General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II
- Thread starter SnakeTongue
- Start date
- Status
EtienneSC
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 199
I would go further than Captain Howdy, It depends what you mean by "involved", but Julius Streicher can be said to have denied the holocaust at Nuremberg on 29 April 1946, perhaps one of the first people to do so, along with our own George Orwell in his Notes on Nationalism around the same time. Streicher's denial was on the familiar revisionist ground of technical impossibility, for which omniscience is not required. Streicher said, in reply to a claim he knew about the fatal consequences of deportations:
"I don't know about it. And moreover, I wouldn't have believed it. Even today I cannot believe that 5 million Jews were killed. From a technical point of view, I consider the thing impossible. I don't believe it. Up till now, I have had no proof of it." (translated from TMI Volume XII, page 381 of French edition, cross examination of Streicher by Lt-Col Griffith-Jones)
Manstein's defence two or three years later also sought to dispel many particular atrocity myths. But the technical arguments from physical impossibility remain one of the strongest revisionist cards.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Mr. Moore, please, you think what you want. That's your right. In the name of basic decency, however, don't slander men like Winston Churchill and Dwight Eisenhower. Please![/QUOTE]
http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2...cted-holocaust-denial-long-before-it-started/
That's sad. What Eisenhower insisted they see was the result of blocked/destroyed supply lines. Skinny, frail people are a horrific fright to observe. They were starving. Who do you think prevented supplies from reaching the camps? What possible reason could there be to prevent supplies from reaching the non-combatants held by the Germans?
Those images were caused by Eisenhower, de Gaulle, and Winnie. Eisenhower managed to blame the Germans for those horrific images,
70 years later you steadfastly believe that Germans starved the camp residents.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
After the war there was little spoken about the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the images of those starving men and the pile of naked dead bodies. Those images resonated in Western Society until Nazis and of course Germans became capable of any imaginable horror. Nazis became the image of those starving men and the pile of naked dead bodies.
After about 15 years of no explanations of what happened the gas chamber and the 6 million fabrications began to evolve.
Questioning the guilt of the Nazis for anything was and is looked upon as hating Jewish people visa vis the image of those starving men and the pile of naked dead bodies.
Als die Züge ins Lager rollten, stand Lipschis' Einheit laut Haftbefehl mindestens neun Mal an der Rampe. Jedenfalls hatte der Beschuldigte laut den Ermittlungen "zumindest Wachbereitschaft". Beispielsweise, als in Auschwitz ein Gefangenentransport aus dem holländischen Westerborg eintraf und 796 Häftlinge umgehend ermordet wurden. Bei Transporten aus dem KZ Theresienstadt (1773 Morde), aus Berlin (200 Morde) und dem französischen Drancy (1090 Morde) soll Lipschis ebenfalls an den abscheulichen Selektionen beteiligt gewesen sein.
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...er-Lipschis-stand-an-der-Rampe-des-Todes.html
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...er-Lipschis-stand-an-der-Rampe-des-Todes.html
I see what methods of evidence Dr. Terry is trying to justify here. His UNIT was allegedly present 9 times on the ramp, which ofcourse doesn't prove didley squat as to whether Lipschis was present. It does not seem in doubt he was a cook at one point in time. I further wonder how they determined the exact numbers of how many were immediately "murdered", I was always told that those to be gassed were never registered. According to the legal standards defended so eagerly by doctor Terry, apparently even as a cook he is guilty:
Selbst als Koch machte sich Lipschis schuldig
Lipschis war nachweislich von Oktober 1941 bis Januar 1945 in Auschwitz; die ersten 23 Monate als Aufseher, anschließend 16 Monate lang in der Küche für das SS-Personal. Selbst als Koch hat er sich aus Sicht der Strafverfolger schuldig gemacht, weil er auch in dieser Funktion objektiv das "Lagergeschehen insgesamt" gefördert habe. Im Haftbefehl heißt es dazu: Durch seine gesamte Tätigkeit habe er den Lagerbetrieb und damit das dortige Tötungsgeschehen unterstützt. Hungrige Massenmörder morden eben weniger effizient.
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...er-Lipschis-stand-an-der-Rampe-des-Todes.html
Shows you the power of vengeance has nothing to do with justice.Lipschis war nachweislich von Oktober 1941 bis Januar 1945 in Auschwitz; die ersten 23 Monate als Aufseher, anschließend 16 Monate lang in der Küche für das SS-Personal. Selbst als Koch hat er sich aus Sicht der Strafverfolger schuldig gemacht, weil er auch in dieser Funktion objektiv das "Lagergeschehen insgesamt" gefördert habe. Im Haftbefehl heißt es dazu: Durch seine gesamte Tätigkeit habe er den Lagerbetrieb und damit das dortige Tötungsgeschehen unterstützt. Hungrige Massenmörder morden eben weniger effizient.
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschl...er-Lipschis-stand-an-der-Rampe-des-Todes.html
Nick Terry
Illuminator
1. Non-Jewish children sent to Auschwitz were also tattooed. Gypsies, Poles and Russians weren't selected in the same way as Jews. Most Gypsy children were dead by the time of liberation but there were plenty of Poles and Russians left.
2. Jewish children sent on transports ending up in the Theresienstadt Family Camp were not selected and were registered and tattooed as part of a deception measure (a Potemkin camp inside Birkenau from which Jews could correspond under controlled conditions, creating the illusion of normality). They were later on gassed once the deception had played out, so they wouldn't be in any photos after liberation. Some teenagers in this cohort survived partially because an SS man who was otherwise a bit of a hard case ensured they were spared. Gosh, who'd have thought that individual behaviour would influence things...
3. It doesn't seem that long ago that we were discussing Mengele's experiments. Most of the Jewish children tattooed who might have survived to be photographed on liberation (bearing in mind the famous photos would have included Poles, Russians and others as well) belonged to this group.
4. From spring 1944, working age was lowered to 10-12 years old in the 'east' and within Auschwitz; this meant that children who appeared to be older could slip through whereas previously they couldn't. And the sheer numbers meant there were other opportunities to slip through. There was a children's block set aside to 'round up' such cases, and this block was subjected to repeated selections to weed out the smaller children, including on one occasion, a selection carried out by measuring height - anyone under a certain height went to the gas chambers.
5. Some of the final Jewish transports from Slovakia arrived after selections were stopped at the start of November 1944. Any Jewish children on them would have been registered and tattooed because Himmler had ordered a halt to the Final Solution.
Aside from lengthy chapters in Auschwitz 1940-1945 by Irena Strzelecka (who also wrote lengthy articles on Mengele in Hefte von Auschwitz), there's a lengthy section of the following book on the subject:
Buser, Verena, Ueberleben von Kindern und Jugendlichen in den Konzentrationslagern Sachsenhausen, Auschwitz und Bergen-Belsen. Berlin: Metropol, 2011
So much for the 'gotcha'.
"Since 1940 I lived as a gentleman farmer in Fürth. Hitler must have decided to exterminate the Jews in 1941, because I knew nothing of it. Hitler probably felt that 'they caused the war, now I will exterminate them.' [...] Besides, by exterminating 4 million jews - they say 5 or 6 million at this trial, but that is all propaganda, I'm sure it wasn't more than 4.5 million - they have made martyrs out of those Jews. For example, because of the extermination of these Jews, anti-Semitism has been set back many years in certain foreign countries where it had been making good progress."
Julius Streicher on April 6, 1946, as quoted in The Nuremberg Interviews
"I never knew Kaltenbrunner until I met him here, but I think that Hitler gave his order about the exterminations directly to Himmler. ... I think that Himmler and Heydrich were the chief exterminators."
Julius Streicher on June 15, 1946, as quoted in The Nuremberg Interviews
Like almost everyone else, Streicher merely tried to wash his hands of the whole thing.
EtienneSC
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 199
This is interesting. Streicher still used technical impossibility to question the Nuremberg numbers. It seems that he was trying to put together a narrative based on what he has been told after the event. At the time, he knew nothing of a Hitler order, for example, as he says above. And he was apparently being misinformed. This is shown in the 29 April 1946 testimony:
"Something has been ascertained today about which I myself did not know. I learned of the will left behind by the Fuehrer, and I assume that a few moments before his death the Fuehrer told the world the truth in that will. In it he says that mass killings were carried out by his order; that the mass killings were a reprisal."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-29-46.asp
We now know that this is not true, as the political testament does not refer to mass killings, but to "the real criminal [meaning the Jews] having to atone for this guilt [for starvation, burning and bombing of Aryans in Europe], even if by more humane means."
Streicher goes on:
"STREICHER: I first heard of the mass murders and mass killings at Mondorf when I was in prison [i.e. after May 1945]. But I am stating here that if I had been told that 2 or 3 million people had been killed, then I would not have believed it. [...]
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: [...] Do I understand you to say now, to have said in your evidence, that you never knew that Jews were being exterminated in thousands and millions in the Eastern territories? Did you never know that?
STREICHER: No." (all 29 April 1946)
(I make the usual reservations about the rules of evidence and use of torture at the show trial and provenance in the case of the interviews.)
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Actually the gotcha is good to go. Your explanation is oh so typical in that it requires a series of complex scenarios to explain contradictions.
All the extraordinary scenarios are needed to stay true to the dictum of one man. And that wasn't even Hitler. It was Himmler.
2. Jewish children sent on transports ending up in the Theresienstadt Family Camp were not selected and were registered and tattooed as part of a deception measure (a Potemkin camp inside Birkenau from which Jews could correspond under controlled conditions, creating the illusion of normality). They were later on gassed once the deception had played out, so they wouldn't be in any photos after liberation. Some teenagers in this cohort survived partially because an SS man who was otherwise a bit of a hard case ensured they were spared. Gosh, who'd have thought that individual behaviour would influence things...
The above number 2 is little more than a feeble attempt to explain why children survived the fabricated killing of millions. It brings into the big picture more idiotic duties required of the Germans to fulfill the Holocaust fabrication.
Work or no work 10 year olds need close supervision 24/7. That's one of the many Holocaust myth fails. The lack of tight security in a "death" camp is another.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
No, I explained the legal theory of the prosecution, I didn't "defend" it, because it's in the hands of the judges whether the prosecution theory warrants convicting Lipschis.
I have made the rather simple point that this guy shares in the historical and moral responsibility for Auschwitz simply by having been a guard there. I then said:
Is being a guard enough to warrant a conviction? Can Lipschis produce convincing evidence that although he belonged to a guard company that can be proven to have taken part in ramp duty, he wasn't actually there or was consistently otherwise engaged? Those are questions for the court, if it comes to trial.
Que? The indictment is the work of a German prosecutor who will likely be aged somewhere between 35 and 50, at a guess. What 'vengeance' is someone from that generation in today's Germany seeking against an ethnic German two generations older?
EtienneSC
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 199
I agree with this with reservations, The 6 million figure did occur at Nuremberg. As we now know, it was used in Jewish and Zionist fundraising literature from the 1900s on. The use of the western camps is analysed in the internet film Buchenwald; a Dumb-dumb portrayal of Evil. Hilberg's Destruction of the European Jews appeared in 1961 or so, but was not widely read. From my memories of popular culture in the UK there was an attitude shift around the 1970s in which the Holocaust displaced stories of British derring-do in "memories" of WW2. So Schindler's List eclipses Dambusters, Colditz or The Great Escape. I'm persuaded this will pass once people look at who is creating the narratives and the how and why of it, rather than simply being taken in by the drama of what is placed in front of them.
Again: guilty until proven innocent eh? It is up to the court to prove every single member of the company went to do ramp duty including cooks or what not. Lipschis should not have to produce evidence for didley squat, the court should have to produce evidence that he in specific was assigned ramp duty. That is providing you buy into the whole "left is death, right is work till you drop dead" nonsense and ramp duty involves some kind of guilt for anything.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
No, Clayton, the Theresienstadt family camp was a demonstrable exception to the rule. There were hundred of Jewish transports to Auschwitz from 1942-1944 that were selected on arrival. A tiny handful were not.
When a pattern is set up and occurs 98-99 times out of 100 and then 1 or 2 times in 100 it does not, there will be reasons why, as there are in this case. Moreover, your logic is completely faulty. Pointing to the 1 exception in 100 doesn't refute the other 99 cases. Got that?
I understand that you are frustrated by your vast ignorance of history, but don't kid yourself that your ignorance is a counter to accepted history.
As for lack of tight security, LOL. Birkenau had an SS garrison of more than 2000 guards, and the Theresienstadt family camp was not only encircled by barbed wire, but was located inside the outer Birkenau fence, which was electrified (and equipped with watchtowers). A further security screen existed beyond Birkenau surrounding the main camp and Birkenau together.
Your presumed scenario of 10 year old children wandering through multiple gates out of the camp without being challenged or shot trying to escape is utterly hilarious.
Last edited by a moderator:
To make it short, here are the full protocols of Streicher's cross examination that day in German. It's quite clear that Streicher's defence strategy was that he didn't know anything about the mass killings during the war - and, so he says, wouldn't have believed it if someone would have told him back then - but only learned about them afterwards. However, he clearly stated that he would now believe that millions of jews were killed on Hitler's orders - so what's the point in trying to create the impression that Streicher denied that the Holocaust happened? He didn't. He just decided to draw a line at 4 or 4.5 million for some reason - however he came to that conclusion.
I also don't see the point in concentrating on what a person says that was apparently never involved in the inner or even the outer circle of what they called the "final solution"? The people that were didn't deny that the killings happened. The lower ranks that did the actual killings surely didn't when they were put on trial. Everyone was just passing the blame up the ranks, and - conveniently - the people at the end of that line were dead. Streicher, on the other hand, while having clearly tried to indoctrinate the dumber parts of the masses with the ideological groundwork - which contributed a lot to the vilification and dehumanization of the later victims - could always claim that he never dirtied his hands himself. He just provided justifications and excuses.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
No, not guilty until proven innocent. I specifically stated:
leaving it wide open whether a legal conviction ought to follow.
I then stated:
This would be alibi evidence; and such alibi evidence would hold true no matter under what terms this guy was being prosecuted (eg if someone had indicted him for murder in the 60s).
And concluded:
The court includes his defense lawyer, by the way, as well as the prosecutor plus the judges. The defense will argue one way, the prosecution another, the judges (plural in a German trial) decide. That's how it works.
According to the news reports the prosecution thinks it has 'compelling evidence' of Lipschis's involvement. I haven't seen all of the evidence, and nor have you. If the judges think it isn't compelling, or accept defense arguments, then the case fails. That's how it works.
Lipschis hasn't so far helped his case by claiming he was always 'just a cook' when the evidence indicates that this is not true. Contrary to popular belief defendants are not exempted from explaining themselves in court; they may indeed run the risk of getting themselves convicted if they don't come forward with accurate explanations of their behaviour.
When a suspect - before indictment - explains themselves clearly, as happened in a war crimes case I was involved in, the whole thing stops dead, and everyone goes home happy.
Well, that's what happened, no matter how many times you try to deny this or whine or scream or kick up a fuss. Being an SS guard at Auschwitz means sharing in the historical and moral responsibility for that crime, it can be mitigated by various things and determining exactly how far it goes is a matter of judgement.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Streicher was a propaganda publisher, a relatively minor Nazi official, and a rabid anti-Semite, whose newspaper, Der Stürmer, regularly called for the extermination of "the Jewish race." Further:
IQ scores of Nuremberg defendants, as determined by the IMT (source):
Arthur Seyss-Inquart|141
Karl Dönitz|138
Hermann Göring|138
Fritz von Papen|134
Erich Raeder|134
Hans Frank|130
Hans Fritzsche|130
Baldur von Schirach|130
Wilhelm Keitel|129
Joachim von Ribbentrop|129
Albert Speer|128
Alfred Jodl|127
Alfred Rosenberg|127
Wilhelm Frick|124
Walther Funk|124
Konstantin von Neurath|123
Rudolf Hess|120
Fritz Sauckel|118
Ernst Kaltenbrunner|113
Julius Streicher | 106
So please explain why Streicher's opinion matters, especially in light of the fact that his newspaper had repeatedly called for the extermination that he later claimed he couldn't believe was possible.
Manstein demonstrably lied about his role in Nazi war crimes; why should his opinion about the feasibility of the Holocaust be considered credible?
Which simply goes to show how weak those arguments are; your so-called "technical arguments from physical impossibility" are nothing more than arguments from incredulity and ignorance.
swright777
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 897
Why would you say this? It is an idiotic statement and certainly is not true. I had a paper route before I was 10, and I certainly didn't have constant supervision 24/7. In the summers growing up I had supervision 4/7 at best.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
Yes, because the locals who were not in the camps were not starving, because the German military was not starving, because the PWs from the western Allies were not starving we can conclude that the Nazis were engaging in the deliberate starvation of the camp inhabitants.
Border Reiver
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,726
The legal standard (in Canada, the US, the UK and those countries that share the UK's criminal justice traditions) for a criminal conviction is that the prosecution prove that a person is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Note that it is not "beyond all doubt."
If Lipchis was being tried in Canada for being an accessory under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act the prosecutor would need to show that Lipchis was an accessory to an act or acts of war crimes, genocide or a crime against humanity, as defined by the Act. I.e. It would not be necessary to show that he committed the crime against humanity, but to show that he knew that such an offence was being committed and that Lipchis' actions assisted in the commission of the offence and that he knew that such an activity was taking place. In other words, even if his Standartenfurher excused him from "ramp duty" to make sandwiches everytime the trains or trucks rolled up during his tour of duty he would likely be convicted of being an accessory - unless he could convince people that with all that going on around him that he was completely unware of the offences and that his peers never discussed it in his presence - because it would not be reasonable to conclude that a person in a guard company was unaware of what his company was doing.
In case any of you missed it, Herr Fetzer is now an unrepentant out and out Holocaust denier.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9254820#post9254820
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9254820#post9254820
- Status