General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[LemmyCaution]

No, I questioned the force employed by such guards.

I am not questioning if there was guards or not, I am questioning how the prisoners were forced.

Do you have a picture which shows guards forcing prisoners to kill they own people?

To "kill they own people"? Does the Birkenau SK photo show anyone killing "they own" people? How does killing "they own" people get into this discussion? Why would there be a photo of something that didn't happen? What are you going on about?

 

[SnakeTongue]

Based on what, exactly? You were asked to prove the video was faked, and all you can do is speculate and If and Maybe and Clearly this and that. I especially like how not showing the people in the chambers apparently means they didn't exist. And of course the emaciated prisoners disembarking wasn't shot simultaneously with the car running. It was shot a few minutes later, after they were sealed into the chamber. Because when we see them, they are outside.

How do you know that? Where in the film is any indication of that?

 

[000063]

How do you know that? Where in the film is any indication of that?

I used logic, which would indicate you can't gas someone to death in an enclosed chamber if they're not in an enclosed chamber, as I said in the post.

I note that you didn't actually answer the question I asked you. I also pointed out that all you had was "I guess" and "maybe" and no actual evidence. You can't even prove your speculation that the car was not produced in 1945, nor your claim that the part with the sick patients was not filmed on the same occasion, nor your claim that the pipe is not attached to the original exhaust pipe.

Kevin asked you to prove the video was staged. You could not. I asked you to prove the video was staged. You could not. The video stands as evidence, regardless of your incredulity and evasion.

Of course, we call all see you're desperately ignoring #600 and now #677.

Yes, rather. For clarification's sake, this was the question of why Eichmann's having been kidnapped and taken to Israel to stand trial (both things true, by the way) would mean that, logically speaking, you couldn't trust his testimony.

 

[Nick Terry]

Yes, indeed.

I will explain.

Part of the blog title is "A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues".

Where is the lack of scientific evidence?

Very simple: in the critique itself.

If you and your team were really concerned with the false claims of Mattogno, Graf and Kues from an scientific point of view, you would wisely not address the false claims, you would develop a scientific methodology and develop a research which would answer the questions raised by the false claims.

Do you understand?

You 571 pages is nothing more than a critique of a critique.

It's quite clear you don't understand the critique, which contains a summary of the available evidence on the Reinhard camps as well as a critique of Holocaust denier nonsense.

It's also really funny to see you play the 'you're only writing a critique' card, since by that reckoning 99% of 'revisionism' can be thrown in the trash can. Graf wrote what he thought was a critique of Hilberg. He didn't write a new study about Nazi Jewish policy showing us what really happened. Maybe that's why he's been ignored by conventional scholars.

We, however, are going to be cited by conventional scholars, and have received many compliments from real historians who unlike you are capable of working out that the white paper has two parts to it.

You and your team could had made a new research based on scientific data without the need to prove any "falsehoods".

Strangely, you had decide to address the so called "deniers" and not the data...

If you say this, then you haven't read the critique. Simple as that. The structure and style alternates between outlining the evidence across all categories - wartime reports, documents, witnesses, physical evidence - and showing how this evidence has been either ignored or misinterpreted by the leading 'revisionist' gurus. One could very easily extract a 300 page book from the critique which did not mention denial at all.

The real imbecility of your previous yapping is, however, when you try to furiously handwave away the evidence in the critique and babble about an 'overwhelming lack of scientific evidence'. As I said, this would presumably be the 'overwhelming lack of scientific evidence' discussed over 134 pages about mass graves and open-air cremation... right?

Never mind the fact that you obviously don't have a reasoned comeback against the other chapters, which comprehensively shred pretty much every denier fantasy about Nazi policy and the 'resettlement'/'transit' hallucination there is going.

That work was worth doing, simply to annoy people like you. Because you can't cope with the paper and can't answer it in a coherent manner. It's too much for you. Next you'll be whining that it's too long, even though it's actually shorter than the three books we demolished.

 

[A'isha]

Which previous document is that?

The document you displayed is an order based on the regulation with the filing code listed on it, which was devised by the Gestapo office responsible for criminal matters among the foreign workers employed (and I use that term loosely) in the Third Reich. When this new order with the regulation was received by the Verteiler of the Gestapo office located in Dusseldorf, Germany, he marked it with the filing code 3/43g, indicating that it belonged in a different file than the one the initial regulation was placed in.

Which office produced the document?

"Reichsfuehrer-SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei" means the order to distribute the regulation probably came from Himmler himself (or someone acting with his authority, anyway). "z. Zt. Feldkommando-stelle" above the date means the order was typed up and sent out to the police offices from Himmler's field headquarters, not from his offices in Berlin.

The regulation itself came from RSHA Amt IV D, which as I said was the Gestapo department dealing with crimes by foreign laborers.

Without seeing the rest of the document, I can't really say any more.

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

It's in volume four of the NMT proceedings (the "green series").

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

Why would you think it's relevant? The different offices of the Third Reich all used different organization structures and header formats. Knowing how the Orpo coded and filed documents tells you absolutely nothing about how the RSHA coded and filed documents!

You're comparing an apple to an orange, and declaring the apple to be a plastic fake because it doesn't look like the orange.

[EDIT: Even other SS offices had completely different office formatting...the SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt, for instance, used letters in front of Roman numerals to designate departments, such that subsection 3 of office IV of division C of the WVHA would be listed as "Referat C IV 3". If you tried to argue that the Rauff letter was a forgery because it referenced a contradictory office formatting of "II D 3a" when mentioning a referat as compared with the formatting of "C IV 3", you'd be laughed at even harder than you are now.]

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.

Even aside from the fact that, like with the Orpo document above, knowing how the Reichskommissariat Ostland identified its component offices tells you not a single thing about how the RSHA identified its component offices, the fact that this "code" of yours is in the document's subject line doesn't help you when trying to prove how office codes were formatted for the purposes of identifying a document's sending office and filing information.

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

While it would certainly be immensely useful in arguments against deniers on message boards like this one, not every document is available online (or reproduced in trial proceedings that are conveniently available in most reasonably-sized research libraries).

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

That's because it is a filing code! It's not used to identify each document serially, but to indicate which file the document has been placed in by the Verteiler. Which means that if there are multiple documents covering the same file subject, they would all have the same 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.​

Which is still false, since I pointed out where the filing code has been handwritten on several of your documents, as well as on additional documents on the Wannsee House website.

Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

What, how the Nazi document distribution and filing system worked? It's been well-understood for ages, by anyone who's ever seriously looked into German wartime documentation. Even Mattogno and Rudolf know how this process worked.

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 this stamp is also missing from a document you accept as genuine, why do you think its absence on the Rauff letter in any way indicates that the Rauff letter is forged?

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

As I said, all the other evidence which shows just which statements Rauff made in 1945 were true, and which were less than true - documents, contemporary org charts, his own later statements, etc.

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

I already gave you one...Dr. Becker's 1960 statement, describing how he was given orders by Rauff in Rauff's capacity as head of II D, during the time you claim he was not involved with the deparmtent.

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

I called it out as untrue the instant you tried to use it to support your false assertion that the Rauff letter was forged.

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.

We'll just have to let the reader decide which of us has failed.

 

[000063]

No, I questioned the force employed by such guards.

I am not questioning if there was guards or not, I am questioning how the prisoners were forced.

Do you have a picture which shows guards forcing prisoners to kill they own people?

Query; is a photo the only possible evidence that these hypothetical prisoners were forced?

Query 2; when will you be responding to post 677 or 600?

 

[SnakeTongue]

SnakeTongue: Here's a picture of Russian soldiers at Stalingrad. Can you find any NKVD officers threatening to kill these men unless they keep advancing?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalingrad2.JPG

Interesting picture.

The fog of the morning produced a background layer in the scene. By a moment I thought the background was artificial.

I see four soldiers. One is holding a PPSh-41 sub machine gun in squat position to cover the soldiers running from left to right. Another soldier on the ground is holding a DT-P, a classic machine gun designed by Degtyarov for infantry units. There are two soldiers with rifles. I guess the rifles are Mosin-Nagant M91/30 models.

No, I cannot find any NKVD officers. I know they were usually smart to always keep behind the advancing units.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No, I cannot find any NKVD officers. I know they were usually smart to always keep behind the advancing units.

LOL, this guy is funny, and he does it with a straight face, not even a faint hint he's aware of the irony. Well played.

 

[SnakeTongue]

This is a really weird post. I refer you to previous discussions in which I cited multiple primary sources (you use yellow highlighting to twist what I say - "in this thread I have cited many primary sources showing mass extermination of Jews" - not highlighting "in this thread" of course). You post some Internet links to sites like Wikipedia, as though I think they are primary sources?!?!? You post other citations of mine answering questions about where evidence is dealt with, again distorting that I think these are primary source. Also, I named 2 of the primary sources I had cited earlier "in this thread," just to be a sport (Jaeger, Sakowicz) - and I never said I didn't also cite secondary sources - and what do you do? You list secondary sources I've referred you to (although you mix in Filip Mueller for some reason), as though you are proving something. What gives?

Not sources, but evidence! Did you read anywhere in my posts asking you to provide sources?

When you will even understand such easy concept. You have a brilliant mind, it is easy to polish this concept over it.

I am not proving anything with the list.

You link to Gideon Greif's book, making it seem that I offered that as a primary document from the 1940s when in fact, as you know, it was cited to show the false claim in a statement you made, "Nobody had published anything in which it was claimed that he worked in a gassing institution for human beings."

You did not?

Anyway, I cannot buy the book...

And you finally refer to the Jaeger report with the absurd "analysis" that by posting a summary and explanation of it, I "miserable failed to provide one single link to anyone verify the report." What do you even mean? Do you doubt the authenticity of the Jaeger report? If so, say you do - and demonstrate why. Simple.

I mean you failed to provide a link.

No, I cannot doubt the authenticity of a report which you did not provided...

As to your question about the Birkenau SK photo, why would you imagine a snapshot would show an entire process? Did I claim it did? No. I didn't post that photograph to "prove" how the process was done, in its whole, but rather to show the closest case I could to respond to your nearly illiterate questions, "Why is so difficult to find a picture or a video of German workers taking dead bodies out of a supposed gas chamber? Where is footages showing German workers carrying dead bodies to a crematorium?" So, then you follow a post of a photo used to illustrate one thing with a whole bunch of questions trying to show that I failed to use it to prove something else entirely. Very odd. And very dishonest.

Which entire process? I am not trying to disprove any process.

I am showing that your claim of Sonderkommandos being forced to kill they own kin, including children and relatives, is absurd when compared with the primary evidence available.

By the way, given the conditions under which the SK photos were taken, it is very fortunate that we have them at all. The camp SS were not exactly giving guided photo tours of the killing installations for camp inmates, you know. Sheesh.

Of course not, but there is not one single picture of soldiers watching closely people living on the edge of sanity inside concentration camps? I mean, did you even put yourself in the scene? People living in limited spaces under stress have a great tendency to act as group, not individuals. Under such situations people would do everything as possible to produce an evidence.

Just imagine a group of 100 people inside a death camp. They arrived and nothing bizarre happened. They are forced to work in different roles. Suddenly, they are forced to kill 6000 people per day, during a week. The cremations ovens cannot burn so many bodies, so they are forced to dig mass graves. By accident one find a camera in the leftover belongings. Then they work together to hide the camera and take shots of the guards forcing then to execute the process of mass extermination. After the shots, the group find someone to take the camera out of the camp. The camera end in the hands of a journalist or a photographer. When the negatives are revealed, the journalist or the photographers notice that one of the pictures is showing a huge line of people being forced inside a building, leading him to speculate how could that building have enough space for all that people. The next picture shows grotesque figures of dead bodies being pushed out of a room. The journalist or photographers realize the picture shows something really strange and macabre. From this point, anything could happen with the pictures. The pictures could remain hidden for many years until was discovered or the pictures could fall in the hands of the Allies authorities.

Now, try to imagine the possibility of this to happen while 3,000,000 people are exterminated inside concentration camps from 1940 to 1945.

Should we look for a mathematician to calculate the probabilities?

Full disclosure: I am not an expert, nor do I want to be, on deniers. Never claimed to be, either.

Your rhetoric speak all.

 

[TSR]

Do you have a picture which shows guards forcing prisoners to kill they own people?

Once again, your ignorance is showing: the prisoners were not forced to kill. They were forced to clean up afterwards.

*Do* try and learn a bit about the history you're trying to re-write, hmmmn?

That aside, do you have a reason that such a picture would have been taken?

Do you have a reason that it will more compelling than the evidence that already shows how the killing process worked, and the cleaning up, and the cremation, and the grind of bones, and the disposal of what was left?

I mean, you demanded a pic of an open pyre, and not only ran from it, are apparently trying to pretend that I did not -- while sneering at the death of the little girl who had never done you or the Germans any harm...

 

[SnakeTongue]

If I might return to the document thing for a moment, while looking at the document scans on the website for the Wannsee Conference House Memorial and Educational Site where SnakeTongue found one of the documents he supposedly used to prove the March 26, 1942, Rauff document was a forgery based on the "office code", I chanced across documents that prove he has no idea what he's talking about in his "analysis".

He said,

Unfortunately for SnakeTongue, the invitations to the Wannsee Conference sent under Heydrich's signature prove him completely wrong about the above.

On November 29, 1941, Heydrich scheduled a conference to discuss the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question", and sent invitations to a number of leading Nazis. The invitation was sent to Martin Luther of the Foreign Office (available as a high-quality PDF scan here), and asked him to attend a conference at Wannsee on December 12, 1941. As you can see on the upper left, the document was sent from Adolf Eichmann's RSHA department for Jewish Affairs and Deportation, Referat IV B 4, to which the department's Verteiler, Rudolf Jaenisch, gave the typewritten filing code 3076/41g (1180), and it was sent from Berlin (where Eichmann's IV B 4 was located, at Kurfuerstenstrasse 115/116).

SnakeTongue would have you believe that this was because Heydrich knew that IV B 4 was "the department responsible for the subject discussed in the document", which is why it appeared on the document even though Heydrich signed it, and the lack of such a "responsible" department on Rauff's letter of March 1942 means it is a forgery.

Except that's not why IV B 4 appeared on that document at all. It's because that letter was written by Eichmann himself in Berlin, which is why it bears his institutional symbol (Heydrich regularly got Eichmann to write his letters for him), and Heydrich merely signed it.

How do we know this? Because on January 8th, 1942, Heydrich sent out a letter rescheduling the conference at Wannsee: since the December 9, 1941 meeting had to be canceled, the conference would now be held at Wannsee on January 20, 1942. You can see a high-quality PDF of that letter Luther received here.

The first thing that should become apparent is that this document was not sent by Eichmann's IV B 4, something that should not have happened according to SnakeTongue. Instead, it was sent by Heydrich's office directly, from Prague (not Berlin). And, since Heydrich as "Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD" had no institutional symbol as a RSHA referent, the filing code on the document (half typewritten and half handwritten) is given as an abbreviation of "Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD", C.d.S, and is filed under 18/42.

Why the difference, if both documents are dealing with the exact same subject (the scheduling of and invitations for the Wannsee Conference)?

That's because the first document was written by Eichmann, which is why it was tagged with Eichmann's institutional symbol. It was sent by his office, and even though it was signed by Heydrich, it was Eichmann who was responsible for the content of the document.

The second document, though, was sent from Heydrich's office in Prague (where he was Acting Protector). Since Eichmann was still in Berlin, Heydrich couldn't get Eichmann's office of IV B 4 to write the new invitation. Instead, it came from his own staff in Prague, and was labeled and filed accordingly (the typist of this document, unlike the typist who typed the first document, didn't even know where it would be filed [other than it would be in a file opened in the new year, 1942], which is why the filing code was handwritten in later).

Two documents, dealing with the same thing, but with different filing/office codes, because they were created by (and thus were the "responsibility" of), two completely separate sets of RSHA personnel.

Well done. This time you provided the evidence. I like that!

I recognize that my argument about the supposedly missing code of the department is wrong.

Why both letters finish with "Ihr" and not "iV"?

The second thing that should become apparent is regarding the "date inconsistency". SnakeTongue said,

Now, take a close look at the upper right-hand corner of the initial invitation sent from Eichmann's office on November 29, 1941.

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/wannsee1.jpg[/qimg]

See where the city, the prefix "den", and the first three digits of the year are preprinted on the document? This means the typist who actually typed the document would only actually need to enter in the day, the month, and the last digit of the year.

Now what does that resemble?

Oh right:

[qimg]http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/officecode.jpg[/qimg]

Ooops, SnakeTongue.

What that resembles? Not the document 1 for sure!

In the document your presented the date is completely consistent. Because is a form it is even possible notice a line pre-formatted to help the typist print the date. The format of the date of your document is completely different of the document 1.

Your document: Berlin SW 11, den ??. ?? 194?

The document 1: 26. Marz ???2

You meant that:

Berlin SW 11, ??. ?? 194? = 26. Marz ???2

Your document do not explain the missing "194".

You made a very inconsistent comparison.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Not sources, but evidence! Did you read anywhere in my posts asking you to provide sources?

Maybe that was someone else named SnakeTongue going on and on about primary sources. Never mind, but a primary source is one form of evidence so you lose.

Anyway, I cannot buy the book...

Your inability or refusal to buy Gideon Greif's book on the Birkenau Sonderkommando doesn't negate its existence; the book I linked to, read or unread by you, refutes your assertion that "Nobody had published anything in which it was claimed that he worked in a gassing institution for human beings."

I mean you failed to provide a link.

Are you too lazy to use Google to find the full Jaeger report?

No, I cannot doubt the authenticity of a report which you did not provided...

Grow up.

Which entire process? I am not trying to disprove any process.

Good point, who can follow what you are trying to do?

Nevertheless, a single snapshot or two will show only a single moment or two, not every step of the process, and thus, in this case not the removal of the corpses but their cremation. Are you really as dense as you act? You asked for a specific step in the process, I told you I would post the closest thing I knew of, and you have been quibbling about something ill-defined ever since.

I am showing that your claim of Sonderkommandos being forced to kill they own kin, including children and relatives, is absurd when compared with the primary evidence available.

It would be better if you show me ever making such an irresponsible claim as the one you allege I made. I never wrote any such thing. And I do not think SK members were forced to kill anyone, so there should be no evidence for this.

What you appear to be showing is that you are dishonest about what I have posted and claimed.

But go ahead, if you are not a liar, show where I made such a claim.

Of course not, but there is not one single picture of soldiers watching closely people living on the edge of sanity inside concentration camps? I mean, did you even put yourself in the scene? People living in limited spaces under stress have a great tendency to act as group, not individuals. Under such situations people would do everything as possible to produce an evidence.

Yes, and of course they all had Minoxes and Leicas and were encouraged to shoot photos of the SS. Think about what you are saying. Do prisoners in regular maximum or even minimum security prisons often get to photograph their guards?

they are forced to kill 6000 people per day, during a week.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Whoever argued that the SK were forced to kill anyone, let alone 6000 people a day?

Now, try to imagine the possibility of this to happen while 3,000,000 people are exterminated inside concentration camps from 1940 to 1945.

Should we look for a mathematician to calculate the probabilities?

Go ahead. It would be good if your equations factored in conditions in the camps, including the average life span of a guest, the tolerance of the guards for photography, who was armed and not, who had assigned tasks to do under threat of death and not, and so on.

You might also read about how this one particular camera came to be in the hands of the SK members and how it was that they snapped the photos. No, I am not going to provide a link for you.

 

[A'isha]

Well done. This time you provided the evidence. I like that!

It's more than you've ever done.

Why both letters finish with "Ihr" and not "iV"?

Because that was the way Heydrich liked to sign his letters?

In the document your presented the date is completely consistent. Because is a form it is even possible notice a line pre-formatted to help the typist print the date. The format of the date of your document is completely different of the document 1.

Your document: Berlin SW 11, den ??. ?? 194?

The document 1: 26. Marz ???2

You meant that:

Berlin SW 11, ??. ?? 194? = 26. Marz ???2

Your document do not explain the missing "194".

You made a very inconsistent comparison.

The form:
Berlin SW 11, den 194

Typed on Heydrich's invitation:
29. November 1

Combined:
Berlin SW 11, den 29. November 1941

The form:
Berlin SW 11, den 194

Typed on the Rauff letter:
26. Maerz 2

Combined:
Berlin SW 11, den 26. Maerz 1942

Seems perfectly consistent to me.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with this aspect of persecution in nazi occupied territory. Out of curiosity. Can you outline which steps you take yourself to verify something like the part of DDT's comment you highlighted? What, besides posting a "spoon feed me" type question on this forum, do you do when you're confronted with an unfamiliar piece of information?

Yes, I verify the links posted.

I look for some information to become a bit familiar with the question.

Another point of curiosity. Are you aware that ANTPogo has patiently and meticulously dissected your borrowed nitpicking about the letter or has your total failure to substantiate your forgery claims only registered with your opponents?

Yes.

Did you provided any evidence which indicate my "total failure"?

It seem you like to use "borrowed nitpicking" from other users to challenge me.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Sums up your whole argument.

Not all, but part of.

The missing original exhaust is not a guess. It is not really there.

 

[SnakeTongue]

So you're not only ignoring ANTPogo refuting your smoking gun, you're ignoring discussing that you're ignoring ANTPogo refuting your smoking gun, in favor of, yep, baseless incredulity.

No, I am not. I am answering post by post.

Now is your turn to receive my reply.

Here I am.

You do realize that with those pyres, at that rate, working through the weekends, that's less than a year's work to burn the bodies?

Really?

Show up your calculation to prove your point.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Why would you use as a reference for anything that happened at the camps a diary with a last entry dated several days before her capture?

Are you really that ignorant of the material? Or are you pretending that everyone else is being ignorant -- jumping on the "just because Speilburg makes a tear-jerker doesn't make it so" bandwagon?

Which material?

No.

That was post was for you?

No.

You lost the last call for sarcasm.

 

[SnakeTongue]

You get an F- for reading comprehension. I argued that the question "who is a religious Jews" is an acceptable proxy for the question "who is a racial Jew": the number of false positives is negligible, and the number of false negatives is small. And the question is easier to answer where religion is documented in, e.g., the civic registry. I didn't say anything about "convincing the [...] population".

Bad for me...

I did not mean you say that.

I am confused to understand how racial hatred was used against a religious group of people. I thought the persecutions were solely based on racial features. But it seems the religion was the main factor to recognize the persecuted.

Could you rephrase that in English?

Yes. How the persecutions of homosexuals happened?

The persecution of Roma and Sinti? Yes.

I suggest you answer BSO's question. You might learn from the search for an answer.

Oh, the difficulty to post a simple URL...

 

[tsig]

Not sources, but evidence! Did you read anywhere in my posts asking you to provide sources?

When you will even understand such easy concept. You have a brilliant mind, it is easy to polish this concept over it.

I am not proving anything with the list.



You did not?

Anyway, I cannot buy the book...



I mean you failed to provide a link.

No, I cannot doubt the authenticity of a report which you did not provided...



Which entire process? I am not trying to disprove any process.

I am showing that your claim of Sonderkommandos being forced to kill they own kin, including children and relatives, is absurd when compared with the primary evidence available.



Of course not, but there is not one single picture of soldiers watching closely people living on the edge of sanity inside concentration camps? I mean, did you even put yourself in the scene? People living in limited spaces under stress have a great tendency to act as group, not individuals. Under such situations people would do everything as possible to produce an evidence.

Just imagine a group of 100 people inside a death camp. They arrived and nothing bizarre happened. They are forced to work in different roles. Suddenly, they are forced to kill 6000 people per day, during a week. The cremations ovens cannot burn so many bodies, so they are forced to dig mass graves. By accident one find a camera in the leftover belongings. Then they work together to hide the camera and take shots of the guards forcing then to execute the process of mass extermination. After the shots, the group find someone to take the camera out of the camp. The camera end in the hands of a journalist or a photographer. When the negatives are revealed, the journalist or the photographers notice that one of the pictures is showing a huge line of people being forced inside a building, leading him to speculate how could that building have enough space for all that people. The next picture shows grotesque figures of dead bodies being pushed out of a room. The journalist or photographers realize the picture shows something really strange and macabre. From this point, anything could happen with the pictures. The pictures could remain hidden for many years until was discovered or the pictures could fall in the hands of the Allies authorities.

Now, try to imagine the possibility of this to happen while 3,000,000 people are exterminated inside concentration camps from 1940 to 1945.

Should we look for a mathematician to calculate the probabilities?



Your rhetoric speak all.

I've hilited the flaws in your argument.

 

[SnakeTongue]

It's funny, ddt is not a native speaker of English to my knowledge, but wrote a perfectly comprehensible phrase, 'religion is a great proxy', which may not be ideal, but was easily understood. So along comes another non-native speaker of English, and doesn't get it. Ah well.

Not indeed. Answer posts in JREF forum take me to the edge of my foreign language skill.

I answered your last reply to me 12 hours ago. Now I am back you after non-stop 12 hours.

My brain is not working in full mode...

Do not expect a good english.

So it seems you haven't got the first clue about Europe from 1939-45, much less Europe from 1870-1945.

In which countries are you talking about? The Nazis and their Axis allies persecuted Gypsies in a variety of countries. Are you really going to ask whether Germany was identical to Romania here? Are you really that clueless?

In countries under the domain of the Third Reich.

No.

No.

With documents, of course. Which live in archives, which are then visited by historians, who cite the documents in their books, giving the archival file code in their endnotes or footnotes, which are then read by people who are actually interested in learning about a subject, who then notice the accepted referencing system and realise they can locate the self-same document in an archive, if they are researching themselves, or suspicious about the writer. However, the suspicious person actually has to go to the archive, since otherwise the citation is universally recognised as proof that the document can be found, based on several centuries of scholarship following this basic method.

Are you saying that there are no documents proving that people were offered rewards for denouncing Jews?

What else are there supposedly not documents for? We might as well have it out in the open, to see just how clueless you really are.

No.

I do not know.

It is there any document published in the Internet which I could see to have an idea of how much money was offered to people denounce the Jews?