Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

If you can find us a statement which discusses the killing of Japanese children retrospectively, as something that has happened, then and only then can you have your analogy.

Sadly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind . . . not the same, but not empty rhetoric either.

 

[LemmyCaution]

If you don't tell us what happened to them, then nobody is going to give a flying monkey's about your position, since it will not replace the current version of history with a new explanation.

He is really running from the promise he himself dangled when he tried telling uke2se about deportations. I was hopeful for a moment . . .

And as FluffyPersian notes, he hasn't begun to answer my specific questions, let alone put forward a comprehensible, coherent, sourced alternative explanation for even a small part of the Holocaust.

 

[tsig]

"U.S. land forces on Guadalcanal island are contuing a slow-moving but relentless campaign to exterminate a steadily weakening enemy, the navy disclosed today" Eugene Register-Guard Dec. 4, 1942

"It took 2900 tons of explosives, millions of rounds of machine-gun bulllets, 1026 Americans killed and 2557 wounded to exterminate the Japanese who held a mile square spot of land in the Gilbert Island group." Miami News Dec 4, 1943

"Halsey, asked about the attitude of the Japanese fighting men whom he has defeated in the south Pacific, declared that "the Japanese still are like rats and fight until they are exterminated. We are perfectly willing to exterminate them. If they want to die for the dear old emperor we are still perfectly willing to kill them.'" Spokane Daily Chronicle July 25, 1944

"Governor Ernest Gruening of Alaska, in an interview Thursday, said the doom of the Japanese on the island of Kiska in the Aleutians was sealed and it was not "a matter of can we exterminate them, it's just a matter of when.'" The Calgary Herald July 2, 1943

"...preparatory to a newly unified and intensified Allied blow to exterminate the Japanese in northern Burma." Youngstown Vindicator May 22, 1944

"Brig. Gen. Claire L. Chennault pledged himself and the American China Air Task Force today to drive the Japanese from China 'or exterminate him.'" The Rock Hill Herald Dec. 18, 1944

"The Japanese Foreign Minister Masayuki Tani, addressed the Japanese people on the subject ''The resolve to exterminate and overwhelm America and Britain.'" The Evening Independent Dec. 7. 1942

"Maj. Gen. Ralph A. Mitchell, director of marine aviation, said in an interview that the Japanese will have to be exterminated on Guadalcanal before the United States will be able to occupy other islands to the north." Eugene-Register-Guard Dec 4, 1942

"Stimson's report and the navy's communique indicated that if the weather remains good for flying, the task of exterminating the Japanese intruders will be greatly expedited" The Bulletin May 27, 1943


It sounds like both sides are capable of ratcheting up the chest thumping dominant male monkey rhetoric about the enemy during times of war. This is just a sample of public pronouncements about the United States plan to exterminate the Japanese that appeared in the press. Imagine what we could find if our access to American and British wartime documents was as complete as our access to German documents! I'm sorry to interrupt..what were you saying about Porno or Possum or Posies or what was it again?

Are you trying to prove that exterminate does not mean to kill? If so you have gotten the wrong series of quotes.

 

[Robrob]

"U.S. land forces on Guadalcanal island are contuing a slow-moving but relentless campaign to exterminate a steadily weakening enemy, the navy disclosed today" Eugene Register-Guard Dec. 4, 1942

"It took 2900 tons of explosives, millions of rounds of machine-gun bulllets, 1026 Americans killed and 2557 wounded to exterminate the Japanese who held a mile square spot of land in the Gilbert Island group." Miami News Dec 4, 1943

"Halsey, asked about the attitude of the Japanese fighting men whom he has defeated in the south Pacific, declared that "the Japanese still are like rats and fight until they are exterminated. We are perfectly willing to exterminate them. If they want to die for the dear old emperor we are still perfectly willing to kill them.'" Spokane Daily Chronicle July 25, 1944

"Governor Ernest Gruening of Alaska, in an interview Thursday, said the doom of the Japanese on the island of Kiska in the Aleutians was sealed and it was not "a matter of can we exterminate them, it's just a matter of when.'" The Calgary Herald July 2, 1943

"...preparatory to a newly unified and intensified Allied blow to exterminate the Japanese in northern Burma." Youngstown Vindicator May 22, 1944

"Brig. Gen. Claire L. Chennault pledged himself and the American China Air Task Force today to drive the Japanese from China 'or exterminate him.'" The Rock Hill Herald Dec. 18, 1944

"The Japanese Foreign Minister Masayuki Tani, addressed the Japanese people on the subject ''The resolve to exterminate and overwhelm America and Britain.'" The Evening Independent Dec. 7. 1942

"Maj. Gen. Ralph A. Mitchell, director of marine aviation, said in an interview that the Japanese will have to be exterminated on Guadalcanal before the United States will be able to occupy other islands to the north." Eugene-Register-Guard Dec 4, 1942

"Stimson's report and the navy's communique indicated that if the weather remains good for flying, the task of exterminating the Japanese intruders will be greatly expedited" The Bulletin May 27, 1943


It sounds like both sides are capable of ratcheting up the chest thumping dominant male monkey rhetoric about the enemy during times of war. This is just a sample of public pronouncements about the United States plan to exterminate the Japanese that appeared in the press. Imagine what we could find if our access to American and British wartime documents was as complete as our access to German documents! I'm sorry to interrupt..what were you saying about Porno or Possum or Posies or what was it again?

I find it hard to believe you would honestly compare use of "exterminate" in describing armed combat between militaries and "exterminate" in describing a governments actions against a helpless ethnic group.

That you tried to make the comparison indicates to me a level of deception and lack of integrity not previously seen from you.

 

[Nick Terry]

That you tried to make the comparison indicates to me a level of deception and lack of integrity not previously seen from you.

Much like virtually everything else coming out of his virtual mouth these days, Dogzilla tried this deception on before. It doesn't wash-rinse-repeat, though. It just repeats.

 

[LemmyCaution]

"Halsey, asked about the attitude of the Japanese fighting men whom he has defeated in the south Pacific, declared that "the Japanese still are like rats and fight until they are exterminated. We are perfectly willing to exterminate them. If they want to die for the dear old emperor we are still perfectly willing to kill them.'" Spokane Daily Chronicle July 25, 1944

I think it is pretty clear that Dogzilla has proven beyond doubt the Ausrottung means extermination as in killing.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but to reiterate that we are not playing rhetorical games here with regard to the meaning of exterminate in the Pacific theater, Dogzilla quotes "Halsey," that is Admiral "Bull" Halsey, who commanded the US Navy's Third Fleet until Jan '45, passing command to Admiral Spruance at that time - and resuming it in May '45.

From Feb - Aug '45 it was the ships of this fleet, sometimes under the command of Spruance and from May onward under Halsey, that shelled various cities along the coast of Japan, while B-29s and other airplanes bombed them, the fleet contributing off and on, for example, to the 100,000+ civilian deaths in Tokyo alone, where historians conclude over half the city was destroyed during the 7-8 months of attacks that continued until Japan surrendered.

Of the raids on Tokyo one night in March, Wikipedia has it that "The firebombing of Tokyo on the night of March 9/10, 1945 was the single deadliest air raid of World War II; greater than Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki as single events."

Ships from the fleet provided devastating cover at Iwo Jima, with the heavy Japanese casualties mentioned by Nick.

Halsey wasn't kidding about exterminating the enemy, non-combatants, as it turns out, along with combatants. When Halsey said extermination, he meant killing in large numbers. Thus, as Dogzilla has shown, extermination means extermination, in German and in English.

 

[Robrob]

Halsey wasn't kidding about exterminating the enemy, non-combatants, as it turns out, along with combatants. When Halsey said extermination, he meant killing in large numbers. Thus, as Dogzilla has shown, extermination means extermination, in German and in English.

So essentially Dogzilla is admitting the Germans were engaged in an existential war of extermination against their own unarmed citizens - of Jewish blood?

Got it.

 

[Clayton Moore]

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

Just after the German defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad, Gestapo had arrested the last of the Jews in Berlin during the Fabrikaktion. Around 1,800 Jewish men, almost all of them married to non-Jewish women (others being the so-called Geltungsjuden), were separated from the other 6,000 of the arrested, and housed temporarily at Rosenstraße 2–4, a welfare office for the Jewish community located in Central Berlin.
Unbalanced scales.svg
An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message. (January 2011)

According to the German historian Wolf Gruner (in his book Der geschlossene Arbeitseinsatz deutscher Juden : zur Zwangsarbeit als Element der Verfolgung 1938-1943, Berlin : Metropol, c1997), the reason for the separation of these men was that they were not to be deported, since they were exempt from deportation because of their privileged status as spouses of Germans. Rather, they were being held for a period of time so that new officials of the various legal Jewish organizations could be selected from among them, to replace those of the existing officials who were not married to Germans had been dismissed from their posts prior to deportation. However, the purpose of their confinement was not publicly known, and the rumor spread that they were to be deported, along with the unprivileged Jews who had been arrested; because of that rumor, the wives and other close relatives of many of them turned up on the street near the building. For a week, the protesters, mainly women, demanded their husbands back by holding a peaceful protest. The protesters appeared first in ones and twos; afterwards their number grew rapidly, and perhaps a total of 6000 participated at one time or another.

Once the process of selecting new officials for the Jewish organizations had been completed, the men confined were released, giving rise to the incorrect impression that their release had been due to the women's protest. 25 of the men had been sent to Auschwitz by mistake, but due to their privileged status they had been kept separate from the camp inmate population, pending a decision on their treatment; all were sent back to Germany. Almost all the released men survived the war.

Even as we discuss Rosenstrasse it's being massaged to get the PROPER message across.

 

[TSR]

Even as we discuss Rosenstrasse it's being massaged to get the PROPER message across.

.
In the sense that "PROPER" means "truthful and accurate", yes.

That's how History and *real* revision of the same works.

As contrasted with your own posts which represent working backward from the conclusion using material you have been spoon fed which supports your preemptive conclusion regardless of the truth value involved.

Such as your posted claims regarding a word in a language you have no understanding of: What does extirpate mean? What happens to a plant after it is torn up by the roots? And why is it that no native speaker of German has ever even tried to suggest that "ausrottung" involves "evacuation?"
.

 

[Mynott]

What strikes me about the discussion so far how Team Holohauxers melt when it comes to explaining for example the whereabouts of Lithuanian Jewry re The Jagaer Report in which the effect of Einsatz commando 3 was to decimate the Jewish population there.Like , the so called Transit camp that was Treblinka where also were deported East to exactly where we are not told.As a potential security issue near or in a combat zone which SS unit or other precisely had over site of this immense throng of Jews.? What became of them.? Who fed them?.Did the advancing Russian Armies have something to say about it.?
There is something familiar about this.A strong sense of Deju vu.Yes , accounting for the disappearance of the passengers and flight crews of especially Flights 93 and 175 that form part of the plane swap/ no plane theory.Like the fate of the deported Jews East 9/11 Truthers are singularly vague and non committal. On a local Forum they simply gives up and says ,"unknown".I take it it is the same with the Team Holohoaxers?

 

[Robrob]

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

Even as we discuss Rosenstrasse it's being massaged to get the PROPER message across.

Uh, you do understand the concept of "scholarly research?" That and the fact it's WIKIPEDIA and not the Encyclopedia Britannica or something published in a peer reviewed journal, right?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Uh, you do understand the concept of "scholarly research?" That and the fact it's WIKIPEDIA and not the Encyclopedia Britannica or something published in a peer reviewed journal, right?

I also see about a half dozen incongruities in the three freaking paragraphs which were OK with team Holocaust.

 

[uke2se]

I also see about a half dozen incongruities in the three freaking paragraphs which were OK with team Holocaust.

Wikipedia is run by the Joos then?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Wikipedia is run by the Joos then?

As everyone can plainly see, the only people who involve Jewish people as miscreants at every turn are Team Holocaust.

 

[uke2se]

As everyone can plainly see, the only people who involve Jewish people as miscreants at every turn are Team Holocaust.

But "Team Holocaust" is run by the Joos?

 

[Dogzilla]

Good thing the facts are on his side then.

If facts were on his side, he wouldn't need to use veiled threats. Obviously he doesn't think the facts support his position. What is interesting is why he thinks six million Jews not being exterminated is so offensive that people who say it need to be beaten.

 

[Dogzilla]

Well then you should, first, stop making claims about Nazi policy and its implementation and that the Jews were deported and resettled, that they were caught up in antipartisan warfare, or that they killed in excesses and, second, stop posting here.

Your lack of caring transfers over into your lack of knowledge - which enables you to make claims you can't back up - your bothering to make claims at all being odd in that you don't care - and into your strawmanning, as you continually do, not having even read the core works, the narrative for the Holocaust.

We know, of course, you don't care about the Jews as people, or where they went or what happened to them - but that isn't the question: if you want to argue that the National Socialist policy was deportation, and that the National Socialists implemented a resettlement program, you have to have a better answer to where and how you know than "I don't care." If you want to be anything other than a running gag.

First of all, you are the one who keeps using the d-word. If you want to convince people that Nazi Germany had a policy of exterminating all the Jews, you need evidence of that. Not evidence that they were deported.

If you want to ask "where did they all go?" and you want an answer more substantial than "they went the same place the two and half million Auschwitz victims went in 1989" you need to provide evidence they were there to start with. Team holocaust has failed completely in providing an accounting of the Jews in Europe before the war and after the war. How did the Hungarian government define "Jew" for census purposes? How did Poland define "Jew?" How about Russia? When did they conduct the last census of Jewish population before the war? Who conducted it and what was its purpose? Anybody who says there were eleven million Jews in Europe because that's what my Nazi heroes said at Wannsee gets an automatic fail.

Then there's the problem of estimating Jewish population in Europe after the war. Nick tells us that he doesn't know nor does he care when Westerners were first able to inspect Auschwitz. According to Nick, whatever was done by way of museum representations under communism and any ridiculous death toll estimates promoted by the Soviets is relevant only to a dead era. Is it safe for me to assume that none of you know or care when the first independent census of the Jewish population was conducted for the parts of Europe that ended up under Soviet control? So we can assume that any census of the Jewish population conducted by a post war communist government is only relevant to a dead era as well, right? So how do you know how many Jews there were in the Eastern bloc after the war?

See, you simply don't have any meaningful population statistics upon which you can estimate Jewish population losses. So for the moronic "where did they go?" gambit to have any relevance you need to provide an one-to-one accounting of the Jewish population showing us where the Jews who survived went so we know who is missing and who isn't.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Uh, you do understand the concept of "scholarly research?" That and the fact it's WIKIPEDIA and not the Encyclopedia Britannica or something published in a peer reviewed journal, right?

In fact, this article is rated just above Stub, the lowest quality rating on Wiki's scale. It is a Start-Class article, which means:

The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:

A particularly useful picture or graphic
Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article

It also lacks references, according to Wiki guidelines. I had recommended an entire page in a scholar's book (Friedlander) but did see the merit of having Clayton and Dogzilla take baby steps with Wiki, as I thought that the Friedlander might be over their depth. Notice too how Wiki suspiciously calls for the clean-up in a deceptive manner, opening it to all readers and publicly announcing it.

 

[uke2se]

If facts were on his side, he wouldn't need to use veiled threats. Obviously he doesn't think the facts support his position. What is interesting is why he thinks six million Jews not being exterminated is so offensive that people who say it need to be beaten.

The reason for his "veiled threats" is that he finds you Nazi fanboys to be repulsive examples of humanity. It has nothing to do with him not thinking he has the facts on his side.

 

[LemmyCaution]

First of all, you are the one who keeps using the d-word. If you want to convince people that Nazi Germany had a policy of exterminating all the Jews, you need evidence of that. Not evidence that they were deported.

Stop being silly. By 1942, and in a great many cases, Jews from many places in Europe were brought to the place of execution by deportation. The trains were taking victims in their 1000s to death camps. If you don't know this part of the "official" story, you are worse off than I imagined.

This is not to say that every transport went to a death camp or that, even by 1942, the only means of death was gassing. Open-air shootings, for example, continued - and re-escalated, for example, in Belorussia. But deportation was a step in the extermination process for over 2.5 million Jews.

Your little "deportation versus death" game is both silly and a dead-end. You are either deeply ignorant of the "official" story - or trolling pathetically.

If you want to ask "where did they all go?" and you want an answer more substantial than "they went the same place the two and half million Auschwitz victims went in 1989" you need to provide evidence they were there to start with.

Not exactly. You need to show why the census and other population data are wrong, if you want to make the case that large numbers of Jews were not in Vilna, Lodz, Warsaw, Kiev, and Riga. There are good estimates of the numbers of Jews in each of these cities for various times throughout WW2. If you doubt them, please show us why and correct the demographers and historians.

You seem to doubting, to take one example we have been discussing, that 60,000+ Jews lived in Vilna in June 1941. If you are, please state that you are and explain why. Here is my take on Vilna, which you will also need to keep in mind:

The Germans' 403rd Security Division recorded 80,000 Jews in Vilno when it occupied the city in July 1941 - probably an overestimate but clearly indicating that 10s of 1000s of Jews lived in Vilna at the time. And Jaeger's maths have 21,000+ Jews murdered by EK 3 from 8 August to end of November. So, understanding your gambit, picked up from denier literature, the game "were Jews there in the first place?" runs into a little difficulty in Vilna and the other cities you won't discuss. In the case of Vilna, as you can see, it is that various census data, summarized in Arad and elsewhere AND German sources put the number of Jews in the city when the Germans occupied it at over 60,000 - and that various German and other sources give specific numbers of Jews reduced, let's say, from that starting population. That is what you need to deal with, not your other confused speculation.

Team holocaust has failed completely in providing an accounting of the Jews in Europe before the war and after the war.

I don't know about Team Holocaust or the discussion you refer to. At any rate, you are bringing up something you and I haven't discussed - I would prefer we go through Vilna and the four other cities I mentioned before we get too far afield. As you recall, I asked you in detail about Vilna and the four other cities; I did that for a purpose, which was to have a focused discussion where we can look at a manageable number of sources. Before you confuse yourself, let's stick with those examples. Heck, I'd be happy if you could focus on Vilna and finish that discussion properly before we move onto Lodz, Warsaw, Kiev, and Riga. Again, we have seen that more than 60,000 Jews lived in Vilna in June 1941 and that Karl Jaeger accounted for 21,000+ deaths - and other German documents add to that total. Kindly explain the fate of these Jews, which I estimated to be 33,000 in number. If my maths are off, show me where - keeping in mind that you are contending with German as well as other sources.

See, you simply don't have any meaningful population statistics upon which you can estimate Jewish population losses.

What I see is lots of waffle from you and your continuing to dodge questions about specific cases. Everyone else sees it too - I am guessing even you are aware that you are dodging. You keep trying to run away from the Jaeger Report, what happened to Jews in specific cities, and your own claims by changing the subject and muddying the waters. Fail.

So for the moronic "where did they go?" gambit to have any relevance you need to provide an one-to-one accounting of the Jewish population showing us where the Jews who survived went so we know who is missing and who isn't.

No. First, there is no gambit. You claimed that the Jews were "removed from Europe" - I simply asked the next logical question, "To where?" To help focus the discussion, I named five cities in which the Jewish population was greatly reduced during the war years. You can dispute this observation - but you can't dispute it by discussing Hungary and European demographics; you have to discuss the specifics of each city. So I offered to start easy, with just Vilna. I laid out my understanding of the data and am happy to source in more detail whatever you'd like. I also showed that German sources alone tally a reduction in 1941 of Vilna's Jewish population by close to 30,000 - and putting these sources together with others we get to 33,000. I explained that Jaeger and Stahlecker, both German officers, described the means of reduction as shootings, not removal to somewhere from Europe.

Second, I do not have to do a one-to-one accounting of anything. We can keep at the level of summation and have a reasonable and meaningful discussion about this. Of course, there are lists of Jews missing from Vilna, but we do not have to go into each individual. We can certainly dig into a sample of individual cases. But to begin with, you have to show the problems with the census and German population estimates for Vilna. Again, keep in mind that the 403rd Security Division put the number of Vilna Jews at 80,000 in June 1941 - and that Jaeger put the number at 15,000 in December 1941. Jewish sources are more "favorable" to the Nazis - putting the Jewish population at around 57,000 - 60,000 when the Germans occupied Vilna and estimating about 20,000 Jewish residents in December 1941. That in weeks and weeks of this you have been unable to come up with a single specific or intelligent hint of where these 37,000 - 40,000 "missing" Jews went - and try covering up with bluster about pre- and post-war counts of Jews across Europe - is telling.

Third, if (and I realize that your focusing on this and giving a specific answer is very unlikely), if you do try to explain the fate of Vilna's Jews, I have also asked that you tell us how you derived your thinking. This means that you have to do more than suppose or speculate about what might have happened - you have to provide sources (data, witness accounts, documents, etc.) and, given that the Jaeger and Stahlecker reports exist, not to mention witness accounts, all of these, every single bit of evidence we've discussed so far contrary to your speculation and claims, you also need to show what these documents tell us and why the way historians have interpreted them is wrong. You seem to be doing all you can to avoid giving your alternative account, your sources for it, and your explanation of the sources I've cited. I know why. So do you.

You are grasping at straws here, and I think you know it. Posting answers, cribbed from denier claims, to another discussion (about European demographics) in place of replying to my specific questions about Vilna and four other cities is really bottom of the barrel. If you don't know what happened in Vilna and elsewhere, you are safer sticking with your previous reply: "I don't know and I don't care" is how it went, IIRC.