9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[9/11-investigator]

It's a shame Hitler was too stupid to see it isn't it? Maybe he had a more sinister motive?

Hitler's gamble was that Britain would not intervene when he attacked Poland. He thought that this Molotov-Ribbentrob agreement was enough to deter Britain, but it was not. Reason: Chamberlain only ruled Britain in name. In reality he had the Focus pressure group with media support in his neck ('World Jews' as he later confided during this little golf game with Joe Kennedy). That was Hitler's error of judgment. But Hitler said that he was forced to act under the pressure of Polish persecutions of Germans. The Poles thought they could beat the Germans and expand their territory, backed as they believed they were by the western powers. In reality the western powers did not give a h*** about Poland. They merely used Poland as an excuse to wage war against Germany. After the war Polish interests were not addressed at all. Poland simply was happily handed over to Stalin.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Okay, the Congressional investigation I cited completely refuted van Roden on the question of "kicking testicles" and indeed, most of what would be considered torture. Enough of an "attack" for you?

And even supposing it had not, van Roden did not speak with anyone who had spoken with anyone who had spoken with anyone who had anything to do with Nuremberg, so, no, you are not entitled to do any such thing.

Note how vague TSR remains in identifying the alleged refutal of van Roden. I want a link to the text by which van Roden was refuted. Or a book and page number. And full quote. But very likely TSR is creating arguments out of thin air. This is going to be fun!

 

[9/11-investigator]

Keep this in mind, folks: "9/11-investigator" basically already admits that a horrible, holocaust-like event took place at the hands of Nazis, way back around post #4818 of this thread. He simply chooses not to see it called a "holocaust", for some reason.
( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6717120#post6717120 )

I think he knows the score, to a certain degree. He just doesn't like playing with a very good rulebook. He seems to be confident that others will see his game is superior in the future, so that keeps him going.

The word 'holocaust' is a marketing ploy. Revisionist claim that nobody was gassed or that a deliberate extermination program was going on. The vast majority of people who died, died because of sickness, deprevation, etc.

 

[9/11-investigator]

There are a bunch of problems with this theory. Just a few:

(1) If Stalin was preparing an attack on Germany, then why was Germany able to make such enormous gains in the USSR in the first four months? Why were all of the European republics of the USSR and over half of European Russia under occupation by early the following year?

That was the surprise attack by Hitler. Stalin estimated that Hitler was bogged down in the war in the west. He had studied Hitler through and through and knew that Hitler was very afraid of a 2-front war, based on Hitler's experiences in WW1. Stalin was busy preparing his army for the offensive. Hitler striked will the Soviet troops were in the train so to speak.

(2) In order to launch a successful military attack, Stalin would have had to have developed an almost entirely new military elite, since the previous military elite had been wiped out in the purges. But there is no indication that this had been done, which is one of the reasons Stalin had to rely so heavily on the weather and on partisans for victory — at least until production of tanks got under way.

This is the usual orthodox argument. But then you have to explain why Stalin won the war in the end any way.

(3) Stalin had declared his policy in 1924 as "Socialism in one country." Most of his moves between 1924 and 1941 seemed to indicate that he took the idea seriously. While he did muck around a few places, notably Spain, the communists in Spain had taken a real beating in Spain, and it's not likely that he would have tried his hand in that manner, particularly so soon after defeat in Spain.

That was true until 1939 until he maneuvered Hitler into this pact. Stalin revealed in a speech in 1939 (see this thread).

(4) It's a hell of a lot more likely that the idea of forming a non-aggression pact with the Nazis allowed Stalin to re-establish Soviet rule in the formerly Russian sphere of influence, rather than to expand it beyond its historical reach.

That was a nice to have indeed, but it also allowed Stalin to move into Europe and closer to Berlin.

Further, what Hitler gained was the ability to prevent England and France from undertaking an actual war effort against Germany, since the fear of retaliation from the USSR as a possible ally of Germany was too great a risk for either country to take. So they declared war but did nothing other than mine the harbors in Norway — and half-heartedly at that.

Wrong. Britain and France prepared for an invasion of Norway and as a matter of fact did. There were some 25,000 (out the top of my head, was discussed earlier in this thread) alllied soldiers captured in Norway by the Germans. That move triggered the Germasn actions in May 1940. Although I have to admit that Hitler confided to Mannerheim that he already wanted to attack Western Europe after Britain and France had declared war in September 1939, but that bad weather conditions had kept him from doing so.

I think the evidence for the traditional historical narrative, i.e., that Hitler hit the USSR in a surprise attack that Stalin did not expect, is borne out by all the evidence.

Not even traditional historians will deny that Stalin was very surprosed by Hitler. They just keep up the lie that Stalin was a peace loving sheep, happy with bolshevism in one country where in reaity he had prepared for war and nothing else since the twenties and incredible cost for the Russian population.

 

[TSR]

To be fair, the van Roden statements referred to the Dachau trial, not Nuremberg:

.

Ummmmm.


No.



van Roden was a *part* of the commission investigating alleged abuses at the Malmedy trial, which while considered *one* of the Dachau trials, is not the entirety of those trials (you are apparently ignorant that there was more than one.)

You are also apparently ignorant of the fact that only 6 out of 75 defendants ever alleged abuse or threats of abuse (and of these, only three actually *testified* to such abuse).

You are also apparently ignorant of the fact that the committee of which van Roden was a minor member did not, as a whole, endorse van Roden's take on things.

Of course you *are* aware that a later investigation found that most of van Roden's allegations were unfounded, because I have specifically cited that investigation.

So one might wonder why you continue to present van Roden as the final authority on the matter -- if one were not already familiar with your agenda.
.

We should abandon the idea that the alllies were carrying out justice. They organized a show trial, tortured the Germans into confessions in order to give the alllied victory a patina of moral justification. In reality it was a scam.

.
No, the scam is that you continue to pretend you're not trying to rehabilitate National Socialism as practiced by Hitler.
.

 

[TSR]

Note how vague TSR remains in identifying the alleged refutal of van Roden. I want a link to the text by which van Roden was refuted. Or a book and page number. And full quote. But very likely TSR is creating arguments out of thin air. This is going to be fun!

.
Which part of "the Committee on Armed Services over the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments investigations headed up by Sen. Ray Baldwin" is confusing you?

You want a link (because of course, if it's not on the innertubes, it doesn't exist?)

... its findings did not support the most serious charges, like the beatings, torture, the fake hangings and the starvation of the defendants.

.
Do you really find it *fun* having your ignorance of the history you have a visceral need to deny highlighted?

Funny that when asked, tho, you can rarely even offer even the attempt at citation, except to known and proven liars.


Hypocrite much?
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
...
van Roden was a *part* of the commission investigating alleged abuses at the Malmedy trial, which while considered *one* of the Dachau trials, is not the entirety of those trials (you are apparently ignorant that there was more than one.)

You are also apparently ignorant of the fact that only 6 out of 75 defendants ever alleged abuse or threats of abuse (and of these, only three actually *testified* to such abuse).

You are also apparently ignorant of the fact that the committee of which van Roden was a minor member did not, as a whole, endorse van Roden's take on things.

Of course you *are* aware that a later investigation found that most of van Roden's allegations were unfounded, because I have specifically cited that investigation.

So one might wonder why you continue to present van Roden as the final authority on the matter -- if one were not already familiar with your agenda.
.

.
No, the scam is that you continue to pretend you're not trying to rehabilitate National Socialism as practiced by Hitler.
.

So you refuse to give proper references to the location where van Roden supposedly was debunked?

No surprises here.

P.S.: Oh wait, while posting this TSR gave this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmedy_massacre_trial#The_subcommittee_report

This is what zionist friendly editted wikipedia has to say about it:

In its report, the subcommittee acknowledged some facts, such as the mock trials, the use of hoods or containment. On the other hand, its findings did not support the most serious charges, like the beatings, torture, the fake hangings and the starvation of the defendants. Furthermore, it had completely rejected the allegations of Judge Van Roden.[citation needed]

So I repeat what even wikipedia says: please give us a proper citation.

Very likely this wikipedia entry was produced by one of TSR ideological neo-bolshevik comrades out of thin air. In reality nobody refuted van Roden who had no reason at all to lie about the American conduct apart from his conscience. TSR was deliberately vague about his sources because in reality he has no sources.

 

[TSR]

The word 'holocaust' is a marketing ploy. Revisionist claim that nobody was gassed or that a deliberate extermination program was going on. The vast majority of people who died, died because of sickness, deprevation, etc.

.
... and being shot in the head, which have already acknowledged happened.


But let me ask you ****again**** -- this deprivation (note the spelling) you speak of? Going back to to Anne Frank -- she wasn't deprived in such a way as to have contracted typhus where she was. Who was it that chose to raid the Annex and send her to a camp where she *would* be so deprived? And what, exactly, had she done to deserve this treatment?

You never seem to have an answer for this -- sad, that.
.

 

[TSR]

Not even traditional historians will deny that Stalin was very surprosed by Hitler. They just keep up the lie that Stalin was a peace loving sheep, happy with bolshevism in one country where in reaity he had prepared for war and nothing else since the twenties and incredible cost for the Russian population.

.
Isn't it a little odd then, that after "preparing for war and nothing else" for two decades, he was still caught with his pants down around his ankles when Hitler betrayed his own treaty?

And yet, less than five years later, they had kicked your buddy's *ss on the Eastern Front?
.

 

[TSR]

Very likely this wikipedia entry was produced by one of TSR ideological neo-bolshevik comrades out of thin air. In reality nobody refuted van Roden who had no reason at all to lie about the American conduct apart from his conscience. TSR was deliberately vague about his sources because in reality he has no sources.

.
Who were the other members of the commission, and where do they express their agreement with van Roden?

What's that?


They never have?


Who was in charge of the commission (trick question, I know you haven't the faintest clue.)

What was the *commission's* finding? Was it followed?




What's that? You still haven't the faintest clue?






You really should stop digging that hole.
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
... and being shot in the head, which have already acknowledged happened.

But let me ask you ****again**** -- this deprivation (note the spelling) you speak of? Going back to to Anne Frank...

Note the spelling indeed. You are an Anglo (well, sort of), not me.

-- she wasn't deprived in such a way as to have contracted typhus where she was. Who was it that chose to raid the Annex and send her to a camp where she *would* be so deprived? And what, exactly, had she done to deserve this treatment? You never seem to have an answer for this -- sad, that.

The conditions in the camps were not bad before the Anglo bombing campaign started. Send your deprivation bill to the American government, will you.

Or to quote Faurisson to sum up what happened to the Jews during WW2:

Two years later, beset by the necessities of a war to wage on land, sea and in the air and taken up with the more and more distressing concerns of having to save German cities from a deluge of fire, to safeguard the very life of his people, to keep the economy of a whole continent running, a continent so poor in raw materials, Chancellor Hitler made it known to his entourage, notably in the presence of Reichsminister and head of the Reichskanzlerei Hans-Heinrich Lammers, that he intended to “put off solving the Jewish question till after the war”. Constituting within her a population necessarily hostile to a Germany at war, the Jews – in any case a large portion of them – had to be deported and interned. Those able to work were made to do so, the others were confined in concentration camps or transit camps. Never did Hitler either desire or authorise the massacre of Jews and his courts martial went so far as to order the death penalty, even in Soviet territory, for soldiers found guilty of excesses against Jews. Never did the German State envisage anything else, as concerned the Jews, than “a final territorial solution of the Jewish question” (eine territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage) and it takes all the dishonesty of our orthodox historians to evoke incessantly “the final solution of the Jewish question” and deliberately evade the adjective “territorial”, so important here. Up to the end of the war, Germany kept on offering to deliver interned Jews to the western Allies, but on condition that they then stay in Britain, for example, and not go and invade Palestine to torment “the noble and valiant Arab people”. There was nothing exceptional about the fate of Europe’s Jews in the general blaze of war. It would have deserved just a mention in the great book of Second World War history. One may therefore quite rightly be astonished that today the fate of the Jews should be considered the essential feature of that war.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Who were the other members of the commission, and where do they express their agreement with van Roden?

What's that?

They never have?

Who was in charge of the commission (trick question, I know you haven't the faintest clue.)

What was the *commission's* finding? Was it followed?

What's that? You still haven't the faintest clue?

You really should stop digging that hole.
.

We may safely conclude that TSR has given up on delivering a reliable source for these alleged anti van Roden statements. So we are allowed to throw the results of these war trials in the dust bin since they were obtained by torture.

 

[Think_Tank]

We may safely conclude that TSR has given up on delivering a reliable source for these alleged anti van Roden statements. So we are allowed to throw the results of these war trials in the dust bin.

You can throw those particular statements out. Provided that we can also throw out any references you have made to unsourced, unproven or downright fabricated material on other websites.

Deal?

 

[TSR]

The conditions in the camps were not bad before the Anglo bombing campaign started. Send your deprivation bill to the American government, will you.

.
So, the "anglos" bombed the Annex, causing a need for Anne Frank to be sent to the camps (which at the time of her forcible deportation were *known* to be h*llholes) rather than just leaving her and her family alone?



Is that your final answer?


No?


Then you are *still* running from the question of what little Anne had done to deserve that deportation. She was healthy, if not happy, where she was -- what had she personally done to deserve being sent to the camps?
.

 

[TSR]

We may safely conclude that TSR has given up on delivering a reliable source for these alleged anti van Roden statements. So we are allowed to throw the results of these war trials in the dust bin since they were obtained by torture.

.
No, "we" may not, because no, they were not.


*you* have an ideological need to believe so, but I have given enough information (unlike most of your posts) for someone actually interested in following up the facts to contact the Library of Congress and find the information in question.

While you, on the other hand, have supplied (unsourced, BTW) one single man's opinion, supported by no one else (other than your fellow deniers) on a completely different court case than the one on which you want to cast aspersions. Do you even know who was killed in the Malmedy massacre?
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
No, "we" may not, because no, they were not.

*you* have an ideological need to believe so

... true, but more importantly I have van Roden who visited Germany and investigated what was going on. And he was an American remember.

You in contrast have nothing until you present real evidence.

 

[Wroclaw]

Van Roden was a fraud. See:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/ftp.py?people/v/van-roden.edward/1999/usenet.9906

 

[Wroclaw]

That was the surprise attack by Hitler. Stalin estimated that Hitler was bogged down in the war in the west. He had studied Hitler through and through and knew that Hitler was very afraid of a 2-front war, based on Hitler's experiences in WW1. Stalin was busy preparing his army for the offensive. Hitler striked will the Soviet troops were in the train so to speak.

But there had been no mobilization of Soviet troops. As in none whatsoever. If there had been, it would have been far more difficult going for the Nazis in the first stage of Barbarossa. If you can demonstrate otherwise, then please do.

If the contention is that the Red Army had prepared a battle plan against Germany, then of course they had. They also had one for war against Britain, I'm quite sure, even though they ended up on the same side.

Furthermore, Stalin did not estimate Hitler as bogged down. Far from it. While there were many negative assessments to be made of Stalin, that he was stupid was not one of them. Everyone know that the only way Hitler could lose was by bringing either the USSR or the USA against him. He chose the former. Stalin had nothing to gain by entering a war against Hitler and everything to lose.

This is the usual orthodox argument. But then you have to explain why Stalin won the war in the end any way.

Now the argument is that Stalin won the war and that means that he was planning an attack on Germany all along?

Stalin won because of several factors:

(1) Partisans
(2) Poorly prepared German troops without winter gear
(3) Eventual mass production of tanks
(4) Lend-lease
(5) Collapse of Italy in '43 and subsequent need of Germany to occupy southern Europe
(6) Second front opened at D-Day

None of those require their having prepared an attack before Barbarossa.

That was true until 1939 until he maneuvered Hitler into this pact. Stalin revealed in a speech in 1939 (see this thread).

Stalin maneuvered Hitler? Really?

That was a nice to have indeed, but it also allowed Stalin to move into Europe and closer to Berlin.

Stalin had no designs on Berlin until it became clear that the US intended to prevent his free hand in Europe. So then he fought for (and won) parity.

Wrong. Britain and France prepared for an invasion of Norway and as a matter of fact did. There were some 25,000 (out the top of my head, was discussed earlier in this thread) alllied soldiers captured in Norway by the Germans. That move triggered the Germasn actions in May 1940. Although I have to admit that Hitler confided to Mannerheim that he already wanted to attack Western Europe after Britain and France had declared war in September 1939, but that bad weather conditions had kept him from doing so.

All the Brits did was mine the harbors. Furthermore, even when they re-took Narvik, Churchill eventually evacuated it just to pull France's fat from the fire.

The invasions launched on May 10, 1940, were designed for one purpose, i.e., to invade France from the north and not have to penetrate the Maginot Line.*A minor consideration would have been Göring's desire for air bases to bomb England, but once he had Scandinavia and France, he scarcely needed the Low Countries.

Not even traditional historians will deny that Stalin was very surprosed by Hitler. They just keep up the lie that Stalin was a peace loving sheep, happy with bolshevism in one country where in reaity he had prepared for war and nothing else since the twenties and incredible cost for the Russian population.[/QUOTE]

 

[dudalb]

That Stalin,in 1941, felt that war was inevitable between Germany and Russia is an established fact.
But he did not want to attack Germany in 1941. Quite the opposite. He wanted to delay the war at least until 1943,when his rebuilding of the Russian military would be complete.
That whole theory of "Stalin was going to attack in 1941" is nonsense,and I lost all respect for Suvorov when he begun preaching this crap.
Note to Wroclaw:Your very name probably annoys our little investigator as a reminder of how fleeting German Supremacy was......

 

[ddt]

Note to Wroclaw:Your very name probably annoys our little investigator as a reminder of how fleeting German Supremacy was......

Do you think nein11 would rather see his handle to be "Breslau"?