• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr Moore,

While you are at it, another bit of business that Dogzilla failed to deal with is here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7933466&postcount=9051.

To help remind you, this is where Dogzilla was asked to pony up his explanation for the fate of Jews from 5 specific places, as follows:
I was quite surprised, and pleased, I must say, to read Dogzilla's post, which he threw up there with the calm confidence of a Christian with 4 aces, as Twain once described religious folk. This topic, where Europe's Jews went, is one deniers generally shun. Anyway, for someone who's passed about a half dozen times on answering where the Jews of Vilna went in the various National Socialist actions in that city, Dogzilla is certainly coming on all bold and brave for Team Denial on the "resettlement" claim.

So, recognizing that it takes books of 1000 pages to explain where the Jews of all of Europe went, let's hear from Dogzilla on (1) where, out of Europe, the Jews of the just following five cities were taken by the Germans and (2) how Dogzilla knows what happened to the Jews of these cities:

1. Vilna (Lithuania, Ostland)

2. Lodz (Warthegau)

3. Warsaw (General-Gouvernement)

4. Kiev (Ukraine)

5. Riga (Latvia, Ostland)

We should thank Dogzilla in advance for stepping up. It will be good to hear, finally, the denier case for Vilna, for example, not to mention the other cities. These are exciting times we live in, and Dogzilla's willingness finally to spell out the Team Denial view of National Socialist Jewish policy and its implementation is only part of the exhilaration we are in for these days.

I know you will not dodge the way Dogzilla did - and so look forward to your taking on this issue. I am sure I speak for my fellow forum members in mentioning my eagerness to learn your views.
 
You are insane you actually think I’d give a cultist like you that kind of sensitive information. I will not give the Jews the opportunity to blackmail or threaten anyone before my work is safely in print.

Please feel free to explain how providing evidence to support your claims would give anyone "the opportunity to blackmail or threaten anyone?" It's funny how identical your comment is to every other conspiracy nut (of every other conspiracy) who posts on the internet, "Trust me - I have secret facts to support my claims!"

The fact that Hollywood does more to educate the public about the holocaust than anything the genuine scholars publish isn't a new idea around here.
Really, so in your world there are a lot of contemporary Hollywood movies or TV shows about the Holocaust?
 
But none of that means what is called the Holocaust did not happen.

I never said it did. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that there is one single thing--one event, one document, one speech, one anything--that is going to prove the holocaust didn't happen. There isn't. There can't be. For one reason, the holocaust isn't a single thing that can be proven to have happened or not. There are many facets to it and many are completely independent of one another. The second reason is that you can't prove a negative.

I see this line of faulty reasoning alot around here whereby somebody reveals their belief in negative proof with this sort of exchange: A "denier" says 'there's no Hitler order to exterminate the Jews' which provokes a response like 'and that proves the holocaust didn't happen, does it?' Of course it doesn't prove that! The lack of a Hitler order doesn't prove the holocaust didn't happen. All it means is that a Hitler order hasn't been found. It doesn't even mean that there never was a Hitler order. Or a "denier" says "air photos taken of Auschwitz during the Hungarian action don't show outdoor burning of bodies in pits like witnesses say there were" which provokes a response like" "and I suppose that proves the holocaust didn't happen, right?" No, of course it doesn't. It doesn't prove the holocaust didn't happen. It doesn't prove the eyewitnesses were lying about open air burnings. It doesn't prove there weren't any open air body burnings. It just means that the air photos that do exist do not corroborate that one small part of the story.

How would you describe the actions the Nazis took against the Jews during WWII?

My definition of the holocaust is: what happened to the Jews during World War II. The actions taken by Nazis against f the Jews is part of that.


I think it is significant evidence for the Holocaust that Hitler's approval was needed to save a Jew.

Without reading the book I can't really form an informed opinion. I do wonder how many of these "Jews" that Hitler saved were really Jewish, however. But given Hitler's fondness for the Jews and what we've been told he had in store for them, I think it is significant if Hitler gave his approval to save any Jew.
 
Yes, from the Wannsee protocol. Though it was still not a hard and fast definition and it is notable that there were exceptions.

Again, how does that mean there was no Holocaust?

I'm sure you read my response prior to this one so you know that this doens't prove there was no holocaust. But the Nazi definition of a "Jew" predates the Wannsee conference.

But speaking of Wannsee, does anybody know how many Jews there were in Europe around the time of the Wannsee conference?
 
I'm still mystified at the Denier idea that if they can just prove that a handful of people have lied about their own personal experiences, they will have proven that the entire Holocaust is a hoax without having to address, y'know, the entire body of existing documentary, archaeological, and historiographical evidence showing otherwise.

It's like claiming the entire Vietnam War never actually happened and is really a big hoax, because this site documents a whole bunch of people who lied about having served during the war.

Boy, that would be really stupid to think that negative proof such as that can exist. Can you show where any denier said that proving that a handful of people have lied about their own personal experiences will prove that the entire Holocaust is a hoax?
 
Let's see, there was that museum video Snakey posted a few dozen pages back, photos of the mass graves and modified vehicles and stuff like that, and the reams upon reams of records the Nazis kept of how they moved Jews, how they acquired the resources and built the facilities to house and kill them, etc. The testimony comes from both Nazis, surviving Jews, and various civilians.

I'm going to need something a little more specific. Even LC provides links to documents he thinks answers a question. When I ask to see an example of a video or photo of Jews being gassed, "that museum video" and "photos of the mass graves" and (my favorite) "stuff like that" just don't cut it.
 
How many of those versions can you identify that are not misrepresentations or falsehoods from your denier friends?

Hold on! Are you implying that some of the Gerstein statements are forgeries from deniers? Or are you implying that they are all forgeries from deniers? Do you think that the Denier Conspiracy operating at the end of the war created fake evidence? As in, "lets make up this really dumb document and see if Psych Warfare falls for it. Maybe they'll base their entire holocaust story on a couple of our fake confessions. Then, in the future, we can show everybody how dumb these confessions are and the whole holocaust story will fall apart!"

"Yeah, that's a great idea! You make up some story about outrageous piles of clothing or impossibly cramped gas chambers. I'm going to go bury this diary in a milk can...."
 
What sheer idiocy.

"After the fact," you write, despite my links to "before the fact" statements of . . .

Never mind, you aren't worth the trouble, except to say that I was more than happy with the outcome of the Ponar discussion. Do you want to try again putting over that Jaeger's outfit was about anti-partisan actions, population removal, or renegade ops? Go for it . . .

Only if you promise to explain to me how it's evidence for a policy your team says wasn't in place when the report was written or what the Nazi's did in response to partisan activity because the EG sure as heck wasn't involved in anything except indiscriminate Jew slaughter.
 
I'd also like to see him, using source material, defend his propositions, which he feels he put across so well:

1) "[The Jaeger Report uses] the type of language we see when the overall Jewish policy of the German government is an ethnic cleansing"; "all that documentation clearly shows a policy of ethnic cleansing. Intending to make regions free of Jews does not prove an intent to kill the Jews."

2) "The Jaeger Report is evidence of anti-partisan actions. Some might say the anti-partisan actions were sometimes excessive but unfortunately excesses have always been a part of war."

3) "At best you might have something to support the David Irving notion of murdering innocent Jews being the result of local actions by a few Kraut Lynndie Englands and Charles Graners out in the field."

These are the three arguments he made about the Jaeger report and the mass murder of Jews in Lithuania in 1941.

Right here. Right now. No need to re-read his past "victories." Let's see him substantiate these three claims in real time.

I would substantiate those by referring to the EG reports and ask you to explain why reports of killing partisans means killing Jews and why killing bolsheviks means killing Jews. Also keep in mind that I don't deny Jews were shot in the East. So if you want to discuss the Jaeger report I can only assume you're going to try tying it to the plan, the six million, or the gas chambers.
 
Try again. In English.

Nope. Why? If you can't understand what I said, and can't see the flaw in your original comparison (or worse, can't see the comparison was there) what possible value could I find in repeating myself until you can grasp a side issue?

But, if you wish to continue tugging this thread try and substantiate the "fact" that hollywood films "do more to educate" scholary publications with out:
1) pretending that you are not equating and comparing the two.
And 2) backpeddling to describe something that is not "doing more to educate" nor remotely resembling any form of education but is instead describing hearsay.
And finally 3) based on evidence and data, key requirements for a fact, and not based on your subjective opinion of what probably, possibly, or could happen..

If not, I'll assume your post was a handwave.
 
I would substantiate those by referring to the EG reports and ask you to explain why reports of killing partisans means killing Jews and why killing bolsheviks means killing Jews. Also keep in mind that I don't deny Jews were shot in the East. So if you want to discuss the Jaeger report I can only assume you're going to try tying it to the plan, the six million, or the gas chambers.

You are losing me here. We can all agree that many people were killed as an indirect result of the war, and as well a great many were killed as targeted civilian populations (Dresden, Tokyo, etc.)

We also seem to be in agreement that several populations were singled out for special treatment, including those of Japanese descent in America and its island holdings, and the Jewish population of Poland and other occupied nations.

Where you appear to be dragging feet is over, specifically, gas chambers (or even gas vans). Is this a numbers game, or is it a reaction to the striking difference between that and even other genocides; that it was as much as possible an automated, emotionless extermination process?
 
Had to do a bit of a clean-up of the first 40 or so posts of the last 100 posts, unfortunately that has moved some posts that contained some entirely relevant and appropriate content for this thread but they also contained Rule 0 and/or Rule 12 breaches. Remember you can repost such content as long as you remove the breaches of the Membership Agreement. Also note no matter how much you may detest a given opinion/agrument you need to address the argument/opinion not the person behind that opinion.

I've marked this thread for a further clean-up when a member of the moderating team has the time.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
But speaking of Wannsee, does anybody know how many Jews there were in Europe around the time of the Wannsee conference?

Speaking of Wannsee, does anybody know where I could find an estimate of the number of Jews in Europe around that time, according to National Socialist definitions and counts?
 
Last edited:
So you agree your statement about Hollywood doing more to educate is wrong then,...

I said that I agree that my statement about the educational role of Hollywood is wrong.....

as that is not a description of education. Nor is it the same comparison you original statement made.

....because that's not a description of education??? What isn't a description of education? Hollywood? Hollywood isn't an educational source so therefore it cannot educate? Is that what you're saying?
 
I would substantiate those by referring to the EG reports and ask you to explain why reports of killing partisans means killing Jews and why killing bolsheviks means killing Jews.

But I didn't ask you about EG reports in general. We could discuss those, too, of course, but first I'd asked about Colonel Jaeger's report. Are you stipulating, by referring to other reports, that you cannot support your claims about Jaeger's report?

To support your claims about this particular report, you need to explain what Colonel Jaeger reported, the descriptions he himself gave and what his account said, and then relate that to actions in Lithuania as we know them from other sources. General waffle about what you would substantiate based on Ohlendorf's reports or whatever is not responsive to the question you were asked. It is, in fact, dodging the question you were asked.

After all, as I explained previously in a number of posts, including this one http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7973269&postcount=9600 of 5357 words, I was informed, Jaeger's goal and operations focused on exterminating Jews in Lithuania. As I stated,
Most of the actions – especially those from late August onwards – focused on Jews, with Jaeger’s entries usually made in this format “Nov. 3, 41 – Lazdijai - 485 Jews, 511 Jewesses, 539 J children - [total] 1,535.” An entry of 29 October is a good example, in Jaeger’s words, of how the executions were intended to eliminate Jews: “Oct. 29, 41 -Kauen - F. IX - 2007 Jews, 2920 Jewesses 4273 Jewish children (cleansing of superfluous Jews from the ghetto) - [total] 9,200.” In entry after entry, Jews are listed as the execution victims, always named as a special category. Throughout the campaign, which was in Jaeger's term systematic, the scope escalated - with daily murder totals climbing and the victims expanding from mainly adult male Jews to include all Jews. Jewish women and children were increasingly targeted through August. Another indication of the escalation in the actions against Jews is the fact that only 200 of the 2,000 non-Jewish victims killed during the five months of actions were executed after the third week in August. Not all the Jewish victims were local, as we know: in fact, nearly 5,000 of the victims were transported from cities in Germany and Austria, heading for Riga but diverted to Kovno and executed there on 25 November and 29 November: “Nov. 25, 41 - Kauen - F. IX - 1159 “ 1600 “ 175 “ (evacuees from Berlin, Munich and Frankfurt am Main) -2,934” and “Nov. 29, 41 - “ “ 693 “ 1155 “ 152 (evacuees from Vienna and Breslau) - 2,000.”

There are indications that the Jewish victims were not passive but resisted the actions being undertaken against them. At Zagare, on 2 October, Jaeger states that 2,236 Jews were killed, adding that “as these Jews were led away, a mutiny took place, which nonetheless was immediately put down. 7 partisans were wounded” (that is, Lithuanian collaborators with the Germans). Jaeger also wrote that “Attempts to escape, which took place every now and then, were prevented exclusively by my men at the risk of their lives.” Note that these specific cases involve Jewish victims, targeted for execution, reacting with force or trying to escape the Germans to prevent their being killed - and not organized Jewish resistance to the German occupation, which only evolved later than the time period covered by Jaeger's report.

In a few cases, Jaeger provided an additional rationale, beyond eliminating Jews to render Lithuania free of Jews, as a pretext for the mass murder actions. For example, Jaeger described a few of the executions as reprisal actions, in which a large number of Jews was selected for killing in response to a purported shooting or for supporting Soviets. These instances included the murders carried out on 18 August at Fort IV in Kovno – which claimed the lives of “689 Jews, 402 Jewesses, 1 fem. Pole, 711 intell. Jews from the ghetto” and which Jaeger described “as a reprisal for an act of sabotage.” In Jewish sources, however, this action is explained as “the intellectuals action,” in which, according to Avraham Tory’s diary, “The Jewish Council is obliged to provide today 500 Jews, namely, men from the educated classes, to be brought to the authorities at the Ghetto gate.” Also in Kovno, on 4 October, the Germans killed 1,845 Jews – among them 818 children – in a “punishment operation” because “a German policeman was shot at in the ghetto.” Again, Jewish sources, and historians, differ with the pretext stated by Jaeger, explaining this action as the planned liquidation of the city’s small ghetto, with holders of Jordan-scheinen (work cards) saved from the killing, which also included burning of the Jewish hospital with patients inside. As we know from earlier discussion in this thread, in the Great Provocation action of 2 September in Vilna, which claimed over 3,700 Jewish victims, the Germans claimed that a shooting had occurred at the corner of Glezer and Wielka, provoking a reprisal; according to Jaeger, this was a “Special operation because Jews had shot at German soldiers,” although most historians doubt any such shooting occurred. The report also includes an action on 11-12 September in Uzusalis, which Jaeger described as a “Penal operation against inhabitants who fed Russ. partisans and some of whom were in possession of weapons “; 43 non-Jews were shot in this action - no Jews were victims of this "penal operation," almost all of the executions of Jews being for the express purpose of "cleansing" Lithuania of its Jewish population. Jaeger also listed a shooting involving a lone partisan, in which case 3,200 Jews, 5 Lithuanian Communists, 1 Pole, and 1 partisan were murdered in Rokiskis on 15-16 August.

Accordingly, of more than 130,000 Jewish victims, 7,000 or so were said by Jaeger to have been shot in reprisals, that is, innocent people killed on account of purported actions taken by other unidentified persons in alleged anti-German actions, which Jaeger left non-specific. Just three of the 110+ actions are described in any way as relating, however tenuously, to partisans acting to oppose the German occupation and there are no specific details given for such oppositional action, making the rationale flimsy in comparison to the overwhelming majority of the cases. After 22 August, the victims included over twice as many Jewish women and children as Jewish men - a proportion further rendering groundless the latter-day arguments that the killings were organized against partisans. Almost all victims, too, were taken from cities, small towns, or villages to rural killing sites - rather than being found operating in partisan units in the countryside (in Kovno, most victims were killed in two forts on the outskirts of the city). To reiterate, 98% of the victims reported by Jaeger were Jews, mostly described as being killed simply as Jews.
As noted earlier in this thread, Jaeger’s report did not cover all the Jewish victims of the German extermination actions of summer and fall 1941. As EK9, not Jaeger’s EK3, operated in Vilna during July, the totals for Vilna are not complete (many of these unlisted executions are included in the Eriegnismeldungen). Also the Yom Kippur action in Vilna, which EK3 did carry out, is missing from Jaeger’s report. Nor were Jews shot or killed in other ways in the cities, for example, during roundup actions, always listed. And December’s killings, which were not as large as those of the earlier fall, came after the report was submitted and thus do not figure in the totals.

In addition, here is how I described the results of Jaeger's reported work in Lithuania:
To begin with, Jaeger reminded Stahlecker that EK3’s operations supported “the goal of making Lithuania free of Jews” and explained that with the actions he described, “the goal of solving the Jewish problem for Lithuania has been achieved by Einsatzkommando 3.” Jaeger mentioned that, for labor, 4,500 Jews were kept alive in Schaulen (Shavli), 15,000 in Kauen (Kovno), and 15,000 in Wilna (Vilna). Jaeger described these Jews as ones he had also “wanted to kill, including their families” but whose murder “the civil administration (the Reichskommisar) and the army” had forbidden in order to retain them for work: “the Work Jews and their families are not to be shot!” Jaeger describes the resolution of what to do with these “Work Jews” as having been “acrimonious.” The clear conclusion, based on Jaeger’s account, can only be that the agreed and approved means for “making Lithuania free of Jews” was a series of extermination actions in which over 130,000 Jews were killed; Jaeger himself wrote that his report provided a “Complete list of executions carried out in the EK 3 area up to 1 December 1941” and, we have seen, over 98% of the victims of these executions were Jews, in keeping with the stated and approved main goal. Some 34,500 Jews were temporarily spared execution when senior authorities, both regional and military, decided to halt the fall murder actions because of labor needs. The discussion among German authorities, which Jaeger referenced, is covered by many historians, one good summary being found in Yitzhak Arad's Ghetto in Flames, pp 164-171. Arad quotes the statement which Hans Gewecke, Gebeitskommissar with the civil administration in Shavli, gave his superior, Adrian von Renteln, in Septemer: ". . . 4,000 Jews, including members of their families, who are needed as skilled workers, will remain in the Shavli region. . . . It is impossible to carry on work without Jews." The Reichskommissar, Heinrich Lohse, wrote a note in November, summarizing that "Of course, the cleansing of the East of Jews is a necessary task; its implementation, however, must be coordinated with the necessities of war production." At one point, in mid-December, authorities in Berlin admonished those debating whether to spare the lives of some Jews for labor, "Clarification of the Jewish question should be achieved through verbal discussion." The result of the pressure from the armed forces and the civil administration had been a November clarification, in writing, from Trampedech, on behalf of the Political Department of the Reichskommissariat in Riga stating that "I unequivocally demand that liquidation of Jews employed as skilled workers in the armament factories and workshops of the Wehrmacht be stopped, as there is no possibility of replacing them by other local workers at the present time. . . . Arrangements should be made to train local workers as replacements as quickly as possible." This order resulted in the temporary suspension, for an indeterminate amount of time, of the mass executions - which suspension was noted, with protest, in Jaeger's report.

In this context, Jeager added in his own recommendations for his superior’s consideration: “I consider the Jewish operations for Einsatzkommando 3 as essentially completed. The still available Work Jews and female Work Jews are urgently required and I can foresee that post-Winter, this manpower will still be most urgently required. I am of the view that sterilization of the male Work Jews should begin immediately to prevent reproduction. Should a Jewess nonetheless become pregnant, she is to be liquidated.” Jaeger was uncertain how long the “Work Jews” were to be kept alive, but advised curbs so that during their temporary survival they would not reproduce. Sterilizations of Jews were not in fact carried out in Lithuania, but reproduction by Jews was, at least in Kovno, forbidden. (In Kovno ghetto, on 24 July 1942, according to Avraham Tory, “The Gestapo issued an order: pregnancy in the Ghetto is forbidden. Every pregnancy must be terminated. An eighth- or ninth-month pregnancy may be completed. From September on, giving birth is strictly forbidden. Pregnant women will be put to death.” Five days later Tory noted a circular from the Jewish Council informing physicians and midwives of their responsibilities under the Gestapo order. On 7 August, Tory wrote that SS Sergeant “Rauca, accompanied by Garfunkel, toured the institutions of The Ghetto. During the tour he noticed a pregnant woman, in her seventh month. Rauca said: ‘This embryo must perish. If not, it will be taken away from its mother right after birth.’” The Council, on 8 September, “issued an announcement about the ban on pregnancies in the Ghetto. From now on, the Germans declare that any pregnant woman will be killed on the spot.” In early January 1943, Council members were questioned by Keiffler, deputy governor of Kovno city, about ghetto statistics, including ‘how many births? . . . We answered that ever since last September there have been no births in the Ghetto. That was news to him.” Council members explained that "The Gestapo had strictly forbidden women in the Ghetto to give birth, and so they all had to terminate pregnancies." . . . When the word ‘Gestapo’ is uttered the great Keiffler refrains from asking questions. . . . It appears that even a figure like Keiffler does not dare to show any interest in the Gestapo's activities.” In July 1943 Tory cited the death penalty for giving birth as one factor in the ghetto's declining population.)


ask you to explain why reports of killing partisans means killing Jews and why killing bolsheviks means killing Jews.

The Jaeger Report, as summarized above and at THHP, for example, does not explain the Jewish operations as killing of partisans or of Communists. If you disagree, you should be able to show, using the report itself, not a reference to other reports or defenses offered, where and how Jaeger made such a case to his superiors.

If, fearing the contents of the Jaeger report, you insist on discussing generalities like this, I have to remind you of the testimony at the EG trial. To take an example of the quandary in which the defendants found themselves as they tried making your argument, I can cite testimony like that described in this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7865630&postcount=8312:
Testimony at the Einsatzgruppen trial, from the defendants in their defense, would differ to your characterization of the mass slaughter of Jews as anti-partisan, although the defendants tried to offer this defense:

Erwin Schulz, head of EK-5 under Rasch, said the following on the stand:
- the killings of civilians were military actions undertaken in war
- the killings were legal because they didn't violate the international laws of warfare
- he had not heard of a Fuhrer-order for civilian murders in the eastern campaigns, thus his actions were not covered by the Fuhrer's orders
- the order to murder all civilian Jews in the massacres came to him in mid-August 1941 from Otto Rasch (EG-C)

Defendant Willy Seibert (EG-D under Ohlendorf), in questioning about his awareness of the criminality of murdering unarmed civilians, testified as follows at trial:
- he "simply didn't know anymore" what was illegal and what was legal in terms of killings during wartime
- killing based on superior orders during war must not be murder
- still, if ordered by superiors to shoot his parents, "I would not do so . . . it is inhuman to ask a son to shoot his parents," implying that it was not inhuman to ask an Aryan to shoot Jews, his squad having done this

While testifying in the same trial, defendant Werner Braune, who headed EK11b, said
- there was a Fuhrerbefehl to murder Jews
- the reason for Hitler's order was to protect the security of Germany because "Jews in the East were the decisive bearers of communism and its illegal manner of fighting"
- "the vast majority [of Jews] supported Bolshevism"
- true, if the majority of Jews supported Bolshevism, a minority didn't
- the minority of Jews not supporting Bolshevism was "ten, twenty, or thirty percent"
- these Jewish non-supporters of Bolshevism were killed along with the supporters of Bolshevism because, when it came to saving them, "the possibility did not exist"

Defendant Adolf Ott (EK 7b) testified that
- his Kommando shot only Jews who were proven to be engaged in partisan actions or sabotage
- despite this stipulation, "every Jew who was apprehended had to be shot. Never mind whether he was a perpetrator or not."
This is what these men said in their own defense! Note that none of these defendants served in Jaeger's unit, which brings us back to the questions asked you about his report, the ones that make you so uncomfortable.

Also keep in mind that I don't deny Jews were shot in the East.

Having read many of your thoughts on the topic, I must say that it is hard to know precisely what you accept and what you deny. On the one hand, you make statements like this, without any specificity as to reasons and goals and without estimates of numbers. On the other, you try advancing arguments like ethnic removals (targeting, uh, Jews), anti-partisan actions (not targeting, uh, Jews), and rogue operations. I don't think you know what you think.

So if you want to discuss the Jaeger report I can only assume you're going to try tying it to the plan, the six million, or the gas chambers.

Your assumptions are irrelevant to the question - and are in fact one more desperate attempt of yours to deflect and dodge. I've stated and explained my views on Jaeger's report, at length, as you well know. So, no, what I want now is for you to defend three claims you made. I asked that you substantiate your viewpoint, which was spelled out in the other thread and quoted here, that the report made by Colonel Jaeger dealt with anti-partisan operations, population removal, or rogue operations.

I see from this evasive reply that you still can't muster even a word of support for these claims of yours and don't have the decency even to address the question directly.
 
Last edited:
Six million Jews not being exterminated is antisemitic? Explain that logic to me please.

Oh you see, it's easy.

Every holocaust denier we've ever seen so far has eventually revealed a deep hatred for Jews, for some reason. So the fact that one is a denier certainly points towards antisemitism.
 
I never said it did. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that there is one single thing--one event, one document, one speech, one anything--that is going to prove the holocaust didn't happen. There isn't. There can't be. For one reason, the holocaust isn't a single thing that can be proven to have happened or not. There are many facets to it and many are completely independent of one another. The second reason is that you can't prove a negative.

I see this line of faulty reasoning alot around here whereby somebody reveals their belief in negative proof with this sort of exchange: A "denier" says 'there's no Hitler order to exterminate the Jews' which provokes a response like 'and that proves the holocaust didn't happen, does it?' Of course it doesn't prove that! The lack of a Hitler order doesn't prove the holocaust didn't happen. All it means is that a Hitler order hasn't been found. It doesn't even mean that there never was a Hitler order. Or a "denier" says "air photos taken of Auschwitz during the Hungarian action don't show outdoor burning of bodies in pits like witnesses say there were" which provokes a response like" "and I suppose that proves the holocaust didn't happen, right?" No, of course it doesn't. It doesn't prove the holocaust didn't happen. It doesn't prove the eyewitnesses were lying about open air burnings. It doesn't prove there weren't any open air body burnings. It just means that the air photos that do exist do not corroborate that one small part of the story.



My definition of the holocaust is: what happened to the Jews during World War II. The actions taken by Nazis against f the Jews is part of that.




Without reading the book I can't really form an informed opinion. I do wonder how many of these "Jews" that Hitler saved were really Jewish, however. But given Hitler's fondness for the Jews and what we've been told he had in store for them, I think it is significant if Hitler gave his approval to save any Jew.

It is not faulty reasoning at all. It is based on the 'no holes, no Holocaust' way of thinking by revisionist/deniers. Further evidence of that way of thinking is their criticism of Zisblatt which shows one supposed witness has been lying or Clayton Moore's much linked to video on the way Krema II was operated. Then there is the latching onto how some Jews were not treated as badly as others. All you do is find small examples of where actions by the Nazis are contrary to the majority of actions against the Jews and then revert back to the suggestion of 'no holes, no Holocaust'.

Revisionist/deniers produce their doubts as evidence, which it is not. The attempt to discredit all evidence with a small amount of evidence is a see through fail.

I also asked the question as a lead onto the question you have dodged which is about what would you call the Holocaust? What did happen to the Jews during WWII? Is it not best described as a genocide?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom