• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is this suppose to prove? Jews were enemies of the state and were shot in antipartisan reprisals. Leaders say harsh things sometimes.

I think there may be hope for you yet. Take this thought, and just take a few steps forward, and you will actually arrive at truth.

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. As partisan activity increased, they knew they had a problem. They hated the Jews and the Jews hated them, which meant the Nazis had a problem. They were trying to win the war. That meant that they had to get men and material to the front lines. If they had people within the occupied territory who were working against that, this would result in trouble on the front lines, and trouble didn't just mean movement of lines on the map. It meant their sons lying dead on the steppes of Russia.

Since the Nazi state had a state policy to treat Jews as untermenschen, it was known that as long as the Jews lived within their lands, they would be more likely to join the resistance, to participate in partisan activity, to generally be a burden on the war effort. This meant higher German casualties, i.e. it meant their sons dying. Knowing this, they decided to take the only sane, sensible, option available to them. They decided to kill them all.

Which part of that don't you get?

"The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany. It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."
--Bomber Harris 10/43

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."
-- IYitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers 1988

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, 1998.

"We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux [Lakotas] even to their extermination: men, women and children." --General William Tecumseh Sherman 1867

Yes. Total war produces atrocities. Really. It does. It did in 1867. It did in 1942.

If you want to argue that Himmler was no worse than Sherman, that's a worthwhile discussion. Start arguing that way and you'll find a lively discussion, and you will get a lot of support. For now, though, you are saying that the events of history didn't really happen. As long as you argue that way, pretty much everyone will treat you like a lunatic.
 
I'm simply asking how many survivors there were in Europe at the end of the war. You said "millions of Jews" didn't take the offer to move to Israel after 1948. Are you saying there were millions of Jews still in Europe who survived the holocaust?

Poor wording on my part. What I meant was that there were not millions of immigrants to Israel during that period. In other words, there were not millions of people who took the offer. There were a few hundred thousand.

It is also true that there were millions, i.e. a few million, Jews in Europe at the end of the war. Most of those were found in places where the Nazis didn't occupy, primarily the unoccupied regions of the Soviet Union.
 
Yes. Total war produces atrocities. Really. It does. It did in 1867. It did in 1942.

If you want to argue that Himmler was no worse than Sherman, that's a worthwhile discussion. Start arguing that way and you'll find a lively discussion, and you will get a lot of support. For now, though, you are saying that the events of history didn't really happen. As long as you argue that way, pretty much everyone will treat you like a lunatic.

Don´t you love it when the Holocaust deniers argue that everyone else has always been genocidal, only the Nazis were not?
 
"The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive...should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany. It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."
--Bomber Harris 10/43


The point of which was the general economic dislocation of Germany, which, given the technology of the time, was the best that could usually be achieved in nighttime attacks. It turned out just finding entire cities at night proved challenging, let alone specific buildings within cities.


Hypothesis: Americans had a policy of exterminating Japanese civilians
Results of 'experiment' #1: there is copious documentary evidence of incendiary bombing raids which intentionally created firestorms killing Japanese civilians into six figures.
Results of 'experiment' #1a: there is copious evidence that the United States expended considerable resources to create an advanced weapon system that would create firestorms on an unprecedented scale.
Results of 'experiment' #2: there is copious witness evidence of incindiary bombing raids which created firestorms killing Japanese civilians into six figures
Results of 'experiment' #2a: there is copious evidence that the United States expended considerable resources to create an advanced weapon system that would create firestorms on an unprecedented scale.

Initial conclusion: the firebombing of Japanese civilians confirm a policy of extermination into seven figures


The hypothesis fails because it omits a hugely important consideration: WHY the U.S. switched to incendiary raids. It didn't do so because it wanted to cause the maximum amount of civilian death. It did so because the type of 'precision' strategic bombing it had done over Europe had failed to achieve any measurable results over Japan. This failure was due to a variety of reasons. The lack of tangible results prompted the change in bombing tactics. The new tactics did produce better results, though at a high cost in civilian casualties.
 
I think there may be hope for you yet. Take this thought, and just take a few steps forward, and you will actually arrive at truth.

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. As partisan activity increased, they knew they had a problem. They hated the Jews and the Jews hated them, which meant the Nazis had a problem. They were trying to win the war. That meant that they had to get men and material to the front lines. If they had people within the occupied territory who were working against that, this would result in trouble on the front lines, and trouble didn't just mean movement of lines on the map. It meant their sons lying dead on the steppes of Russia.

Since the Nazi state had a state policy to treat Jews as untermenschen, it was known that as long as the Jews lived within their lands, they would be more likely to join the resistance, to participate in partisan activity, to generally be a burden on the war effort. This meant higher German casualties, i.e. it meant their sons dying. Knowing this, they decided to take the only sane, sensible, option available to them. They decided to kill them all.

Which part of that don't you get?

The "only sane, sensible, option available" isn't always to kill every man woman and child. If you want to argue that the Nazis were justified in shooting every Jew in Russia they could find, feel free. Don't expect much suppoort however.

Partisans were shot. Innocent civilians were grabbed off the streets and murdered en mass as reprisals for murdering German soldiers. It's barbaric. But it's not the type of thing that is necessary if there was policy of extermination and it's not the type of thing that is sufficient to prove a policy of extermination.

The execution of Jews can be explained in the context of fighting insurgents. Excesses in war are common. They do not always point to a policy of total extermination.


Yes. Total war produces atrocities. Really. It does. It did in 1867. It did in 1942.

If you want to argue that Himmler was no worse than Sherman, that's a worthwhile discussion. Start arguing that way and you'll find a lively discussion, and you will get a lot of support. For now, though, you are saying that the events of history didn't really happen. As long as you argue that way, pretty much everyone will treat you like a lunatic.

I think if I started arguing that Himmler was no worse than Sherman, I would not get a lot of support. In fact, I bet I'd be treated like a lunatic.

I'm not arguing that the events of history didn't happen. I have never said Jews weren't shot on the Eastern front. I'm arguing that these events happened but that they cannot be interpreted only as a Nazi plan to exterminate all the Jews in the world. They cannot in any way shape or form be misconstrued to represent proof of gas chambers.
 
Don´t you love it when the Holocaust deniers argue that everyone else has always been genocidal, only the Nazis were not?

I love it more when believers miss the point. Nobody is arguing that everybody except Nazis were genocidal. The point is that world leaders sometimes say stupid things that can be taken out of context to sound really bad. The point is that this Himmler quote doesn't give us evidence of a pollicy to exterminate all the Jews in the world.

If there really truly was a policy of exterminating all the Jews, there would be infinitely more documentary proof of it. This quote provides evidence of how little evidence there really is.
 
The hypothesis fails because it omits a hugely important consideration: WHY the U.S. switched to incendiary raids. It didn't do so because it wanted to cause the maximum amount of civilian death. It did so because the type of 'precision' strategic bombing it had done over Europe had failed to achieve any measurable results over Japan. This failure was due to a variety of reasons. The lack of tangible results prompted the change in bombing tactics. The new tactics did produce better results, though at a high cost in civilian casualties.

Of course the hypothesis fails. The point I was trying to make to Nick Terry is that if you assume the US had a policy of exterminating the Japanese, then you can use bombing of Japan as evidence of this policy. Just like shooting Jews in Russia is evidence of an extermination policy if you assume there was a policy to exterminate the Jews.
 
Repeating a avoided question, again

Oh my as I thought you would ignored the hard part.... here it is again - debunk it line by line Dogzilla...I'll just keep repeating it until you do but then we both know you cannot which is why you try to avoid it.....but then you won't be able too....quite a problem for your hate filled world view eh? LOL

Oh, wait! Here's some more:

“…Under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to prisoners

of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the

prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot…” - Eisenhower


"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against

uncivilised tribes." - Churchill, writing as president of the Air Council (1919)


"Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population." - Churchill, quoted

during the First World War


"My protests (regarding treatment of the German DEF'S) were met with hostility or indifference, and when I threw our ample

rations to them over the barbed wire. I was threatened, making it clear that it was our deliberate policy not to adequately feed

them." - Martin Brech, ex-Private First Class, in Company C of the 14th Infantry, assigned as a guard and interpreter at the

Eisenhower Death Camp at Andernach, along the Rhine River


"Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy. Have no mercy on women, children, or the aged!

Kill every German -- wipe them out!" - Llya Ehrenburg


"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Churchill 1939


"Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the

other." - Lord Halifax, English embassador in Washington (1939)


"... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
William Trent, military commander of Pittsburgh writing in his diary about dealings with Indians


"Once you have but got the Track of those Ravenous howling Wolves, then pursue them vigourously; Turn not back till they

are consumed… Beat them small as the Dust before the Wind." --Reverend Cotton Mather

Holy crap! I guess everybody was always trying to kill everybody else
 
Secondly, MAUS is a comic book.

Yes, a comic book in which the author's father gives a firsthand account of theft, mass-murder, imprisonment, rape, torture and assorted other heinous atrocities visited by German officials upon innumerable Jewish persons of several nationalities, innocent and "partisan" alike, women and men and children, year after year after year, all recounted in excruciating detail by a living eyewitness to the events.

Did you have a point here, or can you refute Spiegelman's account in way, apart from your personal incredulity (a logical fallacy) or your rejection of thousands of similar accounts which correspond in both minute detail and broad outline?

Incidentally, this "comic book" won the Pulitzer Prize and has hung in its entirety, page next to page, in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC. This treatment, and its intended audience of adult readers worldwide, removes the work from the commonly held notion of a "comic book" as an adventure serial for children and adolescents. It has been poured over by academics and historians who do not hand-wave it away, as you have done, with a biased and disingenuous "comic book" label.
 
Oh, wait! Here's some more:

“…Under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to prisoners

of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the

prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot…” - Eisenhower


"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against

uncivilised tribes." - Churchill, writing as president of the Air Council (1919)


"Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population." - Churchill, quoted

during the First World War


"My protests (regarding treatment of the German DEF'S) were met with hostility or indifference, and when I threw our ample

rations to them over the barbed wire. I was threatened, making it clear that it was our deliberate policy not to adequately feed

them." - Martin Brech, ex-Private First Class, in Company C of the 14th Infantry, assigned as a guard and interpreter at the

Eisenhower Death Camp at Andernach, along the Rhine River


"Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy. Have no mercy on women, children, or the aged!

Kill every German -- wipe them out!" - Llya Ehrenburg


"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Churchill 1939


"Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the

other." - Lord Halifax, English embassador in Washington (1939)


"... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
William Trent, military commander of Pittsburgh writing in his diary about dealings with Indians


"Once you have but got the Track of those Ravenous howling Wolves, then pursue them vigourously; Turn not back till they

are consumed… Beat them small as the Dust before the Wind." --Reverend Cotton Mather

Holy crap! I guess everybody was always trying to kill everybody else

The full Churchill quote about gas, which looks a bit different with the additional text:

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases: gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected... We cannot, in any circumstances acquiesce to the non-utilisation of any weapons which are available to procure a speedy termination of the disorder which prevails on the frontier."

The other Churchill quotes all seem to appear on nazi denier sites only, which leads me to believe they are fake. Do you have any sources for them?

Cotton Mather? Really?
 
Last edited:
The "only sane, sensible, option available" isn't always to kill every man woman and child. If you want to argue that the Nazis were justified in shooting every Jew in Russia they could find, feel free. Don't expect much suppoort however.

I wouldn't say it was justified, but I would say that it is a logical outgrowth of their ideology and their belief in the need to prosecute the war. If you accept that Jews are subhuman, and you believe that the war is a just cause, it follows logically that the Jews should be killed. Their existence was detrimental to the war effort, and anything that hurts the war effort is something that results in dead Germans.

It's quite logical, and Himmler explained it adequately in the quote you keep wishing to ignore.

Goebbels likewise said the same thing. I'm sure we could find more material if we look up Julius Streicher on Google. It all fits together, and it all makes sense in the context of their racist beliefs.

But it's not the type of thing that is necessary if there was policy of extermination and it's not the type of thing that is sufficient to prove a policy of extermination.

But it's completely consistent with a policy of extermination.

The execution of Jews can be explained in the context of fighting insurgents.

In 1943 Warsaw? Really? Do tell. You might be right, but I'd like to hear it.

I think if I started arguing that Himmler was no worse than Sherman, I would not get a lot of support. In fact, I bet I'd be treated like a lunatic.

I've been a part of similar discussion on forums in the past. No one treated the people who argued as such like lunatics, unless of course part of their argument was that Himmler didn't actually do the things of which he is accused.

They cannot in any way shape or form be misconstrued to represent proof of gas chambers.

Typical CT stuff. The proof of the gas chambers is ample. The Eastern Front shootings are just part of the bigger picture into which the gas chambers fit. One does not prove the other, although each helps explain the other.
 
I love it more when believers miss the point. Nobody is arguing that everybody except Nazis were genocidal. The point is that world leaders sometimes say stupid things that can be taken out of context to sound really bad.

And sometimes world leaders do really bad things. Your quotes ought to be taken seriously. In some cases, they are out of context. In others, they show that there is less difference between the Nazis and others than we feel comfortable admitting.
 
Of course the hypothesis fails. The point I was trying to make to Nick Terry is that if you assume the US had a policy of exterminating the Japanese, then you can use bombing of Japan as evidence of this policy. Just like shooting Jews in Russia is evidence of an extermination policy if you assume there was a policy to exterminate the Jews.

No, nothing like.

As was already pointed out, bombing Japan killed about 0.5% of the Japanese population. Mass shootings in the USSR killed over 90% of the Jews remaining behind German lines.

It is not the mere fact of largescale shootings of Jews that entitles one to draw the conclusion that there was a policy of extermination. It is the self-evidently systematic character of the shootings, which resulted in a near-total loss of life with only vanishingly few exceptions.
 
Oh, wait! Here's some more:

“…Under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to prisoners

of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the

prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot…” - Eisenhower


"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against

uncivilised tribes." - Churchill, writing as president of the Air Council (1919)


"Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population." - Churchill, quoted

during the First World War


"My protests (regarding treatment of the German DEF'S) were met with hostility or indifference, and when I threw our ample

rations to them over the barbed wire. I was threatened, making it clear that it was our deliberate policy not to adequately feed

them." - Martin Brech, ex-Private First Class, in Company C of the 14th Infantry, assigned as a guard and interpreter at the

Eisenhower Death Camp at Andernach, along the Rhine River


"Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy. Have no mercy on women, children, or the aged!

Kill every German -- wipe them out!" - Llya Ehrenburg


"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." - Churchill 1939


"Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the
other." - Lord Halifax, English embassador in Washington (1939)


"... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
William Trent, military commander of Pittsburgh writing in his diary about dealings with Indians


"Once you have but got the Track of those Ravenous howling Wolves, then pursue them vigourously; Turn not back till they

are consumed… Beat them small as the Dust before the Wind." --Reverend Cotton Mather

Holy crap! I guess everybody was always trying to kill everybody else


At best this would amount to a mere tu quoque. However, most of the quotes are taken out of context, made up, or laughably irrelevant.

You can certainly have Cotton Mather and William Trent as proving that settlers in North America dehumanised Native Americans, used exterminatory rhetoric, and carried out measures which are widely accepted as utterly criminal, and thought by many to prove genocidal intent. However, Cotton Mather died in 1728 while William Trent wasn't born until 1715, so that these remarks clearly cannot relate to the same moment in time.

The Lord Halifax quote is evidently made up by nutzis online as there are only 18 hits for the exact phrase on Google. Please provide a source. In any case: the quote doesn't indicate a British intent to annihilate Germany or the German people.

Ribbentrop histrionically claimed the following when he told the British to gfts on 3 September 1939

If the British Government hitherto always refused these offers and now answer with an open threat of war, it is not the fault of the German people and their Government, but exclusively the fault of the British Cabinet or of those men who for years have been preaching the destruction and extermination of the German people.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/gp3.asp

I should think that the Nazi-lovers on here can pony up proof of what the champagne salesman was saying. We'll come back to the Nazi obsession with plots to exterminate the German people, though.

The Churchill quote about the war being an English war also appears to be made-up, though it has 258 hits on Google. Evidently, the nutzis like it lots.

Source please, or you should apologise for passing off invented quotations onto the forum.

Your next Churchill quote traces back to Joerg Friedrich's Der Brand, p.65, which I know only because the first hit is to David Irving's website and I happen to own Friedrich's book.

Friedrich does not use footnotes. However, he makes it quite clear that Churchill was commenting - according to Friedrich in 1925 - on WWI and reflecting on the nature of future war. The references point to a book published in 1932 entitled Thoughts and Adventures, suggesting a collection of newspaper articles or the like. No page numbers are given.

So Churchill may have said this, and he may not. It may be entirely out of context for all we know. Plenty of writers in the interwar years foresaw that total war would claim ever more civilian live and require the deliberate targeting of enemy infrastructure and workforces. This is hardly news. The line between total war and genocide is relatively thin, and it is doubtful that without the context of total war from 1914-1945 that either the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust or Stalin's crimes would have taken on the extent that they eventually did.

But let's follow Dogzilla's tu quoque reasoning for the sake of argument. If Churchill's musings in 1925 or 1932 are somehow probative of British exterminatory intent, then Hitler's statement in Mein Kampf that it would have been a good idea to gas 12-15,000 Jews becomes entirely sufficient proof of the Holocaust, rather than a mere indicator of Dolfy's already murderous mentality before he became Chancellor of Germany.

Your Eisenhower 'quote' vanishes back into unsourced waffle from the Zundelsite and rense.com, even the 'Gnostic Liberation Front' spams this one.

Source, please, or apologise to the forum.

Martin Brech's remarks are taken from an article which appeared in the Journal of Historical review. They are the words of a POW camp guard, and as such cannot indicate anything about policy. They also amount to a very late eyewitness testimony, given 45 years after the war, i.e. exactly the kind of evidence that you would dismiss if it related to Nazi crimes.

Way to go, Dogzilla! You've just proven you have a blatant evidentiary double standard.

Churchill's quote regarding gassing Kurds in Iraq after WWI has already been shown to be selectively cited in whatever your 'source' was. The quote discusses using tear gas and says it is not necessary to use the 'most deadly gasses'. It has also been proven that no gas was ever used in Iraq during the British occupation.

That leaves your Ehrenburg quote, which is - for once - entirely accurate. Since the behaviour of Red Army soldiers in Germany 1945 is well known, this actually shows that a mere journalist can influence 'wild' actions which are not state policy. There are no orders from Zhukov or Stalin to kill all Germans, quite the contrary: the Red Army cracked down after the killings and the epidemic of rape threatened military discipline. Before long, Soviet garrison troops were confined to barracks and prevented from fraternising with East Germans, a policy which remained in force through the rest of the Cold War.

So let's quote Nazi conspiraloon antisemite Johann von Leers - who later converted to Islam and sold his services to Arab nationalists - from 1943. He was a mere journalist, too:

Johann von Leers, 'Schuld ist der Jude', Der Fuehrer, May 17, 1943

Es gebe "heute Menschen genug, die sich darueber beklagen, dass wir die Juden aus Europa ausrotten..... Ja, aber die Methoden? Wer Methode sagt, hat immer Unrecht. Es kommt auf das Ergebnis an. Das Ergebnis fuer den Arzt muss die restlose Ausschaltung der Cholera sein, das Ergebnis fuer unser Volk die restlose Ausschaltung der Juden sein. Der Kampf steht 'Spitz auf Knopf'. Es geht zwischen uns und den Juden darum, wer wen ueberlebt. Wenn die Juden siegen, wird unser ganzes Volk so niedergemetzelt wie die polnischen Offiziere im Walde von Katyn - und wenn wir den Juden die Moeglichkeit nehmen wollen, nach diesem Krieg wieder einen Krieg und noch einen neuen Krieg und immer neue Kriege und Revolutionen zusammenzubrauen, von denen sich jeder gegen uns richtet und alle nur den Zweck haben, die juedische Rache an uns zu vollziehen - dann duerfen wir das Judentum zwischen uns nicht existieren lassen."

It's back to that ol' Nazi paranoia again. When they said either Germany will be exterminated or the Jews will, they meant it quite literally.


So, all in all, congratulations, Dogzilla! You managed to discredit yourself fairly completely here. At the very least, an apology is owed to the forum for trying to palm off faked quotations into this discussion.

You might also wish to consider your blatant double standards of evidence, since none of the quotes are equal to the Sonthofen speech. If you seriously believe that spamming a quote from the Zundelsite/rense.com/IHR website/Gnostic Liberation Front is making an argument, then you need your head examined.
 
Of course the hypothesis fails. The point I was trying to make to Nick Terry is that if you assume the US had a policy of exterminating the Japanese, then you can use bombing of Japan as evidence of this policy. Just like shooting Jews in Russia is evidence of an extermination policy if you assume there was a policy to exterminate the Jews.


With the difference being that, in the case of the Nazi regime, there are documents and testimony from officials of a deliberate policy to exterminate Jews.
 
And sometimes world leaders do really bad things. Your quotes ought to be taken seriously. In some cases, they are out of context. In others, they show that there is less difference between the Nazis and others than we feel comfortable admitting.


While the point above is still true, I had made the assumption that all of the quotes were at least legitimate things that the people quoted actually said.

My mistake.
 
Dogzilla, you have stated that "Jews were enemies of the state." Can you elaborate a bit on this, and explain whether you are actually stating that, for example, a child whose grandmother is Jewish is an enemy of any state at all, and whether you share with the perpetrators of the Nuremberg laws a notion that there is something about Jewish blood which distinguishes Jews from others regardless of their political or religious affiliation?

I ask because there seems to be a paradox here, in that whether you regard what happened as a holocaust or something else, it rests on a basic presumption that Jews are essentially un-assimilable. And yet, those who deny the commonly accepted history of the holocaust must now account for the invisible and apparently permanent assimilation of millions after the war. How does that work?
 
At best this would amount to a mere tu quoque. However, most of the quotes are taken out of context, made up, or laughably irrelevant.

And this is a problem?

You can certainly have Cotton Mather and William Trent as proving that settlers in North America dehumanised Native Americans, used exterminatory rhetoric, and carried out measures which are widely accepted as utterly criminal, and thought by many to prove genocidal intent. However, Cotton Mather died in 1728 while William Trent wasn't born until 1715, so that these remarks clearly cannot relate to the same moment in time.

And how much time must pass before genocide intent followed by genocidal actions resulting in a genocide is no longer relevant? Or is it that genocide isn't genocide if it can't be completed in one generation?

The Lord Halifax quote is evidently made up by nutzis online as there are only 18 hits for the exact phrase on Google. Please provide a source. In any case: the quote doesn't indicate a British intent to annihilate Germany or the German people.

The Churchill quote about the war being an English war also appears to be made-up, though it has 258 hits on Google. Evidently, the nutzis like it lots.

Source please, or you should apologise for passing off invented quotations onto the forum.

Your next Churchill quote traces back to Joerg Friedrich's Der Brand, p.65, which I know only because the first hit is to David Irving's website and I happen to own Friedrich's book.

Friedrich does not use footnotes. However, he makes it quite clear that Churchill was commenting - according to Friedrich in 1925 - on WWI and reflecting on the nature of future war. The references point to a book published in 1932 entitled Thoughts and Adventures, suggesting a collection of newspaper articles or the like. No page numbers are given.

So Churchill may have said this, and he may not. It may be entirely out of context for all we know. Plenty of writers in the interwar years foresaw that total war would claim ever more civilian live and require the deliberate targeting of enemy infrastructure and workforces. This is hardly news. The line between total war and genocide is relatively thin, and it is doubtful that without the context of total war from 1914-1945 that either the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust or Stalin's crimes would have taken on the extent that they eventually did.

But let's follow Dogzilla's tu quoque reasoning for the sake of argument. If Churchill's musings in 1925 or 1932 are somehow probative of British exterminatory intent, then Hitler's statement in Mein Kampf that it would have been a good idea to gas 12-15,000 Jews becomes entirely sufficient proof of the Holocaust, rather than a mere indicator of Dolfy's already murderous mentality before he became Chancellor of Germany.

Your Eisenhower 'quote' vanishes back into unsourced waffle from the Zundelsite and rense.com, even the 'Gnostic Liberation Front' spams this one.

Source, please, or apologise to the forum.

I took the liberty of running to Google test on some of your quotes.

"So sind auch die Erschiessungen von Juden durch den SD letzlich Akte des Staaten, der die Austilgung dieser Feinde in einer bestimmten Art und Weise anordnet und ebenso durchfuehren laesst. Fuer diese vom Staat fuer notwendig gefundenen Massnahmen sind eigens Organe eingesetzt. Diese Organe sind in sich wieder straffen Satzungen unterworfen." ~ Feldurteil des Reichskriegsgerichts vom 17.4.1942 gegen den Unteroffizier der Feldgendarmerie Hans Roettgermann.

Nine hits for this one. Most of them lead you to the holocaust controversies hate blog and one to RODOH. So we'll scratch that one off the list.


"It was necessary to resolve another big question. It was the most horrible task and the most awful assignment that any organization could receive: the solution of the Jewish question. I want to say a few words on the matter to this group with complete candor. It's good that we had the hardness to exterminate the Jews in our territory. Don't ask yourselves how difficult it would have been to carry out such an order, even though, as soldiers, I might say you would understand. But thinking critically as German soldiers, you can see that the order was essential. Because we wouldn't have been able to withstand the aerial bombing if we had had the Jews in our cities. I am also convinced we would not have been able to hold the Lemberg front of the Generalgouvernement if the big ghettos in Lemberg, Krakau, Lublin, and Warsaw had still been there. We cleaned out the last one, the big ghetto in Warsaw, in summer 1943. In Warsaw there were 500,000 Jews. I tell you this number confidentially. It took us five weeks of street fighting. Just the same, I want to answer a little question that surely you must have. The question is, of course you had to kill the adult Jews, I understand that, but how could you do the same to the women and children? So I have to tell you something: The children will be grown one day. Do we want to be so improper that we say, no, no, we're too weak to kill children. Our children can deal with them. Our children will fight that one out. But the Jewish hate, small today, will be big tomorrow, and the grown avengers will attack our children and grandchildren, who will then have to deal with them. I am convinced that this will be the case even if Adolf Hitler does not survive. No, we cannot shirk our responsibility to kill all the Jews. That would have been cowardly and therefore we adopted a clear solution to the problem, as difficult as it was. "

Four for this one. So this one is irrelevant as well.

Martin Brech's remarks are taken from an article which appeared in the Journal of Historical review. They are the words of a POW camp guard, and as such cannot indicate anything about policy. They also amount to a very late eyewitness testimony, given 45 years after the war, i.e. exactly the kind of evidence that you would dismiss if it related to Nazi crimes.

OK, so you're amenable to throwing out any testimony published after 1990? There haven't been very many survivors coming out of the woodwork after that point anyway.

Way to go, Dogzilla! You've just proven you have a blatant evidentiary double standard.

I just said we can disregard everything after 1990. Do you want to go with 1960? Fifteen years is enough time for any eyewitnesses to come forward with their story and any new testimony after that point is bound to be contaminated by earlier testimony anyway.

Or by 'evidentiary double standard' do you mean that it's simply unreasonable to hold you to the same standards you impose upon me?

Churchill's quote regarding gassing Kurds in Iraq after WWI has already been shown to be selectively cited in whatever your 'source' was. The quote discusses using tear gas and says it is not necessary to use the 'most deadly gasses'. It has also been proven that no gas was ever used in Iraq during the British occupation.

But if you start with the hypothesis that they did use gas, this quote is the kind of statement you would expect to hear. Ergo, it is evidence of gassings. Or is this your evidentiary double standard again?


That leaves your Ehrenburg quote, which is - for once - entirely accurate.

Are you serious? That one is really true? I never paid attention to it because I thought it was made up denier canard.


Since the behaviour of Red Army soldiers in Germany 1945 is well known, this actually shows that a mere journalist can influence 'wild' actions which are not state policy.

Given the control of the press practiced by the Soviet Union, no journalist is going to last very long in his job if he actively contradicts state policy. The government censors did nothing to rein in Ehrenburg so we can assume nothing he said angered the government or contradicted official state policy.


There are no orders from Zhukov or Stalin to kill all Germans,

Unlike those orders from Paulus or Hitler to kill all the Jews?


quite the contrary: the Red Army cracked down after the killings and the epidemic of rape threatened military discipline.

Like the SS court disciplined men for their enthusiastic treatment of the Jews as we saw from that verdict that you keep quoting ad nauseum as if it has any relevance?


Before long, Soviet garrison troops were confined to barracks and prevented from fraternising with East Germans, a policy which remained in force through the rest of the Cold War.

"Before long"=eight? nine? how many months was it from the time Soviets began conquering German territory to when they reached Berlin? If the Soviet troops were confined to their barracks, how the Hell did they maintain any sort of military government?


So, all in all, congratulations, Dogzilla! You managed to discredit yourself fairly completely here. At the very least, an apology is owed to the forum for trying to palm off faked quotations into this discussion.

No I believe it is you who have been discredited completely here. I have proven that irrelevant quotes taken out of context can be handily disregarded. I'm sorry that the point is probably lost on an audience of folks who quote from comic books and don't the difference between Kramer vs Kremer or Hoess vs Hess. But it's not my fault so I'm not going to apologize.

You might also wish to consider your blatant double standards of evidence, since none of the quotes are equal to the Sonthofen speech. If you seriously believe that spamming a quote from the Zundelsite/rense.com/IHR website/Gnostic Liberation Front is making an argument, then you need your head examined.

It's only a double standard if you reject my irrelevant piffle but insist on my acceptance of yours. If we both reject irrelevant piffle even when it can be twisted to support your viewpoint, it's scholarship.

If Nizkor is considered a reliable source, you have no right to dismiss the Zundelsite or IHR. Hell, you should accept Stormfront as gospel if you believe in Nizkor.
 
Dogzilla, you have stated that "Jews were enemies of the state." Can you elaborate a bit on this, and explain whether you are actually stating that, for example, a child whose grandmother is Jewish is an enemy of any state at all, and whether you share with the perpetrators of the Nuremberg laws a notion that there is something about Jewish blood which distinguishes Jews from others regardless of their political or religious affiliation?

I ask because there seems to be a paradox here, in that whether you regard what happened as a holocaust or something else, it rests on a basic presumption that Jews are essentially un-assimilable. And yet, those who deny the commonly accepted history of the holocaust must now account for the invisible and apparently permanent assimilation of millions after the war. How does that work?

Jews were enemies of the state because Nazi Germany pretty much defined them as enemies of the state. There is nothing inherent in Jews or any government that makes Jews un-assimilable. The Jews didn't do anything to make themselves enemies of the state.

The Nazis defined who was a Jew (using a definition that isn't accepted by any branch of Judaism, btw) and then stripped them of their rights. The fact that the problem that Nazi Germany had with the Jews was a problem that was created entirely by the Nazis actions against the Jews is useful for assigning blame to the party who is responsible for turning Jews into enemies of the state. It does not change the fact however that Jews were seen as enemies of the state by the Nazis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom