General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[nomuse]

Nice try. You tried to attribute it to Spielberg because he's a known name, and born to a jewish family.



Only true if A) his efforts have helped bring the holocaust to public awareness, which is not true and B) the holocaust is a hoax, which you have so far failed to establish.

Well, I would argue that through several documentaries Spielberg has been an active part in holocaust awareness, and having a major motion picture may have reached a few people who were only dimly aware of that history.

The major complaints about "Schindler's List" that I find are from within the remembrance community, and the general tone of them is between "how can someone born after the war understand what it was really like" to "It wasn't really like that." And some details are clearly wrong and there are a few of the usual mutters about plagiarism.

Which, for a historical drama, is small change indeed! Unless someone here thinks "Braveheart" is embraced by both historians and Scottish nationalists...

The worst you can say is that it is Hollywood History -- slanted, glamorized, but still based on something that actually happened.

 

[Moss]

I suppose the next movie to be critiqued will be "300" for its depiction of Persians as a nation of bondage hobbyists.

 

[Dogzilla]

Which ignores the fact that Germany knew fine well invading Poland would result in a declaration of war.

It also ignores the fact that most involved were alive during WWI when Britain came to the defence of Belgium after a German invasion.

Germany had taken back the Rhineland and swallowed up all of Czechoslovakia without provoking a war. Great Britain and France had pledged to support Poland but neither of those countries declared war on the Soviet Union after the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East as per the agreement with Nazi Germany. So, no, invading Poland was not an action that Germany knew full well would result in a war with Great Britain and France. It was a gamble that Hitler lost.

 

[Moss]

Germany had taken back the Rhineland and swallowed up all of Czechoslovakia without provoking a war. Great Britain and France had pledged to support Poland but neither of those countries declared war on the Soviet Union after the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East as per the agreement with Nazi Germany. So, no, invading Poland was not an action that Germany knew full well would result in a war with Great Britain and France. It was a gamble that Hitler lost.

Greedy gamblers have nobody but themselves to blame if their actions result in consequences they don't like. Even if they are failed painters leading a nation.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Nice try. You tried to attribute it to Spielberg because he's a known name, and born to a jewish family.



Only true if A) his efforts have helped bring the holocaust to public awareness, which is not true and B) the holocaust is a hoax, which you have so far failed to establish.

As noted, Mr Traynor was grossly negligent, as you indicate due to his bias, to the point of dishonesty or he consciously lied.

 

[Border Reiver]

Hollywood History = loosely based on actual history but changed to make the story more dramatic to intended audience and therefore profitable for the studio.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Greedy gamblers have nobody but themselves to blame if their actions result in consequences they don't like. Even if they are failed painters leading a nation.

Hitler lost a lot of his big gambles and brought a great deal of harm to the people of Europe and to his own people, of whom he had some interesting things to say as it all fell apart.

 

[Moss]

And it was actually not censorship but the normal act of caretaking. The posts can still be found in AAH.

 

[Dogzilla]

Wannsee makes it very clear that there were different plans. It goes into detail about what counts as a Jew. It shows that the bulk were expected to die of natural causes whilst working, there would be a special action for the more resistant and WWI soldiers were to be treated a bit more sympathetically so as not to upset other Germans and go to a ghetto.

You cannot use a very basic summary of Nazis plan to exterminate all Jews and then go into the detail and then declare misleading basic summary is wrong.

Yes. The summary statement: "The Final Solution was Nazi Germany's plan to exterminate all the Jews" is incorrect. All scholars and well read amateur historians know it is incorrect. But the public perception of Nazi Germany is that Nazi Germany planned to exterminate all the Jews. Saying that Nazi Germany didn't plan to exterminate all the Jews is all you need to say to be labelled a holocaust "denier."

As for Jews serving in the military, so did some British and Commonwealth soldiers and there was a coloured regiment based in the Netherlands.

And some Japanese Americans served in the US military while their families were in concentration camps back in America. But nobody says the Americans planned to exterminate all the Japanese. Nobody says Nazi Germany planned to exterminate all the British and Commonwealth citizens. Nobody says they planned to exterminated all the people of color either. But there is the false impression that Nazi Germany wanted to physically exterminate the Jews. That is why a significant number of people who Nazi Germany might have classified as Jewish being allowed to remain in military is a more interesting anomaly.

That Hitler himself was involved in some of these decisions makes it doubly intriguing. If it's true that "Hitler's own signature can be found on many of these "exemption" orders" it means that we have documents signed by Hitler that allow Jews to be classified as non-Jews and serve in the Germany army but we don't have a single document signed by Hitler that sends a Jew to a gas chamber.

 

[Moss]

Why would those Jews need exemption orders in the first place?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Books are for Joos!

You may want to inquire of Mr Traynor about the progress he's making on his opus, best known as The Fish Reporr. It has been promised now for perhaps three years, with advance notice that it will be earth-shaking. Due to mockery and other issues, that is of the project, I have been taken off the list of those to receive copies on its grand release. IIRC it will bring together in a video format Mr Traynor's beer drinking bouts at research expeditions to the Auschwitz camp complex. Mr Traynor is best positioned to explain the project, why it has not been released at the various times promised, and how it will rock our world.

 

[TSR]

But nobody says the Americans planned to exterminate all the Japanese.

Mainly because of little facts like millions of them did not come up missing after the war, the camps had no facilities for genocide, not a single witness has anted up to witnessing any such crimes, no documentation has been found to support such an accusation, etc., etc.

 

[Dcdrac]

Mainly because of little facts like millions of them did not come up missing after the war, the camps had no facilities for genocide, not a single witness has anted up to witnessing any such crimes, no documentation has been found to support such an accusation, etc., etc.

is this Dogzilla bloke for real???

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

Au contraire Mr. C. I have been aware of Jewish law and how it conflicts with Nuremberg Law before there were internet forums to discuss such things. I know perfectly well that if the Nazis had successfully exterminated everybody they defined as a "Jew" lots of people who are considered Jewish by one of the three main branches of Judaism would have survived and plenty of people who didn't consider themselves Jewish nor who were defined as Jewish by any branch of Judaism would have been killed. I don't know if all "deniers" are aware of this fact. But it seems to be an issue that our own Team holocaust seems blissfully unaware or unconcerned. Yet it's part and parcel of every aspect of German society during the Nazi era. Every action taken against "the Jews" anywhere in Nazi occupied territory is predicated on the Nazi definition of "Jew." When Team holocaust yammers on about the "Jews of Vilna" z.b., or how many Jews Mr Jaeger and friends dispatched, are they talking about Jewish Jews or Nazi Jews? They don't know or they don't care. That this differential definition of Jew would become an issue for the German military is not a surprise. It is a surprise to me that there would be so many soldiers involved and that the chain of command all the way up to Hitler would take an interest in it. According to the accepted holocaust narrative, this means that Hitler himself was involved in the selections. Or at least the "pre-selections.". He would look at an application by a Mischlinge for exemption and need to decide if this person was a true German patriot who could reliably serve the Fatherland or if the person was filthy vermin that needed to be exterminated. Since Hitler was involved in this aspect of Jewish policy vis-a-vis the military, did he also involve himself in the decisions that were made for other professions? Did he decide which doctors were reliable? Which lawyers were reliable? That's what's interesting to me.

Since you're to go-to guy for nuanced Nazi Jewish policy and know all about Riggs' research, how does Riggs treat the Nazi/Jewish definition of Jew? It sounds to me like any decision regarding individual soldiers would be dependent upon if the soldier was to be classified as a "full Jew" or a "part Jew" based upon the Nazi definition. Is there any discussion of Jewish soldiers who would be considered Jewish because of matrilineal descent but who would have completely circumvented the Nazi definition of Jew? I guess what I'm wondering is how many of these 'Jewish' soldiers were actually Jewish and how many weren't but were defined as Jews or potential Jews because of the Nazi definition?

 

[LemmyCaution]

. . . Every action taken against "the Jews" anywhere in Nazi occupied territory is predicated on the Nazi definition of "Jew." When Team holocaust yammers on about the "Jews of Vilna" z.b., or how many Jews Mr Jaeger and friends dispatched, are they talking about Jewish Jews or Nazi Jews? They don't know or they don't care. That this differential definition of Jew would become an issue for the German military is not a surprise. It is a surprise to me that there would be so many soldiers involved and that the chain of command all the way up to Hitler would take an interest in it. According to the accepted holocaust narrative, this means that Hitler himself was involved in the selections. Or at least the "pre-selections.". He would look at an application by a Mischlinge for exemption and need to decide if this person was a true German patriot who could reliably serve the Fatherland or if the person was filthy vermin that needed to be exterminated. Since Hitler was involved in this aspect of Jewish policy vis-a-vis the military, did he also involve himself in the decisions that were made for other professions? Did he decide which doctors were reliable? Which lawyers were reliable? That's what's interesting to me.

What a, uh, word salad of useless blether and speculation, easily answered by the books you say you've read but apparently haven't. As to the occupied USSR, no, wait, we've been through this before. Here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7944577&postcount=9204, where I explained, referring to discussions about broadening the Nuremberg definitions for the occupied eastern territories,

By the way, if you would like to know what Himmler would have done with your definitional niceties, he would have told you that the SS was about getting on with getting rid of Jews, and were not to be slowed down by metaphysical disputes, as he wrote in July 1942 to Gottlob Berger about the re-writing of the Nuremberg definitions by the Ministry for Eastern Occupied Territories, "I request urgently that no ordinance be issued about the concept of 'Jew.' With all these foolish definitions we are only tying our hands. The occupied eastern territories will be cleared of Jews. The implementation of this very hard order has been placed on my shoulders by the Führer. No one can release me from this responsibility in any case. I forbid all interference."

a discussion that differed to that, for example, in the Reich, in the Warthegau, or in the G-G.

Hilberg, vol. I, pp 381-382

Since you're to go-to guy for nuanced Nazi Jewish policy and know all about Riggs' research,

How the frig does my recalling an article I read several years ago make me an expert on Riggs and his research? I thought the piece was relevant, so I linked to it - think of it as community service - and commented on the parts your buddy Mr Moore missed when he started bellowing about what the article proves. Finis.

how does Riggs treat the Nazi/Jewish definition of Jew? It sounds to me like any decision regarding individual soldiers would be dependent upon if the soldier was to be classified as a "full Jew" or a "part Jew" based upon the Nazi definition. Is there any discussion of Jewish soldiers who would be considered Jewish because of matrilineal descent but who would have completely circumvented the Nazi definition of Jew? I guess what I'm wondering is how many of these 'Jewish' soldiers were actually Jewish and how many weren't but were defined as Jews or potential Jews because of the Nazi definition?

I hate to say this but read the article I linked to and you would know. OTOH, as Nick wrote, some of Riggs' conclusions are thought to be overstated.

 

[nomuse]

Dogzilla -- why would I care?

What matters is that a group was singled out for methodical extermination. It isn't important how they were defined, or how successfully defined, or how many errors in identification were made, or how arbitrary the identification was.

If Hitler had written in Mein Kampf that redheads were dangerous vermin, and when he was in power, made an effort to round up and expedite the deaths of anyone meeting an arbitrary and fluctuating standard of having hair that might now or once have appeared red, I would still be as shocked.

Except, then, it wouldn't be quite as likely that people would then show up in various places muttering about the massacre being a creation of an extremely powerful -- though secretive -- red-headed league.

 

[Dogzilla]

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

It isn't completely irrelevant and nobody expects the cutting edge research in any field to have seeped into the public consciousness. But the fact is that more people have read Night than have read The Destruction of the European Jews. Schindler's List and The Boy in the Striped Pajamas and all those stupid Nazi UFO shows on the History Channel do more to shape the popular perception of the holocaust than anything published by any scholars. Academic naval contemplation is fine and it has its place. But when you're talking about the role of the holocaust in society today you need to look outside of academia and you'll find the public gets its knowledge of the holocaust from a wide variety of sources--and academia is not one of the most important ones.

I'm sorry that academia simply isn't all that important to the holocaust. It could be and it should be, IMO. But it isn't. But I'm not saying anything you don't already know. You guys have acknowledged that public knowledge of the holocaust isn't up to snuff and that there's a great deal of disinformation about the holocaust in the public discourse. You guys dismiss it because you don't care and/or you don't feel you can do anything about it. So how can you acknowledge that academia isn't important and then get all defensive when somebody says it's just not that important?

 

[Dogzilla]

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.

Let's see your example of a "lie."

 

[LemmyCaution]

It is pretty obvious why Dogzilla derides book readers - 'cuz books burst his bubble.

Dogzilla pretends he's interested in a whole list of questions about which people were persecuted as Jews, for example in Vilna. Books put the lie to his posturing and to the insinuations they are wrapped in.

Dogzilla makes like there was no Nazi effort to define Jews and like historians are clueless about who was to be targeted.

First, Hilberg, as above. And then there is Arad, from The Holocaust in the Soviet Union, who discusses Reichskommissar Lohse's order of 13 August 1941, "Provisional Directives Concerning the Treatment of Jews in the Area of Reichskommissariat Ostland" (for Dogzilla's benefit, Vilna was in the Ostland), where Lohse directed that "A Jew is a person descended from at least three grandparents who are fully Jewish by race" and so on - reserving to the Gebietskommissar the right to make final decisions: "In cases of doubt, the Gebietskommissar will decide who is a Jew. . . ." This directive also mandated the registration of Jews and their property in the Ostland. On pp. 114-115 Arad further discussed, as did Hilberg, how the civil administration went beyond the Nuremberg laws, promoting a definition of Jew as a person with one Jewish grandparent and who was married to a Jew or belonged to the Jewish religious community (pushed by Lohse). Marking of Jews and a series of anti-Jewish ordinances followed from these definitions. I am too lazy to include the footnotes from Arad here, but anyone can check the book: http://books.google.com/books?id=Dq...Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=arad soviet union&f=false.

I wonder why Dogzilla doesn't like scholarly books much.

 

[Dogzilla]

There is a shedload of evidence of gas chambers being used to kill Jews. Photos. Videos. Logistical records. Testimony.

Let's see one photo and one video that is evidence of Jews being gassed. Define "logistical records" and provide one that is evidence of Jews being gassed. As far as "testimony" well, yeah, you got that.