General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Mudcat]

Jews, mostly. Hitler didn't like them.

Along with gays, homosexuals, atheists, and gypsies. Not sure how these all qualify as 'political prisoners'.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Jews, mostly. Hitler didn't like them.

So that is the original RIGHT claim?

The ones which were not Jews, who they were?

 

[Mudcat]

So that is the original RIGHT claim?

The ones which were not Jews, who they were?

Along with gays, homosexuals, atheists, and gypsies. Not sure how these all qualify as 'political prisoners'.

You should really learn to read up before posting.

 

[A'isha]

The ones which were not Jews, who they were?

Romani, Soviet POWs, Soviet and Polish civilians (and civilians of other Slavic countries), Jehovah's witnesses, Catholics (particularly clergymen, such as the one mentioned in Wroclaw's sig), homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled, POWs from France's African colonies, Freemasons, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and intellectuals.

Among others.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Because it's not a forgery, and you've completely and utterly failed, in just about the most miserably pathetic fashion possible, at showing otherwise.

Why is not a forgery?

You told that the burden of proof is on me, but I have already presented in my analysis the proof of forgery.

Therefore, I had provided the reasons why I think is a forgery.

Now, remains on you to prove that the fraud is not a fraud, mainly by pointing which of my observations is wrong with RELIABLE evidence, even if you think all observations is wrong.

Could you prove that the last paragraph is part of the original main body of the letter?

I have already proved that was inserted after the original letter was finished.

Could you prove that the letter content was really made by "Rauff"?

I know why the office code is wrong: because it was inserted as part of the forgery.

Could you prove the office code is right by providing another document signed by the supposed "Rauff" with the same office code?

I am less than sanguine about that...

 

[SnakeTongue]

You should really learn to read up before posting.

You should really learn to not dictate how users in this thread should read and reply posts...

 

[SnakeTongue]

Romani, Soviet POWs, Soviet and Polish civilians (and civilians of other Slavic countries), Jehovah's witnesses, Catholics (particularly clergymen, such as the one mentioned in Wroclaw's sig), homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled, POWs from France's African colonies, Freemasons, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and intellectuals.

Among others.

Interesting.

Why they were supposed mass exterminated? Which was the main reason behind the supposed mass extermination plan?

 

[A'isha]

Why is not a forgery?

Because you haven't shown any actual evidence to the contrary, and neither Rauff nor Pradel themselves ever claimed that the documentary evidence against them was forged, even as they admitted their full participation in all the activities described in those very documents.

This is especially interesting in the case of Rauff, who fled to Chile before he could be put on trial, and was never extradited despite repeated requests. Thus, you can't even use that old denier canard that he was coerced into confessing by the victorious Allies, since he remained a free (and totally unrepentant) man until his death in the 80's.

You told that the burden of proof is on me, but I have already presented in my analysis the proof of forgery.

No you haven't. You presented someone else's analysis, and can't explain either the errors in it (such your utterly wrong accusation of mistranslation or your mistaken claim regarding Pradel's rank), or why your claims are even indicative, much less probative, of forgery (such as your nonsense about the "incomplete" office code).

Now, remains on you to prove that the fraud is not a fraud, mainly by pointing which of my observations is wrong with RELIABLE evidence, even if you think all observations is wrong.

That's what I've been doing. Those are the questions you've been avoiding for almost two weeks now!

Could you prove that the last paragraph is part of the original main body of the letter?

I have already proved that was inserted after the original letter was finished.

No you didn't. You asserted it was, and couldn't explain either why you think that's an indication of forgery, why you think the only reasonable explanation is that it was forged, or even that your assertion is accurate.

I know why the office code is wrong: because it was inserted as part of the forgery.

No, you claimed it was because the code was incomplete, with a red question mark after the "II. D", indicating that a correct code (according to you) should have something after it. What is it that you're claiming should be in the space where you put the question mark, SnakeTongue?

Let me put this another way. Freidrich Pradel was head of Amt II, group D, section 3, subsection A, the Kraftfahrwesen der Sipo of the RSHA's Technische Angelegenheiten. That's why his office code in all those documents is given as II. D 3 a.

What was Walter Rauff in charge of, and what should his office code be?

Could you prove the office code is right by providing another document signed by the supposed "Rauff" with the same office code?

You claim it's wrong, you back up that claim. Or is this an admission that you have no idea what a "complete" office code for Walter Rauff should look like, despite your claims?

EDIT: This is the second time I've given you a document that you've claimed has false information, and when challenged to back up your claim, you've not only refused to do so, you've demanded that I produce more documents.

So, it's your turn, SnakeTongue. If you like primary documents and sources so much, you can step up and start providing some of your own to support your claims.

 

[LemmyCaution]

For his intelligence “pictorex” stands out among Codoh contributors, . . .

pictorex's method suggests many wonderful applications to repair history.

In the past, revisionists were too tepid. They quibbled about word meanings, for example Ausrottung. An example would be this quibble about the meaning of the internal report of the propaganda division in the Lublin offices from 26-Sep-42: "Among the Jews of Cholm there is a rumor that henceforth the extermination [Ausrottung] of Jewry will be carried out by sterilization.” The revisionist rewrite - "Among the Jews of Cholm there is a rumor that henceforth the uprooting or relocation [Ausrottung] of Jewry will be carried out by sterilization.” The results, as even the most ardent revs have known, were, shall we say strained.

Even with his breakthrough, I don't feel that pictorex has dissected and deconstructed enough. I would urge him to sunder "Jewish" from "transport from Berlin" and be done with this anti-Jewish business entirely. He could separate "Jewish question" from "exterminate as partisans" in Himmler's famous quip, and walk away from that particular mess.

Likewise,in Vilna early on, Wehrmacht divisional commander von Ditfurth included in a divisional report that "All the Jews are marked with badges. A great number of executions already have taken place. I have arranged with the very loyal leader of the SD, Obersturmbannfuhrer Dr. Filbert, for these executions to be carried out as far as possible inconspicuously . . ." Why not just separate these sentences so that we have, in the first instance, the badging of the Chosen People, and in some other instance, totally unrelated, we wind up with executions . . . of partisans? criminals? stray dogs?

Even more exciting, a denier named Herb Moose, playing Saramago’s proofreader from The history of the siege of Lisbon, once simply changed a word in Felix Landau’s diary to make it better suit his case. This suggests grander possibilities even than pictorex's modest proposal. Like so: "With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it," Goebbels rhapsodized. "He prophesied that, if they brought about another world war, they would experience their annihilation difficulties. That was no empty talk. The world war is here. The annihilation involvement of Jewry must be the necessary consequence. The question is to be viewed without any sentimentality. We’re not there to have sympathy with the Jews, but only sympathy with our own German people. If the German people has again now sacrificed around 160,000 dead in the eastern campaign, the originators of this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives savings."

Or the famous Rademacher marginal scribble might read better like so: "According to Sturmbannfuhrer Eichmann at RSHA IV D VI, accommodation in Russia or the Generalgouvernement impossible. Not even Jews from Germany can be sent there. Eichmann suggests shooting new housing units."

Thierak had by all appearances an amiable chat with Dr Goebbels in September 1942. It could be repaired for better history: "2. With regard to the destruction of asocial life, Dr. Goebbels is of the opinion that the following groups should be exterminated shown the errors of their ways: Jews and gypsies unconditionally, Poles who have to serve 3-4 years of penal servitude, and Czechs and Germans who are sentenced to death or penal servitude for life or to security custody [Sicherungsvorwahrung] for life. The idea of exterminating reforming them by labor is the best. For the rest however, except in the aforementioned cases, every case has to be dealt with individually.

Simpler would be this correction to Robert Ley's conclusion in his pamphlet THE PESTILENTIAL MIASMA OF THE WORLD (1944): "Judah Everyone Must Die! "

 

[LemmyCaution]

No.

I am only asking you to show why my claim is WRONG!

It seems you cannot prove that...

Since I have already provided references to support my claim and you have already noted that I am WRONG, the burden of proof remains on you to prove that you are RIGHT.

I will repeat: If my claim is WRONG, which is the RIGHT claim?

Would you provide a reference to the RIGHT claim?

Or you will keep ignoring the fact the burden of proof is on you?



Funny is to notice that you evaded the same questions I made directly to you in the last three posts, as well the fact that you type like a expert on "deniers".



Right, but you cannot prove that... Why? Because you did not noticed that I just decided to answer different enquires in the same post.

Funny is realize that you are more concerned with how I reply to posts than the the matter in debate, as well more concerned if I am a "honest" person rather than show where my claim is wrong.



Again: if the millions murdered by gas were not political prisioners, who they where?



I said "no right to defence"... Anyway, I will left that debate to another thread.



You seem confuse primary source with primary evidence... Primary evidence only ANTPogo provided.



Do you remember that I have been asking for evidence of HOMICIDAL GAS CHAMBERS, not CREMATORIUMS?

Anyway, I will look into that references to verify if there is any PRIMARY evidence.

In no moment I typed that "historians" claims the claim I made.

I made a generic claim without to refer to anyone as the claimer and you stated that is wrong.

Therefore, I am waiting to you show why my claim is WRONG and what is the RIGHT claim.

Ok, so you cannot produce examples of anyone, historian or not, claiming that millions of political prisoners were mass exterminated by Germans in gas chambers. Why not just say so instead of all this blethering and huffing and puffing?

 

[dafydd]

So that is the original RIGHT claim?

The ones which were not Jews, who they were?

I refer you to ANTpogo's post.

 

[dafydd]

Interesting.

Why they were supposed mass exterminated? Which was the main reason behind the supposed mass extermination plan?

You haven't read Mein Kampf? You know nothing about Hitler? He was the main reason.

 

[Wahrheitseeker]

Supporting the interpretation that the third and fourth lines in Himmler's notes are connected is the fact that the very next day after these lines were written, Himmler and Heydrich spoke again specifically about the executions of Jews in Riga transported there from Berlin (and hence the most likely "Jewish transport from Berlin" referred to in the third line), and that evening Himmler issued an order to Friedrich Jeckeln in Riga, the SS man in charge of the Einsatzgruppen and who was responsible for the massacre of Berlin Jews in Riga, ordering Jeckeln not to do things like massacre Jewish transports on his own initiative, but only per Himmler's specific orders and guidelines. Historian Richard Evans has noted this was because executing people sent right from the capital of Germany was far too public and visible (and therefore shouldn't be done without express permission), while the execution of locals was far less likely to cause to any kind of public notice, and therefore could continue to be carried out by Jeckeln's Einsatzgruppen without the same sort of supervision being required from Berlin.

Pictorex is indeed apparently a cut above your average CODOH denier, but he's not investigating any new neutral historical interpretation of the Himmler document. He's merely come up with a novel way for deniers to still pretend that the Nazis weren't slaughtering people (and, more, documenting it) after Irving's attempt to spin it away failed so miserably.

Good points, ANTPogo. This is a rather typical example of the contrasting methodologies between deniers and non-deniers. As you said, deniers presuppose that they are correct, and then move on from there. Himmler's "Keine Liquidierung" note was never viewed outside its direct context; the earliest uses of the document discussed it alongside:

1. Documents regarding the murder of Jews from the Altreich in late November 1941. This includes the Jaeger report.

2. Himmler's phone discussion with Heydrich on 1 Dec 1941, the day after the "Keine Liquidierung" note, to discuss "Exekutionen in Riga" and lady secretaries.

3. Himmler's 1 Dec 1941 reprimand to Jeckeln to follow the appropriate guidelines with regard to incoming transports of Altreich Jews. The decision for extermination of the transports had not been made at the time by Himmler, so Jeckeln had gone too far.

"Pictorex" mentions the third piece of evidence but provides no alternative interpretation to the unauthorized shootings, nor brings up any supporting evidence for his bogus Protectorate thesis.

 

[Wahrheitseeker]

Mr pictorex is not the only sign of intelligent life at Codoh, but the others have to be sought out. Mr Hannover and the main cohort are currently excited that Arthur Jones, a Republican candidate running for Congress, is also an overt Revisionist. Into the mainstream at last! This candidate also believes that Washington is allowing latino immigrants to set up a “Marxist country” in the southwest of the USA. “With friend like this” says Kingfisher “who needs enemies?” - a remark which the cohort finds entirely puzzling. The revisionist Kingfisher will one day be transitively disappeared from Codoh, just as I was.

Your lamentations about being booted from CODOH are quite tiresome, especially as you were a beneficiary of Hannover's censorship for years.

 

[BravesFan]

I post in here quite a bit, though I am hardly the expert that many of the other posters in this thread obviously are. I think the reason I post is that i am at a loss to understand how someone could look a pomeranian in the face and swear it's a Mastiff....

It's one thing to think we never went to the moon or on chem trails or Bigfoot(even if it's just as sill a notion), you aren't hurting anyone, besmirching their character nor peeing on anyone's relatives memories. But in Holocaust denial and the Truther movement... It's just unapologetic hate mongering disguised as "clearing up the facts" or "finding the truth". The fact that they are dismissing the death of millions doesn't seem to make them bat an eye.

I'm a fairly hawkish and conservative guy, but that just makes me feel bad...

 

[threadworm]

Maybe I am missing something but if there is no program of extermination going on, why would you make a note of "Keine Liquidierung" if "no liquidations" is the standard policy already?

And if Hitler didn't know about them, how would he intervene to prevent a train full of people that he didn't know about from being killed, which he also didn't know about.

"If there is a train full of people heading off to be killed, which of course there isn't, and this guy is on it, which of course he isn't, then please don't kill him, which obviously no-one was going to do. Danke."

 

[threadworm]

I post in here quite a bit, though I am hardly the expert that many of the other posters in this thread obviously are. I think the reason I post is that i am at a loss to understand how someone could look a pomeranian in the face and swear it's a Mastiff....

It's one thing to think we never went to the moon or on chem trails or Bigfoot(even if it's just as sill a notion), you aren't hurting anyone, besmirching their character nor peeing on anyone's relatives memories. But in Holocaust denial and the Truther movement... It's just unapologetic hate mongering disguised as "clearing up the facts" or "finding the truth". The fact that they are dismissing the death of millions doesn't seem to make them bat an eye.

I'm a fairly hawkish and conservative guy, but that just makes me feel bad...

Quite.

Holocaust deniers claim to be angry that the millions of Jews claimed to have been murdered when they weren't. Really, they are just angry that they think millions of Jews weren't murdered.

 

[Clayton Moore]

This post is evidence that my signature is absolutely true

I agree. Your signature is an accurate description of most who post there.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Quite.

Holocaust deniers claim to be angry that the millions of Jews claimed to have been murdered when they weren't. Really, they are just angry that they think millions of Jews weren't murdered.

Holocaust revisionists are angry that the Germans were falsely accused of killing millions of Jewish noncombatants.

Holocaust revisionists are angry that the Holocaust myth is used to brainwash people into not questioning anything Israel does.

Holocaust revisionists are angry that the Holocaust myth has been used to steal billions in reparations and earn billions from movies and books to make any disagreement with Jewish people automatically antisemitism.

Holocaust revisionists are angry that the Holocaust liars Wiesel, Simon, and Spielberg lie like gargantuan rugs and are never taken to task by the world's Jewish community.

 

[BravesFan]

Holocaust revisionists are angry that the Germans were falsely accused of killing millions of Jewish noncombatants.

Holocaust revisionists are angry that the Holocaust myth is used to brainwash people into not questioning anything Israel does.

Holocaust revisionists are angry that the Holocaust myth has been used to steal billions in reparations and earn billions from movies and books to make any disagreement with Jewish people automatically antisemitism.

Holocaust revisionists are angry that the Holocaust liars Wiesel, Simon, and Spielberg lie like gargantuan rugs and are never taken to task by the world's Jewish community.

No, any differentiation with a Jewish person doesn't make one an anti semite, being an anti semite does.

Why do you believe it's false when even the Nazi's admitted to doing it? Are you trying to say that the Nazi's HELPED falsify this Holocaust so that the Jews could rip off the planet? Doesn't that statement seem ridiculously silly?

I would say Holocaust Revisionists are angry because they hate Jewish people and are mad that Hitler didn't finish the job. Not for any reason other than they have latched on to this goofy "ideal" of Arian existence free from people different from them. (that and due to personal social problems find solace in being part of something bigger than themselves)


Also, I think that they just like telling people this stuff for attention. I'm not 100% sure you even believe it.