9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[9/11-investigator]

Was that supposed to address the Einsatzgruppen trial? I hope not, because those aren't quotes from same.

I purposely chose the Einsatzgruppen trial for two reasons. First, it used a different standard of justice than many of the IMT proceedings for reasons that include but are not limited to its inclusion of Judge Musmanno. Second, the testimony specifically is related to acts of mass murder of Jews.

So will you address this?

I was not aware of a separate Einsatzgruppen trial. Will not address this any time soon. Need to scale back anyway on forum activities. Duty calls.

 

[Wroclaw]

I was not aware of a separate Einsatzgruppen trial. Will not address this any time soon. Need to scale back anyway on forum activities. Duty calls.

Well isn't that convenient.

First, you should know there's an Einsatzgruppen trial because it's highly relevant to disproving your position.

Second, that you are not aware that there was Einsatztruppen trial says a lot about your position.

Third, this trial is particularly important because you can't just wave your hand and dismiss with the same lame excuses you use with the IMT.

Finally, I don't believe you that you don't have any time to address this. I think you're scared.

 

[TSR]

I was not aware of a separate Einsatzgruppen trial. Will not address this any time soon. Need to scale back anyway on forum activities. Duty calls.

.
And once again: your ignorance of the history you are so rabid to deny is no one's problem but your own.

FYI, the EG were responsible for close to half of the victims of the Holocaust.

Read a few real history books and get back to us.
.

 

[Dogzilla]

I have a fairly simple question. I've looked through some of the posts on this thread — not all — and I see that the person defending the "revisionist" point of view states that Nuremberg verdicts can be dismissed as proof anyone's guilt because they were communist show trials.

They can be dismissed but not because they were communist show trials. They weren't communist show trials.

Fine.

I would ask our interlocutor, then, to address the Einsatzgruppen Trial. This was the ninth war crimes trial held in Nuremberg, but it was not presided over by the IMT.

But the findings of fact in the IMT at Nuremberg were binding on all subsequent war crimes trials held by the four powers.

Rather, it was tried before a U.S. military court. Among the tribunal of judges hearing the case was Michael Musmanno of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who famously told the defendants that he would not limit their defense strategies except to bar them from using penguins as part of their defense — and then stipulating he'd even allow penguins if they could be proved relevant.

Really? The defense of superior orders was allowed?

The defendants were found guilty on all counts, except for two who were found guilty of only one charge. Four were hanged; the remainder of the defendants who had received death sentences had them commuted. All defendants still alive in 1958 were released.

So I'd like to know what procedural errors, if any, our friend is able to find with this particular trial. If none exist, then why may this not be deemed proof of guilt?

A trial may not be tainted in any way by procedural errors but if the procedures are flawed, the trial may be flawed as well.

But to analyze the trial for procedural errors we need to see the transcript of the proceedings. Where can this be found?

 

[Dogzilla]

Do we have a time line for when construction began on these fumigation gas chambers and when the outbreak of typhus occurred?

Germans had been fighting outbreaks of typhus by delousing clothing and people since at least the late 19th century. A letter written by Maryashe Antin to her uncle describes both the procedure and the irrational terror it provoked in the primitive Ostjuden when they tried to enter Germany from the East.

 

[Wroclaw]

They can be dismissed but not because they were communist show trials. They weren't communist show trials.

But the findings of fact in the IMT at Nuremberg were binding on all subsequent war crimes trials held by the four powers.

And? So what? This is only relevant in so far as it can be shown that what was held as fact in the Einsatzgruppen trials was, in fact, false.

And here's the thing — nobody contended that.

Clearly there were things alleged before the IMT that turned out not to be true. Some were quite large, e.g., that the Nazis committed the Katyn massacre. But the funny thing about that is that judicial notice was not taken of Katyn, nor was it included in any indictment. Further, it was regularly contested as a Nazi atrocity by German defendants during the proceedings.

When did the defendants of the Einsatzgruppen massacres deny what they'd done?

Really? The defense of superior orders was allowed?

Yes, it was allowed. However, the judges were not bound to accept it as a valid excuse for killing people.

A trial may not be tainted in any way by procedural errors but if the procedures are flawed, the trial may be flawed as well.

Sure, if you can show the judge/s is/are biased or some other problem.

But to analyze the trial for procedural errors we need to see the transcript of the proceedings. Where can this be found?

Can't post URLs yet. Google this phrase, in quotes

"OTTO OHLENDORF, HEINZ JOST, ERICH NAUMANN, OTTO BASCH"

enter this limit:

site:mazal.org

 

[Wroclaw]

Germans had been fighting outbreaks of typhus by delousing clothing and people since at least the late 19th century. A letter written by Maryashe Antin to her uncle describes both the procedure and the irrational terror it provoked in the primitive Ostjuden when they tried to enter Germany from the East.

And that proves nothing. All it shows is that, before 1933, they had cared.

Given the events in Germany taken against its Jewish population between 31 Jan 1933 and 31 Aug 1939, why would anyone think that the Nazis would do anything beyond the bare minimum to ensure the survival of Jews?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Germans had been fighting outbreaks of typhus by delousing clothing and people since at least the late 19th century. A letter written by Maryashe Antin to her uncle describes both the procedure and the irrational terror it provoked in the primitive Ostjuden when they tried to enter Germany from the East.

Here an article about how complete railwaycars were fumugated (gassed) with zyklon-B in special tunnels. It was done everywhere in Europe and America.

http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html

According to the Wiesenthal Center an estimated 6 million railway cars in total were gassed in this manner.

We must not forget!

P.S. in this add we see an explicit reference to gaskammer, obviously without sinister connotation. It is solely used as Schaedlingsbekaempfung, which graciously does not include Jews. Zyklon-B was used everywhere: trains, ships, grain storage, factories, etc. But if a modern brainwashed Westerner sees this, he only thinks of one thing.

 

[9/11-investigator]

And that proves nothing. All it shows is that, before 1933, they had cared.

Given the events in Germany taken against its Jewish population between 31 Jan 1933 and 31 Aug 1939, why would anyone think that the Nazis would do anything beyond the bare minimum to ensure the survival of Jews?

Everybody had a hard time in Germany after 1942. Why should the Jews be excluded? And 'doing nothing beyond the bare minimum' and extermination in 'gaschambers' are 2 different things altogether.

 

[Wroclaw]

Queston to Wroclaw. Since you brought up the topic of the Einsatzgruppen, please state:

- how many people they killed
- for what reason these people were killed.

Then we have something to discuss.

Oh, no you don't.

I posed a few questions. Either answer those first or admit you can't. Then I'll be happy to answer the above.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Oh, no you don't.

I posed a few questions. Either answer those first or admit you can't. Then I'll be happy to answer the above.

I admit I can't (says lazy me).

Now answer my questions as you promised to do.

P.S. this thread is not an exercise in who supposedly 'knows' most, but to find out what happened. This is a dialectical chessboard with no time constraints regarding the chess game. Knowledge can be acquired. My opponents have the knowledge as provided to them disinterestedly by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the ADL, Steven Spielberg, court historians and shabby one-man-operation Nizkor, I on the other hand have the vast amount of revisionist literature to fall back upon. Now that we are at it:

http://www.vho.org/
http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/index.html
http://ihr.org/
http://www.ihr.org/main/search.shtml
http://codoh.com/
http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/index.php
http://carolynyeager.com/
http://www.zundelsite.org/
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/
http://www.germarrudolf.com/
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/
http://www.air-photo.com/index.php

If I forgot important revisionist sites, please let me know!

 

[9/11-investigator]

Do we have a time line for when construction began on these fumigation gas chambers and when the outbreak of typhus occurred?

This is a good solid and constructive question. I do not know the answer yet. For future reference anyway.

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcdelouse.html

There is a substantial body of statistical evidence which shows that during the first two years of the war more than three-fourths of all cases of typhus in Poland occurred among Jews and that the remaining cases arose in large part from contact with Jews. [ 24] It was on the basis of this evidence that special regulations were introduced to restrict the movement of Jews. The wall around the Jewish Warsaw ghetto was one such measure.

Hilarious comment. Unfortunately for the Jews backed up by statements by nobody less than general Patton (who was later killed because of his opposition to Washington policies):

In a letter to his wife, he confessed: "Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race and we [are] about to replace them with Mongolian savages." And in another letter, Patton admitted: "The stuff in the papers about fraternization is all wet... All that sort of writing is done by Jews to get revenge. Actually, the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe... I prefer the Germans. So do our cousins [the British]." After touring refugee camps he came to see Jews as "lower than animals."

The unpleasant truth is that Jews seemed to prefer reading books above have a proper shower every now and then, even if the possibility of having a shower was available:

After World War II, General George S. Patton described Jews living under his military authority in southern Germany. Martin Blumenson the editor of The Patton Papers regarded these remarks as indicative of a growing anti-Semitic attitude. For September 17, 1945 -- five months after the liberation of the last of the German concentration camps -- Patton wrote:

We drove for about 45 minutes to a Jewish camp ... established in what had been a German hospital. The buildings were therefore in a good state of repair when the Jews arrived but were in a bad state of repair when we arrived, because these Jewish DP's or at least a majority of them, have no sense of human relationships. They decline, where practicable, to use latrines, preferring to relieve themselves on the floor ...

This happened to be the feast of Yom Kippur, so they were all collected in a large wooden building which they called a synagogue. It behooved General Eisenhower to make a speech to them. We entered the synagogue which was packed with the greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen. When we got about half way up, the head rabbi, who was dressed in a fur hat similar to that worn by Henry VIII of England and in a surplice heavily embroidered and very filthy, came down and met the General . . .

However, the smell was so terrible that I almost fainted and actually about three hours later lost my lunch as the result of remembering it.

Source.

 

[Wroclaw]

I admit I can't (says lazy me).

Now answer my questions as you promised to do.

Sure.

Minimum 800,000 Jews shot by Einsatzgruppen. I'm uncomfortable with estimates more than around 1.5 million. Both I haven't looked at the methodology on some of the larger estimates (e.g., Wolfgang Benz).

They were killed because they were Jews.

Since you have no problem with the Einsatzgruppen trial, I assume you will now admit that the findings of guilt in that trial are sufficient to prove this part of the Holocaust?

 

[IDB87]

Hilarious comment. Unfortunately for the Jews backed up by statements by nobody less than general Patton (who was later killed because of his opposition to Washington policies):

The invasion of Poland was in September 1939. The construction of the Warsaw Ghetto (the wall in particular) began not even a year later in August 1940, and by November some 400,000 Jews were crammed into the Ghetto. It's not surprising that typhus and such diseases would appear under such atrocious living conditions. But you suggest the wall was built because of typhus. Do you have any sources that suggest there were an alarming number of cases of typhus among the Jewry of Warsaw prior to 1940 that would warrant the construction of what amounted to a quarantine? Did the Nazis try to intervene by using gas chambers to sterilize the dead / clothing of those confirmed cases like they did in the concentration camps?

Regarding Patton's death - did his assassin unbuckle his seat belt when he got into that car? What about the other people involved in the accident - his chief of staff, the private driving the car - did they see anything like a rubber-gun wielding assassin?

The unpleasant truth is that Jews seemed to prefer reading books above have a proper shower every now and then, even if the possibility of having a shower was available

Or by 1945 they were so used to the living conditions imposed on them by the Nazis that they lost what you and I may consider decency in that the idea of going to the bathroom where you are is a non-issue. After all, they were forced by the thousands to use latrines that could only accommodate hundreds, is the case of Birkenau anyway. Twice a day only, may I add.

 

[realpaladin]

Yep. We want to reconstruct what really happened during WW2. Once we have the picture right we can start moralizing about who was the worst. The main issue regarding the H-word is: "did the Germans have an extermination program running, yes/no". Nobody denies that the Jews had a hard time.

Good. So that means you will not spend as much time trying to debunk other cases, but rather start building up your own?

That's too simple. The competition is:
Orthodoxy: Nazis intentionally killed 6 million Jews as decided upon in Wannsee.
Revisionists: 280,000 people (Maybe half of them Jews) died in camps, mainly due to sickness, typhus, etc. Plus tenths of thousands of partisans (+ families) in the East (to a large extent carried out by locals as revenge for Jews instrumental in ruthless installing communism before the German invasion).

So, there lies a job for the revvies to prove it happened their way...

The questions is: was there an intentional extermination program going on in the camps or not?

Oh yes it does! It is all about intentions. '

Nah.... if a machine makes a cup, it makes a cup; the cup then exists, even though the machine had no intentions at all.

Same here, if the x million people got killed by Nazi's, they got killed by Nazi's and that makes them a sick bunch, no matter what the intentions.

In this matter it is important of what the elite thinks. The rest will experience the result of the opinion of the elite in history books they will be forced to learn.

Elite... ueberpeople???

The question is whether the Nazis 'butchered' at all as an institutional program!

If that is your question, then the number is not important.

That's the Disney interpretation of WW2/holocaust. What is completely out of the picture here is that before the Jews were victims (and nobody denies that), they were the villains themselves in Russia. Hitler wanted to prevent that Germany would undergo the same horrible fate as Russia. That was his motivation to go after the Jews.

You don't like jews, do you? Are you sure you can look at facts unbiased?

Find out what really happened. After all it will be another 2 billion years until the sun will be burned up.
Some prefer crossword puzzles as a pasttime, other the H-word.

Nah... you don't want to find out what really happened, you want to make sure the Nazi's aren't looked upon for what they were; mentally unstable mass-murderers.

 

[Wroclaw]

That's too simple. The competition is:
Orthodoxy: Nazis intentionally killed 6 million Jews as decided upon in Wannsee.

What an incredible simplification of the standard historical point of view.

First of all, nobody ever said all the deaths were intentional. Indeed, there is an entire debate within the historical community regarding intentionality, although not quite as you are stating it here.

For the time being, let's say, however, that there are Jews who died in ghettoes who were put there before an extermination plan was ever decided upon and who died there. Thus they are Holocaust victims and yet their deaths cannot, strictly speaking, be called intentional. Nevertheless, the Nazis are responsible, because they wouldn't have been in ghettoes if the Nazis hadn't put them there.

If you kidnap someone and they die in your custody you can be charged with murder.

Furthermore, there is the issue of Wannsee. Nothing was "decided upon" at Wannsee. It was an informational meeting, to make sure different government departments knew what the official policy was. The decision on extermination had already been made.

Yehuda Bauer wrote on this, I don't know, fifteen years ago? Maybe more?

Revisionists: 280,000 people (Maybe half of them Jews) died in camps, mainly due to sickness, typhus, etc.

But you've already admitted to Einsatzgruppen murders, and their reports number far more than that.

Plus tenths of thousands of partisans (+ families) in the East (to a large extent carried out by locals as revenge for Jews instrumental in ruthless installing communism before the German invasion).

When, exactly, did the "Jews" install communism in, let's say, Latvia?

The questions is: was there an intentional extermination program going on in the camps or not?

Of course there was. But even if you answer that question, you're only dealing with half the death toll.

Nah.... if a machine makes a cup, it makes a cup; the cup then exists, even though the machine had no intentions at all.

See above analogy on kidnapping. The law realizes no distinction.

That's the Disney interpretation of WW2/holocaust. What is completely out of the picture here is that before the Jews were victims (and nobody denies that), they were the villains themselves in Russia. Hitler wanted to prevent that Germany would undergo the same horrible fate as Russia. That was his motivation to go after the Jews.

Oh, here we go.

First of all, there's the small matter of the composition of the Politburo in September 1939: Andreyev, Kaganovich, Kalinin, Khruschchev, Mikoyan, Molotov, Stalin, Voroshilov, and Zhdanov, plus Shvernik as a non-voting member. Only Kaganovich was Jewish.

Now, we know that several of the leading Bolsheviks at the time of the revolution were Jews: Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev, most importantly. So where were they in 1939? Purged and, for the most part, dead.

The idea that Soviet Communism was ever a primarily Jewish creation is a myth, and it was an ever greater myth by 1939, because there were virtually no powerful Jews left in the USSR.

Second, there's the issue that, barring a violent overthrow, the KPD had no electoral hope, having never polled better than third in national elections. They were barred from creating a popular front with the SPD by Moscow and, in fact, were as much responsible for dissolving governments during Weimar as the Nazis were.

Finally, don't forget it was the SPD that put down the Marxist uprisings in Germany after WWI, using the right-wing militias available to them at the time.

There was clearly NO CHANCE of Germany becoming a communist state in 1933.

 

[9/11-investigator]

What an incredible simplification of the standard historical point of view.

First of all, nobody ever said all the deaths were intentional.

'They' say it all the time: 'the nazis killed 6M Jews'.

For the time being, let's say, however, that there are Jews who died in ghettoes who were put there before an extermination plan was ever decided upon and who died there. Thus they are Holocaust victims and yet their deaths cannot, strictly speaking, be called intentional. Nevertheless, the Nazis are responsible, because they wouldn't have been in ghettoes if the Nazis hadn't put them there.

OK.

If you kidnap someone and they die in your custody you can be charged with murder.

Not if external forces deteriorate the circumstances in the camps. And that was the case. Germans outside camps died in large numbers as well as a result of the Anglo bombing campaign.

Furthermore, there is the issue of Wannsee. Nothing was "decided upon" at Wannsee. It was an informational meeting, to make sure different government departments knew what the official policy was.

Agree. The deportation decision was formalized.

The decision on extermination had already been made.

Breathtaking breakthrough!!! Where, when and by who? Proof? Links?

Yehuda Bauer wrote on this, I don't know, fifteen years ago? Maybe more?

That must be the same Yehuda who earlier in this thread confided that big surprises were possible regarding the slave labot camps (911I: surprises like that the h-word didn't happen).

But you've already admitted to Einsatzgruppen murders, and their reports number far more than that.

The killings yes. But you are aware that according to international law it is allowed to simply shoot partizans. And I am reluctant to agree that 1800 persons in total can kill 1M people in an area as large as the United States. You see, in contrast with Amsterdam, Jewish partizans in the USSR were not wearing these convenient yellow stars. The Einsatzgruppen not only had to kill the partizans but find them as well. Rather time consuming.

When, exactly, did the "Jews" install communism in, let's say, Latvia?

In 1940 the USSR invaded Latvia. The local Jews in large numbers took control of the country as a proxy of Moscow.

First of all, there's the small matter of the composition of the Politburo in September 1939: Andreyev, Kaganovich, Kalinin, Khruschchev, Mikoyan, Molotov, Stalin, Voroshilov, and Zhdanov, plus Shvernik as a non-voting member. Only Kaganovich was Jewish.

I know. I am talking about Jewish installed communism. It was Jewish all over in 1917. It was a Jewish coup, not a Russian revolution. You can sau that in 1933 the Jewish premier address had moved from Russia to the US and remained so until today. By 1939 the Jewish personal influence had waned. A few days ago I saw Hitler affirming explicitly that according to him the role of the Jews in the uSSR had diminished (I will try to find that back)

Now, we know that several of the leading Bolsheviks at the time of the revolution were Jews: Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev, most importantly. So where were they in 1939? Purged and, for the most part, dead.

True, but this is rubbish...

The idea that Soviet Communism was ever a primarily Jewish creation is a myth, and it was an ever greater myth by 1939, because there were virtually no powerful Jews left in the USSR.

... as I have showed here.

There was clearly NO CHANCE of Germany becoming a communist state in 1933.

According to Hitler Northern Germany was in the hands of the Reds in 1922. Now don't tell me you want to call Dolfie a liar!

It was time to face facts: the communist enemy controlled all the North's biggest cities. 'The Reds are brilliantly organised.' In the northern cities like Frankfurt the security police, the Sipo, already formed the cadres of this Red army - 'The bulk of Sipo officers are socialist, Red, Jewish.'

 

[LashL]

More posts moved to Abandon All Hope, and a few have been infracted as there was a mod-box warning just up-thread. Keep it civil, stick to the topic, and ensure that your posts adhere to the Membership Agreement before hitting that "submit reply" button.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Wroclaw]

Not if external forces deteriorate the circumstances in the camps. And that was the case. Germans outside camps died in large numbers as well as a result of the Anglo bombing campaign.

False, because many of the Jews in those camps in the first place wouldn't have been in them — much less in Germany, in some cases, or Poland — if they hadn't been Jews.

You can dance around that as much as you like, but it wouldn't fly in any court in the world.

Agree. The deportation decision was formalized.

That makes no sense. Deportation had already been going on for over three years. That people would hold a meeting to coordinate and provide information about a policy that was that old would make no sense.

Breathtaking breakthrough!!! Where, when and by who? Proof? Links?

For one thing, you've already admitted that the Einsatzgruppen case is valid, i.e., without any procedural or judicial irregularities. Ohlendorf testified there that there were oral orders. So did Eichmann in Jerusalem in '61. I've already provided links to Ohlendorf's testimony.

That must be the same Yehuda who earlier in this thread confided that big surprises were possible regarding the slave labot camps.

No, he didn't say that. He said, "It may contain surprises. We don't know. It has material that nobody's ever seen."

And one doesn't "confide" in the third largest newspaper in the United States. Plus, the archive's been open for years now. Where's your "big surprise"?

The killings yes. But you are aware that according to international law it is allowed to simply shoot partizans.

First of all, that isn't true. While partisans are not afforded the protection of international law, it is still a crime to shoot them, particularly without a trial.

Furthermore, under the Soviet system, partisan units were to form on their own and then report to local party leadership to receive commissars and military commanders. Because the USSR was attacked, this was actually legal under international law. International law does not expect a country that has been subjected to surprise attack to fight back only with a regular army, not does it expect the citizens of an invaded country to just go along and not repel the invaders.

But we're talking about Jewish women and children in over half the cases. Or is that OK by you?

And I am reluctant to agree that 1800 persons in total can kill 1M people in an area as large as the United States.

They were active for well over a year and they were attached to the military in four separate army groups. Not only is it possible, but it's probable, given the time and place.

You see, in contrast with Amsterdam, Jewish partizans in the USSR were not wearing these convenient yellow stars. The Einsatzgruppen not only had to kill the partizans but find them as well. Rather time consuming.

But that presupposes that it had anything to do with partisans at all.

And you're not under the impression that Soviet partisans were entirely, or even mostly, Jewish, are you?

In 1940 the USSR invaded Latvia. The local Jews in large numbers took control of the country as a proxy of Moscow.

Yeah, the Russians invaded it during the Russian Civil War, also.

But that's actually beside the point, because there's a reason I chose Latvia for my example. Any ideas on that one?

True, but this is rubbish . . . as I have showed here.

Really? You proved it?

Here's a small problem with the link you provided: Sverdlov was dead in 1920.

There's a much larger problem with your reasoning, by the way. Let's see if I can break it down for you.

(1) The issue is not what percentage of the membership of a party is Jewish, but rather what percentage of the Jewish population enrolled in a party. By this measurement, the Bolsheviks weren't even the most popular Marxist party, and both Marxist parties had a lower percentage of the Jewish population than the SRs and the Jewish Bund, the latter of which was 100% Jewish in its membership, by the way, as were the Zionist parties.

(2) A further issue is whether any Bolshevik of Jewish ancestry saw his actions as being undertaken on behalf of Jews. The answer to this question is a resounding "no." Routinely, they ignored ethnic and especially religious distinctions in favor of class distinctions.

(3) Beyond that, we need to consider to what extent the Jews who had been powerful within the early Soviet system were even in agreement with one another. Kamenev had taken sides against Trotsky after the Civil War, resulting in Trotsky's expulsion from the party, and the two men were brothers-in-law. Kamenev and Zinoviev had both voted against the November coup against the Provisional Government, while Trotsky had helped lead it.

The bottom line on this one is that, if you're going to try to paint Bolshevism as "Jewish," then what's to stop anyone else from painting Nazism as "German"? I.e., what then would prevent today's Germans from being held responsible for the sins of the past?

According to Hitler Northern Germany was in the hands of the Reds in 1922. Now don't tell me you want to call Dolfie a liar!

That would be amazing, considering that the German Revolution was over by the summer of 1919. If by "reds" Hitler meant the SPD, then he was mistaken. Again.

 

[TSR]

Can I ask LashL what was wrong with this post for which I got a warning?

.
You may.

In the Forum Management forum, which is the proper place for such questions.
.