General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[A'isha]

You're the who said the text of the actual judgment elluded me.

Because you complained that I didn't provide a link.

If you knew what I was citing, and were able to find the text for it yourself, then what's the problem?

It seems Irving wasn't afraid to provide a link to the entire text.

No, he's just afraid to quote the parts where the judge pointed out, in meticulous detail, just how he was a lying Nazi hack.

 

[Border Reiver]

You're the who said the text of the actual judgment elluded me.

It seems Irving wasn't afraid to provide a link to the entire text.

Yes, he linked the entire judgment - being a publically available document Irving is likely trying to salvage some measure of credibility by owing up to his massive failure and indictment of his historiography, as if he tried to deny it, someone with access to either a legal library or Google would be able to get the entire thing in short order. The judgement comes right out and tells you that the events of what is known as the Holocaust happened like they say on the tin and that there are multiple, converging sources to substantiate that position, but not Irving's.

 

[TSR]

It seems Irving wasn't afraid to provide a link to the entire text.

Seems that way if you don't actually look into the matter.

Then you'll find he was either unwilling or incapable, since his link 404's.

But you took a known liar at his word, again -- and it left you with egg on your face, again.

But you're far more intelligent than the res...




Sorry, I couldn't even finish typing that line.

 

[Dcdrac]

David Irving made a good living through painting the Nazis, hitler and the SS in the best possible light until he was shown to be a liar and a fraud in a libel action he started.

 

[A'isha]

David Irving made a good living through painting the Nazis, hitler and the SS in the best possible light until he was shown to be a liar and a fraud in a libel action he started.

I think that's my favorite thing about the whole Irving case.

He's the one who filed the libel suit, thinking he could pull out an easy win because in the UK (unlike the US), the defendant in a libel case has to prove that his/her comments are not defamatory, instead of the plaintiff having to prove that they are defamatory. And he still lost, thus sending his credibility plummeting straight down into the trash bin, making him the architect of his own demise!

 

[Dcdrac]

I think that's my favorite thing about the whole Irving case.

He's the one who filed the libel suit, thinking he could pull out an easy win because in the UK (unlike the US), the defendant in a libel case has to prove that his/her comments are not defamatory, instead of the plaintiff having to prove that they are defamatory. And he still lost, thus sending his credibility plummeting straight down into the trash bin, making him the architect of his own demise!

That was such a sweet moment on a par with that conservative Judge in the uS a few years back slam dunking Intelligent Desigin and its adherents

 

[Dogzilla]

Yes, you are a holocaust denier for saying this.

You're setting up an expectation of consequences that SHOULD have happened if the holocaust happened, but the suggestion is clear from you - no admissions, no arrests, no trials, no convictions? No holocaust.

Foolish, boilerplate denier "scholarship".

No. Those are false assumptions about the nature of evidence and the definition of the holocaust that exist in YOUR head. YOU are the one who thinks that denying one small part of the holocaust is the equivalent of denying the whole thing. In this example, I'm not denying anything. What I said was the truth. If factually correct information about the holocaust puts one on a slippery slope that inevitably leads to denying it then there are obviously problems with the holocaust.

I wasn't setting up an expectation of what should have happened if the holocaust happened. I was addressing a fatal flaw in the the "no nazi ever denied the holocaust" mantra which is found amongst people who don't know much about the holocaust but still are certain that "it" happened. Uke2se does it here. Bravesfan does it here. The holocaust CT nuts expect us to believe that because no Nazi who was ever charged with the holocaust denied that it happened, and because they were found guilty of it, it happened.

It's erroneous on so many levels. Firstly because no denying something isn't equivalent to admitting it. Secondly, nobody was ever asked about "it" or charged with "it." They were asked about or charged with component parts of "it." Third, some defendants did deny their involvement in whatever part of "it" they were charged with. Fourth, whatever facts about the holocaust they did or did not deny aren't accepted as true today anyway. At Nuremberg, none of the major war criminals denied that four million people were gassed at Auschwitz. At the Zyklon B trial, none of the defendants denied that four and a half million people were gassed at Auschwitz.

I'm not establishing some denier evidential standard. I'm pointing out the flaws of a traditional line of reasoning. If the fact that no Nazi denied the holocaust is relevant, it's important to know that what they didn't deny is that between four and four and half million people who may or may not have been Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.

 

[Dcdrac]

There is no one small part of the holocaust, to even think that way is to ignore the enormity of the crime, the fixation with numbers in itself does not detract from the fact that a modern state carried out savage industrialsied murder at several thousand sites across Europe of which Auschwitz was just one.

 

[Dogzilla]

Originally Posted by Bluespaceoddity View Post


LemmyCaution



LemmyCaution gurgles Stunningly great post, BSO. Thanks.
Then, thrusting akimbo, repeats Bluespaceoddity's poignant mental reservation In what respects do Jews differ from normal persons, Clayton Moore?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post


Notice how a question is asked by Bluespaceoddity that completely bastardizes my statement. Good work Bluespaceoddity.

What I find curious is the way Bluespaceoddity asks us how it is that Jews differ from normal persons. Does he believe Jews are not normal? If the question is how do Jews differ from other people, that would be one thing. I guess the biggest difference the holocaust believers see in the Jews is that they are much smaller than non-Jews and, of course, extremely flammable. But suggesting that these traits make them not normal sounds rather antisemitic.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Just found a documentary from 2000 on the David Irving trial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxTynzJAjtI&feature=related

 

[Dcdrac]

What I find curious is the way Bluespaceoddity asks us how it is that Jews differ from normal persons. Does he believe Jews are not normal? If the question is how do Jews differ from other people, that would be one thing. I guess the biggest difference the holocaust believers see in the Jews is that they are much smaller than non-Jews and, of course, extremely flammable. But suggesting that these traits make them not normal sounds rather antisemitic.

No but this looks like the usual drivel twisted,tortured logic you see from the deniers

 

[A'isha]

What I find curious is the way Bluespaceoddity asks us how it is that Jews differ from normal persons. Does he believe Jews are not normal? If the question is how do Jews differ from other people, that would be one thing. I guess the biggest difference the holocaust believers see in the Jews is that they are much smaller than non-Jews and, of course, extremely flammable. But suggesting that these traits make them not normal sounds rather antisemitic.

Unfortunately for your lame attempt to turn the "antisemitic" accusation around, it was Clayton who actually contrasted the way the Jews acted with the way "normal people" would have acted.

Bluespaceoddity was just asking Clayton to explain himself, using Clayton's own terminology.

 

[Dcdrac]

And please visit this site you will see their faces

http://www.holocaustsurvivors.org/survivors.php

 

[LemmyCaution]

No but this looks like the usual drivel twisted,tortured logic you see from the deniers

Of course it is. BSO was obviously asking Clayton Moore why he acts as though Jews held by the Nazis would not respond like other people in captivity and under threat, say, Red Army POWs and so on, and should instead be expected to rebel 24/7.

The word for Dogzilla's post that I am searching for is disingenuous.

 

[Dogzilla]

In a book I am reading I came across this rather simple sentence, expressing a rather simple idea in relation to the German conquest of Ukraine: "The Einsatzgruppen immediately started open-air massacres of Jews, Roma/Gypsies, psychiatric patients, real and imagined partisans, and any other 'suspect' persons."

This simple statement, with its non-difficult, pedestrian idea (that people and groups can have multiple aims and do more than one thing during a period of time, reminded me of an earlier denier fumble as bad as any recent gaffes Clayton's made: one of our deniers has tried on more than one occasion to argue that if anyone wants to condemn the Nazis for setting up special units to scour the countryside and execute Jews for being Jews, he will need to explain away all the evidence of the Einsatzgruppen engaged in activities other than killing the Jews.

In this denier's special treatment of the world and evidence, that the EGs, for instance, murdered the so-called incurables in hospitals disproves that they also had an aim of exterminating Jews and that the Holocaust is therefore a fiction.

How does that denier logic train work? I mean, I can sort of understand how the holocaust would be a fiction if the EG didn't kill Jews because clearly if Jews weren't being shot by the Einsatzgruppen then nothing bad happened to them. But the fact is that setting up the Einsatzgruppen to neutralize opposition to the German occupation and then killing Jews qua Jews and Roma qua Roma and Retards qua Retards and partisans qua partisans, etc. is evidence of the Nazi plan to physically exterminate all the Jews, Roma, Retard, partisans, etc. Why is this so difficult to understand? It is so frustrating and yet kind of sad to see what antisemitism does to a person's thinking.

 

[SnakeTongue]

On 15th May 1940, the Dutch forces capitulated to the Third Reich army, forcing the Dutch government and the royal family into exile in London. [1] The German forces immediately seized political control of the Dutch government after Adolf Hitler’s decree of 18th May 1940. [2] This decree stipulated the Dutch law would receive regulations from an appointed commissioner:

§ 5. 1) het tot nu toe geldende recht blijft van kracht, voor zoover het met de bezetting te vereenigen is. 2) de Rijkscommissaris kan verordeningen uitvaardigen, die kracht van wet hebben. De verordeningen worden in het „Verordeningsblad voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied" afgekondigd.

§ 6. Tot Rijkscommissaris voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied benoem ik Rijksminister dr. Arthur Seyss-Inquart.​

After his indication, commissioner Seyss-Inquart issued a declaration [3] on 25th May 1940, instructing the Dutch judiciary system to follow future regulations enacted by his office. On 22nd October 1940, the commissioner Seyss-Inquart published the regulation [4] VO 189/40. This regulation ordered the registration of commercial business controlled or owned by Jewish people, including a section [5] establishing the consequences for the infringement of the promulgated order:

(...) De derde afdeling bevat de gebruikelijke strafbepalingen voor eventueel niet nakomen van het Duitse bevel: dit geldt als misdrijf (‘Verbrechen’). In het licht van later treft nog even artikel 10, waarin men dreigt met ‘verbeurdverklaring van de waarden, waarop het strafbaar feit betrekking heeft’. (...)​

The commissioner Seyss-Inquart enacted the regulation VO 6/41 on 10th January 1941, which ordered the Dutch Jewish people to report their presence in the Dutch territory [6]. In August 1941, at the request of the commissioner Seyss-Inquart, the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung was officialy formed under the command of [7]. This office would control the deportation of the Dutch Jewish population to territories controlled by the Third Reich. The regulation VO 6/41 included:

Artikel 1. Degenen die geheel of gedeeltelijk van joodschen bloede zijn en hun verblijf hebben in het bezette Nederlandsche gebied, moeten aangemeld worden overeenkomstig de navolgende bepalingen.

Artikel 2. (1) In den zin van deze verordening wordt een persoon als geheel of gedeeltelijk van joodschen bloede beschouwd, indien hij van ten minste één naar ras voljoodschen grootouder stamt. (2) Een grootouder wordt zonder meer als voljoodsch aangemerkt, wanneer deze tot de joodsch-kerkelijke gemeenschap behoord heeft of behoort.​

On 29th March 1943, the Generalkommissar für das Sicherheitswesen, Hanns Albin Rauter published in the newspaper Dordrechtsche Courant an order [8] regarding the regulation VO 1/43 which forbids the Jewish people to stay in the Dutch provinces Friesland, Drenthe, Groningen, Overijssel, Gelderland, Limburg, Noord-Brabant en Zeelandafter after 10th April 1943. The order included:

Artikel 4. I. Uitgezonderd van de voorschriften der artikelen 1 tot en met 3 zijn: a. joden in de kampen te Westerbork, Vught, Barneveld en Doetinchem. b. gemengd gehuwde joden. II. In andere uitzonderingsgevallen kan de "Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung" te Amsterdam vergunningen tot verblijf en reizen in de genoemde provincies uitreiken.

(...)

Artikel 6. 1. Hij, die in strijd handelt met de bepalingen der artikelen 1 to 3 of deze ontduikt, wordt - in zoover niet ingevolge andere voorschriften een zwaardere straf is verbeurd - gestraft met hechtenis van ten hoogste zes maanden en met geldboete van van ten hoogste tweeduizend gulden of met een dezer straffen. Hij, die ontduikingen van deze bepalingen in de hand werkt, deze mogelijk maakt of er aan medewerkt, ontvangt dezelfde straf. II. Het nemen van maatregelen op het gebied van de blijft onaangetast.​

On 14th April 1943, the newspaper Nieuwsblad van het Noorden produced an article [9] asking the Dutch readers to collaborate with the local authorities in agreement with the regulation VO 1/43:

(...) Since the promulgation of the order by the GeneralKommissar fuer das Sicherheitswesen regarding the Jews staying in the provinces, a large number of fugitive Jews and hidden Jewish assets have been recovered with the assistance of the population.

(...)

To avoid mistakes regarding the membership of the Jewish race of those seeking housing and to avoid the risk of criminal activities, it is urgently recommended that all people included in your household are reported immediately to the nearest police authority in accordance with regulations.​

Wilhelm Zoepf sent a report [10] to SS-Sturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann [11] on April 27, 1943. This report stated:

Rapport van Zoepf aan het RSHA over de "Entjudung" van Nederland tot 28 april 1943. Tot die datum hebben 68300 Joden het land verlaten. 6000 als emigrant of vluchteling, 4000 in concentratiekampen in Duitsland, 300 naar Theresienstadt en 58000 naar het Oosten. Van de overige 71.700 Joden bevinden zich 9.300 in Westerbork, 8.800 in Vught en 528 in Barneveld; de rest: 3500 in Amsterdam, 5.900 in de provincies en 10-15.000 illegaal over het hele land. 8.500 Joden kunnen niet gedeporteerd worden omdat zij gemengd gehuwd zijn. De 528 Joden in Barneveld zijn beschermd op last van de R.K. 25.000 Joden hebben voorlopig vrijstellingen als leden van de Joodse Raad, Rüstungs-juden, afstammingsonderzoeken, evangelische Juden en de arbeiders in de kampleidingen. In Vught komt een Rüstungsindustrie. De 10-15.000 ondergedokenen worden ondanks de "Kopfprämien" maar geleidelijk gepakt. Tenzij de stroom naar Westerbork aan houdt zal het niet mogelijk zijn de treinen altijd vol te krijgen.​

[1] War over Holland - May 1940: The Dutch struggle
[2] Decreet van den Führer over de uitoefening van de regeeringsbevoegdheden in Nederland van 18 Mei 1940
[3] Oproep van den Rijkscommissaris voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied aan het Nederlandsche volk van 25 Mei 1940
[4] Omnia Treuhandgesellschaft mbH
[5] Registratie van ondernemingen en personen
[6] Verordening van den Rijkscommissaris voor het bezette Nederlandsche gebied betreffende den aanmeldingsplicht van personen van geheel of gedeeltelijk joodschen bloede
[7] Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung in Amsterdam
[8] Dordrechtsche Courant of Monday 29 March 1943
[9] Nieuwsblad van het Noorden 14 April 1943
[10] Uw zoekacties: Zoeken in de toegangen - Proces Eichmann
[11] The Trial of Adolf Eichmann - Session 35 - (Part 1 of 4)

Harster in Point 10.) of his letter dated 5.5.1943 also used the word "Kopfprämien".Harster in Point 10.) of his letter dated 5.5.1943 also used the word "Kopfprämien".

Word "Kopfprämien" not found inside the book:

Documenten van de jodenvervolging in Nederland, 1940-1945, Joods Historisch Museum

It comes from the Ordinance published in, a.o., the Nieuwsblad van het Noorden of Wednesday 14 April 1943, which BSO linked to earlier. You can also find it in the Dordrechtsche Courant of Monday 29 March 1943.

It come from the VO 1/43 and was published in a newspaper on 29th March 1943. The newspaper piece from 14th April 1943 is only a warning for the Dutch population.

You know full well that the only "crime" these Jews had committed in the eyes of the official authorities was the crime of being a Jew.

That blows your idiotic excuse that this ordinance was only about some criminals out of the water.

The Dutch Jewish population only were "Verbrechen" (“Criminal”) if they infringed articles from decrees issued by the supreme civil authority. The ordinances listed above do NOT consider the Jewish person a “criminal” because his race or creed. Each ordinance has articles with specific penalties for the transgressors.

No denier denies... Our only point of contention is ... the two points of contention are ... "Those are the three points of contention." "Four ... those are the four points of contention ..." Har, Har.

1) A Nazi plan for the physical extermination of the Jews, 2) homicidal gas chambers, and 3) six million dead. Those are the three points of contention. Why not make those three things the discussion categories?

The well documented deportation of Jews from Netherlands to German controlled territory is not evidence for item 1, 2 and 3

See Snakey? This is what I'm talking about. AntPogo most certainly did imply that Jews were never involved in any criminal activity or resisted the occupation in any way or did anything at all except be Jewish. But Bluespaceoddity thinks that if you're unable to provide an adequate explanation of some random passage that he ran through google translator, then your recognition that AntPogo said Jews never committed crimes doesn't need to be taken seriously.

Yes, I see what you mean.

Do you think such data might provide clarity for the purpose of reconstructing and verifying the identity of five Jews whose exchange for NLG 7.50 per head was recorded by "a Clerk" at the "Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung in Amsterdam" in 1943 on a receipt for the transaction. People who were subsequently deported to but never returned from Sobibor.

And what does this have to do with AntPogo and his crime-free Jews?

The German authorities had the legal and military power to pay whatever mercenaries they need.

(...), I'm saying that the authorities didn't care if they were criminals (which possibly a few of them were), or if they were completely innocent of any actual crime (which the vast majority of them were).

"...actual crime":

§ 10 (1) imprisonment for up to five years will be imposed on anyone who does not satisfy the reporting requirements as a reporting party at fault. (2) acts referred to in paragraph 1 are Verbrechten. (3) The assets of the person in accordance with paragraph makes a criminal offense subject to the provisions of Regulation No 33/1940 on confiscation of property.
​

"...few of them were":

(...) de rest: 3500 in Amsterdam, 5.900 in de provincies en 10-15.000 illegaal over het hele land.
​

 

[truethat]

I used to feel very sad about these deniers. But in some way the cynic in me gets a nudge about the tenacity of truth; the way it finds a way. When I first contributed to these threads I felt a weary sense of disgust. I felt like a complicit rapist of history; that even by listening to their denial, I was giving a forum to their statements. The more that they went on, the more that I felt I should not even engage. I would symbolically walk away from the threads. I would sometimes wish to PM other members and say "Don't do it; don't give them a platform, let them fester and die out--- speaking only to each other!"

And yet I sometimes open this thread with a wry smile on my face. The irony is that those who wish to deny the Holocaust have been a huge part of the way it remains in public consciousness and is discussed daily. Consider the way the past slips so easily through a modern sieve that strains out the somber and the dire, the large numbers of death. We don't remember the stories of Cambodians or POWs of Vietnam. Their stories are awash in the drain of history only to be found by dedicated students or those with a vested interest.

If I were a religious Jew, I think in some way I might see God's inimitable "foot upon the treadle of the loom" as if "He" had made it so. But as an atheist I feel there is a passion to this story that insists upon its disturbing invocation so that we do not forget. Here each day we see the stories of those who died. Here each day we see the stories of those who survived. Here each day we see the stories of those who witnessed. Here each day we see the stories of those who participated. Opening the thread always reveals new testimony and new evidence.

This may not matter to a denier who sits like a pathological hoarder in a hovel filled with copies of the same scraps of paper, bits of news articles piled up but useless, google links, proclamation of "restoration of history" and about "getting to the bottom of it all." Their pathetic sifting of the same filthy lies doesn't matter in the end. Something else is happening here for those who know the truth. The story is told again and again and again.

Is it not strange that they should be so vital an instrument in the spreading of information of that very thing they want to rewrite in the history books? Is it not odd that their attempts at decimation have resulted in the dissemination of evidence and stories and pictures and testimony? How brilliantly played is this truth of apophasis? How many younger people who did not really care so much, have learned more in reading these threads than most of the rest of us learned in an entire education?


And so each day, when I come to this thread and see it bulging with another voice from the past, I am humbled by the truth. As much as these bitter souls unfurl another redundantly used and debunked scrap of misinformation, I cannot help but marvel at the way these deniers have unwittingly made sure that the stories of those killed and the evil that was done, are remembered and reaffirmed nearly every single day. Without their efforts, the world may have ceased to care. In effect, they are the bumpers of the thread of this story, this history, this truth.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

Word "Kopfprämien" not found inside the book:

Documenten van de jodenvervolging in Nederland, 1940-1945, Joods Historisch Museum

on page 96. Translated as Aanbrengpremies on page 99

Take away the quoted passages and the rest of your comment is no more than a sad repetition of the devious misinterpretation for which AntPogo already called you to task. The only reason those people were registered, rounded up and deported and murdered was because they were considered Jewish.

Thanks for defending the nazi regime so explicitly.

 

[SnakeTongue]

You might want to brush up on your English colloquialisms before you start trying to be clever like this.

Nope.

Nope.

And nope again.

Hack writer.

No exact results found for hack writer in the dictionary.

Did you mean back water?

Did you mean co-writer?

Did you mean black water?

Did you mean skywriter?

Did you mean hackeries?

Did you mean hack it?

Did you mean backbiter?

Did you mean cowriter?

Did you mean slack water?

Did you mean crime writer?

http://oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/?region=us&q=hack+writer​

It means:

Who could love a hack writer? Notoriously, hacks prostitute their talents and don't much care about the results. (...) An artist can recognize a hack as a fellow creature, partly because they usually share high levels of facility and shrewdness. Artists also know that sometimes no more than a millimetre separates the hack from the genuine article. (...) a hack writer, Lady Carbury, a silly and sentimental woman but a model of efficiency, who churns out one bad book after another. She believes that success comes not from writing well but from having the right friends and patrons, especially newspaper editors and reviewers. (...)

http://www.robertfulford.com/2003-08-19-hacks.html​

Colloquial coincidence.

1960: Publication of Night

Wiesel's New York agent, Georges Borchardt, encountered the same difficulty finding an American publisher. According to Wiesel: "Some thought the book too slender (American readers seemed to prefer fatter volumes), others too depressing (American readers seemed to prefer optimistic books). Some felt that its subject was too little known, others that it was too well known."​

In any case neither you nor Clayton Moore have actually read Wiesel, so your droning on about him simply makes you crashing bores.

E. W. = Hack writer

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

...

Bezettingsmaatregelen, welke geacht worden nimmer van kracht te zijn geweest - Lijst A
http://resources21.kb.nl/gvn/EVDO02/pdf/EVDO02_NIOD05_8578.pdf