9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[Wroclaw]

Indeed, Breslau is my actual surname.

 

[ddt]

You misspelled Wrocław (note the "ł").
</nitpick>

 

[dudalb]

Do you think nein11 would rather see his handle to be "Breslau"?

He thinks Lorraine should be Lotharigen so...yeah.

 

[Wowbagger]

The word 'holocaust' is a marketing ploy. Revisionist claim that nobody was gassed or that a deliberate extermination program was going on. The vast majority of people who died, died because of sickness, deprevation, etc.

Technically, I disagree with you: I don't think the word is merely a marketing ploy.

But, for argument sake, even if you were right: You basically just admitted that the Nazis treated a whole bunch of people badly, and unfairly.

What is there worth defending in this sort of event?!

You are basically conceeding the point that a horrible, holocaust-like event took place at the hands of Nazis. Even if you don't think the word "holocaust" is accurate.

Given the fact that you acknowledge such things, do you really think you can win this debate with semantics arguments about the word "holocaust"?

 

[9/11-investigator]

I just saw this in a parallel thread:

COL. BROOKHART: Witness after witness, by testimony and affidavit, has said that the gas chamber killings were done on general or specific orders of Kaltenbrunner.

KALTENBRUNNER: Show me one of those men or any of those orders. It is utterly impossible.

COL. BROOKHART: Practically all of the orders came through Kaltenbrunner.

KALTENBRUNNER: Entirely impossible.

Kaltenbrunner also testified that he first heard of the hoax on allied radio.

The charges against Kaltenbrunner were preposterous and there was not a shred of evidence for them. The 'orders' mentioned by Brookhard did not exist.

This is too good to let go. This is first hand proof what a kangeroo court the IMT was.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Technically, I disagree with you: I don't think the word is merely a marketing ploy.

But, for argument sake, even if you were right: You basically just admitted that the Nazis treated a whole bunch of people badly, and unfairly.

What is there worth defending in this sort of event?!

You are basically conceeding the point that a horrible, holocaust-like event took place at the hands of Nazis. Even if you don't think the word "holocaust" is accurate.

Given the fact that you acknowledge such things, do you really think you can win this debate with semantics arguments about the word "holocaust"?

You probably forgot that there was a war going on. Wars in general create circumstances uncomparable to what you might have experienced at some point in ClubMed. Just between you and me... how do you think the good civilians of Dresden felt at a certain night early 1945? My point is that the 'horrible conditions' were created by the allies. The conditions in most camps was reasonable (with exceptions like Mauthausen) during the first part of the war.

You fail to understand that my point is that I see no value in using the H-word. It is ill-defined. It is coupled to the 6M/gaschamber story, which is under debate here. I prefer to find out how many people died and more importantly, how they died. The H-word is useless for that purpose. When you want to know how many people died in the camps, here you have an estimate accepted by all revisionists. The rest YOU have to prove.

 

[TSR]

This is first hand proof what a kangeroo court the IMT was.

.
No this is, at best. *secondhand* evidence.

And then, only if you ignore the follow-up posts
.

 

[uke2se]

I just saw this in a parallel thread:



This is too good to let go. This is first hand proof what a kangeroo court the IMT was.

No, it's yet another lie from your Nazi chum, Saggy.

On a side note, I would like to thank the moderators for moving this thread to Conspiracy Theories. It demonstrates the forum administrations willingness to disallow hate driven propaganda from sullying the scientific sections of the forum.

 

[TSR]

.
Duplicate post
.

 

[TSR]

Just between you and me... how do you think the good civilians of Dresden felt at a certain night early 1945? My point is that the 'horrible conditions' were created by the allies.

.
Just between you and me -- what had Anne Frank and her family done to deserve being sent to camps where most of them died? Why couldn't they have been left in the Annex? Why did they even need to hide in the Annex?


Run, little niney -- run.
.

 

[Uzzy]

I just saw this in a parallel thread:



This is too good to let go. This is first hand proof what a kangeroo court the IMT was.

Pretty sure we talked about Kaltenbrunner six-eight months ago, and as usual annihilated your point.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Van Roden was a fraud. See:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/ftp.py?people/v/van-roden.edward/1999/usenet.9906

Wow, a document, a post no less from nizkor. I am impressed. No I happen to have found an article written by van Roden himself, in the The Progressive, February 1949. No doubt 'The Progressive' is exactly fitted to your mode of thinking, right?

Everything is confirmed:

Our investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him, and beat him with rubber hose. Many of the German defendants had teeth knocked out. Some had their jaws broken.

All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was Standard Operating Procedure with American investigators.

And here another method by the Americans, inhabitants of that run-away colony that should never have gained independence from Britain:

In another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator) entered the cell of one of the defendants, heard his confession, gave him absolution, and then gave him a little friendly tip: "Sign whatever the investigators ask you to sign. It will get you your freedom. Even though it's false, I can give you absolution now in advance for the lie you'd tell."

You want to know how the absurd 4 million deaths of Auschwitz was set in the world: exactly, like that, Signed prepared statements after a good deal of torture.

Now, your nizkor post wants us to make believe that van Roden retracted his statement only weeks later? Really? Can you show us the NYT article of March 2, 1949 mentioned in that post. Obviously I used the search facility of the NYT, but I could not find a single reference to van Roden. So you are probably peddling lies, right Wroclaw?

So where is your NYT article? The NYT has all it's articles online. It must be there.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Just between you and me -- what had Anne Frank and her family done to deserve being sent to camps where most of them died? Why couldn't they have been left in the Annex? Why did they even need to hide in the Annex?


Run, little niney -- run.
.

You will get your answer, do not worry. I am preparing a post on a topic that should complete the picture of WW1/WW2. And it does not look good at all for the people you seem to care about so much.

 

[dtugg]

Finally this thread got moved to the correct forum. Yes, I know it was my fault that it was in a serious one to begin with. My bad.

Sent from my Samsung Epic 4G using Tapatalk

 

[9/11-investigator]

No, it's yet another lie from your Nazi chum, Saggy.

Are you calling nizkor liars as well, uke2se?

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/nca/ftp.py?imt/nca//supp-b/nca-sb-02-kaltenbrunner.04

This shabby Canadian one man operation is saying exactly the same thing!

 

[9/11-investigator]

Indeed, Breslau is my actual surname.

Not according to Codoh.

 

[dudalb]

You will get your answer, do not worry. I am preparing a post on a topic that should complete the picture of WW1/WW2. And it does not look good at all for the people you seem to care about so much.

Translatation: More Anti Semitic "THe Jews are our Misfortune" garbage coming our way.

 

[VonKleist]

Now, your nizkor post wants us to make believe that van Roden retracted his statement only weeks later? Really? Can you show us the NYT article of March 2, 1949 mentioned in that post. Obviously I used the search facility of the NYT, but I could not find a single reference to van Roden. So you are probably peddling lies, right Wroclaw?

So where is your NYT article? The NYT has all it's articles online. It must be there.

$3.95

 

[uke2se]

Are you calling nizkor liars as well, uke2se?

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/nca/ftp.py?imt/nca//supp-b/nca-sb-02-kaltenbrunner.04

This shabby Canadian one man operation is saying exactly the same thing!

No, I'm calling you and your Nazi chum Saggy liars. Nobody who gets caught in as many lies as you two deserve any epithet other than liar.

And no, nizkor isn't saying the same thing Saggy was. Saggy was quote mining, and so were you as you didn't look at the following posts.

 

[little grey rabbit]

$3.95

Call me mean, but even four dollars is too much to pay to show Nizkor up as being dishonest again - since gareth is probably well aware of that.

Suffice to say someone else has used this article as reference
http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/ocg.pdf
(page 53)
and didnt seem to be struck by any retraction

Mar 2, 1949: Charges of brutality by war crimes investigators caused demands for
an inquiry. Charges that American war crimes investigators used physical brutality
and other third-degree methods on seventy-four Nazi defendants were denounced in
theMalmedy war crimes trial. (NYT p. 1) [The fact that “third degreemethods” were
used in a fairly systematic way was confirmed by Judge Edward L. Van Roden in an
official investigation ordered by Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royal. Internees
were given starvation rations and ration cards were witheld from their familie; all
but two of the 139 defendants they investigated “had been kicked in the testicles”;
another common method was to “put a black hood over the accused’s head and then
punch him in the face with brass knuckles” Van Roden (1949, p. 216).