General Holocaust denial discussion Part III

[LemmyCaution]

Saggy, Dutch figures, which are from the number of Jews registered in the country in 1941 and the number known to have returned in 1945, shows they are missing 101,000 people. Those people were in Nazi custody, initially at Westerbork camp and then transported to other camps, such as Sobibor and Auschwitz. What happened to those missing people?

And, please, no more lectures on Zionism or the purported world-danger of Judaism . . . a straight, direct reply, with an explanation of how you know what you say (that is, the evidence for your answer) . . . thanks in advance for your clear and full response to Nessie's question . . .

 

[Saggy]

Saggy, Dutch figures, which are from the number of Jews registered in the country in 1941 and the number known to have returned in 1945, shows they are missing 101,000 people. Those people were in Nazi custody, initially at Westerbork camp and then transported to other camps, such as Sobibor and Auschwitz. What happened to those missing people?

A good question. Disingenuous however, as you're asking the wrong person. The ITL has all the documents, a staff (as I've read somewhere) of 500+, and have been researching the whereabouts of Jews in WW II for the last 70 years, so, if you really want to know, ask them.

https://www.its-arolsen.org/en/

But, the joke will be on you, because the ITL won't tell you. It's a secret !

Of particular interest to me is, what happened to Anne Frank? There is no actual evidence that she died at Belsen, and just recently the Anne Frank House revised its story ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3019322/Anne-Frank-House-museum-Jewish-diarist-likely-died-earlier.html

So, there is no evidence that she did die, as you can infer from the article, and there is prima facie evidence that she did not ... namely this pic shot by the Brits when they entered Belsen ...

Note the girl in the front row, left of center. Here is a pic of Anne Frank ..

[IMGw=640]http://i.imgur.com/xjMPevm.jpg?1[/IMGw]

Thus we have a photo of Anne alive when the camp was liberated.

The older woman in the top photo is Luba T.... who oversaw a barracks containing 50 Jewish children from Amsterdam, known as the diamond children, and other Jewish children. After the war she and the diamond children returned together to Amsterdam, and she was introduced to the queen. There is a book about her, the Angel of Belsen, and in it all the diamond children are listed, not including Anne Frank of course. They had a reunion in the 90s in LA. The point is that if the girl in the photo is not Anne Frank, she is another of the diamond children and hence should be easy to name. I emailed the Anne Frank center in Amsterdam, they do respond to questions, and they replied that they knew nothing of the photo or the people in it.

 

[dudalb]

Excuse me why I vomit...Anne Frank Conspiracy theories.A new low.

 

[zooterkin]

A good question. Disingenuous however, as you're asking the wrong person. The ITL has all the documents, a staff (as I've read somewhere) of 500+, and have been researching the whereabouts of Jews in WW II for the last 70 years, so, if you really want to know, ask them.

https://www.its-arolsen.org/en/

But, the joke will be on you, because the ITL won't tell you. It's a secret !

Of particular interest to me is, what happened to Anne Frank? There is no actual evidence that she died at Belsen, and just recently the Anne Frank House revised its story ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3019322/Anne-Frank-House-museum-Jewish-diarist-likely-died-earlier.html

So, there is no evidence that she did die, as you can infer from the article, and there is prima facie evidence that she did not ... namely this pic shot by the Brits when they entered Belsen ...

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/FEgmdtq.jpg[/qimg]

Note the girl in the front row, left of center. Here is a pic of Anne Frank ..

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/xjMPevm.jpg?1[/qimg]

Thus we have a photo of Anne alive when the camp was liberated.

The older woman in the top photo is Luba T.... who oversaw a barracks containing 50 Jewish children from Amsterdam, known as the diamond children, and other Jewish children. After the war she and the diamond children returned together to Amsterdam, and she was introduced to the queen. There is a book about her, the Angel of Belsen, and in it all the diamond children are listed, not including Anne Frank of course. They had a reunion in the 90s in LA. The point is that if the girl in the photo is not Anne Frank, she is another of the diamond children and hence should be easy to name. I emailed the Anne Frank center in Amsterdam, they do respond to questions, and they replied that they knew nothing of the photo or the people in it.

You're using a story that says Anne Frank possibly died a month earlier than previously supposed to suggest that she didn't die at all?

Also, why would you ask the Anne Frank centre about the girl in the photo rather than the ITL? That's leaving aside that fact that she bears only a passing resemblance to Anne Frank, looking a bit too young to me to be the same girl.

 

[Elagabalus]

You're using a story that says Anne Frank possibly died a month earlier than previously supposed to suggest that she didn't die at all?

Also, why would you ask the Anne Frank centre about the girl in the photo rather than the ITL? That's leaving aside that fact that she bears only a passing resemblance to Anne Frank, looking a bit too young to me to be the same girl.

Yep. Here's another picture of her and a home movie as well.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/51367/10-things-know-about-anne-franks-diary-young-girl

Holocaust Deniers: Repeating the same lies-over and over and over again

 

[Saggy]

You're using a story that says Anne Frank possibly died a month earlier than previously supposed to suggest that she didn't die at all? .

The 'evidence' in the article amounts to 'a little birdy told me'. And it's worse than that, because the little birdy apparently changed its story 70 years after the fact. But nevermind that.

I claim there is no evidence Anne Frank died at Belsen. If I'm wrong, prove it by citing the evidence.

And, obviously, there is evidence she did not die at Belsen, the photo cited above.

 

[Elagabalus]

The 'evidence' in the article amounts to 'a little birdy told me'. And it's worse than that, because the little birdy apparently changed its story 70 years after the fact. But nevermind that.

I claim there is no evidence Anne Frank died at Belsen. If I'm wrong, prove it by citing the evidence.

And, obviously, there is evidence she did not die at Belsen, the photo cited above.

To save us all some time, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with this page (and, yes, Anne Frank is also there) just so we wont be subjected to yet another "OMG Totally New" Holocaust Denier meme which maybe new to you but to the rest of us has been thoroughly debunked about 20 years ago or more. You just have to be intellectually curious.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2017/05/rebutting-twitter-denial-most-popular.html

http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/anne-frank/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/31/anne-frank-death-probably-february-1945/70742898/

 

[LemmyCaution]

A good question. Disingenuous however, as you're asking the wrong person. The ITL has all the documents, a staff (as I've read somewhere) of 500+, and have been researching the whereabouts of Jews in WW II for the last 70 years, so, if you really want to know, ask them.

https://www.its-arolsen.org/en/

But, the joke will be on you, because the ITL won't tell you. It's a secret !

In other words, you don't know a thing about it. You say, "The ITL has all the documents" - except Schelvis, Moore, ten Have, Lozowick, Braber, Presser, Croes & Tammes, Ritz, and others have consulted documents in many different archives, studied them, and will tell Nessie, and you, that as many as 110,000 Jews were deported from the Netherlands to the east during the Nazi occupation, most of the Dutch Jews were transported to Auschwitz, except about 34,000 were sent to Sobibór (and several 1000s to Bergen-Belsen and Theresienstadt). They will further inform you that the names of those transported, unlike, say, from Warsaw, were recorded. And they will tell you that of the Jews shipped to Auschwitz and Sobibór, fewer than 5,000 returned. They will show you documents on many different aspects of this - from the roundups, Westerbork and Vugt camps, transports east, reception in the East, and what happened in Auschwitz and Sobibór - while you're whining about the lack of documentation.

Do you have any evidence to call into question the conclusions reached by scholars like Schelvis, Moore, ten Have, Lozowick, Braber, Presser, Croes & Tammes, Ritz on the fate of the Dutch Jews?

Here is a link to help you understand the kind of information available for Sobibór, to take one example: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=23174

And here is a link about the International Tracing Service archives at Bad Arolsen: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26565#p502648, open to researchers since 2007.

 

[Hans]

. You just have to be intellectually curious.

One of those words doesn't apply - he's been told what to believe and he does just like he has been told to.

 

[Axxman300]

The 'evidence' in the article amounts to 'a little birdy told me'. And it's worse than that, because the little birdy apparently changed its story 70 years after the fact. But nevermind that.

I claim there is no evidence Anne Frank died at Belsen. If I'm wrong, prove it by citing the evidence.

And, obviously, there is evidence she did not die at Belsen, the photo cited above.

The evidence is that Anne Frank entered Belsen, and never left, like a few million others who were sent to these camps.

What I want to know is why you insist on undermining the work the Third Reich did? The Nazis were proud of what they did, so why do you feel you need to need to fabricate history to make them look less efficient?

Why not bask in the glory of their ingenious extermination ingenuity that became the Final Solution instead of painting a happy face on their work?

If you're going to be a Nazi sympathizer at least show them some respect.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

My bad, the correct vid is ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jc9ltEIwpo

Saggy, you may want to check that link. You say you've linked to a video proving Churchill was "on the Zionist payroll", but in fact, the video is of a known liar, talking about how Churchill painted under a pseudonym, and there's no mention at all of Zionist payrolls. was part of the Focus Group. Information about this group is hard to find, but it appears it was an anti-fascist organisation. That Jews should wish to fund an organisation opposed to those who wish to kill them is hardly surprising. That others might also think that perescuting and killing Jews is a bad thing should also not be at all surprising.
You have again failed to clarify how you distinguish between a stooge and a sympathiser.
As for the rest of the claims about the purpose of the Focus Group, you have still linked to a known liar, and the only sources I can find for his claims that the Focus Group was plotting to overthrow the British government are from Irving himself.
I can only assume this was a mistake, and perhaps you'd like to link to the real evidence for your claim?

 

[Saggy]

Saggy, you may want to check that link. You say you've linked to a video proving Churchill was "on the Zionist payroll", but in fact, the video is of a known liar, talking about how Churchill painted under a pseudonym, and there's no mention at all of Zionist payrolls. was part of the Focus Group. Information about this group is hard to find, but it appears it was an anti-fascist organisation. That Jews should wish to fund an organisation opposed to those who wish to kill them is hardly surprising. That others might also think that perescuting and killing Jews is a bad thing should also not be at all surprising.
You have again failed to clarify how you distinguish between a stooge and a sympathiser.
As for the rest of the claims about the purpose of the Focus Group, you have still linked to a known liar, and the only sources I can find for his claims that the Focus Group was plotting to overthrow the British government are from Irving himself.
I can only assume this was a mistake, and perhaps you'd like to link to the real evidence for your claim?

Irving elucidates ..

"The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen’s memoirs … The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today’s figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds — about $2 million in Canadian terms — was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was — the tune that Churchill had to play was — fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments.

...... etc."

Google Churchill Focus for more info.

 

[abaddon]

Google Churchill Focus for more info.

Holy cow!

Would it not be more efficient to google "holocaust denial cranks"?

 

[smartcooky]

Of course, the alternative is that The Focus Group understood Hitler for what he was, a genocidal and tyrannical madman who had enough charisma to gather around himself other like-minded racists and homicidal maniacs, and to dupe his countrymen into seeing Jews as the cause of all the ills in Weimar/Germany.


Curiously, when you search for this group, the only results you seem to get are from White Supremacist, Nazi and those loony Holocaust denial sites and blogs

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Irving elucidates ..

"The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London’s wealthiest businessmen — principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen’s memoirs … The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today’s figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds — about $2 million in Canadian terms — was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was — the tune that Churchill had to play was — fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments.

...... etc."

Google Churchill Focus for more info.

Saggy, for your convenience, I have highlighted the parts of my post that your reply does not address.

Saggy, you may want to check that link. You say you've linked to a video proving Churchill was "on the Zionist payroll", but in fact, the video is of a known liar, talking about how Churchill painted under a pseudonym, and there's no mention at all of Zionist payrolls. was part of the Focus Group. Information about this group is hard to find, but it appears it was an anti-fascist organisation. That Jews should wish to fund an organisation opposed to those who wish to kill them is hardly surprising. That others might also think that perescuting and killing Jews is a bad thing should also not be at all surprising. You have again failed to clarify how you distinguish between a stooge and a sympathiser. As for the rest of the claims about the purpose of the Focus Group, you have still linked to a known liar, and the only sources I can find for his claims that the Focus Group was plotting to overthrow the British government are from Irving himself. I can only assume this was a mistake, and perhaps you'd like to link to the real evidence for your claim?

Care to have another go?

 

[Nessie]

A good question. Disingenuous however, as you're asking the wrong person. The ITL has all the documents, a staff (as I've read somewhere) of 500+, and have been researching the whereabouts of Jews in WW II for the last 70 years, so, if you really want to know, ask them.

https://www.its-arolsen.org/en/

But, the joke will be on you, because the ITL won't tell you. It's a secret !

.....

According to the Dutch, c101,000 Dutch Jews failed to return to the Netherlands from Nazi captivity after the end of the war, c32,000 of whom were gassed at Sobibor. I am asking the right person, because it is you who believes they were not killed by the Nazis in the gas chambers at Sobibor or Auschwitz, or otherwise died of disease in numerous camps such as Bergen-Belsen.

For that to be true, c101,000 Dutch Jews must have gone elsewhere than the Netherlands in 1945. They will have seen the news that they were being recorded as missing presumed dead and that their jobs and property were going to others. But they have kept quiet and let that happen. In particular the c32,000 who went to Sobibor, according to you, lived on in silence as it was officially reported they were murdered at the camp.

Unless you can prove so many lived on and kept quiet, no matter how much you do not want to accept the evidence they were killed, it stands as the ONLY evidence showing what happened to those people. You CANNOT have it both ways,d claim they were not killed and then ignore the lack of any evidence of mass survival and how incredible it would be for so many people to conspire to keep quiet.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Saggy, please answer Nessie (and me), which you have yet to do, as you've responded neither to Nessie's original question about the fate of Dutch Jews nor to our responses to your non-answer. Where did the more than 100,000 Jews to whom we both referred go and what became of them - and how do you know what you say? If you believe historians who have studied this question (I cited a number of them) are mistaken, tell us what they got wrong.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

According to the Dutch, c101,000 Dutch Jews failed to return to the Netherlands from Nazi captivity after the end of the war, c32,000 of whom were gassed at Sobibor. I am asking the right person, because it is you who believes they were not killed by the Nazis in the gas chambers at Sobibor or Auschwitz, or otherwise died of disease in numerous camps such as Bergen-Belsen.

For that to be true, c101,000 Dutch Jews must have gone elsewhere than the Netherlands in 1945. They will have seen the news that they were being recorded as missing presumed dead and that their jobs and property were going to others. But they have kept quiet and let that happen. In particular the c32,000 who went to Sobibor, according to you, lived on in silence as it was officially reported they were murdered at the camp.

Unless you can prove so many lived on and kept quiet, no matter how much you do not want to accept the evidence they were killed, it stands as the ONLY evidence showing what happened to those people. You CANNOT have it both ways,d claim they were not killed and then ignore the lack of any evidence of mass survival and how incredible it would be for so many people to conspire to keep quiet.

Who received the property and jobs of these missing presumed dead Jews?

 

[Nick Terry]

Who received the property and jobs of these missing presumed dead Jews?

Answers freely available online:

• Presser, Jacob, Ondergang. De vervolging en verdelging van het Nederlandse jodendom 1940-1945, 2 delen. Staatsuitgeverij, Den Haag 1985
• Jong, Louis de, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog (14 vols)

or in libraries:

• Moore, Bob, Victims and survivors: the Nazi persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands, 1940-1945. London: Arnold, 1997
• Aalders, Gerard, Nazi looting: the plunder of Dutch Jewry during the Second World War. Oxford: Berg, 2004

Furniture from looted homes was shipped to Germany (and further afield) as part of the so-called M-Aktion, carried out by Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg across western Europe. Real estate, businesses, securities, gems and other assets were sold locally to profit the Nazi administration as much as possible.

Dutch Jews were banned from public-sector jobs so lost them to non-Jews,their small and large businesses were eitjer liquidated or sold out from under them to non-Jews, and working-class or white-collar jobs were treated the same (positions closed if no longer needed in the wartime economy, or filled with non-Jews). A contingent of specialist workers for Philips in Eindhoven were first interned in the concentration camp of Vught then eventually transferred via Auschwitz to work in Germany, after being held back until 1944. Many Dutch Jews belonged to the skilled working class (as opposed to being artisans) and both lower and upper-class Dutch Jews generally spoke only Dutch.

 

[LemmyCaution]

thanks, I happen to be making my way through Aalders' book just now, slowly as it is very dry . . . Aalders makes the point that much of what the German occupation authority did in the Netherlands with regard to property and labor contravened the Hague Convention of 1907. Deniers like to pretend that Germany only "went around" international agreements in the East, as the Russians hadn't signed the international agreements (the Russians did sign all but one of the Hague Convention articles IIRC); unfortunately for deniers' argument both the Netherlands and Germany were parties to the Hague Convention, which Germany violated repeatedly and at will in the Netherlands. And not just with regard to the Dutch Jews.