General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[LemmyCaution]

It doesn't prove there was no plan. You can't prove there wasn't a plan. But it is another piece of evidence that doesn't support the notion of Germany having a plan to exterminate all the Jews. Hitler personally reviewing and exempting certain Jews from the Final Solution for any reason is surprising. But exempting them from the Final Solution so they could remain in the military where they could serve as spies or saboteurs is a bit daft.

This isn't the first time our two resident clowns stubbed their toes on the matter of Mischlinge and half-Jews.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7933793&postcount=9057

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7933893&postcount=9061

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7935509&postcount=9077

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7935599&postcount=9080

They are apparently unable to retain basic information. Clearly, they couldn't grasp the simplest of outlines of Nazi Jewish policy a few months ago, and just as clearly they are still clueless today.

To quote Riggs, who must have been thinking of Mr Moore and Dogzilla, "To understand this research, one must first be aware of Jewish law. . . . For the purposes of this essay one must also have a fundamental understanding of the Nazi racial laws." Riggs, then, goes on to distinguish the status and treatment - and fate - of "full Jews" and "half-Jews." Fortunately for deniers, to be a denier one must either be ignorant of Nazi Jewish law or so dishonest he will strawman it. Ahem.

The article that I linked to, of course, explains Hitler's aggressive pursuit of the extermination of the Jews, reasons for caution with regard to Mischlinge, that the Mischlinge were mostly unaware of the Final Solution and that they ultimately might be victims, and the late developments of Nazi policy with regard to Mischlinge. What it does not do is throw around BS about spies and saboteurs like a drunk at a convention of antisemites. Somehow Mr Moore and Dogzilla missed all the points which were made by Riggs in favor of nonsense chatter and groundless speculation.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Good question.

Crappy answer.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Wannsee makes it very clear that there were different plans. It goes into detail about what counts as a Jew.

From the protocol, stating the Nazi approach to Mischlinge as of January 1942:

IV. In the course of the final solution plans, the Nuremberg Laws should provide a certain foundation, in which a prerequisite for the absolute solution of the problem is also the solution to the problem of mixed marriages and persons of mixed blood.

The Chief of the Security Police and the SD discusses the following points, at first theoretically, in regard to a letter from the chief of the Reich chancellery:

1) Treatment of Persons of Mixed Blood of the First Degree

Persons of mixed blood of the first degree will, as regards the final solution of the Jewish question, be treated as Jews.

From this treatment the following exceptions will be made:

a) Persons of mixed blood of the first degree married to persons of German blood if their marriage has resulted in children (persons of mixed blood of the second degree). These persons of mixed blood of the second degree are to be treated essentially as Germans.

b) Persons of mixed blood of the first degree, for whom the highest offices of the Party and State have already issued exemption permits in any sphere of life. Each individual case must be examined, and it is not ruled out that the decision may be made to the detriment of the person of mixed blood.

The prerequisite for any exemption must always be the personal merit of the person of mixed blood. (Not the merit of the parent or spouse of German blood.)

Persons of mixed blood of the first degree who are exempted from evacuation will be sterilized in order to prevent any offspring and to eliminate the problem of persons of mixed blood once and for all. Such sterilization will be voluntary. But it is required to remain in the Reich. The sterilized "person of mixed blood" is thereafter free of all restrictions to which he was previously subjected.

2) Treatment of Persons of Mixed Blood of the Second Degree

Persons of mixed blood of the second degree will be treated fundamentally as persons of German blood, with the exception of the following cases, in which the persons of mixed blood of the second degree will be considered as Jews:

a) The person of mixed blood of the second degree was born of a marriage in which both parents are persons of mixed blood.

b) The person of mixed blood of the second degree has a racially especially undesirable appearance that marks him outwardly as a Jew.

c) The person of mixed blood of the second degree has a particularly bad police and political record that shows that he feels and behaves like a Jew.

Also in these cases exemptions should not be made if the person of mixed blood of the second degree has married a person of German blood.

To anyone who has a bit of familiarity with the history, and who is honest, these categories are not news, nor are the tergiversations they caused.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Interesting, thankyou.

Only read the blurb on the link, rather than the book, but it is surprising that there were upto 150,000 jewish, or partly jewish, people in the German military. I had always assumed that there would be some who managed to stay in the army rather than being shot or gassed, but didn't think the number would be so high.

Riggs' research was interesting to me, in that the conclusions follow from the racial laws, yet they are still surprising. It helps, IMHO, in understanding how the Nazis thought about racial categories and identity - as well as sorting out the practical application of law and policy during the Third Reich. It also gives a bit of insight into how ordinary Germans, Jewish or not, perceived these things.

 

[Dogzilla]

Well, the non-deniers on this thread have done both/and. We have answered, oftentimes at great length, with our views of the Holocaust, how it developed and what its component pieces are. When we do this, as you know, some nitwit denier is sure to append an ironic word count to his reply or to dismiss the reply as "word salad." OTOH, we also refer people, whether ignorant or curious, to the basic literature any informed discussant should be familiar with - and not only to "read some books" but often to read specific books. Not our fault if you have nothing to say about - and dodge - specific questions, if you haven't grasped the basics of the historiography, if your don't want to deal with specific and longish answers.

The problem with your responses is that they don't address the central question to which you are responding. Sometimes you have a glimmer of a point but other times you do have, at best, a word salad--a long ponderous response that might be a very good answer to a different question but not the one you're answering. If you actually do respond, you'll usually ignore the salient point, misunderstand or misinterpret what was really said so you can create a strawman which you then slay with hostile rhetoric that belies a frightening lack of understanding of how logic, human systems, and the natural world operate. When you find yourself backed into a corner, you'll refer us to the title of a book and believe that you're actually citing a source. When that doesn't work, you fall back on good old "then where did they go?" as if that's your Get Out of Research Free Card.

 

[Dogzilla]

No, academic understanding is not tangential to the discussion of the Holocaust, its scope, its development. Academic understanding may be tangential to the overall perception of the Holocaust, but not to the Holocaust. You fellows seem to be having great difficulty with differences that are clear to people without an axe to grind.

This is a discussion about the holocaust. If you want to limit your discussion to academics, go over to H-Holocaust.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well I have seen non-deniers quote books, studies, and statistics in those books.

I have seen them cite authors and the works.

Perhaps you should show examples you dont think are actual citations.

 

[LemmyCaution]

This is a discussion about the holocaust. If you want to limit your discussion to academics, go over to H-Holocaust.

Please tell us this reply is purposely obtuse. What the current research says about the Holocaust isn't relevant to our understanding of it? LOL

 

[Dogzilla]

A more difficult toss was honed with the throwing small children through the doorway atop the adults in the gas chambers. I'm not sure the adults complied with the sonderkommando's orders to pass them back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando

http://www.sonderkommando.info/skauschwitz/temoignages/art/olere/IMG4_fichiers/image005.jpg

http://www.sonderkommando.info/skauschwitz/temoignages/art/olere/IMG4_fichiers/image007.jpg

http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/genocide-episode-20-of-the-world-at-war/

Little kids on top of the adults? That's nothing. A preschooler might be tough but a toddler would be a piece of cake. If you want difficult, try throwing a living person into the crematorium like they did at the camps until 1975 or so. Yeah, he'll just lie there on the stretcher. He won't kick and scream as he is being pushed into an oven burning at 1800 F. Jeeez! The gullibility is astounding.

 

[LemmyCaution]

The problem with your responses is that they don't address the central question to which you are responding. Sometimes you have a glimmer of a point but other times you do have, at best, a word salad--a long ponderous response that might be a very good answer to a different question but not the one you're answering. If you actually do respond, you'll usually ignore the salient point, misunderstand or misinterpret what was really said so you can create a strawman which you then slay with hostile rhetoric that belies a frightening lack of understanding of how logic, human systems, and the natural world operate. When you find yourself backed into a corner, you'll refer us to the title of a book and believe that you're actually citing a source. When that doesn't work, you fall back on good old "then where did they go?" as if that's your Get Out of Research Free Card.

Since I have yet to feel backed into a corner, your finale is a bit puzzling. I understand your frustration in that you have trouble grasping the history and comprehending what's written about it. I would try to use smaller words and dumbed down headlines for your benefit. But I am actually interested in this stuff and so I know I would not be content doing that.

Your problem with my posts is that you flail around trying to deal with them, for example, to be specific, when you tried passing off the Jaeger report as dealing with anti partisan actions or population removal - or representing a rogue operation. Of course you didn't like the replies. Sheesh.

This, by the way, is quite a word salad coming from someone who has lied repeatedly about my arguments and dodged the implications of his own.

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is a discussion about the holocaust. If you want to limit your discussion to academics, go over to H-Holocaust.

So citing popular history books is wrong.
Discussing academic studies is wrong.
Films ARE evidence though?

Who is trying to "get out of research"? I would suggest it isn't the folks following the academic studies and research into the context and understanding of archival evidence...

Just a hint, but when discussing history, the study and understanding of history tends to be relevent.

 

[Dogzilla]

No, it just beats your ignorance of the History involved: why *should* they have been considered dangerous?

They were so dangerous they needed to be exterminated, right down to the little boy in your avatar, but it was safe enough to have them in the German military? You do know Hitler didn't like the Jews and for the most part, they didn't like him?

And are you ever going to stop endorsing the lies of Zundel, Irving and Rudolf?

Still haven't been spoon fed that lie from THHP, either, hmmmn?

Are you ever going to stay on topic?

 

[LemmyCaution]

They were so dangerous they needed to be exterminated, right down to the little boy in your avatar, but it was safe enough to have them in the German military? You do know Hitler didn't like the Jews and for the most part, they didn't like him?

Willful refusal to deal with information in the links provided and posted into this thread.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Little kids on top of the adults? That's nothing. A preschooler might be tough but a toddler would be a piece of cake. If you want difficult, try throwing a living person into the crematorium like they did at the camps until 1975 or so. Yeah, he'll just lie there on the stretcher. He won't kick and scream as he is being pushed into an oven burning at 1800 F. Jeeez! The gullibility is astounding.

1975? Source and citation. Living people? Source and citation.

By the way, as a side issue, given that there continues to be bafflement in some quarters that actual people could be carried to and desposed of in furnaces with out an unsurmountable bottleneck, can I ask how exactly mortal humans coped with having to ferry bodies during the siege of kiev, the black death, the plague, the bombing of dresden, the aftermath of hirishima, etc?

And if we are to continue to be told that mass cremations are unviable, perhaps a denier can explain what calculation they use to decide the rate of burning? What temperature? What fuel density? At what point enough tissue has been reduced to ash to allow the bodyto be broken and raked for a new layer to be added? How fats in the body and various tissues act under the heat described in the post above?

In lay terms how long, under furnace conditions, the body has to be kept in tact, or, for example, it will break into embers and continue burning as logs on an open fire do?

 

[Nick Terry]

Actually we're discussing the holocaust. Academic understanding of the holocaust is tangential to the discussion. For example, if the overall perception of the holocaust is that there was a plan to exterminate all the Jews, the fact that scholars understand that some Jews were never intended to be exterminated doesn't matter much.

It's funny, a year or so ago you were complaining vociferously that there was a disconnect between popular and scholarly understandings of the Holocaust, and now you turn around and claim that academic views are tangential? Puhlease.

Fact is, a high proportion of your opponents on this thread have derived their understanding of the Holocaust first and foremost from academic works. Appealing to a man-in-the-street strawman understanding of anything simply isn't going to fly on JREF. Or did you not notice the 'Educational' in JREF? It would be like a Truther telling someone they cannot refer to a mechanical engineering journal, or a creationist complaining that their opponents actually know something about biology.

 

[Nick Terry]

They were so dangerous they needed to be exterminated, right down to the little boy in your avatar, but it was safe enough to have them in the German military? You do know Hitler didn't like the Jews and for the most part, they didn't like him?

It's patently obvious you haven't read anything beyond the title of Bryan Mark Rigg's book, which is pretty poorly regarded for its sensationalist approach and exaggerations. I'd love to see you try to summarise the core points of Rigg's claims accurately.

Incidentally, Rigg never made tenure and hasn't had a university position for six years, nor has he seemingly published anything for five years. He now works in banking.

 

[Tomtomkent]

They were so dangerous they needed to be exterminated, right down to the little boy in your avatar, but it was safe enough to have them in the German military? You do know Hitler didn't like the Jews and for the most part, they didn't like him?

Perhaps you might want to risk going into specifics.

What were the varying classifications of Jew and degrees of Jewishness?
What specific threat(s) were the Undermensch assumed to pose that warranted their destruction?
What relevance did that have to those in the military?


If, for example, you were to agree that the threat Jews were seen to hold to the Reich, wasone of racial impurity degrading germanic bloodlines, or social by virtue of their dominace in academic fields, or even political, by virtue of Jews tending to lean towards socialism, then it would be hard to discern what specific threats conservative jews seperatedfrom orthodoxy by enough generations to pass racial laws, in a military career would hold. Or how these would effect his ability with a weapon any more than those who were not Nazi supporters before the night of the long knives, those who had previously supported socialist or democratic parties with their votes, hitler youth soldiers, and others with equal reason not to like Hitler.

Do you, perchance, understand the specifics, or do you wish to cower behind unsupported vagouries?

 

[TSR]

They were so dangerous they needed to be exterminated, right down to the little boy in your avatar, but it was safe enough to have them in the German military?

No, they were *Jewish* so they needed to be exterminated. Other, cooler heads sometimes convinced Hitler to stop spewing bile and consider that Jews could serve well enough -- even with distinction -- in the military. Not all, not even many.

The fact is that they were *not* so objectively dangerous that they needed to be exterminated. But even you admit that civilian Jews as a "race" were disproportionately singled out for abuse and conditions which made death a very good bet.

And despite that, there is not a single bit of evidence that Jewish members of the military engaged in sabotage or espionage, as you suggested they would have been.

You do know Hitler didn't like the Jews and for the most part, they didn't like him?

It went well beyond dislike as you well know -- but the Jews had objective reasons for their reaction...

Are you ever going to stay on topic?

It is cm and traynor that keep harping on lies by Spielberg (who it should be noted was a year old when the was ended) so *they* began making it the topic.

But neither they nor you care to discuss any lies other than by those you perceive to be Jews.

And we're not supposed to notice this or comment on it?



RRRRRRRRRRRRight...

 

[Dcdrac]

Thanks anyway. I can speak a little German, and read it even less unfortunately. It's just about enough to be useful on holiday, but not enough to read german texts.

Spent half my working life in Germany one way or the other and fully plan on returning.

 

[Nessie]

Under the Nazis, Jews went through a selection process. Some were made to work, some were killed straight a way and others were left in ghettos. Of those who worked some did so with menial labour, others more skilled at the likes of the IG Farben factory at Monowitz and yes some in the military.

Who knows what would have happened if the War had ended with a Nazi victory with Germany controlling all of Europe, North Africa and the Soviet Union. Maybe some Jews would still have managed to remain in Germany and work, if they had served with distinction in the military, had married into German families, were well connected and had a character that meant they were liked.

I just do not see how some Jews surviving tells us that the Holocaust did not happen. There is a huge non sequitur going on there.