Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[LemmyCaution]

@ MaxMurx:

Partisans/bandits: According to Peter Longerich, the SS standardization on the term bandits did not occur until summer 1942. According to Longerich, Himmler made this usage mandatory in Instruction No. 46 at that time. Before that time, usage was not settled, as, for example, Himmler himself wrote on 28 July 1942 about his agreement with the OKW to make the RFSS and Chief of German Police "the supreme agency for combating so-called partisans. . . . I am personally assuming [command of this] struggle against bandits, francs-tireurs, and criminals." The Jaeger Report, being written 8 months prior to this time, and before the emergence of the partisan war in the east, reflected previous usage. In fact, of course, many uses of the term partisan in the report referred to the Lithuanian rifle units attached to the SS and assisting in the killing of Jews and other tasks of EK3. In any event, the point is clear that actions targeting armed opponents of the Germans were the anomalies in Jaeger's report. Longerich, Heinrich Himmler, pp. 626-627, 923.

Female German national: Jaeger's unit went beyond orders in a number of cases, by the way, and these are well known. In November 1941 the EK's had not yet been approved to murder German and Austrian Jews. Yet Jaeger's killers did so at Kovno on 25 November and 29 November, as the report notes and notwithstanding the lack of approval for such executions. In fact, famously, there is an entry on 30 November in Himmler's office diary which reads, "Jewish transport from Berlin: do not liquidate." As can be seen from Jaeger's entry, this correction came too late. Himmler followed this up with a wireless message to HSSPF Jeckeln: according to Longerich, again, "Himmler then threatened Jeckeln . . . that he would 'punish' 'independent actions and contraventions' of 'the guidelines that I have issued or the Reich Main Security Office has given out in my name' concerning how 'the Jews resettled to the Ostland area' are to 'be treated.'" Longerich, Heinrich Himmler, p. 550. What is going on here is that Himmler gave to his key people in the east - the HSSPFs and the EG commanders - latitude to achieve the agreed goals, but, in this case, the murder of Reich Jews, the people "on the ground" had misinterpreted the boundary line, which in fall 1941 was still short of murdering Reich Jews. So Himmler restated the groundrules, which changed only later. In other words, Jaeger was almost completely in bounds - but his attitude toward the "Work Jews" and his executions of Reich Jews fell outside policy at the time.

Which is relevant but probably beside the point. That is because there are no details given by Jaeger for the execution of the German national, nor for a murder of an Armenian, except that the latter was killed in a prison operation. The identity of the German national is stated in shorthand - but not the reason for her execution. For all we know, the German national married to a Jew resisted the Germans taking her husband or committed some other offense. We just don't know why she was put to death from the report. Jaeger simply doesn't explain, nor does he explain the murder of a Russian female at the same time. We have no way of knowing if this execution was a case of Jaeger again interpreting orders in a creatively maximalist way or simply executing a felon or a resister.

By the way, if you have an argument about the Jaeger Report to make, it would help readers of your posts for you to spell it out.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I think you are wrong with your comment about "Partisan" being created by Tito. From what I faintly remember Himmler ordered the word "Bande" to used instead of "partisans" from autumn 1942 on because it had a positive connotation in Russian.

Bingo. Our posts crossed. See mine, Himmler's Banden order came on 18 August 1942.

 

[TSR]

It seems a bit off but not that off. I think it would be quite funny to allege a forger gets page wrong but manages to get "Übertrag" (=carry over/transfer) correct.

.
That kind of thing was rather my point.
.

Actually both combinations seem equally valid to me as a native speaker. The only difference would be the emphasis. The combination Lithuanian + communist only happens on Blatt 1 and 2, later it is only communists.
Bit of a red hering that.

.
Yes, the German language gets a bum rap as brutish sometimes, but (e.g.) the ability to form compound words without seeming a damned fool can make it a very subtle form of expression.

The emPHAsis on the wrong syLLABle can make all the difference.

And, as you say, no basis to dismiss the document as a whole.
.

 

[LemmyCaution]

So we score MadMurx 0 for 4 in his points against the Jaeger Report. No one has yet made anything resembling an argument against its being a report on mass executions of Jews, as Jews, approved by SS superiors and high authorities in the civil administration.

None of the denier claims - that the report was about anti-partisan operations, that it described population removal, that it is evidence of rogue activities, that it is "super gibberish" and a "strange brew," or that it used incorrect terminology and conventions - can be taken seriously at this point.

Also, we have to realize that we have two different denier points of view. First, Dogzilla adopted the point of view that the document was an authentic report on the implementation of policies and operations, just not extermination policies and actions. Now, with the report summarized and its contents clearly not supporting this view, we see Clayton Moore and MadMurx not quite making a case for forgery - but casting about hints and allusions, trying to throw doubt on the report without putting their necks out by stating a coherent and full argument that could be subjected to systematic scrutiny. Funny thing, that, Dogzilla, in embracing Clayton Moore's misreading to the document, has kind of signed on now to the forgery hints along with his earlier view that the document describes policies of ethnic cleansing . . . or antipartisan warfare . . . or junior misbehavior.

The circular firing squad is assembling . . . loading . . .

 

[FluffyPersian]

I think you are wrong with your comment about "Partisan" being created by Tito. From what I faintly remember Himmler ordered the word "Bande" to used instead of "partisans" from autumn 1942 on because it had a positive connotation in Russian.

Indeed, Stalin referred to partisans in his famous November 1941 speech.

 

[LemmyCaution]

I believe Tito's first military formations were formed in the summer, shortly after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia having been conquered in spring of 1941 during the period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Even so, as to Stalin, he made his first call for the creation of partisan units to fight the Germans in mid-July 1941. This appeal prompted Hitler to state at that time, using the language of the period, that "The Russians have now issued an order for a partisan war behind our front. This partisan war has its advantage: it allows us to exterminate all who oppose us."

 

[MaxMurx]

Blattnummerierung

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paginierung#Die_Blattnummerierung

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paginierung#Die_Blattnummerierung

Die Blattnummerierung
Die Foliierung (Blattnummerierung) von Handschriften zählt nicht die Seiten, sondern die Blätter. Die Zahl ist meist auf dem jeweiligen Blatt oben rechts angegeben.
Beim Zitieren wird die Blattnummer genannt und zwischen Vorder- und Rückseite unterschieden: Eine Vorderseite, lat. recto, wird mit an die Blattnummer # angehängtem oder hochgestelltem r oder a ausgewiesen als #r oder #r bzw. #a oder #a, also z. B. 10r oder 10r; eine Rückseite, lat. verso, wird dementsprechend ausgewiesen mit #v oder #v bzw. #b oder #b, also z. B. 10v oder 10v.
Die Blattnummerierung 10v oder 10v entspricht also der Seitennummerierung S. 20, falls die Handschrift eine Seitennummerierung besitzt und diese auf der Vorderseite des ersten Blattes der Handschrift beginnt.

The sheet numeration of manuscripts does not count pages but sheets. The number in most cases is shown in the upper right corner of the sheet.
For citations the sheet number is given and front- and reverse sides are distinguished: a frontside, latin recto, is marked with an r or a attached or raised to # after the sheet number, as #r or #r, respectively #a or #a, e.g.10r or 10r, a back side lat. verso, will be marked acdcordingly #v or #v or #b or #b, e.g.10v or 10v.
A sheet numeration 10v or 10v therefore is in accordance with page numeration page 20, in the case that the manuscript has a page numeration which starts on the front siude of the first sheet of the manuscript.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Please, MaxMurx, state an argument.

That said, are you withdrawing your comments concerning the use of the term partisans, the supposed problem with the execution of a German national for unknown reasons, and the order of Lithuanian/Communist throughout the document?

 

[Moss]

That is a nice red hering you have there. As it concerns manuscripts. Which the Jäger Report as far as I know is not.

 

[TSR]

That is a nice red hering you have there. As it concerns manuscripts. Which the Jäger Report as far as I know is not.

.
One would think, having been spanked on it once (okay, twice), MadMurx would've dropped it...
.

 

[Dogzilla]

No one is falling back on anything. It's what the sources say - in this case, cleansing of Lithuania of Jews by means of execution whilst temporarily keeping some alive to provide forced labor to support the occupying forces. It's not only well documented (sometimes documents say things you might not expect) but also actually pretty logical - the Germans decided to make use of people whom they hated and wanted to do away with in order to minimize the efforts they themselves had to expend and to maximize their power over their victims.

Yes, and some things are true that never happened. Whatever. You don't maximize your power over your victims by creating a symbiotic relationship where you depend on their labor. If you want to maximize your power over your victim, you kill them. That is the ultimate expression of power over another person. Question: what did these Jews who were temporarily subjugated by the Germans do before the Germans came along? Did they have jobs? Did they do work that benefited the non-Jewish community surrounding them? Were there skilled laborers among them who had skills that perhaps did not directly help the war effort? How did the Germans deal with the economic dislocations they created by killing off a whole bunch of Jews and then forcing the remaining Jews to stop doing whatever they were doing and start working for the Germans? I know that thinking too much about the logical consequences of the holocaust narrative is never encouraged but it's hard to envision how you could kill a bunch of highly skilled workers and then force the remaining highly skilled workers to work at low skilled labor without causing severe economic consequences.

Unless "cleansing Lithuania of Jews by means of execution whilst temporarily keeping some alive to provide forced labor to support the occupying forces" didn't mean killing skilled worker and forcing the rest of the skilled workers into working in unskilled jobs with which they weren't familiar because all of Lithuania's Jews were just a bunch of ditch diggers anyway. Or perhaps "forced labor" would be something like forcing a Jewish doctor to continue practicing medicine in exchange for little more than monetary compensation.

Besides, the decision for a comprehensive final solution had not yet been made by December 1, 1941, so Dogzilla's aimless, rhetorical flourish about a plan to kill all Jews is a double fail. When we are talking about the Jaeger Report, we are talking about Lithuania. Somehow, in Dogzilla's twisted logic, a plan that is largely accomplished - but somewhat slowed to take account of factors encountered during its implementation - cannot have existed because it was not implemented to the letter of how he imagines it should have been. The only way he can spin such nonsense, of course, is to ignore the contents of the Jaeger Report, misread select passages courtesy his reading coach Clayton Moore, and pretend that no other evidence of the events discussed by Jaeger exists.

And that is beyond stupid. It was I who pointed out to you that the Jaeger Report documents activity prior to a decision about a comprehensive final solution and therefore cannot be evidence of that comprehensive final solution while you were arguing that in fact it was. Argue against a point by supporting it. You have learned well from Dr. Terry, Grasshopper.

 

[Dogzilla]

This pair should read the actual document and then sound off.

Jaeger's report didn't identify any of the people in the Jonava prison as Jews. Jaeger wrote that there were 16 men who were crowding prison, kept "in a dreary cellar" even though there were no charges against them. Also some teenaged girls were locked up - not necessarily and not logically and not by inference in the same cellar as the 16 men. These, apparently, with all the inmates of the prison were brought to the courtyard, where the prisoners were sorted, with those responsible for "harmless offences" and those whose sentences were relatively short set apart from "those who were to be liquidated, such as criminals, Communist functionaries, politruks and other such riffraff. In addition to the announced punishment, some, according to the offence, especially Communist functionaries, received 10 to 40 lashes with the whip, which were meted out immediately. After completion of the examination, the prisoners were led back to their cells." And those in the special groups were set free. By inference, we can assume that those released included the 16 men and the teenaged girls, who apparently spoke Lithuanian or Russian, not Yiddish, as, according to Jaeger, the prisoners to be set free were given a lecture in Lithuanian and Russian and let go.

There is not a single reference to Jewish prisoners in this passage nor to the men and girls being held together in a common cell - just that along with the men, there were in the prison the teenaged girls and then references to the other prisoners, including the Communists.

The other reason for not tripping into this error - the reason these two did so being obscure to me - is that Jaeger's report specifically noted that the prison inspection was not related to Lithuania's Jews: "One of the most important tasks of Einsatzkommando 3, besides the Jewish operations, was the inspection of the mostly overcrowded prisons in the individual locations and cities." I had tried helping make that clear when I wrote that the Einsatzgruppen had tasks besides solving the Jewish question and that "one of these other duties" given Jaeger's unit was the prison inspection effort. To drive the point home, Jaeger wrote, albeit awkwardly, of the prisons which his Kommandos inspected, "On average, in every city in the district, there were 600 people of Lithuanian affiliation in prison . . ." Then followed the example of the prison in Jovana . . . oh my.

Where these guys come up with Jewish prisoners who might reproduce in prison in any of this is beyond reason and certainly outside competence.

You said "He went into some detail about conditions in prisons and cited a case in Jonava where, in a crowded cellar, along with sixteen men, a number of teenaged girls were incarcerated 'because they, in order to get work, had applied for admission to the Communist youth.'" That's pretty clear that sixteen men and a number of teenaged girls were in a crowded cellar. Nothing would lead a reasonable or even marginally literate reader to assume that crowded cellar was subdivided into boys and girls.

Besides the Einsatzgruppen were formed to assist in the extermination of the Jews according to Team holocaust. Now you're talking about them inspecting ordinary prisons? And dealing with non-Jews? And communists? And politruks? Is this another one of those exceptions to the rule?

 

[A'isha]

Instead of pretending to read books on the Holocaust, you could try actually reading some books about it.

Jewish Forced Labor under the Nazis: Economic Needs and Racial Aims, 1938-1944

 

[Dogzilla]

In his Katyn frenzy, Dogzilla doesn't realise he's obliterated every single genocide and mass murder prior to Bosnia from the historical record, since essentially none of them were investigated according to his lofty standards. Indeed most smaller acts of violence in history wouldn't come close.

Dr. Terry evidently has forgotten that genocide and mass murder exist independent of an investigation into what happened and further into who is responsible.

Aside from downplaying the Polish investigations (which seem to be dismissed on the grounds that some other bunch of Poles submitted an indictment with a single error caused by recycling out of date reports, hardly the best argument for coordination and scripting), Dogzilla is also ignoring:

- French investigations
- Dutch investigations
- Belgian investigations
- Hungarian investigations
- Czechoslovak investigations
- investigations in Romania

all of which looked directly at Auschwitz after the war.

What exactly did they all look at in relation to Auschwitz after the war? How many said four million?

Sorry but I just don't trust proven liars who are motivated by vengeance and hate. It's like former President George W Bush said: "Fool me once, shame on me. But we won't get fooled again."

 

[Dogzilla]

The fact that Dogzilla followed Clayton Moore down the rabbit hole of misunderstanding about the Jovana prison shows that he isn't familiar with the Jaeger Report.

Where, then, it needs to be asked, does he pick up his other erroneous conclusions about the document?

No Lemmy, I fell down the rabbit hole of misunderstanding what what was written about the Jovana prison because I understood perfectly what YOU said had been said about the Jovana prison.

His persistent refusal to discuss the contents of the Jaeger Report, and how it relates to other evidence for the executions in Lithuania, raises the suspicion that he's picked up some denier waffle somewhere on the Web - instead of trying properly to understand what Jaeger wrote, its context, and its relevance.

I see Lemmy is now backing away from his original assertion about the nature of the Jaeger Report. This is not surprising because distinguishing Jews from non-Jews and specifying other victim categories as Jewish or non-Jewish dilutes his assertion that the Jaeger Report is evidence of a policy of exterminating the Jews that most scholars agree wasn't even decided when this report was allegedly issued.

Because he continues refuting my arguments by supporting them, he's now trying to move my goalposts. So now I am not arguing that the Jaeger Report is not evidence of the final solution. I am now arguing that the Jaeger report isn't evidence that people were executed in Lithuania. Whatever. Why don't you now tell me that the Jaeger report isn't evidence of anti-commissar actions by telling me how many commissars were shot?

 

[Nick Terry]

Dr. Terry evidently has forgotten that genocide and mass murder exist independent of an investigation into what happened and further into who is responsible.

This makes no sense and isn't responsive to what I wrote.

What exactly did they all look at in relation to Auschwitz after the war? How many said four million?

Sorry but I just don't trust proven liars who are motivated by vengeance and hate. It's like former President George W Bush said: "Fool me once, shame on me. But we won't get fooled again."

And sorry, but your distrust doesn't mean anything. Since when is one person's distrust a meaningful argument?

Either you have a fully convincing argument against the totality of the evidence, or you're arm-flapping hard enough to make Icarus envious.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Yes, and some things are true that never happened. Whatever.

This was not a philosophical musing. I meant you - and Clayton. You two. Your wise-ass paraphrase from an entirely different context misses that point entirely. Since you don't know the documents, and won't read them, and since you bring misconceptions to the topic, yes, the documents contain things you would not expect. For people who have read a lot of this stuff, not you that is, the case is different, as I wrote earlier: this is common knowledge, the separation of victims into two groups, one for immediate execution and one for labor. It is also common knowledge that the policy changed at different times, for example, near the end of the war when labor shortages were acute, and that the policy was subject to discussion and debate amongst the Nazis. Read the book which ANTPogo linked to or any general history of the evolution of Nazi Jewish policy or any history of the ghettos. Then this material and the commentary on it will not be so mysterious to you.

You don't maximize your power over your victims by creating a symbiotic relationship where you depend on their labor.

Well, that isn't what I said, but, in fact, if you want to extract labor power from some of your victims, and that is how you want to use your power, forcing them to work for you isn't a bad approach.

If you want to maximize your power over your victim, you kill them.

It all depends. You might. You might also want to use them in some way - in which case killing them actually decreases your power over them.

That is the ultimate expression of power over another person.

Blah, blah, blah. Empty blether without any historical or psychological foundation. Remember that in this passage we have encountered Lithuanians, not Jews. So what is the point you're trying to make?

Question: what did these Jews who were temporarily subjugated by the Germans do before the Germans came along? Did they have jobs? Did they do work that benefited the non-Jewish community surrounding them? Were there skilled laborers among them who had skills that perhaps did not directly help the war effort? How did the Germans deal with the economic dislocations they created by killing off a whole bunch of Jews and then forcing the remaining Jews to stop doing whatever they were doing and start working for the Germans? I know that thinking too much about the logical consequences of the holocaust narrative is never encouraged but it's hard to envision how you could kill a bunch of highly skilled workers and then force the remaining highly skilled workers to work at low skilled labor without causing severe economic consequences.

You didn't bother to look up the economic debate in Arad, did you, or follow what I posted? I'm not going to repeat it - just read the material and then try to discuss it.

Unless "cleansing Lithuania of Jews by means of execution whilst temporarily keeping some alive to provide forced labor to support the occupying forces" didn't mean killing skilled worker and forcing the rest of the skilled workers into working in unskilled jobs with which they weren't familiar because all of Lithuania's Jews were just a bunch of ditch diggers anyway. Or perhaps "forced labor" would be something like forcing a Jewish doctor to continue practicing medicine in exchange for little more than monetary compensation.

Or forcing Jews from Kovno, whoever they might be, to work in construction jobs at Panevezys airport. Or compelling ghetto inmates to make leather goods or shoes in the Schultz shops in Warsaw or producing military uniforms or overcoats in Toebbens shops in the same ghetto or to fulfill orders for AEG or IG Farben in Lodz or to make textiles for Toebbens in Poniatowa camp near Lublin. Or it might even mean making Jewish poets help loot Jewish property for Einsatzstab Reichsleiter Rosenberg.

So what is your point? Because every Jew murdered by the Germans didn't die on the same day or in the same week or in the same month, and some were put to work on forced labor projects - that what? You aren't even formulating a point . . .

And that is beyond stupid. It was I who pointed out to you that the Jaeger Report documents activity prior to a decision about a comprehensive final solution and therefore cannot be evidence of that comprehensive final solution while you were arguing that in fact it was. Argue against a point by supporting it. You have learned well from Dr. Terry, Grasshopper.

My recollection is that it was I who pointed that out to you, as I distinctly recall being perplexed about your changing the nature of the request you made for documents and my explaining all this to you. Patiently, I thought. You, as I wrote at that time, seemed to have confused mass extermination actions with a master plan of some sort - and seemed not to be able to grasp that policies develop and even change over time, when states try implementing them.

In post #8429 where I answered your request for document documents on the extermination of Jews, I wrote, including various documents, about the Jaeger Report as an example of a document meeting the specific conditions you'd spelled out. I boldfaced Jaeger's words "goal of making Lithuania free of Jews" in my reply to help emphasize what we were discussing, a policy implemented to free Lithuania of Jews through a mass murder program.

Then, here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7872896&postcount=8447 in post #8447 you asked, "Does the Jaeger report unambiguously refer to a state policy of physical extermination of the Jews? Does the Jaeger report unambiguously refer to gas chambers?" That is what you wrote and asked about.

I answered, arguing that the mass murder program evolved, "The Jaeger report concerns the murder of Jews in Lithuania in fall 1941, before such time as gas chambers were in use, the first being Chelmno, coming into use after the report was made. Now you ask about whether the report mentions a state policy of mass murder, but I was responding to these brave words which you had written. . . . so now you want to add in "gas chambers" and "state policy." Afraid not. You asked for 1) a document, 2) a document that mentions extermination without using terms like ethnic cleansing or special treatment, 3) a killing that is not in response to the murder of a German soldier. Your conditions were met. Of course, you now add new ones. Jaeger's report on "Secret Reich Business!" does, of course, refer to a policy of the state in eliminating most of the Jews in his sphere of operation, using the phrases "goal of making Lithuania free of Jews" and "decision to systematically make every district free of Jews' and reporting agreements reached with the civil administration and military on the numbers to be killed that fall. The report came before historians conclude there had been a decision in favor of a European-wide extermination of Jews. This reference is not phrased the way you want it, but it is there nonetheless - for that area at that time. (emphasis added here)

That is what I wrote about the report here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7873048&postcount=8453. The words surely sound like I thought I was informing you. But now I learn you were informing me! Zounds.

Now perhaps I missed a post of yours in that sequence where you informed me that "the Jaeger Report documents activity prior to a decision about a comprehensive final solution." I didn't read such a post, in any event, and, as you can tell from what I wrote, I thought I was informing you. To straighten this out, could you please link to where you informed me of the evolution of the mass murder program and "pointed out to

that the Jaeger Report documents activity prior to a decision about a comprehensive final solution"?

 

[LemmyCaution]

By the way, here you say that I was the one who brought up the information on when the Final Solution was decided: "Yet it is a document that you say is evidence for a policy that you also say hasn't been decided when the document was written." This was of course in reply to my informing you of the chronology.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7875626&postcount=8469

 

[Nick Terry]

the Jaeger Report is evidence of a policy of exterminating the Jews that most scholars agree wasn't even decided when this report was allegedly issued.

Other than reflex paranoia, do you have any proof that the Jaeger report wasn't written on the date marked at the top of the document?

I think you'll find that scholars agree that the Jaeger report is excellent evidence of the extermination of 133,000 Jews in Lithuania in 1941 at the hands of Einsatzkommando 3 plus its Lithuanian collaborators. Scholars will also note the desire expressed to kill all the Jews and add it to the growing pile of evidence which documents a transition or escalation to extermination in the occupied Soviet territories.

Scholars are currently unanimous that Nazi extermination policy radicalised in at least two stages; starting in the occupied Soviet territories then expanding out to cover the whole of Europe. Some scholars argue for three stages: USSR, Poland then the rest of Europe (eg Bogdan Musial). Others point to a number of escalation steps and break things down further, noting for example that in May 1942, Jews from the Reich began to be systematically killed on arrival at a variety of deportation destinations or to be taken out of prior deportation destinations and sent to death camps (eg Lodz>Chelmno).

There is unanimity that by July 1942, the policy of extermination was in full swing, symbolised by the institution of selection on the old ramp at Auschwitz-Birkenau. This date also coincides with the mass deportation of the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto to Treblinka, which was likewise carried out on a selection basis, only at the point of departure.

Extermination, before you try to raise yet another strawman, is conventionally used by scholars to refer to killing actions which reach five figures (10,000 or more) in a reasonably concentrated time and/or space. Thus, the action of the SS Cavalry Brigade in the Pripyat marshes during August to September 1941 is commonly referred to as an extermination action, since it killed 13,000 Jews in a specific region and a specific time-frame. The action did not wipe out all Jews in the region, but it did wipe out all Jews in a number of small towns. The murder of entire Jewish communities which began in August 1941 escalated through September and October, and produced a cumulative bodycount, tending towards reducing the Jewish population to zero, as was achieved in many regions by the spring of 1942, and as was achieved in Ukraine by the end of 1942.

Scholars also refer to Nazi antipartisan operations such as 'Cottbus' as extermination actions, since they likewise murdered civilians into five figures and saw numerous villages wiped out to the last man, woman and child. The same could be said, of course, for the Al-Anfal campaign in Kurdish Iraq in the 1980s, which is often considered to have been genocide, and indeed was interpreted as such by a Dutch court in 2005 when it convicted a Dutch national for complicity in genocide for supplying chemicals to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Before you splutter further, you may want to look up the terms of the UN Convention on Genocide. Hans Frank's declaration in August 1942 that the Nazis would henceforth no longer feed 1.2 million Polish Jews is quite sufficient all on its lonesome to prove genocide.

 

[LemmyCaution]

You said "He went into some detail about conditions in prisons and cited a case in Jonava where, in a crowded cellar, along with sixteen men, a number of teenaged girls were incarcerated 'because they, in order to get work, had applied for admission to the Communist youth.'" That's pretty clear that sixteen men and a number of teenaged girls were in a crowded cellar. Nothing would lead a reasonable or even marginally literate reader to assume that crowded cellar was subdivided into boys and girls.

Your errors here consist of the following: You are taking a summary level statement, rather than the detailed source itself, to try to resolve a detail question. The summary level statement, which I wrote, was sloppy, as I said. The report is clearer. Big deal. The question of Jewish men and girls being held in the prison together, in violation of Jaeger's dictum concerning reproduction, wasn't the point of my quick background on the Jovana prison - especially insofar as the prisoners weren't Jewish, Jaeger hadn't put the people in them in the first place, and I was citing the prison passage for a different reason and thus not going into detail on the specifics of the incarceration. You are now ignoring what I and others wrote once we did get into this detail, for whatever bizarre reasons you and Clayton have for doing so.

Besides the Einsatzgruppen were formed to assist in the extermination of the Jews according to Team holocaust.

Really? Name these members. I defy you to show where Nick or I, for example, even implied such a thing. Which members of Team Holocaust are you citing here? Please be specific.

Now you're talking about them inspecting ordinary prisons? And dealing with non-Jews? And communists? And politruks? Is this another one of those exceptions to the rule?

No, I’m not talking about EG's inspecting prisons, Jaeger is. Which makes sense, because, as is written about extensively in the literature, the EG's had a variety of "security tasks”; I myself told you so in my long post answering your strange question about why the EG's were formed. To choose just one example of the full ventilation of this topic.

Besides, this is mind-numbing and rather silly repetition of a mind-numbing error, already dealt with in a post of Nick's, this post of mine http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7887903&postcount=8683 and then again in this post of mine http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202147&page=234.

You could at least have the decency and honesty to represent people's arguments accurately instead of repeatedly and intentionally misstating what people write.