General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
In your fairy tale, suddenly, all Jews belong to a specific group of innocent people, with no influence whatsoever on the German daily life during the 30's and the 40's, hiding peaceful in their homes, with no will to commit crimes or engage in political disputes.
Please show where, by citing examples of Nazi persecution of German Jews, ANTPogo made any claim that Jews had no influence in German life during the 1920s. In fact, he posted to a link on the emancipation, which enabled Jews to participate in German society - and thus, like others, have some influence.

At the time of the Weimar Republic, Jews (those who declared themselves to be Jewish) made up less than 1 percent of Germany's population, having declined from slightly over 1 percent in the late 1800s. By 1933, there were approximately 564,000 Jews in Germany, about 50,000 fewer than a quarter century prior. For one thing, the birth rate amongst German Jews fell off after the turn of the century. Also, German Jews, despite revisionist caricatures otherwise, were far from "cliquish": marriages of Jews and non-Jews were increasing so that about 40 percent of Jews married non-Jews by the end of the Weimar years. The Jewish population in Germany was disproportionately older, with 40% over forty compared to the general population in which less than 30 percent were over forty.

German Jews were highly urbanized, with about 70 percent living in cities; over a quarter of Germany's Jews resided in Berlin alone (even in Berlin, where so many of Germany's Jews lived, less than 4 percent of the city's population was Jewish).

Some 20 percent of Germany's Jews were Ostjuden, and Ostjuden were even more highly urbanized than so-called Reich Jews, with concentrations in Berlin, Leipzig, and Munich where some worked in factories (textiles, clothing, leather) and many worked as petty traders and as artisans (many Ostjuden were unable to obtain Reich citizenship). (mostly from David Kramer in Arnold Paucker, Sylvia Gilchrist, and Barbara Suchy, Die Juden im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland, 1933-1943)

The occupational distribution of German Jews in 1933 was distinctive. Over 60 percent worked in trade and transportation—against 18 percent of the general German population. Jews in commerce tended to be self-employed; large numbers of Jews worked in the retail trades. Some 12 percent of Germany’s worked in public and private services—a bit ahead of the 8 percent of the general population in this sector. Jews were by and large middle class, with many Jews working in medicine and law (about 3.5 percent of Jews were lawyers or doctors). Jews did not gain significant entry into the judiciary or civil service, however. During the years 1873 to 1929, between 1 and 3 percent of civil servants were Jewish. Sarah Gordon points out that Jews had to gravitate to these types of jobs because of their traditional exclusion from landowning.

On the other hand, Jews were underrepresented in industry and handicrafts—23 percent against 40 percent of the general population of Germany. The Ostjuden were more typically workers in these areas, many of them very poor. Jews, then, worked disproportionately in commerce, some smaller sized manufacturing sectors, and in professions. Jews owned stores as well as clothing and textile manufacturing shops in great disproportion to their numbers in the general population—for example, 40 percent of textile shops were owned by Jews. These shops tended to be small to medium size, with some notable and highly visible exceptions (such as the Tietz and Shocken department stores). The Mosse publishing company was another prominent, visible business. Jews also dominated in the wholesale of agricultural products. Jews ran many smaller, private banks—but not the larger credit banks which played an increasingly important role in the Weimar economy. Jews were not very prominent in big industry.

The inflation struck Jews very hard. In 1912 almost 11 percent of Germany’s Jews had taxable incomes of over 5,000 marks; by the mid-twenties this proportion had fallen to about 6 percent—whilst the percentage with incomes under 1,000 marks increased from 73 percent to 84 percent. Jews in professions were buffered to some extent from these effects, but Jewish incomes and living standards were damaged significantly.

Distinctively middle class, if tenuously so, and mostly assimilationist, Germany’s Jews did not generally vote for the SPD or KPD, even if these parties had some high profile Jewish leaders: before 1930, Jewish votes tended to go to the DDP or the DV. Under the polarization of the depression years, and with the rise of the NSDAP, the Jewish vote shifted, with historians arguing that it split between the SPD and the Zentrum, with a bit of an edge for the SPD. (much of this from Donald L. Niewyk, The Jews in Weimar Germany)

What is your problem with this? What is your problem with a country's citizens having influence and a voice in the country's politics, culture, and economy? Or are you arguing that most citizens of a country - but not, for example, Jews or other specially designated groups - should participate in civic life?
 
Last edited:
In your fairy tale, suddenly, all Jews belong to a specific group of innocent people, with no influence whatsoever on the German daily life during the 30's and the 40's, hiding peaceful in their homes, with no will to commit crimes or engage in political disputes.

I have no idea where you dug that strawman up, since I was actually pointing out that all the "viewing and dealing with certain groups as subhuman" and "social and legal fairness that people lived by getting thrown out the window" that happened in Germany was being done against Jews, not by them. Which is the complete and exact opposite of what Clayton claimed.

...and your list of "Wikipedia" reference... no comments.

Of course you have no comment. You have trouble dealing with historical truth, which is why you're a Holocaust denier.

You are revealing yourself a master of fictional deception.

And yet, I'm the one that provided reference links to everything I said about the treatment of Jews in Germany, with said links in turn themselves linking to additional references.

While Clayton, by contrast, has provided not one single thing to back up his claim about what the Jews were supposedly doing to non-Jews, despite being directly asked multiple times by numerous posters.

Your support of him and dismissal of what I wrote just shows how hypocritical and bankrupt your words really are.
 
Last edited:
Not a forgery?

No, not a forgery.

Explain how could Walter Rauff produce a letter when himself claimed not be the chief of that section in 26 March 1942.

Because his actual assignment of duties was not as separate as his extremely brief 1945 statement implies. He was in II D the entire time, and while with Heydrich in Prague he divided his time between there and Berlin, so he could carry out his other duties.

As Rauff himself later stated in his deposition in Chile,

In the first months of 1941 I was called back to Berlin. As they told me, Heydrich himself had requested me from Raeder. I now became head of division II D at the RSHA. In this division all technical matters were regulated. The division II D (technology) consisted of 6 or 7 sections. I was head of division until several months after the death of Heydrich. Thereafter I was sent to an assignment in Africa with Rommel.

When Heydrich went to Prague as a Protector I accompanied him there to organize the local news network. During this time I often traveled between Berlin and Prague. When the attempt occurred I was in Berlin and about to leave for Rome. When Heydrich's aides told me that his life was not in danger I traveled to Rome. As far as I remember I stayed at the RSHA another 3 - 4 months after Heydrich's death.

Heydrich was assassinated in June 1942, by the way, for comparison with the timeline given in the 1945 statement.

Explain why would Walter Rauff, from the office "Organisation, Verwaltung und Recht", would deal with a subject related to the garrison doctor of the Mauthausen concentration camp, when the garrison doctor have to respond only to the "Deutsche Lebensgebiete – SD-Inland" office.

Because the doctor at Mauthausen was not in charge of the construction and operation of the gas vans, while Rauff's Amt II D was. Rauff did indeed defer to the garrison doctor about areas that were the doctor's responsibility (the "procedure" talked about in the attachment), but since the procurement, equipment, and assignment of the gas vans were the technical department's responsibility, Amt II D (meaning Rauff and Pradel) handled that.

Explain why would Walter Rauff in his affidavit refer to Captain, but not in the letter he supposedly wrote.

Because a) Pradel was indeed a Captain before he was promoted to Major, and was actually a Captain for most of the time Rauff dealt with him personally, b) the statement was made long after Rauff had left II D and stopped dealing with Pradel at all (much less on a direct basis), and c) as a high-ranking RSHA department head, Rauff did not have to sit a typewriter himself and type up his own letters, but instead had secretaries to do that for him and who were responsible for making sure everyone was correctly addressed (that's what the "im Auftrag" at the bottom of the letter means, you know).

At any rate, what does any of this have to do with your utter failure to answer my question about Rauff's "incomplete" office code. Especially since you didn't object back in your "analysis" that Rauff's office code shouldn't have been II D at all, but merely claimed that it should have been II D [something]. Which is rather odd, in light of your claimed knowledge of the matter which you say allowed you to perform your "analysis".

So, in addition to answering my question that you're still avoiding, I'd like you to explain this discrepancy in your claims.

Plus, since you apparently accept Rauff's 1945 statement, this means you agree (as Rauff himself does in that statement) that his section, section II D, built and operated gas vans, that Pradel was involved in the construction and operation of the vans, and that the letter from Dr. Becker about their murderous use is entirely genuine, right?

Right, SnakeTongue?
 
Last edited:
Yes, but "half-Jews" had to apply for exemptions, or at least have been given exemptions already, due to things like having been decorated in WWI.

Only "quarter-Jews" were provided a blank check to enlist and were drafted.
 
There is a great line from the film "Gettysburg" where the Irish Segeant of the 20th Maine says "Any Man Who judges people by the group is a Peawit".
Clayton Moore please note re The Jews in Germany.
 
And many thousands of Jewish men served proudly and honorably in the German military.


Jewish veterans went to the 'nice' camps like Theresienstadt, as a 'thank you for your service". But you knew this, of course?
 
Just as a side note regarding Rauff's description of his assignments in his 1945 statement and how he didn't exactly lie about his service history, but certainly left certain parts unsaid.

He not only leaves a very large gap between the end of his service in the Navy (on a Channel minesweeper) and the start of his role as part of Amt VI F (the technical department for the foreign intelligence office of the RSHA) in Prague when Heydrich took over the Protectorate, his description hides the fact that the very letter from Dr. Becker which he acknowledges as genuine was written only after Rauff assigned Becker to visit the various Einsatzgruppen in the East and report on the gas vans they were using. Rauff ordered Becker to do this not under the auspices of Amt VI F in Prague, but under the auspices of Amt II D in Berlin (since the gas vans themselves were built and operated by Referat II D 3 a, under Rauff's Amt II D subordinate Pradel).

And Rauff ordered Becker to do this in January 1942, during the time he claimed he was "in Prague", and during the period SnakeTongue is trying to pretend that Rauff had nothing to do with II D (and so ostensibly could not have written the March 1942 letter).

Not to mention the fact that Rauff first passed on the orders to Pradel's II D 3 a group to develop and build those gas vans in October 1941...again under his authority as head of the II D technical department in Berlin and again during the time he was also serving as head of the VI F technical department in Prague.

Rauff wore several RSHA technical services hats during the period between Heydrich becoming Protector in Prague in September 1941 and Heydrich's death in June 1942, and Rauff routinely traveled back and forth between Prague and Berlin in order to carry out all his assigned duties. After Heydrich's death, he was no longer responsible for both RSHA technical departments (since his work in Prague for VI F was under Heydrich personally, and without Heydrich's patronage his services in Prague were no longer required and Rauff was replaced as head of VI F), and reverted to just being in charge of II D, and held that position until he was reassigned to be the head of an Einsatzkommando in North Africa, to carry out the executions of Jews there.
 
Last edited:
After Heydrich's death, he was no longer responsible for both RSHA technical departments, and reverted to just being in charge of II D, and held that position until he was reassigned to be the head of an Einsatzkommando in North Africa, to carry out the executions of Jews there.
There were Einsatzkommando in North Africa?
 
That is why I wrote "No, you made a claim - that people have made an accusation that millions of political prisoners were murdered by the Third Reich in gas chambers." And "so you cannot produce examples of anyone, historian or not, claiming that millions of political prisoners were mass exterminated by Germans in gas chambers."

Why do you and other revisionists habitually distort what other say and write?

You can prove your point by citing examples, you know. Too hard for you?

I have cited examples and you now are denying to show the correct claim.

Cited examples?

You have being evading an simple question:

What is the correct claim?

You have show that after several posts you were not able to define the correct claim and did not even provided one single reference...

Prove me wrong.

Not at all. It is wrong because there are no examples of people claiming what you say they claim. For your statement to be correct, you would have to have shown us that a good number of people make such a claim. I can't find - nor can you apparently - even a single example.

What is the right claim?

In the first place, I pointed you to primary source references I made throughout this thread. One such document I discussed at length was the Jaeger report, which in turn links to other documents, like Sakowicz's diary. Your deciding not to look through the thread isn't my problem, it's yours.

Secondary references and your personal discussion is not primary evidence.

It doesn't, and I didn't claim it did. You show me where I made such a claim.

There:

(...)

I wrote that "in this thread I have cited many primary sources showing mass extermination of Jews." Is the phrase "in this thread" above your reading comprehension ability? Or do you routinely lie?

(...) as well as photographs of cremations at Birkenau, latter Pressac's study with many documents included.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8161027&postcount=45

To remind you, Bob, that photo was posted in response to your post which asked a specific question, a question different to the one you are asking here and so, of course, the photo had a different purpose: I replied to this with a post in which there was a link to a photo of one stage in one of the processes by which the Germans cremated gassed Jews at Birkenau.I explained as so:
Later, I also referred you to a book of testimonies of Jewish workers who were used in this process.

Pictures of bodies being cremated do not prove the bodies were gassed.

I will also admit that I am having too much fun watching ANTPogo make you squirm to want to open up other lines of thought right now. See if you can deal with ANTPogo, then we can discuss the Jaeger report or other sources.

I do not pretend to have any debate with you about secondary evidence...

What makes you think that the bit you quote isn't referring to the photograph I linked to?

I made you a question... You are evading with another question.
 
Last edited:
There were Einsatzkommando in North Africa?

Yes. Klaus Michel Mallmann and Martin Cueppers wrote about it, there is an article by them in Yad Vashem Studies from 2-3 years ago plus a book in German. The unit, obviously, never got to do very much other than torment some Jews in Tunisia, but it seems fairly obvious why they were sent to North Africa - as an advance guard if Rommel overran Egypt and.... Palestine.
 
There were Einsatzkommando in North Africa?

I was going to say No, but I will take Nick Terry at his word.
But if there was a small advance group, they never got going the way they did on the Eastern Front.
 
Last edited:
(...)

(....)

(...)

(...)

(...)

(...)

(...)

(...) (much of this from donald l. Niewyk, the jews in weimar germany)

(...)

wroclaw said:
mmmmm. Copy pasta...

(...)

what is your problem with this? What is your problem with a country's citizens having influence and a voice in the country's politics, culture, and economy? Or are you arguing that most citizens of a country - but not, for example, jews or other specially designated groups - should participate in civic life?

(...)

wroclaw said:
wrong again, bob.
 
I'm guessing that only a fuhrerbefehl, signed, notarized, witnessed and said signing photographed will satisfy them.

But It won't count because there's no motion picture footage.
 
Cited examples?

You have being evading an simple question:

What is the correct claim?

You have show that after several posts you were not able to define the correct claim and did not even provided one single reference...

Prove me wrong.



What is the right claim?



Secondary references and your personal discussion is not primary evidence.



There:



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8161027&postcount=45



Pictures of bodies being cremated do not prove the bodies were gassed.



I do not pretend to have any debate with you about secondary evidence...



I made you a question... You are evading with another question.

Hi all,

I'm not an expert, but is SnakeTongue giving lessons in JAQing off?
 
I have no idea where you dug that strawman up (...)

I dug from you fairy tale.

Of course you have no comment. You have trouble dealing with historical truth, which is why you're a Holocaust denier.

Transforming your logic in a simple formula:

Historical truth = Wikipedia * (deception)

And yet, I'm the one that provided reference links to everything I said about the treatment of Jews in Germany, with said links in turn themselves linking to additional references.

Well done.

You just forgot to provide the references to explain the persecution of the non-Jews and their fate in the supposedly mass extermination plan...

While Clayton, by contrast, has provided not one single thing to back up his claim about what the Jews were supposedly doing to non-Jews, despite being directly asked multiple times by numerous posters.

Bad for Clayton...

Your support of him and dismissal of what I wrote just shows how hypocritical and bankrupt your words really are.

Dismissal? It is right there well write to anyone read and enjoy your fantastical intellectual dive into fictional allegations.
 
I'm guessing that only a fuhrerbefehl, signed, notarized, witnessed and said signing photographed will satisfy them.

It´ll have to list every single intended victim, and be signed by all of them as well. Ve iz ze Deutsches Reich, ve do zings ze bureaucratic vay.
 
I find it amazing that these people have lied so much and gotten away with it.

Excerpts from "The Black Book" - Electrocution Chamber and Electric Crematorium at Belzec, rivers of blood, jew bone powder used for construction, etc

Glaring Evidence of the Farce that was the Nuremberg Trials - Soviet Prosecutors Convicted the Germans of the Katyn Forest Massacre

Of course, the Soviets actually committed the massacre at Katyn, although they did not admit it until 1990.

At Nuremberg, the Soviets also "convicted" the Germans of mass extermination of Jews (and others) at the internment camps in Germany. Years later, even historians and Holohoax propagandists had to admit that no "gassings" or mass exterminations took place in the German camps on German soil, and the story shifted to the German camps in Poland (which the Soviets controlled, and where little to no investigation into the claims was allowed).

The following is an excerpt from "An Introduction to Holocaust Revisionism" by Tom Moran, an excellent article/primer, even for those not new to Holocaust™ revisionism.
 
Cited examples?

You have being evading an simple question:

What is the correct claim?

You have show that after several posts you were not able to define the correct claim and did not even provided one single reference...

Prove me wrong.

What is the right claim?
The "claim" that you will find if you look in, for example, Hilberg - and your nearly insane questioning about an obvious point, obvious to anyone who has even basic familiarity with the Holocaust, is half amusing and half annoying - is that over 5 million Jews were exterminated by the National Socialists and some of their allies - approximately 3 million of these in camps, with about 2.6 million of these victims killed by gassing; approximately 1.4 million in organized shooting actions; and about 0.7 million in ghettos by starvation, aggravated disease, shootings, etc. (Compared to these numbers, a very small number of POWs and Poles were put to death by the National Socialists in gas chambers.)

I don't know of a single person claiming that millions of political prisoners were put to death by gas. Nor do you. You wrote something exaggerated and dramatic, probably for effect, and your comment was stupid, and for whatever reason, you have refused to say "oops" now for weeks. Silly.

You didn't answer my question about why you and other revisionists so frequently distort what people write.

Secondary references and your personal discussion is not primary evidence.
This, of course, is not what I said: I said that throughout this thread I had cited (and discussed) many primary sources. I mentioned the Jaeger report as an example. Despite your rather vacuous yellow highlighting, the Jaeger report and Sakowicz's diary, which meshes with it, are primary sources - they are neither my discussion nor secondary sources.

Seriously, can you not read?

Pictures of bodies being cremated do not prove the bodies were gassed.
What makes you think I presented these photos as proof of people's being gassed? You didn't ask for proof of gassing, you asked,
Why is so difficult to find a picture or a video of German workers taking dead bodies out of a supposed gas chamber? Where is footages showing German workers carrying dead bodies to a crematorium?
I posted the closest match to your question known. Your question was stupid, because German workers didn't dispose of dead bodies at the death camps - members of the Jewish Sonderkommando and burial teams did.

I do not pretend to have any debate with you about secondary evidence...
Your loss. Very good researchers have looked at this material and have interesting and useful things to say about it. I have seen that you are not above cribbing from revisionists, however. Beautiful. But, again, you are seem not to be grasping the very simple point that the Jaeger report is not a secondary but a primary source. Had you looked it up, or reviewed some posts in this thread, you might have spared yourself making such an ignorant comment. But there is no accounting, is there?

I made you a question... You are evading with another question.
Actually, no, I am not. Your question was almost incomprehensible, so, to try to understand it, I asked if you meant what I thought you meant.
 
Last edited:
I dug from you fairy tale.

Then you wouldn't mind quoting the specific parts of my post that talked about "all Jews belong[ing] to a specific group of innocent people, with no influence whatsoever on the German daily life during the 30's and the 40's, hiding peaceful in their homes, with no will to commit crimes or engage in political disputes."

You just forgot to provide the references to explain the persecution of the non-Jews and their fate in the supposedly mass extermination plan...

They're not only there in the Wiki pages, they've been discussed (with you, no less!) right here in this thread, and you were even given the main source about why the Nazis did what they did to the Jews: Hitler's own writings on the subject.

Bad for Clayton...

Which, strangely, doesn't stop you from hurling invective at me while giving him a complete pass on his failure to back up his claims.

Dismissal? It is right there well write to anyone read and enjoy your fantastical intellectual dive into fictional allegations.

What, exactly, in my post is "fictional"? The emancipation laws? The Nuremberg Laws? The Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service? The Ahenpass? The events of Kristallnacht?

Please be as specific as you can when referencing what I wrote, with as much supporting evidence as possible.
 
No, not a forgery.

Because his actual assignment of duties was not as separate as his extremely brief 1945 statement implies. He was in II D the entire time, and while with Heydrich in Prague he divided his time between there and Berlin, so he could carry out his other duties.

As Rauff himself later stated in his deposition in Chile,

Heydrich was assassinated in June 1942, by the way, for comparison with the timeline given in the 1945 statement.

No, he was not.

The transcript you provided when compared with the affidavit is a simple demonstration of your misinterpretation:

Period 1

I now became head of division II D at the RSHA. In this division all technical matters were regulated. The division II D (technology) consisted of 6 or 7 sections. (...)

I was chief of this technical section from February 1940 until March 1940.

Period 2

When Heydrich went to Prague as a Protector I accompanied him there to organize the local news network. During this time I often traveled between Berlin and Prague.

(...) From September 1941 to May 1942 I was in Prague.

Period 3

I was head of division until several months after the death of Heydrich. Thereafter I was sent to an assignment in Africa with Rommel.

I then became chief of the section again from May 1942 to June 1942.

The period 2 demonstrate that Walter Rauff was not chief of the section and travelled to to Berlin as subordinate of Reinhard Heydrich.

Your are using a misinterpretation from period 2 to explain why Walter Rauff "was not as separate as his extremely brief 1945 statement implies", therefore creating a deceptive explanation.

Because the doctor at Mauthausen was not in charge of the construction and operation of the gas vans, while Rauff's Amt II D was. Rauff did indeed defer to the garrison doctor about areas that were the doctor's responsibility (the "procedure" talked about in the attachment), but since the procurement, equipment, and assignment of the gas vans were the technical department's responsibility, Amt II D (meaning Rauff and Pradel) handled that.

A explanation with no sound evidence...

The garrison doctor have nothing to do with Walter Rauff.

Garrison Doctor

The SS Standortarzt [garrison doctor], who was officially independent of the camp commandant and answerable directly to the SS Economic and Administrative Office, was responsible for hygiene and the medical aspects of the camp.

http://en.mauthausen-memorial.at/

Amt III (Deutsche Lebensgebiete – SD-Inland): Chef SS-Standartenführer Otto Ohlendorf

http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichssicherheitshauptamt#section_2

Walter Rauff

I was the chief of the Section under which were included such divisions as

(1) Ammunition
(2) Telephone
(3) Telegraph
(4) Radio
(5) All Trucks.

This group was known as II D

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/2348-ps.asp

II D (Technische Angelegenheiten): SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff

http://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichssicherheitshauptamt#section_2

Because a) Pradel was indeed a Captain before he was promoted to Major, and was actually a Captain for most of the time Rauff dealt with him personally, b) the statement was made long after Rauff had left II D and stopped dealing with Pradel at all (much less on a direct basis), and c) as a high-ranking RSHA department head, Rauff did not have to sit a typewriter himself and type up his own letters, but instead had secretaries to do that for him and who were responsible for making sure everyone was correctly addressed (that's what the "im Auftrag" at the bottom of the letter means, you know).

But you did not provided one single document which directly prove the promotion from captain to major...

At any rate, what does any of this have to do with your utter failure to answer my question about Rauff's "incomplete" office code. Especially since you didn't object back in your "analysis" that Rauff's office code shouldn't have been II D at all, but merely claimed that it should have been II D [something]. Which is rather odd, in light of your claimed knowledge of the matter which you say allowed you to perform your "analysis".

So, in addition to answering my question that you're still avoiding, I'd like you to explain this discrepancy in your claims.

It is a forgery... Just a quick comparison with official documents from the Third Reich demonstrate that sending code is completely wrong.

Plus, since you apparently accept Rauff's 1945 statement, this means you agree (as Rauff himself does in that statement) that his section, section II D, built and operated gas vans, that Pradel was involved in the construction and operation of the vans, and that the letter from Dr. Becker about their murderous use is entirely genuine, right?

Right, SnakeTongue?

Wrong.

Because X use information from Y, it does not mean X agree with all Y.
 
On all fours with the wild claim that Hitler killed millions of political prisoners. I suppose that is true if you call being Jewish a political crime.
Probably. POWs too, no doubt. And by gas, no less. He implied as much at some point. SnakeTongue is not exactly precise in his explanations.

PS - Here is what SnakeTongue said to wriggle out of his claim:
By the way, you are supporting a "special pleading" for the Jews and ignoring all other kind of prisoners which were part of the concentration camps. Different from you, I do not give the Jews this special treatment, which is typically supported by Holocaust proponents.

There was indeed concentration camps, but not only for Jews.

How would you call the prisoners persecuted by a political party?

Race prisoners?

Religious prisoners?

Sexual prisoners?

The accusation against the Third Reich is made on the base that existed a policy for mass extermination of different kinds of people:
and then:
Feel free to prove your "special pleading" in favour of the supposed mass extermination of Jews...

I stand on the point where mass extermination did not happened against any kind of political prisoner.
My reply is @ http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8128006&postcount=10209

SnakeTongue's line of thought is too stupid for words.
 
Last edited:
(Pretending)

(Pretending)

(Pretending) and during the period SnakeTongue is trying to pretend that Rauff had nothing to do with II D (and so ostensibly could not have written the March 1942 letter).

(Pretending)

(Pretending)

Yet, not one single reference to a primary evidence to support your fictional explanation for a forgery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom