The Holocaust

[Fade the Butcher]

Did it happen?

[Ambrosio Spinola]

What is the Holocaust to begin with? A word?

[daisy]

yes i do believe it happened and i do believe the jews that were murdered were albinos and yes they probally did try to kill all u.s. albinos

[Fade the Butcher]

It didn't become known as 'The Holocaust' until the late 60s/early 70s.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Why this institutalization during these years? How was it known before? What changed?

[Fade the Butcher]

Why this institutalization during these years? How was it known before? What changed?It was downplayed for years after WW2 because West Germany was an ally in the Cold War. The last thing America wanted in the early years of the Cold War was a reunified Germany outside of NATO. This changed after the Six Day War in 1967 in which Israel seized the Sinai, West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. It then became useful to exaggerate Jewish suffering in WW2 in order to justify the Jewish occupation of Arab land. It was about this time when Jews began to come forward to 'testify' about their suppressed 'memories' of The Holocaust. It was during the 1970s and 1980s that the flood of 'Holocaust' literature and made for television movies started being released. Afterwards, I think Holocaustanity took on a life of its own and became something of a pseudoreligion. Notice how criticism of the official dogma is not just frowned upon but treated and prosecuted as blasphemy. Virtually nothing was written about 'The Holocaust' from 1945 until 1965, though. Check it out.

[Atlas]

It is scientifically impossible to have gassed 6million jews due to the fact the chamber would have to be left for 20 hours for the gas to disperse. ZYklon-B Was used to get rid of lice... the so called witnessess claim that german soldiers would walk in smoken ciggerettes and dragged bodys out if this was the case they would also be contaminated and would die. the number was originally 9million but they lowerd it after it became clear that a number of jews were registerd dead yet were still alive. the reason for this is they only had approx 8mnths to register that they were alive. it was also proved that a memo was sent to all camps to cut down the number of deaths . most died through tb etc but due to the allie attacks the medical equipment did not get through. no one can deny many died but mainly due to malnutrician or lack of medical supplys. so like the anna franks diarys its a jewish conspiracy to allow them to gain control of palestine and the worlds banks thus maken us infidels under there control.

[Ixtab]

ZYklon-BAll the revisionist arguments as touching upon Zyklon B are faulty, as I proved in two or three debates I had on the subject in previous incarnations of the Phora (the first one was with Wehr, if anyone remembers it). There are so many better arguments against the Holocaust than this particular one. Don't use it.

[Cyber Hostility]

I don't really know.

Both of my grandfathers fought in ww2, I had one in the pacific and the other was in Europe. The one in Europe said he never saw anything, no concentration camps and no burnt juden. He would often make smart ass comments about possibly fighting on the wrong side when he saw the insanity that came to post 1960s America, but he did believe that the "Holocaust" did happen. He heard that a friend of a friend had actually seen one of the camps...but you know how that goes.

I always thought it was false because out of all the WW2 vet I've ever had the pleasure of meeting, none of them saw any camps unless they were in Japan.

Until recently...I guess someone at work had a grandfather pass on...so some of their family had to go through a bunch of old stuff of his. When they did, they said that they found photos that he had of one of the camps, I guess there supposedly were stacks of bodies, and the reason I say that is because I don't know anyone who's actually seen the pictures, but I heard the guy who talked to them say that it was worth money. And we all know - 'Holocaust' = $$$. ...so one should assume that there is some dead bodies in these photos. Again, I don't know how many...and the shit's in Ohio, so I may never know...but that's the story.

But even if there is a few bodies...even if it's hundreds of bodies...

Do the photos distinguish between the victims? Do they pic through them and separate the Poles from the Jews? Or the Americans from the Russians? Are the bodies all so decomposed that one can no longer tell by just looking at them, which is usually the case? Am I just taking some asshole's word that "These are ALL Jews"?

I find it highly unlikely that only Jews are in those photographs. I also doubt the 6 million figure, I think it's probably much smaller.

I also find it interesting that they get a snazzy title for this genocide that they suffered, while the Russians get a brief mention and a derby tip for almost four times the losses.

[Jimbo Gomez]

I manage to live my life just fine without thinking, let alone obsessing, about this particular historical dispute.

[Banat]

It is scientifically impossible to have gassed 6million jews due to the fact the chamber would have to be left for 20 hours for the gas to disperse...

BTW, what is the number that opponents of holocaust theory offer?

And it wouldn't be too hard to compare the numbers of world's Jews before and after WWII, would it? Has anyone yet made and published such research?

[Lord_Lugdreg]

If by holocaust one is speaking of the jewish version of 6 million dead jews murdered with homocidial gas chambers, then no that did not happen.

My belief is that only 300,000 jews in total died during the war and none were murdered. This also happens to be the figure that Zundel found from the Red Cross.

Ernst Zundel's Holocaust Trials

Zundel was a German Canadian who was put on trial in Canada for questioning the holocaust. He forced the Red Cross to produce their WW2 records, they showed approx. 280,000 total dead for all the camps.

Link (http://judicial-inc.biz/Auschwitz.htm)

[Atlas]

BTW, what is the number that opponents of holocaust theory offer?

And it wouldn't be too hard to compare the numbers of world's Jews before and after WWII, would it? Has anyone yet made and published such research?


World Almanac, 1940, pg. 129: World Jewish Population- 15,319,359

World Almanac, 1949, pg. 289: World Jewish Population- 15,713,638

World Almanac, 1996, pg. 646: World Jewish Population- 14,117,000

---

National Council of Churches 1930 - 15,600,000

American Jewish Committee Bureau of the Synagogue Council, 1939 - 15,600,000

World Almanac USA 1946 - 15,690,000

Statistical Handbook of Council of Churches USA 1951 - 15,300,000



So, where did the "six million" come from, exactly? Where did they go? According to the World Almanac their population grew by about 400,000 from 1940-1946. If "six million" Jews were killed, it would have been cut from 15,000,000 to 9,000,000.

[Ahknaton]

And it wouldn't be too hard to compare the numbers of world's Jews before and after WWII, would it? Has anyone yet made and published such research?This is what the 6 million figure is based on.

The orthodox figures are:

5.7 million Jews killed

# The Anglo-American committee who studied the issue estimated the number of Jewish victims at 5.7 million. This was based on population statistics. Here is the exact breakdown, country by country:

Germany 195,000
Austria 53,000
Czechoslovakia 255,000
Denmark 1,500
France 140,000
Belgium 57,000
Luxemburg 3,000
Norway 1,000
Holland 120,000
Italy 20,000
Yugoslavia 64,000
Greece 64,000
Bulgaria 5,000
Rumania 530,000
Hungary 200,000
Poland 3,271,000
USSR 1,050,000
Less dispersed refugees (308,000)
Total number of Jews killed 5,721,500

(This estimate was arrived at using population statistics, and not by adding the number of casualties at each camp. These are also available -- for instance, a separate file with the ruling of a German court regarding the number of victims in Treblinka is available. The SS kept rather accurate records, and many of the documents survived, reinforced by eyewitness accounts).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar01.html

3 million in the camps + 3 million unaccounted for, presumed murdered

In reality, more than 3,000,000 died in the camps (the rest behind the Eastern front and in the ghettos). The two worst camps were Auschwitz (about 1.3 million victims, 1.1 million of them Jews) and Treblinka (about 800,000 victims, nearly all Jews but also about 3,000 Gypsies).
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar36.html

(Nikzor.org is an anti-revisionist site).

[Cyber Hostility]

Ernst Zundel's Holocaust Trials

Zundel was a German Canadian who was put on trial in Canada for questioning the holocaust. He forced the Red Cross to produce their WW2 records, they showed approx. 280,000 total dead for all the camps.

http://judicial-inc.biz/pics/paage_1.jpg

http://judicial-inc.biz/pics/paarrge_2.jpg

Why are the only dates I see ranging from 1978 to 1984? Is that just when they when they released this information?

[Petr]

World Almanac, 1940, pg. 129: World Jewish Population- 15,319,359

World Almanac, 1949, pg. 289: World Jewish Population- 15,713,638

World Almanac, 1996, pg. 646: World Jewish Population- 14,117,000
I dont think find those World Almanac numbers are very credible. Where did you got them?


Several millions of Jews who used to live in Eastern Europe were no longer there after the WW II and not all them were able to move to Israel or USA, and I consider this to be the most convincing proof that something nasty happened to a very great number of Jews.

Even David Irving has publically acknowledged this point:

Casey:

What is your estimate of the number of Jews who died at the hands of Hitler's regime in the war years? What number - and I don't like using this word - what number would you concede were killed in concentration camps?

Irving:

I think, like any scientist, I'd have to give you a range of figures and I'd have to say a minimum of one million, which is a monstrous crime, and a maximum of about four million, depending on what you mean by killed. If putting people into a concentration camps where they die of barbarity and typhus and epidemics is killing then I would say the four million figure because, undoubtedly, huge numbers did die in the camps in the conditions that were very evident at the end of the war.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/australia/2gb-transcript-0795.html


In addition, I haven't got the slightest problem in believing in the possibly murderous intentions of the Nazi regime. It would make sense that Hitler wouldn't start a full annihilation program until USA had joined the war, after which he did no longer have to care about offending its public opinion.


In Poland alone, the number of Jews sank from about 3,3 million in 1939 to about 250,000 in 1946 (and the latter figure includes the returnees from USSR). Besides, the number of Polish Jews could have been even considerably greater since those 3,3 million included only official, religious Jews whereas Nazis counted Jews by their race. In mid-December 1941 Hans Frank was still talking about the presence of 2,5-3,5 million Jews in the General Government alone.


Personally, I consider this online book to be the most impressive defence of the "orthodox" Holocaust theory (which I do not subscribe to) I have yet encountered, for it actually tries to deal with revisionist arguments instead of just haughtily scoffing at them:

Holocaust Denial

Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies

by John C. Zimmerman

http://www.mossadist.by.ru/


I detest Jewish influence very much, but I shall not rely on lies when campaigning against them (or any other people), and I sincerely believe that today's holocaust revisionism is filled with deceptive half-truths.


Petr

[Ace Rimmer]

Did it happen?

Yes and I agree with Petr here.

[Petr]

I think Zimmerman makes a pretty clever observation concerning the value of "perpetrator testimonies":

http://www.mossadist.by.ru/HD_p1_ch2.htm

"The case of the Katyn Forest massacre is instructive in this respect. The Soviets massacred thousands of Poles in the Katyn Forest. For years following the war the Soviets claimed that the crime had been committed by the Germans. During the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials the Soviets even had Katyn Forest added as one of the charges against the Nazis. However, a vigorous German defense resulted in the charges eventually being dropped.29 The Katyn shootings were very similar to the type of operations carried out by the Einsatzgruppen. One would expect that if the Einsatzgruppen reports were forgeries there would have also been a number of documents showing German responsibility for Katyn accepted as fact by the Nuremberg tribunal. Also, since it is often claimed that innocent Germans were forced to confess to crimes they did not commit, one would expect many of those who confessed to Einsatzgruppen shootings to confess to Katyn. Yet, this never happened."


Petr

[Geist]

Question for Nazis: Why do you dispute this? Why not admit you agree with the Holocaust which I assume you do?

[Fade the Butcher]

'The Holocaust' is much more than the question of whether six million or so Jews were exterminated by the Nazis during the Second World War.

[Geist]

'The Holocaust' is much more than the question of whether six million or so Jews were exterminated by the Nazis during the Second World War.

Most likely but some lies get so ingrained in society the fight is not worth fighting.

[Banat]

'The Holocaust' is much more than the question of whether six million or so Jews were exterminated by the Nazis during the Second World War.

Well, is then denying Jewish casualties during WWII a proper way to fight that great and blur idea of 'The Holocaust', widely (mis)used as a shield against every single criticism pointed at the Jews, either as a culture, religion, race, or at any individual of Jewish descent?

[Banat]

# The Anglo-American committee who studied the issue estimated the number of Jewish victims at 5.7 million. This was based on population statistics. Here is the exact breakdown, country by country:

Yugoslavia 64,000

Considering Yugoslavia, I find this data correct. I'm not absolutely sure about the exact pre-WWII number of Jews here, but there were about 80,000-100,000 of them, out of which about 17-18,000 survived the war.

[jcs]

Why do you dispute this?
The Holocaust is used as a political instrument moreso than anything else, giving groups who promote tolerance and anti-antisemitism power through guilt-tripping Germans and those of German descent. Say something vaguely supportive of some part of Nazi ideology and we can now ad hominem it to hell. You don't want to be a Nazi, do you? holocaust holocaust dead jews nazis=evil!!!!
Just as the Holocaust is used politically, Holocaust revisionism is as well. It's something that attempts to take away power from 'tolerance' groups and allow Nazi and Nazi-esque ideologies to again be viewed as respectable.
Revisionism makes the-powers-that-be squirm, and that's kind of funny. Holocaust Revisionism is dismissed and condemned, and as such a questioning of the Holocaust is sensible from a scientific-historical perspective. Of course, as mentioned, historical accuracy is not the aim of Holocaust revisionism, but something more political. Because of this, I think a better plan of attack, so to speak, would be to question the sense in allowing the Holocaust to be used as a political tool.

Why not admit you agree with the Holocaust which I assume you do?
A good question for the crazy nazis who say the Holocaust never happened in one breath, then scream, "Death to Jews!!!" in the next. Most sensible National Socialists would not have supported the extermination of the Jews. That's only for crazies and masses of ideologues. If National Socialism itself, or quasi-NS groups (any form of nationalism, really) wants to appear sane, it should distance itself from the 'Death to Jews!!!' position--and stop talking about the Holocaust entirely, save disputing the use of it to support political stances.
Holocaust revisionism should go on hold until there are people looking into it who lack ideological bias (because, so long as crazy nazis are supporting revisionism, it will be dismissed by the sane), and until a genuine questioning is not condemned. Meaning: stop using revisionism as a tool to serve political ends, and let a genuine, unbiased revisionism (if you care about truth at all and not just its political use) be one of the ends achieved by the triumph of a more rational nationalism.

[Sinclair]

I think that the evidence shows that millions of people, as many as 11 million plus, were killed intentionally in various ways, or died of neglect, due to action and inaction, mostly by branches of the SS. Jews appear to number foremost among the dead, but as many as 5 million non-Jews appear to have died, from groups such as Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, communists and dissidents from various countries, suspected or real "traitors", etc.

I think that on the one hand it is historically innacurate and unpleasant the way that the Holocaust has been "used". It is especially interesting to note that one hears of the 6 million, but never the 11 million. Many people I've talked to are surprised when I say that even some German generals ended up in camps.

But on the other hand, "Holocaust Revisionism" is largely scummy. I doubt ther are many people who label themselves as "Holocaust Revisionists" who are unbiased, careful, and diligent scholars. If somebody was just a general historical revisionist, who looked at history and corrected popular perceptions, "popular mythologies", etc, then they might be more trustworthy. But I think that one-issue people are often not exactly reliable. It is damn obvious that there is a political aim. Somebody who writes about the "Holohoax", for instance, is unlikely to be an impartial figure.

The plain and sad truth is that anybody who is relatively impartial, as scrupulous as possible, and honest in how they do their researches, is probably going to stay away from researching the Holocaust. Because on the one hand, they will be attacked by those who "use" the Holocaust and do their best to obscure some facts about it, and on the other hand they will be attacked by the "Revisionists" as ZOG NWO agents or whatever.

And of course, arguing about how many died or how they died doesn't really address the important issue of whether or not it's OK to throw people into camps based on their ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, political views, etc.

[Dionysus]

I care about this only as far as the matter is used as political capital.

According to the statistic every Polish Jew (more or less) was liquidated. An effciency which is almost unbelievable.

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Question for Nazis: Why do you dispute this? Why not admit you agree with the Holocaust which I assume you do?

Personally I do belive there was killing in the east, mostly Einsatzgruppen, I believe many also died in the Camps but I do not buy into the whole Zyklon story. I dispute because I do not like to get charged with something I have not consumed.

[Hakluyt]

Irving claims he was presented with concrete evidence for the existence of gas chambers (before he was arrested), FWIW.

I personally don't think it should be emphasised within political discourse and schooling to the degree it is currently, but nor do I think it's true historical relevance should be negated. The infrastructure of the 'Holocaust Industry' must be criticised, but the event itself needs not be a point of controversy.

[Starr]

I think a better plan of attack, so to speak, would be to question the sense in allowing the Holocaust to be used as a political tool


I agree. It seems some get wrapped up in the idea that it needs to be proven, somehow that the holocaust did not happen, which would take away the Jew's ability to use it as a political tool, but with the Jews in complete control of "the debate" in so many ways, I don't see that happening anytime soon. So it is mostly pointless. In this way with the revisonists constantly bringing it up and setting themselves up as more evil enemies for the poor persecuted Jews, they enable the jews, in some ways, to continue to bitch and cry about "the six million" and use it as a political tool.

Another important thing to question is just why it is a criminal offense in many places, that cannot quite sit right with many.

[Felix the Cat]

The Nazis believed themselves to be at war with the Jews. The Soviet government, in particular, was assumed to be totally Jewish in makeup

It follows that the Nazis regarded the Jews of Europe as hostages to Soviet behaviour

When the war began to go badly, it was natural they would begin to kill these "hostages"

However I don't think Stalin was Jewish, or that he even cared much for Jews, so these killings had zero impact on Soviet conduct of the war

Interesting question -

If Trotsky had been ruler of the Soviet Union would the war in the East have ended in a negotiated settlement?

[Ahknaton]

Question for Nazis: Why do you dispute this? Why not admit you agree with the Holocaust which I assume you do?
I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a "Nazi" but you can be a National Socialist and still accept that genocide is an abhorrent crime against humanity.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Did it happen?

Yes, it did.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Personally I do belive there was killing in the east, mostly Einsatzgruppen, I believe many also died in the Camps but I do not buy into the whole Zyklon story. I dispute because I do not like to get charged with something I have not consumed.

Why is a nation which you believe murdered people in the East incapable of murdering them in camps?

[Sulla the Dictator]

It is scientifically impossible to have gassed 6million jews due to the fact the chamber would have to be left for 20 hours for the gas to disperse.


Before you deny the Holocaust, you should learn about it. For example, no one claims that the Nazis gassed 6 million Jews. :rolleyes:

[Petr]

Why is a nation which you believe murdered people in the East incapable of murdering them in camps?
Why are you collectively referring to a "nation", in a Tätervolk sense perhaps? Have you read too much Daniel Goldhagen?


Petr

[Sinclair]

Why is a nation which you believe murdered people in the East incapable of murdering them in camps?

Oh, not this again. How was it the "nation" murdering people? The SS were by and large either thugs or cold-hearted bean-counters, and a great deal of responsibility rests with the Germans who let the Nazis take power as they did, but how is the whole nation to blame? Was there ever a referendum on throwing tens of millions of people into camps, or having murder squads?

In a democracy, the people get at least some control, and are to a good extent to blame when bad things happen. In a dictatorship (As Germany was after Hitler seized power, even though only 1/3 of the country voted for him) the people get very little control, and are thus less to blame when bad things happen. There's no political system where the people get little control if any, but blame a huge share of the blame for bad things happening.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Oh, not this again. How was it the "nation" murdering people?


LOL What is this hyper sensitivity regarding Nazi Germany?

Was Germany a nation state or wasn't it?

[Petr]

LOL What is this hyper sensitivity regarding Nazi Germany?

Was Germany a nation state or wasn't it?
Are Jews considered to be a one nation?

Like General Martin Hohmann put it, if Germans can be called a Tätervolk because of their deep involvement in the program of the Nazi Party, so can we call Jews as "Stalin's Willing Executioners" for their vital role in overthrowing the Czar and the Bolshevik revolution.


(Here are some statistics provided by that notoriously anti-Semitic publication, Commentary:

"Comes the 1917 revolution: did Jews, who comprised, as Slezkine documents, a remarkably high proportion of the Bolshevik leadership in its early years (45 percent of the Bolshevik Central Committee, 31 percent of Bolshevik delegates to the First All-Russian Congress, 40 percent of elected officials in the Red Army, 41.7 percent of the governing bureau of the Petrograd Soviet, etc.), lose out now that their capitalist skills were no longer in demand? Not at all. Not only were they, in 1935, 38.5 percent of the “leading cadres” of the Soviet secret police, ..."

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2017&highlight=slezkine


Petr

[Sinclair]

LOL What is this hyper sensitivity regarding Nazi Germany?

Was Germany a nation state or wasn't it?

The German government was definitely to blame, the German state quite likely, but the German nation? Including the German people as a whole?

And "hyper-sensitivity"? No. I just don't like seeing an entire nation blamed for something that the vast majority of its citizens had no control over whatsoever.

[Fade the Butcher]

Yes, it did.LOL. I knew you couldn't resist the temptation of a Holocaust thread. That is why I started the thread in the first place, btw. :222:

[Cyber Hostility]

As Germany was after Hitler seized power...

Hitler was voted in.

[Sinclair]

Hitler was voted in.

With 33% of the vote. I'm a Canadian, a minority government is hardly "power".
He seized power when he became a dictator. That's not what he was voted in as.

[Kodos]

Hitler was voted in.

Nobody won enough in the election to form a government without Hindenburg's consent, Hitler was appointed Chancellor and seized more power later.

Not that I really care how Hitler came to power, he fucked it up bigtime.

[Cyber Hostility]

With 33% of the vote. I'm a Canadian, a minority government is hardly "power".
He seized power when he became a dictator. That's not what he was voted in as.

37%...and with the addition of the DNVP and a German loss of faith in the communists and social dems...they ended up at 43.9%. But who's counting?

Really, I googled this and I saw someone talking about Hitler getting 80% of the vote...I think it's more distortions created both in favor and in hatred of Hitler and the Nazis.

Point is...he was voted in. And when you have more than 3 serious parties (Not counting the conservative Nationalists, the DNVP, who would later merge with the NSDAP) running for seats in the Reichstag, like Germany did at the time...40% will almost always assure victory.


Why is a nation which you believe murdered people in the East incapable of murdering them in camps?

Not incapable, they just didn't. Why did they let the red cross in every time they were required to if they were "murdering people". Maybe the red cross was in on it? I don't know...

I mean, I guess you could be right...but it just doesn't add up. I believe the allies unintentionally murdered the people in the camps...by bombing the railroads that supplied the camps with the necessities for survival. Then we got there and said "Whoops...er...I mean LOOK AT WHAT THE GERMANS 'DID'!...*whistles*"

In the East, Hitler sought a "war of extermination"...and well, he got one. It's sad for the women and children of Germany but it's just as sad for the women and children of Russia.

Too much senseless slaughter of Whites. What a depressing thread topic.

I don't believe one was good and one was bad...shades of grey. Bad guys vs. Bad guys.

I think all the leaders at that time were assholes.

[Cyber Hostility]

Nobody won enough in the election to form a government without Hindenburg's consent, Hitler was appointed Chancellor and seized more power later.

Not that I really care how Hitler came to power, he fucked it up bigtime.

Yes, I've heard that before too.

I see a lot of different answers whenever Hitler and the Nazis are discussed.

I don't know which ones are true and which ones are false.

That's why I'll stick with "I don't know" to answer the question that started this thread. Because seriously...I don't know...and I don't think I ever will.

[Kodos]

My position is the same as Petr's and it saves me the trouble of going through it( again).

[Ambrosio Spinola]

LOL. I knew you couldn't resist the temptation of a Holocaust thread. That is why I started the thread in the first place, btw. :222:

LOL, I thought just the same thing :rofl:

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/nature/images/bait.gif

Btw...I find that the Einsatzgruppen doings in the east were more attached to the ideological-security aspects of that particular campaign rather than a common policy. You did not see such groups elsewhere in Europe operating.

[Sulla the Dictator]

LOL. I knew you couldn't resist the temptation of a Holocaust thread. That is why I started the thread in the first place, btw. :222:

You're a bastard. :p

[Sulla the Dictator]

The German government was definitely to blame, the German state quite likely, but the German nation? Including the German people as a whole?


entries found for nation.
na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nshn)
n.

1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
3. The government of a sovereign state.

Show me where what I said was inaccurate.


And "hyper-sensitivity"? No. I just don't like seeing an entire nation blamed for something that the vast majority of its citizens had no control over whatsoever.

The German people had more to do with the second world war than they did the first.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Btw...I find that the Einsatzgruppen doings in the east were more attached to the ideological-security aspects of that particular campaign rather than a common policy. You did not see such groups elsewhere in Europe operating.

The Einsatzgruppen were deployed in the East because that was where the greatest density of Germany's racial enemies were. You don't need formations dedicated to that purpose in the West where you're dealing with tens of thousands, in the case of France.

You do need formations dedicated to that purpose in an area where you're dealing with millions.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Not incapable, they just didn't. Why did they let the red cross in every time they were required to if they were "murdering people". Maybe the red cross was in on it? I don't know...


They didn't let the red cross in 'every time'. They let them in once. And took them to a little Potemkin village.


I mean, I guess you could be right...


Yes.


but it just doesn't add up.


It sure does.


I believe the allies unintentionally murdered the people in the camps...by bombing the railroads that supplied the camps with the necessities for survival.


The Germans didn't build railroads for food delivery to POW camps in the first world war. They took 3 million Russian POWs in that war, and only 70,000 (Which for the time was excessive) died.

In the second world war, sending Russian POWs to Auschwitz as well as Jews, one in two Russian POWs died in German captivity.

That isn't because of Allied bombing. And in fact the refusal of the Allies to bomb the Concentration camps or the railroads to those camps is one of the scandals which is talked about to this day.


In the East, Hitler sought a "war of extermination"...and well, he got one. It's sad for the women and children of Germany but it's just as sad for the women and children of Russia.


Why are you willing to believe that Hitler would kill the Slavs, not the Jews, when he clearly identified the Jews as the MASTERS of the Slavs?

[Sinclair]

entries found for nation.
na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nshn)
n.

1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
3. The government of a sovereign state.

Show me where what I said was inaccurate.

The German people had more to do with the second world war than they did the first.

1. Then of course there is the alternate, human-geography set of terminology, where a nation is a cultural entity, and a state is the political entity. You did not specify which you meant. Knowing your debating stratigies, I suspect that was your purpose.

2. We are discussing the Holocaust, not WWII. And what is this "German people"? In both cases, war was hardly decided upon by democratic means.

[Sulla the Dictator]

1. Then of course there is the alternate, human-geography set of terminology, where a nation is a cultural entity, and a state is the political entity.


So you object to someone saying "GERMANY killed such and such", and we must specificy "The German government personified by Hitler and the Nazi party killed so and so"? :p

Why did I think you were being hypersensitive?


You did not specify which you meant.


I didn't know I needed to.


Knowing your debating stratigies, I suspect that was your purpose.


Oh come now, Sinclair. :p


2. We are discussing the Holocaust, not WWII. And what is this "German people"? In both cases, war was hardly decided upon by democratic means.

The Holocaust is part and parcel of WWII.

[Sinclair]

So you object to someone saying "GERMANY killed such and such", and we must specificy "The German government personified by Hitler and the Nazi party killed so and so"? :p

Why did I think you were being hypersensitive?

I didn't know I needed to.

Oh come now, Sinclair. :p

The Holocaust is part and parcel of WWII.

-Because for one thing, it's woefully imprecise.

-Hypersensitive? Again, I don't like seeing an entire nation blamed for awful acts by a terrible government that hijacked that nation.

-So, the German state, or the German nation? I mean, definitions differ.

-C'mon Sulla, you like winning. On a technicality if necessary. Admit it.

-Really? Its roots were sown before Germany entered WWII, and it might well have happened anyway had Germany for some reason not gone to war. It would have been on a much, much smaller scale, but it would still have happened.

[Atlas]

All the revisionist arguments as touching upon Zyklon B are faulty, as I proved in two or three debates I had on the subject in previous incarnations of the Phora (the first one was with Wehr, if anyone remembers it). There are so many better arguments against the Holocaust than this particular one. Don't use it.

This is just a little part of my post and not even the most important...

[Ambrosio Spinola]

The Einsatzgruppen were deployed in the East because that was where the greatest density of Germany's racial enemies were. You don't need formations dedicated to that purpose in the West where you're dealing with tens of thousands, in the case of France.

You do need formations dedicated to that purpose in an area where you're dealing with millions.

I do not agree with this. Einsatzgruppen were deployed because the whole nature of the eastern Campaign was radically different with what had been done up to that point. The Russian campaign was to be a quick one and one to yeld the real lebensraum for germans. This is the reason those militias were used. To make a swift, right behind the front, cleansing. They would have made no sense elsewhere. The Balkans were filled with enemies too yet there were no such units there.

[Sulla the Dictator]

-Because for one thing, it's woefully imprecise.


Is Germany a nation?


-Hypersensitive? Again, I don't like seeing an entire nation blamed for awful acts by a terrible government that hijacked that nation.


So when you discuss Napoleonic history, you refer to the "Government of Emperor Napoleon" rather than "France" when discussing pros and cons?


-So, the German state, or the German nation? I mean, definitions differ.


State is included under the definition of nation.


-C'mon Sulla, you like winning. On a technicality if necessary. Admit it.


Winning is the natural consequence of being right. :p


-Really? Its roots were sown before Germany entered WWII


The roots of WWII were sown before Germany entered WWII. :p


and it might well have happened anyway had Germany for some reason not gone to war. It would have been on a much, much smaller scale, but it would still have happened.

Then I suppose there would have been even less excuse to divorce the 'government' from 'the nation'.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I do not agree with this. Einsatzgruppen were deployed because the whole nature of the eastern Campaign was radically different with what had been done up to that point.


And one of the reasons it was different was the ideological motivations for it.


The Russian campaign was to be a quick one and one to yeld the real lebensraum for germans. This is the reason those militias were used. To make a swift, right behind the front, cleansing.


Even when Germany was winning in the East, the campaign lasted longer than it did in France. The reason you needed specialized units, I'll say again, was because of the large number of German identified racial enemies in the region.


They would have made no sense elsewhere. The Balkans were filled with enemies too yet there were no such units there.

Thats because the Balkans were a haphazard affair. German involvement was largely because of Italian errors. Furthermore, the majority of "enemies" happened to reside in countries allied to Germany who often refused German requests for them to deliver their ethnic minorities to concentration camps.

In cases like Yugoslavia, Germany propped up surrogates to deal with the problem.

[Sinclair]

The way you used the phrase nation was what got me. OK, whatever, neither of is us right or wrong, because there are different definitions of the same phrases.

And the seeds of WWII were of course sown before Germany entered WWII. How could anything happen without some sort of cause?

[Watzy]

Comments?

http://www.nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi#qar02

11. Did the Jews of the world "declare war on Germany"?

The IHR says (original):

Yes. The world media carried the headlines, "Judea Declares War on Germany."

The IHR says (revised):

Yes. Newspapers around the world reported this. A front-page headline in the London Daily Express (March 24, 1933), for example, announced "Judea Declares War on Germany."

Nizkor replies:

"World media"? "Newspapers around the world"? One British newspaper is cited, talking about a planned economic boycott.

A transcript of the article is available. The next paragraphs after the headline were:

A strange and unfortunate sequel has emerged from the stories of German Jew-baiting.

The whole of Israel throughout the world is uniting to declare an economic and financial war on Germany.

Hirtherto the cry has gone up: "Germany is persecuting the Jews." If the present plans are carried out, the Hitlerite cry will be: "The Jews are persecuting Germany."

The fact that this "Hitlerite cry" has been echoed four decades later by Holocaust-deniers should surprise no one. (See question 62 for information about various deniers' views on Hitler.)

In sum, this question and answer is a cheap trick to make it seem as if "the Jews of the world" started the "war" against Germany, instead of the other way around. The word "war" means many things. In this case it meant planning to apply economic pressure.

But the IHR and Zündel want you to think it was a real declaration of war. How many divisions of troops did "Judea" have? How many tanks? How many planes? How many artillery shells?

The fact is that Germany started the real war, World War II, and started it by overrunning Poland with planes, bombs, tanks, and millions of infantrymen. To compare this to a planned economic boycott is ludicrous, but typical of "revisionist" trickery.

Besides, this is an internal contradiction. Their answer to question 54 states that "the Germans maintained cordial relations with the Zionist leadership." War is not a cordial relation. They should get their story straight.


21. How does the "Holocaust" story benefit the Jews today?


The IHR says:

It removes them from any criticism as a group. It provides a "common bond" with which their leaders can control them. It is instrumental in money-raising campaigns and to justify aid to Israel, totaling about $10 billion per year.

The Samisdat version also adds:

The "big-H" story is designed to shame the Gentile: "Poor Jews! How they do suffer!"

Nizkor replies:

This argument borders on insanity. The US was one of the leading forces in exposing the Holocaust. Did the US invent the Holocaust, so it could later give Israel money?

How about the former Soviet Union? Holocaust-deniers claim that most of the supposedly-forged Holocaust evidence was forged there. One of their more popular books is Porter's The Holocaust: Made in Russia. Yet the Soviet Union was traditionally the enemy of Israel, supporting and arming its enemies.

And who says the memory of the Holocaust is the reason the US gives money to Israel? There were -- and still are -- important strategic reasons for the US to support Israel and to lend its even greater support to Egypt.

Finally, where does the $10 billion per year figure come from? This is a vast exaggeration, as may be seen in the following tables:

Year Aid to Israel Aid to Egypt
In Billions In Billions
1988 $1.831 $3.480
1989 1.902 2.085
1990 4.377 4.977
1991 2.028 2.478
1992 4.746 2.539
1993 2.886 2.734
Total (Six Years) $17.770 $18.293
Source: Readers Digest Almanac and Yearbook (Egypt was the largest recipient during that period, with Israel second.)
Total funds given to Israel, 1945 to 1984, in billions
Grants $13.751
Loans $11.756
Loans still owed $9.360

The totally-baseless $10 billion figure has been quietly removed from the revised "66 Q&A." The insulting comment about how the Jews are controlled by their leaders was also struck out. The even-more insulting sarcastic comment about how the Jews "do suffer" is apparently thanks to Ernst Zündel.


52. What was the role of the Vatican during the time the six million Jews were alleged to have been exterminated?

The IHR says:

If there had been an extermination plan, the Vatican would most certainly have been in a position to know. But since there was none, the Vatican had no reason to speak out against it.

Nizkor replies:

Lies. The Nazis hated the Catholic church, and executed many clergymen in Poland and other places. The church had no power or influence over the Nazis. Reich propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary on March 26, 1942 (see Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, p. 146):

It's a dirty, low thing to do for the Catholic Church to continue its subversive activity in every way possible and now even to extend its propaganda to Protestant children evacuated from the regions threatened by air raids. Next to the Jews these politico-divines are about the most loathsome riffraff that we are still sheltering in the Reich. The time will come after the war for an over-all solution of this problem.

Or, look at the following:

Letter to Reich Minister of Justice
From Roman Catholic Bishop of Limburg
13 August 1941

... Buses arrive in Hadamar several times a week with a large number of these victims. School children in the neighborhood know these vehicles and say: "Here comes the murder wagon." After the arrival of such vehicles the citizens of Hadamar then see the smoke coming from the chimney and are upset by constant thoughts about the poor victims especially when, depending on the direction of the wind, they have to put up with the revolting smell. The consequence of the principles being practiced here is that children, when quarreling with one another make remarks like: "You are thick, you'll be put in the oven in Hadamar." People who do not want to get married or who do not get the opportunity say: "Get married? No fear. Put children into the world who then end up going through the stack." Old people are saying "on no account will I go into a state hospital! After the feeble-minded, the old will be next in line as useless mouths to feed."

The last paragraph refers to the systematic annihilation of tens of thousands of insane and retarded people by the Nazis, in the so-called "euthanasia" or "mercy killing" program.

[Sulla the Dictator]

And the seeds of WWII were of course sown before Germany entered WWII. How could anything happen without some sort of cause?

The German support for Nazism was caused by lies.

[Thomas777]

The German support for Nazism was caused by lies.

I think it was caused by ethnic conflict, the Bolshevik threat, and a complete loss of faith in traditional modes of government/authority.

Its a bit simplistic to suggest it was caused by "lies".

[Sulla the Dictator]

I think it was caused by ethnic conflict, the Bolshevik threat, and a complete loss of faith in traditional modes of government/authority.

Its a bit simplistic to suggest it was caused by "lies".

The German public never discussed the fact that the German High Command was responsible for the "Bolshevik threat" in the first place. Also, Nazi lies regarding "November criminals" misled the German public into believing it suffered economic hardship because it had been betrayed in the first world war, which wasn't the case. They were beaten on the battlefield, quite thoroughly.

[Cyber Hostility]

The German public never discussed the fact that the German High Command was responsible for the "Bolshevik threat" in the first place. Also, Nazi lies regarding "November criminals" misled the German public into believing it suffered economic hardship because it had been betrayed in the first world war, which wasn't the case. They were beaten on the battlefield, quite thoroughly.

Was there a shot fired on German soil? I always thought there wasn't.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Was there a shot fired on German soil? I always thought there wasn't.

The Allies stopped because the Germans surrendered. The Germans surrendered because they had been thrown back to about their 1914 lines. The German army had been bled white and now were facing another massive reserve of manpower in the United States, and this time it was a nation which could equip its troops.

[OVERWATCH]

They were beaten on the battlefield, quite thoroughly.

That is false, the Allies and Germany had both suffered comparably on the battlefield, what mainly defeated Germany was antiwar sentiment at home.

[Thomas777]

The German public never discussed the fact that the German High Command was responsible for the "Bolshevik threat" in the first place.

The Freikorps and armed Bolshevik militias were literally waging war in the streets of the Weimar Republic. To suggest that Communism was some figment of the Nazi collective imagination is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

[Felix the Cat]

I think he's referring to the fact that it was Ludendorff who sent Lenin and his bolsheviks to St. Petersberg in the spring of 1917

[Sulla the Dictator]

That is false, the Allies and Germany had both suffered comparably on the battlefield


Which is why the Germans lost. The arrival of the United States in the conflict meant that they had replaced an inefficient, backward endless manpower reserve with an industrialized, wealthy manpower reserve. The Germans also had lost most of the military gains it had made over the previous four years.

Where exactly were the Germans going to turn back Allied advances? And how? And with what?


what mainly defeated Germany was antiwar sentiment at home.

Antiwar sentiment in Germany was the creation of defeat on the battlefield. In fact, Falkenhayn had a good idea the war couldn't be won in 1916.

[Petr]

Also, by the time Germany surrendered in 1918, all its allies - Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey - had already been knocked out and were collapsing. Germany's "soft underbelly" would soon have been exposed.


Petr

[Sulla the Dictator]

Also, by the time Germany surrendered in 1918, all its allies - Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey - had already been knocked out and were collapsing. Germany's "soft underbelly" would soon have been exposed.


Petr

And when it comes down to it, I would say the Bulgarians were the only ones who were worth a damn. :p

[Petr]

And when it comes down to it, I would say the Bulgarians were the only ones who were worth a damn. :p
Turks whipped Allies in Gallipoli and Kut al-Amara...


Petr

[Sulla the Dictator]

Turks whipped Allies in Gallipoli and Kut al-Amara...


The Turks had German officers leading them and German engineers had to make their defensive positions. The Turks also managed to lose more men than the Allies while defending a fixed position.

At Kut al-Amara was a battle won by illness and a German by the name of Colmar von der Goltz.

But you're right, with those two battles the Turks proved themselves superior to the Austrians. The thing I like about the Bulgarians is that they largely did their own fighting.

[Petr]

The Turks had German officers leading them and German engineers had to make their defensive positions. The Turks also managed to lose more men than the Allies while defending a fixed position.
Well, you must also consider that a great portion of the Turkish army was simultaneously tied down in massacring Christian Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks behind the frontlines...


Petr

[Sulla the Dictator]

Well, you must also consider that a great portion of the Turkish army was simultaneously tied down in massacring Christian Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks behind the frontlines...


Much of that was taken care of by Kurdish irregulars, so large Turkish military commitments were unnecessary. :p

[Petr]

Much of that was taken care of by Kurdish irregulars, so large Turkish military commitments were unnecessary. :p
Do you find the genocide of Christians amusing?


Petr

[Kodos]

I think it was caused by ethnic conflict

Other then perhaps in East Prussia no... the depression and lingering biterness over WWI and German weakness brought Hitler to power( after general strikes brought down all the reactionary right wingers who might have been an alternative).

[Thomas777]

I think it was caused by ethnic conflict

Other then perhaps in East Prussia no... the depression and lingering biterness over WWI and German weakness brought Hitler to power( after general strikes brought down all the reactionary right wingers who might have been an alternative).

I was speaking more of Jewish-Bolshevik revolutionary activity during the Weimar era.

I'm not going to sit here and defend genocidal policies, but at the same time, the Third Reich did not attack Jews for no reason. There was a tremendous conflict underway between Jews and traditional Elites in Europe during the interwar years...the Europeans did not want Europe to go the way of the USSR.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I'm not going to sit here and defend genocidal policies, but at the same time, the Third Reich did not attack Jews for no reason.


Sure it did.


There was a tremendous conflict underway between Jews and traditional Elites in Europe during the interwar years...


There was a tremendous conflict between the working class and traditional elites during the interwar years because of the horrors and costs of WWI.

Moreover, it can be seen as a rejection of Prussian dominance of the German state. If you look at the attitudes of Bavarian soldiers in the trenches during the last years of the war, examine the Bavarian seperatist movement immediately after WWI, and the growth of Revolutionary sentiment in the same region, you've got to ask yourself why. You can't blame it on a Jew. You can blame it on a costly, failed war that cost Germany incredible amounts of blood and treasure, launched at the behest of a Junker state which subjegated your region in the first place.


the Europeans did not want Europe to go the way of the USSR.

The Germans were responsible for the creation of the USSR.

[Petr]

If you look at the attitudes of Bavarian soldiers in the trenches during the last years of the war, examine the Bavarian seperatist movement immediately after WWI, and the growth of Revolutionary sentiment in the same region, you've got to ask yourself why. You can't blame it on a Jew.
Anti-Jewish-Supremacism may not solve all our problems, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.


Petr

[Thomas777]

Sure it did.

There is a diffence between saying "the Third Reichs persecution of Jews was indefensible" and saying "there was no reason why the Third Reich persecuted Jews". Jews and ethnic Germans festered in long simmering hostility towards one another, and many Jews mobilized as 5th columnists against traditional authority in the interwar years.



There was a tremendous conflict between the working class and traditional elites during the interwar years because of the horrors and costs of WWI.
That is probably why Jewish Bolsheviks were able to gain a lot of followers amongst the rank and file of the German working class.






The Germans were responsible for the creation of the USSR.
No. That statement is an idiot's charitcature of what happened in Russia. The Germans did not singlehandedly create some Jewish dominated, Communist superstate in Russia in 1917-1919. The fact that the 2nd Reich was complicit in aiding the Reds to destabilize Imperial Russia and win the war in the East does not = Germany created the USSR. If you genuinely believe that, you have a very poor understanding of how human populations operate at the macro level, and the nature of Revolutionary politics.

[Sulla the Dictator]

There is a diffence between saying "the Third Reichs persecution of Jews was indefensible" and saying "there was no reason why the Third Reich persecuted Jews".


I don't put specious reasons in the same catagory as 'reason'. I think the prerequisite is that the motives be reasonable.


Jews and ethnic Germans festered in long simmering hostility towards one another, and many Jews mobilized as 5th columnists against traditional authority in the interwar years.


LOL What? The average German was about as anti-semtic as the average Englishman, give or take. And if anyone used Jews as 5th columnists, it was Germany.


That is probably why Jewish Bolsheviks were able to gain a lot of followers amongst the rank and file of the German working class.


So when German sailors mutinied and took over Kiel, that was caused by Jewish Bolsheviks?


No. That statement is an idiot's charitcature of what happened in Russia.


LOL Temper temper.


The fact that as a result the army compounded the difficulties of its own retreat, clogging an already inadequate transport system, suggests that in some cases the response was more ideological than strategic. It took the opportunity to 'cleanse' certain areas of what it saw as unreliable elements, particularly German settlers, althrough many of them had relatives serving in the Russian army, and Jews. 'The complete hostility of the entire Jewish population toward the Russian army is well established', one commander told Yanushkevich....

....Moreover, the great exodus liberated the Jews from the Pale of the Settlement, the area to the west and south-west to which they had been restricted. The Pale was formally abolished in August 1915, and the Jews were free not only to move further east but also to settle in the countryside as well as in the towns. For the Jews of Russia the war opened doors rather than closed them.

The First World War
Page 147
Hew Strachan

So if you BELIEVE your own conspiracy theories, it was German victories in the East which freed the Jews from settlement restrictions. These peasant, land working Jews who you believe are masters of the universe. :p

And it was done deliberately, by the way. The Germans were eager to turn Russia's many ethnic minorities against her.

The suspicions of the Russian army, therefore, were not totally without foundation: for Germany's army in the east, the Jews were indeed potentional collaborators. The attractions to Germany of an alliance with Islam to undermine the British found its corollary in an alliance with the Jews of Poland and the Baltic states in order to defeat the Russians.A German committee for the liberation of Russian Jews was set up on August 17, 1914, and as the German armies advanced in the summer of 1915 they used Jews as interpreters and as middle-men in the procurement of supplies and transport.

The First World War
148
Hew Strachan


The Germans did not singlehandedly create some Jewish dominated, Communist superstate in Russia in 1917-1919.



The fact that the 2nd Reich was complicit in aiding the Reds to destabilize Imperial Russia and win the war in the East does not = Germany created the USSR.


So if the Germans shuttle Communist leaders from exile to Russia, and then fund the Communists in their effort to WIN their revolution, we're to conclude that the Germans are not responsible for the creation of the Communist state?

LOL

[Thomas777]

I don't put specious reasons in the same catagory as 'reason'. I think the prerequisite is that the motives be reasonable.
It was not reasonable to start killing Jews en masse, but there was a rationale behind the effort.




LOL What? The average German was about as anti-semtic as the average Englishman, give or take. And if anyone used Jews as 5th columnists, it was Germany.
Obviously, that was not the case, of there would have been a National Socialist British Worker's Party.



So when German sailors mutinied and took over Kiel, that was caused by Jewish Bolsheviks?
No. The ethnic German laborers who identified with Comintern and supported Jewish revolutionary leaders obviously felt that class interests superceded ethnic friction between Germans and Jews. Please stay within the scope.




LOL Temper temper.
I'm not losing my temper. You're suggestion was idiotic and ahistorical. It does not pass the straight face test to suggest: There would have been no Red Revolution in Russia but for the fact that German military elements supported the Bolsheviks over the Royalists.



So if you BELIEVE your own conspiracy theories, it was German victories in the East which freed the Jews from settlement restrictions. These peasant, land working Jews who you believe are masters of the universe. :p
No conspiracy theory has been proposed by me. The Bolshevik leadership in Russia and in Germany was disproportionately Jewish. This really is not a controversial proposition, and even the Jewish intelligensia does not dispute it. I suggested that Jews were disproportionately represented in the ranks of the Bolsheviks because of long-standing ethnic/sectarian hostility between their communitites and German and Slavic communities in which they found themselves immersed. This is really not controversial stuff I am suggesting here.





So if the Germans shuttle Communist leaders from exile to Russia, and then fund the Communists in their effort to WIN their revolution, we're to conclude that the Germans are not responsible for the creation of the Communist state?

LOL
Yeah, that is what I would conclude because Communist revolutions cannot be manufactured out of whole cloth with financial and logistical support. You're argument sports more holes than an old whore's stockings. I feel like I'm getting dumber everytime I lower myself to debating the point.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I don't actually see a rebuttal in anything you said. I showed you how the German "2nd Reich" didn't just aid Communists, but specifically aided Jews. Now if you believe Jews are the secret reason for Communism, then German support for BOTH Communists and Jews has to reasonably bear a large portion of responsibility for a Communist, Jewish government. :p

[Thomas777]

I don't actually see a rebuttal in anything you said.
I'm having trouble following you on this thread...you seem to be alternately masturbating yourself and then congradulating yourself on your performance.

I showed you how the German "2nd Reich" didn't just aid Communists, but specifically aided Jews.
What exactly is your point? I know that the Germans supported the Reds in order to topple the Czar so as to win the war in the East. This was a tactical call based upon certain realities that Germany was facing on the battlefield.


Now if you believe Jews are the secret reason for Communism,
Its not a secret, and Jews are not the "reason" for Communism. Its an ideology that many Jewish elites cultivated and supported because Jews found themselves on the outs (historically) in European host societies. Other than yourself, nobody really thinks this is an outlandish, "secret", conspiratorial, or unreasonable account of things.
then German support for BOTH Communists and Jews has to reasonably bear a large portion of responsibility for a Communist, Jewish government. :p
The trouble is that you made a ludicrous statment to the effect of: Germany created the USSR.

That is really tantamount to me saying: The Vatican supported the NSDAP out of fear of the Reds. Hence, the Pope created the Third Reich.

[Crowley]

And of course, arguing about how many died or how they died doesn't really address the important issue of whether or not it's OK to throw people into camps based on their ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, political views, etc.

Modern war is total war which is criminal in and of itself. Crimes against humanity and total war are the same thing, so why quibble over what happened to the Jews, when the entire world suffered apocalypse? For once, Jews got burnt in war where normally they profitted by supplying both sides with armaments, and we shall never hear the end of it.

[Sulla the Dictator]

I'm having trouble following you on this thread...you seem to be alternately masturbating yourself and then congradulating yourself on your performance.


I suppose my performance shines in the light of the crude and vulgar opposition. :D


What exactly is your point? I know that the Germans supported the Reds in order to topple the Czar so as to win the war in the East. This was a tactical call based upon certain realities that Germany was facing on the battlefield.


But I'm not referring to "Reds". I'm specifically pointing out that the Germans worked with JEWS in Russia. German support for the Communists was a SEPERATE effort, after having elevated Jewish populations within Russia itself. These are two acts, not one.


Its not a secret, and Jews are not the "reason" for Communism. Its an ideology that many Jewish elites cultivated and supported because Jews found themselves on the outs (historically) in European host societies.


Along with plenty of other people. And they wern't 'elites'. A Russian boyar was an 'elite'. A Jewish intellectual born in Lodz and living in exile in Paris isn't very 'elite' at all.


Other than yourself, nobody really thinks this is an outlandish, "secret", conspiratorial, or unreasonable account of things.


Most intelligent, knowledgable people know that the Jews were an oppressed, victimized minority in Russia and that an ideology which claimed to seek an end to such an oppression appealed to them as well as other groups within Russia and Europe at large. Intelligent, knowledgable people also know that ethnically Jewish members of the Communist party were often extremely hostile to the religion of Judaism itself.


The trouble is that you made a ludicrous statment to the effect of: Germany created the USSR.


One supported by evidence, not rebutted by you. So welcome to the theater of the absurd, home to German foreign policy.


That is really tantamount to me saying: The Vatican supported the NSDAP out of fear of the Reds. Hence, the Pope created the Third Reich.

Well lets see, did the Pope secretly smuggle Hitler from exile in Libya and then fund his Nazis in their effort to overthrow the Weimar Republic?

If he did, then yes the Pope created the Third Reich.

[cerberus]

Did the " Holocaust" take place ?
Ans. "Yes".
Did people did in Gas Chambers ?
Ans. "Yes".
Did the Ez Gruppen murder by means of mass shootings ?
Ans "Yes".
Fade all you need now is "Mr O'Reilly" back.:rofl:

[Fade the Butcher]

Welcome back. :)

[cerberus]

Found phora by chance , thought she was RIP for good.

[Fade the Butcher]

The Phora never dies. It always comes back. :p

[cerberus]

" Rejoice".:p