9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[Craig4]

Non sequitur. The issue is deportation.

Maybe to the silly little crank lobby out there. For any sane person looking at the holocaust the deportation was merely the first step. Deporting someone or in this case kidnapping them for the purpose of taking them to a place to be unlawfully imprisoned and murdered is a criminal act.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
No, you didn't -- at least not until right now.

G'head, prove me wrong, liar.

I said: "You are correct that the Japanese-Americans weren't deported in the sense of being removed from US borders."Look here.

I don't know how strong an admission that I was wrong I need to make. I'm not going to call myself a doofus. That's your job.

No, usually they are sent back to where ever they entered the country in question.

...where they are free to go wherever they want except back to the country that deported them.

Which is why *your* calling what happened to them as deportation, when they were neither foreign nor left the country was a stupid thing to have said.

That was the word dudalb used to describe what happened to the Jews. My understanding is that three million Polish Jews were murdered by the Nazis in the death camps in Poland. So none of those Jews--roughly one-half or more of the holocaust--were "deported."

So were Jews "deported" during the holocaust? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Dudalb's use of the word 'deportation' isn't exactly correct but it's a little harsh to say it was "stupid thing" for him to say.

... mainly because they were. They were removed from a country where they lived, and sent to some other country. If you wanted to dispute dudalb's use of the word "deportation" to describe this process, using it yourself in an even more inappropriate manner, and then trying to defend that use wouldn't seem to be the best way to make that point.

Uh, yeah. Sure. Whatever.

If you would *now*, having been spanked on the matter, want to use that term, I for one am good with that. Just don't try to pretend that you didn't use the other term yourself in a wildly inappropriate manner, nor that you said something you hadn't.

That just points up your dishonesty.

Your obsession over dudalb's misuse of 'deportation' isn't a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. It's not seeing the forest for the leaves and twigs. We're talking about the holocaust. Maybe the word 'deportation' to describe what happened to the Japanese-Americans and to the Jews isn't exactly dictionary kosher. But when somebody says "Japanese Americans deported during WWII" or "Jews deported during WWII" everybody know what we're talking about.

Who here has stated that it is only true when it happens to Jews?

That was the question. Why don't you just answer it? You don't like the word 'deportation.' We'll use the word 'forced relocation' instead.

Forcibly relocating Jews qua Jews is a crime in and of itself and only a hate filled bigot would disagree. Yes or No?

Forcibly relocating Japanese-Americans qua Japanese-Americans is a crime in and of itself and only a hate filled bigot would disagree. Yes or No?

Forcibly relocating ethnic Germans qua ethic Germans is a crime in and of itself and only a hate filled bigot would disagree. Yes or No?

And given that it is based on a false premise, and a false moral equivilancy, and has no bearing on anything that anyone here has even said, and is off topic, it's a "question" that simply highlights your fundamental dishonesty. What is minute is the probability of success for your attempts to re-write history...

False premise? Strawman much? And just what the heck does that last sentence mean?

No, the idea that this was their plan is a crock.

An idea you try to champion by claiming that, for example, Treblinka was a transit camp from where the Jews went their "merry way."

Proving which is one of the questions you keep dodging with, for example, this off topic Japanese interment camps thing.

Asked and answered. Again. But one more time: No bodies.

Okay, I'll type it slow for you:

N o ,
d e p o r t a t i o n ,
a s
u s e d
b y
d u d a l b ,
w o u l d
n o t
o n l y
b e
a
c r i m e
w h e n
d o n e
t o
J e w s .

o r
w h e n
d o n e
t o
?
?
?

B u t
t h e n ,
n o
o n e
e v e r
c l a i m e d
i t
w a s

w h i c h
i s
w h y
I
a s k e d
t h e
q u e s t i o n

s o
y o u r
q u e s t i o n
m a k e s
n o
s e n s e ,
i s
o f f - t o p i c
a n d
a
d e s p e r a t e
a t t e m p t
t o
d i s t r a c t
f r o m
y o u r
f u n d a m e n t a l
m e n d a c i t y .

j u s t
l i k e
y o u r
'W h e r e ' s
W a l d o ?"
....I
m e a n
H e n r i o....
q u e s t i o n.

Define "holocausted," if you would,

What happened to the Jews during the holocaust.

and show that the Hungarian Jews were "set free to inflict an orgy of rape and pillage against the civilian population."

Go to library. Find nice lady behind counter. Ask her for something called "book." Read it. You learn and get smart. Knowledge is good!

Ask for "Night"

Don't forget to document all the rapes committed by the pre-pubescent children sent to the camps.

I'm not familiar with prepubescent rapists in the camps. Seems rather precocious but camp life was so traumatic I guess anything is possible. Filip Mueller was manhandled by a couple of nubile young girls in the gas chamber but I don't think that would even rise to the level of sexual assault let alone rape.

Again, a rational being with a working knowledge of English could read the context and see that the question that I responded to in that way was "So I can count you as one who thinks that deporting Jews is a criminal act but deporting other ethnic groups might not be quite as criminal?" I even, you know, quoted it and stuff. If you meant some other question, from some other post which I didn't quote, then you should have repeated which question you were referring to, or provided a link.

You know, like Wroclaw did?

For the two questions you lied about having answered?

And *still* have not.

I answered two of his questions today. Are there two more somewhere I haven't seen?

Wow -- gotta be a personal best. Four lies in one para.

You've never said any such thing; no, it's not "possible"; no, Zvi Unger moved to Israel by way of Paris; and he was bookkeeper there.

Unger? Any relation to Felix?

I was talking about Nussbaum. Zvi Nussbaum. The little ghetto boy.

Are you making this all up, or is that what your idiot denier buddies told you happened to him which you are now mindlessly parroting?

I'm not making it up. It made a minor splash when he came out as the kid in the photograph. The story sounds reasonable but I really have no way of knowing. It wouldn't be the first time a Jewish refugee from Europe made up a story to get some attention.

No, why should you -- he was only a jooo, after all, and his fate demonstrates that your crap about Majdanek being a "transport camp" to be, you know, crap.

Sure. Whatever. Why don't enlighten us all as to his fate so we can learn how wrong I am?

BTW, I never said Majdanek was a "transit camp." I know of durchgangjuden in relationship to Auschwitz but not Majdanek. Majdanek could be a transit camp in the same way but I don't know. And I never said it was.

There's a word for that. You know, making an argument based on a misrepresentation of the other side's position.

What's that word? I forget.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Even if you weren't wrong, which you are -- what is the point of this distinction?

People were forcibly removed to a country other than th one of which they were a citizen, for no better reason than they were considered Jewish, and were never heard from again.

They didn't go anywhere further East, they didn't go back to their homes, they didn't even go back to Germany proper.

What happened to them?

Don't forget to include some of that, you know, evidence thingy in your answer...
.

The question was what happened to the Hungarian Jews. I thought they were sent to Birkinau. If Birkinau was not in the GG, then they were not sent to the GG like I said they were. I should have said they were sent to Germany.

BTW, when I said I wasn't sure and would yield to anybody here who disagreed with me I didn't mean you. If somebody else backs you up, then I will yield. But I will be yielding to them, not you.

 

[Wroclaw]

Asked and answered. Again. But one more time: No bodies.

Which, by the way, poses a much bigger problem for your argument than it does for the normative history.

If it were true that there were no bodies, this would fit the normative history. We state that Jews were deported to the camps and murdered there, after which point their bodies were cremated. We also have testimony from perpetrators and survivors to this effect, as well as documents.

You claim that they were sent to the camps in Poland and then from there they traveled elsewhere. Problem with this idea is that there's no evidence to suggest these people went anywhere. You can suggest that they were shipped elsewhere but there are no records of this nor any testimony to this effect. You can claim they were "free to go," but why in the world would the Nazis allow hundreds of thousands of extremely likely Soviet collaborators to just walk free? Nor would you be able to identify any testimony about people in Polish camps being set free, by either survivors or SS.

All of this, of course, hinges on the idea of there being "no bodies." And there's the biggest problem of all that you face. There are bodies a-plenty at these sites. Have you read Andzrej Kola's work on these camps?

 

[Walter Ego]

Which, by the way, poses a much bigger problem for your argument than it does for the normative history.

If it were true that there were no bodies, this would fit the normative history. We state that Jews were deported to the camps and murdered there, after which point their bodies were cremated. We also have testimony from perpetrators and survivors to this effect, as well as documents.

You claim that they were sent to the camps in Poland and then from there they traveled elsewhere. Problem with this idea is that there's no evidence to suggest these people went anywhere. You can suggest that they were shipped elsewhere but there are no records of this nor any testimony to this effect. You can claim they were "free to go," but why in the world would the Nazis allow hundreds of thousands of extremely likely Soviet collaborators to just walk free? Nor would you be able to identify any testimony about people in Polish camps being set free, by either survivors or SS.

All of this, of course, hinges on the idea of there being "no bodies." And there's the biggest problem of all that you face. There are bodies a-plenty at these sites. Have you read Andzrej Kola's work on these camps?

The Nazi perps who dogboy is so eager to exonerate knew they were committing crimes and went to great lengths to cover up those crimes when they knew the war was lost.

As Germany's defeat became imminent and the Nazi leaders realized they would most likely be captured and brought to trial, great effort was made to destroy all evidence of mass extermination. Heinrich Himmler instructed his camp commandants to destroy records, crematoria, and other signs of mass extermination. As one of many examples, the bodies of the 25,000 mostly Latvian Jews whom Friedrich Jeckeln and the soldiers under his command had shot at Rumbula (near Riga) in late 1941 were dug up and burned in 1943. Similar operations were undertaken at Belzec, Treblinka and other death camps.

Ezergailis, Andrew, The Holocaust in Latvia 1941–1944 – The Missing Center, pages 4–7, 239–270
http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3576.pdf

Dogboy is in fact aiding and abetting the last stage of the genocide.

DENIAL is the eighth stage that always follows a genocide. It is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres. The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses. They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims.

The 8 Stages of Genocide
By Gregory H. Stanton
http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html

Edit:

The Sonderaktion 1005, also called Aktion 1005, or Enterdungsaktion (English: Exhumation action) was conducted during World War II to hide any evidence that millions of people had been murdered by Nazi Germany in Aktion Reinhard in occupied Poland.

As the war progressed, it was later used to conceal the evidence of massacres committed by SS-Einsatzgruppen Nazi death squads that murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews, Roma and Russian civilians in Eastern Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderaktion_1005

 

[TSR]

I said: "You are correct that the Japanese-Americans weren't deported in the sense of being removed from US borders."Look here.

I don't know how strong an admission that I was wrong I need to make. I'm not going to call myself a doofus. That's your job.

.
But what you didn't say was that it was the *wrong* word, you said it wasn't right "in the sense" of being removed from the country -- which is it's only meaning.

Your staement leaves open the possibility that in some other, DZ-only sense, the word was correct.

The words you're looking for are "I was wrong to use the word deport to describe what happened to the Japanese internees." Full stop.
.

...where they are free to go wherever they want except back to the country that deported them.

.
And it would have to be free, since the Nazis confiscated all their property.
.

That was the word dudalb used to describe what happened to the Jews.

.
And that *you* used "in the sense of" what happened to the Japanese, which was a completely different thing than happened to the Jews

And completely wrong
.

My understanding is that three million Polish Jews were murdered by the Nazis in the death camps in Poland. So none of those Jews--roughly one-half or more of the holocaust--were "deported."

.
No, they weren't. Didn't we agree to use "forcibly removed?"
.

So were Jews "deported" during the holocaust? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Dudalb's use of the word 'deportation' isn't exactly correct but it's a little harsh to say it was "stupid thing" for him to say.

.
I didnt say it was a stupid thing for *him* to say, I said it was a stupid thing for *you* to say regarding the Japanese internees, as anyone with normal English skills can plainly see.
.

Uh, yeah. Sure. Whatever.

.
What a strong admission that you were wrong
.

Your obsession over dudalb's misuse of 'deportation' i

.
... exists only in your mind, since I was very obviously discussing *your* use.
.

Maybe the word 'deportation' to describe what happened to the Japanese-Americans and to the Jews isn't exactly dictionary kosher.

.
Wow! Another "strong admission!"
.

But when somebody says "Japanese Americans deported during WWII" or "Jews deported during WWII" everybody know what we're talking about.

.
Well, anyone with normal English skills would assume that when *you* said that, you were talking about, you know, deportation and further were trying to suggest that the way the US treated the Japanese internees was equivalent to the way the Nazis treated the Jews.
.

That was the question. Why don't you just answer it? You don't like the word 'deportation.' We'll use the word 'forced relocation' instead.

.
I did. Then I did again. The second time in the very post to which this response of yours was a response.
.

Forcibly relocating Jews qua Jews is a crime in and of itself and only a hate filled bigot would disagree. Yes or No?

.
Yes.
.

Forcibly relocating Japanese-Americans qua Japanese-Americans is a crime in and of itself and only a hate filled bigot would disagree. Yes or No?

.
Yes.
.

Forcibly relocating ethnic Germans qua ethic Germans is a crime in and of itself and only a hate filled bigot would disagree. Yes or No?

.
Yes. Will you be withdrawing your smear that I am prejudice <sic> ?

A person of honour would.



So I guess I've answered my own question: no, you won't be.
.

False premise?

.
Yes. That the internees in the US were "deported"
.

Strawman much?

.
Yes, you do.
.

And just what the heck does that last sentence mean?

.
I was using the word "minute" in the adjective form meaning "teeny tiny" in response to your use of the term "minutia".

The sentence structure and content makes this clear to anyone with normal English skills.
.

Asked and answered. Again. But one more time: No bodies.

.
ITYMTS "lied about". And the lack of bodies is *your* problem: the normative understanding of these events explains why there are fewer bodies than there were deaths (cremation) and the rest *do* exist.
.

o r
w h e n
d o n e
t o
?

.
I did not qualify the statement, so anyone with normal English skills would understand that this means "to anyone".

You're really not very good at this, are you?
.

w h i c h
i s
w h y
I
a s k e d
t h e
q u e s t i o n

.
Which was off-topic, since the internment of the Japanese in the US was not a part of the Holocaust, by any normal definition of that term.

And, no, why you asked the question was in a lame attempt to equate the treatment of the Jews with the treatment of the Japanese and set the groundwork for a "gotcha".
.

j u s t
l i k e
y o u r
'W h e r e ' s
W a l d o ?"
....I
m e a n
H e n r i o....
q u e s t i o n.

.
No, my question, given that it pertains directly to an event which was part of the Holocaust (the topic of this thread) makes perfect sense, is on-topic, and since I am not mendacious is not a distraction from such.
.

What happened to the Jews during the holocaust.

.
Which, in your ignorant and mendacious opinion ... what, exactly?
.

Go to library. Find nice lady behind counter. Ask her for something called "book." Read it. You learn and get smart. Knowledge is good!

Ask for "Night"

.
What specific page in this novel are you lying supports your accusation that the Hungarian Jews were "set free to inflict an orgy of rape and pillage against the civilian population"?

Or is this another lame attempt to distraact from your mendacity?




Trick question: of *course* it is.
.

I'm not familiar with prepubescent rapists in the camps. Seems rather precocious but camp life was so traumatic I guess anything is possible. Filip Mueller was manhandled by a couple of nubile young girls in the gas chamber but I don't think that would even rise to the level of sexual assault let alone rape.

.
Ah, then you admit that your description that the Hungarian children as inflicting an orgy of rape and pillage against the civilian population" was a lie.

It help your credibility if you just come out and say it.
.

I answered two of his questions today. Are there two more somewhere I haven't seen?

.
Free hint: Check the time stamp on *my* post.


Now check the time stamp on *your* answers.


Then link to the answers you lied that had given before then.
.

Unger? Any relation to Felix?

I was talking about Nussbaum. Zvi Nussbaum. The little ghetto boy.

.
Then you may want to consider being more specific in the future. Of course, this makes it slightly easier to demonstrate your lies, so you probably won't.
.

I'm not making it up. It made a minor splash when he came out as the kid in the photograph. The story sounds reasonable but I really have no way of knowing. It wouldn't be the first time a Jewish refugee from Europe made up a story to get some attention.

.
Okay.

Now that we've established who you're talking about, all you have to do is document that he was ever "sent to the gas chamber."

I'll wait right here
.

Sure. Whatever. Why don't enlighten us all as to his fate so we can learn how wrong I am?

.
Get thee to a library and read some. I correct gross errors and point out lies here -- it's not my job to educate the unwilling.
.

BTW, I never said Majdanek was a "transit camp." I know of durchgangjuden in relationship to Auschwitz but not Majdanek. Majdanek could be a transit camp in the same way but I don't know. And I never said it was.

.
Liar:

All the eyewitnesses describe the AR camps as places where Jews stopped for a delousing and then left.

And that statement itself is a lie, as well.

You're really not very good at this, are you?
.

There's a word for that. You know, making an argument based on a misrepresentation of the other side's position.

What's that word? I forget.

.
And there's a word for what you just did.

It's "lying".
.

 

[TSR]

The question was what happened to the Hungarian Jews. I thought they were sent to Birkinau.

.
No, they were sent to Birkenau.
.

If Birkinau was not in the GG, then they were not sent to the GG like I said they were.

.
That's not the part about which you were wrong.
.

I should have said they were sent to Germany.

.
Which is even more wrong.
.

BTW, when I said I wasn't sure and would yield to anybody here who disagreed with me I didn't mean you. If somebody else backs you up, then I will yield. But I will be yielding to them, not you.

.
Just how many words in English do you reserve the right to redefine?
.

 

[dafydd]

It's "lying".

Lying is part of the deniers job description.

 

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

Non sequitur. The issue is deportation.

Interestingly, dogboy is parroting the Nazi lies about deportation. Well, his heroes were good at propaganda.

Operation Reinhard: Extermintation Camps of Belzec,
Sobibor and Treblinka

The geographical location of the extermination sites also served as a pretext
for the claim that the Jews were to be deported to ghettos in the East. Their
disappearance could thus be explained in terms of their transportation to labor
camps in the huge areas then occupied by the German armed forces in the East.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3576.pdf

 

[Wroclaw]

All the eyewitnesses describe the AR camps as places where Jews stopped for a delousing and then left.

And that statement itself is a lie, as well.

Not to be a spoilsport, but Majdanek wasn't a Reinhardt camp. It was built earlier as a camp to house Soviet POWs and then was coverted into an extermination center for Jews from the Lublin area (and, of course, Soviet POWs). It had a relatively forward position and so it closed in great haste (thus being taken intact, unlike the AR camps), and it had a forced labor division (unlike the AR camps and Chelmno, but like Auschwitz.

Thus, there were survivors from Majdanek in fair numbers (not a lot, but more than, say, Belzec), as well as Jews that had been in Majdanek that did end up in other camps later on (though it wasn't a "transit camp" in the manner that, say, Westerbork was).

Nevertheless: It is a bald-faced lie to state that anyone ever testified that Jews arrived at the Reinhardt camps, were deloused, and then traveled elsewhere. Quite literally, such testimony, either from SS or survivors, in courtrooms, affidavits, or in private, are nonexistent.

Nor is it a logical assumption that, because one does not believe in gas chambers and mass murder, the Jews must have traveled elsewhere. To assume such grossly violates all other evidence to the contrary, as well as the simple principle of Occam's razor.

 

[Wroclaw]

Just a quick note: I'm a stickler for exactitude and owning up to errors because lack of either results in deniers being able to point out mistakes as evidence of lack of expertise.

 

[Wroclaw]

Dogboy is in fact aiding and abetting the last stage of the genocide.

Precisely.

 

[TSR]

Not to be a spoilsport, but Majdanek wasn't a Reinhardt camp.

.
It was not *constructed* as an AR camp, but arguably functioned as one.
.

 

[Wroclaw]

.
It was not *constructed* as an AR camp, but arguably functioned as one.
.

Gotta disagree on that one. Even through its operation as a death camp, it operated in a fundamentally different manner than the AR camps. So, in my opinion, in its devising as well as in its ultimate operation, the only thing it shares with the Reinhardt camps is geography. Chelmno is, IMO, much more like an AR camp, although both geography and time of operation disqualify it.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
Even if you weren't wrong, which you are -- what is the point of this distinction?

People were forcibly removed to a country other than th one of which they were a citizen, for no better reason than they were considered Jewish, and were never heard from again.

They didn't go anywhere further East, they didn't go back to their homes, they didn't even go back to Germany proper.

What happened to them?

Don't forget to include some of that, you know, evidence thingy in your answer...
.

This from van Pelt's expert report in the Irving Trial, page 70:

"And of course it did not help that no maps showed the name “Birkenau.” Even in
AustroHungarian times, when the town of Oswiecim was also known as Auschwitz, the village the Germans called Birkenau was identified on the official maps with its Polish name: “Brzezinka.” A final issue was that, during the war, Birkenau was officially incorporated in the German Reich. Those who knew about transports of Jews to extermination centers knew that these were located in Poland. The term “Poland” carried the assumption of “German-occupied Poland,” which was the Government General. The resulting confusion aided the Germans to maintain secrecy about Auschwitz as a place of mass extermination."

So it was Birkenau that was incorporated into the Reich, not in the GG. You are right and I am wrong. Hey, there's a first for everything!

So the question of what happened to the Hungarian Jews is that they were sent to Germany to be holocausted. Later they were sent elsewhere in Germany to be holocausted some more.

 

[TSR]

You are right and I am wrong. Hey, there's a first for everything!

.
Yes, but this neither the first nor, unfortunately for you, the last exchange we have had / will have to which your first sentence applies.
.

So the question of what happened to the Hungarian Jews is that they were sent to Germany to be holocausted. Later they were sent elsewhere in Germany to be holocausted some more.

.
Well, since you have still yet to define in rational terms what you mean by the word "holocausted", but are saying (completely without any evidence) that the Hungarian Jews were "sent elsewhere", this would be another of those exchanges.
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

New York Times, January 8, 1945, weeks before Auschwitz was liberated, let alone investigated:

6,000,000 Jews dead.

Number obviously established by Jewish organizations and not by empirical research (the truth after all is a category for sissies).

The number had been floating around for half a century or more.

 

[Wroclaw]

New York Times...

{snip!}

Guys add your questions please in the format below:

1. Hans: Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war.... Give us the details, the date it was sent by who, to whom and what did it say, full and complete details.

2. Hans: Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

3. Hans: 9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

4. Hans: So why didn’t all the horribly terrible countries that wanted to attack Germany not do so? Why didn’t Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Britain and France just all attack in 1933, 34, 35,36,37 or 38 or 39 why sit there and wait for Germany to attack them? Elucidation 9/11?"

5. TSR: Prove a single lie from the *judgments* at Nuremberg.

6. TSR: Prove that Poland fought wars with *all* of its neigbhors for expansion post WWI.

7. TSR: Where in this document which you cited is the word "lebenstraum" even mentioned?

8. TSR: And what did Bullitt say to Cordell Hull in '36 and why?

9. TSR: What evidence does Suvorov cite in his book(s)?

10. TSR: What, specifically, did each of those tens of thousands you admit were shot "in the East" do to deserve being shot?

11. TSR: What does this from your own source do to your citation of Stefan Scheil as authority?

Dabei ignoriere Scheil folgende Tatsachen:
die Hoßbach-Niederschrift vom November 1937, nach der Hitler den Krieg gegen Polen angestrebt und für unvermeidbar erklärt hat,
Hitlers Kriegskurs seit dem Münchner Abkommen 1938,
unannehmbare Forderungen des NS-Regimes an Polen, so dass dessen Regierung eine gegenseitige Grenzgarantie im März 1939 ablehnte,
die „bewusst eskalierten Spannungen mit Polen im Sommer 1939“,
dass die Wehrmacht seit Juni 1939 angriffsbereit war,
dass die „teilweise martialischen Töne“ in Polen bedeutungslos waren, weil den Deutschen ihre reale militärisch-technische Überlegenheit klar war,
Hitlers Rede am 22. August 1939 vor Wehrmachtsgenerälen, in der er zur Zerschlagung Polens und Vernichtung seiner Führungsschicht aufrief und kein Eingreifen der westlichen Bündnispartner Polens erwartete,
dass Stalin Hitler mit dem Hitler-Stalin-Pakt nicht zum Krieg gegen Polen drängte, sondern dessen Angriffswillen für eigene gefahrlose Gebietsgewinne nutzte.

12. TSR: In what way am *I*, personally, an enemy of Europe?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Nevertheless: It is a bald-faced lie to state that anyone ever testified that Jews arrived at the Reinhardt camps, were deloused, and then traveled elsewhere. Quite literally, such testimony, either from SS or survivors, in courtrooms, affidavits, or in private, are nonexistent.

That's because you are not keeping up or refuse to keep up with latest developments in revisionism:

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/.../evidence_for_the_presence_of_gassed_jews.php

The Israelitisches Wochenblatt für die Schweiz (Israelite Weekly for Switzerland)

”For some time there has been a trend toward dissolution of the ghettos in Poland. That was the case with Lublin, then it was Warsaw’s turn. It is not known how far the plan has been carried out already. The former residents of the ghetto are going farther to the east into the occupied Russian territory; Jews from Germany were brought into the ghetto to partly take their place. […] Of late, transports of Jews from Belgium and other western European countries were observed in Riga, but they moved on immediately to other destinations.”

http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/...vidence_for_the_presence_of_gassed_jews_2.php

In the December 1942 issue of Contemporary Jewish Record we read the following concerning the deportations of Jews from Belgium (which commenced in August that year):

"Jews from Malines were sent to Calais and other French coastal points to work on fortifications (Oct. 14), while those from the province of Limburg and other cities were shipped (Oct. 5) to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine. Several hundred others, including women from sixteen to fifty years of age, were exiled (Oct. 29) to the coal mines of Silesia. A report on Oct. 21 stated that 5,500 Antwerp Jews had been deported to the east."185

In the June 1943 issue of the same periodical we read:

"Over 14,000 Jews from Belgium and Holland arrived in Nazi-occupied Ochakov, in Kherson, to do slave labor, Geneva sources reported on April 29."186

These Jews had most likely been transited via Auschwitz (in the case of the Belgian Jews) and Sobibór.[/..

The London-based newspaper ‘France’ carries a notice that 20,000 Jews deported from France have arrived in Bessarabia in a pitiful state. The trains went straight to Kischinev [Chisinau] and Calarisi to deliver the prisoners to the local ghettos there.”QUOTE]

The people from 'Contemporary Jewish Record'... self-hating Jews?

 

[9/11-investigator]

{snip!}

Guys add your questions please in the format below:

1. Hans: Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war.... Give us the details, the date it was sent by who, to whom and what did it say, full and complete details.

2. Hans: Why did 2.8 to 3.3 million Soviet POWs die in Nazi 'care'? More than 50% against 3.5% of western POW taken by the Nazis?

3. Hans: 9/11 give us your vision of the world in 1946 if the English and French hadn't declare war on Germany when it invaded Poland? What would have happened?

4. Hans: So why didn’t all the horribly terrible countries that wanted to attack Germany not do so? Why didn’t Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Britain and France just all attack in 1933, 34, 35,36,37 or 38 or 39 why sit there and wait for Germany to attack them? Elucidation 9/11?"

5. TSR: Prove a single lie from the *judgments* at Nuremberg.

6. TSR: Prove that Poland fought wars with *all* of its neigbhors for expansion post WWI.

7. TSR: Where in this document which you cited is the word "lebenstraum" even mentioned?

8. TSR: And what did Bullitt say to Cordell Hull in '36 and why?

9. TSR: What evidence does Suvorov cite in his book(s)?

10. TSR: What, specifically, did each of those tens of thousands you admit were shot "in the East" do to deserve being shot?

11. TSR: What does this from your own source do to your citation of Stefan Scheil as authority?

Dabei ignoriere Scheil folgende Tatsachen:
die Hoßbach-Niederschrift vom November 1937, nach der Hitler den Krieg gegen Polen angestrebt und für unvermeidbar erklärt hat,
Hitlers Kriegskurs seit dem Münchner Abkommen 1938,
unannehmbare Forderungen des NS-Regimes an Polen, so dass dessen Regierung eine gegenseitige Grenzgarantie im März 1939 ablehnte,
die „bewusst eskalierten Spannungen mit Polen im Sommer 1939“,
dass die Wehrmacht seit Juni 1939 angriffsbereit war,
dass die „teilweise martialischen Töne“ in Polen bedeutungslos waren, weil den Deutschen ihre reale militärisch-technische Überlegenheit klar war,
Hitlers Rede am 22. August 1939 vor Wehrmachtsgenerälen, in der er zur Zerschlagung Polens und Vernichtung seiner Führungsschicht aufrief und kein Eingreifen der westlichen Bündnispartner Polens erwartete,
dass Stalin Hitler mit dem Hitler-Stalin-Pakt nicht zum Krieg gegen Polen drängte, sondern dessen Angriffswillen für eigene gefahrlose Gebietsgewinne nutzte.

12. TSR: In what way am *I*, personally, an enemy of Europe?

Doesn't this forum has anti-spamming rules?

Your message is off-topic and has been copied several times, even while I said I would address them.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744

6. You will not spam, flood or otherwise post in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the Forum, this includes using disruptive formatting in your posts.