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

Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
uke2se said:
For someone with so many opinions you sure don't know a lot. Read up on the Nuremberg laws and the Wansee conference.



They were exempt from extermination until the spouse died or divorced them. That means they aren't exempt from extermination relative to the time-span of the world Hitler was trying to create. The point was to remove Jews from Europe. This would have been achieved whether these few people were temprorarily exempt or not.
Click to expand...


You showed a rare understanding of Nazi policy there. Be careful or you might get yourself called a holocaust denier.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Team Holocaust in full stuttering explanation mode after that I'm sure.
Click to expand...

The whole Rosenstrasse protest/rebellion/incident has them in full stuttering mode.




I think the above is the wiki version.
Click to expand...

It is the wiki version.



http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/rosenstr.htm

A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust

The Rosenstrasse Protest


Excerpt from Richard S. Levy's review of Nathan Stolfuss' book Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse Protest in Nazi Germany.Copyright � 1997 by H-Net, all rights reserved.


I guess nobody told the teachers.


Rather, they were being held for a period of time so that new officials of the various legal Jewish organizations could be selected from among them, to replace those of the existing officials who were not married to Germans had been dismissed from their posts prior to extermination.



My guess is there was a contest for how to make it less obvious that there wasn't a policy to exterminate Jewish people. Annnd the above Sadsack cut and paste won.
Click to expand...


It's interesting see how Team holocaust can't quite figure out what to make of it. It was a protest/no it wasn't a protest. The men were arrested so they could be holocausted/no the men were arrested so new leaders could be chosen. The women's actions caused the men to be released/no the men were going to be released anyway. No matter how you slice it, the official reaction to whatever you want to call what happened on Rosenstrasse was rather subdued for a people who have no reservation against using babies for target practice.
 
Your posts have less and less substance. Nick Terry explained, rather clearly, that the Rosenstrasse event, has been interpreted in different ways - and that Gruner's interpretation is seen to be the best. This - the varying interpretations of an event - is hardly a phenomenon unique to the study of the Holocaust; in fact, revising how we understand events is the core of doing history. Nor is it surprising in the least that posters in this forum should reflect this.

As to the "official reaction," has it not occurred to you - I guess you didn't make it all the way through Nick's informative post on this topic - that the Nazis had different approaches to "western" and "eastern" Jews, let alone Jews married to "Aryans," let alone to "Aryan" spouses and, say, Communists or members of opposition parties? Just asking, with which of these groups do you think the Nazis were, using your word, more subdued and with which, less subdued?

Seriously, have you read anything at all about this period, or, like Clayton Moore, do you glean your history from statues, denier Websites, and an occasional dip into Wikipedia?
 
Dogzilla said:
You showed a rare understanding of Nazi policy there. Be careful or you might get yourself called a holocaust denier.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Do you ever reflect on the stupid things you post and go "ho boy, that was kind of dumb"?

Yes, the Nazis had a policy of removing Jews. They started off by various means of forced or voluntary deportation, until that policy failed to create the "solution" Hitler and his cronies wanted. Extermination became the final solution.

Seriously. Read a book or two on the subject. It would be 100% more books than you ever read on the subject (or possibly ever) and it would do you good.
 
Dogzilla said:
The whole Rosenstrasse protest/rebellion/incident has them in full stuttering mode.
Click to expand...

Not really. We've exposed the fact that you obviously haven't read Hilberg, contrary to your previous pretenses. Hilberg has a whole section on exemptions, which you obviously haven't read much less understood.

It is the wiki version.
Click to expand...

the implications of which you still don't seem able to master, mainly because of your imbecilic comprehension of historical context.

It's interesting see how Team holocaust can't quite figure out what to make of it. It was a protest/no it wasn't a protest. The men were arrested so they could be holocausted/no the men were arrested so new leaders could be chosen. The women's actions caused the men to be released/no the men were going to be released anyway. No matter how you slice it, the official reaction to whatever you want to call what happened on Rosenstrasse was rather subdued for a people who have no reservation against using babies for target practice.
Click to expand...

Look, I know you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if you're going to fling around terms like Team Holocaust and then draw attention to differences of opinion and interpretation, then there's no Team. Your rhetoric is self-contradictory.

I gotta say, every time you try to play baseball commentator to your minuscule audience of Clayton Moore (and Saggy when he's not suspended), you do a brilliant job of exposing how you dodge posts. Instead of responding to LemmyCaution or me, you 'respond' to some previous stage of the discussion with some vague handwaving, or try kick the issue off-forum and start ranting about memorials or how someone else has a different opinion. It's transparent bollocks, frankly.
 
I haven't read the Bible but that doesn't mean I don't get it.


Team Holocaust are in a quagmire. And there is no way to lie their way out of it.
 
Nick Terry said:
Not really. We've exposed the fact that you obviously haven't read Hilberg, contrary to your previous pretenses. Hilberg has a whole section on exemptions, which you obviously haven't read much less understood.



the implications of which you still don't seem able to master, mainly because of your imbecilic comprehension of historical context.



Look, I know you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if you're going to fling around terms like Team Holocaust and then draw attention to differences of opinion and interpretation, then there's no Team. Your rhetoric is self-contradictory.

I gotta say, every time you try to play baseball commentator to your minuscule audience of Clayton Moore (and Saggy when he's not suspended), you do a brilliant job of exposing how you dodge posts. Instead of responding to LemmyCaution or me, you 'respond' to some previous stage of the discussion with some vague handwaving, or try kick the issue off-forum and start ranting about memorials or how someone else has a different opinion. It's transparent bollocks, frankly.
Click to expand...

Team Holocaust is reeling and yammering about Hilberg like Elmer Gantry.


I love it. A whole chapter of exemptions. Programmers use fall through logic in a similar fashion to resolve exceptions not covered within the main body of a program.
 
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7931374&postcount=9035

Of course Team Holocaust makes no mention of the addition

Rather, they were being held for a period of time so that new officials of the various legal Jewish organizations could be selected from among them, to replace those of the existing officials who were not married to Germans had been dismissed from their posts prior to extermination.

to history to tie up loose ends.


The highlighted was missing in the The Rosenstrasse Protest in A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust of 1997.



I wonder if it is in Hilberg's exemption chapter.


Even the explanation is flawed as you don't deal, make deals, with a group for 10 years that is being exterminated by the millions.
 
Clayton Moore said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7931374&postcount=9035

Of course Team Holocaust makes no mention of the addition

Rather, they were being held for a period of time so that new officials of the various legal Jewish organizations could be selected from among them, to replace those of the existing officials who were not married to Germans had been dismissed from their posts prior to extermination.

to history to tie up loose ends.


The highlighted was missing in the The Rosenstrasse Protest in A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust of 1997.



I wonder if it is in Hilberg's exemption chapter.


Even the explanation is flawed as you don't deal, make deals, with a group for 10 years that is being exterminated by the millions.
Click to expand...

You're an expert on the mindset of mass murderers?
 
The Nazi Germans gassed Jews...

Forget the amount...They did it...The world knows it...

The Germans, in WW2, gassed Jewish people...and anyone else they didnt like..

Anyone who denies that...

Well...Lets hope we never meet...

DB
 
uke2se said:
:confused:

Do you ever reflect on the stupid things you post and go "ho boy, that was kind of dumb"?

Yes, the Nazis had a policy of removing Jews. They started off by various means of forced or voluntary deportation, until that policy failed to create the "solution" Hitler and his cronies wanted. Extermination became the final solution.

Seriously. Read a book or two on the subject. It would be 100% more books than you ever read on the subject (or possibly ever) and it would do you good.
Click to expand...
I was quite surprised, and pleased, I must say, to read Dogzilla's post, which he threw up there with the calm confidence of a Christian with 4 aces, as Twain once described religious folk. This topic, where Europe's Jews went, is one deniers generally shun. Anyway, for someone who's passed about a half dozen times on answering where the Jews of Vilna went in the various National Socialist actions in that city, Dogzilla is certainly coming on all bold and brave for Team Denial on the "resettlement" claim.

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

1. Vilna (Lithuania, Ostland)

2. Lodz (Warthegau)

3. Warsaw (General-Gouvernement)

4. Kiev (Ukraine)

5. Riga (Latvia, Ostland)

We should thank Dogzilla in advance for stepping up. It will be good to hear, finally, the denier case for Vilna, for example, not to mention the other cities. These are exciting times we live in, and Dogzilla's willingness finally to spell out the Team Denial view of National Socialist Jewish policy and its implementation is only part of the exhilaration we are in for these days.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
I haven't read the Bible but that doesn't mean I don't get it.


Team Holocaust are in a quagmire. And there is no way to lie their way out of it.
Click to expand...
.
Ummm. Yes, it really does.

At *best*, you can state that you "get" what other people whom you have picked and chosen, have told you about it.

And you chose people who demonstrably lie to you on the subject (goyim, anyone?) and reject anyone that attempts to educate you on the subject.

Reject them, and reject what they are saying, becuase you have decided to hate and nothing is going to stop you.

"My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts is *not* something of which you should be proud....

There is no quagmire: there's a mud puddle which would evaporate if you'd stop peeing into it.
.
 
Last edited:
Err..

Is this still a discussion thread about 'Holocaust Denial'..???

If so...Why is it continuing...when everyone knows what really happened and that Germans DID gas and DELIBERATELY kill millions of Jews....???

Someone explain it to me the reasoning behind why any logical thinking person is still replying here...

Explain why... or be damned...

DB
 
Last edited:
TSR said:
.


Reject them, and reject what they are saying, becuase you have decided to hate and nothing is going to stop you.

.
Click to expand...

The only hate in this thread comes from Team Holocaust. Over and over and over. The reason for the hate-mongering is because the Holocaust lies have value.

Why else would people of today insist that millions of Jewish people, likely the most educated and most clannish religious group in Europe at that time, remained in Europe as million after million Jewish people were allegedly exterminated?
 
Clayton Moore said:
The only hate in this thread comes from Team Holocaust.
Click to expand...
.
There is no "Team Holocaust".

There are those that acknowledge reality, and then there are deniers.
.
Clayton Moore said:
Over and over and over. The reason for the hate-mongering is because the Holocaust lies have value.
Click to expand...
.
But only in that deniers buy into crap like Krege's "study" giving them "value".
.
Clayton Moore said:
Why else would people of today insist that millions of Jewish people, likely the most educated and most clannish religious group in Europe at that time, remained in Europe as million after million Jewish people were allegedly exterminated?
Click to expand...
.
"Most clannish religious group"?

Who was it that determined that someone's religion was irrelevant, that it was someone's great great grandparents' religion which made them an enemy of the state?

Wasn't it your heroes, the Nazis?

Yes, the Nuremburg laws show that it was.

But you "get" the Nazi ideology without having read those laws.

The rest of us get that hate like yours was codified in them, because we have read them.

And there is no "allegedly" -- the atrocities commited by the Nazis have been documented and proven, over and over, by historians and courts of most nationalities, ethnicities and predominant religious persuasions.

Either Jews are the most inept enforcers of orthodoxy ever (which is why you are allowed to spew the hate your posts reveal) and yet control you so completely as to force you into having to post objectively proven lies in "support" of your hate, or there is no reason other than your hate for you post those lies.

Which do you prefer?
.
 
Last edited:
Nick Terry said:
The above rant is little more than a string of arguments to incredulities and coulda-woulda-shouldas.

uke2se has already recommended you read up on the Nuremberg Laws and the Wannsee Conference. That was after I drew your attention to the extensive discussion of these issues in Hilberg, whose book you have claimed repeatedly to have read and opined about on numerous occasions.
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I read Hilberg. I don't remember Rosenstrasse being mentioned and it's not in the index. Where can I find this extensive discussion of the Rosenstrasse incident in the book?

It is really not difficult to grasp the fact that the Nazis treated German and Austrian Jews with a degree of circumspection that was utterly absent in Poland and the occupied Soviet Union. That's because whereas the aim was a total solution, in practice separating German and Austrian Jews from the 'Aryan' population was always going to be tough due to the degree of intermarriage and the existence of mixed-race (by Nazi standards) offspring, as well as the fact that contrary to antisemitic propaganda since WWI, there were quite a few war veterans among German and Austrian Jews. This caused even hardened Nazi ideologues to complain when German Jews with Iron Crosses were deported to Minsk in the autum of 1941.

As a result of the complaints, protests and appeals from different factions of the regime, together with the Nazis' basic confusion over how to draw the line, the implementation of the Final Solution was an inevitable political compromise. It's really not hard to find examples of compromise in political history; the question is why you think that the Third Reich was somehow above politics and why the Final Solution would be immune to political pressures. It certainly wasn't in the satellite states since the Nazis had to rely on diplomacy to get their victims, and quite a few satellite states refused. It wasn't free of politics in Poland or the Baltic States, since some Nazis wanted to keep some Jews alive for labour whereas other Nazis wanted to kill 'em all, as is very clearly spelled out in the Jaeger report.

And it wasn't free of politics in Germany, since the Nazi leadership made a number of calculations about what it could get away with and whether there would be opposition, protest or complaint. The German public didn't especially like the introduction of the yellow star and this caused a certain unrest; so the Nazis decided not to publicise the deportations. They covered it up. There were no stories in the Nazi press about the deportation of German Jews. That was a political decision since the press was centrally controlled. That's just an example of how this process was going to be subjected to a dozen different influences when it came time to implement the Final Solution.

1. Mischlinge were exempted from deportation unless they belonged to the Jewish religious community, in which case they were deported

2. Elderly German and Austrian Jews and WWI veterans with decorations went to Theresienstadt, where they were meant to be left to die 'peacefully', as Himmler stated to Kaltenbrunner in early 1943. Quite a few were deported onwards from Theresienstadt, but this was not done consistently. The decision to set up Theresienstadt as an old people's ghetto was the result of complaints from the east when elderly German Jews turned up and caused Nazi leaders in the east to get upset. It also proved useful for PR reasons later since Theresienstadt became a Potemkin village.

3. German Jews working in armaments - who due to wartime labour shortages came to quite a sizeable minority of the total community - were exempted from deportation in October 1941 after pressure from OKW; Hitler decided in September 1942 that they would be replaced by Poles and Russians, and this was then carried out in February-March 1943, which is why that operation is called the 'factory action'.

4. Jews in mixed marriages were also exempted from deportation at Wannsee.

5. Everyone else was deported in 1941-2.

That was the shape of the Final Solution from early 1942. This is perfectly well documented; deportation = being subjected to the Final Solution; exemption = not being subjected to the Final Solution. Everyone other than you and Clayton seems to be able to get this perfectly well.

To the extent that there is any argument here at all, it is over what the Final Solution meant after Wannsee. Deniers handwave and say 'resettlement'. Everyone else says that this meant death, either quickly for unfit Jews or more slowly for able-bodied Jews (as spelled out in Wannsee).

An exemption from the Final Solution cannot be used to call into question what the Final Solution meant. It's utterly illogical to make such a claim, but surprise, that's precisely what you're doing.

You're incidentally wrong to say that divorce was rare for the group of mixed marriages. Considerable pressure was brought to bear on the 'Aryan' spouses; so that quite a few decided that they would abandon their husbands or wives and leave them to their fate. That happened to one well known diarist, Lili Jahn. Her husband divorced her and she was deported and did not come back. Whereas Viktor Klemperer's German wife stood by him right to the end of the war.

Evidently the Nazis' sense of what they could achieve was different to yours. They didn't bother with many exemptions in the occupied territories; in the occupied Soviet Union, Russian wives of Jewish husbands were simply thrown into the temporary ghettos and many petitioned to be allowed to divorce them, which was basically ignored since it was an administrative hassle for the simplified occupation administration. Most of the satellite states also exempted mixed-marriages and Mischlinge, following the German model. Some also exempted converts, which was very prominently not something that the Nazis did in Germany or in the directly occupied territories.

I'm really at a loss as to where this line of unreasoning gets you. The conventionally accepted history states that ca. 200,000 German and Austrian Jews died after being deported from Germany and Austria, in a wide variety of locations. They were shot in Kaunas, in Riga, in Minsk, gassed in Maly Trostinets, Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Auschwitz; they died of maltreatment in Majdanek and countless ghettos and labour camps, including in Theresienstadt.

There were survivors from those deportations because the Final Solution meant, from Wannsee onwards, that able-bodied Jews would be used for slave labour. That's why the 'factory action' sent more than 15,000 Berlin Jews to Auschwitz in February-March 1943, where they were selected on arrival, with a high proportion being sent to the gas chambers while a considerable minority went to Monowitz to slave there, whereupon many more died.

That's the accepted history. You're not going to get very far challenging the accepted history if you bring up points that are irrelevant to the issue of how 200,000 German and Austrian Jews actually died. The gambit of 'this Jew survived, therefore none of the other Jews died' is as silly now as when the first denier repeated this fundamental strawman of the history.

Sure, you can point to some historians and some commentators who think that the Rosenstrasse protest 'saved' the Jewish husbands in mixed marriages from extermination. But Stolzfus is wrong. The memorial is a feelgood spin on an especially grim story of man's inhumanity to man. Wolf Gruner demolished the Rosenstrasse myth about 7-8 years ago and his work is convincing. That's why Evans and Friedlander agree with him.

But please, keep digging. Your know-nothingism and utter ignorance of the history is most entertaining.
Click to expand...

You need to decide what you're talking about and then make a case for it. We're talking about the EXTERMINATION of the Jews. We're not talking about deporting Jews. Deporting Jews is what actually happened. Nobody says Jews weren't deported. The Nuremberg Laws and the Wannsee protocols are pieces of evidence that Jews were marginalized and that they were deported. Your review of Nazi policy towards the Jews and how it was different for German Jews vs Polish Jews and the political considerations when dealing with Jews in different countries and how different classes of Jews (e.g., half-Jews, Jewish veterans, etc.) was a concise, reasonably accurate summary that is quite helpful for some of the people here who aren't quite up to speed on the topic under discussion. But everything you talked about was about deportation. You even used the D word throughout.

For example, you said that "even hardened Nazi ideologues" complained "when German Jews with Iron Crosses were deported to Minsk in the autum of 1941." Did the hardened Nazi ideologues complain because Jews with Iron Crosses were deported or did they complain because they were exterminated?

You told us that "the German public didn't especially like the introduction of the yellow star and this caused a certain unrest; so the Nazis decided not to publicise the deportations. They covered it up. There were no stories in the Nazi press about the deportation of German Jews." I agree with you here. The Nazis didn't publicize the deportation of German Jews in the press. But was it deportation that was covered up or was it extermination that was covered up? There is a pretty big difference.

You said that "Mischlinge were exempted from deportation unless they belonged to the Jewish religious community, in which case they were deported" Is that what you mean or do you mean that mischlinge were exempted from extermination unless they belonged to the Jewish religious community, in which case they were exterminated?

What about those "elderly German and Austrian Jews and WWI veterans with decorations" who "went to Theresienstadt, where they were meant to be left to die 'peacefully', as Himmler stated to Kaltenbrunner in early 1943." Does dying of natural causes count as being exteminated? What about the number of Jews who you say were "deported onwards from Theresienstadt" on an inconsistent basis? Were they deported or were they exterminated?

When you say that "Jews in mixed marriages were also exempted from deportation at Wannsee" what do you mean? Were they exempt from being deported or were they exempt from being exterminated? Again, there is a difference.

And then finally you say at number five that "Everyone else was deported in 1941-2." Do you mean everybody who didn't qualify for an exemption was deported in 1941-2 or were they exterminated in 1941-2? And how does this mesh with Rosenstrasse which happened in 1943?

Substituting evidence of deportation for evidence of extermination is one of the foundations of the holocaust myth. Team holocaust does it all the time but quite frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it expressed as transparently as you have done here. You've built a compelling argument that Jews were deported and you've explained to us how the Rosenstrasse incident happened in the context of a policy of deporting Jews. And Rosenstrasse isn't an anomaly when you put it in it's proper context. But when you try to argue for an extermination policy, the Rosenstrasse incident makes no sense whatsoever.

I just want to make sure I know where you're coming from. Did the Nazis have a plan called the Final Solution to the Jewish Question and was this a plan to get rid of all the Jews in Europe or was it a plan to kill all the Jews in Europe?
 
Dogzilla said:
It's been a while since I read Hilberg. I don't remember Rosenstrasse being mentioned and it's not in the index. Where can I find this extensive discussion of the Rosenstrasse incident in the book?
Click to expand...

Nick was talking about the groups exempted from the Final Solution, which Hilberg discusses and which he outlined for you in his post above.

Regarding the Rosenstrasse gathering: Why is it so hard to understand the difficulty of distinguishing between a protest and a gathering of support, especially 70 years after the fact? The dividing line between the two is pretty fluid.

But more importantly, since it's well known that a defined set of small groups were exempt from extermination in the short term, why is the nature of the Rosenstrasse gathering relevant at all? I'd be more interested in hearing your answers to the questions posed to you about the Jäger report.
 
Last edited:
Nick Terry said:
As a result of the complaints, protests and appeals from different factions of the regime, together with the Nazis' basic confusion over how to draw the line, the implementation of the Final Solution was an inevitable political compromise. It's really not hard to find examples of compromise in political history; the question is why you think that the Third Reich was somehow above politics and why the Final Solution would be immune to political pressures. It certainly wasn't in the satellite states since the Nazis had to rely on diplomacy to get their victims, and quite a few satellite states refused. It wasn't free of politics in Poland or the Baltic States, since some Nazis wanted to keep some Jews alive for labour whereas other Nazis wanted to kill 'em all, as is very clearly spelled out in the Jaeger report.

And it wasn't free of politics in Germany, since the Nazi leadership made a number of calculations about what it could get away with and whether there would be opposition, protest or complaint. The German public didn't especially like the introduction of the yellow star and this caused a certain unrest; so the Nazis decided not to publicise the deportations. They covered it up. There were no stories in the Nazi press about the deportation of German Jews. That was a political decision since the press was centrally controlled. That's just an example of how this process was going to be subjected to a dozen different influences when it came time to implement the Final Solution.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you certainly do outdo yourself. You have the Germans killing millions of people 24/7, without compunction, and, stop the clock, they are somehow concerned with what they could freaking get away with?

The more you elaborate that the Germans at any time were concerned about the consequences of their actions while supposedly killing millions of noncombatants in manners as hellish in the history of man the more clumsy and blunderous your facile explanation becomes.
 
Clayton,
your disbelief does not change the facts. You seem to be entirely unaware of the Posen speech for example. Where Himmler clearly states the dilemma of "how can we get away with mass murder?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom