tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
That's why they lost.
General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II
- Thread starter SnakeTongue
- Start date
- Status
That's why they lost.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
If you don't know the answer to this you have no business posting in this thread.
Ignorance is not a virtue.
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
Look it up. For someone ignorant of the basics, you sure do spout a lot of opinions.
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
You should really read about the death camps sometime, Clayton. It is very interesting material, enlightening in many ways. If you did this, you'd learn how long - in hours, not days weeks months - the typical deportee to an AR camp lasted there. You'd learn under what conditions the very few Jewish workers in these camps were held and what functions they served. You'd learn about the system of Kapos and how it was made to work for the Germans. You'd learn about Ukrainian guards as well as German staff. You'd learn how the camp authorities were organized and how they ran the camp. You'd learn what kinds of punishments were given those kept alive as workers. You'd learn the different ways Jews brought to AR camps met their fates. You'd find out how prisoners were brought to the camps, from where, and what they endured during transit. You'd learn about the killing process, from A to Z, that took place in the camps. You'd learn how the small groups of working prisoners were fed, about the roll calls, what barracks were like, how much drinking water they had, what kind of clothes they wore, and what they thought of the people who held them in the camps.
Now, if you were to read about this and then still to deny that it happened, it might be possible to have a discussion with you. As it is, you offer irrelevant and confused little flashes of total ignorance - so many and so ill-informed that one does wonder why you are here and what you are trying to prove. Even deniers have expressed embarrassment at your antics - and that is astonishing, because deniers themselves show scarcely any shame in how they treat sources and make arguments.
Last edited:
There would still be a clear distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish forced laborers if the intent was working the Jews to death while merely extracting as much labor from the non-Jewish forced laborers. For example, Jewish workers would be provided with inferior accommodations, food, medical treatment, etc. compared to the non-Jewish workers or maybe they would be forced to work longer hours or perform more strenuous or more dangerous tasks. The policies might be intimately linked but there would be evidence of disparate treatment of two classes of forced laborers--Jews and non-Jews--if they were indeed treated differently.
But immediate extermination was not the fate of Jews who were unfit for work. The minutes of the conference are themselves clear about establishing an old age ghetto for Jews at Theresienstadt. Wounded and/or decorated WWI veterans were also exempted from extermination. There was also much discussion about what to do with Jews in mixed marriages and the progeny of such marriages. What we don't see in the minutes is anybody advocating a "Kill 'em all let Dog sort 'em out" policy even after retrofitting the document with euphemistic sinister intent.
And keeping some of them alive who can work is an anomaly that contradicts a 'kill 'em all eventually' policy because at the time of the conference (early 1942) there weren't pressing labor needs that couldn't be solved by non-Jewish workers in the occupied countries.
Letting Jews live until they simply die of old age isn't an extermination policy.
A few brain-dead thinkers and writers have called the Madagascar plan clear evidence of the Nazi plan to exterminate the Jews because, I guess, Madagascar didn't have broad expanses of planned communities with comfortable spacious condominiums restaurants, golf courses, and plenty of trendy shopping districts that were uninhabited and available for a flood of European Jews to move into in the 1940s. Maybe there weren't any five star resorts in Madagascar in the 1940s but planning to send Jews to live there cannot be seen as a diabolical plot to kill them all. The land was more hospitable than Palestine at the same time and you don't hear Jews whining about being forced to live there. What makes the Madagascar plan unforgivably vile is that dumping millions of European Jews there over such a short period of time would have destroyed the delicate and unique ecosystem that exists on that island.
But I digress. An "implicitly genocidal" plan like Madagascar or even Siberia isn't good enough. The treatment of the Cherokee Nation by the state of Georgia was "implicitly genocidal" but nobody says it was an extermination plan. The British, Dutch, and French actions against the native populations in North America; the Spanish and Portuguese in South America, the British in Australia--everytime and everywhere Europeans made contact with non-Europeans, they carried out "implicitly genocidal" policies. And then there's the Jewish settler's in Palestine and of course Potsdam.
If you want to claim the holocaust was a unique crime of unparalleled evil that involved the intentional physical extermination of all the Jews in Europe, "implicitly genocidal" actions that have happened to a wide variety of people throughout history won't cut it.
I concede that point. The economy would have suffered but it wouldn't have collapsed completely if Jews had been completely removed. But it still begs the question of why keep any Jews around at all when there are plenty of non-Jews who could do the work just as well? It's not as if the Nazis considered the Jews to be most productive people in the world. If their ideological zeal wasn't so powerful that no Jewish forced labor was allowed, what does it say about their ideological zeal to physically exterminate all the Jews?
You just keep repeating yourself. You said earlier that there were plenty of non-Jewish workers in the occupied territory to satisfy the labor needs of Nazi Germany. You said that the labor shortages didn't become critical until 1944 when German losses couldn't be replaced by foreign workers because the occupied territories were lost.
So, prior to 1944, why were some Jews selected on the ramp to work and others were selected to die when the policy was to kill them all? A policy of keeping Jews alive only temporarily would make sense if their labor was necessary. But it wasn't. It would make sense if Jews were considered to be stronger and better able to work under harsh conditions than non-Jews. But the Nazis considered Jews weak and lazy. It would make sense if the Jews possessed certain skills that were necessary but uncommon among the non-Jews. But skill-sets weren't taken into consideration on the ramp. Jews were selected for work based upon an instant assessment of their physical prowess made by an SS doctor (nearly always Mengele) and their ability to perform menial labor.
Jews being selected on the ramp to work in 1944 might make sense but what were the Nazis doing with all those Jews prior to 1944 but after the decision had been made to completely exterminate of all the Jews in Europe?
Your scenario becomes more befuddled as you go along. When had Jews been uprooted from their jobs and livelihoods in France, Belgium and the Netherlands and been deported? Prior to 1944? So they were sitting around being housed and fed by people who planned on killing them all since 1941/1942? Or were they allowed to remain at their jobs and earn their livelihood until 1944 even though the Nazis had planned to kill them all since 1941/1942?
Your description of how Jewish labor was exploited is consistent with a policy of exploiting Jewish labor. A policy of killing all the Jews who were unfit for work isn't consistent with an old-age ghetto at Theresienstadt. A policy of wanting to kill all the Jews isn't consistent with keeping some of them alive to work unless their labor was absolutely critical--which it wasn't. At the end of the war, food shortages in the camps were reaching crisis proportions. Non-Jews and Jews were dropping like flies. Shifting resources to the non-Jews would've helped alleviate some of the problems while simultaneously accelerating the physical extermination of all the Jews.
If there was a firm policy of physical extermination the actual fate of the Jews in Europe doesn't reflect that.
You say that the physical extermination of all the Jews in Europe is a strawman that I don't want to give up. I say it's a central pillar of the holocaust. What you have described and what in fact actually happened to the Jews cannot be said to be evidence for a plan for the physical extermination of all the Jews in Europe. I'm happy to drop it. Since you've already said that six million isn't a precise number, that leaves only the gas chambers that are in dispute.
Planning to enslave the Jews for forced labor until they dropped dead could be said to be a plan to kill them all if measures were taken to hasten their demise while on the job. But there isn't any documentary evidence of this of which I am aware. Sterilizing all the Jews who were kept alive to work could be seen as a plan to eventually kill the Jews but even that didn't happen. You keep pretending to answer the question but you haven't done so.
Where was the documentation on the deportation of 437,000 Jews from Hungary found? Are there records of their arrival at Auschwitz that were found at Auschwitz? Are the 110,000 who were selected and sent to other camps considered durchgangjuden?
Only 1,300 calories a day? That's not even 37% more than the 950 calories per day the Germans were getting in the American zone in July 1945 (Decision in Germany, Lucas Clay, page 264).
I hear there was a Methodist minister involved in the lynching of Leo Frank. I'm glad vigilante justice isn't confined to only Christian men of the cloth.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
None of what you write necessarily follows from what I wrote.
From Wannsee onwards, a minority of Jews were to be put to forced labour and this was expected to result in the deaths of a large number of the Jews. This is indeed what happened in many forced labour camps for Jews, so-called Zwangsarbeitslager fuer Juden (ZALs), also known as Judenlager or Julags. Some of the worst examples were the ZAL network along Durchgangsstrasse IV in Galicia and Ukraine, which were overseen by the SS and saw extremely harsh treatment resulting in a high turnover of labourers. The DG IV camps were liquidated in the summer of 1943 - literally. As in the inmates were shot.
Less than a week after Wannsee, Himmler ordered Gluecks to prepare for the arrival of 150,000 Jews in the KZ system. This meant, as became clear from March 1942, Auschwitz and Majdanek, both camps which held non-Jewish prisoners. Jews had already been treated worse in KZs since 1933, but this was as much to do with the ideological zeal of the SS as anything planned.
KZ accommodation, food and medical treatment were already pretty poor, and in Auschwitz and Majdanek during 1942 they were staggeringly worse than in the older KZs of the Reich. Therefore the few Jews interned in 'ordinary' KZs were transferred to Auschwitz, since that camp was placed on a different status de facto. The registered death rate for both Jews and non-Jews in Auschwitz and Majdanek was noticeably higher, but was proportionately worse for Jews for a variety of reasons. In both cases, Jews were also singled out for selections which became a key marker distinguishing their fate from that of non-Jews, especially at Auschwitz. During 1942, SS doctors and medical orderlies developed a practice of bumping off weakened prisoners in the hospitals at Auschwitz using phenol injections. This was applied indiscriminately, and it then ended in March 1943. However, selections of weakened Jews continued.
In the winter of 1943, the new Auschwitz commandant Liebehenschel ended a number of brutal practices which had been carried out under Hoess and by the political department director Grabner. He promised better treatment, in keeping with the overall direction of SS policy in the KZ system by this time, since prisoners were much more important by then as labourers. But selections of weakened Jews continued even after the 'new regime' was introduced. They continued through 1944, until they were stopped in the autumn of 1944 at the behest of higher SS authorities.
Thus, there is clear evidence of a discriminatory treatment of Jews in the KZs of Auschwitz and Majdanek to which they were sent during 1942-spring 1944, before the major volte-face of the Hungarian Action brought Jews back into the 'ordinary' camps in Germany and Austria. But even after May 1944, there continued to be various forms of differential treatment, which included selecting weakened Jewish prisoners to be returned to Auschwitz for liquidation. Only in the autumn of 1944 were Jews given the same access to certain medical procedures, around the same time as the Final Solution was regarded as formally over.
(sigh) We went over this a few weeks ago. You are trying to use an exemption from being subjected to the Final Solution to dispute the meaning of the Final Solution. Jews sent to Theresienstadt belonged to a variety of privileged classes of German and Austrian Jews; these privileges were not extended to Jews of other European nations, who were subjected to deportation to Auschwitz or another camp in Poland, and were selected on arrival into unfit and able-bodied groups, with the unfit being killed immediately.
Since the 'kill 'em all eventually' policy was outlined at Wannsee, the entire set up was pretty clear from January 1942 onwards. I already explained why the SS wanted to use Jewish forced labour.
The Theresienstadt Jews were meant to be exempted from the Final Solution.
(Sigh) Perhaps unsurprisingly, you rather missed the point of my noting the fact that there were prior plans that would have resulted in the genocide of European Jews without resorting to immediate extermination. The point, which you clearly don't understand, is that one can bring about the extinction of large numbers of people through deportation, forced marches, harsh conditions, famine and starvation.
Some of those methods were already at work in Poland from 1939-41, in places such as the Warsaw and Lodz ghetto, and being applauded by various Nazis for decimating the Jewish population of Poland, who were ultimately to be disposed of in some fashion, with the Nazis evidently not caring very much what happened to the Jews.
The same methods resulted in the mass starvation of more than 2 million Soviet POWs in the winter of 1941-2, and were enacted against the backdrop of quite bloodthirsty economic planning which projected the demise of 20-30 million people in the Soviet Union as a result of the Nazi invasion. The "Hunger Plan", which was quite real and has a fair old paper trail to explain it, meant that any plan to deport the Jews of Europe to "Siberia" was a plan to bring about the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe through expulsion, forced marches and starvation.
Subsequent Nazi planning for the colonisation of the occupied Soviet Union, the General Plan East, also proceeded on the basis of a population reduction of 20-30 million people.
Nothing like these plans have ever been contemplated by another state in human history. The scale of them dwarfs what was actually carried out because they could not be enacted under wartime conditions. The modified variant that was actually enacted killed 2 million Soviet POWs and more than a million Soviet civilians through famine, and it provided a further justification for murdering 1 million Soviet Jews outright.
It also meant that further deportation planning for the Final Solution from mid-1941 onwards was understood as part of the wider racial and economic planning of the Nazi regime. That is why Eberhard Wetzel of the Eastern Ministry noted in the spring that:
The same memo notes that "It should be clear that one cannot solve the Polish question by liquidating the Poles like the Jews".
What documents like this indicate is that up to the start of 1942, serious thought was given by the Nazis to simply deporting all the Jews 'to the east' and dumping them in northern Russia (by Murmansk) or across the Urals in Siberia. This could only have been done if the Soviet Union had collapsed entirely and the Nazis had rolled all the way up to the Urals as originally planned.
You are getting yourself tied in semantic and conceptual knots here. Many of the examples you cite are commonly regarded as examples of genocide. The language and rhetoric which accompanied them was also genocidal, 18th Century settlers repeatedly talked about 'extirpating' aboriginals and Native Americans. The idea of destroying another people was clearly on the cards.
The destruction of a people does not need to be brought about by 'immediate extermination'. So when Nazis talked about 'die Vernichtung der juedischen Rasse im Europa' they were referring to a macro-process of destruction that did not have to be carried out by any specific means. As long as the Jewish race was destroyed, it did not matter how this was done. Nazi rhetoric referring to destruction goes back to 1939 at the latest, and keeps on going after January 1942.
By early 1942, the Final Solution of the Jewish Question meant the Vernichtung or Ausrottung of the Jewish race in Europe through a combination of methods, some short-term and some medium term. The plan was to deport Jews other than a few exempted categories to the 'east' where they would be divided into the unfit and the able-bodied. The unfit would be killed and the able-bodied would be put to forced labour and decimated over time. That was very clearly what they intended and was what they enacted from the spring of 1942 onwards, coalescing by July 1942 into a multi-camp program, symbolised by selection on arrival at Auschwitz.
Excuse me, where have I ever said that? Please quote me saying anything along these lines.
Since I don't regard the Holocaust as uniquely unique, then please find someone else who might care about your strawman.
I am discussing the Holocaust as it actually happened, a Nazi policy of mass murder and maltreatment towards the Jews of Europe which saw about 2.6 million killed in death camps or en route, along with 2 million shot and 700,000 or so dying in ghettos and concentration camps.
Actually, Nazi antisemitism very much got off on the idea of putting 'workshy' Jews to work in degrading physical labour. Their ideological zeal helps explain why they might enjoy keeping some Jews around to torment.
But mostly, your inability to understand the historical record is simply inane. "The Nazis" were not a homogeneous group; some Nazi politicians were more pragmatic than others. We can identify hardcore ideologues among them, people like Himmler and Bormann, people who tended to push for maximum destruction, as well as figures who were not quite as deranged, such as Gauleiter Greiser and Hans Frank.
The latter two politicians ruled over territories where the Jews formed a major part of the existing industrial, artisanal and commercial workforce. From 1939 onwards, Nazi policies had reduced Jewish economic participation drastically, and also created ever larger groups of 'surplus' populations by throwing Jewish shop-keepers out of work, impoverishing them and making them more and more useless due to malnutrition and poverty. But dispensing overnight with all Jews in Poland was too radical even for the Nazis. Thus, in the Government-General, the Nazis deported and killed about 80% of the Jewish population in the space of a year, sparing only 20%.
In the same region, there were other parts of the Nazi state that were not as bound to Nazi ideological dogma as the Party or SS. Like the Wehrmacht. It is pretty well documented that the Wehrmacht wanted to keep Jewish forced labourers in Poland, and went so far as to protest the rapidity of the deportations because of the economic disruption they caused. This resulted in the general in question being sacked, but it also meant that Himmler and the SS reiterated their acceptance that some Jews would be kept alive for a time, as long as they were in camps under SS control and not wandering around. So for the next year or so, the SS progressively removed all the remaining ghettos and work camps into their KZs or killed them if they were surplus to requirements.
Evidently, the Nazis found it perfectly acceptable to have something of a transition. I really don't get why this is so hard for you to understand.
I keep repeating myself because you keep on failing to understand what is perfectly comprehensible to an undergraduate.
Firstly, the policy was clearly not to 'kill them all' immediately. Please desist from this strawman forthwith.
Secondly, I have explained several times now that the SS wanted to use Jewish labour for *its* purposes. During 1942 and 1943, one part of the SS, the RSHA, organised the deportation of fewer than half a million Jews to Auschwitz. Another part of the SS, the WVHA, oversaw the murder of those deemed unfit and the exploitation of the able-bodied, in conditions which saw a huge turnover of the camp population. Think of Auschwitz as a free port, treaty port or extraterritorial space under the control of the SS alone. Think of the Auschwitz inmates as people in limbo. Auschwitz inmates were at the disposal of the SS to do with as they pleased, whether that was helping with agricultural experiments, building the camp and barracks for the SS, and working for industrial firms who had concessions in the treaty port that had been negotiated by the SS.
All this came about because a promised transfer of 300,000 Soviet POWs fell through, as they were all dead or badly needed on the labour market outside the Auschwitz limbo. It is thus perfectly clear why Himmler decided to use Jews in Auschwitz for work, because he couldn't get any other easily available source of labour. The only alternative would have been a massive program of arresting suspected resistance fighters across Europe, which would have been much more time-consuming and also brought the SS into conflict with other agencies, since arresting 150,000 inhabitants of Warsaw overnight would remove workers from existing factories.
Thirdly, all this has to be seen in time and space across the whole of Europe. As of January 1942, Soviet POWs were not being handed over to the SS as freebie workers. They were going to Germany and Austria to work in the war economy. Ukrainian civilians were being sucked out of Ukraine to work in the fields and factories in Germany and Austria. German and Austrian Jews were a small minority and did not matter much economically, but some Jewish armaments workers were exempted until early 1943 because of the pressure of the Wehrmacht. Once again, we are back to the fact that the Nazi regime was not homogeneous and was deeply factionalised.
The situation in western Europe was similar. Let us take France as an example. French civilians began to be deported in larger numbers to Germany for work at the precise same time as the Final Solution began. French Jews couldn't be deported to Berlin or Hannover or Munich because this would violate Nazi racial expectations and would not bring about any kind of solution. French Jews were also not a huge economic factor in France due to the small size of the population (300,000 vs 40 million), and thus could be rounded up and deported with few impediments from economic agencies. Thus, the deportation of French Jews did not cause massive economic damage to the occupied economy of France (which was suffering far more from German occupation costs and the ensuing inflation, along with shortages of raw materials). So there was no countervailing force to stop the deportations or slow them down for really significant portions of the French Jewish population.
Therefore, the SS decided to add French Jews to the pile for Auschwitz, killing those who were unfit for work, and exploiting the able-bodied. Just as every frakking history book on the subject says.
(sigh) See above. This is becoming exceedingly tiresome.
See above.
See above.
Sitting around where? Jews in western Europe were shipped out almost as fast as they could be by the Nazis, and until spring 1943 uniformly sent to Auschwitz where they were either killed on arrival or selected for work. Once selected, they did not 'sit around' but were put to work building the camp or they became ill and were selected for the gas chambers after a few weeks in one of multiple selections.
The only real exception in western Europe was the treatment of Jewish electronics workers employed by the Dutch firm of Philips, who were kept until 1944 at their usual jobs then deported to Auschwitz, before being transferred en bloc to work in German factories, after the U-turn of May 1944.
and with killing the unfit, which you don't explaoin.
But it is consistent with a policy of killing all unfit Jews subjected to the Final Solution. The Jews of Theresienstadt were exempted from the Final Solution. These exemptions applied only to German and Austrian Jews.
Your repetitions don't add anything here except to confirm you don't understand the history. If you really believe the nonsense you are spouting, try narrating the evidence properly, as I have been doing, and explain what happens to each group affected by Nazi policy from 1942 onwards. I bet you can't do it.
Now you're talking at the end of the war. I was talking about May 1944 onwards, when the situation was somewhat different. The food factor varied almost year on year depending on harvests, the extent of occupied territory available for exploitation, and so on. In the summer of 1944, the Nazis still controlled Hungary, for example - with a lot of agricultural land. By the spring of 1945, they had lost virtually all of Hungary, and the agricultural cycle was a long way off a new harvest.
So when in May 1944, Hitler decided to reverse Nazi policy and bring Jews back to the Reich for work, the decision was predicated on a need for labour. The labour factor overrode other considerations. The Jewish KZ inmates would be fed at KZ ration scales, which were not huge. Thus, the KZ system expanded considerably, going from 300,000 to 700,000 over the course of 1944. The death rate also climbed, due to the influx of new prisoners, and concomitant shortages at various points. KZ labour was a last-resort measure because it was inefficient, due to SS incompetence, brutality and the rapid improvisation of the new expanded camp system.
By the spring of 1945, the system was breaking down, but also we note that the Final Solution was formally over. It had stopped in November 1944. Jewish KZ inmates continued to be subjected to antisemitic discrimination and torments at the hands of the SS after November 1944, and died in quite large numbers. The end of the Third Reich is still part of the Holocaust, but that term refers to the entire gamut of treatment of Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators from 1933 to 1945. Jews dying in Belse died in the Holocaust, but they did not die in the Final Solution.
And sorry, you don't get to dictate the terms here, they are in far wider use than your pathetic obfuscation routine.
On the contrary, the numbers clearly do reflect such a policy.
By 1945, at least 5.1 million Jews had been killed by the Nazis or their allies. Even subtracting the 300,000 or so killed by the Romanians, the Nazis themselves had killed 4.8 million Jews. In January 1945, the Nazis had direct physical control over about 300,000 Jews in the KZ system all working as labourers or about to be dumped in an overflow camp like Belsen and left to die. They also had direct physical control over the privileged Theresienstadt ghetto, with fewer than 40,000 inmates, and potentially direct control over a few 10s of 1000s of privileged Jews in mixed marriages across the Greater German Reich.
Since Jews in mixed-marriages or in Theresienstadt were privileged, the key numbers are 4.8 million, and 300,000. A 16:1 ratio.
"Dropping it" isn't good enough. If you "drop it" then you will undoubtedly bring this crap up again at a future date, resulting in the same spiral of incomprehension from you and the same strawmen.
My position is the one in the history books: the Nazis and their fascist allies killed between 5-6 million Jews during WWII, in my view something above 5.3 million Jews, of whom 2.6 million died in death camps or en route, more than 2 million were shot, and about 700,000 died in ghettos or in 'ordinary' camps. This picture is essentially the same as you will get from any other historian. In particular, the death camp figures have wide agreement because of the research done in the past 20 years. Well under half the victims of the Holocaust were killed on arrival in death camps.
The Nazis carried out this genocide in order to meet the goal of destroying the Jewish race in Europe. This goal was articulated by Hitler and other leading Nazis between January 1939 and January 1942, at first as a threat (Hitler's prophecy speech of January 1939) and from the outbreak of war, as a looming reality. It is my view that Hitler decided to order the extermination of the Jews of Europe in December 1941 once the war had become a world war, in accordance with his 'prophecy'. By this time, more than a million Jews were dead.
Hitler is not known as being big on details, and so when the order was passed down to Himmler and Heydrich, it was modified, in reaction to multiple pressures from multiple agencies as well as the desires and intentions of the SS. The ultimate goal was destruction, but this would take place in stages and proceed across Europe step by step. To forestall objections and head off unrest inside Germany and inside the NSDAP from less than fanatical Nazis, various exemptions were granted, which also helped create a cover legend. This, in essence, is the Wannsee conference.
Clearly, the Nazis implemented that plan through 1942 to spring 1944, with some modifications, but the course of events from March 1944 to May 1944 is recognisably the same as a sane reading of Wannsee.
The Nazis also kept on referring to the destruction of the Jews, both in Hitler speeches and in statements by Himmler as well as Hans Frank and others. The Nazis were hardly unaware of the potential contradictions. In mid-1943 Hans Frank said for example:
Thus Frank saw what you seemingly cannot, which is that the ideological goal of destroying the Jews had to be harmonised with other factors and requirements. The solution chosen was terrifyingly elegant.
Firstly, the statement in Wannsee about finishing off the remnant refers to a future time after the decimation of Jews under forced labour conditions. It doesn't refer to a fully worked out strategy of 'destruction through labour'. The wording of Wannsee makes it clear that the decimation of Jews through forced labour would come out 'naturally'. This is precisely what happened. Jews dropped dead in very large numbers from exhaustion and malnutrition, or were selected for gas chambers or shot once they were judged to be exhausted.
And yet, the SS conducted experiments throughout 1942 to 1944 to organise an efficient means of mass sterilisation, at Auschwitz, using Jewish women as test subjects, with a view for the longer term for 'after the war'. Sterilisation was clearly repeatedly proposed as a solution to e.g. the Mischlinge question, exemptions for Jews in mixed-marriages, and for the Jewish workforce spared temporarily for labour. The very fact that in the Wannsee protocol, there was much discussion of the need to sterilise Mischlinge indicates that any solution to the Jewish Question was going to be biological. That isn't something which even vaguely supports a 'revisionist' position, sorry.
Cut the crap. I've answered the question so many times now you are running out of ways to obfuscate my answers. You simply won't accept that the goal of Vernichtung der juedischen Rasse was simply, flatly, end-of-story, carried out in stages. The unfit died first, the able bodied were decimated, only the end of the war saved a remnant, in what is a worse than 16:1 ratio for Jews subjected to the Final Solution.
And there you go claiming to have read Hilberg.
Pray tell, are you about to try the Butz argument that 437,000 Hungarian Jews weren't deported, because if so it would amuse me greatly. The records are largely those of the German embassy in Budapest, who sent out virtually daily reports to Berlin, corroborated by other Nazi sources received in other agencies, together with Hungarian records, including multiple Hungarian Gendarmerie reports, most notably a record of all the trains that passed through Kosice on the way to Poland with the number of passegers recorded for each of them.
Some, but I already explained that most Auschwitz records were destroyed.
Minus the 29,000 registered at Auschwitz itself, yes. By all means provide hard evidence that there were more than 80,000 Hungarian Durchgangsjuden.
The Hungarian Action really is the end-game for Holocaust denial, by the way. There was no 'east' left into which 320,000 unfit Jews could be deported. There was nowhere in Poland or Germany where the Nazis could possibly have put them and not been noticed or recorded in some fashion. 437,000 Jews were demonstrably deported. The deportations happened so late in the war that a large proportion of the registered Jews survived. They gave at least 5,000 testimonies in 1945, and many more since then, which match up to the picture from documents. The size of the transports, etc, are confirmed many times over.
Last edited:
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
But far more than there German guards and the communities around the camps were getting at the time, when there was no wide spread starvation among the civilian population. Nor were those Germans in the American zone forced into slave labour.
Nor was there an equivalent to the Frank diary, (that's Hans, not Anne) who boldy states "That we sentence 1.2 million Jews to die of hunger should be noted only marginally. It is a matter, of course, that should the Jews not starve to death it would, we hope, result in a speeding up of anti-Jewish measures." Not to mention "It is clear that the working program is made difficult when in the middle of the program, during the war, the order for complete annihilation of the Jews is given. The responsibility for this cannot be placed upon the government of the General Government. The directive for the annihilation of the Jews comes from higher quarters."
No one denies that post-war Germany suffered famine as a result of Nazi policies, so what *was* your point?
Sounds to me like this Samuel Willenberg is a catty little starts-with-b-and-rhymes-with-witch. Sam and all the in-crowd prisoners make up names for other prisoners who aren't as attractive as they are but don't have a problem with using them when they need something from them. Calling somebody ugly doesn't sound overtly sexual. It's just kind of petty.
That is an utter absurdity. It's crazy talk. What kind of a moron would say something like that? Nobody even mentioned a fear of Stalin at all until Dogzilla suddenly brings it up back in post number.....well I can't find exactly when he brought it up or how he said it or what the context was but I do know it was out of context and not relevant. Why does Dogzilla think the fear of Stalin has anything to do with deciding to be a slave or volunteering for the SS? This incredulous goal-post moving quote mine strawman is the reason nobody takes Dogzilla seriously.
Tell us Dog, why do you hate the Jews?
It's not surprising that a brain dead Nazi would think Nazism is a viable political alternative. Thinking Nazism is a viable political alternative is what makes a brain dead Nazi a brain dead Nazi. What is surprising is why YOU think Nazism would be a viable political alternative if it weren't for the holocausting.
Isn't he a Nazi? If so, that's probably why he thinks it's a viable political alternative.
You say there's a group of racists and anti-semites who have come up with what appears to you to be a workable plan to convince the world there was never a holocaust so they can take over and kill all the Jews. Explain how that would work without invoking a conspiracy.
No it doesn't. But if you believe in the rehabilitating the Nazi's conspiracy you're susceptible to any form of woo.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
So the German Jewish people were not really the problem. It was the pesky Dutch Jews and other European Jews.
Previously in this thread we were told Theresienstadt was a showcase camp.
Justice Grey also said of Irving: Many of his works have been published by houses of the highest standing and have attracted favourable reviews. It is beyond dispute that over the years (Irving is now aged 62), he has devoted an enormous amount of time to researching and chronicling the history of the Third Reich. The books themselves are eloquent testimony to his industry and diligence."
In other words, a well respected historian.
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,084
David Irving received a new assignment and identity from the "Nazis"...
Computer hacker:
CBC Discusses Nazi Hack
(...) The focus of the story was on the hacked emails and websites that were published not long ago.
Perverted Politician:
The Governor, A Swinish Neo-Nazi Hack... [Explicit] - From the Album The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent And Depraved [Explicit]
Philosopher:
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2009
"A Prolific, Provincial Nazi Hack."
No, not this one.
This one.
Computer hacker:
CBC Discusses Nazi Hack
(...) The focus of the story was on the hacked emails and websites that were published not long ago.
Perverted Politician:
The Governor, A Swinish Neo-Nazi Hack... [Explicit] - From the Album The Kentucky Derby Is Decadent And Depraved [Explicit]
Philosopher:
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2009
"A Prolific, Provincial Nazi Hack."
No, not this one.
This one.
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,084
..intellectual hypocrites pretending that Elie Wiesel is not being "COACHED, EXCUSED OR CITED" as "history" in the classrooms...
Elie Wiesel
Lesson plans for Night
(...)
Colors and Symbols of Stigmatization
The students will research the different colors and symbols used to symbolize the Nazi party's list of undesirable people. The students will gain an understanding of how other people can arbitrarily judge other people as inferior. This activity is designed as a prereading activity for Night.
Divine Impulses: Elie Wiesel
Video, about 4 1/2 minutes, of Wiesel's interview with Sally Quinn. He mentions "losing everything" to Bernard Madoff and the metaphor of Cain and Abel.
Elie Wiesel: First Person Singular
Biography, a teacher guide, and links to additional resources. This site supports the video/DVD available from PBS.
(...)
Teaching Historical Background
More lesson plans and resources for teaching about the Holocaust.
http://www.webenglishteacher.com/wiesel.html
Lesson plans for Night
(...)
Colors and Symbols of Stigmatization
The students will research the different colors and symbols used to symbolize the Nazi party's list of undesirable people. The students will gain an understanding of how other people can arbitrarily judge other people as inferior. This activity is designed as a prereading activity for Night.
Divine Impulses: Elie Wiesel
Video, about 4 1/2 minutes, of Wiesel's interview with Sally Quinn. He mentions "losing everything" to Bernard Madoff and the metaphor of Cain and Abel.
Elie Wiesel: First Person Singular
Biography, a teacher guide, and links to additional resources. This site supports the video/DVD available from PBS.
(...)
Teaching Historical Background
More lesson plans and resources for teaching about the Holocaust.
http://www.webenglishteacher.com/wiesel.html
Lesson Plan
Using Student-Centered Comprehension Strategies with Elie Wiesel’s Night
(...)
Working in small groups, students use reciprocal teaching strategies as they read and discuss Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night. Everyone in the classroom takes a turn assuming the “teacher” role, as the class works with four comprehension strategies: predicting, question generating, summarizing, and clarifying.
http://www.readwritethink.org/class...using-student-centered-comprehension-884.html
Using Student-Centered Comprehension Strategies with Elie Wiesel’s Night
(...)
Working in small groups, students use reciprocal teaching strategies as they read and discuss Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night. Everyone in the classroom takes a turn assuming the “teacher” role, as the class works with four comprehension strategies: predicting, question generating, summarizing, and clarifying.
http://www.readwritethink.org/class...using-student-centered-comprehension-884.html
Lessons from Elie Wiesel’s Classroom
(...)
I was 19 when I entered Prof. Wiesel’s first class at Boston University. I’m 53 now, and I still get a thrill from being there, a feeling of awe, gratitude and hope for our world. The lessons I keep learning have helped me throughout my life.
This semester Prof. Wiesel is teaching his own works, fiction and non-fiction. I attended a class that focused on his book, “The Trial of G-d,” and another using “Legends of Our Time,” one of my favorite of his more than 50 books he’s written. The lecture on Monday evening, Nov. 1 was entitled, “The Rebbe of Ger – A Tragedy in Hasidism.”
Cantor Deborah Katchko-Gray is cantor and musical director at Temple Shearith Israel in Ridgefield.
http://www.jewishledger.com/2010/12/lessons-from-elie-wiesels-classroom/
(...)
I was 19 when I entered Prof. Wiesel’s first class at Boston University. I’m 53 now, and I still get a thrill from being there, a feeling of awe, gratitude and hope for our world. The lessons I keep learning have helped me throughout my life.
This semester Prof. Wiesel is teaching his own works, fiction and non-fiction. I attended a class that focused on his book, “The Trial of G-d,” and another using “Legends of Our Time,” one of my favorite of his more than 50 books he’s written. The lecture on Monday evening, Nov. 1 was entitled, “The Rebbe of Ger – A Tragedy in Hasidism.”
Cantor Deborah Katchko-Gray is cantor and musical director at Temple Shearith Israel in Ridgefield.
http://www.jewishledger.com/2010/12/lessons-from-elie-wiesels-classroom/
Teaching Elie Wiesel’s Night:
Workbook Questions and
Critical Reflection Exercises
By Chris Frost
San Diego State University
(...)
Critical feeling concerns mindful attention to values, priorities, and meanings—
aspects of life sometimes neglected in favor of more rational, analytical and “scientific” modes (see, e.g., the essay on using Night in a “Religion, Science and the Quest for Meaning” course). However, as the Holocaust reminds us, realities of life are not always logical or rational. In teaching his own work, for example, Wiesel began with this statement: “I hope that you will understand that which cannot be understood.” It may be that intellectual analysis and critical thinking are necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, components of the type of deep understanding that Wiesel has in mind here.
http://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Academics/NightWorkbook.pdf
Workbook Questions and
Critical Reflection Exercises
By Chris Frost
San Diego State University
(...)
Critical feeling concerns mindful attention to values, priorities, and meanings—
aspects of life sometimes neglected in favor of more rational, analytical and “scientific” modes (see, e.g., the essay on using Night in a “Religion, Science and the Quest for Meaning” course). However, as the Holocaust reminds us, realities of life are not always logical or rational. In teaching his own work, for example, Wiesel began with this statement: “I hope that you will understand that which cannot be understood.” It may be that intellectual analysis and critical thinking are necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, components of the type of deep understanding that Wiesel has in mind here.
http://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Academics/NightWorkbook.pdf
Twitter: Memoirs & Personal Narratives
Every Fall students accost me in the classroom, on the way to lunch and even exiting the bathroom. They clutch college application essays that they beg me to read. I’m usually not the first teacher they approach. They want as many opinions as possible. They’re terrified their writing is not any good. Often, it is not.
(...)
Consider working on these skills with any personal essays, narrative non-fiction, or memoir units you already employ. Here is a short list of texts with which this type of an assignment might be paired.
(...)
Night, Elie Wiesel
http://wheretheclassroomends.com/tag/elie-wiesel
Every Fall students accost me in the classroom, on the way to lunch and even exiting the bathroom. They clutch college application essays that they beg me to read. I’m usually not the first teacher they approach. They want as many opinions as possible. They’re terrified their writing is not any good. Often, it is not.
(...)
Consider working on these skills with any personal essays, narrative non-fiction, or memoir units you already employ. Here is a short list of texts with which this type of an assignment might be paired.
(...)
Night, Elie Wiesel
http://wheretheclassroomends.com/tag/elie-wiesel
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,084
The German Social Nationalist Soldiers in The Concentration Camps from 1939 to 1945
From invincible brutes to clueless idiots! From Europeans to Americans to Asians to Oceanians to Africans!
A marvellous master piece staged in the General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II
Scene 1:
Scene 2:
The End.
From invincible brutes to clueless idiots! From Europeans to Americans to Asians to Oceanians to Africans!
A marvellous master piece staged in the General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II
Scene 1:
Eddie Dane said:
ANTPogo said:
TSR said:
Scene 2:
000063 said:
TSR said:
The End.
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
Nick Terry said:
Clayton, please try reading the whole sentence. If you get sentences right today, you may be able to move onto whole paragraphs in a year or two.
- Status