Eichmann Makes Clear What Was Discussed at Wannsee

[Globus]

Adolf Eichmann, who was later charged with organizing the transportation for the deportation of millions of Jews from all over Europe to Auschwitz and other camps, assisted Heydrich in the preparation for the Wannsee Conference. During his trial in Israel he was questioned about the conference. Here are pertinent parts of that examination.

http://www.aihgs.com/doc22.htm

Dr. Servatius: ... Will the Witness explain what do you know in connection to the initiative to call this conference?



Accused: Without any doubt, the main reason for the convening of the conference was Heydrich's intention to extend the scope of his influence.



Dr. Servatius: Was he afraid of any difficulties? Did he have reason to be afraid.



Accused: Experience up to then showed that all those questions were usually dealt with by various authorities and if it were, there was no co-ordinated activity and, therefore, actions were, delayed considerably as there were all sorts of activities carried out within various offices. And, in a nutshell, one may point out that in the deliberations which were held so far they wouldn't see the wood for the trees, and they wouldn't arrive at any definite solution or any co-ordination solution. This is one of the reasons why Heydrich convened the Wannsee Conference, why he actually convened it on his own initiative in order to imprint his own will and that of the Reichsführer SS.



Dr. Servatius: The witness I believe already declared here in Court that you prepared Heydrich's speech. Or this may be collected from the appendix to the Sassen report.



Presiding Judge: Yes.



Dr. Servatius: Are you ready to repeat once again your explanation how it came about that you were asked to prepare this speech?



Accused: Yes. I was instructed to collect material which Heydrich thought relevant for his speech which he was about to hold. That means to say that it should have been a general survey of all the operations that had been carried out in the course of the last years in the realm of the emigration of Jews. It had to be a survey of the results and the difficulties of the operations in question. These prepared remarks that I drew for Heydrich's speech can be seen on the seven pages of the document in front of us, but it struck me that certain points which I prepared were [not] prepared by me. They are not the fruit of my pencil, so to speak, but simply expressed by Heydrich without taking heed of what I had prepared. Because very often as I had seen from experience he would speak very freely, without always taking care of the prepared point's. And here on page 6 the last passage, according to which Jews were earmarked for special labor effort and they were to be sent, within the framework of the final solution, to the eastern territories and, as I said, this was to conform with the framework set for the labour effort in the east. The labour columns were to be formed and a separation was to be carried outbetween the sexes so that the Jews fit for work would be brought within the framework of this plan and would be employed in the construction of the roads. This particular passage could not have possibly stemmed from me and the remarks couldn't possibly been ascribed to what I wrote because this particular passage actually constituted a turning point in the policy towards the Jews and this policy appears for the first time in the Wannsee conference.

Presiding Judge: I believe there is a written translation into the Hebrew of this document.



Court Interpreter: I do not have it before me.



Accused: May I further point out, your Honours, to complete the picture, that the second function which was bestowed upon me was the function of keeping minutes of the meeting together with a secretary.



Dr. Servatius: Do the minutes describe the contents of the deliberations correctly?



Accused: These minutes to which I was referring were rent ering the salient points quite clearly. But so far as the particulars were concerned, I have to point out that this was not a verbatim report because certain colloquialisms were then couched by me in official language and certain official terms had to be introduced. Later on it had been revised three or four times by Heydrich. It came back through official channels to us through the channel of Müller and then again we had to elaborate on it until it assumed its final form. . . .



Dr. Servatius: What is not reflected in the protocol is the spirit which reigned at this conference. Can you report or comment regarding the spirit and attitude at this conference?



Accused: Yes, the climate of this conference was characterized as it were by a relaxed attitude of Heydrich who had actually more than anybody else expected considerable stumbling blocks and difficulties.



Q. It is important how these things found expression on the part of the other participants.



A. It was an atmosphere not only of agreement on the part of the participants, but more than that, one could feel an agreement which had assumed a form which had not been expected. Unflinching in his determination to participate fully in the functions with regard to the final solution of the Jewish problem and particularly outstanding in the enthusiastic and unexpected form of agreement was the State secretary, Bühler, and even more than Bühler, Stuckart had evinced boundless enthusiasm. He was usually hesitating, and reserved, reticent and furtive, but all of a sudden he gave expression to boundless enthusiasm, with which he joined the others with regard to the final solution of the Jewish question.



Q. The witness saw before the calling of this conference the preparations in the East for the extermination? He saw the steps taken there?



A. Yes, sir.



Q. Did the participants at this conference know anything about the way for the final solution?

.A. I have to assume that the things were known to the participants of the Wannsee Conference because after all the War against Russia had been going on already about six months. As we saw in some various relevant documents, the operational groups were already acting in the Russian war theatre and all those key personalities in the Reich Government must have known about the state of affairs at that time.



Q. How long did this conference go on and what happened after the conference was over?



A. The conference itself took only a very short period of time. I can't recall exactly how long it lasted, but it seems to me that I would not be mistaken in saying that it didn't take longer than an hour or an hour and a half. Of course, the gentlemen who participated in it would later on be standing in small groups to discuss the ins and outs of the agenda and also of certain work to be undertaken afterwards. After the conference had been a[d]journed, Heydrich and Müller still remained and I was also permitted to remain and then in this restricted get-together, Heydrich gave expression to his great satisfaction I already referred to before....



Presiding Judge: . . . Now in connection with the Wannsee conference, you answered my colleague Dr. Raveh that this part of the meeting, which is not mentioned in the protocol, the discussion was about the means of extermination, systems of killing.

A: Yes.

Q. Who discussed this subject?

A: I do not remember it in detail, Your Honour. I do not remember the circumstances of this conversation. But I do know that these gentlemen were standing together, or sitting together, and were discussing the subject quite bluntly, quite differently from the language which I had to use later in the record. During the conversation they minced no words about it at all. I might say furthermore, Your Honour, that I would not have remembered this unless I had later remembered that I told myself- Look here, I told myself, even this guy Stuckart, who was known as one of these uncles who was a great stickler for legalities, he too uses language which is not at all in accordance with paragraphs of the law. This incident remained engraved in my memory and recalled the entire subject to my mind.



Q. What did he say about this subject?



A. In detail I do not-



Q. Not details in general, what did he say about this theme?



A. I cannot remember it in detail Your Honour, but they spoke about methods for killing, about liquidation, about extermination. I was busy with my records. I had to make the preparations for taking down the minutes. I could not perk up my ears and listen to everything that was said. But it filtered through the small room and I caught fragments of this conversation. It was a small room so from time to time I heard a word or two.



Q. I believed that this was the official part of the meeting, of the conference.



A. The official part did not take too long.



Q. Was this in the official part of the conference, or not? It was my belief that this was in the official conference because this should have been included in the protocol of the meeting, although nothing is mentioned.



A. Well of course, it was in the official part, Your Honour. But again this official part had two subdivisions. The first part where everyone was quiet and listened to the various lectures, and then in the second part, everyone spoke out of turn and people would go around, butlers, agitants, and would give out liquor. Well, I don't want to say that there was an atmosphere of drunkardness there. It was an official atmosphere, but nevertheless it was not one of these stiff, formal, official affairs where everyone spoke in turn. But people just talked at cross vertices.



Q. And were these also recorded by the short-hand typists?



Accused: Yes, yes-they were taken down.



Presiding Judge: And you were ordered by someone not to include it in the memorandum of the meeting- in the official Protocol of this meeting, weren't you?



Accused. Yes, that's how it was. The stenographer was sitting next to me and I was to see to it that everything would be taken down; then she deciphered this and then Heydrich gave me his instructions as to what should be included in the record and what should be excluded. Then I showed it to Heydrich and he polished it up and proof-read it and that's how it was kept.



Q. And that which was said about this very important theme, you cannot remember at all- is this what you say?



A. Well, the most important thing here was....



Q.I did not say, the most important- I said it was an important theme, and important enough to be excluded from the record.



A. Well, no. The significant part from Heydrich's point-of-view, was to nail-down the Secretaries of State, to commit them most bindingly, to catch them by their words; and therefore, it was quite the contrary- the important part did go into the record and the less significant ones were excluded. It was, I would say, that Heydrich wanted to cover himself, wanted to be sure that each and every one of these Secretaries of State would be nailed-down- and these matters, therefore, were put down.



Q. That means to say that the methods of killing- the systems of extermination- was not an important theme?

A. Ah! the means of killing....



Q. That is what we are speaking about- the means of killing.



A. No, no- this of course was not put into the record-no, no!



Q. Did they discuss killing by poison gas?



A. No, with gas-no.



Q. But, how then?



A. It was ... this business with the engine, they spoke about this; they spoke about shooting, but not about gas.



Q. Later, the Protocol goes on to say, in the same passage, that Gauleiter Mayer and Secretary of State Dr. Bühler (?) believed and were of the opinion, that certain preparations, for implementation in various districts, be made at the same time; certain preparatory work in connection with the "final solution" should be made immediately, in the discussed areas, but unrest amongst the population should be avoided. Can you remember this?



A. What did you mean, Your Honour-I did not understand it.



Q. You did not understand? All right-I will read it out to you once again: Dr. Mayer and Dr. Biffiler-that their opinion was that preparatory work should begin immediately for the " Final solution" in the various areas, but at the same time to avoid unrest and anxiety on the part of the population.



A. Ah, yes....



Q. To which preparatory work does this refer?



A. I cannot imagine anything, but....



Q. Don't imagine! My question is-and I put it to you, as the Attorney-Gencral put it to you before and all the time-what can you remember? This was a turning point, in fact.



A. I was there and I witnessed the preparatory work, with these two little houses in the Lublin area.



Q. Which two little huts in the Lublin area? I'm asking you this question about the Conference.



A. Well, I had seen the preparatory work before-in fact, but I don't really know. They spoke about the matter, at the meeting, of not creating any anxiety and perplexity amongst the local population, so all I thought was being discussed, was this same kind of business.



Q. And did you report what you saw to this Conference?



A. At tile Wannsee Conferencer No, I never uttered a syllable; I was not authorized to open my mouth. No, I had no permission.



Q. So, who was it, who brought the technical details to the Conference?



Accused: Well no-one discussed the technical details. That is to say, Heydrich opened the meeting and then everyone spoke about it. Well, I mean maybe Büller (Bühler) spoke about it or possible Krueger- I suppose he would have- he was the senior SS and Police Commander in the Government General. In a way he was the head of ihe entire business, in charge of it. Globocnik was subordinated to this man Krueger. Krueger, as the boss, must have known it in detail.



Presiding Judge: But Krueger did not take part at the Wannsee Conference, according to the list of participants.



A. Yes, but earlier he visited Heydrich and extracted from him an invitation for Büller [Bühler] to take part at the meeting. And then, one spoke about it in detail. Heydrich and Krueger discussed it and for that reason I had to issue special invitations for Krueger and Büller [Bühler].



Q. You told the Court that you do not consider yourself an anti-Semite and that you never were an anti-Semite.



A. An anti-Semite I never was- no.

[calvin]

Shouldn’t your thread title read “Eichmann Makes Clear What Was Discussed at Wannsee From His Place of Imprisonment in Israel After His Arrest by Israeli Secret Services Who Most Definitely Knew Where His Family Lived and Had By His Own Apprehension Proven That They Were Capable Of Reaching Them”, I mean it’s a bit more clumsy but it kind of puts things in context a bit better. Do you really expect anyone to take the bait on this one Globus?

It was ... this business with the engine, they spoke about this; they spoke about shooting, but not about gas

This is the most damning sentence from your lengthy cut and paste. An absolutely worst-case interpretation of this answer would be that some Jews were being killed by asphyxiation using an engine and some Jews were being shot. No one that I am aware of questions the fact that thousands of Jews, some of whom were partisans, were shot in the Eastern territories. The holocaust is not affirmed by an oblique reference to some Jews being asphyxiated, however horrible this may be.

You will notice that it is the prosecutor who introduces the subject of killing not Eichmann. I suspect that the reference to “this business with the engine” may be another reference to a subject introduced by the prosecution.

It is highly probable that Eichmann thought that he could curry favour with his captors and avoid the death penalty by affirming the existence of the holocaust whilst removing himself from any personal involvement in the murder process.

[Globus]

Shouldn’t your thread title read “Eichmann Makes Clear What Was Discussed at Wannsee From His Place of Imprisonment in Israel After His Arrest by Israeli Secret Services Who Most Definitely Knew Where His Family Lived and Had By His Own Apprehension Proven That They Were Capable Of Reaching Them”, I mean it’s a bit more clumsy but it kind of puts things in context a bit better. Do you really expect anyone to take the bait on this one Globus?

So let's see where we are. You deny the clear implications of the Wannssee Protocol itself, claiming it calls for resettlement when it plainly does not. Now you deny a piece of corroborating evidence from the Protocol's author and an attendee at the meeting because of some weird speculation about Eichmann's family in Germany. Do you expect anyone to take denial seriously?


Originally Posted by Globus
It was ... this business with the engine, they spoke about this; they spoke about shooting, but not about gas

This is the most damning sentence from your lengthy cut and paste.

No it isn't. This is.

I cannot remember it in detail Your Honour, but they spoke about methods for killing, about liquidation, about extermination. I was busy with my records. I had to make the preparations for taking down the minutes. I could not perk up my ears and listen to everything that was said. But it filtered through the small room and I caught fragments of this conversation. It was a small room so from time to time I heard a word or two.

The Final Solution is clearly defined there.

An absolutely worst-case interpretation of this answer would be that some Jews were being killed by asphyxiation using an engine and some Jews were being shot.

That would a selective quote mine and nonsensical, since Eichmann has already said the talk was of "liquidation, extermination".

You will notice that it is the prosecutor who introduces the subject of killing not Eichmann. I suspect that the reference to “this business with the engine” may be another reference to a subject introduced by the prosecution.

I suspect you're struggling desperately!!

The examiner always controls the discussion.

It is highly probable that Eichmann thought that he could curry favour with his captors

Rubbish. One doesn't admit to complicity in mass murder to avoid the death penalty.

Unfortunately for you this is not the first time that Eichmann spoke about his role and the Wannsee Conference.

Before his capture in Argentina Eichmann gave a recorded interview with a German journalist. Life Magazine translated and published a significant portion of it in November of 1960.

Here's what he had to say about Wannsee.

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/trials/profiles/final.html

The continuance of the war finally changed out attitude on emigration entirely. In 1941 the Führer himself ordered the physical annihilation of the Jewish enemy. What made him take this step I do not know. But for one thing the war in Russia was not going along in the Blitz fashion the High Command had planned. The ruinous struggle on two fronts had begun. And already Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the world Zionist leader, had declared war on Germany in the name of Jewry. It was inevitable that the answer of the Führer would not be long in coming.

Soon after the order General Heydrich called me to his office in the Prinz Albrecht Strasse. He told me about Reichsführer Himmler's order that all emigration of Jews was to be prohibited - with no more exceptions. He assured me that neither I nor my men would have anything to do with the physical liquidation. We would act only as policemen; that is, we would round up the Jews for the others.

By this time the formula "Final Solution for the Jewish Question" had taken on a new meaning: liquidation. In this new sense we discussed it at a special conference on Jan. 10, 1942 in the Wannsee section of Berlin. It was I who had to bustle over to Heydrich with the portfolio of invitations on which he scribbled his "Heydrich", stroke for stroke. So we sent out the whole thing. A few people declined to participate, on grounds principally of other duties.

Let's see how far your excuses for basing history on your wishes, rather than evidence, will extend!

[calvin]

Rubbish. One doesn't admit to complicity in mass murder to avoid the death penalty

Yes quite right Globus, that’s why I said this…

It is highly probable that Eichmann thought that he could curry favour with his captors and avoid the death penalty by affirming the existence of the holocaust whilst removing himself from any personal involvement in the murder process

More of your usual strawman tactics. My opinion is supported by this….

Eichmann: I cannot remember it in detail Your Honour, but they spoke about methods for killing, about liquidation, about extermination. I was busy with my records. I had to make the preparations for taking down the minutes. I could not perk up my ears and listen to everything that was said. But it filtered through the small room and I caught fragments of this conversation. It was a small room so from time to time I heard a word or two

It was not me, it was the other guys guvnor! It was a small room but Eichmann only managed to hear small fragments of this conversation that was carried out in an “atmosphere of drunkenness”. In other words, Eichmann managed to hear just enough to lend credence to the claim that these people were in the midst of planning the murder of six million people, a confirmation that would please the prosecution, but not quite enough for his own actions to be deemed to make him an overt participant, which might save his neck. Bollocks!

Now you deny a piece of corroborating evidence from the Protocol's author and an attendee at the meeting because of some weird speculation about Eichmann's family in Germany

Eichmanns family were in Argentina so we can add blatant falsehood to your list of rhetorical sins.
Among his memoir's most poignant passages is one that describes Malkin, during surveillance of Eichmann, observing his quarry returning home each evening and getting down on the floor to play with his young son
Tim Madigan, Dallas Star Telegram
So you are showing your usual disregard for the truth Globus. And there is every indication that Eichmann was seriously concerned for their safety. Peter Malkin, in fact, made a point of stressing that Eichmann had to be repeatedly assured that the Israelis would not harm his family. Considering that Malkin was a member of Mossad we can reasonable deduce from that disclosure that threats were, indeed made against Eichmann’s family to coerce him into compliance. The hit squad were deliberately selected on the basis of their hatred of Germans; one member of the squad was a member of the notorious Nokmim Jewish avengers, Malikin had lost close relatives during the war, these were people who were not likely to mess about if Eichmann was uncooperative.
“Information from the former Nazis was often tainted both by their personal agendas and their vulnerability to blackmail”
Elizabeth Holtzman, former congresswoman from and member of the panel, the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group

Talking of selective use of evidence Globus, you seem to have omitted to mention Eichmann’s other major screed, penned whislt in captivity. In this memoir Eichmann reveals that he visited Auschwitz several time without seeing a single gas chamber.

[Burrhus]

Shouldn’t your thread title read “Eichmann Makes Clear What Was Discussed at Wannsee From His Place of Imprisonment in Israel After His Arrest by Israeli Secret Services Who Most Definitely Knew Where His Family Lived and Had By His Own Apprehension Proven That They Were Capable Of Reaching Them”, I mean it’s a bit more clumsy but it kind of puts things in context a bit better. Do you really expect anyone to take the bait on this one Globus?

Another well-turned-if-lengthy-but-certainly-not-verbose-phrase that cuts to the heart of the matter from our master word craftsman, Calvin.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to calvin again.

http://www.journaltek.com/green%20square.jpg

[cerberus]

Just wondering are any of you going to comment on Heydrich's plans for the r"oad building Jews" he sent to Russia - looks like slave labour followed by murder to me - but then Wansee never was about murder was it ??:whip:

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
Rubbish. One doesn't admit to complicity in mass murder to avoid the death penalty

Yes quite right Globus, that’s why I said this…


Originally Posted by calvin
It is highly probable that Eichmann thought that he could curry favour with his captors and avoid the death penalty by affirming the existence of the holocaust whilst removing himself from any personal involvement in the murder process

He didn't remove himself from the murdering process. Knowlingly deporting Jews to their death is involvement in the murdering process. So if your idiotic theory were true, he would have needed to deny that death awaited them, or that he didn't know that death awaited them. He knew that denying the obvious evidence was useless. So as I pointed out, Eichmann admitted complicity to murder, he didn't just curry favor.

More of your usual strawman tactics.

The rather unimaginative and illogical argument was yours.


Originally Posted by Globus
Now you deny a piece of corroborating evidence from the Protocol's author and an attendee at the meeting because of some weird speculation about Eichmann's family in Germany

Eichmanns family were in Argentina so we can add blatant falsehood to your list of rhetorical sins.

Eichmann had family in both places, so we can add ignorance to yours!

So you are showing your usual disregard for the truth Globus.

Calvin's usual inability to make an argument is revealed by his usual ad hominen bleatings!

The truth is as I stated it, and you've shown no evidence whatsoever that any of the extensive testimony given by Eichmann was influenced at all by fears for his family. But then, deniers don't need evidence, do they!

And there is every indication that Eichmann was seriously concerned for their safety. Peter Malkin, in fact, made a point of stressing that Eichmann had to be repeatedly assured that the Israelis would not harm his family. Considering that Malkin was a member of Mossad we can reasonable deduce from that disclosure that threats were, indeed made against Eichmann’s family to coerce him into compliance.

On the contrary, what you just related shows that a captured man was naturally concerned about his family, but was reassured by the man who captured him that no harm would come to his family. Your reasonable deduction in fact is an irrational conclusion.

We also note that Calvin is not even able to address the Eichmann interview evidence which buttresses what occurred at Wannsee.

So the plain words of the conference protocol, Eichmann's testimony, during which he confirmed what was said, and an interview with a German journalist before his capture by the Israelis all show that the topic at Wannsee was the elimination of Europe's Jews.

[Globus]

Another well-turned-if-lengthy-but-certainly-not-verbose-phrase that cuts to the heart of the matter from our master word craftsman, Calvin.

It doesn't cut to the heart of the matter at all. It is illogical nonsense.

Calvin's own cut and paste demonstrates that the Israeli's told him his fears for his family were unnecessary, hardly what they would have done if they wished to use those fears as leverage to coerce testimony.

The fact is Calvin has no evidence that Eichmann's testimony was coerced in any way, and more tellingly, completely ignored the fact that Eichmann's interview with a German journalist before his capture confirms what he testified to in Jerusalem with respect to Wannsee. Don't you think it is rather odd that he avoided that, and that you missed it entirely?

Cheering from the sidelines doesn't do much good when it appears you haven't thought much about the discussion.

[delete]

Just wondering are any of you going to comment on Heydrich's plans for the r"oad building Jews" he sent to Russia - looks like slave labour followed by murder to me - but then Wansee never was about murder was it ??:whip:

I don't get this followed by murder thing, but I do get the point of using the jews as road construction workers.

For me it looks like slave labor only, and I don't think it is below the lying stalinists to say that Germans killed them, and then falsify some statistics to prove it.

Have there ever been one truthfull statistics published in the Soviet at that time?

[Kriger]

I don't get this followed by murder thing, but I do get the point of using the jews as road construction workers.

For me it looks like slave labor only, and I don't think it is below the lying stalinists to say that Germans killed them, and then falsify some statistics to prove it.

Have there ever been one truthfull statistics published in the Soviet at that time?

Not really.

[cerberus]

delete
I don't get this followed by murder thing, but I do get the point of using the jews as road construction workers.
delete if you read the section I linked to you can't but miss what the bottom line was .
Let me run it by you , then you can go back , check and see if I got it wrong.
Heydrich said that adult Jews capaible of working would be taken to the east to work on roads , they would be divided means of sex.
It was expected that many would die as a result of being worked to death .
The surivors being strongest and "the most dangerous" would "recieve suitable treatment" 8 , the object being to ensure that there would be no Jews coming along to take revenge or to continue their line.
( That word "treatment" again , would this be the same as ""??)
In short death by slave labour and death for those which the labour did not kill.
Now delete if you missed this it can only be because you are doing so on purpose , go back read again and address the point.

[Trojan]

I don't get this followed by murder thing, but I do get the point of using the jews as road construction workers.

For me it looks like slave labor only, and I don't think it is below the lying stalinists to say that Germans killed them, and then falsify some statistics to prove it.

Have there ever been one truthfull statistics published in the Soviet at that time?

So, in general, you have no problems with the concept of slave labor?

[cerberus]

Trojan
So, in general, you have no problems with the concept of slave labor?

As long as it is not used as an instrument of death , or is it just when it is used as an instrument of death , which is it ?

[calvin]

Why is conscription for labour any worse than conscription for military service?

[delete]

Why is conscription for labour any worse than conscription for military service?

If a german youth was in the right age group, he had to go and fight in the war. Many of them died.

Under these cirumstances I don't see what is wrong in using the hostile elements of the population as slave labor.

You constantly say how the Nazis hated jews, without saying that jews hated the Nazis even more.

I don't think that it was german policy to be any more inhumane than strictly neccesary, so I don't think it was Nazi policy to kill the jews.

[Globus]

If a german youth was in the right age group, he had to go and fight in the war. Many of them died.

That's sort of necessary if you wish to carry on a war of conquest.

But conscripting people not of your own nation is something else again.

Under these cirumstances I don't see what is wrong in using the hostile elements of the population as slave labor.

Whatever served the cause, eh.

You constantly say how the Nazis hated jews, without saying that jews hated the Nazis even more.

Well, I'd say Jews had a few reasons to hate Nazis, as did much of Europe.

I don't think that it was german policy to be any more inhumane than strictly neccesary, so I don't think it was Nazi policy to kill the jews.

The catechism again.

[cerberus]

calvin
Why is conscription for labour any worse than conscription for military service?
calvin - I note that you forgot to say it was slave labour ?
I won't take this question too seriously calvin as there is no way that both can be placed on the same table.

delete
If a german youth was in the right age group, he had to go and fight in the war. Many of them died.

Under these cirumstances I don't see what is wrong in using the hostile elements of the population as slave labor.

You constantly say how the Nazis hated jews, without saying that jews hated the Nazis even more.I don't think that it was german policy to be any more inhumane than strictly neccesary, so I don't think it was Nazi policy to kill the jews.

Using people for slave labour is illegal to begin with and it is immoral - thats what is wrong with it, you should not have to be told this.
Hostile elements - you too are trying to justify something - statement of fact - not a question.
So you are saying that the Jews of France, Italy , Sweden , Ireland , England, Netherlands , Norway, Finland, - in fact see Heydrich's list as per Wansee - they all hated Germany ?
Can you qualify the end remark "even more" ?
Seems you have something to justify ?

"German youth", American youth British youth , even Jewish youths enlisted for the Armies of the own countries - go to Normandy walk the cemeteries and you can see for yourself.

delete - What do you think Heydrich meant when he commented that it was expected that many would expire when engaged in slave labour in the east ?
It didn't seem to trouble him too much .
What do you think he menat when he said the would recieve "suitable treatment" ?
tell me exactly what you though Heydrich meant - you are avoiding the truth by telling me what you think - it was what heydrich meant which is the issue , not what you think.

[calvin]

delete - What do you think Heydrich meant when he commented that it was expected that many would expire when engaged in slave labour in the east ?

He meant just what he said; those less fit for hard labour in harsh conditions would perish, just as young German conscripts who were less fit for the rigours of combat would expire. No one asked about German youth, because it was unthinkable that German youth would protest at the sacrifices demanded of them.

[Trojan]

Why is conscription for labour any worse than conscription for military service?

Calvin,

I'll give you a hing ...

conscription for labor and slave labor do not mean the same.

[Kodos]

Calvin,

I'll give you a hing ...

conscription for labor and slave labor do not mean the same.

Yes it does. Forced labor is slave labor.

The thing with forced labor is that sometimes with forced labor there is a deliberate design of working em to death (with Stalin Hitler and the Japanese this was true of most of their state slaves).

[calvin]

I was about to respond, but I’ll keep schtum until the affirmers can iron out their internal disputes

[Sulla the Dictator]

Yes it does. Forced labor is slave labor.

The thing with forced labor is that sometimes with forced labor there is a deliberate design of working em to death (with Stalin Hitler and the Japanese this was true of most of their state slaves).

Thats a big difference. The plight of Soviet POWs or Jews was different than that of Frenchmen or Poles.

[delete]

Jewish leaders was trying to get the other nations to go to war with Germany, because the jews saw the german race laws as unfair, and Hitler as their enemy. They were pushing for a war that would kill Germans, and their loyality was outside germany, so I think that the decision to intern them and use them as slave labor was correct.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Jewish leaders was trying to get the other nations to go to war with Germany, because the jews saw the german race laws as unfair, and Hitler as their enemy. They were pushing for a war that would kill Germans, and their loyality was outside germany, so I think that the decision to intern them and use them as slave labor was correct.

You mean like in the USSR, where the Soviets signed a treaty with the Germans to divide Eastern Europe between them, or in Britain where the government allowed the Germans to tear up the Versailles treaty and occupy Czechoslovakia and Austria?

[calvin]

You mean like in the USSR, where the Soviets signed a treaty with the Germans to divide Eastern Europe between them

Nice of you to confirm that the Soviets were just as responsible as the Nazis for WWII, can you now explain why war was declared on Germany and not Russia?

[cerberus]

delete
Jewish leaders was trying to get the other nations to go to war with Germany, because the jews saw the german race laws as unfair, and Hitler as their enemy. They were pushing for a war that would kill Germans, and their loyality was outside germany, so I think that the decision to intern them and use them as slave labor was correct.
The call for a trade embargo ?
So this was "war" , by your own admission the laws made to disenfranchise the Jews came first.
In terms of a war arms they could not declare war on Germany and if what you say is true it would appear they got very little backing.
When did these laws come into force ?
When did Hitler invade Poland ?
Remark withdrawn. See post 30.

[cerberus]

calvin
Nice of you to affirm that the Soviets were just as responsible as the Nazis for WWII, can you now explain why war was declared on Germany and not Russia?
Because the guarantee made to Poland was made in the event of a German invasion , declaring war on Russia would be the type of stupid ill thought out act which led Hitler to so rashly declare war on America .
Getting Germany out of Poland would come first - Stalin might have been more willing to withdraw with Germany defeated.
A "what if" but sometimes you have to think with your head.
calvin
affirmers
Another meaningless term calvin .:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[delete]

The call for a trade embargo ?
So this was "war" , by your own admission the laws made to disenfranchise the Jews came first.

In terms of a war arms they could not declare war on Germany and if what you say is true it would appear they got very little backing.

Among other things the calls for a trade embargo.

I think that jews are a plague upon their host population, and that this was the reason for the persecution of the jews.

America entered the war, did they not? Would the japanese have attacked the Americans if there had been no oil embargo?


When did these laws come into force ?
When did Hitler invade Poland ?

This is all known, go see in wikipedia.


What you are trying to argue is pure rubbush.

You ask for civil responses, but you say thing like this.

[cerberus]

delete
I think that jews are a plague upon their host population, and that this was the reason for the persecution of the jews.

I can't understand why there is the needed to dish out this and other soundbite time and time again.:confused:
It gets so much like a church service, predictable.:(
America entered the war, did they not?
At last , an accurate historical fact - yes - I think we can agree on this.
Would the Japanese have attacked the Americans if there had been no oil embargo?
Yes.
Q. Why did the Japanese send troops to French Indo-China ?
Why did the Vichy French "invite" them in , did the Germans "suggest" ( to their French puppets) ,that this might be a good idea ?
Japan was bent on expanionisn - war was going to happen oil embargo or no oil imbargo.
For the Japanese to do so the American Fleet would have to be disposed off.

[cerberus]

delete
You ask for civil responses, but you say thing like this.
You are correct , I have revised my reply.:(

There is no logic or reason in what you are putting forth and I for one would consider my self to be more than foolish for giving it serious consideration.
In fact I would consider myself to be not unlike a historical "refuse operative" for picking up on this baseless notion which you subscribe to. :)

[cerberus]

calvin -
He meant just what he said; those less fit for hard labour in harsh conditions would perish, just as young German conscripts who were less fit for the rigours of combat would expire. No one asked about German youth, because it was unthinkable that German youth would protest at the sacrifices demanded of them.
calvin so you would agree that Heydrich expected that this slave labour force would die in large numbers as a result of what it was asked to do ?
death by means of slave labour - this is what it amounts to.

Now calvin move it on a little to the next lie or two from Heydrich.
"The remaineder who will inevitably survive , who will certainly be those who have the greatest power of endurance, he adds will have to be dealt with accordingly in order to prevent their becoming "the seedbed" of a new Jewish regeneration.
Page 161 "The Unwritten Order" Peter Longerich.
Longerich on page 162 "The Jews who were deported "to the east" were to be worked to death through forced labour , if they should survive these tribulations, they would be murdered.

This is made crystal clear by Heydrich "suitable treatment" - "treatment2 is identified for what it is - death.
Do you agree or not calvin - you are already half way there already.
I would also point out that nowhere in the text did Heydrich make an=y references to unfit soldiers who might die under the demand s of active service - a rather smelly red herring on your part calvin.

Are you to tell me that under Heydrich soldier who survive are to be subject to "suitable treatment".

I can if you wish punch up Heydrich's exact words if you wish - they are much more damning to your cause than what Longerich has written.

Longerich makes the point that this "solution" ,"would only be fully realisable
in a post war world".

The end result having been outlined "NO JEWS".
What you have calvin is what the final solution was to be - no Jews alive in Europe or any land administered by the Reich.
I would refer you back to the willingness to impose this policy on other goverments.

[Globus]

He meant just what he said; those less fit for hard labour in harsh conditions would perish, just as young German conscripts who were less fit for the rigours of combat would expire.

He said nothing about less fit. In fact he is only talking about those fit for work, not Jews who were unsuited. And the Nazi attitude towards working people to death with ill treatment and insufficient food is well documented.

He then said that those who managed to survive needed to be treated so as to prevent biological reproduction. You figure it out.

[Globus]

I was about to respond, but I’ll keep schtum until the affirmers can iron out their internal disputes

Perhaps that will give you more time to tell us why kidnapping millions of people and bringing them to Germany to work is the same as conscripting your own citizens to fight a war you started.

[Globus]

Jewish leaders was trying to get the other nations to go to war with Germany, because the jews saw the german race laws as unfair, and Hitler as their enemy.

No they weren't. Nations went to war with Germany because of she attacked other nations with the intent of conquering land and establishing what the Nazis thought was going to be a thousand year Reich!

[Kodos]

I believe Britain and France were the only two countries that actually declared war on Germany (before a bunch of 3rd worlders did in 1945), though the USSR eventually would have attacked.

[Kodos]

Nice of you to confirm that the Soviets were just as responsible as the Nazis for WWII, can you now explain why war was declared on Germany and not Russia?

1. Hitler already had broken the Munich agreement and since then the British were pissed and wanted war.

2. Germany attacked Poland 1st and the British did want to be fighting the USSR and Germany at the same time. Britain needed the Soviets and Nazis to kill each other.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Nice of you to confirm that the Soviets were just as responsible as the Nazis for WWII, can you now explain why war was declared on Germany and not Russia?


Because the Soviets invaded Poland weeks after Germany, and it would have been farsical to declare war on the Soviets AND the Germans. Germany was the one who invaded Poland first. Had Germany not done so, the Soviets would not have done so.

But you admire Hitler for allying with the Soviets, don't you? Stalin is a friend of the Reich, eh?

[Kodos]

Thats a big difference. The plight of Soviet POWs or Jews was different than that of Frenchmen or Poles.

Poles weren't treated much better then Jews if they ended up in the forced labor system and nearly all their food was "requisitioned" during the war. Laborers from Western countries (non jews) tended to be treated relatively well and most survived the war.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Poles weren't treated much better then Jews if they ended up in the forced labor system and nearly all their food was "requisitioned" during the war. Laborers from Western countries (non jews) tended to be treated relatively well and most survived the war.

The Poles were treated very badly, but yes, they were treated better than the Jews. Jews and Russian POWs invariably got the worst treatment of the camp system.

[cerberus]

Globus
He said nothing about less fit
Not in so many words.
he certainly made it clear that people would die - and those who did not die through labour would be killed.
If this was to be the fate of the fit and healthy , those who could be worked to death - the fate of the young , the elderly and the disabled is more than clear.

Longerrich makes this point as well and Wansee spells it out both in what is said and what is unsaid between the lines - little wonder that those who can't get round it just simply declare it to be a fake or deem it to be "unreliable" or to engage in word play - playing silly buggers with the truth is how I see it.

[calvin]

calvin so you would agree that Heydrich expected that this slave labour force would die in large numbers as a result of what it was asked to do ?

That seems to be the implication of the evidence provided.

I’m not a Longerich believer.

Come off, it Mr Longerich! We already have millions of lines in the archives, so why read between them? If there is no explicit documentary evidence even now, sixty years on, even the dimmest academic can surely guess at the reason why? Or should I write, even the most intellectually corrupt?

And that is the reason for my beef. Van Pelt, Browning, Longerich, Evans, have all subsequently published books on the trial, rehashing their paid neutral expert evidence. So their evidence was influenced by commercial considerations. It was not neutral after all, or am I missing something? If Longerich had titled his book: "Still no proof for Hitler's role in the Holocaust," he would have been on to a loser. Madison Avenue and its British counterparts would have looked the other way. (Under cross-examination, Van Pelt actually denied on oath that he intended to publish his expert evidence as a book. He has now done so).

This is the same Peter Longerich who admitted under cross examination that he had omitted all reference to the 1942 Schlegelberger memorandum ("the Führer has repeatedly stated that he wants the Solution of the Jewish Problem postponed until the war is over") from his history books.

The publisher's illiterate, ungrammatical, and misspelt blurb for the book puffs it as "a compelling account of how Hitler came to take the decision to kill the Jews," but then I see that this impressive quote is from Longerich's friend and fellow witness Prof. Richard ("Skunk") Evans, whom Lipstadt's gang paid a fat fee of at least £70,181 for giving his neutral evidence in the way he did.

These neutral expert witnesses all know which side their bread is buttered on. Thank god for Real History

David Irving

[Globus]

That seems to be the implication of the evidence provided.

I’m not a Longerich believer.

LOL!

You're not a believer in the plain evidence.

Irving the convicted falsifier of history is hardly credible when it comes to assessing real historians.

[calvin]

My comment.

That seems to be the implication of the evidence provided.

Globus’s response.

You're not a believer in the plain evidence
The strain of his abandonment by Milhouse is obviously causing Globus cognitive malfunction.

Irving the convicted falsifier of history is hardly credible when it comes to assessing real historians

Yeah that’s great Globus! Now can you tell us anything about the Schlegelberger memorandum?

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Calvin
That seems to be the implication of the evidence provided.

I’m not a Longerich believer.

[quote]
Originally Posted by Globus
You're not a believer in the plain evidence

The strain of his abandonment by Milhouse is obviously causing Globus cognitive malfunction.

Calvin resorts to a weak flame.


Originally Posted by Globus
Irving the convicted falsifier of history is hardly credible when it comes to assessing real historians

Yeah that’s great Globus! Now can you tell us anything about the Schlegelberger memorandum?

Why, can't you Calvin!

Go for it.

[delete]

The Poles were treated very badly, but yes, they were treated better than the Jews. Jews and Russian POWs invariably got the worst treatment of the camp system.

Norwegians and Danes were treated humanly by the Germans, because they behaved humanly against the Germans. Downed German pilots were rescued by the Norwegian civil population, even tough they were the enemy, sometimes with danger for life and limb.

I think the Germans dealth in kind, where the ones that treated the germans the better, got treated better and vice versa.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Norwegians and Danes were treated humanly by the Germans, because they behaved humanly against the Germans.


LMAO Utter nonsense. They were treated humanly by the Germans because they were seen as REAL PEOPLE by the Germans. Unless, I suppose, German racial theories are ALSO the product of Jewish conspiracy, and were not real either.


I think the Germans dealth in kind, where the ones that treated the germans the better, got treated better and vice versa.

Yeah, the Germans treated the Poles great when they shelled Warsaw. The Poles HAD IT COMING, right?

[cerberus]

David Irving
These neutral expert witnesses all know which side their bread is buttered on. Thank god for Real History
calvin - Mr. Irvings reply which you have quoted as a reply is really just a move away from Heydrich said at Wansee.
Quite naturally Irving is going to be a little pissed having lost his case so utterly and so completely - check out the verdict on oth case and appeal.

That seems to be the implication of the evidence provided.
calvin there really is no "seems" about it , nor is anything implied - it is what Heydrich was saying.

We have another soundbite from Mr. Irving "Real History" - reminds me of the advertising blurb for "Real Butter".
Its a big Ad. Hom. from David Irving , which does not change in te slightest what Wansee was about , nor does it change what Heydrich said - more importantly it does not change what actually happenedin the wake of the Wansee Conference.
"Suitable Treatment" - what did Heydrich mean by this ?

Tell me calvin - do you think that perhaps Mr. Irving has an axe to grind ?
Mr. Irving has a major chip on his shoulder , one of his own making - It would seem that he too is not a "believer".

I am a "believer" - I believe in both Heydrich's words and the subsequent actions of those who survived him - Eichmann , Himmler, Globocnick , the men who made it happen.

What did Heydrich mean ?
I have no doubt he meant that the Final Solution would be one settled by death - this is what "suitable treatment" meant - do you disagree ?

[calvin]

The holocaust is supposed to be the planned extermination of a race by industrial methods, principally gas chambers in this case. You can’t kill six million people by forcing them to build roads. The deliberate elimination of a couple of hundred thousand people by forced labour is more than a bit naughty but it’s just amateur stuff compared with the exploits of Uncle Joe or the big yellow Chairman.

[Globus]

The holocaust is supposed to be the planned extermination of a race by industrial methods,

No it isn't. Industrial methods were only a part of it.

principally gas chambers in this case.

No, gas chambers, including vans only constitute about half the total.

You can’t kill six million people by forcing them to build roads.

You're confused. Only a minority of the Jews were estimated to be fit for labor, as Goebbels memo stated. The majority, about 60% according to his estimate, were to be simply liquidated. A large portion of the remainder were to be "treated according", which meant by any of the means used.

You can't change the facts of history by deliberately mis-stating them.

[calvin]

You're confused. Only a minority of the Jews were estimated to be fit for labor, as Goebbels memo stated. The majority, about 60% according to his estimate, were to be simply liquidated. A large portion of the remainder were to be "treated according", which meant by any of the means used

Can you show me where it is stated that 60% of the Jewish population were to be liquidated? You are blatantly trying to give the impression that Goebbels made a statement to this effect.

“Treated accordingly” only means liquidated or “eliminated” to people who don’t understand English.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
You're confused. Only a minority of the Jews were estimated to be fit for labor, as Goebbels memo stated. The majority, about 60% according to his estimate, were to be simply liquidated. A large portion of the remainder were to be "treated according", which meant by any of the means used

Can you show me where it is stated that 60% of the Jewish population were to be liquidated?

I've posted it for you two or three times. Do some work on your own. Google Goebbels diary entry march 27, 1942.

You are blatantly trying to give the impression that Goebbels made a statement to this effect.

No kidding!

“Treated accordingly” only means liquidated or “eliminated” to people who don’t understand English.

Treated accordingly to prevent the seed of a revived people means only one thing. You continue to bury your head in the sand and mouth the mindless mantra.

[cerberus]

calvin
The holocaust is supposed to be the planned extermination of a race by industrial methods, principally gas chambers in this case. You can’t kill six million people by forcing them to build roads.

calvin -who said it was planned ?
The holocaust evolved more than it was planned - when the intention was decided on that the "Final Solution" would be one in which death was the arbitrator ,the methods of killing existed shooting was proving problematic -for a number of reasons.
Gassing - T4 had made use of it and "experts" with experience in this field existed and this is why Globocnick was sent them and why he requested more of them .
Heydrich might have , but perhaps not all at once.:whip:
You seem to forget calvin the Nazis even prior to Barbarossa had decided that if they took what they needed from Russia the result would be that those not directly employed or working for the Reich would starve - it cost them not a thought - this is the morality of the people you are discussing - this is something calvin which you have not fully grasped. ( or have you just not consider it).
Life meant very little to them - the people who they had previously killed in Poland or as part of T4 did not deserve life and the Jews of Europe and indigenous Russian populations were no different - one was a cancer which had to be excised and the other had no right to be there.

The deliberate elimination of a couple of hundred thousand people by forced labour is more than a bit naughty but it’s just amateur stuff compared with the exploits of Uncle Joe or the big yellow Chairman.
calvin a few hundred thousand is more than just a little naughty - it is genocide.
BTW had Hitler won in Russia and had a free hand you might find that his antics would have been the equal and more than the equal of either "Uncle Joe" or the "Big Yellow Chariman".
Hitler was killing and fighting a war when he decided to embark on the "Final Solution"- he was no amateur.

[calvin]

“In general one may conclude that 60% of them must probably be liquidated”

Goebbels

Goebbels speculates about liquidation here.


“Thank God, during the war we now have a whole series of possibilities which were barred to us in peacetime. We must exploit them. The ghettos which are becoming available in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews who are being pushed out of the Reich, and after a certain time the process is then to renew itself here”

Goebbels is describing the actual policy of resettlement here.

What’s that phrase you guys always use……oh yes, quote mining!

[Globus]

“In general one may conclude that 60% of them must probably be liquidated”

Goebbels


Goebbels speculates about liquidation here.

Nope. The entry reads: "The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor."

No speculation about liquidation. Only on the percentage breakout between those immediately liquidated and those to be used for forced labor.

“Thank God, during the war we now have a whole series of possibilities which were barred to us in peacetime. We must exploit them. The ghettos which are becoming available in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews who are being pushed out of the Reich, and after a certain time the process is then to renew itself here”

Here's what it actually says.

Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy which the Fuehrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner.* One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.

The ghettoes that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government now will be refilled with Jews thrown out of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time. There is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry's representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe - and that's only right.


Goebbels is describing the actual policy of resettlement here.

No he wasn't. He was describing extermination. The Gauleiter of Vienna was Globocnik who was in charge of Action Reinhardt. The method that does not attrack too much attention was the death camps he ran: Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, which were a much more private method of extermination than the massive, open air shootings carried out all over Russia since July of 1941. The Fuehrer prophesy Goebbels references is described below. The repeated emptying of the ghettos describes the transports to the death camps, which served as a way station in the transportation process.

Resettlement doesn't result in the death of the majority of those being resettled. It was a euphemism for the Final Solution, the extermination of Jews.

*[Hitler in a Reichstag speech on January 30, 1939, prophesied that the outbreak of another world war would mean the end of the Jews in Europe. He then said: "I want today once again to make a prophecy: In case the international Jewish financiers within and outside Europe succeed once more in hurling the peoples into a world war, the result will be, not the Bolshevization of the world and with it a victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."]

What’s that phrase you guys always use……oh yes, quote mining!

You really should learn the name of one of your only less than pathetic techniques!

[calvin]

Nope. The entry reads: "The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor."

You are obviously using the falsified translation promoted by affirmers in which the word “wohl” (probably) which comes before “liquidated” is omitted. Get back to me when you want to argue on the basis of untampered evidence.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
Nope. The entry reads: "The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor."


You are obviously using the falsified translation promoted by affirmers

And you're obviously out of arguments.

The translations are from Lochner's book published in 1948. There is no dispute about the translation.

in which the word “wohl” (probably) which comes before “liquidated” is omitted. Get back to me when you want to argue on the basis of untampered evidence.

Sorry, Irving lost this silly argument at his trial. First of all the word doesn't modify "liquidated". It means with great probabilty and it is rendered as "one can well conclude" or "one may conclude".....that 60%.......

You've yet to show a single piece of tampered evidence, despite all your braying.

[delete]

If people are calling for an interpretation of what people meant whan they said something, please quote the German sentence as well.

[Globus]

If people are calling for an interpretation of what people meant whan they said something, please quote the German sentence as well.

There is no issue of interpretation. This diary entry has been properly translated and been examined by scholars since 1948.

[delete]

There is no issue of interpretation. This diary entry has been properly translated and been examined by scholars since 1948.

Do you think that there is a one to one correspondence betwwen words in different lamguages?
A jew does not have to be a jew in Norwegian, he can also be somebody who acts jewish.

[cerberus]

delete
If people are calling for an interpretation of what people meant whan they said something, please quote the German sentence as well.

Seems that again we are back in that end game of "is this word being correctly translated".
Lets be honest here - translation is not rocket science to those who speak the language - this one hads been done to death and the case has been lost - Globus has already shown this via the same games Irving played out in his fiasco .

If this is the case its game over and defeat confirmed , there really is nothing more to be said.

[delete]

Seems that again we are back in that end game of "is this word being correctly translated".
Lets be honest here - translation is not rocket science to those who speak the language - this one hads been done to death and the case has been lost - Globus has already shown this via the same games Irving played out in his fiasco .

If this is the case its game over and defeat confirmed , there really is nothing more to be said.

Of course it is going to be played all over. It is imposible to know which meaning Heydrich, Hitler of Himmler used the words, and since they are dead, it is imposible to ask them.

Do you agree that one could go back to litterature of the day, and find out strong indications how the words were used at the time? Do you agree that this is fairly simple?

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
There is no issue of interpretation. This diary entry has been properly translated and been examined by scholars since 1948.

Do you think that there is a one to one correspondence betwwen words in different lamguages?

What does that comment have to do with anything. Do you think scholars have been unable to translate a simple German sentence for 60 years!

A jew does not have to be a jew in Norwegian, he can also be somebody who acts jewish.

One of the more hilarious non sequiturs I've seen in a while.

Imagine all those German historians, and journalists, and intellectuals missing the obvious mistranslation of this important document for all those years!

This is the kind of know-nothingness, this inevitable attack on our ability to know anything, that constitutes one of the biggest threats from Holocaust denial and its methods.

[cerberus]

delete
Of course it is going to be played all over. It is imposible to know which meaning Heydrich, Hitler of Himmler used the words, and since they are dead, it is imposible to ask them.

Do you agree that one could go back to litterature of the day, and find out strong indications how the words were used at the time? Do you agree that this is fairly simple?

It is very possible to know - events proved this. Apart from which there is absolutely no other way that Heydrich's words could be misrepresented.

What other way would you read the Wansee reocrd if you went back ?
Yes you could find strong indications - these have been identified.

[delete]

What other way would you read the Wansee reocrd if you went back ?

We don't know if it is a partial falsification or not, and we do not know thw meaning of the words, as so few documents are found.

What I find strange is that all the German is supposed to understand and take the correct interpretation of words like sonderbehandlung, Liquidierung, ausrotten and so on.

If Hitler, Heydrich or Himmler really wanted the jews dead, they would sign orders clear orders that are not to be misunderstood, and none can be found.


Yes you could find strong indications - these have been identified.
My ponit is that this is one of the thing that makes me smell rotten fish. It is dead easy to prove the correct meaning and use of German words at the time, as you could only point to examples how the Germans using the word at the time, in the meaning the hoaxers put in it, and not the meaning revisionist put in it.

[cerberus]

delete
We don't know if it is a partial falsification or not, and we do not know thw meaning of the words, as so few documents are found.
And perhaps it was a "doppelganger" for Heydrich who attened the meeting ?
delete - this is where the wheels fall of the revisionist rational and their credibility as far as objectivity goes down the plug hole.
Why "we don't know" really means - "we need an answer so let's invent one quickly".
There is no doubt - Heydrich said what he said - the intention is clear and the purpose and direction of policy is without question one of killing all the Jews who are within the German sphere of influence.

This is the realm of the conspiracy theory , the floating of ideas motivated by the desire to avoid the truth.
The meaning of the words - does it not strike you as funny that it is only the revisionists who have this problem, or rather that it they who needthe is problem ?
What you describe is an escape clause which has no basis in fact, this is why historians don't take the revisionists seriously.
Is this "Real History" ??

[delete]

delete

And perhaps it was a "doppelganger" for Heydrich who attened the meeting ?
...
There is no doubt - Heydrich said what he said - the intention is clear and the purpose and direction of policy is without question one of killing all the Jews who are within the German sphere of influence.


You did not get my point.

If 6 miil people dies, I want to se an investigation of comparable size. You have basically nothing to prove it, when there should have been overwhelming evidence as for your beloved T4.

That you are pushing Wannsee as proof, just proves you have next to nothing, as it could have been falsified and the words could have been mistranslated.

You claim the the german bureaucracy killed 6 mill people, and left no trace of their orders. I don't believe that, as there is always a paper trail and the language is almost always clear, when they want people to understand it. .

[Globus]

You did not get my point.

If 6 miil people dies, I want to se an investigation of comparable size. You have basically nothing to prove it, when there should have been overwhelming evidence as for your beloved T4.

This is a ridiculous statement. That is literally tons of evidence proving this event and no one has ever said the Wannsee Protocol proves it.

[eggheadbanga]

This is a ridiculous statement. That is literally tons of evidence proving this event and no one has ever said the Wannsee Protocol proves it.

I think it's time for my little list of investigations again.

Intelligence Investigations and Knowledge (to 1945)
ICRC, Switzerland
Swedish Foreign Office
British Foreign Office
British Army D.M.I., CSDIC
British GCHQ, Bletchley Park
US State Department
US Treasury Department, War Refugee Board
US OSS
Polish Delegatura in occupied Poland
Polish government-in-exile
USSR, NKVD, SMERSh, Central Partisan Movement, RKKA, judge advocate

Criminal Investigations (from 1943 onwards)
Soviet Extraordinary Commission (1943-1950)
Polish Main Commission (1945-present) and IPN
UNWCC as coordinating body for war crimes investigations
- IMT (Four Power)
- NMT (US)
- British WCIU and related bodies, JAG courts
- US Dachau tribunals
- Czechoslovak, Yugoslav, French, Danish, Belgian, Dutch tribunals
1945-1948 wave of trials across Europe dealing with various aspects

West Germany:
Zentralstelle für Landesjustizverwaltungen, Ludwigsburg (1958-)
Israel: Attorney-General (Eichmann and Demjanjuk trials)
Office of Special Investigations, US (1978-)
War Crimes Investigations Unit, Scotland Yard, UK (1990s)
Australian War Crimes Investigation Unit (1990s)

Total, at least 3000 trials

Media Reporting
New York Times, Times, countless other newspapers and magazines

Missing Persons
Dutch Red Cross
ITS Arolsen, branch of ICRC
Census agencies of virtually all European countries, correlated with census agencies of countries outside Europe

Historical Investigations
USA: YIVO, New York (1945-)
France: CDJC, Paris (1945-)
Poland: Jewish Historical Institute, Warsaw (1951-)
Poland: Auschwitz State Museum (1950s-)
Israel: Yad Vashem (1950s-)
West Germany: Institut für Zeitgeschichte (1953-)
Netherlands: RIOD/NIOD
Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic: ITI

100s of universities and institutes of varying orientations and nationalities

Archiving of Documents
Berlin Document Center, under US control to 1990s
NARA – microfilmed by the American Historical Association.
Bundesarchiv Koblenz
Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv Freiburg
CDJC, Paris
YIVO, New York
RIOD, Amsterdam
Osobyi Arkhiv, Moscow, kept ‘secret’
GARF, Moscow, Trophy Documents, kept ‘secret’
Regional archives, Russia
NARB, Minsk and regional archives in Belarus
TsADAVOV, Kyiv and regional archives in Ukraine including Lviv
AGK, Warsaw
WAP, Katowice
Other National and regional archives, Poland
Military-Historical Archive, Prague

microfilm copies collections:
Yad Vashem, Jerusalem
USHMM, Washington, DC
Hoover Collection
Library of Congress
Imperial War Museum, London

Memoirs, Testimonies and Memorial Books
investigative surveys of Jews especially in DP camps and among returnees
yizkor books – more than 1,000 published
Yad Vashem’s pages of testimony
1,000 memoirs written of Auschwitz, 3,000 testimonies gathered by Museum

[calvin]

Milhouse is trying the “kitchen sink” gambit. I don’t know who he’s throwing it at since he has everyone who disagrees with him on ignore.

[Globus]

Milhouse is trying the “kitchen sink” gambit. I don’t know who he’s throwing it at since he has everyone who disagrees with him on ignore.

Maybe he hopes you'll learn enough to deserve being read.

[cerberus]

delete
You did not get my point.

If 6 miil people dies, I want to se an investigation of comparable size. You have basically nothing to prove it, when there should have been overwhelming evidence as for your beloved T4.
Oh I got your point Ok :)
Problem is your point was pointless.:deadhorse:

T4 - I keep coming back to it because one revisionist I had an exchange with demanded an asnwer to the question of how could a cultured people like the Germans possibly enact something like the Holocaust.
What you fail to see delete is that T4 did not exist in isolation , it led directly to the holocaust it was part of the same continuum.
T4 is not beloved to me , it disgusts me - just to clear up any misconceptions that you may be entertaining.
To say that there is nothing to prove the holocaust is patently ridiculous , you may answer and say it was "I" to whom you referred, but this would be but word play.
The men who refined T4 went to Lublin to work for Odilo Globocnick - they didn't go there to do anything but give the beneft of their experience gained via T4, and don't fool yourself - these would not be the first jews or concentration camp people they killed.
Wansee is as far as proof goes the tip of the iceberg - to say that no paper trail exists is a way of fooling oyuself - and remember delete , lots of papers were destroyed before the end of the war , what exists today is not the complete record.

[eggheadbanga]

Originally Posted by calvin
Milhouse is trying the “kitchen sink” gambit.

Translation: denier brain meltdown, cannot cope with more than one piece of information at a time.

I don’t know who he’s throwing it at since he has everyone who disagrees with him on ignore.

Burrhus and Shirt aren't on ignore. Yet.

Originally Posted by Globus
Maybe he hopes you'll learn enough to deserve being read.

Indeed.

[delete]

Milhouse is trying the “kitchen sink” gambit. I don’t know who he’s throwing it at since he has everyone who disagrees with him on ignore.

I think it is funny how the academic priesthood of holocaustianity have put us all on ignore, but posts replies in case some of the believers should start to doubt. :)

Notice how the Holocaustians have the same need to post whole lists of things like the Creationists do. :)

I do not believe in virgin birth, and I do not believe in the holocaust, and it is the same mental shutdown that occurs in both variants, when presented with oposing evidence.

In stead of looking at an oposing arguments as something you should try hard to understand, they look for weak points and attack, attack and attack.
Look at how they are even incapable to say that Diesel gassings is improbable.

[delete]

Burrhus and Shirt aren't on ignore. Yet.


To Burrhus and Bamse Skjorta Kriger: Now you guys better watch out. We don't want Milhouse to end up with nobody to talk with, now would we? :)

[Globus]

To Burrhus and Bamse Skjorta Kriger: Now you guys better watch out. We don't want Milhouse to end up with nobody to talk with, now would we? :)

Oh, there's always Burrhus' "gallery" he made so much of a short time ago!

[eggheadbanga]

I think it is funny how the academic priesthood of holocaustianity have put us all on ignore, but posts replies in case some of the believers should start to doubt.

I'll break the Ignore to explain to you why I've given up listening to your drivel, delete. It's because you have a small handful of mantras, most of all this 'holocaustianity' thing, and that's about it. You're... dull. Sorry.

Notice how the Holocaustians have the same need to post whole lists of things like the Creationists do.

Only when morons come along and start pontificating about how something should have been massively investigated, when that is precisely what has happened for the past sixty plus years.

Since you're evidently unaware of the precise extent of these investigations, and equally evidently unwilling to learn anything about them, even to play Hitler's willing defense lawyer more effectively, this only justifies me putting you on Ignore, dullboy.

I do not believe in virgin birth, and I do not believe in the holocaust, and it is the same mental shutdown that occurs in both variants, when presented with oposing evidence.

In stead of looking at an oposing arguments as something you should try hard to understand, they look for weak points and attack, attack and attack.

The very fact that you think in terms of 'believing' in a historical event is why you would have been a prime T4 candidate. I'm sure cerberus has explained T4 to you often enough. :)

Look at how they are even incapable to say that Diesel gassings is improbable

Delete must assume that everyone here has a collective goldfish memory, since the yawnsome diesel issue was discussed to death on a thread about a month ago. That's another reason why you're boring and belong on Ignore, by the way.

:deadhorse:

[eggheadbanga]

Oh, there's always Burrhus' "gallery" he made so much of a short time ago!

It's more fun reading the threads in the Lounge, guys.

[calvin]

Putting people on ignore and then responding to them through a third party is laughable Milhouse.

[Globus]

Putting people on ignore and then responding to them through a third party is laughable Milhouse.

And yet you never comment on it when it occurs from your.....side.

[calvin]

No, because none of them have responded to me through a third party and I don't put people on ignore like a loser and then decide to come out of "retirement" after a a short period of thumb sucking.

[Globus]

No, because none of them have responded to me through a third party.

Another irrelevancy. They have responded in this fashion to others. A typical denier double standard.

[calvin]

Blah, blah, blah, random one liner just to have the satisfaction of making the last post. Oh sorry Globus? You were just about to post that weren't you?

[Globus]

Blah, blah, blah, random one liner just to have the satisfaction of making the last post.

To have the satisfaction of pointing your that your fantasies do not reflect reality.

[calvin]

The satisfaction of making the last post is, as always, your substitute for making the best argument.

[Globus]

The satisfaction of making the last post is, as always, your substitute for making the best argument.

I always make the best argument, poor dear boy, both because I have the evidence on my side, and because I'm much better at it than you.

[delete]

I'll break the Ignore to explain to you why I've given up listening to your drivel, delete. It's because you have a small handful of mantras, most of all this 'holocaustianity' thing, and that's about it. You're... dull. Sorry.

I think it is funny how the academic priesthood of holocaustianity have put us all on ignore, but posts replies in case some of the believers should start to doubt. :)

You never give an inch, just like Petr. You came here telling people that you don't work on the Holocaust full time, and then you tell us that you are going with Vad Yashim to put up memorials for Jews.


Only when morons come along and start pontificating about how something should have been massively investigated, when that is precisely what has happened for the past sixty plus years.

Since you're evidently unaware of the precise extent of these investigations, and equally evidently unwilling to learn anything about them, even to play Hitler's willing defense lawyer more effectively, this only justifies me putting you on Ignore, dullboy.

So do you think the Churchs investigations of the Bible was any good before the German scepticists came along?
The truth is that there is little real investigations done. There should have been copies of orders given of mass killing of jews through the Enigma project, but it is not there for us to see.


The very fact that you think in terms of 'believing' in a historical event is why you would have been a prime T4 candidate. I'm sure cerberus has explained T4 to you often enough. :)

Yes, I am perfectly aware that the Church have burnt heretics on the stake, and that people like you get warm inside thinking about it.


Delete must assume that everyone here has a collective goldfish memory, since the yawnsome diesel issue was discussed to death on a thread about a month ago. That's another reason why you're boring and belong on Ignore, by the way.

The funny part about the Diesel issue is that it is destroyes Treblinka, but you guys just pretends it doesn't matter, just like religious people who are told that the Bible was written by men.

You don't want a rational discussion because you don't want people to start thinking for themselves. You spit out references to authorities without asking yourself if is the story you are telling us is imposible in the real word. The holocaust is like virgine birth, something imposible for the non-believer, but acceptable for the faitfull.

[Globus]

The funny part about the Diesel issue is that it is destroyes Treblinka, but you guys just pretends it doesn't matter, just like religious people who are told that the Bible was written by men.

The idiotic belief that the possible use of diesel engines at Treblinka changes the conclusion based on all the evidence as to what happened there is the religion delete. It's called Holocaust denial.

You don't want a rational discussion because you don't want people to start thinking for themselves.

When have you ever conducted a rational discussion? When have you demonstrated the slightest knowledge of the subject or the evidence for it?

You spit out references to authorities without asking yourself if is the story you are telling us is imposible in the real word.

More know-nothingness. These "authorities" are historians who have done the work, and what is posted is the evidence on which they base their decisions. There is nothing real world about the denial, in near total ignorance, of a proven historical event.

That's why deniers are always left with nothing else to say but things like...

The holocaust is like virgine birth, something imposible for the non-believer, but acceptable for the faitfull.

You do denial proud!

[delete]

The idiotic belief that the possible use of diesel engines at Treblinka changes the conclusion based on all the evidence as to what happened there is the religion delete. It's called Holocaust denial.

The point is that your guys lied. The diesel exhaust killing just goes down in a long line of lies that revisionist scholars have removed. The gasschamders in Auschwitz is a recreation, No diesel gassing in Treblinka, and no gass chambers in the KZ-camps situated in the west.

The revisionst have more or less destroyed the gass chamber myth, and started to push exterminations by the Sonderkommandos in the millions in stead.
I think this will be the new holocaust in the years to come.


When have you ever conducted a rational discussion? When have you demonstrated the slightest knowledge of the subject or the evidence for it?

I know chemistry, so I know that Germar Rudolf's report is valid. I know enough of engines that I know that Diesel gassings is imposible. I know how bureaucracies work, and I know that there will always be a paper trial, and not the cherry picked ones we are presented with today.
And last. I know about what happened in Norway, and that Folke Bernadotte negociated with Himmler for the releasment of the Norwegian and Danish jews.

I have tried to start discussions of these themes, but as my oponents is more interested in ad hominems, so rationality seldoms comes into play.


More know-nothingness. These "authorities" are historians who have done the work, and what is posted is the evidence on which they base their decisions. There is nothing real world about the denial, in near total ignorance, of a proven historical event.

Did revisionst destroy your favorite diesel exhaust gassing myth, or not?

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
The idiotic belief that the possible use of diesel engines at Treblinka changes the conclusion based on all the evidence as to what happened there is the religion delete. It's called Holocaust denial.

The point is that your guys lied.

Rubbish.

The diesel exhaust killing just goes down in a long line of lies that revisionist scholars have removed.

There are no denier scholars, and there is no reason to believe anyone lied.

The gasschamders in Auschwitz is a recreation,

Unintelligible.

No diesel gassing in Treblinka, and no gass chambers in the KZ-camps situated in the west.

We don't whether the internal combustion engine used to kill at Treblinka was gas or diesel. There were gas chambers in some German camps.

The revisionst have more or less destroyed the gass chamber myth,

The deniers have done nothing but lie and make fools of themselves, and those who know so little of the evidence that they are fooled by them.

and started to push exterminations by the Sonderkommandos in the millions in stead.

You mean the Einsatzagruppen, which have always been known to have shot well over 1 million. The only thing being pushed about them is the but another denier gambit.


Originally Posted by Globus
When have you ever conducted a rational discussion? When have you demonstrated the slightest knowledge of the subject or the evidence for it?

I know chemistry, so I know that Germar Rudolf's report is valid.

You don't know anything about chemistry, and Rudolf's report is scientific bunk.

I know enough of engines that I know that Diesel gassings is imposible.


You know what you read at poor Fritz Berg's website.

And what you've just demonstrated is that you know nothing about the evidence and the history, but you're beginning to learn some of the denier mantras.


Originally Posted by Globus
More know-nothingness. These "authorities" are historians who have done the work, and what is posted is the evidence on which they base their decisions. There is nothing real world about the denial, in near total ignorance, of a proven historical event.

Did revisionst destroy your favorite diesel exhaust gassing myth, or not?

No.

[delete]

The deniers have done nothing but lie and make fools of themselves, and those who know so little of the evidence that they are fooled by them.

Germar Rudolf is in jail because he poved that no gassings could have taken place in the supposed gass chamber. Once that is proven, everything the witnesses said becomes irrelevant.


You mean the Einsatzagruppen, which have always been known to have shot well over 1 million. The only thing being pushed about them is the but another denier gambit.

Yes, I meant the Einsatzgruppen, and I know that it has always been 'known' that they killed more than 1 mill, but as the gasschambers is falling apart, they need to make more Einsatzgruppen victimes. I believe Milhouse is going over there to make some more of them?


You don't know anything about chemistry, and Rudolf's report is scientific bunk.

Anybody can say something is scientific bunk, but can you explain how it is bunk. Don't mention Greens reply, because he has not answered in 6 years on simple mistakes he did.


You know what you read at poor Fritz Berg's website.

Yes, and I can understand it. It looks to me that you either can't or won't.


And what you've just demonstrated is that you know nothing about the evidence and the history, but you're beginning to learn some of the denier mantras.

You don't need to know the whole bible and various subjects in theology to refute the bible. Simple knowledge of biology will do. Same goes for the Holocaust, where knowledge of chemistry can debunk the gass chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
The deniers have done nothing but lie and make fools of themselves, and those who know so little of the evidence that they are fooled by them.

Germar Rudolf is in jail because he poved that no gassings could have taken place in the supposed gass chamber.

He proved nothing, except that he is a liar. And you know it, which is why you make laughable claims to expertise in chemistry but never discuss his report.


Originally Posted by Globus
You mean the Einsatzagruppen, which have always been known to have shot well over 1 million. The only thing being pushed about them is the but another denier gambit.

Yes, I meant the Einsatzgruppen, and I know that it has always been 'known' that they killed more than 1 mill, but as the gasschambers is falling apart, they need to make more Einsatzgruppen victimes.

That's the same falsehood I've already told you about. It is meaningless rhetoric.


Originally Posted by Globus
You don't know anything about chemistry, and Rudolf's report is scientific bunk.

Anybody can say something is scientific bunk, but can you explain how it is bunk.

I have repeatedly, and neither you nor anyone other denier here has opened his mouth in rebuttal. For good reason.


Originally Posted by Globus
You know what you read at poor Fritz Berg's website.

Yes, and I can understand it.

Yeah, that's why you don't dare make the case.


Originally Posted by Globus
And what you've just demonstrated is that you know nothing about the evidence and the history, but you're beginning to learn some of the denier mantras.

You don't need to know the whole bible and various subjects in theology to refute the bible.

But the Bible isn't history, delete, although your denial is more like religion.

Simple knowledge of biology will do. Same goes for the Holocaust, where knowledge of chemistry can debunk the gass chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka.

Then why can't you make a case, hmmmm!

Answer, even Rudolf admits chemistry can do no such thing, and you don't have the first clue about the chemical issues being discussed.

[delete]

He proved nothing, except that he is a liar. And you know it, which is why you make laughable claims to expertise in chemistry but never discuss his report.

That's the same falsehood I've already told you about. It is meaningless rhetoric.

I have repeatedly, and neither you nor anyone other denier here has opened his mouth in rebuttal. For good reason.

Yeah, that's why you don't dare make the case.

But the Bible isn't history, delete, although your denial is more like religion.

Then why can't you make a case, hmmmm!

Answer, even Rudolf admits chemistry can do no such thing, and you don't have the first clue about the chemical issues being discussed.

Germar Rudolf's report contains a lot of chemistry. What is false?

From wikipedia.
Chemical test for cyanide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_test_for_cyanide)

The formation of Prussian blue can be used as a test for inorganic cyanide, for instance in the sodium fusion test.

Iron(II) sulfate is added to a solution suspected of containing cyanide, such as the filtrate from the sodium fusion test. The reslting mixture is heated for a few minutes, cooled, and acidified with mineral acid.

The formation of Prussian blue is a positive result for cyanide.

The Iron ions in red bricks, is what makes them red. You therefor have everything you need for PB to form in the gasschamers, but none is found.

[Globus]

Germar Rudolf's report contains a lot of chemistry. What is false?

His false claims about Prussian Blue.
From wikipedia.


The Iron ions in red bricks, is what makes them red. You therefor have everything you need for PB to form in the gasschamers, but none is found.

This is not from wikipedia, this is denier nonsense.

The presence of irons is not all that is needed to form Prussian Blue.

A perfect example of denier ignorance of chemistry.

[delete]

This is not from wikipedia, this is denier nonsense.

Is red bricks red because of iron oxides?


The presence of irons is not all that is needed to form Prussian Blue.

No, you need moisture as well. Not a problem in Auschwitz, where 2000 people are crammed into a room, making it inevitable that condenced water will form on the walls.

Your idiot Green, said that they washed the chambers after each gassing, making the walls even more soaked in moisture.

[Globus]

Is red bricks red because of iron oxides?

The mere presence of iron is insufficient.

No, you need moisture as well.

Again, incorrect.

Your idiot Green, said that they washed the chambers after each gassing, making the walls even more soaked in moisture.

Which is irrelevant to your ignorance of the factors involved.

Dr. Green holds a Ph'd in physical chemistry from Stanford and has done specialized work on HCN, both in relation to the Holocaust and in other contexts.

His submission of a report rebutting a submission by Rudolf during David Irving's appeal of his lost libel trial caused Irving to withdraw the Rudolf contribution.

You can guess why!

[calvin]

His submission of a report rebutting a submission by Rudolf during David Irving's appeal of his lost libel trial caused Irving to withdraw the Rudolf contribution

Irving withdrew Rudolfs report because he was conducting his own prosecution and lacked the in depth knowledge of chemistry necessary to cross-examine Green.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
His submission of a report rebutting a submission by Rudolf during David Irving's appeal of his lost libel trial caused Irving to withdraw the Rudolf contribution.

[quote]Irving withdrew Rudolfs report because he was conducting his own prosecution and lacked the in depth knowledge of chemistry necessary to cross-examine Green.

Bullshit.

Rudolf could have helped him prepare a cross. He was prepared to go with Rudolf's pseudo-science, which he had submitted, until a rebuttal appeared.

[delete]

The mere presence of iron is insufficient.

Again, incorrect.

Which is irrelevant to your ignorance of the factors involved.

Dr. Green holds a Ph'd in physical chemistry from Stanford and has done specialized work on HCN, both in relation to the Holocaust and in other contexts.

He is plainly wrong.

His submission of a report rebutting a submission by Rudolf during David Irving's appeal of his lost libel trial caused Irving to withdraw the Rudolf contribution.

You can guess why!

No real argumentation, means it is back on ignore with you. :)

[Globus]

No real argumentation, means it is back on ignore with you.

You mean you're getting too close to having to actually say something which would reveal you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[Kriger]

Zionist tactics as described by Jack Bernstein, American Zionist:

" If the information starts reaching too many people, you ridicule the information, and the person giving the information".

[Globus]

Zionist tactics as described by Jack Bernstein, American Zionist:

Zionism has nothing to do with it, although it provides a nice cover for antisemites who are squeamish about saying Jews.

[calvin]

Bernstein is an anti-semite then? I think the clue is in the stein part of his surname Globus.

[Globus]

Bernstein is an anti-semite then? I think the clue is in the stein part of his surname Globus.

I wasn't referring Bernstein, Calvin!

[calvin]

So Jews can question the significance of the "holocaust" Globus, it only becomes racist when a Gentile does the same, talking of which have you managed to come up with all of these anti-semitic remarks I'm supposed to have made yet?

[Globus]

So Jews can question the significance of the "holocaust" Globus,

He wasn't questioning the significance of the Holocaust.

it only becomes racist when a Gentile does the same,

No, it becomes antisemitic when it is.

talking of which have you managed to come up with all of these anti-semitic remarks I'm supposed to have made yet?

Still confused about the difference between Jews being overrepresented in the porn industry and dominating it?