9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[Thunder]

2. Hungary: the number of victims is supposed to be 450,000. However, even Raul Hilberg (not a Nazi sympathisant by any measure) estimated 180,000 victims. Others estimeted higher, between 250,000 and 450,000, but all these are pretty much baseless figures, one could claim 200,000 more or less with the same justification.

how do pre-WW2 Jewish population numbers in Hungary compares to post-WW2 numbers?

all I care about is official figures.

"By the end of the war in Hungary on April 4, 1945, from an original population of almost 900,000 people considered Jewish inside the borders of 1941-44, about 255,000 survived.[15] According to another calculation, Hungary's pre-war Jewish population was 800,000, of which 80,000 survived.[16]"

please prove these numbers wrong.

 

[Uninvolved]

how do pre-WW2 Jewish population numbers in all I care about is official figures.

"By the end of the war in Hungary on April 4, 1945, from an original population of almost 900,000 people considered Jewish inside the borders of 1941-44, about 255,000 survived.[15] According to another calculation, Hungary's pre-war Jewish population was 800,000, of which 80,000 survived.[16]

please prove these numbers wrong.

1. The 76,000 deported from France is official.

2. Which is official? 255,000 survived or 80,000 survived? Btw, the only somewhat reliable number appears to be that of those returning from the concentration camps and the marches, namely 141,000. Thus "80,000 survived" is ridiculous, to say the least.

 

[Thunder]

1. The 76,000 deported from France is official.

2. Which is official? 255,000 survived or 80,000 survived? Btw, the only somewhat reliable number appears to be that of those returning from the concentration camps and the marches, namely 141,000. Thus "80,000 survived" is ridiculous, to say the least.

lets assume that out of 900,000.....250,000 survived.

before WW2 there were possibly 3.3 million Jews in Poland. after WW2, there were only 300,000.

please explain that one.

 

[Pardalis]

Great Britain has been multi-ethnic for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Thousands? Pushing it a bit far there buddy.

 

[Thunder]

Thousands? Pushing it a bit far there buddy.

when did the Vikings enter Britain? followed by the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Normans?

I think 1,500 years may be correct.

either way, Britain has been a mixture of Celts, Nordics, Germans, and French, for quite some time.

 

[Pardalis]

when did the Vikings enter Britain? followed by the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes, the Normans?

I think 1,500 years may be correct.

But it's not multiculturalism as we think of it today, these tribes invaded each other.

Anyway, I just thought it was funny the way you answered. Carry on.

 

[Thunder]

But it's not multiculturalism as we think of it today, these tribes invaded each other.

Anyway, I just thought it was funny the way you answered. Carry on.

ahh...merci!!

I loved Montreal btw. Miss St. Catherine's street.

 

[Simon39759]

As there are really many other population statistics, it would be a heroic job to analyze all of them, and I am certainly not heroic.

Nevertheless, two numbers caught my eyes immediately:

1. France: the number of victims is supposed to be 90,000. However, only 76,000 have been deported to concentration camps, and many of those survived (though undoubtedly there were many, probably hundreds killed in France).

2. Hungary: the number of victims is supposed to be 450,000. However, even Raul Hilberg (not a Nazi sympathisant by any measure) estimated 180,000 victims. Others estimeted higher, between 250,000 and 450,000, but all these are pretty much baseless figures, one could claim 200,000 more or less with the same justification.

I did not look at the stats in any detail, but if the first numbers were just the difference in populations, the contrast might be due to Jews that die from the war before the Nazis got to them.
In addition to the Jewish members of the French army that got killed in the Battle of France, Jews were among the civilians that got killed during the bombings and such or were executed. Also, Jews were heavily represented in the French Resistance, and the mortalities were quite heavy (it is estimated that, at its peaks, the resistance counted up to 100,000 active members).

 

[Simon39759]

But it's not multiculturalism as we think of it today, these tribes invaded each other.

Anyway, I just thought it was funny the way you answered. Carry on.

France might actually be a better example, considering the heritage of the Celts; the Basques; the Franks, the Romans and the Vikings (to cite but a few of the most important and varied ethnic groups; even the Greeks had a strong presence in Provence).

 

[Uninvolved]

lets assume that out of 900,000.....250,000 survived

I don't assume that, b/c the pre-war number according to census was about 800,000, and the post-war number is unknown. One of the sources you used mentions 365,000, but that too is pretty much speculation.

before WW2 there were possibly 3.3 million Jews in Poland. after WW2, there were only 300,000.

please explain that one.

Think of following:

1. the 3.3 million is unserious. The Jewish population in 1933 was 3 million, and many emmigrated, for example to Germany and France, before the war started.

2. After the Soviet occupation, 1,885,000 Jew from Poland became a Soviet subject. About 200,000 of those have been evacuated when the Barbarossa started. No matter how many survived from them, they have not been counted as survivor of the 3 million.

Anyway, I am not well-versed in this subject, thus I can't really contribute to it. All I intended was to show, that parroting something without critically thinking is not the exclusive domain of Holocaust deniers.

 

[Skeptic]

You have dtugg on ignore don't you?

'cause he predicted your answer quite accurately.

Well, of course the judge was part of the Jewish conspiracy. As David Irving said, apparently with all seriousness and without a trace of irony, the judge, and the experts who testified against him, are all part of an international conspiracy by the evil Jews to make him look like an antisemite.

This was his strategy to try and save something from the self-inflicted debacle of the trial. How he squares this with his claim that he actually did win the trial (because it got him all the media attention, and "two days after the verdict, name recognition becomes enormous, and gradually the plus or minus in front of the name fades") is a mystery.

He doesn't seem to notice that of all the reports about him -- except in the neo-Nazi rags -- are that of a freak, a pathetic figure, and that he is interesting (or rather, was interesting) to the media not due to his historical "research", but as a clown who single-handedly destroyed his own reputation through hubris, and, in the words of a typical newspaper report, was "consigned to history as a racist liar", who "has no idea how loathsome and isolated he is".

Then again, he's not that smart, obviously. As one reporter during the trial noted, "so far, the greatest disappointment of the trial is David Irving's reputed intelligence, which supposedly made his so dangerous".

 

[Simon39759]

The argument really was: 'I am not antisemite; I am the victim of a vast Jewish conspiracy to make me look anti-semite'?





Not very self aware, is he?

 

[Skeptic]

The argument really was: 'I am not antisemite; I am the victim of a vast Jewish conspiracy to make me look anti-semite'?



Not very self aware, is he?

Nope. Then again, he also referred to the judge, in a respectful tone, as "Mein Fuhrer" during his summation in the trial, causing the courtroom to dissolve into laughter. "I am not a Nazi, Mein Fuhre... I mean, your lordship..."

Yes, this is David Irving for you, that shining intellect, the neo-nazis' best, most intelligent, best-educated (he actually made it to college, I think, though he dropped out) hope for making holocaust denial respectable.

Sad bunch, aren't they?

 

[paximperium]

Nope. Then again, he also referred to the judge, in a respectful tone, as "Mein Fuhrer" during his summation in the trial, causing the courtroom to dissolve into laughter. "I am not a Nazi, Mein Fuhre... I mean, your lordship..."

Yes, this is David Irving for you, that shining intellect, the neo-nazis' best, most intelligent, best-educated (he actually made it to college, I think, though he dropped out) hope for making holocaust denial respectable.

Sad bunch, aren't they?

Why are neo-Nazi's, the supposed pinnacle of the "aryan-race", usually completely useless dregs of human society and such complete and utter failures? The Jewish, brown, black and yellow doctors, scientists and engineers must really piss them off.

 

[Matthew Cline]

This comment is going to contain a lot of response to a lot of other comments, since I'm jumping in after 1194 have already been made. First will be responses to 9/11-Investigator, and then to everyone else.

But before that, two things:

First, because (as far as I can remember) 9/11-Investigator considers Nicolas Sarkozy to be part of the Conspiracy based on the fact that his granfather was a Jew who converted to Christianity, I feel that I should lay down the fact that, ethnically, I'm half-Jewish, with my father's parents being atheist Russian Jews who immigrated to America.

Second, a question about the Jewish Conspiracy: from what I can infer, you believe it to be a trans-generational conspiracy going back at least a couple hundred years, yet you've cited only one "defector" from the conspiracy. Given that it's not rare for people to convert from the religion they grew up with, nor is rare for people to switch from the political philosophy they grew up with, this defection rate is astronomically low. How do they manage this? Further, your accusation that Nicolas Sarkozy is a part of the Conspiracy would mean:

1) His grandfather pretended to convert to Christianity and married a gentile.
2) His grandfather secretly raised Sarkozy's mother, Andrée, to be a Jew, right under the nose of his gentile grandmother.
3) Andrée, a secret Jew, married a gentile, gave birth to Sarkozy, and secretly raised him to be a Jew, right under the nose of her gentile husband.

How in the world could anyone manage that?

My position on the bunnycaust is that I will believe that it happened if somebody can demonstrate it to me that it happened. In Europe we hold the view that somebody is innocent until proven guilty

You imply that all of the Nazis who testified at Nuremberg were coerced into claiming that they took part in the Holocaust. You are accusing the Allies of committing a massive crime at Nuremberg, an accusation that, by your own standards, you should have lots of proof for, yet (so far as I remember) the only proof you offered was a single Nazi being tortured into a confession after 20 other Nazis had already confessed to the details of the Holocaust. Based on this, you'd have us infer that all of the Nazis were tortured, and that all of the non-testimonial evidence was fabricated.

I do not say that I know for a fact that no gassings etc. did occur.

The Allies would only have engaged in the above mentioned (alleged) massive frame-up if the Nazi's hadn't engaged in the Holocaust, since there'd be no reason for them to frame the Nazis for something they'd already done. So such a frame-up should be proof positive that there was no Holocaust. If I believed that Nuremberg was a massive frame-up by the Allies, I'd be 100% convinced that there was no Holocaust. So why aren't you convinced that there was no Holocaust?

Simon Wiesental is exposed as the complete fraud that he is, a fact well known to revisionists but now it becomes official:

This is the holocaust for you: the two main pillars Wiesel and Wiesenthal exposed as complete frauds.

Wait. Out of all the eyewitness accounts, the accounts of two people are the most important, and all the other eyewitnesses have hardly any evidentiary value?

And you keep trying to press me in the mold of a Nazi-sympathiser which I am not.

Well...

And the West is passing away because America has been silently taken over by a hostile group who, armed with the holocaust tale, was able to remove the defences of Western Civilization and is well on it's way in turning the West into one big Zimbabwe.

You agree with the Nazis that the Jews are engaged in a conspiracy to attack/destroy/dominate the Wester world.

You are reading this well: from unsuspected source we learn that 75% of the staff of Nuremberg were Jews (Irving says the same). The entire tribunal of Nuremberg was from A to Z a Jewish show trial, meant to punish the only country that had succeeded to escape from the Jewish grip.

You apparently think it was good idea for the Nazis to render Germany "Jew free".

The OT is the history of the Jewish People, the NT is a biography about Jesus. These 2 books are simply unrelated and glued together. A literary sin.

You agree with the Nazis that the Jews have always been evil, even 2,000 years ago and more.

All in accordance with the nature of the respective inventors.

You agree with the Nazis that different ethnicities practice different types of engineering/science.

So, really, I'm not that surprised that people would mistake you for a Nazi-sympathizer.

1st - Baloney. He has Jewish blood and he acts accordingly, witnessed by his pro-neocon- and turning away from the classic Gaulist policies.

Are you saying that he's genetically predisposed towards being a neocon, or do you mean something else by "He has Jewish blood and acts accordingly"?

That's a daring statement of the worlds most renowned historian on WW2. His reputation though was crushed as he dared to embrace the findings of Leuchter combined with the complete abscence of any paper trail whatsoever of the holocaust in the archives.

If the Allies fabricated all the non-testimonial evidence of the Holocaust, then why wouldn't they have fabricated a paper trail of the Holocaust as well? It doesn't make sense.

I think that the aftermath of 9/11, a colossal Jewish blunder, will make sure that this is not going to happen. What will happen is this: I expect a rather peaceful Jeltzin-style transition.

So, then, you think the nations of the world will be able to shake of the "grip" of the Jews without having to expel them all and render themselves "Jew free"?

And here comes a bunch of Ukrainian Khazars calling themselves Jews since 800 AD or so and want to subjugate us and destroy us in order to replace us with the hordes of the third world in order to divide society so you can function as middlemen and hold all the power.

Wait. Given your comment that combining the Old Testament and New Testament into a single Bible is a "sin", I though you considered the ancient Jews to be evil. But people pretending to be descendants of the ancient Jews are also evil, in the same ways as the people they're pretending to be? Weird.

You want to kill the aristocrats like you did in Russia. ... My sympathy is with the Victorian and Wilhelminian elite. I want to go back to the 18/19th century and via that to 16th century aristocratic France.

... I am proudly pro-European and that includes post-9/11 libertarian constitutional Euro-America.

I don't think that 16th century aristocratic France was very libertarian. Is 16th century France an unobtainable ideal, and a libertarian constitutional government would be the best that you can actually get in this reality?

Also, I'm curious as to what parts of 16th century France you want to bring back.

Haha, the same Chomsky who declared 'not to be interested in who was behind 9/11'. Real reason: he knows who did 9/11, namely his tribe. Chomsky will be in jail soon.

He knows because... he's a Jew, and all Jews know the truth about 9/11? If he's going to jail soon because he knows but pretends not to, and Jews know the truth, then what percentage of Jews will be going to jail soon?

Russia is now authoritarian Orthodox again, as it should be (because that is it's nature).

Its nature as determined by the Russian culture, or its nature as determined by the genetically determined temperament of the Russian ethnicity.

Here is some anti-American ammo: operation wetback.

Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove about one million illegal immigrants from the southwestern United States. It focused on Mexican nationals.

I claim that there is no real difference between the behavior of the Nazis and the post WW2 Americans.

Two differences:

1) The Jews had lived there for generations, going back hundreds of years.

2) The Nazis did the same to the Jews in the territory they conquered, not just the original German territory.

A set of more comparable situations would be the the U.S. government forcing relocations on a number of Native American tribes.

I repeat my request towards my opponents: can anybody explain to me why one of the most sophisticated European nations became virulent anti-semitic?

Well, I'm waiting...

As parky76 said:

they already were somewhat anti-Semitic. but the demoralizing loss of WW1, the totally unfair Treaty of Versaille, and the Great Depression, allowed the bigots and demagogues in Germany take advantage of the fear and vulnerability of the German people and to exploit the already existing hatred of Jews.

If you doubt the existence of anti-semitism in Germany prior to the 20th century, I can give some info on that, though I'd have to re-read Hohn Weiss' Ideology of Death to go into more detail.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that most of the deniers know it happend and are glad that it did. Their evil lies are more about whitewashing the Nazis and an attempt to turn the tables and make the Jews the perpetrators of the greatest scam in history. They are truly evil people and I hope their is a Hell if only so they can meet their Führer there when they die.

Someone in another thread gave a possible thought process for deniers who truly believe the Holocaust didn't happen: they think "if the Holocaust happened then the Jews are victims, but the Jews can't be victims because they're the Villains, so the Holocaust didn't happen". A similar/variant thought process would be "the Jews control the world, and people who control the world wouldn't allow 6 million of their own to be murdered, so it didn't happen".

A question none of those anti-semists ever answered:

If the Jews indeed run the world and have managed to undermine every single country, most media outlets, the whole economy etc, etc....

If a couple of Jews where able to pull this off, get away with it and continue it for decades/centuries....

...would that not mean that Jews are super-intelligent Uebermenschen? How else to explain it?

You know, I never understood the problem the Nazis have with "Jewish world domination", even if it were true.

Suppose for a minute the Jews really DO control everything and rule the world. Well, since -- according to Nazi philosophy -- might makes right and weakness is a sin, they DESERVE to rule the world, since being strong enough to rule the world ipso facto means you deserve to, and if you are too weak to resist it ipso facto means you deserve to be ruled and oppressed.

Another thing: sometimes the Nazis claim that racial superiority, as measured by IQ, is the real measure of who "deserves" to rule the world. Well, if that is true, then Jews as a group usually come out on top of such IQ tests (I keep wondering how, the number of stupid Jews I know being rather high, but I digress.).

I guess that the rational would be something like: the Jews got what they have via trickery and deceit. The Aryans are smart/strong/hard-working/etc, and they're Innocent, so they're vulnerable to the trickery and deceit.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler likened the Jews to parasites. The thinking was that the Jews undermined the righteous struggle for domination carried out by the other peoples. You could say that the Jews violated the rules of the game the Nazis expected everyone to play.

A lot of the Germans in Nazi-era Germany hated the Jews for having middleman type jobs, since they made money off of what other people produced without producing anything themselves, and those Germans believed that the only honest type of work was productive work.

Another of the (many) things that don't make sense in 9/11-investigator's world is that, apparently, the sole purpose of the Jews, when coming to a country, is to destroy it. And when it IS destroyed, they move on to another country.

Why? Why bother? If the LIKE destroyed countries, why don't they do it once and stay in the desroyed country? If they don't, why do they destroy the country in the first place? I mean, what's the point? It's not like they're Nazis, after all -- now, THAT was a wholly destructive philosophy whose sole goal was destruction for destruction's sake.

I think by "destroyed" the meant the destruction of the country's sovereignty and everything that made that country great.

And just as tellingly, those who call themselves "skeptics" are only ever "skeptical" about the crimes of the Nazis... or even only specifically about what the Nazis did to the Jews.

I am so sure it is totally a coincidence that none of these fine souls ever directed their "skepticism" at, for example, the Turkish genocide of Armenians, or the Rape of Nanking, or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, or the massacres committed by Genghis Khan´s hordes....

This is very tangential, but back in the old days of the Usenet there was a spambot which posted screeds that not only denied the Turkish genocide against the Armenians, but claimed that the Armenians committed genocide against the Turks; if I recall correctly, even talking about a recipe for a turkey sandwich could bring down the spambot's wrath. Google for "Serdar Argic".

 

[Skeptic]

Why are neo-Nazi's, the supposed pinnacle of the "aryan-race", usually completely useless dregs of human society and such complete and utter failures? The Jewish, brown, black and yellow doctors, scientists and engineers must really piss them off.

Asimov put it best: what else do they have to be proud of except for their white skin and uncircumcised penis? Naturally, they overestimate their value.

 

[Skeptic]

I don't know how to tell you this, Matthew, but looking for logic and consistency in 9/11's posts is about as reasonable as looking for real medicine in homeopathic concoctions.

 

[Thunder]

I don't assume that, b/c the pre-war number according to census was about 800,000, and the post-war number is unknown. One of the sources you used mentions 365,000, but that too is pretty much speculation.



Think of following:

1. the 3.3 million is unserious. The Jewish population in 1933 was 3 million, and many emmigrated, for example to Germany and France, before the war started.

2. After the Soviet occupation, 1,885,000 Jew from Poland became a Soviet subject. About 200,000 of those have been evacuated when the Barbarossa started. No matter how many survived from them, they have not been counted as survivor of the 3 million.

the 3.3 million figure in Poland is a fact. What evidence do you have that many of these 3.3 million Jews in Poland emigrated to Germany and France? I have never heard this idea before...and I believe it is baseless. But yes, you can drop around 250,000 Jews from the total number of Jewish Holocaust victims in Poland, but those Jews may have been victims of the Holocaust in Russia, Belarus, Lithuania, or Ukraine.

the facts remain historically undisputed. 3.3 million Jews in Poland in 1938..and 300,000 Jews in Poland in 1945. No evidence so far suggests that any more then 250,000 of these Jews left Poland before the Holocaust began. deal with it.

You know, if the Neo-Nazis were really smart, they would say that: "yes, at least 5 million Jews died in Europe during WW2. but most of these Jews died as a result of bombings and other war time events, not due to methods of genocide."

 

[9/11-investigator]

You imply that all of the Nazis who testified at Nuremberg were coerced into claiming that they took part in the Holocaust. You are accusing the Allies of committing a massive crime at Nuremberg, an accusation that, by your own standards, you should have lots of proof for, yet (so far as I remember) the only proof you offered was a single Nazi being tortured into a confession after 20 other Nazis had already confessed to the details of the Holocaust. Based on this, you'd have us infer that all of the Nazis were tortured, and that all of the non-testimonial evidence was fabricated.

- Please give me a list of all the Nazis who testified at the NMT that the 6 million holocaust happened.
- I am labelling the NMT as a show trial. Many very high-ranking Americans did likewise (see earlier post of mine).

Matthew, I am not going to address all the issues you raised about Sarkozy and all the other non-holocaust related stuff. This thread is growing too big already.

So, really, I'm not that surprised that people would mistake you for a Nazi-sympathizer.

As a conservative libertarian I am anti-totalitarian state, that includes Jewish Bolshevism and German Nazism. However, I do sympathise with the Germans as a people and the way they wrongly got to bear to full weight of war and holo guilt.

But the average JREF NWO-er does not distinguish between Nazis and Germans. And they probably don't like to admit that they deep in their hearts resent everything European (meaning from Europe or WASP-America).

 

[9/11-investigator]

Benjamin Freedman was a self-hating Jew. Clearly not unbiased on the subject matter. Ive heard his speeches.....all completely void of actual evidence. Just because **** comes from a Jew...doesn't mean it ain't ****.

Fine, here is some more material about the link between the Balfour Declaration and the American war entry during WW1 causing the catastrophic loss of Germany, the scandalous Versailles Treaty and German anti-semitism and revenge in the form of the deportations of the Jews to the East ('holocaust'):

In a memorandum marked in his own handwriting "Private & Confidential" to Lord Peel and other members of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1936, James Malcolm wrote:

I have always been convinced that until the Jewish question was more or less satisfactorily settled there could be no real or permanent peace in the world, and that the solution lay in Palestine. This was one of the two main considerations which impelled me, in the autumn of 1916, to initiate the negotiations which led eventually to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine. The other, of course, was to bring America into the War.

...

As I have already said, I had a part in initiating the negotiations in the early autumn of 1916 between the British and French Governments and the Zionist leaders, which led to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine.

The first object, of course, was to enlist the very considerable and necessary influence of the Jews, and especially of the Zionist or Nationalist Jews. to help us bring America into the War at the most critical period of the hostilities. This was publicly acknowledged by Mr. Lloyd George during a recent debate in the House of Commons.


So we do not have to rely entirely on the testimony of a 'self-hating Jew' like Freedman to understand the little trade-off between England and the Jews and the catastrophic consequences for the Germans.

Here more material.

P.S. I promise to Parky to address the Jewish population statistics topic next. To do that I have to study the links I posted earlier regarding this issue first. Could easily take 1-2 weeks. Again, don't put me under pressure, we have all the time of the world.

P.S.2 - I am going to weed out people who don't contribute any substance whatsoever. I don't care if you want to make a fool of yourself and call me 'nazi fan boy' or the like as long as you contribute substance to the thread in posting links and comments. The next likely candidate to get a pass is dudalb with his one-liner smears.