Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[TSR]

You then countered by calling me a liar-that no such articles ever appeared.

.
I did?


Then you can link to the post where I did so.








But you can't, because now you are lying. And not for the first time.
.

You supported your counter argument by digging up a handful of articles talking about six million Jews, most of which didn't mention extermination.

If you're going to erect a straw man, at least make up an argument that demolishes that straw man.

.
What straw man is that -- the claim that you were talking about "Jewish whining?






When you have *just said* that's what you were talking about?









In what way does slightly more than one article in ten years demonstrate "whining," whiner?
.

OK. Then what exactly was the condition of the Jews mentioned in these articles?

.
Why don't you tell us? It *was* after all, your point that you dismally failed to make by asking us to do the research you couldn't be bothered to do, which actually doesn't support your whining, whiner.
.

They don't say specifically they're facing imminent doom. What were they facing? Were they facing free train tickets to Palestine to rebuild the Jewish State? Were they facing government subsidized cocaine and prostitutes? Was the outlook for the future of these Jews optimistic or not?

.
Why don't you tell us? It *was* after all, your point that you dismally failed to make by asking us to do the research you couldn't be bothered to do, which actually doesn't support your whining, whiner.
.

If you read these articles and believed them, would you describe the overall condition of the Jews as something like "unbridled happiness" or do you think "imminent doom" is a better description of what the author wanted the reader to believe?

.
Why don't you actually quote the author, with the link, to show what they wanted the reader to believe?







Oh, that's right -- you haven't *yet* bothered to read any of those 15 articles you whine about.
.

Could not care less.

.
You cared enough to lie about the fate of their non_Jewish neighbors.



And everyone can see it.
.

They pay taxes to build more and more holocaust 'memorials' and 'learning centers'

.
Ah, so, they all survived, your lies to contrary notwithstanding.





But you couldn't care less about what that says about your claim that their non-Jewish neighbors faced the same kinds of dangers.
.

 

[Walter Ego]

This was not an "official law or regulation." It was never published. It was an authorization, not a Fuhrer order, used selectively by Brandt and Bouhler, that is, those authorized by Hitler's backdated document, to demonstrate to those who had concerns about the program that it had Hitler's approval. The preparation of the original and copies, and discussions of the purpose, are in U. Schmidt, p 132, and H. Friedlander, p 67. Friedlander states that the document was "Prepared on Hitler's personal stationary . . . but never promulgated or published in any legal gazette . . . [and] did not actually have the force of law."

"Refuting" a claim never made is a standard denier trick...

Thank you, Lemmy. I never presented the document as a official law or regulation signed by LGR's hero. I said it was a backdated memo signed by Hitler giving an authorization for the "euthanasia" program. Action T4 itself was clandestine and the memo (on Hitler's stationary as you point out) was to assure the head doctors (i.e., killers) that they had der Führer approval. They wanted their asses covered.

So is LRG denying that Action T4 took place or is he just denying that his Führer approved it?

 

[Nick Terry]

I am supporting the obvious fact that the holohoax is a pack of lies sourced to the World Jewish Congress, absurd on their face, yet endlessly trumpeted by the Jewish press including the flagship of US journalism, the New York Times. For more articles with similar claims, refer to 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" by Arthur Butz.

As ANTPogo said, you're failing miserably at supporting your supposedly oh-so-obvious fact.

Of course, it's easier to make up yet more lies than to try and answer my questions, which you have noticeably avoided. But that's OK, since I think we'll take it as read that you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Especially since you now put further idiocies onto the table.

In what way, Saggy, were the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, the Hearst group papers, the Canadian press, the Australian press or the British press "Jewish" in the 1940s?

And are you really sure that stories about the persecution and murder of Jews in WWII were "endless"?

Unfortunately for you, the reporting of the Holocaust has been the subject of considerably more rigorous analysis than that lamely provided by Butz. The most comprehensive study of the New York Times and the Holocaust, by Laurel Leff, is entitled Buried By The Times, because (a) stories about the Jews of Europe were generally buried on the inside pages and (b) there were not quite as many of them as you might think.

Leff counted 1,147 stories about the Jews of Europe in the NYT from September 1939 to May 1945. This has to be divided by 15 different European countries who came under Nazi occupation. And obviously, most stories in 1939 or 1940 related to persecution, not murder. Most stories in 1941 and 1942 related to deportation.

However you try and spin it, there was less than a story a day on the Holocaust by its broadest definition, and they were rarely given front page prominence.

That's because the wartime press had other things to put on the front pages, like battles; because the experience of WWI meant everyone was cautious with atrocity stories; and because the relevant government ministries in the US and UK were especially cautious about giving prominence to reports of atrocities against Jews. Thus the best-publicised atrocity was the German reprisal against Lidice, which the Germans didn't even try to deny because the dumb Nazis thought there was nothing wrong with wiping out entire villages.

It was only when multiple reports accumulated from different sources that most observers and commentators concluded that extermination was taking place. That was towards the end of 1942.

Most of the reports came from governments-in-exile, who were not Jewish. The WJC did not invent these reports nor could it control the governments-in-exile.

Your quoted example actually came via the Polish underground, combining Polish and Polish Jewish sources giving early reports of Chelmno as well as the mass shootings in eastern Poland, and thus mutually corroborated each other, in May 1942.

This long report reached the UK via Sweden in June. The Polish government-in-exile publicised the report, then there was a press conference with the British government Ministry of Information endorsing the claims, and then there was a statement from the British section of the WJC. The WJC didn't originate the story, it merely endorsed it.

Meanwhile, inside Poland, the underground observed on the inauguration of Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Auschwitz as extermination camps. The first reports about Belzec came from Polish sources. Treblinka was reported by both Polish and Polish Jewish sources simultaneously; Auschwitz's function as a death camp first came from the Poles. These intelligence reports were passed back to London and also publicised inside Poland in the underground press.

When the reports reached the government-in-exile, it could publish them in British-censored Polish publications, pass them to the British government, or try publicise them directly.

Not all of the reports about the camps or about the killings elsewhere even made it into the newspapers, because the Polish government-in-exile had other concerns, like publicising the plight and suffering of Poles under Nazi occupation, as well as contending with the Katyn affair in the spring of 1943.

Thus, we find The Times reporting in May 1943 about the liquidation of the Cracow ghetto in March 1943 and mentioning the remaining inmates of the ghetto were being deported to Oswiecim. Other papers mentioned less precisely that the remaining Jews of Cracow met their fate in 'gas chambers at adjacent concentration camps'. The source being a Polish government in exile radio station, based on reports from the underground.

We also find the Polish Telegraphic Agency reporting that Oswiecim had become a 'graveyard for Poles' without even mentioniong Jews.

Yet in the same time-frame, 1943, the unpublished monthly summary reports of the Polish underground state, the Delegatura, routinely contain a couple of pages of information about events at Auschwitz, and a page or two on events in the ghettos and other death camps.

 

[Saggy]

As ANTPogo said, you're failing miserably at supporting your supposedly oh-so-obvious fact.

Of course, it's easier to make up yet more lies than to try and answer my questions, which you have noticeably avoided. But that's OK, since I think we'll take it as read that you don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Especially since you now put further idiocies onto the table.

In what way, Saggy, were the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, the Hearst group papers, the Canadian press, the Australian press or the British press "Jewish" in the 1940s?

And are you really sure that stories about the persecution and murder of Jews in WWII were "endless"?

Unfortunately for you, the reporting of the Holocaust has been the subject of considerably more rigorous analysis than that lamely provided by Butz. The most comprehensive study of the New York Times and the Holocaust, by Laurel Leff, is entitled Buried By The Times, because (a) stories about the Jews of Europe were generally buried on the inside pages and (b) there were not quite as many of them as you might think.

Leff counted 1,147 stories about the Jews of Europe in the NYT from September 1939 to May 1945. This has to be divided by 15 different European countries who came under Nazi occupation. And obviously, most stories in 1939 or 1940 related to persecution, not murder. Most stories in 1941 and 1942 related to deportation.

However you try and spin it, there was less than a story a day on the Holocaust by its broadest definition, and they were rarely given front page prominence.

That's because the wartime press had other things to put on the front pages, like battles; because the experience of WWI meant everyone was cautious with atrocity stories; and because the relevant government ministries in the US and UK were especially cautious about giving prominence to reports of atrocities against Jews. Thus the best-publicised atrocity was the German reprisal against Lidice, which the Germans didn't even try to deny because the dumb Nazis thought there was nothing wrong with wiping out entire villages.

It was only when multiple reports accumulated from different sources that most observers and commentators concluded that extermination was taking place. That was towards the end of 1942.

Most of the reports came from governments-in-exile, who were not Jewish. The WJC did not invent these reports nor could it control the governments-in-exile.

Your quoted example actually came via the Polish underground, combining Polish and Polish Jewish sources giving early reports of Chelmno as well as the mass shootings in eastern Poland, and thus mutually corroborated each other, in May 1942.

This long report reached the UK via Sweden in June. The Polish government-in-exile publicised the report, then there was a press conference with the British government Ministry of Information endorsing the claims, and then there was a statement from the British section of the WJC. The WJC didn't originate the story, it merely endorsed it.

Meanwhile, inside Poland, the underground observed on the inauguration of Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Auschwitz as extermination camps. The first reports about Belzec came from Polish sources. Treblinka was reported by both Polish and Polish Jewish sources simultaneously; Auschwitz's function as a death camp first came from the Poles. These intelligence reports were passed back to London and also publicised inside Poland in the underground press.

When the reports reached the government-in-exile, it could publish them in British-censored Polish publications, pass them to the British government, or try publicise them directly.

Not all of the reports about the camps or about the killings elsewhere even made it into the newspapers, because the Polish government-in-exile had other concerns, like publicising the plight and suffering of Poles under Nazi occupation, as well as contending with the Katyn affair in the spring of 1943.

Thus, we find The Times reporting in May 1943 about the liquidation of the Cracow ghetto in March 1943 and mentioning the remaining inmates of the ghetto were being deported to Oswiecim. Other papers mentioned less precisely that the remaining Jews of Cracow met their fate in 'gas chambers at adjacent concentration camps'. The source being a Polish government in exile radio station, based on reports from the underground.

We also find the Polish Telegraphic Agency reporting that Oswiecim had become a 'graveyard for Poles' without even mentioniong Jews.

Yet in the same time-frame, 1943, the unpublished monthly summary reports of the Polish underground state, the Delegatura, routinely contain a couple of pages of information about events at Auschwitz, and a page or two on events in the ghettos and other death camps.

Thanks for the post. You, and Leff, have done a better job that I could have done myself making the case for the holohoax.

Leff counted 1,147 stories about the Jews of Europe in the NYT from September 1939 to May 1945. This has to be divided by 15 different European countries who came under Nazi occupation. And obviously, most stories in 1939 or 1940 related to persecution, not murder. Most stories in 1941 and 1942 related to deportation.

However you try and spin it, there was less than a story a day on the Holocaust by its broadest definition, and they were rarely given front page prominence.

Oy Vey ! Less than a story per day ! LOL. Only one batch of propaganda lies per day. Not on the front page ! Really, it's a shame.

 

[Wroclaw]

Thats got to be the most pathetic document ever.

All the official laws and regulations I have seen of the period were in gothic typescript. We are also told that Hitler preferred the large and unique Fuehrer typescript for issuing documents, but this is normal typescript.

You wouldn't have any proof for that statement, now, would you?

There appears to be no day book or journal reference number at all. And the most basic of stamps and no letter head of any description.

And so what?

 

[Wroclaw]

So you believe that at Auschwitz there were two flaming pits: one for babies and one for adults? You believe that a lorry loaded with babies was backed up to the baby burning pit and the babies were unceremoniously dumped into that pit? You believe that adults literally marched single file to the edge of the adults-only burning pit and then fell in of their own volition? You believe that this actually happened, even once?

Wow, what a stunning example of all-or-nothing thinking...

 

[Craig4]

Thanks for the post. You, and Leff, have done a better job that I could have done myself making the case for the holohoax.

Leff counted 1,147 stories about the Jews of Europe in the NYT from September 1939 to May 1945. This has to be divided by 15 different European countries who came under Nazi occupation. And obviously, most stories in 1939 or 1940 related to persecution, not murder. Most stories in 1941 and 1942 related to deportation.

However you try and spin it, there was less than a story a day on the Holocaust by its broadest definition, and they were rarely given front page prominence.

Oy Vey ! Less than a story per day ! LOL. Only one batch of propaganda lies per day. Not on the front page ! Really, it's a shame.

Wow any second now you'll be getting a call from history text book editors wanting you to consult on changing the texts. Keep waiting by that phone.

 

[Dogzilla]

.
I did?


Then you can link to the post where I did so.








But you can't, because now you are lying. And not for the first time.
.

First sentence, post #887

.

What straw man is that -- the claim that you were talking about "Jewish whining?

The strawman that says that I said anything except do a search and see how many hits you get. The thing about Jewish whining isn't a strawman but that didn't come until later.

In what way does slightly more than one article in ten years demonstrate "whining," whiner?

OK, so you're saying that no such articles were published in the NYT during the years 1851 and 1933 and you're supporting it by showing us that slightly more than one article during a ten year period did in fact appear? Which "ten year period" did you choose and couldn't you find any ten year period in which no such articles appeared? They're really that pervasive? And can you quantify "slightly more than one" with any less precision?
.

.
Why don't you tell us? It *was* after all, your point that you dismally failed to make by asking us to do the research you couldn't be bothered to do, which actually doesn't support your whining, whiner.
.

I didn't do the work because I trust everybody here is able to figure out how to search the New York Times archives themselves. I also didn't want to do a search that could potentially give a bunch of hits that are premium content. (That's not so much of a problem with this time period but as we get closer to the war, the NYT wants you to pay for the articles) I don't want to hear the whining of people saying "those articles all have dollar signs next to them and I don't want to pay to read them so they don't exist."

If you really want to do a comprehensive search, you'd need to do a Boolean search for all those terms without the quotes and then filter the articles. For example, instead of "six million Jews" look for "six million" and Jews or six and million and Jews or 6,000,000 Jews.You'd need to do a search replacing "Jews" with "Hebrews" (because they used that word back in the olden days). If you can't do a wildcard search, you would need to go through all the searches again with "Jewish" instead of "Jews."

See, it takes quite a bit of work to make sure you covered all your bases. But I didn't bother doing it mainly because your mini-search accomplished what I wanted you to accomplish: search the archives with those terms and count the hits.

Why don't you actually quote the author, with the link, to show what they wanted the reader to believe?

Because I trust the participants here to be able to read the articles and decide for themselves. Obviously, you just got through reading those articles online. You're probably more familiar with what they said than I am. If you believe I'm wrong, why don't you quote the author, with the link, to show the reader I am wrong?

What's that?



You don't want to do that?


Why?



Because it will prove I'm right?


That's what I thought.

Oh, that's right -- you haven't *yet* bothered to read any of those 15 articles you whine about.

I read those fifteen articles. I didn't read the hundreds of others.

You cared enough to lie about the fate of their non_Jewish neighbors.

What lie was that?

But you couldn't care less about what that says about your claim that their non-Jewish neighbors faced the same kinds of dangers.
.

If the European Jews were always living under the threat of destruction, even long before the rise of the Nazi Party; if they were always facing a threat of imminent doom that always put them in a more precarious position than any of their non-Jewish neighbors, why didn't anybody know about it? I mean, I would think there would have been articles appearing in newspapers about this threat. You searched the New York Times newspaper archive for the years 1851 through 1933 and found only a few, proving there were none. How much danger could they have been in if the readers of the most influential paper in the United States had no clue?

Or were there actually articles addressing this topic?

 

[Dogzilla]

This was not an "official law or regulation." It was never published. It was an authorization, not a Fuhrer order, used selectively by Brandt and Bouhler, that is, those authorized by Hitler's backdated document, to demonstrate to those who had concerns about the program that it had Hitler's approval. The preparation of the original and copies, and discussions of the purpose, are in U. Schmidt, p 132, and H. Friedlander, p 67. Friedlander states that the document was "Prepared on Hitler's personal stationary . . . but never promulgated or published in any legal gazette . . . [and] did not actually have the force of law."

"Refuting" a claim never made is a standard denier trick, which is probably one reason Nick Terry is trying to get Saggy to spell out what the accounts he is "revising" actually hold. And as usual, deniers intimate, without details (names, dates, purposes), forgery when they have exhausted their little grey matter.

This document was offered by Walter Ego as evidence of Hitler's order for the euthanasia program. The bunny seemed to cast aspersions on the reliability of this document to prove a Hitler euthenasia decree and it appears as though you concur.

That's not refuting a claim that was never made. That's an example of the denier trick of refuting a claim that IS made. Who was it who said something about those deniers being slick, backing up all their claims with facts and figures?

Anywho, refuting a claim that wasn't made is what you just did.

 

[Dogzilla]

Thanks for the post. You, and Leff, have done a better job that I could have done myself making the case for the holohoax.

Leff counted 1,147 stories about the Jews of Europe in the NYT from September 1939 to May 1945. This has to be divided by 15 different European countries who came under Nazi occupation. And obviously, most stories in 1939 or 1940 related to persecution, not murder. Most stories in 1941 and 1942 related to deportation.

However you try and spin it, there was less than a story a day on the Holocaust by its broadest definition, and they were rarely given front page prominence.

Oy Vey ! Less than a story per day ! LOL. Only one batch of propaganda lies per day. Not on the front page ! Really, it's a shame.

I'm going to have to track down this book and check Dr. Terry's facts. Were there really that many articles in the New York Times about the Jews of Europe during the years 1939-1945? That they reported persecution and deportation isn't surprising--after all, Jews were persecuted and deported during those years. But "less than a story a day" about the Jews? That must mean more than two stories every week, doesn't it?

I would never have imagined it would be that high.

 

[Wroclaw]

If you really want to do a comprehensive search, you'd need to do a Boolean search for all those terms without the quotes and then filter the articles. For example, instead of "six million Jews" look for "six million" and Jews or six and million and Jews or 6,000,000 Jews.You'd need to do a search replacing "Jews" with "Hebrews" (because they used that word back in the olden days). If you can't do a wildcard search, you would need to go through all the searches again with "Jewish" instead of "Jews."

That'd be a good point if it were true. And, if you were comparing across several different newspapers over time, you'd have to do that — it's true.

But you are looking for terms in a single newspaper. Therefore, it is fair to assume that style would be relatively constant, if for no other reason due to the fact that the authors of the articles would remain relatively the same over time.

 

[Nick Terry]

If the European Jews were always living under the threat of destruction, even long before the rise of the Nazi Party; if they were always facing a threat of imminent doom that always put them in a more precarious position than any of their non-Jewish neighbors, why didn't anybody know about it? I mean, I would think there would have been articles appearing in newspapers about this threat. You searched the New York Times newspaper archive for the years 1851 through 1933 and found only a few, proving there were none. How much danger could they have been in if the readers of the most influential paper in the United States had no clue?

Or were there actually articles addressing this topic?

Are you really this stupid or just pretending to be?

 

[Saggy]

I would never have imagined it would be that high.

That's what can happen if you own the newspaper.

 

[Saggy]

Wow, what a stunning example of all-or-nothing thinking...

Yes, Wroc, it's also know as true, the events happened, or false, they didn't. True/false, get it? Maybe you should look it up.

 

[Nick Terry]

I'm going to have to track down this book and check Dr. Terry's facts. Were there really that many articles in the New York Times about the Jews of Europe during the years 1939-1945? That they reported persecution and deportation isn't surprising--after all, Jews were persecuted and deported during those years. But "less than a story a day" about the Jews? That must mean more than two stories every week, doesn't it?

I would never have imagined it would be that high.

And so we witness Saggy claiming, wrongly, that there were "endless" stories about the Holocaust, and now we witness Dogzilla expressing faux incredulity that there might even be two stories a week about what was happening to the Jews of Europe.

 

[Nick Terry]

That's what can happen if you own the newspaper.

So how many stories were there about Belgium in the same time-frame, hmm, Saggy? Or about the Netherlands?

There were nearly as many Belgians and Dutch as there were Jews in Europe at the start of the war. Belgians and Dutch lived under Nazi occupation just like Jews did across Europe, right?

So how come there are 2,486 stories in the NYT from 1941-43 alone which mention Belgium? That deliberately excludes 1940 and 1944 when Belgium was twice a battleground.

NYT wasn't Belgian-owned was it?

 

[Kevin.Silbstedt]

Yes, Wroc, it's also know as true, the events happened, or false, they didn't. True/false, get it? Maybe you should look it up.

Oh, of course and since some Sergeant in the vietnam war lied about the orgin of his itchy rash on his private part, the whole vietnam war didn't happen. Or even better, there is no such thing as Vietnam! I knew it the whole time!

You have to be a total nutcase to think, that such a logic is convincing. But at least you clowns show us some variance in your logical fallacies with this slippery slope crap. This "appeal to ridicule" BS became boring, when you repeated it for the thousand *********** time.

 

[Skeptic]

(Shrug) if lots of stories about the holocaust appeared, Saggy would claim it "proves" the "Jew-owned" NYT deliberately was engaging in false propaganda, and therefore the holocaust is a lie. If few stories about the holocaust appeared, Saggy would claim it "proves" "even the Jew-owned" NYT didn't have any stories about Jews being killed at the time, so the holocaust is a post-war lie.

 

[Nick Terry]

Jeez, no, I got it all wrong.

Clearly the Norwegians owned the NYT as they had a slightly smaller population than did the Jews in Poland alone (3 million exactly vs 3.3 million) and yet they managed to rack up no fewer than 3,853 stories in the NYT from 1941-1943 which mentioned Norway.

Or could it have been the Swedes? Population, 6.3 million and not even fighting or occupied and still they get 3,582 stories in NYT mentioning Sweden.

 

[abaddon]

Jeez, no, I got it all wrong.

Clearly the Norwegians owned the NYT as they had a slightly smaller population than did the Jews in Poland alone (3 million exactly vs 3.3 million) and yet they managed to rack up no fewer than 3,853 stories in the NYT from 1941-1943 which mentioned Norway.

Or could it have been the Swedes? Population, 6.3 million and not even fighting or occupied and still they get 3,582 stories in NYT mentioning Sweden.

Life is like a box of chocolates, it's always the snickers at the bottom, full of nuts.

Kudos to your patience.