General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[TSR]

For example, if you ask to see a photograph of a mass grave holding 800,000 bodies you will initially be rebuked and insulted for implying that anybody would take a photograph of such a thing.


If you want to see a photographic evidence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, you'll be pointed to something like this.

I read the 'don't show me Anne Frank's diary" comment as a 'don't show me non-evidence as evidence' warning. Because there are people out there who think that a picture of Anne Frank and asking "what happened to this little girl" is an effective rebuttal to holocaust deniers.

No, in both cases you will be asked why you disregard all of the other types of evidence which exists, to ask for a specific pose which may or may not.

And LOL -- it is an effective rebuttal to those who claim that the Jews deserved it, or that they must have broken some law to be treated they the Germans did.

So tell us, DZ, straight up: did the Jews deserve what the Germans did to them. That's a "yes" or "no" question. Was their treatment deserved? Even little Bronislaw to my left?

Give me a minute to cue up your tap dancing music -- or shall we just cue up "Good Night, Ladies" right away?

 

[SnakeTongue]

You're supposed to do this "verification" before posting about it. That's why your initial "analysis" was simply parroting what Alvarez said, and you had to "spend time" over the last few weeks figuring out a way to make what you unthinkingly repeated sound plausible.

Too bad you failed.

No, not yet.

"S-IV D-5o5/42g-451" isn't the office code of that document, SnakeTongue. That's the filing code for the document under whose regulatory authority this document is being promulgated. The office code part of that filing code indicates the previous document being referenced came from IV D, Besetzte Gebiete, which was the Gestapo office responsible for criminal cases involving foreign laborers.

That's why the filing code includes the note "ausl.Arb.", which is found on the other IV D documents dealing with foreign workers (see, for example, Nuremberg document NO-1384, Kaltenbrunner's letter of 1 August 1943 about abortions for pregnant Polish and other Eastern European workers).

The agency title is given on this document, "Der Reichsfuhrer SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei", but there's no department title or office code. The filing code is handwritten in the stamped area showing the date the document was received, and is "3/43g".

Did you even read the page you found that document at?

Which previous document is that? Which office produced the document?

Where is the link for the "Nuremberg document NO-1384"?

Yes, I read it.

This is merely a missive detailing the planned program for Heydrich's state funeral, sent by the Chief of the Ordnungspolizei to the various Orpo personnel (none of whom, as far as I can tell, were also members of the SS - Orpo personnel who held ranks in both organizational structures, like our old friend Friedrich Pradel, were usually described in documents by both ranks, with the SS rank taking precedence, which is why Pradel's insistence on being addressed by his Orpo rank of "major" was so unusual and memorable to his contemporaries).

Since the Orpo was not part of the RSHA, and thus would not have used any code or formatting for an RSHA office in a strictly internal Orpo document, I have no idea why you think this document is relevant when interpreting a document with an RSHA office code.

I tough is relevant to show the header format used by different offices of the Third Reich.

This is also not an RSHA document. For one thing, Aemter in the RSHA were always described with Roman numerals, not the standard numerals in this document (in cases where the Roman numerals couldn't be used, like in the telegrams I showed you before, the abbreviation "Roem" for "Roman" was used to indicate that). Plus, even if this were supposed to be a document sent from a section of Amt II, there was no "II F".

Secondly, the circled part is neither an office code nor a filing code for this document. It's the subject of this document. That's why it's in the section labeled "Betrifft" - the same way the "Betrifft" of your "document 2" up there is new security procedures regarding groups of foreign laborers, and the "Betrifft" of "document 3" is the transport of the body of and state funeral for Heydrich.

This is just a document sent by the Generalkommissar in Riga to his subordinate in charge of labor management, regarding "Ostarbeiter", the Eastern European foreign forced laborers, and has nothing to do with RSHA office codes.

It is not a circled part, is a squared part. It is an identification code there ("Meine Abteilung III e ASO"), but as you had already observed, it is not to identify the office which sent the letter.

The reason why I presented this document:

A comparison of the sending office code pattern of document 1 with the header in the document 4 reveals an underlining contradiction. The document 1 uses the pattern

X X A/B

to identify the sending office code, while the document 4 uses a similar pattern

X X X/X - A/B -

as serial identification.​

"2 F 2/3 - Mi/Da -" is a serial identification related to the office identified as "Meine Abteilung III e ASO".

Finally, a document that matches the format used on Rauff's letter. Unfortunately, your interpretation is, shall we say, flawed.

And, again, did you read the site where you found this document? If you're trying to prove the Holocaust never happened, you probably shouldn't cite as things you accept as authentic documents that prove the Holocaust happened.

Yes, I read it.

No, I am not trying to prove the holocaust never happened. I comparing documents.

No, that's not how things worked. The rest of the German governmental bureaucracy operated according to standards first issued during the Wiemar Republic, in September 1926. The formatting of RSHA documents, however, was done according to a specific version of those standards, issued on June 1, 1940, by the head of the personnel office, Amt I: SS-Brigadefuehrer Bruno Streckenbach.
In Streckenbach's RSHA-specific standards, the office code has nothing to do with the subject, but with the sending office. Specifically, it was the office code associated with what was called the "referent": the head of the department under whose authority the document was being sent (which was usually, though not always, the department that originated the document). In other words, since the March 26, 1942 letter was being sent out under Rauff's name and with his signature, it bore his office code (which is properly called an "institutional symbol"). This is especially important because the letter involves two other RSHA departments, which was Rauff's area of authority. Pradel himself, as the referent of II D 3a, had no authority when dealing with other departments - he was only the midlevel managerial conduit between the motor pool and the department head. So, a document sent under the authority of his Referat, II D 3a, was meaningless anywhere outside II D itself. That's why Rauff's authority as overall department head was needed, and why the document bears his signature.

Where is the link for the document which issued the order?

[EDIT: Streckenbach's standards established three forms of signatures: a Referent or department head signing for themselves, a subordinate one rank below signing for his superior im Vertretung, or "iV", and a subordinate of other ranks signing im Auftrag, or "iA". Someone signing "iV" did not need permission from their superior, but "iA" was only ever used when the superior directed a subordinate to write a letter that the superior would then sign. In Yaacov Lozowick's study of the RSHA's bureaucratic system, he noted that Streckenbach was vague in his instructions about the department name ("office code"), and subordinates writing under their superiors' signatures would often not include their own (ie, the subordinate's) office code. This means that the March 26, 1942 document was probably written by one of Rauff's subordinates (possibly even below Pradel) but that it was written under the specific instructions of Rauff, and under the authority of Rauff's position as department head, not the position or office of the subordinate writing the letter.

No it's not, since Heydrich's interaction with Eichmann's IV B 4 was entirely atypical of the RSHA bureaucratic structure. Heydrich, as head of the RSHA itself, had no Referent code himself. And Adolf Eichmann's office, unlike all the other Referaten in the RSHA, reported directly to Heydrich - Pradel, as head of II D 3a, had to go up through Rauff at II D and Nockemann at II before reaching Heydrich's level, but Eichmann at IV B 4 bypassed Hartl at IV B and Mueller at IV completely.

In addition, Heydrich generally assigned Eichmann to write directives for him, something he did not do with any other subordinate in the RSHA. He particularly did this for tasks and instructions regarding the Final Solution, which is why all the invitation letters to the Wannsee Conference and the document sent out with the minutes and protocol from the Conference were sent from Eichmann's office under Heydrich's signature.

You made an excellent assertion about the use of the office code, however, you must provide an evidence to support your argument.

It's not a "serial identification", it's a filing code. And, as I noted, your "document 2" also has a handwritten filing code (and your "document 5" has two filing codes - 847/41 typed on it from when it was sent, and 380/41 half-handwritten and half-stamped in the received stamp - Eichmann's IV B 4 had a file numbering system completely separate from the rest of the RSHA's file numbering system).

It seems what I recognize as serial identification you recognize as filling code.

I will adopt your term to avoid miscommunication.

The filling code in the header of the document 1 was produced by handwriting while in all other documents header it was produced by typewriting.​

The filing code was applied by a clerk which was responsible for organizing incoming and outgoing mail for each department, filing it, and sending it on to the correct recipient. This clerk, called a Verteiler (distributor), would look over each letter he received, number it, file it in an existing file, and if necessary open a new file if the document didn't belong in any existing file. Often (if he was located close enough to the office drafting the document) the Verteiler could be consulted and the filing and numbering could be done on the spot. Otherwise, the filing and numbering was done when the document was received instead of when it was sent - this is particularly the case when letters were sent to or from outside the RSHA.

The Verteiler also had a constantly-updated list of the proper forms of address used by and for everyone, which is why Rauff (or anyone else) didn't have to remember that Friedrich Pradel liked to be addressed as "Major" - there was staff to do the remembering for them.

Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

False, since the Orpo document only has a "Secret" stamp on it, and does not have a receiving stamp.

Right. I will correct the phrase:

Document 1 also differs from documents 2, 4 and 5 due the absence of the official stamp used to track documents.​

No, he doesn't. He lies in one statement, and you're papering over those lies by taking parts of his other statement. The two statements are directly contradictory, which is why you have to do that.

"I was chief of this technical section from February 1940 until March 1940. From May 1940 to May 1941 I was in the German navy. From September 1941 to May 1942 I was in Prague. I then became chief of the section again from May 1942 to June 1942."

He quite clearly is saying he was only head of the RSHA's technical department for 1-2 months in early 1940, and then wasn't head of the department (and he implies he had nothing to do with the department at all) until 1-2 months in mid 1942.

And, as all the statements of his contemporaries, available documentation, and his own 1972 deposition reveal, is not true.

If Walter Rauff was lying in 1945, what make the rest of the affidavit true?

Where are those "statements of his contemporaries" to me verify?

Why you never claimed such "lie" before I call your attention to the affidavit?

I feel you are desperate because you was not aware of the "lie" until I presented to you.

Now you are trying to cover your lack of evidence accusing me of "papering over those lies by taking parts of his other statement".

Something you utterly failed in your attempt to prove.

You produced an excellent reply to my comparison, but you did not care to provided any link for the documents cited...

So I think the failure is yours.

 

[dafydd]

No, not yet.



Which previous document is that? Which office produced the document?

Where is the link for the "Nuremberg document NO-1384"?

Yes, I read it.



I tough is relevant to show the header format used by different offices of the Third Reich.



It is not a circled part, is a squared part. It is an identification code there ("Meine Abteilung III e ASO"), but as you had already observed, it is not to identify the office which sent the letter.

The reason why I presented this document:

A comparison of the sending office code pattern of document 1 with the header in the document 4 reveals an underlining contradiction. The document 1 uses the pattern

X X A/B

to identify the sending office code, while the document 4 uses a similar pattern

X X X/X - A/B -

as serial identification.​

"2 F 2/3 - Mi/Da -" is a serial identification related to the office identified as "Meine Abteilung III e ASO".



Yes, I read it.

No, I am not trying to prove the holocaust never happened. I comparing documents.



Where is the link for the document which issued the order?



You made an excellent assertion about the use of the office code, however, you must provide an evidence to support your argument.



It seems what I recognize as serial identification you recognize as filling code.

I will adopt your term to avoid miscommunication.

The filling code in the header of the document 1 was produced by handwriting while in all other documents header it was produced by typewriting.​

Where is the evidence to support this assertion?



Right. I will correct the phrase:

Document 1 also differs from documents 2, 4 and 5 due the absence of the official stamp used to track documents.​

If Walter Rauff was lying in 1945, what make the rest of the affidavit true?

Where are those "statements of his contemporaries" to me verify?

Why you never claimed such "lie" before I call your attention to the affidavit?

I feel you are desperate because you was not aware of the "lie" until I presented to you.

Now you are trying to cover your lack of evidence accusing me of "papering over those lies by taking parts of his other statement".



You produced an excellent reply to my comparison, but you did not care to provided any link for the documents cited...

So I think the failure is yours.

An irrelevant sideshow. You have yet to provide evidence that Hitler did not kill millions of Jews.

 

[ddt]

I read the 'don't show me Anne Frank's diary" comment as a 'don't show me non-evidence as evidence' warning. Because there are people out there who think that a picture of Anne Frank and asking "what happened to this little girl" is an effective rebuttal to holocaust deniers.

Of course it is.

With all your quibbling that this piece of evidence might not be good or that piece of evidence (*), there's a very simple question that deniers simply cannot answer: what happened to those approx. 6 million European Jews who were missing after WW2? Where did they go? Deniers consistently fail to come up with an answer there.

I guess it's time to repeat the question BSO and I posed before in the first thread. There were 34,313 Jews transported from Westerbork to Sobibor. We have the transport lists. You can download them from the Dutch National Archives. Give me one name - one single name - who survived, apart from the list BSO copied from the research of Jules Schelvis.

Can you now, Dogzilla? One single name, out of 34 thousand. Should be simple, if they weren't gassed.

(*) and even there, you consistently get your ass handed because your claims are simply groundless.

 

[000063]

I see you're new around these parts. If you've been here a while you will see the most amazingly irrelevant material passed off as evidence of a German extermination program by the holocaust promoters. For example, if you ask to see a photograph of a mass grave holding 800,000 bodies you will initially be rebuked and insulted for implying that anybody would take a photograph of such a thing. If you are persistent, you will directed to photographs such as this, this, or this. If you want to see a photographic evidence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, you'll be pointed to something like this.

I read the 'don't show me Anne Frank's diary" comment as a 'don't show me non-evidence as evidence' warning. Because there are people out there who think that a picture of Anne Frank and asking "what happened to this little girl" is an effective rebuttal to holocaust deniers.

I like how you imply people who have been buried in a mass grave are usually to be found intact and in a form recognizable at a glance, all in one layer.

Of course, there's plenty of non-photographic evidence for all those things, which is why you insist on photographic evidence. It's just a way of moving the goalposts. Or do you think actual historians rely only on photographs, instead of things like physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, records, etc.? Because if you do, if you do, then oh boy, has Mr. Terry got a few words for you.

 

[Nick Terry]

I read the 'don't show me Anne Frank's diary" comment as a 'don't show me non-evidence as evidence' warning. Because there are people out there who think that a picture of Anne Frank and asking "what happened to this little girl" is an effective rebuttal to holocaust deniers.

I think most people read the 'don't show me Anne Frank's diary' comment as evidence that SnakeTongue is off his meds, since there is no earthly reason why anyone would cite Anne Frank's diary as evidence of mass cremation at Birkenau.

As pointed out by several other posters, Anne Frank's diary is an incredibly effective rebuttal to Holocaust deniers, because they cannot explain coherently why a teenage girl needed to be hiding in an attic from the Nazis.

But it's not, and never has been, cited as evidence of mass cremation at Birkenau. There is a slew of documents for that, along with ground and air photos showing smoke rising from sites found to contain cremains after the war, plus about 10,000 witnesses who were there to watch and testified to it promptly after the war, which vastly outnumbers SnakeTongue's personal incredulity, frankly.

 

[Nick Terry]

I like how you imply people who have been buried in a mass grave are usually to be found intact and in a form recognizable at a glance, all in one layer.

Of course, there's plenty of non-photographic evidence for all those things, which is why you insist on photographic evidence. It's just a way of moving the goalposts. Or do you think actual historians rely only on photographs, instead of things like physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, records, etc.? Because if you do, if you do, then oh boy, has Mr. Terry got a few words for you.

Dr Terry is the one who might have words

 

[dafydd]

I think most people read the 'don't show me Anne Frank's diary' comment as evidence that SnakeTongue is off his meds, since there is no earthly reason why anyone would cite Anne Frank's diary as evidence of mass cremation at Birkenau.

As pointed out by several other posters, Anne Frank's diary is an incredibly effective rebuttal to Holocaust deniers, because they cannot explain coherently why a teenage girl needed to be hiding in an attic from the Nazis.
But it's not, and never has been, cited as evidence of mass cremation at Birkenau. There is a slew of documents for that, along with ground and air photos showing smoke rising from sites found to contain cremains after the war, plus about 10,000 witnesses who were there to watch and testified to it promptly after the war, which vastly outnumbers SnakeTongue's personal incredulity, frankly.

Dogzilla would see nothing wrong with that. In his eyes the Nazis did no wrong.

 

[000063]

An irrelevant sideshow. You have yet to provide evidence that Hitler did not kill millions of Jews.

I think it's quite relevant that ST is finally deciding to go back and respond to a post he ignored just so he doesn't have to answer #600 or any of the other more recent claims.

I like how he can't actually come up with any real problem with ANTPogo's post, and is reduced to attacking ANTPogo, questioning minutae, and repeatedly demanding "evidence", which he has a remarkably flexible definition of and standards for.

And he honestly thinks he's being clever and intellectually honest. "Aye, there's the genius and the wonder of the thing!"

 

[Wroclaw]

That sounds plausible, but the text clearly said "today account for 61% of the world Jewish population", without mentioning Orthodoxy.

You ever spoken to an Orthodox Jew about Reform Judaism?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Don't know if this particular question has been answered already but they were dumped in mass graves.

No, no body had answered this question before.

I am glad you had noticed.

I made a wrong calculation in the original question.

I recently post the question with the right calculation for another user.

 

[000063]

Dr Terry is the one who might have words

I suppose your dad might have a problem as well. Or your uncle, or cousin, or...

 

[dafydd]

I think it's quite relevant that ST is finally deciding to go back and respond to a post he ignored just so he doesn't have to answer #600 or any of the other more recent claims.

I like how he can't actually come up with any real problem with ANTPogo's post, and is reduced to attacking ANTPogo, questioning minutae, and repeatedly demanding "evidence", which he has a remarkably flexible definition of and standards for.

And he honestly thinks he's being clever and intellectually honest. "Aye, there's the genius and the wonder of the thing!"

Denying the truth of the Holocaust is like trying to stop a tank with a feather duster. A hopeless task and amusing to watch. They never reveal their reasons for their denial delusion. Could they be anti-Semites?

 

[000063]

No, no body had answered this question before.

I am glad you had noticed.

I made a wrong calculation in the original question.

I recently post the question with the right calculation for another user.

Why are you responding to posts from five pages back, ST? Post #600 is waiting for your response.

 

[Nick Terry]

I suppose your dad might have a problem as well. Or your uncle, or cousin, or...

Well, I'm the only historian in the family, but my late father's cousin is also a PhD (in metallurgy) and was the first one in the family to visit Auschwitz.

 

[dafydd]

Why are you responding to posts from five pages back, ST? Post #600 is waiting for your response.

The phrase ''logical analysis'' in that post has thrown him. Do not expect an answer.

 

[Wroclaw]

The phrase ''logical analysis'' in that post has thrown him. Do not expect an answer.

I apologize. Won't confuse him again.

 

[000063]

Well, I'm the only historian in the family, but my late father's cousin is also a PhD (in metallurgy) and was the first one in the family to visit Auschwitz.

Nope, that means he's also a Doctor. I suppose I could just admit I made a simple mistake, but since I'm trying the Denier Method*, I can't. Sorry.

Whoops.

*It's like the Mystery Method, except the idea is to make everyone hate you.

 

[Wroclaw]

As my father (Ph.D. in economics) says about myself (in English) and him: We're not the kind of doctors that help people.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Yes, indeed, holocaust in the far future will be in the religious books, which are also part of history.

Are you a self-hate Jew?

Why self-hate Jews hate themselves so much?

Why would you ask such a question? What brings this up, and why does it matter?