General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[A'isha]

Fallacy: The assertion of A is wrong because B already made the assertion.

I'm not saying it's wrong because some other denier already said it. I'm saying it was already wrong when deniers first said it, and since you're merely copying what they said, you're not only wrong, you don't even understand what you're wrong about.

Like the whole "office code" thing, which came from Alvarez misreading one of Weckert's sources, the real historian Mathias Beer.

That's why you're backtracking and scrambling around and lying about these "other documents", because you simply repeated the claim before looking into it (which you've already admitted to doing, by the way).

Fallacy: A cannot translate language B if A use dictionaries and digital translators.

It certainly can't translate it with any degree of accuracy. That's why no one but amateurs and crackpots with an axe to grind relies on machine translation as any kind of definitive translation. Especially when trying to prove the document was a forgery!

Still, he do not contradict his statement from 1945...

He does, explicitly, and in several places. I've already shown you where and how.

I will show then.

I am looking for the Internet links where I obtained the documents. I will show you with references.

You mean you will try to find documents referenced by other deniers that you can try and claim were the documents you used to make your nonexistent "comparison".

Because, and let's not forget, this is exactly what you highlighted about the office code:

You said it was "incomplete" because it was missing something after the II D (Alvarez said it should have been II D 3, but he was doubly wrong because "II D 3" never actually existed as a RSHA Referat at any point, only II D 3a and II D 3b).

You never said the II D part was wrong, as you're now trying to imply by claiming Rauff was not head off that office in March 1942. You said it should have been "II D ?", indicating something should have been in that space (the same way you marked the missing parts in the year on the document as "???2").

What's supposed to be in that space you marked with a ?, SnakeTongue? Why have you been unable to answer this simple question for weeks now?

 

[LemmyCaution]

Still, not one reference to your fairy tale.

That is not my "fantasy world world", is yours.

Provide reference to your assertions.

You typed 483 "completely ignorant" words which did not answer the simple questions I made.

I didn't mean to write a footnoted, sourced spoof of your ignorance but rather quickly summarize what anyone who has the least familiarity with these issues knows, from Hilberg, E. Ehrenreich, Engelking & Leociak, Michman, the infamous Der Giftpilz, standard books on the Reich in the 1930s, and on and on. Rather than typing a lame "I do not have the appropriate resources to perform such research," I will tell you my real feelings: if you have to guess where to find this information, you don't belong in the conversation, for failing to meet the entry requirements. That's all I was trying to point out: if you don't know the first thing about a topic, you have no business making declarations about it.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Yes, I do. So what do you think Rauff was doing during that time? What was his assignment? What were his duties? Who was head of Amt II D and Amt VI F during that time, if it wasn't Rauff?

Strictly looking into the evidence already discussed, I think:

In the first months of 1941 I was called back to Berlin. As they told me, Heydrich himself had requested me from Raeder. I now became head of division II D at the RSHA.

http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/r/rauff.walter/Rauff-deposition-translation

Yes. Which means that if your source says Rauff was head of II D in March 1941, he was probably also head of II D in June 1941 as well.

What does Rauff say he was doing in June 1941, in that 1945 statement? Oh, right...he doesn't.

So?

Do you even know where the information in that Wiki page about the organization of the RSHA came from? It came from a document sent out by the head of Amt II (Organization, Administration, and Law) of the RSHA, Dr. Hans Nockemann, in Berlin, on March 1, 1941 to everyone from the Reichsminister of the Interior to Heydrich to the heads of the offices and Referaten on down to the heads of the security police forces in Paris and Brussels.

The document was a Geschaeftsverteilungsplan des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes, or Organization and Office Distribution Plan for the Reich Main Security Office, and was intended to represent as closely as possible the organization and command structure of the RSHA as of that date, March 1, 1941.

It can be found as Nuremberg Document 185-L, in volume XXXVIII of the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (aka the "Blue Series" that was the official record of the Nuremberg Trials).

In this chart written in March of 1941, talking about the organization of the RSHA in March of 1941, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Walter Rauff is listed as the Gruppenleiter of Gruppe II D, Technische Angelegenheiten. Underneath him, at Referat II D 3a, Kraftfahrwesen der Sicherheitspolizei, is "SS-Hstuf. Hptm.d.Schutzpol. Pradel" (ie, in March 1941, he was still a captain).

In this chart written in March of 1941, it also lists SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Walter Rauff as the Gruppenleiter of Gruppe VI F, Technische Hilfsmittel fuer den Nachrichtendienst im Ausland, meaning he held both positions long before September 1941 (when Heydrich went to Prague) and May 1942 (when he claimed to have been made head of II D in his 1945 statement).

So?

Nothing in what your wrote contradicts the both testimonies of Walter Rauff.

That volume of documents used by the IMT, incidentally, also includes 219-L, a revised Geschaeftsverteilungsplan des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes sent out on October 1, 1943, and describing the RSHA's organization as of that date.

In it, we learn that after Rauff left II D to go shoot Jews in North Africa, that office was reorganized and renamed. Technische Angelegenheiten is now II C, and is under SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Hafke.

However, Friedrich Pradel is still in the technical office's motor pool (now renamed II C 3, Kraftfahrwesen). Only now, Pradel is listed as "SS-Stubaf. Maj.d.Sch.Pradel". In other words, he was promoted to Major between March 1941 and October 1943.

(The October 1943 document also reveals that SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Joerner is still the head of VI F, after taking over from Rauff when Rauff left for Africa)

What this have anything to do with the forged letter?

I didn't ask you why he went to Prague in the first place. I'm asking you why he kept going back to Berlin, if his job was only in Prague.

How do you know Walter Rauff orders were only assigned to Prague?

From Walter Rauff:

When Heydrich went to Prague as a Protector I accompanied him there to organize the local news network. During this time I often traveled between Berlin and Prague.

http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/r/rauff.walter/Rauff-deposition-translation

A "Network" of "news" means anything to you?

Yes, they were "special vehicles". And what made them so "special" is that they were gas vans.

That is what you say, which is not based so ever in any reliable evidence, just purely fashioned out of your fairy tales.

A) The letter never said that a gas van was operating in Mauthausen. It says that all available vans are currently in use, and Rauff will possibly see if one can be sent to Mauthausen after more vans are constructed, and advises in the meantime that the camp use bottled carbon monoxide to carry out any needed Jew-murdering.

B) As seen above, Rauff was less than forthcoming with full details in his 1945 statement.

De-construction of your deception:

1. The letter do not address anything related to "vans" "currently in use".

2. The letter is not directed to the "Mauthausen" concentration camp.

3. The letter do not made any reference of how the "carbon monoxide" should be used.

You are doing assertions without know what the letter is addressing, which proves you never made any analysis of the letter.

Yes. That's why historians, like Gerald Reitlinger, have commented about the bloated, inefficient, overly complex bureaucracy of the RSHA.

Because he's not "addressing" them. He's referring to them in a single brief sentence, and then spending the rest of the letter talking about the specific things his office is responsible for.

"Them" is the procedures of the camp doctor that Rauff refers the recipient of the letter to.

You completely lost... You are admitting in the same sentence the author of the letter addressed and not addressed the procedures of the doctor.

And, as I have been showing you, every single other document and statement (even those made by Rauff himself!) contradicts the 1945 description of Rauff's duties and assignments.

This is standard "denier scholarship". If a single brief, incomplete sentence in a single statement is contradicted by other statements made by other people, other statements made by the same person, and multiple primary documents from a variety of sources, then obviously that means the brief, incomplete sentence is totally true and accurate and it's everything else that's wrong (and a forgery, to boot).

And that's why no one takes deniers seriously.

There is no contractions in both statements of Walter Rauff.

You failed to provide any contradiction, when I had only demonstrated that both statements of Walter Rauff are proving the same hypothesis.

You are clearly trying to discredit Walter Rauff affidavit of 1945 with a failed rant about "denier scholarship".

Yes, but you said you knew the office code in the March 26 1942 letter was wrong because "a quick comparison with official documents from the Third Reich demonstrate that sending code is completely wrong".

So describe the codes that are in those other "official documents". Tell me what about the codes on those documents differs from the one on the March 26 1942 letter.

I am preparing to show you with references.

 

[Moss]

Apparently Grima still fails to grasp Rauff's letter of March 26th 1942.
Your deconstruction of AntPogo's "deception" falls flat on its face as said letter talks quite obviously of Sonderwagen, quite obviously states the offer to use one of those at Mauthausen when it becomes available and also states that the Mauthausen camp should procure the Kohlenoxyd. Were you reading something else perchance?
Or are you still relying on some third party telling you what it means instead of reading it yourself?

 

[A'isha]

So?

So, if he became head of II D upon his return from the Navy in early 1941, which his Chile deposition, then he couldn't exactly have only been named head of II D in May of 1942, now could he?

Nothing in what your wrote contradicts the both testimonies of Walter Rauff.

No, it contradicts his 1945 statement. It's perfectly in line with his Chile statement.

Which is why when Rauff's statement says he only became head of II D in May 1942, it is wrong.

What this have anything to do with the forged letter?

It shows that everything you claimed was "wrong" about the not-forged letter, from Rauff's position as head of II D in March 1942 to Pradel's rank being listed as Major, is in fact completely correct.

How do you know Walter Rauff orders were only assigned to Prague?

[...]

A "Network" of "news" means anything to you?

In the original German, Rauff says "Als Heydrich als Protektor nach Prag gegangen war, habe ich ihn dorthin begleitet, um das dortige technische Nachrichtenwesen zu organisieren."

Which is a reference to his duties as head of VI F, Technische Hilfsmittel fuer den Nachrichtendienst im Ausland (which, if you remember the Geschaeftsverteilungsplan des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes of March 1941, he was made head of at the same time he was made head of II D). He was in charge of the technical matters of the foreign intelligence network being organized by Heydrich specfically there in Prague ("das dortige technische Nachrichtenwesen").

Note the use of the word "Hilfsmittel" in VI F's office name, too, which you claim McFee "mistranslated" in the March 1942 letter.

Now answer my question - why did he travel back to Berlin so often, after he accompanied Heydrich to Prague?

You are doing assertions without know what the letter is addressing, which proves you never made any analysis of the letter.

No, I'm placing the letter in its proper historical context, and comparing it to what all the other documentation and testimony says was happening with and around the things described in the letter.

Which is why you're desperately trying to remove the letter from its context, so you can ignore all of that.

You completely lost... You are admitting in the same sentence the author of the letter addressed and not addressed the procedures of the doctor.

No, I'm saying that the only thing the author of the letter has to do with the garrison doctor it to say "refer to the attached procedures from the garrison doctor."

You're the one trying to use this to falsely discredit the letter by claiming the author is somehow messing with the garrison doctor's proper chain of command. Because the author of the letter is doing no such thing, and you're pursuing an irrelevant red herring in an effort to distract from your utter failure to answer some simple questions about your so-called "analysis" of the document.

There is no contractions in both statements of Walter Rauff.

You failed to provide any contradiction, when I had only demonstrated that both statements of Walter Rauff are proving the same hypothesis.

You are clearly trying to discredit Walter Rauff affidavit of 1945 with a failed rant about "denier scholarship".

Really? Then explain how Rauff could claim in 1945 to say he was in charge of II D for a couple months way back in 1940 and wasn't head of II D again until May 1942...when all the actual evidence shows that he was made head of II D as early as March 1941, and kept that position all the way until he left for North Africa in Summer 1942?

Because that, SnakeTongue, is a contradiction.

I am preparing to show you with references.

You shouldn't even need them to answer my question about the office code, SnakeTongue. Why can't you answer my question?

 

[000063]

I'd say between pretending they believe the Holocaust myth and that 9/11 wasn't an inside job they may explode trying to believe even one more fabrication.

So, no. Why didn't you say so?

You haven't a clue of physical and logistical impossibility of your Holocaust fabrications.

And your acceptance of all those notorious Holocaust liars with Steven and Elie and Simon at the forefront is so, so telling.

And...dodge! You can't even acknowledge your double standard, can you?

I find that the ratio of response length to original post length is a good indicator of whether someone is taking nonsense. Broadly, if you're responding with less than 25% of the original length, there's a good chance you've got only BS.

You couldn't care less if your religion is debased but you're all offended and outraged about someone's version of history.

I like how you claim that it's an anti-Christian slur in an attempt to derail and ad hominem, but when a Christian tells you he doesn't care and it's not offenseive, you try to berate them for not caring.

Are you even capable of self-awareness?

When all else fails, become outraged.

The sad thing is that I've seen people doing exactly that. If they can't win an argument, they use mockery, outrage, or both. Anything to avoid addressing the facts of the matter.

 

[TSR]

When the Holocaust cultists discuss the nuance of Holocaust fabrication I'm reminded of comic book and Star Trek "what if" debates in movies and TV sitcoms.

While all the rest of us are reminded of *your* fabrications, and those by your cult of denial which you champion -- by running away from them as fast as you can.

Brave, *brave* defender of only some things German -- specifically those the German people themselves find repulsive.

All you have left is sneering at your betters.

 

[000063]

I do not have the appropriate resources to perform such research.

You don't know, can't find out, and can't prove anything. Got it.

 

[BaaBaa]

From what I've read, only highly decorated or wounded Jewish vets got that particular "thank you" gesture.

Yes. you're right, of course. I was typing that on my itouch, I think and forgot that point.

 

[Mynott]

Examples of "scientific analysis" Re Revisionism ,Snake Tongue.?

And could this piece of light verse that David Irving taught his daughter whenever she past children of mixed or a different race,

I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.

... In fact be the actual Credo of the Holohox Industry.?

 

[LemmyCaution]

I supposed most of them died from diseases.

Hans yesterday elsewhere made an excellent post, based on his research into death causes at Auschwitz, that puts paid to this baseless supposition of revisionists like Clayton Moore and non-revisionists like you, in even the case of the Stammlager: http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17948&sid=ac4970a4ff7cfd3681aa41ad17bfc4e7

 

[LemmyCaution]

Believe it, I am.

That is interesting from your personal experience, but I am more concerned how the SS personnel of the Third Reich used to recognize the Jews when they were required to captured them.

It is very hard to believe you're serious.

Would you also wander into a discussion of Nativist anti-Catholic riots in the US during the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s – denying the riots happened but asking who Millard Fillmore and Martin Van Buren were –anskyrocketed to ask how the rioters, say those in Charleston, Massachusetts, who burnt a convent in that city to the ground, were able to determine who were the Catholics they wished to attack – or how anti-Catholic Know-Nothings in Louisville, Kentucky, knew on election day 1844 whom to beat up, whose shops and homes to vandalize, loot, and put torch to, and where to find victims in the Bloody Monday action?

And then ask for the standard narrative, covered in well-known and often-cited works, to be minutely referenced and footnoted?

Can you imagine anyone acting like this in a supposedly serious discussion, of a topic of shared interest, among knowledgeable people?

 

[carlitos]

I was going to point out the Catholics and Protestants in northern Ireland can tell each other apart, but the 19th century US riots are a better example.

The ignorance / arrogance ratio is strong with this one. Much like most conspiracy theorists.

 

[abaddon]

I was going to point out the Catholics and Protestants in northern Ireland can tell each other apart

Absolutely true. Even on a phone call to a complete stranger for the first time BOTH parties will have identified the religious identity of the other.

 

[dafydd]

Absolutely true. Even on a phone call to a complete stranger for the first time BOTH parties will have identified the religious identity of the other.

I know what you mean. I spent the first ten years of my life in a Protestant area of Glasgow.

 

[carlitos]

I know what you mean. I spent the first ten years of my life in a Protestant area of Glasgow.

Big Celtic supporter, eh?

 

[LSSBB]

It is very hard to believe you're serious.

Would you also wander into a discussion of Nativist anti-Catholic riots in the US during the 1830s, 1840s, and 1850s – denying the riots happened but asking who Millard Fillmore and Martin Van Buren were –anskyrocketed to ask how the rioters, say those in Charleston, Massachusetts, who burnt a convent in that city to the ground, were able to determine who were the Catholics they wished to attack – or how anti-Catholic Know-Nothings in Louisville, Kentucky, knew on election day 1844 whom to beat up, whose shops and homes to vandalize, loot, and put torch to, and where to find victims in the Bloody Monday action?

And then ask for the standard narrative, covered in well-known and often-cited works, to be minutely referenced and footnoted?

Can you imagine anyone acting like this in a supposedly serious discussion, of a topic of shared interest, among knowledgeable people?

Great examples, Lemmy, I want to look more into the Louisville events. The persecutions of Mormons in Nauvoo, IL is another one.

 

[Clayton Moore]

And, of course, and I've posted about this enough times in the JREF threads, I don't think Jews were stupid, I think they were overpowered.

Remembering that the overpowered captives had to be guarded 24/7, how many German soldiers would it take to overpower 3 million Jewish people over a 3 year period?

Did the German soldiers travel with their captives? And then do no soldiering till they captured more Jewish people?

 

[Nick Terry]

Remembering that the overpowered captives had to be guarded 24/7, how many German soldiers would it take to overpower 3 million Jewish people over a 3 year period?

Did the German soldiers travel with their captives? And then do no soldiering till they captured more Jewish people?

There are two thousand page books answering your questions in quite considerable detail:

1. Curilla, Wolfgang, Der Judenmord in Polen und die Ordnungspolizei 1939 - 1945. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2011
2. Curilla, Wolfgang, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941- 1944. Paderborn: Schöninigh, 2006

among about a thousand other books.

The word you are looking for is 'police'.

 

[Clayton Moore]

There are two thousand page books answering your questions in quite considerable detail:

1. Curilla, Wolfgang, Der Judenmord in Polen und die Ordnungspolizei 1939 - 1945. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2011
2. Curilla, Wolfgang, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941- 1944. Paderborn: Schöninigh, 2006

among about a thousand other books.

The word you are looking for is 'police'.

Actually I'll need something authored between the end of the war and the 1950s.