General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II
- Thread starter SnakeTongue
- Start date
- Status
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
What happened in Kiev was a continuation of Operation Barbarossa. Unless of course all the German forces involved with Operation Barbarossa went elsewhere and were replaced.
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Operation Barbarossa was an offensive operation which ended in early December 1941, as Matthew Ellard already pointed out to you. The follow-on offensive, which began on June 28, 1942, was called Operation Braunschweig, and which effectively came to an end with the defeat of the German Army at Stalingrad in February 1943. In July 1943, the German Army mounted one last major offensive, Operation Citadel (which dcdrac mentioned above).
By the time of the 1943 battle of Kiev, the German Army was no longer mounting offensive operations. "Barbarossa" was nothing but a distant memory by then.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
There's been a string of extremely confused posts from you about Kiev. The city was under occupation for just over two years, from September 1941 to November 1943.
The newspaper articles you've not read beyond the headlines posted above were citing initial estimates of a depopulation, consisting of:
1) murders
2) deaths from starvation
3) deportations of 'Ostarbeiter' to Germany
4) the evacuation of civilians in 1943 to deny their labour power to the Soviets who were advancing
The figure of 800,000 was undoubtedly an overestimate for Kiev city. Big deal, it was made within weeks of liberation. But the order of magnitude for all the forms of depopulation was certainly correct, the numbers run into the hundreds of thousands.
More advanced readers may want to look up Karel Berkhoff's Harvest of Despair, or search Theses Canada for the original dissertation (entitled Hitler's Clean Slate, but searching for his name should find it easily enough), to find out more about Kiev under Nazi occupation. It wasn't a terribly pleasant place to be in those years....
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
Barbarossa was the campaign which required the capture of Leningrad and Moscow. They failed to capture and Leningrad and Moscow by December 1941 when the campaign was ended. You seem even more confused that you were before.
Your link did not mention civilians and you failed to read the actual link you posted which had the dates.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Started to read this thread a while ago, and i know that what i reply to was posted over a year ago. So maybe this was even brought up later on in this thread (I'm at page 20 now...)
However, i'm wondering about the document that has the pre-printed stuff missing in, for example, the date-line. Has anyone compared the position of the typewritten part against where it will be on a "normal", pre-printed letterhead?
I could easily imagine that the document without the pre-printed stuff is just a carbon-copy of some sort, and that they used a more generalized/simplified letterhead for the copy-pages. But then, i don't really know how archival was handled back then. Generally, it was not uncommon to make a carbon-copy when using a typewriter, sending out the original and archiving the copy.
For those who don't know anymore, a carbon-copy is produced while the original is produced: take a blank page, put a "carbon paper" page on top of it, then put another page on top of that. Put the whole stack in the typewriter and start typing.
The copy page could, as said, a more simplified version (and thus be used for more than one location, in case of stuff like "Berlin, den...."), or it could be miss-prints that are recycled for that purpose, or they deliberately produced reduced versions to save ink (what with wartime, shortage of materials, and all that).
Anyways, i want to thank the history buffs here for continuing to post facts about history to counter those silly denialists. Oh, and if anyone needs to have something translated from German (for example because someone disputes something, or because some Google-Translate is, as usual, rather lousy), feel free to ask (or send me a PM).
And just in case, since it was brought up back then as well, signing letters with "Ihr" was (and still is) in use, and usually is a more personal way to sign off letters, quite often used used when writing to a superior in a more personal/friendly way, or generally among colleagues. Translated to English usage of signing a letter, it means "Yours". "iV" means "in Vertretung", that is, by proxy (as in director and deputy director, the latter would sign with "iV")
Greetings,
Chris
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
BTW, the "1 Js 1/65" is a "Registerzeichen", an "Aktenzeichen" used by the German justice system. That scheme dates back to November 1934 from the "Preußische Aktenordnung vom 28. November 1934". As used today (and i would think back then as well), the first "1" is an ID-Number for the branch/department, the "Js" means it is an preliminary investigation by public prosecution, the following "1" is the sequential number, the "/65" means it was opened in 1965.
Since the numbering is usually sequential, this would mean it was the first prelim. investigation started by the public prosecution in 1965, but i may have changed a bit from then to today.
A list with examples of such "Registerzeichen" in use in Germany can be found in the WP entry for Aktenzeichen in Germany (Sorry, that articel is available in German and Polish only).
Note that many "Aktenzeichen" follow (and followed) a similar scheme. So more often than not you can assume that if you see such a thing on an official document, and you have something like "123/43" in there, it usually means the 123rd act of whatever the preceeding institution given is, in the year 1943. (See the link "Erläuterung zu den Akten- und Registerzeichen" on the page about the "Preußische Aktenordnung" i linked to above)
Greetings,
Chris
EtienneSC
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 199
Of course you could end up in jail in Germany if you said anything else about your fellow countrymen in prison. Glad that you're beginning to take an interest in the subject all the same.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Your knowledge about German law seems to be sorely lacking.
Since it is part of the history of my country, i learned about the war, and the Holocaust it brought on, pretty early on. Thus, your attempt at mind reading failed since i did not start to read up on it just now.
<snip>
Edited by Loss Leader:
Edited. Moderated thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have Harvest of Despair. Didn't know about the Phd thesis. Thanks!
What is Harvest of Despair?
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
EtienneSC
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 199
It seems to be better than yours. The relevant articles of your Penal Code ("Strafgesetzbuch") are articles 130-131 that prohibit "Volksverhetzung" (popular incendiarism).
These appear to be widely interpreted by the German courts and have led to the imprisonment of many scholars and activists, including the historian Udo Walendy, Germar Rudolf, the lawyers Horst Mahler and Silvia Stolz and teacher of English and French and radical right activist Gunter Deckert (the latter for his role in translating Carlo Mattogno's book on Sobibor. Deckert was released from prison only a couple of months ago.
If you wish to know more about the law, here is a speech by German lawyer Silvia Stolz. (Please note, I cannot guarantee that this can be viewed in Germany or that it is legal for a German citizen to listen to it.)
If you have better sources, I'd be interested to hear of them.
Apologies, but what you appeared to be starting to read up on is not German history, but revisionism, as instanced by your remark about "silly denialists", some of whom have high credentials as researchers in relevant fields. Have you ever read Wilhem Staeglich's Der Auschwitz Mythos for example? This was ordered to be destroyed by a German court who referred specifically to s130-131 of the Strafgesetzbuch (The reference I have is "Judgement of 1 July 1982 of Landgericht Stuttgart, Ref: Akz: XVI KLs 115/80, p76/ sVII"), so perhaps you have not been able to find it.
In this case, you are hardly in a position to comment. However, I you have access to it, I'd be interested to hear what you think of its arguments.
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Which has nothing to do with saying something about someone who is in prison, which was your original argument:
Also, §130 StGB refers to Völkermord (genocide) and not directly to holocaust denial. The latter connection arises from §6 of the VStGB (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch, international criminal code) which in turn defines the holocaust as genocide.
Additionally, the BVerfG (Bundesverfassungsgericht, Federal Constitutional Court) ruled on 9. November 2011 that §130 StGB has certain restrictions in rtelation to freedom of speech.
Again, you fail miserably at mind reading. Starting to read a thread here in this forum does by no way imply that one has not read up on the subject of holocaust denial before. And "silly denialists" is the best i can say while not running afoul of the forum rules.
It doesn't matter what credentials someone has when there are direct, original statements from the Nazi perpetratators who conducted that atrocity. It is really stupid to try to handwave their affidavits and testimonies with some crackpottish "but they must have been coerced into saying that!" or "it's all a jewish conspiracy!". Direct testimonies from the sickos that were involved in perpetrating the holocaust trumps wishful thinking, each and every time. No matter what alleged credentials some denialist has.
Greetings,
Chris
Christian Klippel
Master Poster
Oh, and btw:
not a historian but just a publicist. Studied polizical science. Member of the NPD since 1964. Participated in the "Reichsarbeitsdienst", then as "Luftwaffenhelfer" and finally in the "Wehrmacht" in WW2.
A chemist and neonazi, far right. Was member of the party Die Republikaner.
Which are a couple, and also neonazis. Mahler was a publicist and lawyer, and was also a member of the terrorist organization RAF. Stolz also was/is a lawyer.
Another neonazi, studied anglistics and romance philology. Member of the NPD since 1966.
Another neonazi and member of the NPD, was judge at the Finanzgericht Hamburg (finance court of Hamburg). Was an officer of the airforce in WW2.
All we have here are a bunch of neonazis, some of them still active in neonazi parties, some of them serving in WW2, none of them a historian.
Funny how that is typical for revisionists/holocaust deniers. How comes no real historian brings up something against the holocaust, or any of the evidence thereof? After all, revisionism as such is not unknown of in historical sciences, and has a legit standing there. However, it is the holocaust deniers that want to use the same term, but which in fact do nothing more than pseudoscientific babble and pseudohistory purely for the purpose of renewing and trying to validate nazi ideology.
Greetings,
Chris
not a historian but just a publicist. Studied polizical science. Member of the NPD since 1964. Participated in the "Reichsarbeitsdienst", then as "Luftwaffenhelfer" and finally in the "Wehrmacht" in WW2.
A chemist and neonazi, far right. Was member of the party Die Republikaner.
Which are a couple, and also neonazis. Mahler was a publicist and lawyer, and was also a member of the terrorist organization RAF. Stolz also was/is a lawyer.
Another neonazi, studied anglistics and romance philology. Member of the NPD since 1966.
Another neonazi and member of the NPD, was judge at the Finanzgericht Hamburg (finance court of Hamburg). Was an officer of the airforce in WW2.
All we have here are a bunch of neonazis, some of them still active in neonazi parties, some of them serving in WW2, none of them a historian.
Funny how that is typical for revisionists/holocaust deniers. How comes no real historian brings up something against the holocaust, or any of the evidence thereof? After all, revisionism as such is not unknown of in historical sciences, and has a legit standing there. However, it is the holocaust deniers that want to use the same term, but which in fact do nothing more than pseudoscientific babble and pseudohistory purely for the purpose of renewing and trying to validate nazi ideology.
Greetings,
Chris
EtienneSC
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 199
Yes, they typically say that free speech has to be "balanced" against other considerations, such as the right of youth to be protected from pernicious ideas. It is problematic when there are attempts to introduce this thinking into other national laws through the European Union.
Confessions from "perpetrators" were also a feature of the Stalinist show trials of the 1930s. Don't you see a problem here?
It would indeed be stupid to wave away affadavits and testimonies by saying that "they must have been coerced." However, when the statements are inconsistent with other evidence or with reality and there is strong evidence of brutality, as in the case of Rudolf Hoess for example, it is a reasonable point to make.
It is interesting that you believe that someone can be a "sicko" and still be a reliable witness. If they are a robotic mass killer, why would they stop short at telling a lie? The general point is, testimony is normally backed up by physical forensic evidence about the victim, their cause of death and the murder weapon. These are all lacking in this case, whilst the witness testimony is contradictory and often physically impossible.
EtienneSC
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 199
Revisionism in Germany may be largely confined to the far right. This is less so in other countries, though it is still a factor. It illustrates how politicised this area is, which naturally causes suspicion as to whether partisan motives are at work. One might argue that delegitimation of the European radical right is one motive behind holocaust scholarship, or at least behind wide popular acceptance of its conclusions.
Many people other than (academic) historians write about history and many holocaust scholars work in other departments. At the end of the day, everyone has limits to their competences, motives, etc and we all have to look coldly at the facts as best one can.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
Since serious Holocaust scholarship comes from all points of the political spectrum (except the far right) and from many countries it would be difficult to pinpoint motives that could be generalised to the whole of serious Holocaust scholarship.
In the eyes of the majority of the population (as measured by electoral performances), the radical right delegitimised itself through its antics in the 1940s across the board, not just because of the Holocaust or because of its racism.
In a number of European countries, the radical right has been much more successful in the past two decades when it stopped shooting itself in the foot by blethering on and on about the Nazi past.
This is pretty much a handwave. You forget you're replying here to a German, which happens to be the leading centre of Holocaust scholarship at the moment, and where the overwhelming majority of that work is done by people trained in history departments.
Germar Rudolf has gone on record claiming that anyone can do history, which is patently not the case. For starters, no revisionist has ever actually done history since what they write isn't history in any recognisable form; it doesn't belong to the genre of history or the discipline of history. I'm not even referring to the conclusions here, I'm referring to the outward characteristics of what is written under the rubric of 'Holocaust revisionism'.
This is very simply demonstrated; take a highly praised or even prize-winning history book on any other subject but the Holocaust, say on the Russian Revolution, Stalin or the Great Leap Forward, and compare it to a revisionist text, for example Rudolf's own 'Lectures on the Holocaust'. There are immediately striking differences, starting with the fact that the history book will be coherent, and have a beginning, middle and an end, either to a narrative or to an argument/explanation, whereas the revisionist text will not have any such coherence.
The fact that the prize-winning book on the Great Leap Forward might be written by a professor of history isn't what makes it history; it's the form and the approach - which can be learned by a non-historian or a non-academic, and practised and perfected, as quite a few bestselling authors have found. But revisionists have never practised this form or approach, and certainly haven't perfected it.
Clayton Moore
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 7,508
Most of the alleged Holocaust testimonies concerning atrocities are outrageous and obvious lies, so looney it's as if they were written by a semi-literate nutjob. Simon the patriarch of the Holocaust could never keep his fabrications straight. Elie Wiesel doesn't even have the tattoo he's always going on about as his red badge of martyrdom.
http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/
The mechanics of the alleged gas chambers for instance just don't work. The dots don't connect.
- Status