Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[Wroclaw]

Who said the Warsaw ghetto was self-imposed? I said that the ghetto was invented by the Pharisees... and Koestler says, in the beginning, too.

Do you believe everything you read, provided it meets your preconceived beliefs?

Re: Warsaw ghetto... good place to start the research:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5901

CODOH? You must be joking.

http://sites.google.com/site/jewsag...-zionism-zionism-contrary-to-orthodox-judaism

I fail to see the relevance of anything at that site.

Good luck. God grant you eyes to see.

Save it.

 

[Wroclaw]

"Certain pictures of the past have the ability to conveniently rearrange in our mind in order to soothe our consciousness. And today a perception has formed that in the 1930s the Jews were already forced out of the Soviet ruling elite and had nothing to do with the administration of the country. In the 1980s we see assertions like this: in the Soviet times, the Jews in the USSR were “practically destroyed as a people; they had been turned into a social group, which was settled in the large cities “as a social stratum to serve the ruling class.”

In the 1920s, the Soviet government outlawed a single language: Please name it.

"No. Not only far from “serving”, the Jews were to the large extent members of the “ruling class.” And the “large cities,” the capitals of the constituent Soviet republics, were the very thing the authorities bought off through improved provisioning, furnishing and maintenance, while the rest of the country languished from oppression and poverty. And now, after the shock of the Civil War, after the War Communism, after the NEP and the first five-year plan, it was the peace-time life of the country that was increasingly managed by the government apparatus, in which the role of the Jews was quite conspicuous, at least until 1937-38."
--200 Years Together, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Tell us all which language you read this book in. It has not been translated into English.

The purge of 1937-38 is your so-called Russian-Jewish-Holocaust. In part, it's the reason why Stalin was killed... so that it didn't happen again.

Many more non-Jews died during that period than Jews.

Again: Do you believe everything you read?

 

[Wroclaw]

The holocaust in Russia happened......

And which Holocaust are we talking about? And what proof do you have?

 

[uke2se]

The purge of 1937-38 is your so-called Russian-Jewish-Holocaust.

No, that's the purge of 1937-38. The Russian-Jewish Holocaust happened later when the Nazis started conquering parts of Russia and gathering up the Jewish population there to murder them.

In part, it's the reason why Stalin was killed... so that it didn't happen again.

You have no evidence for this, nor has it ever been proven that Stalin was murdered.

 

[uke2se]

Who said the Warsaw ghetto was self-imposed?

I asked you to support that, for instance, the Warzaw ghetto was self-imposed as you asserted that ghettos were self-imposed. Are you willing to accept that Nazi ghettos for Jews weren't self-imposed?

I said that the ghetto was invented by the Pharisees... and Koestler says, in the beginning, too.

That's not what Koestler says at all. Stop lying.

Re: Warsaw ghetto... good place to start the research:

[snipped link to Nazi forum]

No, that's the worst place to start research.

Good luck. God grant you eyes to see.

God isn't real. The Holocaust was.

 

[Wroclaw]

You have no evidence for this, nor has it ever been proven that Stalin was murdered.

Actually, I'm kinda of the impression that he might have been murdered and precisely to end the Jewish purge going on at that time. After all, Kaganovich was still in the inner circle then and had good reason to fear being purged, as Molotov's wife (also Jewish) had, in fact, already been arrested.

I just wouldn't rule it out, is all's I'm saying.

 

[uke2se]

Actually, I'm kinda of the impression that he might have been murdered and precisely to end the Jewish purge going on at that time. After all, Kaganovich was still in the inner circle then and had good reason to fear being purged, as Molotov's wife (also Jewish) had, in fact, already been arrested.

I just wouldn't rule it out, is all's I'm saying.

No, but it hasn't been proven either. We can believe what we like, and I'm inclined to agree, but it hasn't been proven, nor has the motive catscratch proposes been proven. It's another testament to his shoddy "research".

 

[Wroclaw]

No, it certainly hasn't been proved. You're quite correct on that point.

 

[Gene Alley]

Absolutely hilarious. Butz when it comes to the Holocaust is postively rabid. His picture of Jews lying to make money is straight up anti-semitism. Farrussion is a total loon who massages data to fit his preconceptions. Just read the way he dealt with Serny's Into That Darkness. (It is in a posting above). As for Zundel. I see your still totally clueless about the revelations about his activities as indicated in the above posts, or the fact that Zundel is a fanatical Hitler hugger. As for Weber you don't seem to be aware that Weber was news editor of the National Vanguard, a publication of William Pierce, a fanatical Neo-Nazi who wrote The Turner Diaries. You of course forget that Weber focuses on the "Jews" who he regards as a threat and also sees collectively. Oh and Weber reffers to Jews as "the traditional enemies of truth". As for Rudolph his report is as worthless as Leuchter's.

And of course we have the whine. The revisionits never stop whining about how presecuted they are. Of course Zundel blames "Zionists" for his plight and "persecution". Weber, if his writings are anything to go on, is obsessed with Jews. Butz seems to fantasize about Jews as millenial liars from long ago. Well guess what it seems that your bunch of so-called Historians seem to be a bunch of anti-semitic loons.

But then there is no need to take anything you say seriously. Considering you have already said such standard denier pap has modern day Germany is a puppet state and that Jews routinely exaggerate their suffering i.e., lie, another piece of denier pap.

Thank you sir for this semi-eloquent tirade regarding the evil dangerous men who are prominant in the holocaust revisionist movement. You have definately made your position clear.

I have been reading many of the actual words of some of these men recently for the first time and trying to assess them, and their words for myself. I also have discovered that a man named David McCalden was one of those on the forefront of this movement here in Southern California where I have resided for over 50 years.

I watched a little low budget documentary made by Mr. McCalden some time shortly before his death in '94 last night and found it very interesting. The documentary only barely scratched the surface regarding the nitty gritty issues that are being contested by revisionists and exterminationalists, however I got a good sense of what kind of a person he was by listening to him exchange ideas and make his points regarding why he was doing what he was doing.

I did not detect any sort of racism, hate speech or any other unpleasant qualities in this man. He seemed to be an intelligent, plain spoken though quite eloquent man who stood by his convictions and ignored the possible consequences that might be involved. To me these qualities are in the best tradition of good old American values, defending free speech and all that. For anyone who hasn't seen it, or those who haven't investigated this so called "holocaust denier" phenomenon, I would highly recommend this film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDsB-9BaJAk&feature=player_embedded

 

[TSR]

If I proved to you that Ilya Ehrenberg is, to this day, more guilty than Julius Streicher, would it alter your belief system?

.
More guilty of facilitating the Holocaust or its denial?

That would be "no", since it would not change the fact that the Holocaust occurred.
.

Would it turn Streicher's over-long rope into a pardon?

.
Unlikely in the extreme, since it would not change the facts of Streicher's case, which exist independently of anyone elses' guilt or innocence.
.

Would it remake Germany's National Guilt into International repentance?

.
Repentance for what?
.

Me personally... I believe Matthew 23.

.
Bully for you.

Care to tell us exactly how this belief changes the slightest fact about the Holocaust or its denial?
.

 

[dafydd]

The Earth would still be round even if nobody knew about it.
The holocaust in Russia happened......

I was not referring to the Holocaust in Russia,do try to keep up.

 

[LemmyCaution]

If I proved to you that Ilya Ehrenberg is, to this day, more guilty than Julius Streicher, would it alter your belief system?

Would it turn Streicher's over-long rope into a pardon?

Would it remake Germany's National Guilt into International repentance?

Me personally... I believe Matthew 23.

Go ahead, try to prove this -- and explain what it's worth. Streicher had become a marginal figure in National Socialism even before the war. His intrigues against his fellow Nazis, financial shadiness, and his affairs led to his ending up with pretty much Der Stuermer and not much else. He didn't plan the Holocaust, and he didn't implement the genocide -- by the 1940s he was little more than a rapidly antisemitic cheerleader, without real power. So any proof that Streicher was not guilty of the war crimes and genocide would only confirm my "belief system." Your proof of Ehrenburg's culpability (for whatever you claim) is what I would like to see.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Go ahead, try to prove this -- and explain what it's worth. Streicher had become a marginal figure in National Socialism even before the war. His intrigues against his fellow Nazis, financial shadiness, and his affairs led to his ending up with pretty much Der Stuermer and not much else. He didn't plan the Holocaust, and he didn't implement the genocide -- by the 1940s he was little more than a rapidly antisemitic cheerleader, without real power. So any proof that Streicher was not guilty of the war crimes and genocide would only confirm my "belief system." Your proof of Ehrenburg's culpability (for whatever you claim) is what I would like to see.

Surely there is a lot of similarity between the two characters? Both engaged in racial hatred or hatred of particular ethnic groups, in both cases with a very cavalier attitude to fact.

Both were highly paid propagandists for hateful regimes, whitewashing or ignoring its numerous atrocities against dissidents and supplying sycophantic praise to the corrupt elite.

How is it possible to distinguish between the two? Aside from the obvious fact that Ehrenburg was Jewish and so automatically gets a pass from the likes of Wroclaw.

 

[little grey rabbit]

If that's how you want to define "traditional German lands" then the nation of Germany had no claims to those lands at all. If the lands had belonged to the nation of Germany, one could argue that a claim existed. If it is just a matter of culture, there is no such claim. If it was, Sweden would have a claim on Denmark, Mexico would have a claim on Colombia, the US would have a claim on Canada, etc. This, of course, aint so.

Thank you, bunny, for once again destroying your own argument.

No, that is not my definition of "traditional German lands", it was your ahistorical definition that is obviously nonsense since Germany as a nation state, like Italy, was a 19th century construct. However, suppose that Ottomans had ethnically cleansed Venice and filled it up with Albanian migrants, we would still recognise Venice as being traditionally Italian regardless of the short history of the Italian nation state.

You are trying to claim the "Land of the South Germans" ie Sudetenland, is not traditionally German because Germany did not exist? That is the absurdity of your denial of crimes against humanity.

As a point of history I believe Denmark and Sweden did exist as a single entity some centuries ago despite reasonably distinct linguistic distinctions. USA believed it had a mission to free Canada for the first 50 years or so of its existence from British colonialism. Generally the British colonialists disagreed, but had the USA succeeded, one presumes Canadian states would have entered into the Union on equal footing. South American republics are notorious accidents of history and there were certainly many proposals of union and/or division between the various entities. If Guatamala and Honduras decided to merge it would be a matter entirely of their own.

The entire progress of German unification involved bringing together of German speaking lands that were under different jurisdictions into a common state. I am not sure there were any unwilling inclusions and certainly Sudetenland (land of the South Germans) was not an unwilling inclusions.

The original push for an Anschluss between Germany and Austria after WW1 came from the Social Democrats.

 

[Wroclaw]

I also have discovered that a man named David McCalden was one of those on the forefront of this movement here in Southern California where I have resided for over 50 years.

Ah yes, Mr. McCalden. A member of the neo-fascist National Front.

Next!

 

[Wroclaw]

Both engaged in racial hatred or hatred of particular ethnic groups, in both cases with a very cavalier attitude to fact.

Really? I suppose you can prove this by citing a single instance in which Ehrenburg suggested that Germans should be poorly treated if they had not participated in the invasion of his country and the murder of his countrymen?

Both were highly paid propagandists for hateful regimes, whitewashing or ignoring its numerous atrocities against dissidents and supplying sycophantic praise to the corrupt elite.

Now that is true.

How is it possible to distinguish between the two? Aside from the obvious fact that Ehrenburg was Jewish and so automatically gets a pass from the likes of Wroclaw.

You're a complete dick.

 

[Wroclaw]

You are trying to claim the "Land of the South Germans" ie Sudetenland, is not traditionally German because Germany did not exist? That is the absurdity of your denial of crimes against humanity.

Actually it was traditionally AUSTRIAN.

The entire progress of German unification involved bringing together of German speaking lands that were under different jurisdictions into a common state. I am not sure there were any unwilling inclusions and certainly Sudetenland (land of the South Germans) was not an unwilling inclusions.

Except it was part of Austria, not Germany. And as part of the Kleindeustchland solution, it was not incorporated into Germany.

The original push for an Anschluss between Germany and Austria after WW1 came from the Social Democrats.

So what?

 

[uke2se]

You are trying to claim the "Land of the South Germans" ie Sudetenland, is not traditionally German because Germany did not exist? That is the absurdity of your denial of crimes against humanity.

Nobody is denying crimes against humanity but you. Sudetenland is not traditionally German because Germany as a state did not exist. As that was the case, the nation of Germany had no claims on Sudentenland, despite the culture of the people living there. What Germany was pursuing was aggressive expansion, not culutral inclusion. They did so at the expense of territories legally belonging to neighbouring nations.

As a point of history I believe Denmark and Sweden did exist as a single entity some centuries ago despite reasonably distinct linguistic distinctions.

Incorrect. Sweden was a puppet of Denmark in the 16th century, but existed as its own state. Denmark had no legal claim on Swedish territory then, and it has none now. The fact that Denmark did claim Swedish territory was because of expansionist policies, exactly the same as with Nazi Germany.

USA believed it had a mission to free Canada for the first 50 years or so of its existence from British colonialism. Generally the British colonialists disagreed, but had the USA succeeded, one presumes Canadian states would have entered into the Union on equal footing.

But the US had no legal claim on Canada despite what they thought. Had they tried to make Canada into another state, it would have had to be through invasion of another nation's sovereign territory, exactly like Nazi Germany did.

South American republics are notorious accidents of history and there were certainly many proposals of union and/or division between the various entities. If Guatamala and Honduras decided to merge it would be a matter entirely of their own.

But the nations that were robbed of their territories by Nazi Germany's aggressive expansionistic policy did not wish to merge with Germany.

The entire progress of German unification involved bringing together of German speaking lands that were under different jurisdictions into a common state.

In the process violating sovereign territory belonging to other nations. There is no justification for this. Call it what it was. Invasion.

I am not sure there were any unwilling inclusions and certainly Sudetenland (land of the South Germans) was not an unwilling inclusions.

Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium, France and Yugoslavia were all unwilling to be included in the Nazi German reich. It happened anyway. Through force of arms, which has been my entire point all along.

The original push for an Anschluss between Germany and Austria after WW1 came from the Social Democrats.

You will notice I have not mentioned Austria.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Surely there is a lot of similarity between the two characters? Both engaged in racial hatred or hatred of particular ethnic groups, in both cases with a very cavalier attitude to fact.

Both were highly paid propagandists for hateful regimes, whitewashing or ignoring its numerous atrocities against dissidents and supplying sycophantic praise to the corrupt elite.

How is it possible to distinguish between the two? Aside from the obvious fact that Ehrenburg was Jewish and so automatically gets a pass from the likes of Wroclaw.

Not surprisingly your post has nothing whatever to do with what catscratch said he could do.

Nonetheless, as I know little about Comrade Ehrenburg beyond his Black Book and a few references to his journalsm, please (1) explain his racial hatred and how his statements against the German invaders of the USSR (which are notorious enough for me to be aware of them) paralleled Streicher's anti-Jewish activities, (2) state Ehrenburg's salary, and (3) tell us about the temple Ehrenburg attended, his language, and other aspects of his being a Jew.

By the way, I don't doubt that Ehrenburg was an apologist for the Soviet government - who was sometimes in, and sometimes out of favor. I'm not aware of his whitewashing of actions against dissidents, but his doing so, as a journalist mostly in favor during the '30s and '40s, right?, would not be at all surprising. Is this, however, what catscratch meant by Ehrenburg's guilt, akin to Germany's national guilt? His role as a Soviet journalist supporting the Soviet government and CPSU?

You write as though my asking catscratch to follow through on his claim to be able to prove Ehrenburg guilty (of something akin to what he calls Germany's national guilt) is apologia for Ehrenburg. Hardly. I asked catscratch to put up because, as I implied, I am as unaware of Ehrenburg's commission of crimes related to genocide as I am of Streicher's.

 

[Wroclaw]

They key contention here will be that Ehrenburg urged the Red Army to slaughter German civilians and rape German women.

This is not true. In fact, Ehrenburg acted as a correspondent embedded with the Red Army when they crossed the German frontier (for Krasnaya Zvezda, IIRC), and he went back and complained to Stalin's staff about the treatment of German civilians.

Here is Ehrenburg in 1942:

The Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the word German means to us the most terrible curse. From now on the word German will trigger your rifle. We shall not speak any moe. We shall not get excited. We shall kill. If you have not killed at least one German a day, you have wasted that day... If you cannot kill your German with a bullet, kill him with your bayonet. If there is calm on your part of the front, if you are waiting for the fighting, kill a German before combat. If you leave a German alive, the German will hang a Russian and rape a Russian woman. If you kill one German, kill another - there is nothing more amusing for us than a heap of German corpses. Do not count days; do not count miles. Count only the number of Germans you have killed. Kill the German - this is your old mother's prayer. Kill ther German - this is what your children beseech you to do. Kill the German - this is the cry of your Russian earth. Do not waver. Do not let up. Kill.

Here's Streicher, about a year later:

Only the German people’s knowledge that they were not being betrayed gave the National Socialist Führer the support that no former king or Kaiser had enjoyed. Without this confidence the Führer of the German people would never have been able to take on a question so serious that it broke former states and ruined their peoples: The Jewish Question! There were certainly minor rulers in the past who came to understand that the Jews are the cause of misfortune, and that only their complete destruction ould save the world from being completely poisoned. But this knowledge never led to action. Despite the knowledge that a complete solution was necessary, it was never attempted until the twentieth century, through historic actions by National Socialism. When at the beginning of the Second World War the Jews again revealed themselves as the arsonists of war, Adolf Hitler announced to the world in the German Reichstag that world war unleashed by world Jewry would end with their destruction. His prophecy was a warning. The Jews mocked the warning, as they mocked all subsequent ones. Now, in the fourth year of the war, World Jewry is beginning to recognize that its fate will be determined by National Socialism. What the Führer of the German people prophesied at the beginning of the Second World War is becoming bitter reality: World Jewry planned to do good business with the blood of the fighting peoples, but finds itself hurrying toward its annihilation!

Anyone NOT see the difference?