General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Cyrix686]

Dogzilla:

THOSE PEOPLE WERE NEVER THERE.

 

[Nessie]

The issue of exemptions is very interesting. Apparently the exemption was a Deutschblütigkeitserklärung and here is an example

http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/German_Blood_Certificate

A number of soldiers had them, researched by Bryan Rigg and published by the University Press of Kansas

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righitpix.html

Then why the need for an Abstammungsnachweis or Ancestry Certificate which has a stamp stating not Jewish or of mixed blood?

http://www.usmbooks.com/aryan_proof.html

If there really was no issue with the Nazis about Jews as far as deniers are concerned, why the need for a German Blood Certificate?

 

[Cyrix686]

I have found DZ some more non existent Jews, this time this group of figments of our imagination are being not rounded up prior to not being taken to somewhere he's not read about because he's not satisfied and rejects evidence he is never seen or read...

The VII fort at Kaunas.

http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/this_month/july/06.asp

 

[000063]

Cyrix, evidence Doggie hasn't looked at clearly isn't relevant, no matter how many times people explain to him how it is.

Duh.

 

[Dcdrac]

Evidence.......yes........

 

[Dogzilla]

If there really was no issue with the Nazis about Jews as far as deniers are concerned, why the need for a German Blood Certificate?

Nessie thinks there was no issue with the Nazis about the Jews??!?? Where would Nessie get the idea that anybody thinks that?!? Where's that stupid laughing dog slapping the ground animated gif when you need it?

 

[Nessie]

Nessie thinks there was no issue with the Nazis about the Jews??!?? Where would Nessie get the idea that anybody thinks that?!? Where's that stupid laughing dog slapping the ground animated gif when you need it?

I think you are playing with semantics again.

Please answer the question, why did Hitler have to approve exemptions?

 

[000063]

If there really was no issue with the Nazis about Jews as far as deniers are concerned...

Nessie thinks there was no issue with the Nazis about the Jews??!?? Where would Nessie get the idea that anybody thinks that?!? Where's that stupid laughing dog slapping the ground animated gif when you need it?

That's not actually an answer, or a denial, and we can all see that, as well as your quote-mining.

 

[Tomtomkent]

That's not actually an answer, or a denial, and we can all see that, as well as your quote-mining.

Not even that. A failure to understand the word "if".

 

[Dogzilla]

That was THHP expressing things that way. Ronald Headland says that "this report is without equal" among reports about the killings of the mobile killing squads, which carried out he massacres of Jews in the East. Again, I won't pile up comments here but simply note that you somehow missed the point of my post: you say that the document is irrelevant, yet people who study and write about the Holocaust stress its relevancy. Leaving you looking like a dissembler and weasel, I'm afraid.



Another standard you are making up ad hoc?

No. That's one you guys made up ad hoc. It's among the more useless arguments you've made for rejecting evidence. But since you guys seem to think it has value I thought we should apply it here.

1) The gold standard of a document's value in reconstructing the past is not its usefulness in a trial.

So what is the gold standard of a document's value in reconstructing the past? Please explain how that gold standard has been applied to evidence for the holocaust that has been used in a trial. I mean, if there is any evidence for the holocaust that has also been used as evidence in a court of law.

2) The document, in case a reader doesn't know this, was discovered subsequent to the Nuremberg proceedings, for example. 3) Nevertheless, the very THHP article to which I linked, and which you evidently ignored, just as you ignore questions about the claims you've made concerning Jaeger's report and about the fate of Jews in 5 German-occupied cities, said this




Leaving aside the "little" definitional problem you ignore, I have done this at length in posts I've linked to, posts from months ago. The document is an official report informing Jaeger's superior of the activity of Jaeger's squad in Lithuania in executing its assignments and itemizes the murders of over 130,000 Jews in summer and fall 1941, which constitute a portion of the 1.4 million Jews estimated by Hilberg to have been exterminated by the Germans and their helpers in mobile killing actions. The report states that the goal of the murders carried out by Jaeger's squad was to make Lithuania free of Jews, which applies the goal of German Jewish policy to a specific occupied area.

Nothing you linked to on that hate site explains how anything specific to the Jaeger Report was used as specific evidence to convict any specific defendant and that the court believed that the evidence was true.

As an aside, why does that article insist that the Jaeger Report is authentic? Isn't a document that somebody uses as evidence assumed to be authentic? If I picked up my car from the valet, and the valet tells me that he didn't rifle through the glove compartment looking for money, I get a little suspicious. Was there any doubt about this document's authenticity? It looks like courts of law have accepted the document's authenticity but since usefulness in a court isn't the gold standard of a documents value for reconstructing the past, has it's authenticity been confirmed outside of a court of law? Please tell me that Karl Jaeger isn't a person who is known to us only through an entry in diary that was written by a dead guy who buried it right before he was shot.

To remind you, you had claimed no documentation existed for extermination actions and specifically said you wouldn't accept a document that was oblique, that used fuzzy maths, or that discussed anti-partisan actions or reprisal shooting. I wrote that the Jaeger report rubbished your silliness on all grounds. To remind you what you asked for, here is what I was responding to when I offered the Jaeger report, among other documents,

To remind you, again, that I have never avoided the question how the report links to the Holocaust, here are some points I made during our first discussion of the report:

The most obvious and glaring point is your steadfast refusal to give an explanation of your view that Colonel Jaeger's report doesn't discuss the extermination actions resulting in over 130,000 Jewish deaths but rather anti-partisan operations, rogue activity, or ethnic cleansing. If we could clear this up, we could then move on to Cyrix's requested discussion intentionalism/functionalism or to your sophistic presentation of what constitutes an action that's part of the Holocaust. But first things first - and you've been dodging a defense of your stated viewpoint for months.

Does the Jaeger Report document the shooting of anybody identified as a Communist? Yes or No?

 

[Nessie]

.....


Does the Jaeger Report document the shooting of anybody identified as a Communist? Yes or No?

Yes

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/img002.htm

Now answer my question. Why did Hitler have to approve exemptions?

 

[LemmyCaution]

I haven't avoided that question. I have said I don't know what happened to any missing Jews. I don't know what happened to any of the Jews period. What does that mean? There must be some relevance to you guys because it comes up all the time. But 'm not going to keep answering it if nobody can articulate any meaning from my answer.

Historians argue that 5+ million Jews perished at the hands of the Nazis and their allies in a genocide during WWII. Dogzilla vacillates between saying he doesn't know what happened to these people, that he doesn't care what happened to them, and that he doesn't think they existed in the first place. He doesn't find it odd that someone who presumes to lecture others about the Holocaust should fail to have a clue about 5+ million missing people, about whose fate historians have expended great effort and accumulated vast amounts of evidence, and their whereabouts.

To get shy of his demographic waffle, he's been given 5 case studies of German occupied cities - with 840,000 give or take Jewish residents during the war years - and again, he hasn't a clue:

I haven't dodged discussion of these for months. What is there to discuss? I reject the evidence . . .

What evidence he doesn't say. He just rejects it. Full negationist mode. Preemptive rejection of all the evidence.

So, by Dogzilla's standard and in his own words, deniers contribution to historical understanding of the Holocaust is to make claims, as he has done about the Jaeger report, that they cannot substantiate; to state their smug satisfaction at being ignorant about a demographic hole of 5+ million; and to declare that there is nothing to discuss regarding 800,000 Jews disappearing from five cities under German care.

Whatever deniers are interested in, as Dogzilla makes clear, it isn't historical knowledge or understanding.

Why would anyone take these clowns seriously?

 

[Dogzilla]

You are seriously clutching at straws if you are having to cite me in any shape or form to make an argument for your position

I cite you as evidence that Team holocaust doesn't have the story straight. Isn't it you who once understood the potential problems that could arise when people are exposed to misinformation in schools or museums? You guys need to make up your minds about what somebody needs to "deny" before they can be called a holocaust "denier."

However, I would say that if the Nazis had won and had total control of Europe, they may have still been Jewish survivors as plans are rarely 100% successful, not all Germans and others mentioned such as Bulgarians were anti-semitic.

That in no way disproves the Holocaust.

You're making the assumption that there could possibly be one piece of evidence that disproves the holocaust. There isn't. No single piece of evidence can prove that something didn't happen.

And, btw, if the Nazis had won the war and successfully exterminated every single one of the Jews in the entire world, there would still be Jews because of the Nazi definition of Jew. But that's too complicated for people around here to understand so, never mind.

 

[Clayton Moore]

If there was no policy to exterminate the Jews that went all the way to the top, why did it need Hitler's approval to get an exemption?

A court system in Germany that Jewish people could use to dispute German laws?
Another convoluted acquiescing process by the Germans.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Numbers_of_people_considered_Mischlinge

Requests for reclassification (e.g., Jew as Mischling of 1st degree, 1st degree as 2nd degree) or Aryanization (see German Blood Certificate) were personally reviewed by Adolf Hitler. Apparently, he considered the issue important enough to him that he found time to review a few thousand such files. A reclassification approved by the Nazi party chancery and Hitler was considered an act of mercy (Gnadenakt). Further de facto reclassifications, however, missing any official document, were privileges accorded certain artists and other experts by way of special protection by high-ranking Nazis.[12]

A second way of reclassification was by way of declaratory action in court. Usually the discriminated person took the action, doubting his genetical descent from the Jewish-classified man until then regarded the biological (grand)father.[13] Paternity suits aiming for reclassification (German: Abstammungsverfahren) appeared mostly with deceased, divorced or illegitimate (grand)fathers. They usually aimed at improving the discriminated and persecuted litigant's status from Jewish-classified to Mischling of first degree, or Mischling of first degree to second degree. The numbers of such suits soared when the Nazi government imposed new discriminations and persecutions (Nuremberg Laws 1935, November Pogrom 1938, and systematic deportations of Jewish Germans and Gentile Germans of Jewish descent to concentration camps, 1941).[14]

Yet another convoluted acquiescing process by the Germans.

Stop the clock for these Jewish husbands of non Jewish wives so they can continue to procreate.

The Rosenstrasse protest was a nonviolent protest in Rosenstraße ("Rose street") in Berlin in February and March 1943, carried out by the non-Jewish ("Aryan") wives and relatives of Jewish men who had been arrested for deportation. The protests escalated until the men were released. It was a significant instance of opposition to the events of the Holocaust.

 

[000063]

...
As an aside, why does that article insist that the Jaeger Report is authentic? Isn't a document that somebody uses as evidence assumed to be authentic? If I picked up my car from the valet, and the valet tells me that he didn't rifle through the glove compartment looking for money, I get a little suspicious. Was there any doubt about this document's authenticity?

What if you ask your valet if he did anything besides drive your car too and from the parking spot, and he says no? Because that's the equivalent here.

You really can't think of any sort of group with a vested interest in trying to discredit one of the most damning and unambiguous Holocaust documents?

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=12367
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t95930/
http://www.cwporter.com/goodold.htm
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4248

It looks like courts of law have accepted the document's authenticity but since usefulness in a court isn't the gold standard of a documents value for reconstructing the past, has it's authenticity been confirmed outside of a court of law?

Yes. I'd go find the specific information, but you, lying sophist, you know how it is. For example, you will never get around to explaining why it shouldn't be considered authentic.

Please tell me that Karl Jaeger isn't a person who is known to us only through an entry in diary that was written by a dead guy who buried it right before he was shot.

I love how you construct entire arguments out of incredulity over questions that could be answered in about thirty seconds each if you cared to actually look.

Suffice it to say, no. There are records of his service as a Nazi. There are even photos. I'm not sure who you think you're convincing here.

Does the Jaeger Report document the shooting of anybody identified as a Communist? Yes or No?

Yes. I remember that from the minute or so I spent reading it. Then again, I'm a very fast reader.

What relevance does it have whether it does or not? Please explain. You already asked whether it said anything about killing non-Jews, and were told yes, despite your claim that no one answered. Now you're asking about Communists, specifically. I think I see where you're going with this, and no, it doesn't specifically say they killed anyone named Frank. I checked.

 

[000063]

...
Why would anyone take these clowns seriously?

If you're one of them.

 

[TSR]

No. That's one you guys made up ad hoc. It's among the more useless arguments you've made for rejecting evidence. But since you guys seem to think it has value I thought we should apply it here.

You can, of course, *cite* someone here making this argument?

So what is the gold standard of a document's value in reconstructing the past? Please explain how that gold standard has been applied to evidence for the holocaust that has been used in a trial. I mean, if there is any evidence for the holocaust that has also been used as evidence in a court of law.

New policy: I will only attempt substantive answers to substantive claims by dz.

it's questions are disingenuous, asked only in a desperate attempt to avoid having to admit it's fundamental ignorance of the evidence in question by looking for a way to distort the answer.

Hereinafter designated SOGOP.

Nothing you linked to on that hate site explains how anything specific to the Jaeger Report was used as specific evidence to convict any specific defendant and that the court believed that the evidence was true.

Please do cite this "hate" to which you refer? Perhaps you can also find the obvious lies cm claimed the site was "nothing but" while spectactuarly failing to to document even one.

As an aside, why does that article insist that the Jaeger Report is authentic?

SOGOP

Isn't a document that somebody uses as evidence assumed to be authentic?

No.

If I picked up my car from the valet, and the valet tells me that he didn't rifle through the glove compartment looking for money, I get a little suspicious.

Relevance?

Was there any doubt about this document's authenticity?

No less or more than any other document from that era.

It looks like courts of law have accepted the document's authenticity but since usefulness in a court isn't the gold standard of a documents value for reconstructing the past, has it's authenticity been confirmed outside of a court of law?

SOGOP

Please tell me that Karl Jaeger isn't a person who is known to us only through an entry in diary that was written by a dead guy who buried it right before he was shot.

No, he is not.

Does the Jaeger Report document the shooting of anybody identified as a Communist? Yes or No?

You know, you could read the d*mn thing yourself.

Everyone continues to point and laugh that you are so opposed to the very idea of learning about the history you so impotently insist is in error?

The Nazis themselves documented millions of Jews being killed outright or sent to camps in which they disappeared forever. Why would they lie about this?

 

[Nessie]

I cite you as evidence that Team holocaust doesn't have the story straight. Isn't it you who once understood the potential problems that could arise when people are exposed to misinformation in schools or museums? You guys need to make up your minds about what somebody needs to "deny" before they can be called a holocaust "denier."



You're making the assumption that there could possibly be one piece of evidence that disproves the holocaust. There isn't. No single piece of evidence can prove that something didn't happen.

And, btw, if the Nazis had won the war and successfully exterminated every single one of the Jews in the entire world, there would still be Jews because of the Nazi definition of Jew. But that's too complicated for people around here to understand so, never mind.

You have failed to follow that my doubts about certain aspects of the Holocaust have been ended since joining this forum. You cannot really cite me as being part of Team Holocaust as I have no influence over Holocaust history.

I am not making any assumption about there being one piece of evidence.

Your last paragraph does not make sense.

Please answer the question you repeatedly dodge about why Hitler had to authorise exemptions.

 

[Dogzilla]

Clayton you are no more qualified to comment on this than Dogzilla is all you both betray is clear ignorance of what you are discussing in this and other threads we see your knoweldge is not based on any real research into the subject to hand and is entirely gleaned from the internet.

Why do you hate punctuation?

 

[Nessie]

A court system in Germany that Jewish people could use to dispute German laws?
Another convoluted acquiescing process by the Germans.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mischling#Numbers_of_people_considered_Mischlinge




Yet another convoluted acquiescing process by the Germans.

Stop the clock for these Jewish husbands of non Jewish wives so they can continue to procreate.

Why did Hitler have to authorise exemptions?