9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[Matthew Cline]

The German High Command wanted a scapegoat, namely the Jews. Once they discovered that actually, a high proportion of German Jews were in the military, in the frontline and shedding their blood for Germany, they ignored that fact and continued to blame the Jews for their lack of patriotism.

<conspiracy hat="tinfoil">
Ah, but you see, the Jews only joined the Army in order to undermine it from within. None of them actually died on the front-line; it only looked like that because the ones doing the Army's paper-work were Jews who slipped in forged death certificates to make it seem they were dying for Germany. The Jews who joined the Army, being weak and effete, were dumped into non-combat roles, so they were over-represented in the paper-work role, and they used that to modify and forge written orders to transfer more Jews into paper-work and all the Aryans out of paper-work, so soon they were secretly controlling all of the Army's functions that didn't work through direct spoken communication. That's why the superior German army didn't win WWI.
</conspiracy>

 

[9/11-investigator]

Oh, Hi there, 9/11-investigator. What's the matter? Too many folks put you on ignore so you had to change the screen name?

You should change your nick into Paranoid. You think I am the only one with the views I propose here.

Funny that you mention David Irving. He went to court to try and prove, in effect at least, that the holocaust didn't happen. Failed miserably, showed himself to be an idiot neo-nazi Jew-hating liar.

I am not going to repeat the statements of judge Gray here for the third time. They speak a totally different language of what Gray really thought when reading between the lines. The remarks the judge makes can only be seen as an attempt to minimize the moral damage he had inflicted upon Irving. It is difficult to interpret Gray's remarks as anything else than sympathy. Likewise I have never heard Irving talking about Gray in a resentfull tone.

Let me guess: that, too, was a "Kangorooh court"

The holocaust is the big taboo of modern times. No judge will waste his career on doubting this event in public. That is career suicide, certainly in Europe.

 

[Uzzy]

The holocaust is the big taboo of modern times. No judge will waste his career on doubting this event in public. That is career suicide, certainly in Europe.

That, and it's bad form to deny reality. But then the Nazis were good at that.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Do you mind posting the defininitions of Holocaust you are using for

1. classifying people in "Holocaust accepters" and "Holocaust deniers",

2. supporting the reality of Holocaust?

1) That the Nazis intentionally and systematically killed civilians (both Jews and non-Jews) in Germany and captured territories. This excludes civilians killed via bombings of enemy territories, but includes (in addition to those killed in the infamous gas chambers) those who were worked to death, starved to death, killed via diesel exhaust, and civilians outside of the death camps who were rounded up and shot. (I'm not sure if the POWs who were killed are included or not)

2) The exact number of civilians killed doesn't matter, it's the intentional and systematic killing that makes it the Holocaust.

3) That this intentional and systematic killing wasn't the result of a few rogue Nazis, but was widespread and approved of by the Nazi high command. However, this doesn't mean that everyone in the Nazi high command must have known about it. If, for example, Hitler had been entirely unaware of what was going on, it would still count as the Holocaust.

 

[Uninvolved]

The German High Command wanted a scapegoat, namely the Jews

BS; this is the expression of the typical Jewish attitude of being always the victim. The "stabbing in the back" legend did not concentrate on the Jews; socialists, communists were equally addressed.

Once they discovered that actually, a high proportion of German Jews were in the military, in the frontline and shedding their blood for Germany, they ignored that fact and continued to blame the Jews for their lack of patriotism

What part of the following sentence don't you understand?

The results were never published, because they showed that the percentage of Jews was in fact at least as great as that of the Bavarian non-Jewish population

The facts that were ignored were those uncovered in the Judenzahlung, when the German High Command learnt that Jews were signing up in record numbers to fight for Germany

LOL, that's good, it demonstrates how inventive you are. Do you care to explain, in which regard they were signing up in record numbers?

 

[laca]

I am not going to repeat the statements of judge Gray here for the third time. They speak a totally different language of what Gray really thought when reading between the lines.

Why does this remind me of "the bible is right, you just have to know how to read between the lines"?

 

[Uninvolved]

1) That the Nazis intentionally and systematically killed civilians (both Jews and non-Jews) in Germany and captured territories....

I'm afraid you will run in trouble with many "exterminationists", for the camp of "deniers" includes everyone, who does not accept the basic tenets (the exterminationists have the exclusive right to define "denier"):

1. six million,

2. large scale usage of gas chambers,

3. organized by the state.

I find it strange, that you seem not to know the reason 9/11-investigator asked

Please give me a list of all the Nazis who testified at the NMT that the 6 million holocaust happened

 

[Uzzy]

BS; this is the expression of the typical Jewish attitude of being always the victim. The "stabbing in the back" legend did not concentrate on the Jews; socialists, communists were equally addressed.

Of course Socialists and Communists were equally 'addressed' and blamed in the 'stab in the back' myth. They too ended up in the camps to be slaughtered by your heroes, the Nazis thugs. Never implied otherwise.

What part of the following sentence don't you understand?

The results were never published, because they showed that the percentage of Jews was in fact at least as great as that of the Bavarian non-Jewish population

Irrelevant to my point. The Judenzahlung was originally started to show that the Jews weren't helping the military, and by extension, the country out. When the census showed that record numbers of Jews were signing up for the Germany armed forces, they ignored those figures, suppressed the report and leaked some made up figures which showed the Jews in a bad light. Hence my original statement that Nazis like yourself are good at ignoring facts. And reality, for that matter.

LOL, that's good, it demonstrates how inventive you are. Do you care to explain, in which regard they were signing up in record numbers?

100,000 out of a population of 550,000 signed up, with 78% seeing the front line. (Source: Rigg, Bryan: Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, p.72) Impressive numbers, one would say.

 

[Matthew Cline]

I'm afraid you will run in trouble with many "exterminationists", for the camp of "deniers" includes everyone, who does not accept the basic tenets (the exterminationists have the exclusive right to define "denier"):

1. six million,

People who agree with all three points I laid out, but claim that the number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the lower bounds set by historians, could be called "Holocaust minimizers", but not deniers. I would disagree with anyone calling them "deniers".

2. large scale usage of gas chambers,

There are people who agree with the three points I laid out, but don't think that gas chambers played a significant role, and are thus called deniers? Can you point out where? I'd like to see it.

And I wouldn't consider people who claimed this deniers.

3. organized by the state.

There are people who say that, in German controlled territory during WWII, millions of civilians were killed, but that it was other civilians who did it, the Nazi government wasn't involved, and the Nazi government wasn't involved in any sort of systematic killing of civilians? I've never run across such claims. Could you point them out to me? Depending upon exactly what their claims are, I might have to refine my definition of Holocaust denial.

I find it strange, that you seem not to know the reason 9/11-investigator asked

Please give me a list of all the Nazis who testified at the NMT that the 6 million holocaust happened

1) Given that, so far as I can tell, 9/11-investigator doubts that Nazis systematically killed civilian Jews at all, asking for a Nazi who testified as to the number of civilian Jews they killed seems like a red-herring.

2) Thus far, I haven't seen 9/11-investigator claim anything like "Even if the Nazis systematically killed Jews, it's only the Holocaust if they killed 6 million, so if they killed less than 6 million the Nazis at Nuremberg who admitted to killing Jews were admitting to committing something other than the Holocaust". If he has said something like that, I consider arguing over what name to give the act of Nazis systematically killing civilians to be nothing more than a word game.

3) The exact number of people killed in the Holocaust is a matter for historians, not the Nuremberg trials.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Nazism aside there are real problems getting Turkish, Pakistani, African and Arab immigrants and their descendants to adapt to European countries.
I fear it will take several more generations to change from their original cultures to the adopted one, and in the meantime we will have a problem.

Wow, that's a frank admission. But why would you want to go through all these troubles if you can avoid them by not letting them in in the first place?

Some sound free advice: it is impossible to kill nations. And if a nation is threatened in its existence it will make very bold moves to counter the danger. And in those circumstances you don't want to be on the wrong side. Multiculturalism was only possible in a climate of unhindered economic expansion. Differences and tensions were simply bought off. That period is now over, possibly for the rest of the century. We now have a severe financial crisis and a far worse energy and commodities crisis looming. Fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a very rough ride. To start with in the largest desaster zone: the US of A.

 

[Uninvolved]

100,000 out of a population of 550,000 signed up, with 78% seeing the front line. (Source: Rigg, Bryan: Hitler's Jewish Soldiers, p.72) Impressive numbers, one would say.

I have not stated that it was not impressive. In fact, I agree that it is. I was questioning the record numbers - when have Jews signed up in the German army before (ostensibly in lower numbers)?

Anyway, never mind.

 

[Uninvolved]

People who agree with all three points I laid out, but claim that the number of Jews killed was significantly lower than the lower bounds set by historians, could be called "Holocaust minimizers", but not deniers

There is no uniform number used by the deniers/minimizers. I have difficulty to call it "minimizing", when someone agrees that millions of Jews were the victims, but claims that much less than six millions. I mean for example four millions are much less than six millions. It is another issue, if and why the difference is relevant.

Anyway, I suggest you to make a search in Internet for the definition. You won't find a strictly unified definition, but you will find, that the six millions and the large-scale gassing are conditions of accepting Holocaust (the "centrally organized by the state" requirement is very mushy).

I am sure the vast majority of those posting on this very forum mean "denier" and "Nazi" in the above sense.

This is something like Anti-Semitism: some Jews have decided that they alone have the right to decide, who is Anti-Semite, and they extend the definition year by year.

Re 9/11-investigator's posts: I did not intend to defend or interpret his/her statements. I only tried to explain, that the question re the "6 million in Nurenberg" was logical with the above background.

 

[Arisia]

Wow, that's a frank admission. But why would you want to go through all these troubles if you can avoid them by not letting them in in the first place?

Some sound free advice: it is impossible to kill nations. And if a nation is threatened in its existence it will make very bold moves to counter the danger. And in those circumstances you don't want to be on the wrong side. Multiculturalism was only possible in a climate of unhindered economic expansion. Differences and tensions were simply bought off. That period is now over, possibly for the rest of the century. We now have a severe financial crisis and a far worse energy and commodities crisis looming. Fasten your seatbelts and prepare for a very rough ride. To start with in the largest desaster zone: the US of A.

Why is the US the largest disaster zone? Because we have that grand lady in New York harbor....
..."Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
- Emma Lazarus (a Jew, go figure), from The New Colossus, 1883

You can keep your "European" Culture/History/Civilization (which owes much to North Africa, the Middle East, West Asia and South Asia of course, though you wouldn't ever admit it), 9/11-investigator, the US doesn't mind being a mongrel nation, we're much stronger for it, actually.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Anyway, I suggest you to make a search in Internet for the definition. You won't find a strictly unified definition, but you will find, that the six millions and the large-scale gassing are conditions of accepting Holocaust (the "centrally organized by the state" requirement is very mushy).

Do you mean that:

1) Most web-pages summarizing or detailing the Holocaust state/imply that 6 million were killed and there were large-scale gassings?

2) Most web-pages include "anyone who doubts the numbers killed or the importance of the gassings" in the definition of "Holocaust denier"?

3) #1 implies #2 via definition?

I am sure the vast majority of those posting on this very forum mean "denier" and "Nazi" in the above sense.

Why are you sure? Have you seen lots of people who agree with my three part definition, yet a still accused of being deniers?

Re 9/11-investigator's posts: I did not intend to defend or interpret his/her statements. I only tried to explain, that the question re the "6 million in Nurenberg" was logical with the above background.

I still don't see how it's logical, since there's no connection between any numbers the Nazis gave at the Nuremberg trial and who is or isn't a denier/minimizer. If the Nazis on trial were asked how many Jews in total were killed by the entire Nazi regime, the answers given would just be estimates likely to be inaccurate (unless the Nazi being questioned was one involved in the top level planning/coordination of the whole thing). The estimates given by historians are much more accurate, since they have all of the records at hand for figuring it out. And additionally, did the prosecutors ever ask any of the Nazis for an estimate of the total killed by the entire Nazi regime? I don't see why they necessarily would, since it was individual Nazis who were on trial. And if the prosecutors never asked that question, then there wouldn't be any Nazi at Nuremberg who said "X million Jews in total were killed". Yet the lack of that would have nothing to do with who is or isn't a denier.

 

[Globus]

Although there is no justification of the killing of 91 Jews that constituted the Night of the Broken Glass by SA mob (according to Goebbels his diary was Hitler furious about it) it is never ever mentioned in the Westerpropaganda that the hole event was [a reaction to the killing of a German diplomat by a Jew - Globus]

The figure of 91 comes from the first Nazi Party report on the event. The death toll was higher. The goal was not to kill people, but to destroy Jewish businesses. The final tally was 7500 Jewish businesses destroyed, 76 Synagogues destroyed and a further 191 set on fire.

The decision to undertake this action came from Goebbels, with Hitler's approval.

Strange that you seem to think the religion/ethnicity of a killer should lead a nation to undertake actions against all members of this group. Do you think the Nazis would have burned Catholic Churches if a Catholic had killed a German diplomat?

 

[Uninvolved]

Do you mean that:

1) Most web-pages summarizing or detailing the Holocaust state/imply that 6 million were killed and there were large-scale gassings?

2) Most web-pages include "anyone who doubts the numbers killed or the importance of the gassings" in the definition of "Holocaust denier"?

3) #1 implies #2 via definition?

I don't understand why you are asking this. Are you not in the position to use search engines and decide this for yourself?

Why are you sure?

Simply by reading the messages. Again, I don't understand why you are asking this. Why don't you ask the question explicitely from the exterminationists of this forum? You may even start a thread with this question (then include the definition of Anti-Semite as well, it will be interesting).

I still don't see how it's logical, since there's no connection between any numbers the Nazis gave at the Nuremberg trial and who is or isn't a denier/minimizer

This is the last time I deal with this particular aspect.

1. You wrote:

You imply that all of the Nazis who testified at Nuremberg were coerced into claiming that they took part in the Holocaust.

This statement includes an implicite understanding of the meaning of "Holocaust".

2. If 9/11-investigator assumes, that you define "Holocaust" the way I have shown you, then claiming having taken part in the Holocaust means having taken part in the murder of six million Jews (and of six million others, as some claim it).

did the prosecutors ever ask any of the Nazis for an estimate of the total killed by the entire Nazi regime? I don't see why they necessarily would, since it was individual Nazis who were on trial. And if the prosecutors never asked that question, then there wouldn't be any Nazi at Nuremberg who said "X million Jews in total were killed". Yet the lack of that would have nothing to do with who is or isn't a denier.

1. No, not only individuals were on trial. One of the main charges was the consipracy (crime against the peace, whatever that meant).

2. The IMT did see it necessary to establish the number of Jewish victims:

Of the 9,600,000 Jews who lived in the part of Europe under Nazi domination, it is conservatively estimated that 5,700,000 have disappeared, most of them deliberately put to death by the Nazi conspirators. Only remnants of the Jewish population remain.

Sorry, Matthew, you seem to have to catch up a lot.

 

[Uninvolved]

the Night of the Broken Glass by SA mob (according to Goebbels his diary was Hitler furious about it)

1. The Kristallnacht happened in 1938; the SA has been smashed in 1934.

2. It was Goehring, who was outraged, for the insurances had to pay for the damage and thus ultimately Germany was damaged.

 

[9/11-investigator]

1. The Kristallnacht happened in 1938; the SA has been smashed in 1934.

According to wikipedia it continued to exist but was made largely irrelevant. Wikipedia lists the SA as one of the perpetrators of the Kristallnacht.

2. It was Goehring, who was outraged, for the insurances had to pay for the damage and thus ultimately Germany was damaged.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/Reply/2.html

Hitler's adjutants who were eye-witnesses told the Plaintiff that on the night of the November 1938 'Kristallnacht' (Night of Broken Glass) Hitler spent the whole night intervening with Heinrich Himmler [picture], Joseph Goebbels, the police chief of Munich von Eberstein, and others to quell the pogrom that Goebbels had mischievously started.

 

[Uzzy]

Interestingly, today is the 70th Anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

 

[Chaos]

According to wikipedia it continued to exist but was made largely irrelevant. Wikipedia lists the SA as one of the perpetrators of the Kristallnacht.

Wikipedia also says the Holocaust happened and the Nazis murdered millions of Jews. Since you accept one statement of Wikipedia, I can only assume you accept the other as well. How good of you to have put your Nazi apologist days behind you.