Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Locknar]

Ok folks....let's cool it with all the name calling; while this applies to all, TheRedWorm and little grey rabbit - this means you.

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

 

[Loss Leader]

And it certainly means that comparisons to pedophilia are not at all appropriate. That series of posts has been removed and infractions will issue for incivility if the topic reappears.

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

 

[Hans]

H A N D (shown)

 

[LemmyCaution]

5) download this PDF, then go to page 147 of the trial - the volume has a few frontispiece pages, but you should be within about 10 pages of the document, NO-1880.

Thanks Nick. Always fun to re-read Himmler's thoughts on education in occupied Poland.

 

[little grey rabbit]

You should email him. He has had very little time in the archives, and he needs help from you. He traces Madagascar schemes back to the late 1800s, but he fails to mention each and every such notion of European anti-semites, so perhaps you can straighten him out?

Right, so which author do you think gives the more appropriate discussion of the context.

Peter Longerich
The idea that it would be possible to ‘export’ large numbers of European
Jews to Madagascar of all places had enjoyed a certain resonance in the anti-Semitic circles of various European countries since the end of the nineteenth century. Such ‘Madagascar Projects’ were combined with various other ambitions and were vigorously revived after 1937/8 not only by leading National Socialist functionaries,but by politicians of other countries, too, and by the speculations of the international press.83 On the German side these utopian,impracticable notions were to some extent turned into concrete plans in early summer 1940.



or Theodore Hamerow

In September 1936, Colonel Jozef Beck, the minister for foreign affairs in Warsaw, raised the question of Jewish emigration before the League of Nations, demanding that facilities be provided for the annual departure of between 80,000 and 100,000 Jews from Poland. In response to such demands, a commission was sent the following spring to investigate the possibility of Jewish migration to Madagascar, which was widely regarded as a suitable site for the resettlement of European Jewry, in part because it was so far from Europe. When the plan was finally abandoned early in 1938, Polish diplomacy began to consider alternatives, some of them rather surprising. In the fall of that same Year, Jozef Lipski, Warsaw's ambassador to Germany, reported a conversation in which Hitler had said that "he has in mind an idea of settling the Jewish problem by way of emigration to the colonies in accordance with an understanding with Poland, Hungary, and possibly also Rumania." Lipski's reply was jocular but certainly not dismissive. "I told him that if he finds such a solution, we will erect .... a beautiful monument [to him] in Warsaw." There was no reason that even diplomatic opponents should not work together to solve a serious common problem.

To pretend that Nazis proposing a colony in Madagascar was the equivalent of gassing or just one step removed, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Not disputing that, chickpea. But if the reason I was here was solely to promote it, I wouldn't be stuck in Conspiracy Theories but roaming around Religion and Philosopy, Comuters and other branches. I assume 25 people read this thread tops.

Given the sentence that precedes the link (Read more truly appalling revelations about Auschwitz here), this forums is you only real chance of anyone clicking on it. R&P would ensure than no one would visit.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Right, so which author do you think gives the more appropriate discussion of the context.

Longerich was discussing the National Socialists, not the history of the notion or European anti-semitism. His book was on the development National Socialist Jewish policy. I don't know the other book or its focus. Not knowing both books I can only say that Longerich's discussion was appropriate to his purpose.

To pretend that Nazis proposing a colony in Madagascar was the equivalent of gassing or just one step removed, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I do not believe that Longerich mentions gas chambers or makes the claim you attribute to him. Can you show where you get this? Longerich's point was that the scheme would result in widespread death - and was thus annihilatory.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Longerich was discussing the National Socialists, not the history of the notion or European anti-semitism. His book was on the development National Socialist Jewish policy. I don't know the other book or its focus. Not knowing both books I can only say that Longerich's discussion was appropriate to his purpose.

I do not believe that Longerich mentions gas chambers or makes the claim you attribute to him. Can you show where you get this? Longerich's point was that the scheme would result in widespread death - and was thus annihilatory.

Which is clearly wrong, unless Longerich is also claiming that Colonel Beck's intention was also annihilatory when he raised it at the League of Nations.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Which is clearly wrong, unless Longerich is also claiming that Colonel Beck's intention was also annihilatory when he raised it at the League of Nations.

Did Col Beck have a colleague in cooperative competition with him suggesting that the Jews - 6+ million of them - be held on Madagascar in a super-ghetto, under security police guard, as hostages and subjected to reprisals should Jews in foreign countries oppose Germany? "From a German perspective, the Madagascar solution means the creation of a huge ghetto. Only the security police have the necessary experience in this filed; they have the means to prevent a break-out from the island. In addition, they have experience of carrying out in an appropriate manner such punishment measures as become necessary as a result of hostile actions against Germany by Jews in the USA." Rademacher, Plan for a Solution to the Jewish Question, 2 July 1940. You see, the two are not strictly comparable in that Beck was not thinking, as were Rademacher and Heydrich "from a German perspective."

 

[LemmyCaution]

Which is clearly wrong, unless Longerich is also claiming that Colonel Beck's intention was also annihilatory when he raised it at the League of Nations.

What is clearly wrong - and clearly intentionally misleading - is your implication that Longerich invoked gas chambers. I would think of that as something like the height of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Calling people conformists is like saying they're brainwashed. You are not going to convince anyone if you simply insult them.

The 'classic' JREF member is interested in debunking extraordinary claims like extrasensory perception, telepathy, ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot and so on. That's what JREF does, that's what organised skepticism was about at the beginning. Since then, all sorts of other things have become regular subjects for discussion, but that's how it started, right?

Now it so happens that your claims, Holocaust revisionism, have been judged to be extraordinary claims. You call the Holocaust a 'hoax', i.e. a conspiracy. A conspiracy claim is an extraordinary claim whether you like it or not.

I want to leave aside the content for the moment and just point out the form. If you come onto a forum where a common mantra is 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof', then it really, really helps if you distinguish yourself from the ESP, Bigfoot, UFO etc advocates and from the Moon Hoaxers, creationists and 9/11 Truthers.

Some of those beliefs I just mentioned are wrong, aren't they? You can't possibly believe in all of them. But you come on here, and the revisionists act in what is seen as a virtually identical way to the advocates of silly beliefs. So you're quite unsurprisingly lumped in with them.

This means, either JREF is the absolute worst place to proselytise Holocaust revisionism, and somewhere else is a much better bet, or if you're going to stick around, that you pay attention to your surroundings, and realise how you are coming across - no differently to woo-woos who believe in obvious tripe.

It doesn't matter whether you think your belief is the absolute truth or not. Everyone who advocates a fringe belief thinks they have the truth, irrespective of the topic.

Again, I am not talking about the content here, but the form and the presentation. Both of which are utterly terrible.



Firstly: JREF has another 2700 active members other than myself. I have been saying that it's simply a fact that you are not convincing any of them. Now, either you retreat to insulting the entire membership, or you acknowledge that maybe you could do a better job of selling yourself and convincing people. Putting the blame entirely onto other people looks suspiciously like a refusal to engage with reality. I'm not saying you can't factor in the 'tough crowd' here, but if you are unable to assess your own tactics and your own success in convincing people, then you're not going to succeed in what you supposedly want to do, are you?

Let me put it another way. Saggy, you have amassed a fairly healthy number of yellow cards and suspensions while you've been here. Maybe you have learned from those infractions and have realised that you cannot get away with certain things while you are on this forum. So presumably you have adjusted your style to make sure that you are not suspended and eventually banned, which would be game over. If you wanted to commit suicide by mod you'd have done it months ago, so I assume you want to stick around.

But not being suspended is only half the battle. You keep posting but you don't become any more convincing. Moreover, you have a track record here. You're now up to more than 1,300 posts, you've been here for 23 months. It's a safe bet that the vast majority of forum members have dismissed you as 'a cranky Holocaust denier', many will have placed you on ignore. And that's where you'll remain if you keep doing the exact same things you've been doing for the last 23 months.



Oh spare us the cryptic drama. What you want to bring about requires an immense number of steps to achieve a major transformation in how western society understands WWII. It is not vulnerable to your fantasy guerrilla group.

And again: you say it's absurd, over and over again, but nearly everyone else here rejects that label. Simply saying "it's absurd" and then repeating the same examples you've repeated 50 times already isn't effective. It really isn't. It's simply tedious.



So what are you going to do about it? Continue in the exact same vein until you drop dead?



Saying "waking them up" is the exact same thing as "convincing" people. And you know, if you don't understand academia, this may be one reason why your cause has failed so miserably to convince academics. It really is PR 101 that you tailor your message to the relevant audience. Different audiences expect different things.

Academics are going to want to be convinced by proper scholarship presented in a conventional form. They don't generally do YouTube videos or anything like that. They do books. That much ought to be obvious. So yeah, you have your 'Holocaust Handbooks', but have you actually tried comparing them with other academic texts in history? I'm not even talking about history books on the Holocaust. I'm talking about other books on the 20th Century.

There are actually rather a lot of academics, and a fair number of academic historians. I have mentioned before that there are half a million faculty in the US alone, and of that number, you guys can claim the allegiance of maybe three people, one of whom is on the verge of retirement/death and another is a Muslim and thus obviously endorses revisionism out of partisan motivations.

There is no conspiracy to shut revisionism out of universities, Saggy. Revisionism does that all by itself by not following proper academic and intellectual procedure. Which means either the gurus learn what those things are, or they remain shut out.




Ask Mark Weber? The guy who shut down the IHR's revisionist efforts to concentrate on anti-Zionism? That Mark Weber?



OK, this is one reason why you are not going to make any more headway with your current approach. You seem not to realise that an awful lot of people, in fact probably the majority of people in western society, don't see the connection. They see the Holocaust as something belonging to history. And that's how it's experienced most of the time. Holocaust in one box, Middle Eastern conflict in another box.

You know, the overwhelming majority of anti-Zionists are not also revisionists. They're surely your prime target audience, and they're not convinced by you.

I'd say you've got an awful lot of rethinking to do, Saggy.

Perception is key here. I'm sure the 4 or so of us have a large following of member and non member lurkers. I'm positive many more have come and gone after being awakened to the Holocaust lies and fabrications with nary a post.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Did Col Beck have a colleague in cooperative competition with him suggesting that the Jews - 6+ million of them - be held on Madagascar in a super-ghetto, under security police guard, as hostages and subjected to reprisals should Jews in foreign countries oppose Germany? "From a German perspective, the Madagascar solution means the creation of a huge ghetto. Only the security police have the necessary experience in this filed; they have the means to prevent a break-out from the island. In addition, they have experience of carrying out in an appropriate manner such punishment measures as become necessary as a result of hostile actions against Germany by Jews in the USA." Rademacher, Plan for a Solution to the Jewish Question, 2 July 1940. You see, the two are not strictly comparable in that Beck was not thinking, as were Rademacher and Heydrich "from a German perspective."

Rademacher....was this the same Rademacher that was recruited by Mossad to spy on the Syrian government - according to Richard Breitmann?

In February and March 1962, Rechenberg and Servatius had tried to get Rademacher to testify on Eichmann's behalf or at least provide evidence, but Rademacher refused to meet Servatius even secretly in Cyprus. The reason, he said, was the recent attempt on his friend Brunner's life, and the fact that he himself could get kidnapped. In the meantime, Rademacher had begun spying on Syria for another foreign government (the name of which is redacted), providing information on Syrian politics to his handlers through the open mail.

Gives new meaning to the term "German perspective".

Anyway under a fearsome cross from David Irving, Peter Longerich crumbled

7 Q. [Mr Irving] Dr Longerich, one final question before the adjournment. Are you aware that the population in Madagascar has increased from about 2 million to 13 million over the period?
A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] I looked it up because this was always said. 4 million in 30s to 30 million indeed in the 1990s, yes.
Q. [Mr Irving] So that kind of population could have been absorbed?
A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] Yes

 

[Loss Leader]

To pretend that Nazis proposing a colony in Madagascar was the equivalent of gassing or just one step removed, is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I consider the height of intellectual dishonesty to be the construction of strawmen for the mere purpose of destroying them and then pretending one has accomplished anything.

Both of the quotes you cited support the premise that the Nazis wanted very badly to have no more Jews in Europe. They also support the premise that deportation to Madagascar was an unworkable solution. It is reasonable to assume the Nazis kept searching for a final solution.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Of course none of your comments on Rademacher speak to his report and its contemporary reception.

Why don't you quote more completely and honestly, I wonder? From Longerich's Irving trial testimony:

MR IRVING: I was going to ask the witness. He is rather dismissive of the plan.
A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] In which sense feasible? You mean to provide a place where 4 million Jews could have a happy life? In this sense feasible?
Q. [Mr Irving] Happier life.
A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] Or feasible in the sense of an SS police state, so to say a big prison, with a high death rate? In this sense I would say, yes, it was feasible. We have contemporary examinations about this problem. For instance, the Polish Jewish Commission which was sent to Madagascar in 37, they came back with a recommendation that, as one member put it, Madagascar would offer a place for about 50 to 75,000 people. The Jewish members of this Commission did not agree. They said 2,000 probably. So this is contemporary evidence we have. I would say clearly that I doubt that 4 million Jews would have the chance to survive this, if I may say, excursion to Madagascar in 1940.
Q. [Mr Irving] Dr Longerich, one final question before the adjournment. Are you aware that the population in Madagascar has increased from about 2 million to 13 million over the period?
A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] I looked it up because this was always said. 4 million in 30s to 30 million indeed in the 1990s, yes.
Q. [Mr Irving] So that kind of population could have been absorbed?
A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] Yes, within 50 years, with an infrastructure and so on, of course. Experience shows that.

You forgot (ahem) to add the ellipses points - I guess you had to in order to create the "crumbling effect."

And what was Longerich's argument? That the time span for the deportation and settlement was nowhere near 50 years and that the infrastructure would not be provided, at least no more than a ghetto-type infrastructure. Not to mention your treatment of this subject is as though you take it to be the most natural and usual thing in the world to deport 4-6 million people and hold them as hostages on a remote island far from where they have lived for generations. The question all this raises is not about Rademacher, not about Longerich but about you and your mendacity.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Of course none of your comments on Rademacher speak to his report and its contemporary reception.

Why don't you quote more completely and honestly, I wonder? From Longerich's Irving trial testimony:

You forgot (ahem) to add the ellipses points - I guess you had to in order to create the "crumbling effect."

And what was Longerich's argument? That the time span for the deportation and settlement was nowhere near 50 years and that the infrastructure would not be provided, at least no more than a ghetto-type infrastructure. Not to mention your treatment of this subject is as though you take it to be the most natural and usual thing in the world to deport 4-6 million people and hold them as hostages on a remote island far from where they have lived for generations. The question all this raises is not about Rademacher, not about Longerich but about you and your mendacity.

Natural or not, it was common at the time to discuss such schemes - and not just by anti-semites. Places that were drafted as the new Jewish homeland include a number of absurdities such as Uganda, Central Asian Siberia, Palestine and the south-west corner of Tasmania.

http://www.exploreaustralia.net.au/images/content/rec/71/35735-1000x800.jpg

What is most extraordinary is one of those hare-brained schemes did manage to get up to an area noted for its high incidence of malaria and other tropical diseases and a climate seen as unsuited for European civilisation, as well as limited water supplies restricting agriculture. Which just goes anything is possible, if not sensible.

Actually I more interested in how and why schemes for an African solution were dropped. Could it be that the Rats of Tobruk might have played a role?

Tobruk was relieved on November 1941 and Rommel pushed all the way back to near today's Brega - signalling the end of his first offensive. At such a point capturing the Suez canal and ending Britain's ME stranglehold must have seemed unlikely (although Rommel had another crack next year). Without the Suez (and presumably Gibralter) any implementation of a Madagascar solution was impossible. That would make the Australians the unlikely saviours of the Jewish presence in Europe.

It seems to me that by retaining Transnistria as one of the areas of Jewish concentration, that at least some hedging of bets was going on initially that a maritime solution could be found. Transnistria having relatively easy access to the Black Sea.

Gerlach discusses plans to use the canal systems in the Bug, Pripyet and Dnieper to transport Jews, which might have represented more bet hedging.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I consider the height of intellectual dishonesty to be the construction of strawmen for the mere purpose of destroying them and then pretending one has accomplished anything.

Both of the quotes you cited support the premise that the Nazis wanted very badly to have no more Jews in Europe.

Indeed, for some Nazis it was central to their program. For others I think it was not important at all - and at times they seem a little bit mystified by it.

They also support the premise that deportation to Madagascar was an unworkable solution.

No more unworkable than Palestine - given the right circumstances. Not, in my view, a desirable solution. In fact, in my view, there was not really a problem. Quite possibly a forced relocation of large numbers of Jews would be every bit as deadly as the forced relocation of Germans 1944-1948. But as a "solution" that is the category it belongs to.

It is reasonable to assume the Nazis kept searching for a final solution.

I will leave you to determine for yourself what is reasonable or not - so long as we all understand it is an assumption and not supported by policy documents.

I think this sub-branch of the discussion was a proposal that NO-1880 represented a planning document in Nazi Jewish Policy - in fact reading it shows that the mention of Jews is both vague and incidental and it is more concerned with the slavic minor ethnicities.

The document is somewhat schizophrenic as on one hand it talks about promoting the smaller and marginal ethnicities at the expense of Poles - which is similar to what Germany tried to do in the USSR. In fact, it is probably a feature of German politics towards the East from the 18th to the 21st century - attempting to undermine any movements to pan-Slavic identity and promoting the identity and autonomy of smaller ethnic units. And then simultaneously it claims these ethnicities should disappear in 4 or 5 years.

 

[Wroclaw]

Perception is key here. I'm sure the 4 or so of us have a large following of member and non member lurkers. I'm positive many more have come and gone after being awakened to the Holocaust lies and fabrications with nary a post.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[Wroclaw]

Rademacher....was this the same Rademacher that was recruited by Mossad to spy on the Syrian government - according to Richard Breitmann?

Bit of a stretch on your part — and a bigger stretch to attribute that to Breitman (note spelling) when he clearly doesn't say that at all.

Let's see who could have been spying on Syria in 1962, OK? Particularly considering that this was a point before which Israel had come into direct conflict with Syria.

Egypt, for one, could have been spying, considering the fallout of Syria's defection the previous year from the U.A.R. Iraq could have been spying based on its similar political problems with Ba'athists. The Turks could have been spying, as they've been a perennial power player in that region.

But you know who it's far more likely that Breitman was implying? That the U.S. had hired Rademacher. If you'd read the book, you'd know that.

Anyway under a fearsome cross from David Irving, Peter Longerich crumbled

By admitting that a third world country underwent massive population growth over thirty years?

What color is the sky in YOUR world?

 

[joolz]

I used to think that about conspiracists in general, but I know better now. And these guys are the worst of all.

I know exactly how you feel.

Thank you, but my contributions to this thread have been rather modest; mainly demonstrating that CM's claim that vacuum asphyxiation is a much more economical method of extermination than lethal gas is completely wrong. I have a BA in American and European history; I have a lot of general knowledge about World War II, and very in-depth knowledge of certain aspects of the war. However, Nick Terry probably knows at least 10 times as much as I do about the Holocaust, and LemmyCaution and Wroclaw (plus some others I may be omitting) are also considerably more knowledgeable than I.

And Belsen wasn't even an extermination camp. That's just how the Nazis treated people they wanted to (at least temporarily) keep alive.

Your post caught my eye which is why I mentioned you, but I'd also like to thank the others very much too. I don't have your expert knowledge in that area, but I recently visited Sachsenhausen to lay flowers at the memorial for the Royal Marine Commandos who were murdered there, despite being captured in uniform, and I was horrified by what I learned.

I understand about the distinctions in the types of camps, but my dad was a strong man and if the sights as they relieved Belsen caused him so much distress then I'd expect that there was a very thin line between being 'kept alive' or dying at Belsen.

Thanks for your intelligent posts here, even if you can't persuade these clowns that they are misguided, at least people coming into the thread can see that they cannot spread their lies without decent people challenging them.

joolz

 

[Robrob]

Perception is key here. I'm sure the 4 or so of us have a large following of member and non member lurkers. I'm positive many more have come and gone after being awakened to the Holocaust lies and fabrications with nary a post.

What color is the sky in your world?

The same claim made by every CT who never manages to prove his point and embarrasses himself at every turn, "at least I'm convincing the lurkers..."

I understand about the distinctions in the types of camps, but my dad was a strong man and if the sights as they relieved Belsen caused him so much distress then I'd expect that there was a very thin line between being 'kept alive' or dying at Belsen.

Remember, this is the same CT who claimed the Germans were genetically incapable of brutality so it must have been Russian lies.