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

What does everyone think of the Nuremberg Trials-Did they prove Nazi guilt?

Saggy, did you honestly think no one would click on that Wiki link?
 
Kaltenbrunner's full indictment can be found here.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Kaltenbrunner_Responsibility.htm

Adolf Zutter, the adjutant of Mauthausen concentration camp, avers that, until the assassination of Heydrich, orders for executions at Mauthausen were signed by Heydrich or his substitute, and that after Kaltenbrunner became Chief of the Security Police and SD they were signed either by Kaltenbrunner or by his substitute, Mueller. Zutter mentions a specific instance in which Kaltenbrunner ordered the execution of a group of 12 to 15 uniformed members of an American military mission

There is quite a bit there so if the deniers would like to defend this guy than please pick the specific charges you are rebutting and provide evidence of your own.
 
Saggy, did you honestly think no one would click on that Wiki link?

However it does include this!

Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS. Camp physician and SS-Untersturmführer Hans Münch considered the facts of Auschwitz "so firmly determined that one cannot have any doubt at all", and described those who negate what happened at the camp as "malevolent" people who have "personal interest to want to bury in silence things that cannot be buried in silence."[150] Zyklon-B handler and SS-Oberscharführer Josef Klehr has said that anyone who maintains that nobody was gassed at Auschwitz must be "crazy or on the wrong".[151] SS-Unterscharführer Oswald Kaduk has stated that he does not consider those who maintain such a thing as normal people.[152] Hearing about Holocaust denial compelled former SS-Rottenführer Oskar Gröning to publicly speak about what he witnessed at Auschwitz, and denounce Holocaust deniers,[153] stating:
I would like you to believe me. I saw the gas chambers. I saw the crematoria. I saw the open fires. I was on the ramp when the selections took place. I would like you to believe that these atrocities happened because I was there.[154]
 
Saggy, I clicked the link to wiki and went back over a dozen previous versions of the page with a text finder and couldn't find the passages you wrote. Did you
1. Paraphase the source material and give us the definition as you see it?
2. Lie?
3. I was just unable to find it?
4. Something else I haven't thought of?

If option 3, could you please go and find the text again and if you can find it, give us directions to it - because the wording of your post that I read seems to suggest that the text was a direct quote and it's absence in any source material strongly supports the other posters' accusations of lying.
 
Saggy,

Here is another part of the wannsee meeting minutes



Direct intention to work people to death.


IF you get a chance, watch the excellent HBO movie "Conspiracy" about the Wannasee Meeting. Both Kenneth Branagh as Heydrich and Stanley Tucci as Eichmann are chilling without being made charactures.
 
Saggy, I clicked the link to wiki and went back over a dozen previous versions of the page with a text finder and couldn't find the passages you wrote. Did you
1. Paraphase the source material and give us the definition as you see it?
2. Lie?
3. I was just unable to find it?
4. Something else I haven't thought of?

If option 3, could you please go and find the text again and if you can find it, give us directions to it - because the wording of your post that I read seems to suggest that the text was a direct quote and it's absence in any source material strongly supports the other posters' accusations of lying.

I submitted the definition myself, and assumed that had been incorporated into the article. Check back in a few days, it should be appearing soon.
 
So to support your definition of a word, you cite your definition of a word? Brilliant!
 
I submitted the definition myself, and assumed that had been incorporated into the article. Check back in a few days, it should be appearing soon.

Thank you.

I haven't been following this thread too closely so I'm unsure why there's a debate on the definition of this word, however I do share the concern of using other material to support your position when you yourself are responsible for the other material.
 
I submitted the definition myself, and assumed that had been incorporated into the article. Check back in a few days, it should be appearing soon.

Which means you're not really citing a source, but instead citing yourself. Just when I thought you couldn't get any more dishonest.

By the way, I very much doubt they will incorporate anything you write. Wikipedia is edited to present the truth, not to further a political agenda or to spread lies.
 
The map legend normally helps people as confused as you. The label "major deportation route" might be a hint.


So the gray lines show the major deportation routes. I guess we can surmise that there were other, non-major, deportation routes that aren't shown on this map. Maybe those non-major deportation routes passed through the "transit cities." Maybe the non-major deportation routes converged on the "transit cities" where they became major deportation routes. This would explain the gray lines leaving the "transit cities" and the lackk of gray lines showing deportations into the transit cities. But then there's Berlin, a transit city that isn't part of any major deportation route. So it's still not clear what "transit city" is relative to the deportations.

But if Vienna was a "transit city" meaning a place where Jews were brought for holding before being shipped elsewhere to work or to be holocausted, where were they kept while in Vienna? Were there any concentration camps near Vienna that held Jews temporarily?
 
So the gray lines show the major deportation routes. I guess we can surmise that there were other, non-major, deportation routes that aren't shown on this map. Maybe those non-major deportation routes passed through the "transit cities." Maybe the non-major deportation routes converged on the "transit cities" where they became major deportation routes. This would explain the gray lines leaving the "transit cities" and the lackk of gray lines showing deportations into the transit cities. But then there's Berlin, a transit city that isn't part of any major deportation route. So it's still not clear what "transit city" is relative to the deportations.

But if Vienna was a "transit city" meaning a place where Jews were brought for holding before being shipped elsewhere to work or to be holocausted, where were they kept while in Vienna? Were there any concentration camps near Vienna that held Jews temporarily?

It really isn't hard if you're even moderately intelligent. As you're a holocaust denier, it is obvious that you aren't.

"Transit" in this instance means that Jews were brought to Vienna by rail and then sent on to other places. As Vienna is a rail hub this is only natural.
 
But if Vienna was a "transit city" meaning a place where Jews were brought for holding before being shipped elsewhere to work or to be holocausted, where were they kept while in Vienna? Were there any concentration camps near Vienna that held Jews temporarily?

Most likely they were held inside the railcars they had been jammed into in the first place if there was going to be any delay.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/boxcar.html

If your next inclination is to ask "if it only traveled 30mph than what did they eat and where did they go to bathroom?" You need to just stop.

The Nazi's weren't particularly concerned with accommodations when it came to transporting their victims.
 
I submitted the definition myself, and assumed that had been incorporated into the article. Check back in a few days, it should be appearing soon.

When I am hanging out with my boys and having a few drinks I sometimes make outrageous claims like, "I am 64th in line for the crown of England!" or "Czar Nicholas the second was actually a giant cephalopod in disguise." This is all for a good laugh.

They usually call B.S. and ask for proof. They always know I am lying when I respond, "check wikipedia in a few days!"

I never thought someone would actually make an attempt to use that. Massive fail saggy.
 
I never thought someone would actually make an attempt to use that. Massive fail saggy.

I should have known better than to try to fool the razor sharp minds of the hoaxers on this board. My bad !

Maybe one of you can supply a kosher definition of holohoax ? I guess I'll use my definition till then :)
 
I should have known better than to try to fool the razor sharp minds of the hoaxers on this board. My bad !

You haven't fooled anyone with any of your many many lies, Saggy, so I don't understand why you keep trying.

Maybe one of you can supply a kosher definition of holohoax ?

"Holohoax" noun [hol'-o-hoaks]: Term used by white supremacists of the lower IQ bracket to refer to the historical persecution and extermination of European Jews, Gypsies and other people thought of as untermensch during the Second World War by said white supremacists' Nazi heroes.
 
Last edited:
You haven't fooled anyone with any of your many many lies, Saggy, so I don't understand why you keep trying.



"Holohoax" noun [hol'-o-hoaks]: Term used by white supremacists of the lower IQ bracket to refer to the historical persecution and extermination of European Jews, Gypsies and other people thought of as untermensch during the Second World War by said white supremacists' Nazi heroes.

This definition looks bogus, can you supply an ADL approved web site to verify it, like the hoaxers on the board, I can't accept anything less authoritative.
 

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