There is not a single mass grave of holohoax victims.

[Dogzilla]

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.

It's not a mistake. Nick Terry is trying to dismiss my irrelevant out of context quotes as such without seeing that his quotes fall into the same category.

My point is that if you go back and read speeches of world leaders, they've said things that were quite appalling. Abe Lincoln said that "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people."

This is the man who is considered the great emancipator. If you want to deny that the US government has a policy of keeping the black man down, explain this quote!

We know that Lord Jeff Amherst intentionally gave small pox infected blankets to native Americans. This is pretty strong evidence of biological warfare intending to spread epidemics among the natives. Epidemics did in fact wipe out many a tribe. Andrew Jackson noted in 1830 that "the tribes which occupied the countries now constituting the Eastern States were annihilated or have melted away to make room for the whites."

Today, if you look at the population of native Americans living in the north eastern states of the United States, you'll find a population that has been decimated. The whole of the United States is made up of 2.3 billion acres of land that was once owned by natives. Today, not a single square inch of that property is the soveregn land of any native American tribe.

We have proof of a biological warfare campaign against the native Americans. We have US leaders openly acknowledging the annihilation of the native American population. Today we have a few scattered surviving native Americans (almost none of whom are full blood Indians) living in a few remote locations that white people don't want.

Yet today nobody says the British colonial policy was the complete extermination of the Native American population.

And we're asked to believe that a few references to something that might be an extermination program but also fit perfectly with an ethnic cleansing, is the smoking gun proving the Nazi policy to exterminate all the Jews in Europe?

You have to ask yourself if the translations are correct. Then you have to ask where the document came from and when it was discovered. The Nazi program of exterminating all the Jews was "proven" beyond doubt prior to the opening of the Nuremberg trials. If you have a document that emerged after the 1945 you need to ask where the document fits: is the document evidence for something that has already been proven or is it is evidence because something has already been proven?

If the document does really point to something sinister, then you go and find the forensic evidence that whatever the document implies happened did happen.

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

How many vanishingly few exceptions?

 

[bruto]

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.

thanks for clarifying that. Your post# 533 seemed odd enough in this context to raise the question.

 

[Meadmaker]

It does not change the fact however that Jews were seen as enemies of the state by the Nazis.

You have to wonder, then, why they allowed those enemies to live within their borders during wartime. Why didn't they just kill them all?

Or, is it possible.....?

 

[Saggy]

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.

Again with the jokes. Oy vey !

It's like a comic book world here on randi.com, so, it is impossible to give serious attention to such idiocy. For a serious answer, read Mein Kampf. It is a whole treatise on the threat the Jews posed to Germany. Consider the threat they posed to Russia. The difference is that Hitler stopped them in Germany. In Russia they prevailed. The result was the most murderous government, of its own citizens, that has ever existed.

But, that's the serious answer. For the short form, read ....
http://www.holohoax101.com/103/judeawar.jpg

Do not hotlink images. See Rule 5.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[kerikiwi]

So, Saggy, since you're here, how about do you think it a good thing or a bad thing that the holocaust never happened?

 

[kerikiwi]

Saggy?

 

[kerikiwi]

Hallo?

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

If you are fighting a war and you have saboteurs behind the lines creating mischief, you would want to stop them. If you have an extremely effective guerrilla war you'll use extreme measures to stop the guerrillas. That might include shooting all guerrillas caught in the act, anybody suspected of engaging in guerrilla warfare, anybody suspected of aiding and abetting the guerrillas, and sometimes random citizens grabbed off the street to be shot as an example to others. If any of these people were Jews, then there would be Jews shot. If this activity is taking place in the old Pale of Settlement, you're bound to have lots of Jews.

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.

Himmler's speech looks bad. But it's not necessarily evidence of a policy of extermination. I wouldn't place much stock in Streicher's words. He was pretty much a pariah after he published a story saying that Goering's daughter wasn't his.

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

And of partisan reprisals.

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

You wouldn't call the Warsaw ghetto uprising an insurgency?

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.

It's not that Himmler didn't do the things of which he is accused. It's the interpretation of what he did that was wrong. Sherman's march was pretty barbaric and you might be able to argue that it was similar to some things the Nazis did.

But if I said Sherman's march was evidence of a Union policy of exterminating the South, you'd probably disagree.

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.

The proof of the gas chambers isn't ample. The shootings don't have anything to do with gas chambers and linking the two is obfuscating the issue.

 

[uke2se]

For a serious answer, read Mein Kampf. It is a whole treatise on the threat the Jews posed to Germany. Consider the threat they posed to Russia. The difference is that Hitler stopped them in Germany. In Russia they prevailed. The result was the most murderous government, of its own citizens, that has ever existed.[/qimg]

I would laugh if the subject matter wasn't so serious. Hitler stopped the Jews but the holocaust never happened? Stalin was Jewish?

 

[eerok]

It's like a comic book world here on randi.com, so, it is impossible to give serious attention to such idiocy. For a serious answer, read Mein Kampf. It is a whole treatise on the threat the Jews posed to Germany.

Mein Kampf is the raving of a sociopathic nutbar.

Consider the threat they posed to Russia.

None.

The difference is that Hitler stopped them in Germany.

The Holocaust. Wait, you claim that it didn't happen. (But I guess those Jews really deserved it anyway?)

In Russia they prevailed. The result was the most murderous government, of its own citizens, that has ever existed.

If you're referring to Stalin, killing Jews was policy. Another Zionist conspiracy, I guess. (One has to wonder when Zionists will come up with a conspiracy that doesn't get themselves slaughtered.)

I bet you even think that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion isn't a fake, which is all anyone would need to know to dismiss your credibility, just in case this was any longer necessary. You haven't provided a single decent argument this entire thread, just 100% bigoted, neo-nazi propaganda.

 

[Meadmaker]

This is the man who is considered the great emancipator. If you want to deny that the US government has a policy of keeping the black man down, explain this quote!

That's easy. Anyone who would deny tha tthe US government had a policy of keeping the black man down is an idiot. That quote is one small element of the proof that that was the policy of the US government.

Yet today nobody says the British colonial policy was the complete extermination of the Native American population.

You really need to read more. Lots of people say that was, in fact, one of the aims of British and American policy of that time. Most people think that is an exaggeration, though. The actual policy was merely to destroy their civilization utterly and make the land where they lived available for white settlement. It wasn't really necessary to kill all of them to accomplish those goals.

And we're asked to believe that a few references to something that might be an extermination program but also fit perfectly with an ethnic cleansing, is the smoking gun proving the Nazi policy to exterminate all the Jews in Europe?

No, that's not true. We are asked to believe that the smoking gun is the smoking gun. These references are just things that add weight and context to the already overwhelming evidence.

 

[Hans]

The evident policy of the US Government was to (it changed at times) was to remove the Indian threat and make Indian hunting lands available for colonization. At times the policy was to move them off these lands and concentrate them - often in marginal lands. In a few cases for a few specific groups officially or unofficially the government moved - or individual/organizations moved to implement a plan of extermination against such groups.

The survival of many Indians in the US points to shifting policy line.

 

[Nick Terry]

How many vanishingly few exceptions?

As if the exceptions will somehow negate the rule. I already stated that the Nazis killed well over 90% of the Jews trapped behind the frontlines in their occupation territories. You can figure some escaped, but not many in proportion to the total number, and that there were some territories like Latvia and Lithuania where after the initial massacres, the Nazis kept some Jews alive for labour purposes.

In the core Soviet Union, i.e. pre-1939 Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, Nazi policy resulted in the 99.9% extermination of the Jews under their control in the ghettos. They did eventually deport 6000 survivors of the Minsk ghetto to Poland in 1943, but they were selected and most sent to Sobibor with only some sent to Trawniki and Majdanek for work. Alas, shortly thereafter the Nazis decided to eliminate most of the labour camps in the Lublin district and only a few survived by virtue of having been transferred elsewhere before 'Harvest Festival' wiped out 42,000 Jews in November 1943.

If you think this compares with a 0.7% death rate from US bombing of Japan, you need your head examined.

 

[Nick Terry]

And this is a problem?

Quite a big one, actually, since you are trying to fight fire with fire. When you quote remarks that are considered genocidal, then it doesn't help your case against Nazi extermination. The other quotes are at best tu quoques, and thus do not, cannot, detract from the inferences that any sane person would draw from Himmler's Sonthofen speech.

In the process of throwing your tu quoques against the wall, you've also exposed your obvious double standards and special pleading over the Holocaust, which evidently must be treated with far greater skepticism than you seem willing to apply to any other mass atrocity. And inadvertently, you've thereby made claims which applied rigorously by comparison, prove Nazi genocide. As we will see.

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?

Whether the Native Americans were subjected to genocide or not is the matter of some debate.

There is no debate over Nazi intentions towards the Jews, because there are many, many sources indicating what these intentions were from a very narrow time-frame.

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.

Nice try, but my challenge to you was to provide a source. I can provide the source for the above quote. It is an archival document found in the Moscow archives: RGASPI fond 17 opis 175 delo 250, listy 4-22.

Unfortunately, no matter what you now try to splutter, under all accepted rules of scholarship and discussion I have discharged my obligations. The source exists. I have quoted from it and provided a reference, just as I provided a reference for the EK 2 document from LVCA fond 1021.

Were you or anyone else to visit RGASPI and find that the source did not exist, then you can impeach me. It's happened before - to David Abraham and latterly to David Irving. But it won't happen to me.

"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.

Alas, no. The speech appears on page 203 of Smith/Peterson's edited collection of Himmler speeches, published in German with the title of Geheimreden.

You can easily google the archival reference by typing in 'Himmler Sonthofen speech 1944'. All you've found is a specific translation.

Unlike you, I am able to produce my sources. That's because they exist.

I challenged you to produce your sources, and you haven't done so. I am more than willing to apologise to you if you can show that the sources which are apparently made up do in fact exist. But only when you produce a verifiable reference.

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.

No, Dogzilla, I treat post-1990 testimonies regarding WWII with appropriate caution. Unlike you I don't "throw out" sources just because it suits me.

What you have done is to expose your blatant evidentiary double standards by citing a type of source YOU would normally dismiss if it pertained to the Holocaust. But because it pertains to Allied crimes, you decide it's OK.

Not only that, but you compare the words of a junior enlisted man with those of someone who was in the top 3 or 4 leaders of the Third Reich.

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?

It's reasonable to hold you to your own standards. You dismiss eyewitness testimonies - in fact, all eyewitness testimonies - when they relate to the Holocaust, and somehow expect us not to notice when your own vaunted standards are breached and ignored, just because the witness is saying something you like?

Around here, we speak of the Law of 100% which is applied by conspiraloons to dismiss any eyewitness testimony based on the slightest inaccuracy.

There is also the Says What I Want To Hear corollary, which is when conspiraloons cite testimonies they like after having dismissed other testimonies.

Your position is now entirely contradictory. Your standards just shot yourself in your own foot.

Other people don't share your standards, and other people don't simply pick and choose evidence they like while ignoring evidence they dislike.

I, for example, only require the word of eyewitnesses and some minimal corroboration from other sources, to accept that Soviet troops, inspired by Ehrenburg, engaged in an orgy of mass rape and murder in Germany in 1945. As tempting as it is in discussions with Holocaust deniers and their ilk to insist on 'rape kits or it never happened', I realise that I am not going to find significant documentary or forensic evidence to corroborate every single last account of Soviet gang rape in Berlin in 1945. There are a few diaries and hearsay reports, and no 'forensics' whatsoever.

Your apparent standards, however, would not allow you to make any claim of mass rape whatsoever, since you have thrown eyewitness testimonies out of the window. Your standards are entirely irrational.

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?

The difference being that the Churchill quote speaks only of using tear gas and states there is no need to use the most deadly gasses, and speaks of using gas as a means of terror, rather than of extermination.

There's no comparison with the trial balloon floated by Hoeppner in July 1941 when he recommended to Eichmann that unfit Jews be finished off by some 'quick acting means'. This is probative evidence of intention since it indicates that Nazi officials were thinking about bumping off Jews unfit for work.

There's also no comparison, because the Nazis not only began using gas, they left documents and other evidence which proves they did, and documents proving they bumped off Jews unfit for work.

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

So, what? You just spammed a bunch of quotes not caring about whether they were accurate? I guess that must be so, since your intention was purely to distract from your inability to explain what the Sonthofen speech meant other than extermination, by bringing up tu quoques and making apples and oranges comparisons.

I mean, seriously. You know full well tu quoque is a major argumentative fallacy. But that's the best you can manage.

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.

On the contrary, Ehrenburg was reigned in and fell from favour with Stalin because of what his propaganda had unleashed.

Ehrenburg himself was criticised by Georgy Aleksandrov in a Pravda article in April 1945,[6] who called his views towards the Germans simplificating and an exaggeration as it has never been the purpose of Soviet policy to wipe out the German people.[7] Ehrenburg fell in disgrace at that time and it is estimated that Aleksandrov's article was a signal of change in Stalin's policy towards Germany.[8]

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

So Ehrenburg was criticised before the end of the war.

But let's consider what that means. You now say that in states which control their media, that a statement in the press must be considered official policy.

Thank you. I hereby submit every Nazi propaganda article foaming at the mouth about the extermination of the Jews as additional exhibits in the case against your drivel.

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

Actually, von Paulus's predecessor von Reichenau issued an infamous order to his troops in 1941 which stated that

Therefore the soldier must have full understanding for the necessity of a severe but just revenge on subhuman Jewry. The Army has to aim at another purpose, i. e., the annihilation of revolts in hinterland which, as experience proves, have always been caused by Jews.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/USSR2.htm
Alas, neither Reichenau nor any other Nazi cited any evidence of this canard about Jews causing revolts. But it's interesting to note that Hitler-kissers 65 years later still cling desperately to Nazi-era propaganda justifications for mass murder in order to pretend there was no mass murder.

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?

Find me a Soviet court martial judgement speaking of commandos specially set up for the purpose of the unichtozhenie of Germans, and you might actually have yourself a comparison....

"Before long"=eight? nine? how many months was it from the time Soviets began conquering German territory to when they reached Berlin?

Why not, instead of shifting the entire burden of proof onto your discussion partners, fire up Google and look it up in Wiki?

After the summer of 1945, Soviet soldiers caught raping civilians were usually punished to some degree, ranging from arrest to execution.[12] The rapes continued, however, until the winter of 1947–48, when Soviet occupation authorities finally confined Soviet troops to strictly guarded posts and camps,“[13] completely separating them from the residential population in the Soviet zone of Germany.

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

I really hate to hairsplit on this issue, but one thing also needs saying: rape is not murder. You won't find an Ehrenburg article inciting Soviet troops to rape German women. You find him urging Soviet troops to kill.

I don't think you'll find that the Soviets killed 90% of the East German population. Ehrenburg's article helped incite mass murder into six figures, but is not proof of extermination or genocide, and thus not comparable even on its face, never mind the obvious distinction between a prominent journalist and a Reich Minister and Reichsfuehrer-SS like Heinrich Himmler.

Find me a Beria quote and we can compare apples and apples.

If the Soviet troops were confined to their barracks, how the Hell did they maintain any sort of military government?

This is the kind of remark that is so deeply, vastly ignorant of historical context - postwar historical context, at that,history that isn't supposedly in dispute - that I have difficulty believing you could honestly be that stupid. Didn't you think to check this before you opened your mouth?

The Soviets installed a German civil administration on a local level before Hitler even blew his brains out. Within months there were functioning mayoralties, police forces, and the rest of the paraphernalia of civilian authority. There were political parties not least of which was the KPD which rapidly became the SED. All this happened very fast, just as it did in the US and British occupation zones. This is extensively written up in academic literature and fairly well summarised on the internet if you look properly (like Googling 'Soviet occupation zone Germany').

Soviet military governors were officers and could be expected not to go around committing gang rape. The staffs of komendantury would be nice, middle-class, educated clerks and desk soldiers and have to deal with nice, polite, mostly communist Germans in the German civil administration. They couldn't exactly carry out their tasks if they engaged in continual rape and looting.

The troops - the enlisted men especially - did not actually take part in the military government. They did guard duty, and later on began exercising, as we know from the Cold War. So they could be confined to barracks IN OFF DUTY HOURS without fear of crippling either the government of the Soviet occupation zone or military efficiency.

I mean, seriously. It should be blindingly obvious that if garrison troops are confined to barracks that this means they are confined to barracks when off duty.

Do you think the Soviets, while escalating the Cold War in the Berlin blockade, would seriously keep all their troops in barracks?

Jesus Christ.

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.

So we come to nearly the end of another failed fisking by Dogzilla, and nowhere has he provided a source for the dubious quotes. His attempt to dismiss my quotes fails (a) because I provided sources (b) because despite all the huffing and puffing, there is still no explanation for these quotes from him which discusses the texts in and of themselves, and (c) because we can go on and on and on producing more references and citations indicating a Nazi policy of extermination aimed at European Jews.

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.

On the contrary, you will still apologise for introducing faked quotes into this discussion, or provide verifiable references.

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.

But nowhere have you established that the evidence put in front of you is irrelevant piffle. All we've had is handwaving and tu quoque.

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.

Nizkor is a web resource which provides citations and references for the materials on its site. This is the basic, elementary condition of source verification. No case is known to me where a quote on Nizkor cannot be traced back to an actual source.

Articles from Zundelsite, rense.com, Gnostic Liberation Front and so on do not necessarily provide proper citations for their claims and thus are not as reliable as Nizkor. The IHR, too, is not a reliable source because they are known for taking quotes out of context, although they do not generally make quotes up from scratch like other loony sites. Every source on these sites has to be checked, and many have been checked, and found wanting.

So it's not a matter of "believing in Nizkor". It's a matter of my having seen a source on Nizkor and noted the reference, and often having seen the reference myself in whatever book they cite. I and others might use a link to Nizkor to provide a 'quick' reference and point people in the direction of that reference.

Unless you can show that Nizkor got the specific reference wrong, then 'NO U' tu quoques only make you look like even more of an idiot than you already appear.


You fail. Again.

 

[Nick Terry]

The shootings don't have anything to do with gas chambers and linking the two is obfuscating the issue.

No, it's not. The Holocaust is the proper name in general usage for the mass extinction of European Jews at the hands of the Nazis and their Axis allies during WWII. This event is considered a genocide, because it killed off the majority (more than 50%) of Jews on the European continent and because it did so deliberately, out of base motivations not least of which was racism.

Neither the Holocaust nor the genocide of European Jews nor the Nazi 'solution of the Jewish question' nor a Nazi policy of extermination are reducible to gassing.

Part of the loss of life was the responsibility of Axis allies like Romania, which inspired by the Nazi example, radicalised their preexisting antisemitism and escalated to mass murder. These deaths are still part of the Holocaust and still part of the genocide, and did not involve the use of gas. The deaths were not part of the Nazi solution of the Jewish question or a Nazi policy of extermination, rather they were inspired by it and exacerbated by the Nazi example.

The Nazis themselves killed around 5 million Jews in the space of six years from 1939-1945. Many died while interned in ghettos and camps as a result of the Nazis putting them there, deliberately. 2 million were shot, and 2.5 million gassed.

It is not difficult to find numerous remarks from senior Nazis in charge of ghettos and camps indicating that they were quite happy if large numbers of Jews starved to death as this would contribute to the solution of the Jewish question. This can be proven for the Lublin reservation plan of 1939, and is implicit in the Madagascar Plan, which showed no interest in ensuring the survival of the planned deportees. If Madagascar had been carried out, then it would have resulted in a genocide by the UN definition - genocides not requiring direct killing to be considered genocide. Ditto if the 'Siberia Plan' of 1941 had been carried out.

Mass deportation + indifference = largescale extinction of human beings. Dekulakisation under Stalin cost several million lives, as did the deportations of entire nationalities like the Chechens and Crimean Tatars. The latter are Soviet genocides. The Armenian genocide was carried out by shootings and deportations plus death marches. Direct killing is not a prerequisite of genocide.

However it is sliced, the Nazis were going to commit genocide on the Jews, end of story. Only the methods are at issue.

Your claim that shootings don't have anything to do with gas chambers is still, though, complete nonsense. If we focus on direct killings of Jews by the Nazis, then we're comparing 2 million shootings versus a maximum of 2.5 million gassings (actually many died in the trains from 'mere deportation' before they could be gassed), which means 44% of the direct killings were from shootings.

All the previous points stand unrefuted, but they're not the only ones we can make.

The Nazis carried out around 2 million direct executions of non-Jews in the course of occupying most of Europe, the overwhelming majority in Poland and the USSR. More 'Aryan' races were treated better than Slavs and Jews. Nazi repression was entirely premised on a racist hierarchy. It is not surprising that many Poles and Russians consider Nazi actions and plans to amount to genocide against Slavs. The Generalplan Ost conceived of a population reduction of 30 million people. How is that not to be considered a plan for genocide? It was only Allied victory that stopped this from being carried out.

8 million Soviet citizens were killed in action and a further 18 million died in WWII. Even subtracting deaths in the Gulag and the Soviets' own genocides and repressions, the Nazis and their allies still managed to kill off more than 15 million Soviet civilians and POWs from 1941-45. Most died of starvation brought about by Nazi actions, Nazi rationing policy and the effects of a war started by the Nazis. The failure in duty of care of the occupied territories was staggering, and it reflected Nazi racism towards Slavs as well as a 'pragmatic' barbarism which saw it as OK to allow millions to starve to death, so long as Germans and German troops got their bread and sausages.

But I digress. Even if we accept for the sake of argument the totally unsourced and unproven claim that all Jews who were shot, were shot as partisans or in reprisals, then the discrepancy with the fate of non-Jews is striking. The ratio is about 50:50. For every non-Jew shot by the Nazis, a Jew was shot by the Nazis.

There is no evidence that Jews resisted more vigorously than Poles, Russians or Belorussians, or were genuinely enemies of the Nazi state. Nazi ideology determined that Jews were the enemies of the state a priori, because they were Jews, and not because of whatever they might have actually done. That is why on numerous, repeated occasions, Nazi forces carried out reprisals for actions by the Red Army or Soviet forces against Jews only.

The excuse for Babi Yar was that a Soviet delayed action mine had gone off in Kiev, killing German soldiers. So 6th Army together with the SS decided to wipe out all Jews who remained behind in Kiev, more than 33,000 people. This cannot be justified as a proportionate reprisal, and the reprisal was carried out solely against one nationality, despite a total lack of evidence that the nationality in question was responsible.

Soviet partisans were multinational units with Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians predominating. Other nationalities, whether Georgians or Tatars or Jews, were in a distinct minority. Most partisans in a unit operating out of Belorussia would be Belorussian, with a substantial minority of ethnic Russians since Belorussian towns contained a large number of this nationality; most Belorussians were peasants.

Most partisans, in fact, were former Red Army soldiers drawn from the entire population and all regions of the USSR, who had escaped from POW camps or avoided capture during the 1941 encirclements.

What did the Nazis do when confronted by partisan actions which we know to have been waged to the tune of 40-50% by Red Army soldiers, and which was known perfectly well to German Army intelligence officers? Did they carry out reprisals against POWs? Did they carry out reprisals against urban populations as a whole? No, they declared that Jews already interned in ghettos were 'responsible' and sometimes used the excuse to wipe out the entire ghetto. As at Pinsk in October 1942, where 26,000 men, women and children died because of an ideological fantasy.

And in many other cases, they didn't even cite this excuse.

Anyone who thinks crimes on these scales can be handwaved away by saying they were just reprisals is a moral and cognitive imbecile.


The problem, Dogzilla, with trying to cite 'Jewish resistance' as evidence against extermination is that alleged, imaginary Jewish resistance was cited as the reason and justification to deport all Jews to the camps. Where we know they were killed.

So when Himmler wrote to Ganzenmueller, state secretary of the ministry for transport, in 1943 and said

Now I wish to present another important question: a precondition for bringing peace and quiet to the General District of Bialystok and the Russian territories is the deportation of all those aiding the gangs or suspected of belonging to them. This also includes, over and above all else, deportation of the Jews, as well as the Jews from the West, because otherwise we will have to take into account a rise in the number of assaults from these territories as well. Here I need your help and your support. If I wish to finish things up quickly, I must have more trains for transports. I well know what dire straits the railorads are in and what demands are always being made on them. Nevertheless I am forced to appeal to you: help me and supply me the trains.[1]

[1] Himmler an Ganzenmüller, 23.1.43, published in Faschismus-Getto-Massenmord, p.346; cf Rückerl, pp.115-116; Arad, p.133

we know that Himmler was claiming Jews anywhere would supposedly mean "a rise in the number of assaults". Not just the Jews in the Bialystok district and the occupied eastern territories, but Jews in western Europe too.

According to the Nazi ideological fantasy, all Jews were dangerous enemies of the Reich.

The Jews in the Bialystok district were already interned in ghettos. They could not possibly pose any real partisan threat from behind the ghetto fences and walls. They were already prisoners. There was absolutely no need to deport them unless the deportations were intended to kill them or use them for labour somewhere else. Which is precisely what happened: most Jews in the Bialystok district were deported to Treblinka and Auschwitz, which lay to the west of the Bialystok district - in the case of Auschwitz, to the far west. Only a small fraction were registered at Auschwitz. The rest disappeared when they arrived at Treblinka and Auschwitz.

The Jews of western Europe could easily have been interned in ghettos, too. But the Nazis deported them mostly to Auschwitz, whereupon a minority were registered and used as labourers, the rest disappeared.

According to Himmler's own words in coordinating actual deportations, Jews were a source of unrest in both western and eastern Europe. Where could Himmler move these allegedly querulous, troublesome Jews so that they wouldn't be a source of unrest? They were deemed a source of unrest everywhere.

So there was absolutely nowhere that the Nazis could put millions of irrefutably documented deportees and for them not to constitute a threat in the Nazis' eyes. (There was also absolutely nowhere that the Nazis could put millions of irrefutably documented deportees and for the Nazis to be able to keep them alive, in Eastern Europe. That many deportees were going to drop like flies from famine, and that means, genocide.)

Let's quote Sonthofen, again.

"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. "

Himmler in 1943 and Himmler in 1944 is pushing the same argument from the same premises: Jews threaten security and stability, even when they are hundreds of miles behind the frontline and confined in ghettos.

On what grounds are we supposed to ignore the obvious match-up between these two documents? Why are we not allowed to draw the obvious conclusion that the extermination Himmler talks about in 1944 was carried out on the deportees in 1943?

There really isn't much of a loophole here, I'm afraid. The Jews of Bialystok are herded onto trains, deported, and then the majority go missing on arrival at Auschwitz or Treblinka. This is documented. We also have the supposed reasons why these deportations were carried out, and these reasons match Himmler's apologia for killing women and children in front of senior Wehrmacht officers.


I don't think you realise that I have been adding extra sources slowly, and that there are many more that can be cited. You proved unable to deal with Sonthofen on its own, and I doubt you can deal with just two Himmler documents together.

But let's see you try. Let's see you - heaven forbid! - find your own Himmler documents and see how all the different Himmler documents fit together, and explain them all, consistently, without crying 'forgery!' and without handwaving any of them or introducing tu quoques.

And then we can expand to include Hitler, Goebbels, Ley, Rosenberg, Heydrich, Frank, Greiser, Stahlecker, Jaeger, Lange, Wetzel, Rauff, Bischoff and the rest of the gang.

All names you should have encountered if you have actually read something more than drivel on rense.com.

 

[Saggy]

No, it's not. The Holocaust is the proper name in general usage for the mass extinction of European Jews at the hands of the Nazis and their Axis allies during WWII. This event is considered a genocide, because it killed off the majority (more than 50%) of Jews on the European continent and because it did so deliberately, out of base motivations not least of which was racism.

<Extraneous drivel deleted>

Can you read? Do you see the title of the thread. If half the European Jews were killed by the Nazis, why don't you provide us with the location of one excavated mass grave of Nazi victims?

You can't do it, so you change the subject to a list of speeches. Complete idiocy.

There are more excavated mass graves of Irish immigrant workers killed in Pennsylvania in 1832 for crying out loud than there are mass graves of holohoax victims in all of Europe. That is, one, read about it here ....

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/pennsylvania-ghost-story-leads-to-murder-mystery/19606498

If you want to talk about speeches, why not start a thread with that topic. Then maybe I'll devote the effort to squashing that idiocy - starting with 'the' Himmler speech.

 

[Meadmaker]

Can you read? Do you see the title of the thread. If half the European Jews were killed by the Nazis, why don't you provide us with the location of one excavated mass grave of Nazi victims?

I don't see "excavated" in the title of the thread.

 

[uke2se]

Can you read? Do you see the title of the thread. If half the European Jews were killed by the Nazis, why don't you provide us with the location of one excavated mass grave of Nazi victims?

You can't do it, so you change the subject to a list of speeches. Complete idiocy.

There are more excavated mass graves of Irish immigrant workers killed in Pennsylvania in 1832 for crying out loud than there are mass graves of holohoax victims in all of Europe. That is, one, read about it here ....

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/pennsylvania-ghost-story-leads-to-murder-mystery/19606498

If you want to talk about speeches, why not start a thread with that topic. Then maybe I'll devote the effort to squashing that idiocy - starting with 'the' Himmler speech.

You can stomp your jack-boots, scream "raus!" at the top of your lounges and wave your right arm as much as you want, we don't take orders from Nazis. You guys lost your right to give orders in 1945.

Nick is on topic. The matter of "no massgraves" was proven wrong early in the thread were lots of massgraves were shown.

 

[Meadmaker]

For a serious answer, read Mein Kampf.

Wow. I've never actually heard anyone recommend "Mein Kampf" for any other purpose than studying how low human beings can get.

My mother tells a story about "Mein Kampf". When Hitler rose to power, there was a lot of interest in him in Ireland. A lot of Irish were anti-Semitic, and anyone who hated the British was welcomed by many in Ireland, so a lot of people were at least somewhat supportive. My grandmother wanted to know more about him, so she checked "Mein Kampf" out of the library. My mother, who was about 10 years old at the time, was with her when she returned the book. My mom describes the way she returned it. She pictures her mother holding the book at arms' length and making a sour face as she returned it to the librarian and said, "That is an evil book."

Gotta love those Irish.

Hey, Saggy, did you know this?

"The original Irish Constitution of 1937 specifically gave constitutional protection to Jews. This was considered to be a necessary component to the constitution by De Valera because of the treatment of Jews elsewhere in Europe at the time." (From a wikipedia article on Irish Jews.) That darned Valera guy. Probably just a tool of the Jewish Conspiracy, I'll bet..