Yes, it's the first study of it's kind. That's what I said they are billing it as. Ask Nick about the "previous steps forward."
Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread
- Thread starter kageki
- Start date
- Status
Yes, it's the first study of it's kind. That's what I said they are billing it as. Ask Nick about the "previous steps forward."
In 1981 Deborah Lipstadt said that the Nazis never made soap out of the bodies of Jews or anyone else. Why has Joachim Neander been wasting his time on something that was settled at least thirty one years ago?
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Um maybe because she is wrong. The Nazis never produced soap on a commercial scale, thats a given, but there is evidence they tinkered with the idea and may have gotten beyond simply mapping a process for doing it
Nick Terry
Illuminator
in 1945 the US dropped an atomb bomb on Hiroshima as was public knowledge at the time. Why in 1965 did Professor Gar Alperovitz waste his time writing a book about something that was settled twenty years before, and why did he waste more time in 1996 writing another one?
Nick Terry
Illuminator
Simply repeating the quote-mine won't make it any less of a quote-mine.
Nor will repeating your little list solve your fundamental problem of how to explain all the testimonies without falling foul of the fallacy of hasty generalisation. Three names doesn't cut it against 10s of 1000s of testimonies, no matter how often you repeat the same drivel.
Tell me, Saggy, when did you actually read Clendinnen and how many books on the Holocaust have you read since then? You're such an expert, after all...
Because those questions have been answered already. You answered them. What was did the Jaeger report document? Einsatzgruppen activity. Why were the Einsatzgruppen formed? Anti-partisan warfare. Why do you think the Jaeger report is evidence of a policy that hadn't been decided yet and gas chambers?
But the more interesting question is when did the Poles/Soviets tell the world they remodeled the Auschwitz 'gas chamber?' And, when did the Poles/Soviets let western researchers in to inspect the camp? Because, right now, the answer to the first question is: Pressac told us sometime in the 1980s. The answer to the second is: 1988 when Fred Leuchter visited the camp. Nick has said any information about Auschwitz that was generated by the Poles/Soviets is the product of a long dead communist government era and has no relevance today. He doesn't care what they did or said. So from 1945 to 1988, all the information we knew about Auschwitz came from the Eastern bloc with their well documented track record of lying or from the Western bloc who wasn't able to visit the camp. The only exception is when the west German prosecutors weaseled their way into the Holy of Holies in the early 1960s with their lies and deceptions in anticipation of the Frankfurt lynching. Why should we believe anything about the camp at all?
For forty years, the site of the world's greatest mass murder had been unable to be investigated while the known criminals in charge of it did Dog knows what. So we don't really know anything about Auschwitz, do we? What about other holocaust sites? Are there other places in Poland that we can also assume have been contaminated beyond recognition?
This makes you guys look really bad. But what makes you look even worse is that you don't care at all if the information is accurate. As long as it sounds bad.....
Nick Terry
Illuminator
are these payments ongoing and if so why don't they show up in my bank account? Or are you referring to a research fellowship which lasted a few months some years ago? Because if you are, then you're even more stupid than I had previously thought.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
it's the first modern archaeological study of Treblinka and also the first study of a camp in Poland to use GPR. It's not the first investigation of the physical site of Treblinka since that was looked at in 1944 and 1945. It's not the first modern archaeological study of a death camp.
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
I cannot speculate whether this is fantasy or not. The rest certainly is. Especially this:
As for this
indeed, that was Joachim's guess. Frankly, I don't know what Ms Zisblatt had to tell, given the problems with the story she presents.
It would be stupid. Ms Zisblatt seems to be either an opportunist or someone with deep psychological problems. In either case, the Holocaust is scarcely unique in being a "big event" that attracts people who want attention to leverage the event. Wars do that, so do sports, even fishing for crissakes. There is practically a genre of war-time tall tales - with scads of Vietnam veteran-imposters. No one is even surprised when military service is enhanced on the resumes of American politicians. These to-be-expected manifestations no more undermine the events on which the imposters and enhancers piggyback than Zisblatt's fantasies erase the positive evidence for the events she lies about.
By the way, Joachim has attributed the fantasizing of participants in great events to the tendency people have to exaggerate dramatic, dangerous experience and to the basic problem of memory. I would add that sheer opportunism and self-promotion prompts some individuals to pose as survivors or participants and trade in what they've done through or earned.
Last edited:
Wroclaw
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,500
So having been bested on every argument you've made thus far, you try to change the subject. Again.
How utterly transparent.
I wonder what we get to hear next, mayhaps "the Soviets fabricated everything", "the Soviets took the Jews someplace else and nobody noticed" or something entirely else.
But then again it does seem to be somewhat hard to hide close to two million people.
But then again it does seem to be somewhat hard to hide close to two million people.
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
Joachim's interest is in how legends like this develop. It is not unusual for historians to study precisely the same topics and events that other historians have studied to pursue a particular angle or to re-interpret things or to do a better job. Are you really unaware of this? Posing as a revisionist, I would have thought you'd be aware of such a common practice. As I wrote, Joachim, from what I've seen, is interested in the sources of popular myths, how they spread, what sustains them - I frankly don't know if others who've written on the soap myth have successfully looked at these issues. Joachim must think there is room for research and analysis of them.
Joachim once wrote, cogently I think, about his views on these matters in this vein:
Joachim and I disagree on many points, and not least of all on style and approach, but I have learned a lot from reading what he's written - bearing in mind exactly what he wrote above, that as he approaches matters differently from me and often reaches conclusions I don't share, there is much to recommend in his work.
Last edited:
You think you deserve an answer to your question? Here the kind of answer I think you deserve: Last year I read 345,980 books on the holocaust. But only 215,245 count because I had already read 130,735 of them. Do guidebooks about hosting holocaust themed parties count? If so, I read 345,981 because I just finished Sumptuous Weddings, Death Camp Style For Dummies by Konrad Morgen. I wonder how supporting actors like AntPogo would answer your question?
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Don't ask me, I have no idea how many books on the Holocaust you, Saggy, and Clayton Moore read last year.
I'm pretty sure the answer is "zero", however. In fact, I can name at least one book for each of you that you've explicitly claimed to have read or have talked about as if you had read, but in reality haven't read at all.
I'm pretty sure the answer is "zero", however. In fact, I can name at least one book for each of you that you've explicitly claimed to have read or have talked about as if you had read, but in reality haven't read at all.
Last edited:
Nick Terry
Illuminator
More arm-flapping, obfuscation and dodging from Dogzilla.
Einsatzgruppen were formed in 1938 (Anschluss), 1939 (annexation of the Czech lands), 1939 (Poland), 1940 (for use in the west), 1941 (for use in the Balkans) and for 'Barbarossa'. Their function was to serve as mobile political police forces to impose Nazi rule by arresting political opponents of the Nazi regime, and from 1939 onwards, by shooting potential opponents, which they did in Poland fairly extensively in the autumn of 1939. The guidelines for 'Barbarossa' are available and lay down categories of individuals who were to be summarily liquidated, irrespective of whether there was any actual opposition or not. On July 2 1941, Heydrich ordered that:
This was an extension of the illegal Commissar Order which decreed the summary execution of military commissars, with civilian 'commissars' slated to die at the hands of the Einsatzgruppen, along with "Jews in party and state functions", which covered potentially everyone down to a postman.
On July 17, 1941, Heydrich issued Action Order No 8, which regulated who was to be summarily executed from along captured Soviet prisoners of war being screened for 'undesirables', another illegal order. The categories of intended victims now included "all Jews". So any Jewish soldier in the Red Army could now be executed.
These two orders refute the arm-flapping about how the Einsatzgruppen were only created for "antipartisan warfare".
The tasks of the Einsatzgruppen expanded from these starting points to encompass the systematic mass murder of all Jews in the occupied Soviet territories. The expanded orders were passed on orally, and referred to in writing retrospectively. One such retrospective reference is in the Jaeger report.
The Jaeger report is evidence of a policy of systematic extermination of Jews in the occupied Soviet territories, a policy which was being implemented across the length and breadth of the front by October 1941. This was SS policy; it still had to be negotiated with the civil administration and Wehrmacht on a region by region or even town by town basis. Thus when Jaeger writes
he clearly understood that the "solution of the Jewish problem" was to be carried out by murdering the Jews, and that the task was essentially complete, because he couldn't kill any more for the time being:
Einsatzkommando 2 in neighbouring Latvia wrote around the same time, 'the goal to which EK 2 strove from the outset, was a radical solution of the Jewish problem through the execution of all Jews'. This was another retrospective comment, indicating that by early 1942, EK 2 understood its goals to include total extermination. 'execution of all Jews' cannot be understood in any other sense, I think it's fair to say, even in Dogzilla World.
Stahlecker, who commanded Einsatzgruppe A and thus controlled EKs 2 and 3, wrote rather similarly in a February 1942 which recorded the execution of 248,000 Jews by the sub-units of the Einsatzgruppe to that date.
These sources and many others indicate that the SS escalated during the summer of 1941 to a policy of total extermination of Soviet Jews, modified only by logistical limitations and the opposition of civil or military authorities, who virtually never wanted to preserve more than a fraction of the Jewish population for labour.
Since the commander of EK2, Lange, was present at the Wannsee conference, this policy of total extermination is obviously linked to the evolution of Nazi Jewish policy across the whole of Europe.
Heydrich coordinated the activities of the Einsatzgruppen while also planning the Final Solution. Shortly after Wannsee, he sent the Einsatzgruppen a photocopy of his 'tasking' from Goering on July 31 1941 to prepare a total solution of the Jewish question - this was Heydrich's CYA authorisation from a more senior Nazi, the same authorisation used to convene Wannsee.
The cc'ing of this memo was a way of signalling to the Einsatzgruppen that their activities were now part of a grand project unfolding across the whole of Europe. Given that the Einsatzgruppen understood their role as including the murder of all Jews wherever possible, any deported Jews turning up in the occupied Soviet territories were liable to be killed. Which is precisely what happened with a couple of dozen transports from Germany to the Ostland in 1942.
For these and many other reasons, it is conventionally understood that Nazi policy escalated in stages, with the implementation of extermination in the occupied Soviet territories preceding a decision to exterminate Jews across the whole of Europe.
At the time when the decision to exterminate the Jews across the whole of Europe was announced to the political leadership and senior civil servants in December 1941 (by Hitler on 12 December, as noted in Goebbels' diary) and January 1942 (by Heydrich at Wannsee), the methods and timing were still up in the air, as should be obvious from the fact that various death camps were not yet even constructed. The Nazis thought in terms of killing off large numbers through exhausting forced labour, as well as in terms of continuing the mass shootings. And indeed, mass shootings carried on through 1942 and 1943 in parallel with gassing. Both were simply methods. Extermination can be carried out by a variety of means. The end result is the same, dead people.
No, it's not an interesting question, since it's a rather blatant attempt at derailing the current discussion. Your attempt to drag things back to a peripheral issue has already been answered some pages back, whereas you've not even attempted to reply to a great many questions put to you in the past few pages.
Last edited:
I read Peter Longerich's Heinrich Himmler biography in July. Before that Götz Aly's "Endlösung". (And I also quite like Aly's "Warum die Deutschen? Warum die Juden?".)
LemmyCaution: I have another example for the "Ausmerzen"-question:
LemmyCaution: I have another example for the "Ausmerzen"-question:
Alfred Rosenberg in his role as Reichsminister für die besetzten Ostgebiete on 11/17/1941 in a secret press meeting.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
If this were a genuine, serious discussion then you'd be obliged to give an answer to the question because you'd be referencing everything you said. That's how serious discussions work, because they are written out and must be referenced.
Based on your posting history here, one can work out easily enough how many books you've alluded to - Hilberg and Arad, and that's about it. Since you alluded to them both in 2010, you most likely glanced at them before registering here. You apparently looked up a couple of things in Arad in 2011, and misremembered Hilberg recently, so while you may well have Hilberg on your bookshelves, you haven't digested him. There's no evidence you read any new books on the subject in 2011.
There is quite a bit of evidence, however, that LemmyCaution read a lot of books on the subject in 2011, because he refers to them. LemmyCaution isn't a professional historian, yet still manages to read up on the subject. His knowledge and command of the topic is obviously vastly greater than yours. That is how things will inevitably appear to any outside observer looking in on this thread.
There's no evidence that Clayton Moore has ever read a whole book on this subject - not even a revisionist book. His knowledge seems to be based on half-remembered websites. Saggy has probably read a couple of revisionist books and has gleaned his handful of references to mainstream works from the internet, as far as I can tell.
Of course, this state of affairs makes you an intellectual giant among revisionists.
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
Except of course I didn't say that. You are lying.
In fact I offered the Jaeger report as a document that discussed early mass extermination actions targeting Jews and maintained during our discussion that it described Jews as the target, and in your words,
You disagreed that the Jaeger report was an example of an early mass extermination action targeting Jews and characterized it as evidence for antipartisan warfare, a viewpoint I disagreed with in many posts.
One of the replies I made to your claim that
was this:
Another of my replies was this:
In replying to your question about the formation of the EG's, I did not state that they were formed to fight partisans. I argued that the EG's had radical tasks targeting potential political opponents, including the leadership class, and stated, inter alia, that the EG's blurred the line between partisan and "intellectual/clergy/Jew" and I noted that the operations planned in the USSR were against the civilian population. That is, that the EGs by design targeted non-partisans by designating certain non-partisans as partisans or as potential opponents. I named specific civilian groups who were in no way partisans who were targeted by the EGs and subject to murder operations, Jews not being the only victim group. Here is what I did say, in my own words:
I won't bother with the links to previous posts in which I elaborated on these point because people reading this thread have seen them a number of times.
I hope other readers are as tired of your weaseling, your lying and distortions, and your dodging as I've grown. It is, by this point, simply tiresome.
Now, this is the second time you've tried pulling this.
When you first tried distorting my position like this, I wrote a very specific reply,
Show where I said that the Jaeger report is evidence for gas chambers.
Show where I said that the Jaeger report is evidence for a policy not decided yet.
What I said - and this is clear from what I quoted above as well as throughout the entire discussion - is that the Jaeger report was evidence for a series of mass murder actions targeting Jews, as Jews, and a genocidal sweep through Lithuania by the Nazis in 1941. I also cited it as one of the elements of the evidence for a specific mass murder, the Great Provocation, the first week of September 1941 at Ponar.
You tried to pass the report off as evidence for German anti-partisan warfare. I specifically argued against this claim of yours, as the posts quoted above show, and asked you to show where and how the report describes the murder actions as having anything to do with anti-partisan warfare.
You also tried to pass the report off as evidence for German ethnic cleansing - population removal. Again, I argued against that claim and again asked for you to show where the report describes, instead of mass murder targeting mainly Jews, population removal.
You have refused to reply and instead play games like the one you are now playing.
Again, I will spare everyone the links.
That you think this transparent attempt to change the subject aware from your total failure on the Jaeger report is funny. That you think that any of your rehash of the museum's postwar presentation has anything to do with what happened at Birkenau is simply sad.
Edit: I just read Nick's reply covering the same ground as my earlier posts on the EG orders and subsequent escalation following Barbarossa - and which I quoted from above. Frankly, of course, Nick explains this better than I have. Grrrr. But essentially, I will say this in my own defense, he and I are arguing the same thing - with one exception I see. Although I agree that the Jaeger report is evidence, as Nick said, of the expansion of liquidation aims to Jews in the occupied Soviet territories, I have restricted replied to you to just the one case which Jaeger focuses on explicitly, Lithuania, just as I cited Stahlecker for the Baltics and Belorussia only, so as to build from manageable slices to larger patterns bit by bit. So Nick's post has the advantage of making the larger connections and is, of course, correct. And had I read his post, I could have saved the effort I made here.
The really sad thing is that within the last few weeks much of the same ground covered by Nick - e.g., Jaeger, Stahlecker, EG orders, escalation, etc. - has been done over and over without any denier tackling it - the denier preference is to lie about what was written, if what was written is even acknowledged, change the subject, and move on.
Last edited:
Nick Terry
Illuminator
There is, btw, a corollary to the impression of a Holocaust bookshelf chez Dogzilla consisting of exactly two titles. That is, I have got the impression that if you have genuinely got a copy of Hilberg, it's the '85 edition. Arad appeared in 1987. It therefore doesn't seem as if you've read anything in book form written on the subject of the Holocaust by a mainstream historian over the past quarter-century.
You can correct me if I'm wrong about that, but it does cast the preceding 9,000+ post discussion in a rather different light.
LemmyCaution
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 2,857
Good quote, thanks.
I think that Longerich's Heinrich Himmler is indispensable; I read it over the holidays and seem to be carrying it with me wherever I go these days. I read Gerwarth's biography Heydrich just before - and they go well together, Longerich's being by far the better piece of work.
- Status