course cannot prove) that said claim is actually false.

    Do you have a position that can be concisely stated? What is it?

    I’m not here to put on a show for you.

    I have no opinion on why you’re here, but if you answer my question we’ll be on to Act II. If not, indeed the show is over.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  243. @Erebus

    In an effort to short circuit precisely the type of discussion you’re trying to have

    I gather you read minds. Formidable!

    I then went on to point out that, when these definitions form the basis of assertions, the difference in their status is critical to the kind of inquiry that can explore them, and to the kinds of truths that may result.
    In case that’s obscure, I will clarify: 
    An assertion based on the first definition makes a specific claim of historical fact, and is therefore verifiable. The specificity of the claim demands similar specificity of evidence – in this case original documents, and the results of forensic examination.

    OK, so far so good. I’d amend only to state that virtually nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty. The best we can do in most cases is determine the case that is most likely among a number of other possibilities that can range in number and in plausibility. That said, I am not prepared to go full poststructuralist and deny that any fact can ever be verified. I’m merely uncomfortable, particularly in the realm of history, with 100%-type statements.
     

    Assertions based on Yad Vashem’s definition can make no specific claim of historical fact and are unverifiable. Ipso facto, they are of little interest to the historical record.

    Your premise is incorrect. Assertions based on YV’s definition can make specific claims of historical fact that can be verified. You are free to draw whatever conclusion you like from that, but what you are not free to do is to deny that evidence exists. You can, of course, dispute the validity of that evidence, if you like, and we can discuss that, but I won’t have you hand wave the totality of the evidence out of sheer convenience or laziness.
     

    Verifiable claims gain standing (as being “true”) when they are backed by adequate evidence. Until then, their status is “unproven”. This is how all scientific, indeed honest, exploration works.

    I would take issue with the word “scientific” as regards history. A ton of ink has been spilled on this particular topic (see, e.g., The Landscape of History by John Lewis Gaddis), but history generally does not concern itself with science — even social science. Rather, history concerns itself with the plausibility of explanations for available evidence, particularly those explanations that cover the evidence as closely as possible to its entirety and that can sustain a narrative of events.

    Unverifiable assertions have no standing in research in any field I’m aware of. Typically, they depend on their utility in the social / cultural / political arenas for their currency. Any scientific research regarding them necessarily then explores only their utility, and/or the implications of their social / cultural / political effects.

    Again, the issue here seems to hinge on your insistence on “scientific” research. I would submit to you the following amendment: In so far as something is scientifically impossible, it cannot be used as the basis for building an historical narrative. As far as I can tell, that is as far as science bears on the responsible construction of an historical narrative. Note, nevertheless, that a person making a scientifically impossible statement does not negate the remainder of his/her statements; no logical postulate demands that such a conclusion should be drawn.

    My position is that the claim: “The “hard” Holocaust (as defined) is a matter of historical fact” is unproven. 
    Going further, I state that the documentary and forensic evidence that exists, and especially the latter, strongly suggests (though of course cannot prove) that said claim is actually false.
    Do you have a position that can be concisely stated? What is it?

    My position is the opposite. As a matter of historical fact, the Holocaust is proved, with the caveat that one of your three prongs (i.e., on an extermination program) is more nebulous than the others (gas chambers, a minimum of five million Jews murdered). The documentary and forensic evidence that exists strongly suggests that the foregoing narrative (a proved “hard” Holocaust) is not only true but, perhaps more importantly, is far more plausible and explains far more of the evidence than any alternate explanation.

    I have no opinion on why you’re here, but if you answer my question we’ll be on to Act II. If not, indeed the show is over

    Act II it is, then, with the following caveats:

    (1) Unless you are prepared to present credentials as a scientist of some kind, preferably with some expertise in physiology and/or chemistry, I don’t care to dispute with you whether it’s possible for gassings as described to have been lethal. I’m not a scientist, and therefore, I rely on what scientists whom I trust have been able to say about the topic. You no doubt have your own scientists. Lest we engage in a lengthy debate that establishes nothing, I’d suggest we leave this one to people who know better than the two of us. If you do, in fact, have scientific credentials, I expect to be able to verify them.

    (2) Unless you are prepared not only to dispute the validity of individual pieces of evidence, but also to dispute the total body of evidence, as well as to offer a plausible counter-narrative that engages that body of evidence, then I’m uninterested. I’ve been debating this topic for twenty years, and rarely does anyone come along that appears remotely intelligent. When they do, they usually offer something in the way of entertainment. E.g., “little grey rabbit” offered his “crematories as bakeries” theory. That, while perhaps not plausible, is at least an alternate narrative. I will grant you your intelligence but not your inherent ability to entertain me. Therefore, I humbly request that you not waste my time. I’m a busy person with a lot of responsibilities.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  244. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    May I suggest you consult a dictionary? Wiki will suffice for this. HdC

  245. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Well, we do know that we are dealing with someone who has had much practice at obfuscation.

    But, we are still waiting for the physical evidence of mass graves, mass burning remains, homicidal gas chambers, Hitlers signed orders, etc. etc. to support the allegations that the Germans tried to murder all the Jews they could lay their hands on.

    As an example, the type of thorough investigation that was carried out by the Germans when they discovered an actual mass grave in Katyn Forest.

    Not holding my breath, though.

    HdC

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  246. Bingo:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forensic?s=t

    Now explain to me how any of the evidence offered in Irving v. Lipstadt was not forensic. Thanks in advance.

  247. @HdC

    One of the things I always find amusing about these debates is the discovery of how ignorant my interlocutors are of fundamental aspects of the Third Reich. E.g., this matter of a signed Hitler order, or lack thereof. The underlying supposition of such a demand is that nothing in the Third Reich was ever done without the express written permission of Hitler.

    The truth is actually far from the case. Often, with the exception of specifically military matters, Hitler was satisfied to enunciate a vision or goal and leave it to his subordinates to accomplish it in whatever way they saw fit. Sometimes, only after a program or action had already begun, was express permission then sought, if at all.

    Take the euthanasia program as an example. It was run by Phillip Bouhler out of the Fuhrer Chancellery. What we know about Hitler’s approval of the program was that he enunciated a general goal of arranging for the “mercy deaths” of incurably physically and mentally ill people and then allowed Bouhler to establish the program in concert with members of the medical community and the SS. Hitler only granted written permission months into the program, and when he did so, he had to backdate the order approving it.

    We also know that this signature was a political liability for Hitler. Because the euthanasia program lacked the level of secrecy of the Final Solution, it ended up being relatively well known about while it was going on — at least in its initial stages — and the clergy in particular was highly critical of the regime as a result. It is therefore not a huge stretch to imagine that Hitler might have seen a similar signature authorizing the Final Solution once that program had turned murderous as a potentially even greater liability.

    Anyway, that’s a long way of saying that the vision of the ignorant regarding the nature of how Hitler ran Nazi Germany is usually quite incorrect.

  248. szopen says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Thank you. Actually I fount other link, at the nizkor site. Moreover, there is also witness testimony in PRessac book, who claimed that when he worked in delousing chamber, workers often worked half-naked and often in contact with HCN.

    Strange thing, it seems no denialist I’ve met ever tried to prove delousing had not happened, because delousing could not possibly happened in the way described by witnesses :)

    In the same time, I read quite a lot about gassing times in executions and in witness testimonies and I have to say, that while I am somehow grateful for HdC and others – because they have forced me to read a lot and to find out new facts about holocaust – I am now of the opinion that they reall cherry pick the evidence and ignore the witnesses, documentation and facts.

  249. Kat Grey says:

    Wait until the food runs out, cold, wet weather sets in and the “refugees” get horny. Then we will see some serious social chaos. European whites are facing a bigger threat than the Barbary pirate raids and the hordes of Attila’s Huns. Anyone with a daughter have to face the fact that with every new migrant boat that spills its uninvited cargo of belligerant Third World men upon the shore, the risk goes up that she will be raped at some stage in her life by an African or Middle Eastern man-or men. Hell is leering at us from all directions and we do not know how or where to seek an exorcist.

  250. Sean says:

    Why are these holocaust comments thought relevant. The Germans lost the war and were crushed. Now they dread anything smacking of nationalism. Their insane nuclear policy (a Merkel U-turn) is only intelligible in the light of the 2011 Japanese nuke disaster, and the motivation for the sudden flip on immigration is similarly obvious, being a response to Pegida.

  251. HdC says:
    @szopen

    “I am now of the opinion that they reall cherry pick the evidence and ignore the witnesses, documentation and facts.”

    In any impartial court ( at least in the English speaking western countries) the guiding principle on witness testimony is: “Falsehood in one, falsehood in all”. The court does not cherry pick but simply throws out the testimony of those caught in a falsehood.

    In practically all cases I have read about the documentary evidence is copies of copies of copies without and evidence that these are notarized or court proven documents. And, strangely, the originals are nowhere to be found. Again, an impartial court would toss this as evidence.

    Facts, ah yes, those elusive facts. Mathis even had to ask what “forensic” means.

    Once you dig through the obfuscation it is the holocausters who cherry pick and with their sick minds must go through mental gymnastics to make 2+2=5 or whatever suits their purpose of the moment, to keep that cash flow going. Follow the money as they say.

    HdC

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  252. @szopen

    Strange thing, it seems no denialist I’ve met ever tried to prove delousing had not happened, because delousing could not possibly happened in the way described by witnesses

    Excuse me, are you really this stupid? Don’t you understand that there is no issue regarding whether delousing happened?

    You see, delousing the clothes using these chemical agents occurred in various other times and places, including the U.S. It seems clear that this is a well understood, well described procedure technically. Mass murder with gas chambers is an entirely separate matter. It is not alleged to have occurred at any other time or place in history!

    So how can you liken the two things!!??

    Now, okay, clearly, you are not that stupid actually. The problem is that you’ve never really thought it about it. Let me try to help you. Just think about the last time you did some hard physical work, like let’s say you helped a friend move house. Just think about lugging a heavy piece of furniture up a few flights of stairs — a sofa, let’s say. Think about how sweaty and out of breath you get, how heavily you’re breathing.

    Just think about that a sec. Now… think about the scene in the alleged gas chamber right after a gassing. For starters, the corpses — at least some of them — are quite heavy. For example, I myself am 6’1″(185 cm) and weight over 200 pounds (nearly 100 kg). Even if I were totally emaciated, my body would still weigh at least half of that. Imagine having to drag my naked body out of a gas chamber with your bare hands. Imagine having to do that hundreds of times in a day. Imagine then doing the same thing the next day. You are inside this gas chamber (alleged gas chamber…) breathing really hard. Visualise this. You have no protection. You are grabbing onto bodies. Apparently, people were embracing one another in the final moments, so you are disentangling various limbs to be able to drag the bodies out… you are drenched in sweat, breathing very hard, grabbing onto these naked bodies to drag them out…

    All of these corpses are suffused with this poisonous agent…. now, here, nobody is even asking you to trust your imagination (though I am asking you to use your imagination somewhat…) because there is the Leuchter testimony. Fred Leuchter, an expert in execution (of one person at a time, admittedly) with gas, said that this sort of description is UTTERLY impossible. I mean to say, you just think about it… honestly, the way I ask you to visualise this… and you see that Fred Leuchter must be telling the truth. THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!

    Now, I looked on youtube for some of the testimony that I remembered having seen. One of the people making these claims is a Greek Jew by the name of Dario Gabbai. You can google some of the testimony y0urself: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dario+gabbai and think about whether you think this man is not a false witness. Now, what you wrote earlier, when I asked you whether you believe that such testimony is truthful:

    Yes. Touching the corpses of the gassed victims and so on is not enough to kill
    personel immedietely (as explained in the material I have linked before).
    Moreover, the personel in question was scheduled to be killed, so even if
    long-term exposition would be deadly, who cares?

    First of all, if Mr. Gabbai is telling the truth, he did not just “touch” the corpses of gassed victims. He got down in there and got a good hold on them and hauled them out of the gas chamber. (Again, think what a hard physical labor this is, how hard you would be breathing and how drenched with sweat.)

    The issue is not whether this would even kill you immediately. Look at Mr. Gabbai’s wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_Gabbai

    Yes! He was born on September 2, 1922, no date of death, the guy is still alive! He recently turned 93! Look at the testimonies given forty or fifty years after the alleged events. The guy, already elderly, is the picture of good health, is he not? The question is not his surviving some days after suffusing himself with these toxins.

    Now, okay, I realised something about all of this just in the last few days and I can thank you even for helping me to realise it. It is this: the effectiveness of propaganda is not so much a function of how inherently believable it is. No, it mostly has to do with the recipients’s desperate need to delude himself.

    I mean, if you absolutely have to believe that this Dario Gabbai is telling the truth, okay, fine. I would just ask you this simple question: Can you at least comprehend why an objective person might draw the conclusion that Gabbai is a false witness?

    Like, even if you believe the guy finally, can you understand WHY somebody would at least have doubts that the events he described really happened? Could an honest person doubt this testimony without being some kind of… vicious antisemite… or whatever motives are ascribed to so-called “deniers”? Is it possible that an ordinary person would listen to such testimony, think about (as I asked you to think about it above) and just honestly — probably not even taking great pleasure in it — just honestly come to the conclusion that this Gabbai character is lying his ass off. Is this possible, in your opinion?

    • Replies: @szopen
  253. @HdC

    In any impartial court ( at least in the English speaking western countries) the guiding principle on witness testimony is: “Falsehood in one, falsehood in all”. The court does not cherry pick but simply throws out the testimony of those caught in a falsehood.

    First of all, that’s not true. Second of all, it has application in either history or logic.

    I note as well that, after having stated no forensic evidence exists, you have not answered why the evidence that does exist is not forensic.

    If you think I’m gonna let you wriggle out of that one, you’re wrong.

    • Replies: @HdC
  254. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    The answer is yes, you can drag corpses after they were gassed. In fact, you can do it for about an hour. You can work in concentration of HCN up to 100ppm for quite a long time and still be alive. Within an hour, one person can drag easily at least 50 people, in a leisure way. To drag 2000 people within an hour, you just need 40 people. And they are not working all the time in 100ppm atmosphere.

    In Pressac book I’ve read witness testimony who claimed that he actually become sick after working with bodies dragged out of gas chamber. He described symptoms which fit well what I read about cyanide poisoning effects.

    In delousing you have a witness who claims to work half-naked and that he was even pouring cyanide on his own feet, because he was affraid or disgusted of louses. People then put on the clothes despite they were put in cyanide. How it’s you find it credible, that they were wearing poisoned clothes? Actually, you can google information that you can sleep without problems on a couch which was earlier deloused with a cyanide. I’d say that clothes would be more infused with cyanide (because cyanide concentration would be greater and clothes had to be put in this concentration for a long time) than a naked human skin. While I have no data, I’d say that I find it utterly improbable that amount of cyanide of skin of human victims would be high. Yet you seem to think wearing clothes was safe and believeable, while dragging naked corpses was not.

    From wikipedia:
    “A hydrogen cyanide concentration of 300 mg/m3 in air will kill a human within 10–60 minutes.[44] A hydrogen cyanide concentration of 3500 ppm (about 3200 mg/m3) will kill a human in about 1 minute.[44]”

    From google:
    ” People who breathe d 546 ppm of hydrogen cyanide have died after a 10-minute exposure; 110 ppm of hydrogen cyanide was life-threatening after a 1-hour exposure. ”

    “Exposure to a massive concentration of hydrogen cyanide gas may render an individual unconscious within seconds”

    “if we assume humans are just like 80kg rabbits, that means that unbroken skin would require 540mg of Hydrogen cyanide”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  255. @szopen

    Not really. You see, we start from lesser crimes, moving to larger. E.g. I could ask you whether you believe that…

    Frankly, I cannot imagine a more tenuous, feeble line of argumentation than this Really, it’s silly… frivolous… unserious…. but I guess this is what happens when you are utterly emotionally committed to believing some narrative or other…

    Basically, the structure of the argument is that if one crime was committed as described, then the other ones were too. In fact, you tend to argue something like: “this shows that the Nazis were capable of committing crime X, therefore they surely were also capable of committing crime Y.”

    And then taaah-daah, the great logical leap is made: “And since they were capable of committing crime Y, then they must have done it!

    It’s like if we establish that Billy the Kid shot 5 men for sure, then yes, he was capable of shooting five other men, sure, why not? Yes, so he must have shot 10 men! (Even though we can only document 5 men that he shot. We have alchemy here, the magical multiplication, 5 automatically becomes 10…) Of course, if he was capable of shooting 10 men, then he was also capable of shooting 20 men…. and…. following the same reasoning a few iterations, he could have shot 320 men, 640 men, 1280 men….

    How does this kind of reasoning help you establish how many men Billy the Kid actually did shoot? Okay, he shot, let’s say the five men he really clearly did shoot, it’s documented. He might have (even probably) shot some other poor s.o.b.’s where it’s undocumented. Maybe a few more, let’s say 5 more. But that’s probably about it! (There is some western ballad about how Billy was but 21, but had shot 21 men dead. But that is poetic licence, sounds neat… the real number is likely in the single digits….)

    And then we may discuss WHY you accept those testimonies in one case, and not in another.

    Look, this is just more silliness. It’s a similar sort of all-or-none fallacy. If I accept some testimonies, I have to accept all of them. If I accept that the Nazis committed some atrocities, I have to automatically accept that they committed all the atrocities attributed to them. This is a ridiculous form of argument. At any rate, it’s one of the most basic logical fallacies imaginable…

    If I casually mention that this morning, I had eggs and toast for breakfast, you would probably believe me — and not even demand any proof. If I told you that this morning I had raw whale blubber for breakfast, you might decline to believe me — at least with no proof! If one holocaust survivor tells you he was taken to a forced labor camp, separated from his family, that he never saw again, survived on starvation rations, and was emaciated by the time the allies liberated the camp — it is very likely that this is all broadly true. If I say that I believe this testimony, yet decline to believe that testimony where the guy pulls out gassing victims from the gas chambers with his bare hands…. what is extraordinary about that? It’s no more extraordinary than that I believe the guy who says he had eggs for breakfast and disbelieve the guy who says he ate the raw whale blubber for breakfast!

    Remember, I am amateur, not a historian. I had to rely on historian works, and I have to establish somehow whether those work are believeable.

    Well, neither am I a professional historian, but I at least try not to be a complete fool.

    This Mathis asswipe claims that there is this huge body of historical research that shows that there were gas chambers. Except he declines to mention that in very many western countries, if you say that there were no gas chambers, you can be thrown in prison! Even in the countries without such laws, an academic’s career is over if he expresses any doubt about the gas chambers. Honestly, I think somebody would have a better chance admitting that he had molested children than admitting that he doesn’t believe in the gas chambers! In such an environment, OBVIOUSLY, the bulk of the scholarly output is not going to question the gas chambers!

    So, can’t you see that Mathis is playing you (and everybody here) for a fool!!!??? Claiming that there is all this “independent research” that affirms the gas chambers and not mentioning the existence of the Holocaust denial laws!!!??? The utter dishonesty of this is shameless!

    (Though of course, if you are fooled by this, as you seem to be, then who is to blame?)

    Heck, if there were “leprechaun denial laws” and you could be thrown in prison for denying the existence of leprechauns, surely all the “independent research” would confirm the existence of leprechauns! You betcha! Given the choice between some 6-figure paying sinecure as a professor of Leprechaun studies, or a cushy job at the local Leprechaun museum or as a director of the Leprechaun Educational Trust — that or a prison sentence for denying the Leprechauns… what would most people choose?

    I mean, this is ridiculous! Like the ridiculous all-or-nothing fallacies you engage in, that if I believe some testimony, I have to believe ALL testimony, and so on. You have “independent research” that affirms the gas chambers, but, oh, by the way, if your “independent research” concludes that there were no gas chambers, there is a nice prison cell waiting for you…

    C’mon…. start using your brain…. You say “I have to establish somehow whether those work are believeable.”

    So they say: “There were definitely gas chambers but we need laws to be able to imprison people who say there were no gas chambers.” That’s believable!!!???

    The real question is now this: Do you have it within you to just stop being such a complete schnook?

  256. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    I stand by my statement regarding falsehoods.

    You’re doing the wiggling: No mass graves, no forensics on gassed bodies, etc. etc.

    HdC

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  257. @Jonathan Revusky

    This Mathis asswipe

    Listen, jackass: Don’t make me make a project out of you.

    claims that there is this huge body of historical research that shows that there were gas chambers. Except he declines to mention that in very many western countries, if you say that there were no gas chambers, you can be thrown in prison!

    Appeal to pity, which is (just to be clear) a logical fallacy. There is no logical connection between something being factually correct and being banned.

    Even in the countries without such laws, an academic’s career is over if he expresses any doubt about the gas chambers.

    Google any of the following names:
    Austin App
    Arthur Butz
    Harry Elmer Barnes
    Kaukab Siddique
    Daniel McGowan

    So, can’t you see that Mathis is playing you (and everybody here) for a fool!!!??? Claiming that there is all this “independent research” that affirms the gas chambers and not mentioning the existence of the Holocaust denial laws!!!??? The utter dishonesty of this is shameless!

    Because that’s what the Jews do…

  258. @HdC

    No mass graves

    Big topic here. You’re going to need to be way more specific. Name a site where there should be a mass grave and isn’t one.

    no forensics on gassed bodies, etc. etc.

    Oh dear:

    http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/07/names-of-jewish-gassing-victims-1.html

  259. @Andrew E. Mathis

    try this at home:

    this is one of the largest library systems in the USA

    it holds 2626 items on holocaust

    http://librarycatalog.einetwork.net/Union/Search?basicType=Keyword&lookfor=holocaust

    guess how many are by the authors you mentioned above?

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  260. @SolontoCroesus

    So… people who write books have a right to have them read and placed in libraries?

    Incidentally, here’s a listing from the New York Public Library:

    http://browse.nypl.org/iii/encore/search/C__Sholocaust%20butz__Orightresult__U?lang=eng&suite=def

    Just to remind you, fully one in eight people in NYC are Jewish.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  261. geokat62 says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    This Mathis asswipe

    Pay no heed. A few of these posters are so desperate to “win” the debate they are willing to resort to ad hominem… it’s their MO. Whenever they’re up against someone who can challenge their arguments on the basis of sound reasoning, they start casting aspersions.

    My advice to anyone who engages them is to follow the following Rules of Engagement:

    1. Each party is responsible for refraining from making any ad hominem attacks.

    2. If even one ad hominem attack is made in a particular post, the offending party should respond to the offending party by duly noting it and terminate any further engagement.

    3. By making an ad hominem attack in their post, the offending party is effectively declaring defeat.

    If these posters are so confident in their arguments and powers of persuasion, they should be willing to accept these proposed RoE, but I doubt they are “man enough” to do so.

  262. @geokat62

    Sounds fair, although to be fair, I am kind of an asshole.

  263. @Andrew E. Mathis

    well didn’t you just crush that argument.

    5 — count ‘em, 5 — of Arthur Butz’s contra-holocaust books are held at NY public library.

    Just for relativity’s sake —

    the “1-in-8 Jewish” NYC public library lists 17148 holdings for “holocaust .”

    Austin App — 6 titles
    H E Barnes — 121 (Barnes wrote in several fields including penology and general history)
    Kaukab Siddique — 2 titles

    “Daniel McGowan” requires a more specific search, but let’s plug in 50 books for McGowan

    NYC = 12.5% Jewish
    NYC library holdings on holocaust that are by authors you suggest are not ‘Jew friendly’ = 1%
    NYC library holdings on holocaust that are Jew-friendly = 99%

    My family members pay taxes in NYC and use the library.
    Are they offered a fair and balanced selection of information on the holocaust?

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  264. @geokat62

    geokat62, You come down like a ton of bricks for that ad hominem but have nothing to say about the numerous diversions from sound argument; response to real facts; failure to acknowledge substantive questions and other lapses of intellectual integrity.

    It’s easy to pick off expressions of frustration that devolve into ad hominem.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  265. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Appeal to pity, which is (just to be clear) a logical fallacy.

    What logical fallacy? I’m just pointing out some facts. Let me point out a few more facts along those lines:

    Holocaust revisionists are repeatedly prosecuted and imprisoned, physically attacked or have their homes firebombed. As well as lots of lesser harassment.

    None of this seems to ever happen to conventional holocaust historians who parrot the official story.

    Why is that? Granted, it doesn’t absolutely tell you who is right and who is wrong, but it is hardly irrelevant!

    If I observe a debate between two people, and one person, rather than respond to the other person’s arguments factually and logically, opts to shout him down and try to intimidate him, am I engaging in a fallacy if I conclude that this person does not have much of a counter-argument to the other person’s arguments?

    There is no logical connection between something being factually correct and being banned.

    Look, Mathis, I don’t know who you think you’re addressing, but if you’re addressing me with this tripe, you’re completely wasting your time. Save it for the dumbass goyim, who seem to fall for this kind of BS. (They really do… I don’t know why…)

    Now, okay, that they would burn you at the stake in the Middle Ages for claiming that the earth goes round the sun — this did not in itself prove that the earth goes round the sun…. though, it so happens that it does… But… c’mon… at the very least, it would make somebody very suspicious. A person would just reasonably think: if it was so easy to demonstrate that the sun goes round the earth, why would they need to resort to this?

    It’s common sense. If you are saying something that is straightforwardly true and for which there really is overwhelming evidence, you don’t need to promulgate laws whereby you can imprison people for saying they don’t believe you! You don’t need to intimidate or physically attack people. You simply set out your overwhelming evidence!

    Real facts do not need the protection of laws such as these “Holocaust denial” laws. If the gas chamber story was really as well established factually as you are representing it is, there would simply be no need for such laws! There would be no need to physically attack people who dispute your story, or to try to have them imprisoned, or to destroy their careers.

    In any case, it is the height of dishonesty to say stuff like: “Oh, yeah, there is all this independent research that confirms the existence of the gas chambers” while declining to mention that if you publish conclusions to the contrary, you will be exposed to all these aforementioned attacks and harassment — in certain jurisdictions, they will try to imprison you.

    Yes, of course, the research confirms your story. You’ve intimidated and coerced everybody (except for a few principled holdouts) to confirm it. (And bribed people too, with professorships and so on…)

    How many people have not yet figured this out?

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  266. Erebus says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    I will not supply credentials for you to “be able to verify”.
    I am indifferent as to whether you are in any way qualified to do anything at all, aside from honestly presenting relevant evidence in good faith. Please note that I have generally found the latter in short supply on the other side of this debate.

    I’ll also ask you some, I trust somewhat less impertinent questions.
    First:
    - Have you visited any of the “death camps” yourself?
    - If you did,
    - when did you visit, and
    - did you approach the experience with a critical mind, or to confirm an existing opinion?
    - Do you have a technical background?

    I’ve been debating this topic for twenty years…

    - Has your position changed over those 20 years?

    …virtually nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty. The best we can do in most cases is determine the case that is most likely among a number of other possibilities that can range in number and in plausibility.That said, I am not prepared to go full poststructuralist and deny that any fact can ever be verified.  I’m merely uncomfortable, particularly in the realm of history, with 100%-type statements.

    I am likewise uncomfortable, as your “100% certainty” sounds uncomfortably like the thin edge of a wedge.
    We’re not talking about the Peloponnesian Wars here. I’m looking for common, garden variety empirical proofs for three defining features of an extraordinary mass murder whose scale and temporal freshness should provide in overwhelming abundance. We don’t need a stamped, sealed, signed, and thumb-printed order from the desk of the Fuehrer, but Hilberg’s “meeting of minds across a far flung bureaucracy” must remain what it is. An expression of despair. Pressac’s 39 “criminal traces” are a step behind Hilberg. Pressac tacitly acknowledges their weakness by refusing to call them proofs. That is not my opinion, its Pressac’s.

    Your premise is incorrect. Assertions based on YV’s definition can make specific claims of historical fact that can be verified. You are free to draw whatever conclusion you like from that, but what you are not free to do is to deny that evidence exists.

    This is rather inauspicious, as my statement was not a premise, but a conclusion.  
    We’ll try again:
    In the first place, what sort of “specific claims of historical fact” can be made about “the sum total” of Jewish experience under the Nazi’s, or anybody’s sum total? That they had a “sum total” of experience? That would be trivial, in addition to being, by definition, non-specific. That theirs was worse than anybody elses?
    You’ve truly stumped me here. Help me out, what sort of claim could you make?

    In the second place, and more importantly, no matter how many Jews lost their legal rights, or died of typhus or starvation, or were shot for banditry or en masse by a drunken, enraged German, makes a whit of difference to the claim that a “hard” Holocaust is a matter of historical fact, or isn’t. That demands the same empirical proof that it ever did.
    Jews either died under a systemic state mandated program of extermination by gassing (or other means) or they succumbed to the vicissitudes of war with the 50M other victims. Everything else is psycho-history, aka “tribal lore”. I hope you can keep that in mind.

    As a matter of historical fact, the Holocaust is proved, with the caveat that one of your three prongs (i.e., on an extermination program) is more nebulous than the others (gas chambers, a minimum of five million Jews murdered).

    Having let “100% certainty” slide, I will not play at Humpty Dumpty with you on “nebulous”. Your use of it so early in Act II sounds very uncomfortably like an introduction of a much fatter part of the same wedge you introduced above. We’re not in Wonderland, and words don’t mean whatever you want them to mean.
    So…
    - Is “nebulous” the inverse of “probable”? Is it estimable in the same way as “probability” is?
    If it is:
    - How “nebulous” are your gas chambers and the >5M Jews – in themselves, and in relation to your “more nebulous” extermination program? EG: 10% “nebulous” in themselves, and 50% less “nebulous” than the extermination program?
    - How “nebulous” does it have to be before the extermination program can be called “unproven”?
    - How much more “nebulous” do the program, the gas chambers and >5M Jews have be before they can be called “doubtful”.
    - Does a “nebulous” gas administered by “nebulous” extermination program in a “nebulous” gas chamber work in exactly the same way as if it wasn’t “nebulous”, but real?

    Furthermore, your ploy to dilute all three salient points (your “prongs”) of the defintion did not go unnoted.

    Unless you are prepared not only to dispute the validity of individual pieces of evidence, but also to dispute the total body of evidence, as well as to offer a plausible counter-narrative that engages that body of evidence, then I’m uninterested..

    I trust that the number of “individual pieces” is quite small, as my own short (1 yr), but very intensive study unearthed exactly nothing I could honestly call evidence, much less proof. I acknowledge something may have turned up in the intervening decade+, and is the reason I’m entertaining this discussion.
    That aside, I suggest 1 piece of evidence to start and that you take your best shot first, so as to preserve maximum efficiency.

    As for the “the total body of evidence”, I can concede that it can serve to support probability (ahem, declining “nebulousness”) if at least 1 piece is very close to conclusive. However, if all one can find is a mountain of weak evidence, it doesn’t advance the case to generate a second mountain of it. In fact, it suggests the opposite in the same way that the more places you look in vain for your misplaced keys, the greater the probability that you’ve lost them for good.
    By way of illustration, having been bombarded by the vast and exponentially increasing number of unsupported Western social & mainstream media reports & commentary on Russia’s invasion(s) of the Ukraine, an uncritical person could be persuaded that, indeed, the Russians “probably, or definitely invaded” (in their typically Russian nebulous way). The critical person, on the other hand, will not be persuaded no matter how many unsupported reports issue from the report & commentary production lines. He will note the lack of reconnaissance and ground photos, the lack of battle field reports and concclude that the claim of invasion is unproven, or even false. In fact, if he’s critical and curious, he will begin to wonder why so much falsehood is issuing from those production lines and begin to doubt their integrity.

    In so far as something is scientifically impossible, it cannot be used as the basis for building an historical narrative. As far as I can tell, that is as far as science bears on the responsible construction of an historical narrative.

    Again, we find a rather loose construction.
    Do you mean “physically impossible” in your 1st sentence? They refer to very different statements. If so, it can’t be used anywhere in a historical narrative, never mind as the basis of it.
    The 2nd sentence seems to admit any irrelevant constructions that meet the test of not being “scientifically impossible”. I don’t see how that’s helpful.
    I also must point out that we are not here to construct a “historical narrative”. We are here to prove 3 very simple facts, as per my definition of the “hard” Holocaust. Narratives are for psych-historians, literary writers, and of course, propagandists. The upshot is that Act II can be expected to be very short.

    As you use it in in an unorthodox way, I’d also be interested to know precisely what you mean by “science”. My understanding is that science, or more properly scientific method starts with the premise that anything is possible, and that the first job of science is to determine what actually is, and its 2nd job is to predict what will be. It typically goes from the former to the latter by means of a formal logical construction called a theory that’s tested against empirical fact. In many social sciences it restricts itself to the first task.

    Lastly, please keep in mind that mine is the position of the Skeptic. Ergo, I can dispute only the evidential merits of whatever you present. The Skeptic has no case to make except on the evidence. At that point either I am obliged to accept your proof, or give a rational argument for rejecting it.
    Hint: Please avoid any more Pressacs. One can pity the man’s situation, and respect his honesty, but it is clear to any person who has a modicum of understands of evidential rules that he scored an own goal.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  267. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Sounds fair, although to be fair, I am kind of an asshole.

    Yeah, you are quite the arrogant dick, but to be fair to you, you are not nearly as much of an asshole as this geokat character you are responding to.

    For one thing, you sign your actual name to all of this. So anybody can google you and see who you are, that you are on the board of some sort of Holocaust Education foundation and that you have a teaching career in academia that is related to all this….

    Somebody can look at who you are. So when you promulgate your BS, at least you are putting your name on the line, not doing it from behind a mask. Also, to be fair, it seems you really are a true believer, so you’re not being consciously dishonest, as geokat clearly is.

    What this geokat guy does (and I’m convinced he’s some sort of professional disinfo agent) is that he engages in really dishonest stuff and when you call him out on it, he starts lecturing about your “lack of civility” blah blah. It’s like a pieckpot, who, when you catch him trying to pick your pocket, you cuss him out, and then he tries to turn the situation into a discussion about what a bad guy you are for cussing him out, when the real issue is that he was trying to steal!

    I caught this geokat guy in the most blatant dishonesty recently. Like, in a discussion on the 9/11 issue, I straightforwardly asked him what the strongest evidence available was for the official story. He evaded the question by representing that he was a fence sitter — he just hadn’t decided yet, so he didn’t need to answer my question.

    Then some iterations later, he was there just assuming the OBL story as a fact. “Yeah, you’ve gotta read this OBL ‘letter to America’ because that tells you why 9/11 happened…” So when it suited him, he was a fence-sitter, because he didn’t want to admit there was no proof for the official story. And then he flipped over to defending the official story. That is all here:

    http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/mantra-for-911/#comment-1135150

    So I caught him engaging in this kind of totally mendacious sort of behaviour and then he tries to turn it around that the issue was that I had called him some nasty names, rather than his mendacity!

    And he does all this shit from behind a cloak of anonymity. So, again, I concur that you are a fairly major asshole, but this geokat guy is way more of an asshole than you are, probably more of an asshole than you could even aspire to be! So there! :-)

  268. @SolontoCroesus

    well didn’t you just crush that argument.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    — count ‘em, 5 — of Arthur Butz’s contra-holocaust books are held at NY public library.

    Pretty good, considering he only wrote one book.

    NYC = 12.5% Jewish
    NYC library holdings on holocaust that are by authors you suggest are not ‘Jew friendly’ = 1%
    NYC library holdings on holocaust that are Jew-friendly = 99%

    “Jew-friendly” is your term, pal.

    My family members pay taxes in NYC and use the library.
    Are they offered a fair and balanced selection of information on the holocaust?

    If they don’t feel like they are, then they need to express that opinion through their elective franchise. That’s how a democracy works.

  269. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    … failure to acknowledge substantive questions and other lapses of intellectual integrity.

    Care to provide examples?

  270. @Jonathan Revusky

    Granted, it doesn’t absolutely tell you who is right and who is wrong, but it is hardly irrelevant!

    With regard to what “version of history” is right or wrong, it’s entirely irrelevant.

    If I observe a debate between two people, and one person, rather than respond to the other person’s arguments factually and logically, opts to shout him down and try to intimidate him, am I engaging in a fallacy if I conclude that this person does not have much of a counter-argument to the other person’s arguments?

    Yes, in that case, you’d be correct. And if that were the case in the Holocaust, you’d be on sturdier ground. But there is an entire body of knowledge you haven’t even looked at, not to mention work that has been done specifically to rebut denial. So it’s not a fair comparison.

    Look, Mathis, I don’t know who you think you’re addressing, but if you’re addressing me with this tripe, you’re completely wasting your time. Save it for the dumbass goyim, who seem to fall for this kind of BS. (They really do… I don’t know why…)

    “I’m not an anti-Semite, but…”

    Who did 9/11, Jonathan?

    A person would just reasonably think: if it was so easy to demonstrate that the sun goes round the earth, why would they need to resort to this?

    I don’t agree that they need to resort to it, but that’s not the point. It isn’t illegal in ten whole European countries because it’s false; it’s illegal because it’s offensive (which, again, isn’t the yardstick I would personally apply for legality).

    In any case, it is the height of dishonesty to say stuff like: “Oh, yeah, there is all this independent research that confirms the existence of the gas chambers” while declining to mention that if you publish conclusions to the contrary, you will be exposed to all these aforementioned attacks and harassment — in certain jurisdictions, they will try to imprison you.

    The initiation of violence, while perhaps understandable in this context, is not justified so I won’t defend it. The use of anti-denial laws, similarly, I denounce and always have. But if you suffer social condemnation and opprobrium for publicly denying the Holocaust, then in my opinion, you’ve gotten what you’ve asked for. You lie in the bed you make.

    Yes, of course, the research confirms your story. You’ve intimidated and coerced everybody (except for a few principled holdouts) to confirm it. (And bribed people too, with professorships and so on…)

    I did these things? Or the Joos? Be specific, Mr. Revusky.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  271. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I am not a native English speaker, and maybe this is why you have not understood. I will try to use the language which is more natural for me (I am a computer science guy).

    I am not constructing the line “they were capable to kill, therefore…” right now.

    I am rather working like this “there is evidence E1 for case C1″ and “there is evidence E2 for case C2″ and “evidence E3 for case C3″… and “evidence En for case Cn”. You believe C1, but not Cn. Now, there will be a point where you will say “I believe in Ck but not in C(k+1)”, i.e. “evidence Ek is believeable, but E(k+1) is not”.

    Then I could look into the differences between Ek and E(k+1) and then I would be able to understand WHY exactly you don’t believe this evidence.

    Going back to normal English:
    So, if you believe in cyanide using for delousing and not in gassing because it’s impossible to grab and drag people, because cyanide is highly toxic; then I must ask why you believe in delousing with cyanide, after all witness seem to suggest they did things like (1) pouring cyanide on themselves (2) wearing clothes, which were previously drenched in cyanide. You can then say (ad 1) the level of cyanide and time of impact was too low to have an impact on humans (ad 2) clothes were properly ventilated. Then I could ask you (1a) why you believe the level of cyanide and time of impact was higher when dragging dead bodies in comparison to situation when you touched cyanide directly and (2a) why you believe gas chambers were not properly ventilated.

    Or, if you believe in witnesses of mass shootings, but not witnesses in sonderkommandoes, I could examine the differences in testimonies f those two kinds of witnessess (which are quite often inaccurate), to understand why you believe one kind of witnesses, and not the another kind.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  272. @Szopen

    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.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  273. @Erebus

    I will not supply credentials for you to “be able to verify”.
    I am indifferent as to whether you are in any way qualified to do anything at all, aside from honestly presenting relevant evidence in good faith. Please note that I have generally found the latter in short supply on the other side of this debate.

    If you’re not willing to supply credentials, then I’ll just ignore any scientific points you try to make.

    First:
    - Have you visited any of the “death camps” yourself?

    Nope.

    - Do you have a technical background?

    You’ll need to qualify this question a bit.

    I’ve been debating this topic for twenty years…

    - Has your position changed over those 20 years?

    Regarding whether there was a Holocaust? No. Regarding specific aspects? Yes. Twenty years ago, like most novices, I was an intentionalist, for one thing.

    I am likewise uncomfortable, as your “100% certainty” sounds uncomfortably like the thin edge of a wedge.

    OK…

    We’re not talking about the Peloponnesian Wars here. I’m looking for common, garden variety empirical proofs for three defining features of an extraordinary mass murder whose scale and temporal freshness should provide in overwhelming abundance.

    Begging the question. Why do you suppose that evidence would exist in overwhelming abundance?

    We don’t need a stamped, sealed, signed, and thumb-printed order from the desk of the Fuehrer, but Hilberg’s “meeting of minds across a far flung bureaucracy” must remain what it is. An expression of despair.

    Except he’s right on that point. Nazi Germany was a far-flung bureaucracy, and at least until Wannsee, when the RSHA took matters firmly in control, there were at least three agencies within the government promulgating policy on the Final Solution. Hilberg argues in Destruction, although perhaps less convincingly than Broszat or Schleuenes after him, that competition among departments over this issue led to pushing forward of the enterprise. On that point, he’s 100% correct. What you’re doing is trying to read too far into what he said. I won’t allow it.

    Pressac’s 39 “criminal traces” are a step behind Hilberg. Pressac tacitly acknowledges their weakness by refusing to call them proofs. That is not my opinion, its Pressac’s.

    No, that is your opinion of Pressac. Again, I won’t allow it.

    In the first place, what sort of “specific claims of historical fact” can be made about “the sum total” of Jewish experience under the Nazi’s, or anybody’s sum total? That they had a “sum total” of experience? That would be trivial, in addition to being, by definition, non-specific. That theirs was worse than anybody elses?
    You’ve truly stumped me here. Help me out, what sort of claim could you make?

    Bearing in mind that “sum total” was your term, not mine, I have no idea.

    In the second place, and more importantly, no matter how many Jews lost their legal rights, or died of typhus or starvation, or were shot for banditry or en masse by a drunken, enraged German, makes a whit of difference to the claim that a “hard” Holocaust is a matter of historical fact, or isn’t. That demands the same empirical proof that it ever did.

    You lost me here. So I’m going to try to respond to what I think you said. If I fail, at least I tried.

    If your claim is that your list of things makes not a whit of difference , I would say that it depends. Jews losing their legal rights is not the Holocaust, although it’s a road there. Jews being shot for banditry — if not guilty — is the Holocaust. Jews dying of typhus or starvation is the Holocaust if it occurs under German custody.

    Jews either died under a systemic state mandated program of extermination by gassing (or other means) or they succumbed to the vicissitudes of war with the 50M other victims. Everything else is psycho-history, aka “tribal lore”. I hope you can keep that in mind.

    False dilemma.

    You claim you read Browning’s Origins of the Final Solution. He and virtually every other functionalist makes neither argument. How do you respond to those? When responding, do try to use phrases such as “cumulative radicalization” and “independent initiative.” Extra points if you use the term schwache Diktator.

    Having let “100% certainty” slide, I will not play at Humpty Dumpty with you on “nebulous”. Your use of it so early in Act II sounds very uncomfortably like an introduction of a much fatter part of the same wedge you introduced above. We’re not in Wonderland, and words don’t mean whatever you want them to mean.

    We are also not in the land where you live, where apparently things happen either one way or the other, and nothing never ever falls between the poles. That’s bullshit, friend, and if you don’t know that, you at least should.

    Again, if you’ve read the arguments you’ve claimed to, then you should be prepared to debate functionalism as an explanation for the Holocaust — particularly regarding a state program of execution.

    Here, I’ll make it easy for you: After December 1941, there was a state program. Before 1941, there was not. Nevertheless, that program remained dynamic and allowed for flexibility, particularly with regard to labor requirements and the compliance of allied states.

    - Is “nebulous” the inverse of “probable”? Is it estimable in the same way as “probability” is?

    Nope and nope.

    - How “nebulous” are your gas chambers and the >5M Jews – in themselves, and in relation to your “more nebulous” extermination program? EG: 10% “nebulous” in themselves, and 50% less “nebulous” than the extermination program?

    Gas chambers — not at all nebulous with the exception (in my opinion) of Majdanek, where the evidence is just too terrible to assess.

    Five million or more? Within a standard deviation but no further.

    - How “nebulous” does it have to be before the extermination program can be called “unproven”?
    - How much more “nebulous” do the program, the gas chambers and >5M Jews have be before they can be called “doubtful”.

    That’s clearly subjective. You’ll allow for less nebulousness than I will, clearly, but I think on the matter of gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau or the Aktion Reinhard camps, it isn’t nebulous at all.

    - Does a “nebulous” gas administered by “nebulous” extermination program in a “nebulous” gas chamber work in exactly the same way as if it wasn’t “nebulous”, but real?

    You’re hysterical.

    Furthermore, your ploy to dilute all three salient points (your “prongs”) of the defintion did not go unnoted.

    Projection.

    I trust that the number of “individual pieces” is quite small, as my own short (1 yr), but very intensive study unearthed exactly nothing I could honestly call evidence, much less proof. I acknowledge something may have turned up in the intervening decade+, and is the reason I’m entertaining this discussion.

    Good for me!

    That aside, I suggest 1 piece of evidence to start and that you take your best shot first, so as to preserve maximum efficiency.

    See below.

    As for the “the total body of evidence”, I can concede that it can serve to support probability (ahem, declining “nebulousness”) if at least 1 piece is very close to conclusive. However, if all one can find is a mountain of weak evidence, it doesn’t advance the case to generate a second mountain of it.

    Well then, it’s a good thing that this is not my problem — although perhaps it’s yours.

    {bits on lost keys and Ukraine snipped}

    Again, we find a rather loose construction.
    Do you mean “physically impossible” in your 1st sentence? They refer to very different statements. If so, it can’t be used anywhere in a historical narrative, never mind as the basis of it.

    Incorrect.

    Suppose I told you I jumped 10 meters into the air unaided. Clearly the claim of distance is impossible. However, it says nothing about whether or not I actually jumped.

    Take it a step further.

    Four people are in a room.

    Person 2 says that Person 1 jumped a meter into the air.
    Person 3 says that Person 1 jumped a half meter into the air.
    Person 4 says that Person 1 jumped six meters into the air.

    Question: How likely is it that Person 1 jumped?

    The 2nd sentence seems to admit any irrelevant constructions that meet the test of not being “scientifically impossible”. I don’t see how that’s helpful.

    Without specifics, I couldn’t possibly say.

    I also must point out that we are not here to construct a “historical narrative”. We are here to prove 3 very simple facts, as per my definition of the “hard” Holocaust. Narratives are for psych-historians, literary writers, and of course, propagandists. The upshot is that Act II can be expected to be very short.

    Tell that to Leopold Ranke. Responsible historians construct narratives to explain evidence. They don’t pick away at individual pieces of evidence in a vacuum. That’s neither responsible nor honest.

    As you use it in in an unorthodox way, I’d also be interested to know precisely what you mean by “science”. My understanding is that science, or more properly scientific method starts with the premise that anything is possible, and that the first job of science is to determine what actually is, and its 2nd job is to predict what will be. It typically goes from the former to the latter by means of a formal logical construction called a theory that’s tested against empirical fact. In many social sciences it restricts itself to the first task.

    I’m hard pressed to find the relevance in this paragraph.

    Lastly, please keep in mind that mine is the position of the Skeptic. Ergo, I can dispute only the evidential merits of whatever you present. The Skeptic has no case to make except on the evidence. At that point either I am obliged to accept your proof, or give a rational argument for rejecting it.

    Not gonna play that game, pal.

    If you want to consider the “hard” Holocaust disproved, then I’m going to need an alternate explanation.

    Hint: Please avoid any more Pressacs. One can pity the man’s situation, and respect his honesty, but it is clear to any person who has a modicum of understands of evidential rules that he scored an own goal.

    Evidential rules as in courtrooms? Be specific because I don’t think that it was Pressac’s intention to provide an air-tight legal case for prosecution. Rather, he sought to demonstrate that Faurisson’s claim of no evidence (aside from testimony) of gas chambers was false.

    Succeeded handily, I must say.

    ===

    Regarding the “see below” note above.

    Here at the end of this post, allow me to reiterate my refusal to discuss individual pieces of evidence in isolation. I will discuss evidence only when grouped together with similar pieces of evidence. I do not demand that the “sum total” of all evidence be debated at once; I do, however, demand that all evidence for gas chambers at Auschwitz (e.g.) be discussed at once.

    No other way to do it, pal. Your turn, if you want it.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  274. Erebus says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    C’mon…. start using your brain….

    I continue to be in awe of the capacity people seem to have for sucking utterly outlandish claims out of their thumb. What’s worse, they follow it up with a flood of non-sequiturs and irrelevant comments, convinced that they’re making a case.

    I guess it’s what allows stories like 9/11, Saddam’s WMDs, and Russian invasions to gain traction. The propagandists face no challenges nowadays.

  275. @szopen

    Look, what this boils down to is something like: Little Johnny says he did his homework but he can’t present it because the dog ate it. You believe little Johnny. I am pretty sure that little Johnny is lying.

    You present a sophisticated argument that explains that it is within the bounds of the possible that little Johnny is telling the truth.

    Okay, fine. I still think Johnny is lying….

    Now, I will admit up front that I lack the competence, medically or pharmaceutically, to really get into too deep a discussion of the arguments you are making. I can only operate from intuition, but intuition still has some value. What it boils down to is that one was not born yesterday and, with a lifetime of experience and knowledge, one develops a built-in bullshit detector that tells us when somebody is bullshitting us. My bullshit detector on the Gabbai testimony is just off the scale red zone.

    First of all, Dario Gabbai (who I am quite convinced is a false witness) is not claiming that he did this once as a one-shot thing, or for a single hour. No, he was doing this repeatedly, like a full time job. For months! Eight and a half months of this, to be precise. Running into a gas chamber after a gassing and clearing out dead bodies. So to be claiming that you could do this once or for a short while without getting very sick is not all that convincing.

    In Pressac book I’ve read witness testimony who claimed that he actually become sick after working with bodies dragged out of gas chamber. He described symptoms which fit well what I read about cyanide poisoning effects.

    Well, okay, but it doesn’t look like this Dario Gabbai got sick. Just look at what happened after eight and a half months of pulling naked bodies (allegedly…) out of gas chambers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_Gabbai#Evacuation

    On January 18, 1945, the SS evacuated Auschwitz, and the few thousand inmates that could walk were filed out of the camp on a death march.[10] Gabbai states that it was snowing and the temperature was -23°C (-9°F), and that many died en route; in addition, those who could no longer keep up would be shot.[10] Gabbai says he survived the cold with verbal affirmations; closing his eyes and repeating “beautiful Athens in the sunshine” to himself.

    So, after all these months of exposure to the cyanide, Gabbai was not sick as a dog, or bedridden or any of that. NO! Actually, he must have been strong as an ox. He was able to complete a forced “death march” in mid January in subzero temperatures that many people did not survive. So the guy was not at all sick or debilitated, it seems, from 8 months worth of cyanide exposure.

    Well, okay, if the guy’s testimony is all truthful, basically he is some sort of Graeco-Judaeic Rambo, is he not? A superman. (Really, they should get some samples of this guy’s sperm before he kicks the bucket so as to be able to breed some super strong human specimens. If I were a prospective single mom looking for a sperm sample to use to have high quality offspring, I would look no further than this Dario Gabbai.)

    Now, I will simply re-iterate my position on this and ask again the question you did not answer, okay?

    My position is that if you are absolutely committed to believing that Dario Gabbai is being truthful, that is your business, I suppose. I am not competent on the medical/pharmaceutical questions to be able to claim that his testimony is absolutely impossible. That, however, does not imply that I consider his testimony to be credible. I do not. If you think his testimony is credible, that’s your business, really. And look, I think anybody would have to admit that it is not possible to run an experiment to resolve whether what he describes is feasible — but that point does cut both ways…so, if you absolutely are committed to believing that this testimony is truthful, well, I guess it cannot be demonstrated absolutely that it is not. But you certainly can’t demonstrate very easily that his testimony is truthful either!

    I would just ask this (again):

    Can you at least comprehend why somebody would be very skeptical of Dario Gabbai’s testimony?

    Yes? No? Could you answer that please?

    Now, on the delousing question, I don’t understand quite what your point is. It seems here like you’re playing some game of trying to create some sort of controversy where there is none and then demand that I respond to this ersatz controversy.

    Now, my understanding of this is that Zyklon B was a product not just used in Germany but also elsewhere for disinfecting/delousing; that is the indicated use of the product. So, presumably, there were instructions on the container for how the thing would be used. And, you know, the Germans are famously rule-oriented people. You would figure that if there were usage instructions, they would be followed. If I were a serious researcher into these questions, which I am not, I suppose I could dig up what the usage instructions on the container were.

    At any rate, the Germans are quite competent people in general. If the manufacturer put usage instructions on a product like that and you followed the usage instructions, nobody would be poisoned, right? That is just not an issue, by pure common sense. So, the issue only arises when you use a product in a way it was not intended to be used. And this is the case with the mass gassings of human beings. The product was not originally designed for that, so to ask what procedures would need to be in place to use the product so that it only kills the people it is meant to kill but not the people using it…. the question that Leuchter was addressing, or one of them anyway… this is a reasonable question to ask.

    To be asking whether the product could be safely used to do what it was actually intended to do… well… why would that be any issue at all? It doesn’t seem like a sensible question even.

    Fred Leuchter obviously was not saying you couldn’t delouse clothes safely using Zyklon B following the instructions on the container. So what is your point? It feels to me like you’re grasping at straws to find some wisp of an argument to grab onto.

    • Replies: @szopen
  276. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    On most Unz.com articles, regardless of the actual topic, pretty soon the holocaust justifiers descend to argue that the Jews wrecked the Weimar republic, the Nazis were a natural reaction to Jewish evil, and the Jews had it coming.

    Yet on this comments thread, soon to hit 300 comments, with most of it taken up by holocaust denial, the justifiers are curiously absent. Shouldn’t they be fiercely arguing against the deniers?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  277. @szopen

    ….then I must ask why you believe in delousing with cyanide….

    You ask such bizarre questions and I have to wonder whether you are really thinking about what you are saying.

    The Zyklon B was an established industrial product that was manufactured specifically for the purpose of disinfecting clothing etcetera. To ask me why I believe that the product could be used for its actual designed use, in a safe manner — is this even a sensible question?

    Surely it is when something is used for a purpose that it is not designed for that it becomes legitimate to ask whether what is being described is feasible, no?

    If one is told that a bunch of Arabs used boxcutters to cut cardboard boxes, who would have any problem with that? If one is told that the Arabs used boxcutters to hijack commercial airliners, well,… I don’t believe that… maybe you do… but surely even then you can see why people could have a problem believing that, no?

    At any rate, there is no issue at all about whether Zyklon B can be used to disinfect clothing in a safe, efficient manner. It was designed precisely for that and the procedure for doing so is doubtless well described by the very manufacturer of the product.

    No, what is being claimed is that this product was used for gassing large numbers of people to death because this is an efficient mass execution method. Already, the fact that there is no case of any mass executions being carried out this way before or since is rather odd, no? I mean, if it is such an efficient way to execute a large number of people…. your position is somehow to create the idea that it is unreasonable for anybody to express any doubt about this.

    But it’s not like it’s just me expressing the doubt. You have the testimony of somebody who really was an expert on executions with gas, Fred Leuchter, who said that the descriptions of how this gassing worked were basically ludicrous. Now, okay, this Mathis fucknuckle says that Leuchter has been soundly refuted, but I really doubt it. My sense of things is that Leuchter simply looked at the description of how this gassing/cleanup operation worked and where it supposedly happened, and based on his very real knowledge said: nooooo waaaaay….

    Or, if you believe in witnesses of mass shootings, but not witnesses in sonderkommandoes…

    Well, previously, I made the analogy of believing that somebody ate eggs for breakfast but not believing that somebody ate whale blubber for breakfast. I mean, the mass shootings, executing people with bullets — there are very many cases throughout history, before this, and afterwards. The gassings with Zyklon B as an execution method never occurred before or after.

    Why is it odd that somebody would find one much easier to believe than the other? You have a mundane killing method, shooting, that everybody understands that it works and has been used repeatedly throughout history. And on the other hand, you have a completely novel killing method, never used before or since, along with expert testimony saying that the process, as described, is not technically feasible!

    • Replies: @szopen
  278. @Anonymous

    the justifiers are curiously absent…

    I think the reason for this is because the “justifiers” only exist in your imagination.

  279. geokat62 says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Sounds fair, although to be fair, I am kind of an asshole.

    At least your honest enough to admit the truth. Unfortunately, they same can’t be said about your present interlocutor, who claims:

    I caught this geokat guy in the most blatant dishonesty recently. Like, in a discussion on the 9/11 issue, I straightforwardly asked him what the strongest evidence available was for the official story. He evaded the question by representing that he was a fence sitter — he just hadn’t decided yet, so he didn’t need to answer my question.

    What this character fails to mention is that my original position on the 9/11 terror attacks was this:

    … determining whether 9/11 was gov’t mfged or provoked by US foreign policy was a difficult thing to do.

    Rather than agreeing, he retorted:

    Not really. It’s pretty clear that it was a manufactured pretext.

    And when he insisted that I choose between these two explanations, I said that I would have to lean towards Ron Paul’s position – that 9/11 was blowback for US foreign policy, as he recently repeated in a post on Antiwar.com:

    Is it “blaming America” to point out that blowback – like we saw on 9/11 – can be the result of unwise US foreign policy actions like stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia?

    I also reminded him of what he himself rightly pointed out about RP:

    Whatever you think of Ron Paul, this is an honest man, he doesn’t go around telling lies. And he is in a position to know. He said this publicly. And did anybody denounce him as a liar?

    And how did he respond to this uncomfortable fact:

    I did say that I suspected that Ron Paul knows perfectly well that these incidents are false flags, but also knows that he must not say that.

    So rather than taking at face value RP’s position on 9/11, which was independently confirmed by Phil Giraldi, we are supposed to take his word that he has an uncanny ability to peer into the soul of RP and realize that he is not being totally honest about the causes of 9/11 with the American people.

    For me, the best indicator of this person’s character is his refusal to debate the issues as fiercely as he can, while abiding by the RoE I put forward. Not sure what’s preventing him from accepting, except fear.

  280. Erebus says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Nope.

    Thought so.
    There’s simply no way for believers to spin the narratives (yes, there’s many more than the 2 we’re discussing) if they have to pin them to a physical reality, so they avoid personal examination (not that you necessarily avoided it).
    For the record, my first trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau was in the spring of ’86. I went as a True Believer, and left in the same state as I was there for family reasons. I returned and visited 5 camps in 2002 as I tried frantically to beat the deadline on a bet with a Denier. I lost that bet, and spent close to 5 figures doing it. I learned as much from that 5 figures as I ever spent elsewhere so, no regrets.
    I returned in 2013, this time as part of a driving vacation through Europe. I went with an agnostic companion. Though I had no intent to convince her of anything, she convinced herself with: “Yeah, they gassed 1.5M people in my bedroom” (in A-B).

    Begging the question. Why do you suppose that evidence would exist in overwhelming abundance?

    Umm, for the reason stated, the “scale and temporal freshness of the crime”. Do you read what you quote?

    No, that is your opinion of Pressac. Again, I won’t allow it.

    Your allowing notwithstanding, being quite familiar with technical works, I have yet to see anyone write proofs (and I’ve seen plenty) which are characterized as “beginnings of proofs”, or “criminal traces” unless the author is signifying that they are NOT proofs. I do this myself, calling them “indicators” etc. That Pressac expressly did not, and that he didn’t in the face of the express goals of his sponsors, is to his credit, but it belies a realization that he failed in his quest.
    If that doesn’t convince, I further point you to Pressac’s self-refutation, written on 2 pages near the end of a large book published in French in 2000(?)
    Quoting from my memory of the French here, but I’m sure the quotes are true to Pressac’s original meaning, if not his style.
    Pressac states plainly that his conclusion that the official narrative on the Nazi camps is irreparably “rotten”, and “headed for the trashbin of history.” He goes on to indict eye-witness accounts as “approximation, exaggeration, omission, and lying” There’s more along those lines, but in closing (the part that stuck with me) he says that “the record cannot be set straight, it’s too late”.

    I hope you’ll take note. I invite you to verify my recollections.

    Bearing in mind that “sum total” was your term, not mine, I have no idea.

    Umm, that is Yad Vashems’ term, not mine, and part of their definition that you claimed to be able to prove. Ergo, the term is yours for the purposes of this discussion. Please answer my questions.
    I’m beginning to think we’re going too fast for you.

    Jews being shot for banditry — if not guilty — is the Holocaust. Jews dying of typhus or starvation is the Holocaust if it occurs under German custody.

    And so it begins… the slide function in Yad Vashem’s definition kicks in.
    Mathis, it may or may not be “part of the Holocaust”. This is a matter of indifference as this discussion is interested only in the “hard” Holocaust as defined in #214, which you claimed was “proved”. You have to show compelling evidence for only three, easily proven, facts. Much easier than trying to include murders and epidemics and whatever else is in that “sum total”.

    We are also not in the land where you live, where apparently things happen either one way or the other, and nothing never ever falls between the poles.

    I do know it, and when they fall between, I suspend judgement. As regards the “hard” Holocaust, it is clear that 3 facts must be established and that is all that’s required, whatever else happened at the time.

    Gas chambers — not at all nebulous with the exception (in my opinion) of Majdanek, where the evidence is just too terrible to assess.
    Five million or more? Within a standard deviation but no further.

    Apparently, in addition to not reading what you quote, you don’t read what you write. You said earlier that the extermination program was “more nebulous” than the gas chambers. That strongly infers that the gas chambers “nebulousness” is >0. If what you meant is that the gas chambers were certain, you should have said so. Simple really.
    As for the 5M, no problem. I can confidently go to any number as regards gassing, down to zero individuals (excepting industrial accident and personal murder) if you like.
    BTW the way, I was in Majdanek (twice) and I wouldn’t describe the evidence as “terrible”. In fact, it strains credulity. I have more evidence of gas chambers on my back 40.

    Incorrect
    Suppose I told you I jumped 10 meters into the air unaided. Clearly the claim of distance is impossible. However, it says nothing about whether or not I actually jumped.
    Take it a step further.
    snip jump witnesses
    Question: How likely is it that Person 1 jumped?

    Look, you’re gonna have to learn some logic bro’.
    The proposition is EITHER that you jumped 10M, OR it is that you jumped (whatever height). It cannot be both propositions at the same time. Furthermore, one is NOT some kind of subset of the other. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of propositional logic. And yes, in the country I live in, propositional logic endures, as does Ockam, though apparently not in yours.
    If that’s too abstract for you, the proposition that you jumped 10M is FALSE on the evidence, and the proposition that you jumped (whatever amount) is TRUE on the evidence. No proposition can be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time so they must be two different propositions. You’re trying to create a compound proposition such as “I will jump 10M or less”. This proposition, in reality, is no different than “I will jump” and so we’re back to sq. one. Sheesh.

    Tell that to Leopold Ranke. Responsible historians construct narratives to explain evidence.

    Indeed they do, but they don’t construct the narrative BEFORE they have the evidence. Even a Ranke would agree.
    We have yet to see your evidence, much less accepted it, so we can’t construct a narrative.
    I will not participate in your fitting of facts to a received narrative.

    Not gonna play that game, pal.
    If you want to consider the “hard” Holocaust disproved, then I’m going to need an alternate explanation.

    That “game” is called honest search for the truth… pal. It is how all courts, engineers, scientists, psychologists, etc, etc, and indeed historians work when they wish to know the truth of a matter. They start with the first fact, examine it, then move to the second, and so on. Individually is how facts get into the final set that is used to support a theory, narrative, court case, etc.
    It is a continuing source of wonder for me how proponents of faith based reality reverse this universal process while being completely unaware of their doing so.
    What game will you be playing?

    How about starting with an alternate explanation that includes ONLY what the documentary evidence actually shows? In case you can’t imagine it, a brief synopsis follows:

    The state sourced documentary evidence shows clearly that a work camp program was being run alongside a deportation program, and that Jews in particular were the focus of the latter. There’s literally tons of documents in the archives on these programs, and they are not controversial.

    Camp management records, as well as the architectural, engineering and operational documentation, are available in considerable numbers and corroborate in every way the two programs, with some primarily transit camps, and some work camps. I’m a professional in the structural field and know my way around facility planning, design and engineering and the documentation thereof. The camps were clearly purpose-designed & built, and that’s what they show they were actually used for. Their modifications, additions, etc all indicate facility managers making ordinary adjustments to operational conditions with the budgets and resources they had available.
    Is there something extraordinary about that? Am I missing something?
    The absence of direct orders, requisitions for increased quantities of gassing agent and coal for the crematoria, rail manifests, transport means for the bodies, never mind construction drawings revisions and facility planning documents indicating a gross facility use transformation to industrial scale mass murder and corpse disposal further indicates that it was what it designed to be.
    This is like kids scaring each other at night in their backyard tent.

    The work camp and deportation programs lack the drama, but they fully explain every detail of the documentary evidence.

    Having said that, there’s indicators of A-B planning for long term use as a work camp. That’s admittedly sinister enough, and is worth investigation.
    During the period in question, there is a good quantity of planning, design, engineering and administrative documents for the swimming pool’s maintenance work, the normal requisitions of medicines and medical supplies from the hospital (5000 babies were born in Auschwitz-Birkenau) as well record of procedures and deaths. There’s food, cutlery, eqpt maintenance work requisitions from the commercial kitchens, shaving eqpt, soaps, and gas for the delousing stations, but documentary records of activity at the inmates’ purpose-built bordello are, sadly, lacking. Bordello operations were the ONLY aspect of the A-B complex that are not well documented. Everything else one finds looks exactly like one would expect in the professional management of a facility like A-B. These all exist as physical buildings, or as identifiable ruins. No need to imagine anything. There are examples of camp currencies still extant, and records of sales of cigarettes and other sundrys from the camp concessions. Camp maintenance crews work logs and supplies are all in the documentary record.

    As for the gas chambers and 5M +/- numbers, the former have no role in this (documentary evidence based) narrative, and the latter are contra indicated by both internal camp and 3rd party documentary records.

    If that isn’t plausible, then I’m sailing off, and you’re back to hustlin’ “grey rabbit”.

    I do, however, demand that all evidence for gas chambers at Auschwitz (e.g.) be discussed at once.

    I’ll tease by referencing one piece of the forensic record pertinent to gassing. 7000 autopsies were performed by the staff from the US Army Surgeon General on bodies found in the liberated camps. Not a single case of gassing was found. That documentary record is available.

    Sorry, the rest of the forensic record will have to await another time. Maybe you can lay out what you think you know and I’ll have a look.
    If I include assessing total facility plan (ingress, egress, traffic flows, crowd control, etc), I personally spent literally >150 hours examining “gas chambers” on site (almost all A-B). That was more than a decade ago, but I still remember a few things.
    I can tell you that the Deniers are right. If the Germans did design/build or modify these facilities as gas chambers, the camp Kommandant should have called the design team in as subjects for the first trial, lest they screw the next one up this badly. If the place didn’t blow up, (hydrogen cyanide is a high explosive) and the operators got them running, they would have managed to kill very small numbers/day. I recall estimating ranges in 2 digits based on facility parameters, at great risk to operational staff and camp infrastructure.
    The German engineers I’ve worked with know their business, and their predecessors in the ’30s & ’40s knew theirs. To believe that they designed and built these “gas chambers” for the purpose, is to believe the German engineering profession fell into imbecility for the period, and then miraculously recovered in time for postwar reconstruction.

    Bollocks.
    After that rant, I’m done. If you’ve got something new & compelling, bring it on. I’d be delighted to look at it. Rehashing all those semi-literate, faith-based reality peddlers is of no interest.

    Prominent Holocaust “historian” and “scholar” Robert van Pelt channelling Lamarck, in an interview in The Toronto Star, Dec ’09, stands as the final word on Holocaust “scholarship”, and it’s promotion to priesthood in this up and coming Western religion. Cripes.

    Ninety-nine per cent of what we know (about Auschwitz) we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

  281. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    I feel like we are going in circles.

    Here is my understanding after reading several papers on cyanide effects (including one paper from 1931, linked from CODOH forum :D ). Since I am no expert, I hope mr. Mathis will correct me if I will write somethign wrong.

    Cyanide does not cumulate in a body. You can walk an hour in low cyanide concentration, have a rest, and go again next hour and you will be, in general, fine.

    If you, however, take one breath of an air with high cyanide concentration (like more than 3000ppm), then you could die. Not instantly – you may still be alive for next ten or even more minutes, but without medical help, you will die, even if took just one full breath and then run away to clear air.

    This paper from 1931 contained an experiment in which a man spend a minute and thirty seconds in a chamber with concentration of, if I am reading correctly, between 500 and 600 ppm. This should ensure his death, as “Inhaling 600 to 700 ppm hydrogen cyanide for 5 minutes or approximately 200 ppm for 30 minutes may be fatal.” Yet he survived, with a bit of nausea and headache. Barcroft ensures us that during war experiments, soldiers sometimes survived concentrations of 500ppm and that people were exposed to 250ppm and survived without any effects after being exposed for two minutes.

    It all depends on time. If you will continously breathe cyanide for 5 minutes with 300ppm, you probably would be dead, though your death would not be instant (you may convulse for next ten minutes). The human resistance is quite different. In fact witnesses claim, that sometime there were people who were still alive when gas chambers were opened, and that such people were then beaten to death.

    In delousing, HCN concentration had to be much higher. Yet, the rules of using Zykon-B did not pay much intention to the possiblity of being poisoned via skin. Moreover, google tells me that actually you can pour Zyklon-B without a gas mask and taht if you are doing it quickly and plan your actions before (e.g. you can just walk into the plane without a mask, and withdraw while pouring Zyklon-B), then you will be fine.

    And in fact witnesses who participated in delousing seem never to be concerned about touching Zyklon-B. (Andrzej Rablin: “Despite the speed of this operation the lice jumped on our legs and to protect ourselves we spread a little Zyklon-B around our feet.”). Initially delousing lasted two hours, and then they had to wait for some 20 hours or so; but because it was inefficient, ventilation system was installed which removed HCN and clothes could be removed and worn again within 15 minutes. Rablin claims that only two people wore masks; he also claims that once his mask went loose and that after two hours he became very sick, but he recovered quite quickly.

    So, you believe this, because Germans knew, how to handle HCN, and fumigation and delousing were common practices.

    But look at this:
    (1) Skin exposure seems not to bother anyone.
    (2) Ventilation is quickly and after 15 minutes clothes, which earlier were for two hours in a very high concentration of HCN, are ready to be worn.

    Your opposition to gas chambers cames from disbelief that sonderkommando could drag the bodies out. You were quoting dangers of dragging bodies, but clearly if this would be dangerous, then wearing clothes would be far more dangerous. As for breathing, if you believe that in delousing the room could be ventilated in 15 minutes, why you think that in gas chambers, with lower HCn concentration, it couldn’t be ventilated within 20 minutes? It still does not have to be ventilated completely. Seems that people could stay even in relatively high concentration of HCN for a whole minute.

    Moreover, at least one of the witnesses claim that sometimes first people who entered the chambers wore the masks (in those gas chambers with poor ventilation).

    The red colour of the bodies is caused by bright red blood colour, because body cells cannot remove oxygen from blood. However, in tightly-shut chamber with a lot of people, oxygen level in air would fall down quickly and people would be quickly deprived of oxygen. In fact one witness claim that sometimes some people died not from gassing, but from asphyxation. In such conditions, the red colour would be “faint or even absent”. Yet at least one witness claimed that bodies were pink or red.

    The time which took to gas people was given differently, and it seems that it varied depending on weather, quality of Zyklon-B and its quantity. It’s hard to expect that witnesses would give precise estimations – they had no watches. It’s like asking you, how long you ate your dinner yesterday. The estimated range from 2 to 10 minutes, but it is completely possible that it lasted longer. Note however, that even if after 10 minutes gas chambers were opened and ventilation started, anyone who was still alive at this point may still die after few minutes – as I wrote before, medical papers suggest that if you breath lethal dose of cyanide, then you will die if not given help, though the death may last few more minutes. So it’s entirely possible that after 10 minutes a lot of people are still alive, but they would die within next ten minutes even if dragged out to the fresh air. They could die during the ventilation. Or, if they are simply unconcious, they could be burned alive. Nevertheless, witnesses claim that sometimes some people WERE alive and had to be killed.

    Gas execution in US took from 6 to 18 minutes. Still, this is time to death, not the time needed for prisoner to breathe the gas. While some google pages suggest that breathing cyanide causes “instant” or “rapid” death, the medical papers I’ve read suggest that it rather means that the death may be slow and painful even after you breathed a lethal concentration of HCN for a short time.

    To summarize: it seems to me that your points are invalid; that the only doubt you have is that you can believe witnesses of delousing (even though they also sometimes may be unreliable) because delousing was common; but you do not beleive witnesses of gassing, because using gas to kill humans was not usual. For me, it is a very weak argument.

  282. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “Why is it odd that somebody would find one much easier to believe than the other?”

    Sure, but your comparison with eggs and whale steak is a bit weak.

    Imagine you claimed that you, and your friend were on a beach and a whale was thrown to the sand, so you cut it and ate it. Sure, it is reasonable to disbelieve in that.

    But then let’s say I read a report that whale’s bones were found on a beach, and someone unrelated in any way to you claims that he saw something like bunch of weirdos eating whale, then yeah, I would say that your story is credible.

  283. Erebus says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Thanks for that!

    The killing fields of the Eastern Front were the real Holocaust. Partisans, civilians, warbands, deportees from Germany, Commissars, and the Wehrmacht and Red Army mixed into a bloody soup. It looked like a war of all on all and blood-curdling atrocities were commonplace, on all sides. Villages were slaughtering neighbouring villages. Some of it was so vicious that German officers were writing letters to local bishops and priests to restrain their parishioners.
    Most of the Nuernberg atrocity stories of the death camps come from the USSR. The soap & lampshades, the steam chambers,gas chambers of various sorts, electrocution chambers, pedal powered, brain bashing machines, death by air extraction, diesels, lime trucks, on it goes without apparent end in the form of “afidavits” (many unsigned) and various sketches & schematics of how it all worked. Reading the Nuernberg “evidence” is an eye opening experience. That any court, even a medieval one would allow 99% of what’s there submitted, en masse and without examination, is simply shocking. 3000 tons of documents in total, and much of that was from the USSR, apparently churned out by an ad hoc production house that must have started well before the war ended.
    I didn’t see an original document in the whole lot.

    When all that Nazi Bandera stuff happened in Ukraine last year, it clicked. A simple switch had been made. The USSR needed a scapegoat to help settle those populations down (local wars kept breaking out the Ukraine into the ’50s) and many were looking for revenge+, the US needed a strong but subservient Germany, Europe needed balance (keeping Germany from dominating), and the Jews well, they knew with Kissinger, that to “control oil is to control nations” and they had all these lunatic Zionists around that had to get parked somewhere before they harmed business.

    A deal was made, with Germany serving as scapegoat in the USSR, and America’s European point man.

  284. @Erebus

    That “game” is called honest search for the truth… pal.

    Yeah, but how are you supposed to have honest search for the truth if people can be sent to prison or will have their careers destroyed for coming to the “wrong” conclusion?

    It is how all courts, engineers, scientists, psychologists, etc, etc, and indeed historians work..

    In theory… (Right? That’s what you mean, right? That’s the THEORY! In practice, YMMV! :-)

    …when they wish to know the truth of a matter.

    Ah hah! Okay. (Now we’re getting somewhere!)

    And how do they work when they do NOT (ABSOLUTELY DO NOT….) wish to knew the truth of a matter? (Hint… maybe look at the Warren commission, 9/11 commission report, NIST report on the collapse of building 7…)

  285. szopen says:
    @Erebus

    HCN is not highly explosive (not at the concentration needed to kill a man, or even not at the much higher concentration needed to kill lice). If it would be, then it couldn’t be used for delousing, and it was used for delousing, isn’t it?

    Degesch manual stated that HCN is explosive at concentration of 75g/m3, that is, if 1ppm of HCN equal 1.109 mg/m3 at 25C, is explosive at about 67800ppm. In other places I have read that minimal concentration to make it explode is above 50.000 ppm (300ppm is already lethal for humans). To make the concentration this high in a gas chamber, you would have to use thousands of kilos of Zyklon-B.

    You may calculate it yourself.

    For achieving 300ppm, some 200g of Zyklon-B would be enough. In order to make desired concentration to appear quicker, say you would use 5 times the needed amount (one kg). Multiply it by 4 gas chambers and 365 days – it’s not even two tons. But let’s say gas chambers would need 3 tons of Zyklon-B PER YEAR to gas hundreds of thousands of people. Auschwitz in total received about _23.8 tons_ of Zyklon-B.

    Interestingly, normally Zyklon-B came with added irritant, to make it easier for operators to find out the gas. Auschwitz received also Zyklon-B without irritant.

    While there are in total only few dozens of witnesses to gassing, there are hundreds if not more of witnesses in total for Auschwitz and Birkenau, and their testimonies paint rather gruesome picture of those camps, with little regard for human life and dignity and death being common occurrence. Hardly something you can reconcile with your attempt to paint concentration camps as something perfectly normal, with commercial kitchens.

    If Auschwitz camp was transit camp, then it was transit to where?!

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Erebus
  286. @Erebus

    {snip on personal trips to death camps}

    ::Begging the question. Why do you suppose that evidence would exist in overwhelming abundance?
    Umm, for the reason stated, the “scale and temporal freshness of the crime”. Do you read what you quote?

    It would be a fair assessment that the scale and temporal freshness of the crime would dictate an abundance of evidence if not for two facts of which you’re well aware (at least of the “orthodox story” or whatever you feel like calling it). First, matters of secrecy limited the evidence to a great extent, particularly with regard to gassing. Second, the Holocaust was not a single crime but multiple crimes committed in multiple places. Thus, the statement of its scale would need to be broken down into its component parts. The shooting of 100 Jews in a some small town in Belarus, while part of the Holocaust, is going to offer both a different quantity and different quality of evidence, n’est-ce pas?

    Your allowing notwithstanding, being quite familiar with technical works, I have yet to see anyone write proofs (and I’ve seen plenty) which are characterized as “beginnings of proofs”, or “criminal traces” unless the author is signifying that they are NOT proofs. I do this myself, calling them “indicators” etc. That Pressac expressly did not, and that he didn’t in the face of the express goals of his sponsors, is to his credit, but it belies a realization that he failed in his quest. 

    This argument strikes me as silly on a couple of levels. First, you’ve offered no proof that you are familiar with technical works, so I have no reason to accept your statement at face value. Second, while Technique was published in English, it’s far more likely that he wrote the initial draft in French, so neither you nor I knows what term or terms he used. Third, Technique wasn’t even Pressac’s first book that was sponsored and published by the Klarsfelds, so your imputations about their relationship would need to be reassessed.

    If that doesn’t convince, I further point you to Pressac’s self-refutation, written on 2 pages near the end of a large book published in French in 2000(?) 

    I’ve read it, in French. It’s an interview conducted by a woman named Valerie Igounet. Trust me when I say that the last thing I will ever do in my life is rely on a Holocaust denier — particularly Faurisson — for a reliable translation of anything.

    Quoting from my memory of the French here, but I’m sure the quotes are true to Pressac’s original meaning, if not his style 
    Pressac states plainly that his conclusion that the official narrative on the Nazi camps is irreparably “rotten”, and “headed for the trashbin of history.” He goes on to indict eye-witness accounts as “approximation, exaggeration, omission, and lying” There’s more along those lines, but in closing (the part that stuck with me) he says that “the record cannot be set straight, it’s too late”.

    Well, luckily someone has posted it online:

    http://inkorrekt.over-blog.com/pages/Entretien_avec_JeanClaude_Pressac_14_-1046298.html

    Your general gist is correct, with some omissions. First, this section of the interview comes immediately following a discussion of his continuing work on the Holocaust, which is ironic considering the meaning of the material on evidence in pure isolation. Second, he specifically blames communist authorities for ruining the eyewitness evidence. Third, while acknowledging the poor state of the evidence, he also says, “De tous ces faits, terribles parce qu’ayant provoqué la mort de femmes, d’enfants et de vieillards, ne survivront que ceux établis.” Context is always important, non? That Pressac decries the state of the evidence is unsurprising given the “orthodox history,” which “alleged” a concerted effort to hide evidence.

    :Jews being shot for banditry — if not guilty — is the Holocaust. Jews dying of typhus or starvation is the Holocaust if it occurs under German custody.
    And so it begins… the slide function in Yad Vashem’s definition kicks in. 
    Mathis, it may or may not be “part of the Holocaust”. This is a matter of indifference as this discussion is interested only in the “hard” Holocaust as defined in #214, which you claimed was “proved”. You have to show compelling evidence for only three, easily proven, facts. Much easier than trying to include murders and epidemics and whatever else is in that “sum total”.

    And you make it sound so easy!

    It is impossible to prove the parts of the argument about a plan and the parts of the argument about numbers without discussing matters such as these. If at least a million innocent Jews were shot on the eastern front and another million died of disease and starvation in ghettoes where they never should have been, these facts say something about both intent and scale.

    Apparently, in addition to not reading what you quote, you don’t read what you write. You said earlier that the extermination program was “more nebulous” than the gas chambers. That strongly infers that the gas chambers “nebulousness” is >0.

    Listen, Jack, don’t accuse me of not reading material and then either yourself not reading or misrepresenting what I wrote. I clearly said no plan to exterminate all Jews in Europe before the end of 1941. This both does and does not have to do with gas chambers, by the way, since it would seem that the decision to murder Polish Jews in the gas chambers of the Reinhard camps was decided upon considerably earlier than the decision to murder central and western European Jews at Auschwitz.

    If what you meant is that the gas chambers were certain, you should have said so. Simple really. 

    I did.

    As for the 5M, no problem. I can confidently go to any number as regards gassing, down to zero individuals (excepting industrial accident and personal murder) if you like. 

    That, like I said, is a matter of a standard deviation and not more. Reitlinger put forward a low figure of 4.3 million. My personal opinion is 5.5 million. Benz put it at nearly 7 million. So it’s a range we have to target, yes?

    Look, you’re gonna have to learn some logic bro’. 

    Oh, goody.

    The proposition is EITHER that you jumped 10M, OR it is that you jumped (whatever height). It cannot be both propositions at the same time. Furthermore, one is NOT some kind of subset of the other. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of propositional logic. And yes, in the country I live in, propositional logic endures, as does Ockam, though apparently not in yours. 

    But your very first sentence is wrong. Because I only told you I jumped (i.e., you didn’t see it), there is a third possibility, which is that I didn’t jump at all. So it’s I jumped 10 meters OR I jumped an unknown number of meters OR I didn’t jump.

    If that’s too abstract for you, the proposition that you jumped 10M is FALSE on the evidence, and the proposition that you jumped (whatever amount) is TRUE on the evidence. No proposition can be both TRUE and FALSE at the same time so they must be two different propositions. You’re trying to create a compound proposition such as “I will jump 10M or less”. This proposition, in reality, is no different than “I will jump” and so we’re back to sq. one. Sheesh.

    It’s really a shame that you first lecture me on logic and then demonstrate yourself to be an ignoramus.

    Let’s try this: Iff you accept the notion that there are in fact THREE possibilities of the first case and not two — and I think you have to — then you must also accept that there must be some assessment on the basis of the evidence of that third possibility, which, again, is that I didn’t jump at all. So here’s where the rubber meets the road: you have exactly the same reason to believe that I jumped as that I didn’t, unless you have some inherent idea to believe that I lie or I tell the truth to complete strangers. With no evidence to corroborate my claim, you might as well flip a coin, because you simply don’t know.

    If you still don’t understand, then try not to be so Boolean in your thinking about the first example.

    Indeed they do, but they don’t construct the narrative BEFORE they have the evidence. Even a Ranke would agree.
    We have yet to see your evidence, much less accepted it, so we can’t construct a narrative. 
    I will not participate in your fitting of facts to a received narrative.

    This might be putting the cart before the horse, but I submit that it is necessary to consider how the “orthodox” narrative that we currently have came to exist in the first place.

    That “game” is called honest search for the truth… pal. It is how all courts, engineers, scientists, psychologists, etc, etc, and indeed historians work when they wish to know the truth of a matter. They start with the first fact, examine it, then move to the second, and so on. Individually is how facts get into the final set that is used to support a theory, narrative, court case, etc. 

    Well then perhaps that’s the direction in which to move. The first stories of mass gassing of Jews during World War II came out of Treblinka. Would you like to start there? It’s nice place to start for me, personally, because I’ve read some of the original documentation in Yiddish, and a friend has been correlating testimonies over time and sources.

    How about starting with an alternate explanation that includes ONLY what the documentary evidence actually shows? In case you can’t imagine it, a brief synopsis follows:

    {state-sourced documentary evidence snipped}

    Is there something extraordinary about that? Am I missing something?

    I can’t construct such a narrative for three reasons. First, it ignores eyewitness evidence and other types of physical evidence, which is quite frankly a simply insane thing to do. Second, it ignores documents that are indeed incriminating, as Pressac showed. Third, it ignores the stipulation (which I don’t expect you to accept, but which I myself must accept, since I believe it) that secrecy was part of the process.

    The absence of direct orders, requisitions for increased quantities of gassing agent and coal for the crematoria, rail manifests, transport means for the bodies, never mind construction drawings revisions and facility planning documents indicating a gross facility use transformation to industrial scale mass murder and corpse disposal further indicates that it was what it designed to be. 

    There are indeed requisitions for increased quantities of Zyklon-B — in fact there are requisitions for it without the warning odor. There are also rail manifests. And, again, much of what else you allege about the documentary evidence is explained by the need for secrecy.

    A note about coke (not raw coal) delivery. There is a gap in the documentary evidence on shipments. Therefore, there is no way to know whether more was ordered or not. There are certain assumptions that can be drawn from the absence of documents for several points during 1942 and 1943 on coke deliveries. One is that they simply stopped cremating bodies or had enough of it lying around. Another is that someone was trying to hide something. I’m not alleging either one, by the way. What I am saying is that you can only prove that the existing documentation on coke delivery is lacking — not that it never existed.

    The work camp and deportation programs lack the drama, but they fully explain every detail of the documentary evidence.

    Bully for you!

    Now produce the eyewitnesses who stated that Auschwitz-Birkenau was only a work camp. I’ll wait here. Thanks.

    Having said that, there’s indicators of A-B planning for long term use as a work camp. That’s admittedly sinister enough, and is worth investigation. 

    {snip of details about “A-B”}

    Here’s what I’d like you to do. I’d like you to go back through that paragraph you wrote about all the nice things that the workers at Auschwitz-Birkenau had and delete the ones that were at Auschwitz I and not at Birkenau. Start with the “swimming pool” (actually a fire reservoir) and go from there.

    That you conflated these, by the way, is proof of either ignorance or lying. And that one is an EITHER/OR.

    As for the gas chambers and 5M +/- numbers, the former have no role in this (documentary evidence based) narrative, and the latter are contra indicated by both internal camp and 3rd party documentary records.

    You’ve still said nothing about the eyewitnesses, as if they must all be ignored, which is ludicrous. In addition, regarding five million Jews murdered, at Auschwitz-Birkenau we’re concerned with perhaps 20% of that number.

    I’ll tease by referencing one piece of the forensic record pertinent to gassing. 7000 autopsies were performed by the staff from the US Army Surgeon General on bodies found in the liberated camps. Not a single case of gassing was found. That documentary record is available.

    Neato! On precisely what date did the US Army liberate Birkenau?

    Sorry, the rest of the forensic record will have to await another time. Maybe you can lay out what you think you know and I’ll have a look. 

    Not playing it, sonny.

    I can tell you that the Deniers are right. If the Germans did design/build or modify these facilities as gas chambers, the camp Kommandant should have called the design team in as subjects for the first trial, lest they screw the next one up this badly. If the place didn’t blow up, (hydrogen cyanide is a high explosive) and the operators got them running, they would have managed to kill very small numbers/day. I recall estimating ranges in 2 digits based on facility parameters, at great risk to operational staff and camp infrastructure. 

    That’s wonderful but I have no reason to suppose you have any more competence in physics or chemistry or engineering than you do in logic.

    The German engineers I’ve worked with know their business, and their predecessors in the ’30s & ’40s knew theirs. To believe that they designed and built these “gas chambers” for the purpose, is to believe the German engineering profession fell into imbecility for the period, and then miraculously recovered in time for postwar reconstruction.

    That’s a statement that belies just a devastating ignorance of the way things actually happened.

    Prominent Holocaust “historian” and “scholar” Robert van Pelt channelling Lamarck, in an interview in The Toronto Star, Dec ’09, stands as the final word on Holocaust “scholarship”

    Right, because no one has written anything in nearly six years — van Pelt and his wife included.

    Ninety-nine per cent of what we know (about Auschwitz) we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove . . . it has become part of our inherited knowledge.

    The least you can do is find the original and post it, even if you refuse to read it:

    http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2009/12/27/a_case_for_letting_nature_take_back_auschwitz.html

    See, that’s important, because then the next thing he says can be read:

    I don’t think that the Holocaust is an exceptional case in that sense. We in the future – remembering the Holocaust – will operate in the same way that we remember most things from the past.

    If I had a dime for every point I made in my post that you either ignored or refused to answer — on functionalism, for instance, Browning, the nature of the evolution of the Final Solution, etc. — I’d be rich right now. Again: I’m not playing with you here. Start getting serious and don’t waste anymore of my time.

    Tl;dr: I demonstrate in this lengthy thread that “Erebus” is EITHER dishonest in his evidentiary claims OR not as knowledgeable as he thinks. Moreover, he has a limited understanding of logic.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  287. @geokat62

    Look, anybody can go back and read the exchange and see whether you are characterizing it honestly. (You’re not, of course.)

    My characterization of what happened is accurate. I asked you what the strongest proof available was that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by Bin Laden, from Afghanistan. You refused to answer, because you claimed that you considered it “difficult to determine”. So you were representing yourself as a fence sitter.

    Then at a later point, you started this tripe about how if you wanted to understand the reason for 9/11, you had to read OBL’s “letter to America”. So suddenly you were tacitly assuming that OBL was behind the attacks.

    In other words, when I asked you outline the evidence that OBL was behind the attacks, in the full knowledge that no such evidence exists, you weaseled out by presenting yourself as a fence-sitter (after 14 years, still sitting on the fence!!!).

    Then at a later point, you messed up, you forgot that you had earlier presented yourself as a fence sitter, and simply wrote a post assuming OBL did it. (“Read OBL’s letter to America and blah blah”). Now maybe you manage multiple online personae and forgot that you were supposed to be agnostic about the OBL story, but you slipped, dude.

    You betrayed yourself as a complete dishonest lying bastard. There is no generous interpretation of this. Also, when I called you out on this, here,

    http://www.unz.com/tengelhardt/mantra-for-911/#comment-1135150

    you just walked away, didn’t even deny that I had caught you lying. Well, you started this whining schtick about “civility”. When I correctly call you a lying rat bastard shill, that is not civil of me. But maybe the real problem is that you really are a lying rat bastard shill.

    Like here is an example of your dishonesty. You quote me here saying:

    Whatever you think of Ron Paul, this is an honest man, he doesn’t go around telling lies. And he is in a position to know. He said this publicly. And did anybody denounce him as a liar?

    It’s true I said that, but I said it in a separate context. The issue at hand was wether Patriot act was already drafted prior to 9/11. Ron Paul said that the… I think it’s 2000 pages… were already written before 9/11. That is a very concrete statement about which Ron Paul, as a member of Congress would have real knowledge. Nobody seems to have disputed this or said that Ron Paul was lying about this.

    In short, Ron Paul really is in a very good position to know whether the Patriot Act was already written prior to 9/11 and he is a completely credible source on that question. As for whether 9/11 was a false flag or this balyhooed “blowback”, well… that’s another kettle of fish entirely, and, yes, I shared my doubts as to whether Ron Paul really believes the “blowback” theory or just goes along with it because it is convenient for him in enunciating his anti-interventionist philosophy… “Our interventions abroad create problems for us, i.e. “blowback”. He would go for this line because it is not politically possible to say that these terrorist attacks are not “blowback” but actually false flags.

    So all I said was that I suspect that Ron Paul knows full well that 9/11 was a false flag, as was 7/7 in London and Charlie Hebdo in Paris…. But I am not representing that I know for sure.

    Regardless, when I said “Ron Paul does not go round telling lies” I was referring to Ron Paul’s statement that the Patriot Act was already written prior to 9/11. You are mischaracterizing the discussion, which is typical, I guess, since you are one of these disinfo trolls who infest this site.

    So rather than taking at face value RP’s position on 9/11, which was independently confirmed by Phil Giraldi, we are supposed to take his word that he has an uncanny ability to peer into the soul of RP

    Well, this is false. I never claimed that I had any uncanny ability “to peer into the soul of RP”. I just stated that I suspected that he realized more than he was letting on regarding the false flag terrorism issue.

    and realize that he is not being totally honest about the causes of 9/11 with the American people.

    Well, you’re trying to make hay with this, but no politician is totally honest. Not even Ron Paul. They can’t be. Again, where I said “this man doesn’t go round telling lies” I was referring to his statement that the Patriot Act had been written up before 9/11.

    I pointed this out when you pointedly challenged me on my saying that. You (and I think that Wizard of Oz creep) also challenged me on my statement that the attack on Afghanistan was planned prior to 9/11. Well, Jane’s Defense Weekly says so too, so….

    No, I cannot peer into the soul of Ron Paul or Philip Giraldi for that matter. I have voiced my suspicion that neither of them believes the “blowback” explanation of 9/11. My suspicion is based on the knowledge that these are intelligent men and also that the blowback story is obviously bullshit, so I tend to assume that they don’t really believe it.

    But I never said that I knew for absolutely sure. You’re just completely misrepresenting the tenor of the conversation. Total misrepresentation.

    For me, the best indicator of this person’s character is his refusal to debate the issues as fiercely as he can, while abiding by the RoE I put forward.

    Why should I abide by any damned thing you put forward? Obviously a lying rat shill bastard doesn’t want people pointing out that he is a lying rat shill bastard. Goes without saying. But I point it out because it’s quite pertinent that you have a clear record of lying your ass off. And all this schtick about “civility”, I reject it. The real incivility is your lying, not me calling you a liar — which is simply the result of your lying.

  288. @szopen

    If Auschwitz camp was transit camp, then it was transit to where?!

    Well, again, you just don’t seem to have taken the bother to know what the revisionists are claiming. They are saying that the German policy was not an extermination policy, but rather a forced labor — slave labor — policy. This resulted from extreme labor shortages due to the fact that so many of the able-bodied males were at the front.

    So, “transit to where” you ask. Well, if, just for the sake of argument, you assume that the revisionist argument has some merit, then the answer is obvious, isn’t it? People would be transited to different places where their labor was needed, no? Auschwitz-Birkenau was a major industrial facility in its own right, had the synthetic rubber plant, as I recall, so some of the slave labor was used there, and other people were transited to other points where there were labor shortages.

    That, I am pretty sure, is the revisionist position. But the odd thing is: why don’t you already know the answer to this question?

    • Replies: @szopen
  289. geokat62 says:
    @geokat62

    Not sure what’s preventing him from accepting, except fear.

    I was right, it must be fear.

  290. szopen says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    If that was transit camp to forced work, what happened with people who were unable to work: women, children, elders, sick – they were in transports, after all, and they weren’t inside camps, it seems. We are talking here about millions of people, mind you.

    Moreover, in 1945 allies met a lot of forced labourers from Poland, Czech and so on.. but not that many Jewish forced labourers. Why?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  291. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Yes, in that case, you’d be correct. And if that were the case in the Holocaust, you’d be on sturdier ground. But there is an entire body of knowledge you haven’t even looked at,…

    First of all, how do you know what I have looked at or not looked at?

    Anyway, this is the case with the Holocaust. Or do you somehow think that the Judaeo-Zionist lobby that pushes for these “holocaust denial” laws is doing this because they relish a fair debate? (You know, that they can easily win, allegedly…)

    This is ridiculous. If I claim the sun goes round the earth and also that I will burn somebody at the stake for claiming that the earth goes round the sun, doesn’t that kind of suggest that I don’t really want to debate the issue????

    Not many people are going to debate with you about something, if taking the opposing position can get them thrown in prison!

    Who did 9/11, Jonathan?

    Well, I have no idea who did it, operationally speaking. Obviously some very real specialized skills were brought to bear. That’s for sure. This Danny Jowenko, when shown the video of Buiding 7 going down, said like: “wow, that’s a professional job, these guys really knew what they were doing”. (The people who rigged the building for demolition, that is…)

    Who those guys were, I certainly don't know, but obviously it wasn’t these Arab patsies. They didn’t have the skills. Obviously not.

    Anyway, you can easily find out my views on 9/11. It's not what's under discussion here. I was outlining the dishonesty of this geokat scumbag. You ask me my views on 9/11 and they are what they are. You ask him and he is sitting on the fence one day and the next day telling you that OBL did it. You see, he switched his position because I pointedly asked him what the proof was and then he decided to pull a fast one and say that there was no onus on him to provide any proof because he was a fence sitter….

    Anyway, you can go look at all that and decide whether this geokat guy is honest. What he did is as if I asked you what the proof for the gas chambers was, and rather than answer, you claimed that you were agnostic about whether there were gas chambers, so you didn't need to say what the proof was. Then, like, almost the next day say, you're talking about the gas chambers as something well established.

    You know, all flip-floppy. And, really, to give you credit, you're not flip-floppy like that. You're a true believer and your position doesn't change based on expediency, it doesn't seem.

    It isn’t illegal in ten whole European countries because it’s false; it’s illegal because it’s offensive

    Well, no, it’s not illegal because it’s offensive, generally speaking. It’s illegal because it’s offensive to Jews. Denying the Zionist crimes against the Palestinians is, for example, not illegal.

    But if you suffer social condemnation and opprobrium for publicly denying the Holocaust, then in my opinion, you’ve gotten what you’ve asked for. You lie in the bed you make.

    Uh, yeah, what about the people who deny the crimes committed against the Palestinian people? Should they suffer social condemnation? You know, the people who claim that there is no Palestinian people, that Palestine was empty before the Zionists showed up. So there was no Naqba.

    Have you ever advocated any consequences for the Naqba deniers?

    I did these things? Or the Joos? Be specific, Mr. Revusky.

    Okay, I’ll be very specific. It’s not even Holocaust related. The Steven Salaita case. An American of Palestinian case, using social media on his own time and dime, denounces the Israeli crimes in Gaza and finds that his offer of a tenure track academic position in Illinois has been revoked.

    Who as behind this? Rich, well connected Zionist Jews. This kind of abuse of power to try to intimidate and silence critics — it may not be solely Jews behaving like this, no. But, when you see a case like this, it’s almost invariably these Jews. Certain Jews… not all of them, no…. but what we’re talking about here is just real, it’s not some figment of any crazed antisemitic mind. It’s real.

    But why are you asking me questions to which you know the answer? It’s quite obvious who’s doing these things. Yes, the Jews! Not every last Jew. Not anybody I personally know, no. But a certain Judaeo-Zionist power structure, yes.

    But what is this? The day you see them pass a law that makes it a crime to deny the Irish potato famine, well, who do you think would be behind it?

    So when Ernst Zundel’s house was fire-bombed or Professor Faurisson was beaten to within an inch of his life, you think the people behind this were Irish catholics who were so enraged about “holocaust denial”? Of course not. We know who’s behind these things, all this thuggery. At least broadly speaking…

    Why are you asking me this? You really don’t know? You think I don’t know? WTF game is this?

  292. Art says:

    Where are the bones of those 6,000,000 people? One cannot hide all those bones.

    Why have the Jews never dug up and reburied those bones in Israel?

    Would that not be a logical guilt producing bonanza for the Zionist Jews?

    Maybe there are no bones close to the six million claimed?

  293. @szopen

    If that was transit camp to forced work, what happened with people who were unable to work: women, children, elders, sick – they were in transports, after all, and they weren’t inside camps, it seems. We are talking here about millions of people, mind you.

    As for whether there were no women and children etcetera inside camps, I don’t think that’s true. The Holocaust industry is saying that there are still plenty of survivors to get compensated. Well, the ones alive now must pretty much all have been children back then, no?

    As for the “millions”, I honestly just don’t know. In the case of Auschwitz, it doesn’t seem to be “millions” in the plural any more. The plaque on Auschwitz that said 4 million died was reduced to 1 million. Presumably that was because the higher figure, on examination, just wasn’t sustainable. So if you have such a massive revision that happened already…

    Now, if you are going to argue that, if I cannot tell you exactly what happened (I who am not a real scholar or researcher or anything) with exact numbers, how many people transited, etcetera… then it must be the case that all these people were marched straight off the train into gas chambers….. well, okay, I could hardly be bothered to tell you which precise logical fallacy that is. I guess that’s the same one where Mathis points to a room on a diagram and says it’s a gas chamber and that if you can’t tell him what the room was used for (which I certainly can’t, I have no idea…) then you have to accept that it was definitely a gas chamber. (If you can’t tell me what I did have for breakfast, since you don’t know, you have to believe me when I say it was whale blubber…)

    Moreover, in 1945 allies met a lot of forced labourers from Poland, Czech and so on.. but not that many Jewish forced labourers. Why?

    Not that many? How many is that? I have no idea. I am not a specialist in this question. Still, I remember various testimony of people, Jews, who were in one camp and then another camp and then another. Simon Wiesenthal, for example. Presumably they were being moved around for some rational reason. These were laborers, manpower, that were needed in different places.

    Well, you asked the question of where people were “transited to” and I answered straightforwardly that, in a forced labor sort of program, it would be other work sites.

    We could go round and round in circles on this — your claim that there were no children in the camps, very few Jews were forced laborers, and so on. And I am not a specialist who can answer all these things very well.

    Nonetheless, there is really a major elephant in the room here. We have this massive campaign of intimidation, where it is extremely dangerous to say that you don’t believe in the whole canonical narrative with the gas chambers. They’ve passed laws and David Irving was in prison, Germar Rudolph was imprisoned… and then there is extrajudicial stuff like assaults that were carried out with impunity, people’s houses getting firebombed.

    They are basically making it close to impossible to investigate these questions. Certainly you can say that only somebody who is either extremely brave or just a masochist, would do any real, honest independent research into the Holocaust — in the full knowledge that if he reports anything that is contrary to what the Holocaust Industry wants, he could be imprisoned as a “denier”.

    If there really is overwhelming evidence that this whole narrative is true, why is there any need for all of this? Mathis claims that the existence of all these holocaust denial laws and the various thuggery has no relation with whether the canonical narrative is true.

    Do you really believe that?

    Look, when powerful interests need to use this level of coercion and mind control to enforce some narrative, what is the likelihood that the narrative is really true?

    I would close by asking you one question, though I anticipate that you won’t answer since you tend to walk away from such questions. This question:

    If you were somebody who doubted the Holocaustian narrative, the gas chambers etcetera, would you find the arguments presented by Dr. Mathis here or yourself very convincing? If so, which is the most convincing argument that either of you have come up with?

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  294. Erebus says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    Thanks for the inkorrect link to the book. Can’t Google (or do any searches) from where I’m currently located. Even this site takes 5-15 minutes to load and I pay for every byte.

    I’m going to treat with the following at some length because I’ve seen this kind of erudite sounding, but utterly disingenuous tactic used often to bamboozle the casual reader. That, and the insults at the end warrant the effort.

    Mathis’ disingenuous reconstruction of a clear exchange starts like this:

    But your very first sentence is wrong. Because I only told you I jumped (i.e., you didn’t see it)

    No, your very first AND ONLY claim is below (in #280):

    …I jumped 10 meters into the air unaided.

    Let’s see what happens when we go forward with this claim.
    Assumptions:
    You actually meant to claim: “I jumped to a height greater than or equal to, 10M.”
    You did not mean to claim: “I jumped to a height of exactly 10M.”

    As that is the ONLY claim you made prior to availability of the evidence, you specifically DID NOT make the claim that:
    “I jumped one of: [a] 10M, [b]“x”M, where “x” is positive number and <10M, or [c] I did not jump at all."
    Being a clever fellow, and having debated this for 20 yrs, you would know that the attentive reader would dismiss the latter as an empty claim of the same type as "It is either raining or not raining". That "type" is called synthetic apriori, but you knew that.
    Now, [a], [b], & [c] were all possibilities, but only one, [a] was claimed, and their truth function was unknown until the evidence came in.

    So Mathis has made a claim, and we go look at the evidence. It shows that Mathis jumped to a height that cannot be determined from the evidence, but yields a high probability of being a positive number <10M. For this analysis, we'll assume the evidence is conclusive.
    ONLY TWO propositions derive from the COMBINATION of the claim and the evidence. Namely:
    1. Mathis jumped 10M. Truth function: FALSE (on the evidence)
    2. Mathis in fact jumped "x" M, where "x"is <10. Truth function: TRUE (on the evidence)
    Where is your 3rd proposition?
    The possibility that you didn't jump at all existed at the opening, but was COLLAPSED by the evidence. In any case, it was never claimed.
    There are differences between claims, propositions, evidence, & truth function and it is typical that Holocaust promoters of Mathis' ilk slide around between them to bedazzle the inattentive.
    As a corollary:
    "Not jumping at all" is the logical (and physical) equivalent of "jumping 0M", so after examining the evidence, the proposition Mathis in fact jumped “x” M, where “x”is<10. is TRUE whether his feet left the ground, or they didn’t. That is the logic of it.
    I realize that you may have to debate this for 20 years before the fog lifts.

    And you make it sound so easy!

    I assure you, it would be if it happened.

    As it seems you’ve forgotten, our respective claims were:
    Mine:

    …the claim “The “hard” Holocaust (as defined) is a matter of historical fact” is unproven.

    Yours:

    My position is the opposite. As a matter of historical fact, the Holocaust is proved, with the caveat that one of your three prongs (i.e., on an extermination program) is more nebulous than the others (gas chambers, a minimum of five million Jews murdered).

    The attentive reader will have noted that you made two, mutually exclusive statements.
    If your “…position is (really) the opposite”, then your following claim would have been:
    “The “hard” Holocaust (as defined) is a matter of historical fact” is proven.”

    Instead, you turned on the slider, omitted the word “hard”, and then diluted the “gas chamber” & “~5M” corollaries to the claim (as defined) with a vague statement about them being relatively “nebulous”. Any claim deriving from your second statement is completely different. Sorry, you don’t get to both jump and not jump at the same time.

    You see, if your claim was actually “the opposite”, 100 Jews being shot in Belarus would NOT be part of it, in exactly the same way your “not jumping” wasn’t a part of your claim to have jumped 10M. Of course, 100 shot Jews is a possibility, in the same way as “not jumping at all” is. That is, for the truth function of any proposition deriving from your first statement to come up TRUE, it doesn’t matter whether they were killed or not.
    Of course you knew that, but you wouldn’t have anything to talk about unless you brought “nebulousness” in and you hoped nobody would notice. Sorry.

    I’ve been letting your caveats slide as I thought it might amuse me to see how “nebulous” things get as your Act II progresses. Pretty soon though, you’re going to have to make good your debt to your readers, and specify EXACTLY what you mean by “nebulous”, and (more critically) EXACTLY the extent to which your caveat dilutes the definition of the “hard” Holocaust of #214. For clarity, “pretty soon” means in any answer to this one, or your debt to this reader will be stamped “DEFAULTED”, and I’ll move on to more fruitful conversations.

    You can then discuss your 20 years of “inherited knowledge” with whatever slack-jawed audience you find to put up with it.

    PS, I was acquainted van Pelt personally, and I’m familiar enough with the rest of the article to know it’s irrelevant. That there was a movement to let the camps “go back to nature”, and a movement (or was) to close all the mass grave sites in Eastern Europe “in memory of the victims” is a nice “green” way to shut down inquiry. I fully expect to see a movement to burn the 70,00 microfilms and 1000s of tons of Nazi documents in the National Archives as they are “offensive” as this little religion grows.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  295. Erebus says:
    @szopen

    HCN is not highly explosive (not at the concentration needed to kill a man, or even not at the much higher concentration needed to kill lice).

    True, but the imbecilic Dipl. Engs working for the Reich, in some cases, placed the “gas chambers” in the very next room to what is visibly the crematoria, with no adequate safe guards. That is a recipe for an industrial accident, and as I recall there was no compelling reason to take on the risk.

  296. @Erebus

    I’m going to treat with the following at some length because I’ve seen this kind of erudite sounding, but utterly disingenuous tactic used often to bamboozle the casual reader. That, and the insults at the end warrant the effort.
    Mathis’ disingenuous reconstruction of a clear exchange starts like this:
    But your very first sentence is wrong. Because I only told you I jumped (i.e., you didn’t see it)
    No, your very first AND ONLY claim is below (in #280):
    …I jumped 10 meters into the air unaided.

    And here’s where I call bullshit.

    I wrote, “Suppose I told you that I jumped 10 meters into the air unaided.”

    You can dicker with me over semantics as much you like, but there’s a reason I worded this as I did — specifically in Kurt Gerstein’s testimony there is a claim that someone jumped a completely unrealistic height. The point I’m making is because some detail of the testimony is clearly impossible does not negate the entire testimony.

    Why is the “Suppose I told you” important? Because neither you nor I nor anyone else with the exception of fellow eyewitnesses is relying on anything but being told a particular account.

    I don’t know if you realize this or not, but you’ve pretty much forfeited any credibility at this point.

    {remainder snipped}

    Let’s see what happens when we go forward with this claim.
    Assumptions:
    You actually meant to claim: “I jumped to a height greater than or equal to, 10M.”

    No, and I’m done with this line of discussion.

    You can admit you misunderstood me or you can go on with this point completely ignored. It’s up to you. A decent person admits when he is wrong.

    The attentive reader will have noted that you made two, mutually exclusive statements.
    If your “…position is (really) the opposite”, then your following claim would have been:
    “The “hard” Holocaust (as defined) is a matter of historical fact” is proven.”
    Instead, you turned on the slider, omitted the word “hard”, and then diluted the “gas chamber” & “~5M” corollaries to the claim (as defined) with a vague statement about them being relatively “nebulous”. Any claim deriving from your second statement is completely different. Sorry, you don’t get to both jump and not jump at the same time.
    You see, if your claim was actually “the opposite”, 100 Jews being shot in Belarus would NOT be part of it, in exactly the same way your “not jumping” wasn’t a part of your claim to have jumped 10M. Of course, 100 shot Jews is a possibility, in the same way as “not jumping at all” is. That is, for the truth function of any proposition deriving from your first statement to come up TRUE, it doesn’t matter whether they were killed or not.
    Of course you knew that, but you wouldn’t have anything to talk about unless you brought “nebulousness” in and you hoped nobody would notice. Sorry.

    This would be a mistake on my part, albeit a mistake in understanding you and not a mistake with regard to the assertion itself. Perhaps maybe the more honest thing for you to do would have been to admit you were setting up an either/or proposition. Then I wouldn’t have bothered anymore because I can see such an approach for the parlo[u]r game that it is.

    I’ve been letting your caveats slide as I thought it might amuse me to see how “nebulous” things get as your Act II progresses. Pretty soon though, you’re going to have to make good your debt to your readers, and specify EXACTLY what you mean by “nebulous”, and (more critically) EXACTLY the extent to which your caveat dilutes the definition of the “hard” Holocaust of #214. For clarity, “pretty soon” means in any answer to this one, or your debt to this reader will be stamped “DEFAULTED”, and I’ll move on to more fruitful conversations.
    You can then discuss your 20 years of “inherited knowledge” with whatever slack-jawed audience you find to put up with it.

    Yeah, that’ll keep me up nights.

    PS, I was acquainted van Pelt personally

    {Yawn}

    RJvP once wrote me a job recommendation letter. I didn’t get the job, but it was a hell of a nice thing to do for me and I remain enormously grateful for the gesture.

    I am also currently helping to translate from Yiddish some memoirs from the Holocaust in Chelm for a student on whose dissertation committee RJvP’s wife sits.

    Since you’re acquainted with him and since I use my real name, you can confirm both of those things if you feel the need.

    {remainder snipped}

  297. @Jonathan Revusky

    As for whether there were no women and children etcetera inside camps, I don’t think that’s true.

    And you’d be wrong.

    There were four camps that are considered to have been pure extermination centers, where no labor was done and certainly no “transit” occurred. There are the three Aktion Reinhard camps — Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, all in the General Government — and Chelmno, situated in Reichsgau Wartheland. Sobibor and Treblinka both had uprisings occur in which several inmates escaped. This is important because it explains why it is that some survivors today could claim to have been in one of these two camps.

    The other two camps, Belzec and Chelmno, have no reported uprisings.

    Half a million Jews were sent to Belzec. Another quarter of a million were sent to Chelmno.

    Half a dozen Jews are believed to have survived Chelmno. There were fewer from Belzec.

    Your question to answer: What happened to the other 750,000 Jews sent to these camps alone?

    Helpful hint: We know Jews were sent to these camps thanks for the train records. There are no records of large transports of Polish Jews appearing in the Soviet Union during or after 1942.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  298. Sam Shama says:
    @Erebus

    In 2.5 millennia, “..only the dust from our bones shall remain. History is victory of the righteous, which becomes legend and then legend turns into myth”. So yes, do believe Homer; or not, entirely your choice.

    Rest well Erebus, Andersson and gang.

  299. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Martin has a way about him, and on those occasions when he sat down with Hitch, he really excelled.

    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.

  300. Sam Shama says:
    @geokat62

    Geokat,
    I did miss out on all the action, seeing as as our foul-mouthed little meerkat pops his head up yet again, at the prospect of inserting 9/11 in the discussion. I now see that he is also a Shoah denier as well, in a back-pedalling slippery sort of way.

    BTW I am in agreement with your premise re: examining the impact of the economic boycott.

  301. @Sam Shama

    I did miss out on all the action, seeing as as our foul-mouthed little meerkat pops his head up yet again, at the prospect of inserting 9/11 in the discussion.

    No, I was just pointing out that Geokat had been caught lying and that was in the context of the discussion on 9/11. I also gave you quite the drubbing in a discussion on the same topic. That is outlined here:

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1016520

    I think, after receiving that horrendous spanking, you just mostly refrained from trying to engage me in any sort of debate. So you’d just pop up with these sorts of cracks like: “Are you off your meds, Revusky?” and stuff like that. No attempt to engage in logical, factual discussion, because… well, you know you’ve met more than your match and you’d be crushed.

    So you stopped trying to debate legitimately and just go to immediate ad-hominem. What is sort of interesting about that (well, not very…. it’s expected behavior from this kind of lying troll bastard) is how this geokat shill bastard never took you to task for that. He preaches to people about “civility” but only in a very selective manner. :-) If some other asshole (or maybe the same asshole under another alias) just launches a pure ad hominem attack on me, he’ll even cheer the guy on! Like, I just looked this example up. It’s hilarious!

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-tale-of-two-world-orders/#comment-1016520

    And then look at Geokat’s reply to this pure ad-hominem stuff.

    My compliments to you, sir.

    ( http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/storm-in-a-teacup/#comment-1159302)

    So he cheers people on for content-free ad hominem attacks against me. (Of course, I don’t engage in that kind of content-free ad-hominem. I make no bones about referring to Geokat as a lying troll bastard, but I have demonstrated that that is what he is quite thoroughly.)

  302. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Helpful hint: We know Jews were sent to these camps thanks for the train records. There are no records of large transports of Polish Jews appearing in the Soviet Union during or after 1942.

    I wonder, is it lost on people (I have no idea how many people are still reading this…) that Mathis will consider a certain argument valid if it helps his case, but if somebody uses basically the same argument, then he will guffaw and say that this is obviously not a valid argument.

    For example, the argument is that nobody was transited elsewhere because there are no records. Well, there are no records for vast amounts of the conventional holocaust narrative. And if you point this out, he’ll surely scream that this does not prove it didn’t happen, that it is normal that the German government did all kinds of things without keeping any records. Or maybe he’ll argue that maybe they did keep records but they were lost. Whatever, but he won’t accept that a lack of records for X (certainly if X is a key part of the narrative) means that X didn’t happen. If the argument, “there’s no record of X and therefore we can be sure that X didn’t happen” were applied generally, I have to think the entire conventional holocaust narrative would just fall apart immediately!

    But, regardless, the revisionist position is NOT at all that nobody died. It is that, yes, very many people died, but mostly from hunger and disease, particularly typhus. I mean, saying that a lot of people were taken somewhere and presumably died is just as consistent with the revisionist position as the conventional one anyway.

    Now, this ultimately causes me (and doubtless others) to lose interest in the conversation, because you realize, moreover, that if you ask Mathis for proof of some claim or other, most of the time his “proof” just amounts to repeating the claim.

    So, I’m losing interest in this. I don’t believe there were gas chambers where people were immediately led when they got off the train. I believe the revisionist position that these were forced labor camps and the people who died there died mostly from hunger and disease. If that many people had been killed by a completely novel killing method (never used before or since) there would really have to be more forensic and documentary evidence for this. The eyewitness accounts do not seem to describe a viable killing/cleanup procedure for the killing of that quantity of people.

    But, regardless, I’m losing interest in this aspect of the conversation. I am more interested, actually, in your answer to the previous question I posed.

    Uh, yeah, what about the people who deny the crimes committed against the Palestinian people? Should they suffer social condemnation? You know, the people who claim that there is no Palestinian people, that Palestine was empty before the Zionists showed up. So there was no Naqba.

    Have you ever advocated any consequences for the Naqba deniers?

    As expected, you seem to have walked away from that one.

    • Agree: HdC
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  303. geokat62 says:
    @Sam Shama

    Tell this character that he has nothing to fear, but fear itself. All he has to do is accept the RoE, and the fun can begin.

  304. @Jonathan Revusky

    Should denial of the Nakba be illegal? No, but neither should Holocaust denial. Should denial of the Nakba bring moral opprobrium and social isolation? In my opinion, it should. I’m generally a supporter of BDS and a binational one-state solution.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  305. Erebus says:

    For any still hanging around here, the pigeon just landed on the chessboard, LOL!

    Benjamin Netanyahu entered the holocaust ring swinging in a speech last week at the 37th Zionist Congress. He spoke of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini’s visit to Berlin on Nov 28, 1941.

    “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews. And Haj Amin al-Husseini went to Hitler and said, “If you expel them, they’ll all come here.” “So what should I do with them?” he asked. He said, “Burn them.” “

    http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Speeches/Pages/speechcongress201015.aspx

    Source: AEM News
    As neither “expulsion” nor “burning” are mentioned in the official transcript, nor has a secret transcript been unearthed, the Prime Minister’s statement took the School of Holocaustian Scholastics (SHS) by surprise. His statement turns countless man-years of work on the origins of the Nazi extermination program into navel lint, and the outcry of dismay was swift in coming. Bibi responded unapologetically, confident in the facts.

    Whatever else he is, Bibi is an experienced politician and no fool. He knew well that such a radical revision of the very foundations of the regime he runs would require strong evidence.
    People familiar with the matter say that Bibi is armed with a secret transcript of the Mufti’s conversation with the Fuehrer.
    A now lost, unsigned copy of an affidavit of an eye witness’s verbal testimony from memory of the meeting, as duly recorded by a stenographer in the USSR after the war, was seen by several eyewitnesses. Though the original copy is now lost along with the eyewitnesses, sources in the PM’s Office, speaking anonymously, say he is confident that his claim will prevail. “It meets the SHS’ standards of proof’ the sources point out, ‘and should the SHS prove intransigent, the Prime Minister can always throw the lot of them in jail.”

    You couldn’t make this stuff up…. unless you didn’t have anything better to do, and today, I didn’t.

    More seriously, Bibi’s statement was no accidental faux pas, and I’m sure he knew well what flack he’d be catching for it. Coming just as the calculus of power in the Middle East is being rewritten, its audience, timing and the point he made would have been well considered. The Israeli govt wants to change the narrative, and Bibi has since defended his speech vigorously. Is he just a loose cannon and winging it himself? We haven’t (afaik), heard any dissenting voices from the cabinet.
    At this geopolitical moment, Bibi’s dilution of the “Holocaust” narrative, and the direction he took it in is portentous.

    Germany reclaimed its sole ownership of guilt too quickly by half, complicating the picture further, and in interesting ways.

    • Replies: @HdC
  306. HdC says:
    @Erebus

    That Merkel is a real piece of work! She couldn’t re-affirm Germany’s sole collective “guilt” fast enough for something that didn’t happen. Same with all the other crap she spewed regarding Germany’s unending responsibility to support Israel. Rubbish.

    I notice that Mathis still hasn’t supplied any forensic evidence of mass gassings. I have to give him credit for his ability to obfuscate an issue and provide verbiage without saying anything of substance. Hey, that’s a politician!

    The times they are a-changing! Indeed.

    HdC

    • Replies: @Erebus
  307. Erebus says:
    @HdC

    She couldn’t re-affirm Germany’s sole collective “guilt” fast enough

    If he wasn’t just talking trash, Bibi’s revision has major geo-political implications, and I’m not sure they’re to Germany’s advantage. Some of them are surely not, but it’s hard to see Bibi’s intent at this point.

    There’s at least 2-3 possibilities I can think of, but only time will tell (us all) what his real purpose was. That it has a purpose, we can count on, as the Holocaust story was itself created and promoted at bottom for specific political effects.
    It imposed diabolical political distortions on the Middle East, but it also allowed stability in Europe by preventing German nationalism from combining with its economic power. Both of these effects are impacted by Bibi’s revision, in not yet clear ways.

    One thing I’m sure of, Bibi will try to stick with it unless it becomes completely untenable, or other events overrun it.

    As for “forensic evidence of mass gassings”, I’d give AEM the “hard” Holocaust as proved if he could show hard evidence of a handful of gassing victims never mind masses (industrial accident and personal murder, both of which apparently occurred, excepted). It would come as a novelty to me, and I like novelties. I wasn’t able to find any, or even anything any realist would call a “gas chamber”.

  308. @Andrew E. Mathis

    Should denial of the Nakba be illegal? No, but neither should Holocaust denial.

    Well, okay, I’d like to be able to take you on face value when you say this. Probably when you say the above, you believe what you are saying. Consciously, you don’t believe that there should be these laws against “Holocaust denial”.

    However, much of your discourse would lead anybody to infer that your real views– by that I mean, what you express as your views at the visceral level — are really quite different. For example, at one point, I did a quick google search for your name and I came across this page: http://www.spitecast.com/aemathisphd/

    There, you state right off:

    For almost two decades, I have been associated with and have worked for organizations that have sought to combat forms of hatred. In particular, for more than a decade, the principal focus of my attentions has been Holocaust denial. This makes me a natural target for neo-Nazis and other associated anti-Semites. I don’t apologize, either for my own actions or for the fact that these actions have drawn attacks from some of worst human beings alive. I’m used to it

    (To be clear, the emphasis above on the “some of the worst human beings alive” is mine.)

    For starters, to refer to people as “some of the worst human beings alive” is kind of jaw dropping. In a world of torturers and rapists and murderers, some guy who just doesn’t believe there were gas chambers at Auschwitz ranks as “one of the worst human beings alive”! Such a claim makes one wonder about the mental world you live in.

    Now, when I look at people like Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Germar Rudolph, or Ernst Zundel — and you can see videos of all these people on youtube and listen to them — the idea that these people are some of the worst human beings alive, to me, is beyond absurd.

    But aside from just not agreeing with you that these are such terrible human beings, once you use that rhetoric, you are putting people in the same group with murders and rapists and whatnot. They’re the worst human beings alive! Your own words! So what would anybody do with such people who are on a par with murderers and rapists? Well, obviously, you put them in prison! Right? It’s the only logical conclusion if they really are such awful human beings. (And, of course, to put people in prison, you need a law that they are breaking and voila…)

    So, while you claim that you are against holocaust denial laws, you very quickly resort to rhetoric that would cause anybody to infer that you are basically in favor of this approach.

    Regardless, there’s a more general problem here, I think. The problem was actually well expressed by Gilad Atzmon, who refers to certain Jews as anti-Zionist Zionists. They’re the Jews who want to dissociate themselves from all the criminality of the Zionist regime, yet they adhere absolutely to every Zionist ideological myth — the sacred six million in the gas chambers, that there are all these vicious anti-semites under every bed who want to resurrect Adolf Hitler and so on.

    Should denial of the Nakba bring moral opprobrium and social isolation? In my opinion, it should.

    Okay, so do you put that in practice? For example, if you go to some Jewish community gathering and various fellow Jews start talking about how the various crimes against the Palestinians never happened… there is no Palestinian people… etcetera. Do you angrily denounce this kind of speech? Do you classify Jews who say this as “some of the worst people in the world”?

    One of the classic works of Naqba denial is a book by one Joan Peters entitled “From Time Immemorial”. It was on the New York Times Bestseller list. Who was enthusiastically buying up copies of this book and highly recommending it and so on?

    Again, I have to seriously doubt that you put much (if any) energy into denouncing “Nakba deniers”. After all, even a dog has enough intelligence not to bite the hand that feeds him!

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    , @Erebus
  309. @Jonathan Revusky

    You can believe whatever you like. I honestly don’t care.

    • Replies: @HdC
  310. Erebus says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Thank you for the link. I learned 2 things from it.

    - AEM is to Holocaust scholarship what Stepan Bandera is to Conservatism.
    - I learned that “Andersson”, with whom I was lumped in #305, is/was a real person.

    We should note that, to his credit, AEM did make 2 verifiable claims:

    ” I am kind of an asshole”

    and

    “I honestly don’t care (what you believe)”

    The evidence he provided in support of both is conclusive.

    After all, even a dog has enough intelligence not to bite the hand that feeds him!”

    … and the more virulent school of Holocaust defence have just enough intelligence to know that honest attempts at Holocaust defence such as Pressac’s result in a pauper’s grave.

  311. HdC says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis

    “…some of worst human beings alive.”

    Such as Jewish war mongers? Or how about the likes of Kaganovich? Oops, he doesn’t count because he was a member of the tribe.

    I noticed that the cowardly JDL, the Jewish Defense League terrorist group, is busy in France again, this time terrorizing journalists. If you can’t counter them with argument, counter them with violence, right? Hmmm, has a certain ring to it, don’t you think?

    Who was it that said that he had never been beaten or even threatened by any Revisionist, but had been beaten almost to death by a bunch of “courageous” Jewish thugs.

    HdC

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  312. @HdC

    Thank you for the link. I learned 2 things from it.

    Well, I think this does give quite a bit of insight into the world that AEM is part of. He says that his career is bound up in fighting “hate”. So, presumably saying that you don’t think that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz, this is hate speech, it’s hateful.

    Of course, the question would be: why? What is hateful about it? Or if you study the matter and you don’t believe in the six million or the gas chambers, but you think, say, a million Jews did die of hunger, disease, and some shooting atrocities that really did occur — what is hateful about that? At worst, the revisionist position could be wrong, but why is it “hateful”?

    No, actually, it’s their discourse that looks hateful. “Oh, yeah, these are the worst people in the world!”

    But it’s part of a whole, you know. It could be that people who think that marriage is between a man and a woman (the utterly dominant view throughout almost all of human history!) are engaging in hate speech… that’s hateful…. Or somebody who wants to wave a confederate battle flag because it’s part of his history — that’s hateful. These are all potentially “the worst people in the world” as well.

    Like, this kind of rhetoric that people who don’t believe in the gas chambers are the worst people in the world — it’s actually kind of demented. But, you know, it’s like these groups like ADL and SPLC, they have these various pages devoted to denouncing “hate” and “haters” and the people they call “haters” are not so much people who do the hating, but those who are hated by these self-appointed guardians of political correctness. So they basically orchestrate their “two minutes hate” towards all these people… but of course, this is particularly concentrated on the people who talk openly about the Judaeo-Zionist power structure, David Duke, Louis Farrakhan,… Ron Unz actually has kind of a hate page devoted to him, despite being a Jewish ethnic himself. I guess a lot of that is because he wrote his study of ivy league admissions showing vast favouritism towards Jews. Or other Jewish ethnics that are on their hate list, like Gilad Atzmon or Israel Shamir…

    But anyway, you look at that page and you see the world that AEM is part of, the massive teat that he is sucking off of….

    “I honestly don’t care (what you believe)”

    Well, that’s just him behaving like a petulant child when he’s getting the worst of it in the discussion.

    He obviously realises that, where I was taking the discussion — i.e. “why don’t you denounce Naqba denial…” — was completely disastrous for him. It lays bare his utter hypocrisy and, despite his all his pretensions, the complete lack of any real ethical standards. I mean, to make a career of a kind of pile-on attack against so-called “holocaust deniers” who are already utterly persecuted and powerless, an easy target, and then present oneself as some kind of heroic warrior, fighting this courageous fight for social justice…. it’s so pathetic and he knows he’s getting exposed, right? I mean, he’s not a complete idiot. He sees where the conversation leads and… you know…

    Anyway, this site has no private messaging capability (that I know of…) Various times, I run into people who it would be quite interesting to be able to discuss things with offsite. If you’re interested in opening up a line of communication, you can drop me a note. My email is my last name at gmail.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  313. Erebus says:

    Was this reply to myself, or HdC? Or a mix of both?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  314. Erebus says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    #320 was a Reply to you.
    Perhaps on account of answering from my mobile device, I had bad luck with the “reply” function.

    Be that as it may, one can be thankful that the AEMs of the Holocaustic world are counterproductive. Their belligerence and hostility put off the honestly curious, while their intellectual and ethical dishonesty repel the critical.
    There are others who are better intellectually, and/or more engaging and they make a better job of it. Most dangerous are the writers of Holocaust “memoirs” and literature. The authors have universally proven to be frauds (with the notable exception of Primo Levy), but the reading public doesn’t necessarily hear about their fall from grace, and remembers only the ghastly tales they wrought from their lurid imaginations.

    In aggregate, the AEMs do their “cause” more harm than good. Probably a lot more. One can be thankful for small mercies.

    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
  315. @Erebus

    Actually, I thought I was replying to you, but I just noticed it came up as a reply to @HdC. Though, if HdC wants to take me up on the invitation to email in private at revusky at gmail, he’s welcome to. The thing is, these pages get stale anyway and there’s not much point in continuing the conversation on the page, since hardly anybody is reading the older articles, much less the 300 and something-eth comment under them!

  316. @Erebus

    Boy are you butt-hurt.

    My God.

  317. […] year, I wrote from Leipzig that Germany has lost its autonomy and sanity. Teaching at the university, I registered that all my students were openly sympathetic […]

  318. […] year, I wrote from Leipzig that Germany has lost its autonomy and sanity. Teaching at the university, I registered that all my students were openly sympathetic […]

  319. […] year, I wrote from Leipzig that Germany has lost its autonomy and sanity. Teaching at the university, I registered that all my students were openly sympathetic […]

  320. […] year, I wrote from Leipzig that Germany has lost its autonomy and sanity. Teaching at the university, I registered that all my students were openly sympathetic […]

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Linh Dinh Comments via RSS