OK... assuming this article is factual... SINCE 1949??? C'mon... but OK.. that's comes out to (according to this report) $2.45 billion a year... the U.S. pi$$es that away every day, not too much if you ask me...
But I'm sure there's more somewhere isn't there?
Out of all I said in response to your posts that's the best you can come back with?
Better, I think, to work towards encouraging other countries to become equally wonderful, without hindering the people from living in them from have their own governmental system and their own values.
Encouraging is one thing, being mired down with decades of war with the middle east, costing many lives and much $billions, is another...
Baloney. We will not "get out of their affairs" until we are no longer dependant upon their oil. Even then we won't if we think our economy will benefit by buying and selling goods with them - regardless of what they value, because those in power in our government as well as theirs profit greatly from it. For these same reasons, the terrorism would not cease. You seem to forget that most of the terrorists are fanatics, not average citizens. Many of them hold deeply fundamental religious beliefs and are not just opposed to the Jewish people but to all people who do not practice their version of Islam.
Yes we should work toward not being dependent on their oil, as well. But I didn't infer that my "solution" was the perfect answer... I infer that it is much safer, and much more cost efficient, for the U.S. to quit supporting Zionism which exposes the U.S. (if not the direct cause, a BIG cause) to being entangled with decades of war with the middle east, costing thousands of lives and billions of money.
Would the terrorists cease their attacks against U.S. if the U.S. showed a good faith effort to cease support of their enemies? I don't know, nobody knows for sure.. but it puts the U.S. in a safer position than what exists today.
Oldies,
Want to take a look at your numbers again, chief? :unsure:
The Ashkenazi Jews for the most part share a genetic link with other Jews, proving the very common background ck claimed would not be found.
Somewhere between five and six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.
Even the Jews do not agree on either of those points (and they don't even agree amongst themselves since the definition of "who is a Jew" varies based on religious, sociological or ethnical approaches to that identity) and in recent years the term "Ashkenazi Jew" has taken on a completely different meaning in Israel. Distinctions that were perhaps clear a generation or two ago are rapidly vanishing.
There is no ruling body in Judaism that determines "who is a Jew". Jewish law or Halaka does not define who is Jewish by faith. Nor does membership in a local Jewish community or synagogue make one a Jew. Furthermore, a person who does not wish to be considered a Jew any longer is still considered Jewish, whether they do it through apostacy, atheism, a hidden identity or renunciation. There are many famous Ashkenazi Jews who have denied being Jewish, among them being: Felix Mendelssohn (converted to Protestantism), Karl Marx (became atheist), Madeleine Albright (did not know of her Jewish identity until she became an adult, but was already a professing Catholic) and Bobby Fischer, the international chess star who has also claimed the Holocaust is a Jewish invention and a lie - they are considered Ashkenazi Jews.
The definition of "Ashkenazi Jew" is blurring with the reintegration of Jews from around the world. The label "Ashkenazi" is often applied to all Jews living in Israel or European origin, including those whose ethnic background is Sephardic. Jews of non-Ashkenzai background have come to be lumped together as Sephardic - and because of intermarriages between Ashkenzai and non-Ashkenazi partners, they either self-identify or reject those labels.
You know, when it comes time to exterminate them, no one has any trouble identifying "Who is a Jew." Along comes WTH (which must stand for "What's The Holocaust?"), naysayer, skeptic, smear-spreader and HOLOCAUST DENIER, to say that not even Jews agree that Jews are Jews.
WTH: You have no credibility on this. The evidence is there. The Jews who are Jews share genetics with the Jews who you say are not Jews, proving that Wierwille was wrong. Hitler had no problem identifying the Jews when he proposed, plotted and attempted their extermination. ANd he got close to or over 6 million of them, according to the evidence you don't even refute with any actual evidence of your own.
Okay WTH, Let's say You are right, I don't believe that for a second, but lets say you are right. You still have eleven million dead people at the hands of Hitler--so I guess your stance is since they weren't Jews that's okay????
Face it, Dead is dead, Genocide is genocide, murder is murder. Hitler planned and condoned it and your precious VPW whole heartedly supported it.
I was working on a reply to you with regard to the financial aid, but then I got distracted, hit the wrong key, and you can guess the ending. So, because I do not have the patience to do it all over again I will merely suggested you go to us.gov and do a search on foreign aid. You may find it quite disturbing, especially in light of the fact that Israel has averaged $2.45 billion a year.
Some facts I remember off the top of my head -
for 2005/2006
-Africa 2 Billion
-Jordan 350 million
-Egypt was getting 2 billion a year up until the 9/11 - I am not sure what, if anything they are getting now
-The Palestinians get several hundred million also - though I don't recall the exact figure. I do know Bush authorized a HUGE amount to them for Gaza once Israel completes it's withdrawal.
-Saudi Arabia and Pakestan also get financial support, again I don't recall the figure
-The house recently passed 56 million to "promote democracy" in Iran - the legislation is now pending in the senate.
If you add it up - you will find the Muslem countries get far more money from us than Israel does.
As for Weirwille's logic - well Mo summed it up well . . . .
"Okay WTH, Let's say You are right, I don't believe that for a second, but lets say you are right. You still have eleven million dead people at the hands of Hitler--so I guess your stance is since they weren't Jews that's okay????
Face it, Dead is dead, Genocide is genocide, murder is murder. Hitler planned and condoned it and your precious VPW whole heartedly supported it."
The same is true today. Whether the Jews of today are genetically related to the Jews of Biblical times or not (and DNA studies would support the notion that they are) killing us because we call ourselves Jews is still murder. Just as killing Christians would be. Would you support spending money for Christians who are being persecuted and threatened with genocide? If so, what is the difference. If not, why not?
"Encouraging is one thing, being mired down with decades of war with the middle east, costing many lives and much $billions, is another..."
Our "wars" with the middle east are only minutely tied to Israel at best. They have far more to do with our fight against communism and promotion of democracy than anything else. We have removed and replaced many a dictator in our 'tactical manuevers' against the Soviet Union, including the installation of Sadman Insane in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"Would the terrorists cease their attacks against U.S. if the U.S. showed a good faith effort to cease support of their enemies?"
I doubt it, for all of the reasons I have already mentioned. If anything, I suspect it would increase because our withdrawl would indicate to them it is working.
WTH - your posts are so lacking in logic that are not really worth responding to. And yet, fool that I am, I will.
"they don't even agree amongst themselves since the definition of "who is a Jew" varies based on religious, sociological or ethnical approaches to that identity) and in recent years the term "Ashkenazi Jew" has taken on a completely different meaning in Israel."
The term "Jew" can be used in reference to either relgion, ethnicity, or both. One can be religiously Jewish via conversion and have no "Jewish blood". One can be ethnically Jewish and practice any religion they choose.
As it is within Christianity, so it is among many religions including Judaism. There are the more fundamental groups and the more liberal groups and rarely do they agree on much. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for you to understand - beyond it doesn't fit with your agenda.
"There is no ruling body in Judaism that determines "who is a Jew". Jewish law or Halaka does not define who is Jewish by faith. Nor does membership in a local Jewish community or synagogue make one a Jew. "
The same can be said of Christianity. A person can be a member of a Christian church and it doesn't make one a Christian. Likewise there are many differences of opinion regarding what makes one a Christian. Some require a belief in the Trinity, others would call belief in the trinity a false god and therefore those who hold such beliefs would NOT be considered Christians.
And the part that shows your ignorance with respect to Jews the greatest. . . . .
"Ashkenazi Jew" is blurring with the reintegration of Jews from around the world. The label "Ashkenazi" is often applied to all Jews living in Israel or European origin, including those whose ethnic background is Sephardic."
The difference between Ashkenzai and Sephardic jews is not religous or even necessarily "ethnic" in terms of this discussion, but cultural. Ashkenzai Jews are generally those from Eastern Europe and the Sephardic Jews are from Spain and middle eastern countries. Relgiously they would vary in the same sense as all people of one faith - some Ashkenzai Jews are more orthodox, some less. Some Sephardic Jews are more orthodox and some less.
The cultural difference stem from the incorporation of the cultures they were living among. The use different foods for their holidays, their prayers may differ some as well.
Tom, what we are discussing here are actually two issues... (1) the details/facts about the holocaust itself
and
(2) regardless of the facts, whether or not these facts are currently being used as propaganda for continued Zionist causes...
ACTUALLY,
we had a single discussion directly relevant to the HOLOCAUST
and the FACTS of the HOLOCAUST themselves when you
introduced a SECOND discussion into the mix....
on page 1.
There is such a wide variety of differing information on this topic, I really don't know who to believe.
But one thing is certain: we Americans have been shelling out $3-4 billions of loot to the Israeli government year after year, and there seems to be no end in sight.
Dr. Wierwille and others believed we should know about the propaganda machines that encourage these yearly displacements of funds, which really is not a bad idea, if you ask me....
One might think you were trying to draw attention away from the main
discussion and the irrefutability of the deaths of millions of Jews in WW II
as systematically planned and executed by Nazi Germany....
"they don't even agree amongst themselves since the definition of "who is a Jew" varies based on religious, sociological or ethnical approaches to that identity) and in recent years the term "Ashkenazi Jew" has taken on a completely different meaning in Israel."
The term "Jew" can be used in reference to either relgion, ethnicity, or both. One can be religiously Jewish via conversion and have no "Jewish blood". One can be ethnically Jewish and practice any religion they choose.
As it is within Christianity, so it is among many religions including Judaism. There are the more fundamental groups and the more liberal groups and rarely do they agree on much. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for you to understand - beyond it doesn't fit with your agenda.
"There is no ruling body in Judaism that determines "who is a Jew". Jewish law or Halaka does not define who is Jewish by faith. Nor does membership in a local Jewish community or synagogue make one a Jew. "
The same can be said of Christianity. A person can be a member of a Christian church and it doesn't make one a Christian. Likewise there are many differences of opinion regarding what makes one a Christian. Some require a belief in the Trinity, others would call belief in the trinity a false god and therefore those who hold such beliefs would NOT be considered Christians.
And the part that shows your ignorance with respect to Jews the greatest. . . . .
"Ashkenazi Jew" is blurring with the reintegration of Jews from around the world. The label "Ashkenazi" is often applied to all Jews living in Israel or European origin, including those whose ethnic background is Sephardic."
The difference between Ashkenzai and Sephardic jews is not religous or even necessarily "ethnic" in terms of this discussion, but cultural. Ashkenzai Jews are generally those from Eastern Europe and the Sephardic Jews are from Spain and middle eastern countries. Relgiously they would vary in the same sense as all people of one faith - some Ashkenzai Jews are more orthodox, some less. Some Sephardic Jews are more orthodox and some less.
The cultural difference stem from the incorporation of the cultures they were living among. The use different foods for their holidays, their prayers may differ some as well.
If WTH actually wanted to LEARN about the Ashkenazi Jews,
he could have just FINISHED READING THE ARTICLE HE COPIED FROM,
rather than just picked out what he thought would defend his position.
He might have noted that the rest of it REFUTED HIS POSITION
You know, when it comes time to exterminate them, no one has any trouble identifying "Who is a Jew." Along comes WTH (which must stand for "What's The Holocaust?"), naysayer, skeptic, smear-spreader and HOLOCAUST DENIER, to say that not even Jews agree that Jews are Jews.
WTH: You have no credibility on this. The evidence is there. The Jews who are Jews share genetics with the Jews who you say are not Jews, proving that Wierwille was wrong. Hitler had no problem identifying the Jews when he proposed, plotted and attempted their extermination. ANd he got close to or over 6 million of them, according to the evidence you don't even refute with any actual evidence of your own.
By taking a few sentences out of their context from
But it does mesh rather nicely with his thinly veiled admiration of Hitler...
Indeed it does. If you deny that the holocaust happened, you are in effect, saying that Hitler has taken a bad rap...maybe he wasn't so bad afterall. No doubt that Wierwille admired Hitler...I heard Veepee, with my own ears, say that maybe we were on the wrong side in WW11...I was stunned.
It is also very telling, that the posters who argue in favor of the "myth of the 6 million" are also Wierwille apologists. It's all part of the package deal...doncha know.
Indeed it does. If you deny that the holocaust happened, you are in effect, saying that Hitler has taken a bad rap...maybe he wasn't so bad afterall. No doubt that Wierwille admired Hitler...I heard Veepee, with my own ears, say that maybe we were on the wrong side in WW11...I was stunned.
If Dr. Wierwille did "admire" Hitler, it was probably due to Hitler's fight against world communism and the Soviets, more than anything else; not the way Hitler treated Jews per se (although it has been said that Wierwille agreed with Hitler's plan for the emigration of Jews from Germany). But I can see VP saying we were on the wrong side in WWII, because with respect to communism, WE WERE.
Some also may recall that Wierwille was an admirer of our World War II vets; he spoke highly and respectfully of them, my father included. So if Wierwille were truly this glassy eyed lover of Hitler and fascism, as some posters love to portray him, it doesn't make sense he would admire and speak well of those who fought against Hitler and fascism.
Updated information, from the Wiki link thazt Goey provided:
Beginning in 1979, IHR publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." This money (and an additional $40,000) was eventually paid in 1985 to Auschwitz survivor Mel Mermelstein, who sued the IHR for breach of contract for initially ignoring his evidence (a signed testimony of his experiences in Auschwitz). As a result of Mermelstein's case, a U.S. Superior Court in California declared the Holocaust an indisputable legal fact.
Regarding the Mermelstein affair, I googled and received this response from the IHR website:
I was working on a reply to you with regard to the financial aid, but then I got distracted, hit the wrong key, and you can guess the ending. So, because I do not have the patience to do it all over again I will merely suggested you go to us.gov and do a search on foreign aid. You may find it quite disturbing, especially in light of the fact that Israel has averaged $2.45 billion a year.
Some facts I remember off the top of my head -
for 2005/2006
-Africa 2 Billion
-Jordan 350 million
-Egypt was getting 2 billion a year up until the 9/11 - I am not sure what, if anything they are getting now
-The Palestinians get several hundred million also - though I don't recall the exact figure. I do know Bush authorized a HUGE amount to them for Gaza once Israel completes it's withdrawal.
-Saudi Arabia and Pakestan also get financial support, again I don't recall the figure
-The house recently passed 56 million to "promote democracy" in Iran - the legislation is now pending in the senate.
If you add it up - you will find the Muslem countries get far more money from us than Israel does.
My response to this would be, two wrongs don't make a right...
Hitler did not have a plan for emigration of Jews from Germany! He had a plan for eradication of Jews from this mortal coil!
And I do not accept IHR's spin on their loss to Mermelstein. It's spin, just like everything else they write. Slapping the word "institute" on something does not make it a place of learning and research. This is disproven propaganda. Jews know it. Nazis knew it. Honest researchers know it. Dishonest pseudo-researchers can pretend all they'd like, and the gullible-beyond-measure can continue believing them, but it doesn't change the truth.
Hitler planned and approved the execution of millions of Jews, and succeeded at killing somewhere around 6 million of them, many of them in gas chambers. This is not a theory. It's history.
I missed Goey's post on this, but I would state that one always has to consider the source.
1. I find a sworn affidavit by a witness who is receiving a huge monetary reward for making the statement to lack credibility unless there are other, unpaid witnesses to support the story.
2. I find IHR's version equally lacking in credibility, because they have an agenda.
3. There are credible witness who have testified regarding the Holocaust.
There is so so much out there, on this topic. Call it "spin" if you want and maybe it is, but thank God we have brains to accept/consider other viewpoints.
Here's some interesting reading:
The Holocaust:
A Product of Euphoria in Victory
Within the broad spectrum of interpretation, my thesis might be termed "moderate functionalist." I do not accept the intentionalists' view that the key decision - the conception of the Final Solution as a fixed goal - had already been taken long before the war and merely awaited the opportune moment for implementation. My position does not deny the significance of Hitler's anti-Semitism, only that the intention to murder the Jews had been consciously derived from it well in advance.
Concerning Hitler's anti-Semitism, historical consensus exists on the following: Psychologically, it was a deeply held obsession. Ideologically, it was the keystone of his Weltanschauung. Without his understanding of politics in terms of a Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy and his understanding of history in terms of a Social-Darwinist struggle of races (in which the Jews played the most diabolical role), the whole edifice would collapse. Finally, Hitler gave expression to this anti-Semitism in violent threats and fantasies of mass murder. Indeed, for a man whose Social Darwinism implied the final resolution of any conflict in terms of the survival of one adversary through the "destruction" of the other, and whose anti-Semitism was understood in terms of race, mass murder of the Jews was a "logical" deduction. Granted all this, the relationship between Hitier's anti-Semitism and the origin of the Final Solution still remains controversial.
Even if the Final Solution can be "logically" deduced from Hitler's Weltanschauung, it is improbable that Hitler made that deduction before 1941 and consciously pursued the systematic murder of the European Jews as a long-held goal. The assumption that Nazi Jewish policy was the premeditated and logical consequence of Hifler's anti-Semitism cannot be easily reconciled with his actual behavior in the years before 1941. For example, Hitler's view of the Jews as the "November criminals" who caused Germany's defeat in World War I was as fervently held as any of his anti-Jewish allegations. Indeed, the oft-cited passage from Mein Kampf lamenting that twelve or fifteen thousand Jews had not been gassed during the war makes far more sense in the context of the stab-in-the-back legend than as a prophecy or intimation of the Final Solution. The "logical" consequence of the thesis of the Jew as wartime traitor should have been a "preventive" massacre of German jewry before the western offensive or at least before the attack on Russia.
In actual practice Nazi Jewish policy sought a judenrein Germany by facilitating and often coercing Jewish emigration. In order to reserve the limited emigration opportunities for German Jews, the Nazis opposed Jewish emigration from elsewhere on the continent. This policy continued until the fall of 1941, when the Nazis prohibited Jewish emigration from Germany and for the first time justified the blocking of Jewish emigration from other countries in terms of preventing their escape from the German grasp. The efforts of the Nazi Jewish experts to facilitate Jewish emigration both before and during the war, as well as their plans for massive expulsions (what the Nazis euphemistically called "resefflement" or Umsiedlung) were not merely tolerated but encouraged by Hitler. It is difficult to reconcile the assumption of a long-held intention to murder the Jews of Europe with this behavior. If Hitler knew he was going to murder the Jews, then he was supporting a policy that "favored" German Jews over other European Jews and "rescued" from death many of those he held most responsible for Germany's earlier defeat.
It has been argued that Hitler was merely awaiting the opportune moment to realize his murderous intentions. Not only does that not explain the pursuit of a contradictory policy of emigration in the meantime, it also does not explain the long delay. If Hitler was merely awaiting the outbreak of conflict to pursue his "war against the Jews," why were the millions of Polish Jews in his hands since the fall of 1939 granted a thirty-month "stay of execution"? They were subjected to sporadic massacre and murderous living conditions but not to systematic extermination until 1942. If Hitler could kill at least seventy thousand Germans through the euthanasia program between 1939 and 1941, why was it not "opportune" to murder several hundred thousand German Jews who constituted an "internal menace" in wartime? It certainly would have occasioned far less opposition than euthanasia. Why was this period not used to make preparations and plans for mass extermination, avoiding the clumsy improvisations of 1941? In short, the practice of Nazi Jewish policy until 1941 does not support the thesis of a long-held, fixed intention to murder the European Jews.
Hitler's anti-Semitism is more plausibly seen as the stimulant or spur to a continuous search for an increasingly radical solution to the Jewish question rather than as the source of a logically deduced and long-held "blueprint" for extermination. As the "satanic" figure behind all other problems, the Jew was for Hitler the ultimate problem and required an ultimate or final solution. Hitler's anti-Semitism thus constituted an ideological imperative which, given the competitive nature of the Nazi state, played a central role in the evolution of Nazi Jewish policy. The rival Nazi chieftains constantly sought to expand their private empires and vied for Hitler's favor through anticipating and pursuing Hitler's desires. In his function as arbiter, Hitler in turn sought to avoid totally antagonizing or alienating any of his close followers, even the most incompetent among them such as Rosenberg and Ribbentrop. Thus, when competing Nazis advocated conflicting policies, all plausibly justified in Nazi terminology, Hitler had great difficulty resolving differences. Paralysis and indecision were often the result. When, however, the competition was carried out at the expense of helpless third parties, such as Jews and populations of occupied territories, protected by no countervailing force, radicalization rather than paralysis followed. Hence it was the conjuncture of Hitier's anti-Semitic obsession, the anarchial and competitive nature of the Nazi state, the vulnerable status of the European Jews, and the war that resulted in the Final Solution.
By 1941 Nazi Jewish policy had reached an impasse. Military and diplomatic success had brought millions of Jews into the German sphere, while the already limited possibilities for Jewish emigration were constricted further through the outbreak of war. Germany's self-imposed "Jewish problem" mushroomed while the traditional solution collapsed. Interim solutions of massive "resettlement" - in Lublin and Madagascar - in like manner were not viable. The imminent invasion of Russia posed the same dilemma once again - further territorial conquest meant more Jews. At some point in the spring of 1941, Hitler decided to break this vicious circle.
Overwhelming documentation exists to show that Germany, under Hitler's prodding, planned and prepared for a Vemichtungskrieg - a war of destruction, not a conventional war - in Russia. It would be a clash of ideologies and races, not of nation-states. Detailed negotiations between the army and the SS ended in an agreement with the army's promising logistical support and conceding freedom of action to small mobile SS-units - Einsatzgruppen - charged with "special tasks" behind German lines. All customs and international law concerning war and occupation were to be disregarded. . . .
With the decision to murder the Russian Jews, Hitler broke out of the vicious circle in which each military success brought more Jews into the German sphere. This did not, however, immediately alter German Jewish policy on the rest of the continent. Emigration, expulsion, and plans for future "resettlement" still held sway. . . . Thus the preparations for the murderous assault upon the Russian Jews did not have immediate repercussions on Nazi Jewish policy elsewhere. The emergence of the Final Solution for the European Jews was a separate process resulting from a separate though certainly not unrelated decision. . . .
On July 31, 1941, Heydrich received G6ring's authorization to prepare a "total solution" (Gesamtlbsung) of the Jewish question in those territories of Europe under German influence and to coordinate the participation of those organizations whose jurisdictions were touched. The significance of this document is open to debate. Most historians have assumed that it refers to an extermination program. In contrast [functionalists]have interpreted it in terms of a "comprehensive program for the deportation of the Jews" to Russia and an attempt by Heydrich to strengthen his jurisdictional position to carry out this task. . . .
However uncertain the origins of the July authorization and however vague the phraseology about the fate intended for the Jews, this much is known. It was signed by G6ring, who two weeks later expressed the opinion that "the Jews in the territories dominated by Germany had nothing more to seek." G6ring did not spell out their fate further, except to say that where Jews had to be allowed to work, it could only be in closely guarded labor camps, and that he preferred that Jews be hanged rather than shot, as the latter was too honorable a death. An impending mass expulsion of Jews into Russia was neither mentioned nor implied.
The authorization was received by Heydrich, who already had an authorization signed by Gbring for coordinating Jewish emigration, dating from January 1939. When Jewish emigration gave way to plans for massive "resettlement," Heydrich had felt no need for a new "charter" and cited the older one when asserting jurisdiction over the emerging Madagascar Plan in 1940. Moreover, Heydrich had just spent the previous months organizing the Einsatzgruppen for the extermination of the Russian Jews, and that murder campaign was now in full swing. The historical context would thus suggest that, if indeed Heydrich was the initiator of the July authorization, he did not need it to continue the emigration and expulsion activities over which he had long established unchallenged jurisdiction but rather because he now faced a new and awesome task that dwarfed even the systematic murder program of the Einsatzgruppen.
Precisely how and when Heydrich and his immediate superior, Himmler, became aware of their new task is not and probably never will be known. But given the political structure of the Third Reich, in which rival paladins vied for Hitier's favor and were successful to the degree in which they anticipated and realized his desires, and given the extermination program already underway in Russia, Himmier and Heydrich surely needed little more than a nod from Hitler to perceive that the time had come to extend the killing process to the European Jews. That such a Hitlerian incitement lay behind the July authorization cannot be definitely proven. But the testimony of Rudolf H6ss and Adolf Eichmann indicates that at some point in the summer of 1941, whether in July or shortly thereafter is unclear, Himmler and Heydrich began to act on the assumption that Hitler had given them the "green light" to prepare an extermination program. . . .
Given the already apparent inadequacies of the Einsatzgruppen operations - their inefficiency, the lack of secrecy, and the psychological burden on the executioners - and their even greater unsuitability for use outside Russia, the most important problem Himmier and Heydrich faced was how and where to kill the Jews. Ultimately the Nazi planners solved this problem by merging three already existing programs with which they had prior experience: the concentration camp system, euthanasia gassing, and Eichmann's specialty of forced emigration and population resettlement. Auschwitz, because of its rail connections, was chosen as one site for a killing center. The possibility of other sites in Russia may have been weighed until the military and transportation situation made this unfeasible. The exact type of gas to be used remained undetermined; in the end the Polish camps manned by euthanasia personnel retained carbon monoxide while Auschwitz and Maidanek adopted Cyclon B.
When was this solution - deportation to camps equipped with gassing facilities - finally approved? The answer lies in another question: When did the construction of the first death camps and the initial shifting of euthanasia personnel begin? The course of events at Auschwitz is not helpful in validating the date, for Auschwitz was already a labor camp at which many Russian prisoners of war were being systematically killed. The gassing of some of these Russian prisoners in September 1941 with Cyclon B in Bunker II at the Stammlager was followed by at least several gassings of small contingents of local Jews in the "old crematory." However, the gassing of large transports of Jews in the converted farm house at Birkenau did not begin until late January 1942. This sequence provides no clear indication as to when H6ss was first aware of this new killing task. Belzec and Chelmno, however, provide a better check, for neither was then in existence as an operating labor camp and both were constructed solely to kill Jews. The date when construction on these camps began can thus provide a crucial check as to when a significant number of Germans knew what they were about in preparing for the Final Solution. Most of the German defendants in the Beizec and Chelmno trials were not at those camps at the beginning and could provide no relevant testimony. However, the testimony of two German defendants in this regard, corroborated by the testimony of local inhabitants in those areas taken by the Poles immediately after the war, clearly points once again to October 1941.
Let us examine the Chelmno evidence first. Since early 1940 a Sonderkommando under Herbert Lange, headquartered in Posen, had been carrying out euthanasia operations in East Prussia and the incorporated territories. According to Lange's chauffeur, he drove the Sonderkommando chief around the Warthegau in the fall of 1941 searching for a suitable location for a death camp. He then drove Lange to Berlin and back, arriving in Chelmno in late October or early
November. Thereafter a team of SS men was assembled from Posen and Lodz, followed by a guard detachment of Order Police. A work force of Polish prisoners from Lodz together with local inhabitants was put to work renovating and fencing the old villa or Schloss, where the Jews would be undressed and loaded into the waiting gas vans. After preparations were complete, the gassing began on December 8.
Polish postwar interrogations of the Volksdeutsche (ethnic German) inhabitants of the village provide the same sequence. According to the Amtskommissar of Chelmno, he was away from town toward the end of 1941 when some SS men arrived and investigated the Schloss and other buildings. Some days later, after his return, Lange appeared and confiscated various buildings. Lange returned still later with a team of SS men, followed by police. Some weeks after the arrival of the SS-unit, work on the Schloss was complete and the first truckloads of Jews arrived. Such a sequence of events would necessitate Lange's having received his initial instructions to establish a death camp at Chelmno no later than mid- or late October but more likely toward the beginning of the month.
The sequence of events at Beizec leads to much the same conclusion. Again we have the testimony of only one German defendant, Josef Oberhauser, initially an employee of the euthanasia program and subsequently adjutant to Christian Wirth, the inspector of the Polish death camps of Operation Reinhard. Oberhauser was assigned to Globocnik' ['SS General Odilo Globocnik, responsible for Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Maidanek. - Ed. Niewyk] in Lublin in October and arrived there in November 1941. His first job consisted of bringing to Belzec building materials as well as Ukrainian guardsmen from their training camp at Trawniki. He was in no doubt as to what was intended in Belzec, as the construction supervisor showed him the plans for the gas chamber. By Christmas the initial construction was finished, and Oberhauser became Wirth's liaison to Globocnik. After the first gassing test killed fifty Jewish workers, Wirth went to Berlin for six weeks. Upon his return in March, the first transports began to arrive.
According to local inhabitants, three SS men came to Beizec in October 1941 and demanded a draft of twenty Polish workers. Work began on November I under the direction of a young ethnic German Baumeister from Kattowitz, who supervised the construction according to a set of plans. After putting up two barracks and the future gas chamber near the railway siding, the Polish workers were dismissed on December 23. By then black-uniformed former Russian prisoners of war had arrived to carry on the work and guard seventy Jewish laborers. After more barracks, guard towers, and fencing were completed, the Jewish workers were killed in the first test of the gassing facilities in February 1942. Full-time operations then began in March. Thus not only is the Oberhauser testimony confirmed, but an Eichmann visit to an empty camp at Belzec in October 1941 and his reception by a lone police captain fits this sequence of events precisely. The few wooden buildings he saw must have dated from the former Jewish labor camp at Belzec.
While many euthanasia personnel were sent from Germany to Russia in the winter of 1941-1942 and were not reassigned to the death camps until the spring of 1942, some key personnel were already involved earlier. Not only had Wirth and Oberhauser been sent from Berlin in the fall of 1941, but Brack also dispatched to Lublin his chemist, Dr. Helmut Kalimeyer, the man he had unsuccessfully tried to send to Riga in late October. Kallmeyer admitted being sent to Lublin after Christmas, but said no one had had any use for him and he had been quickly sent back. SS-Untersturmfiihrer Dr. August Becker, on loan from the SS to the euthanasia program since January 1940 for the purpose of delivering bottled carbon monoxide to the euthanasia institutes, testified frankly (when terminally ill and no longer facing trial): "Himmler wanted to use the people released from euthanasia who were experts in gassing, such as myself, in the great gassing program getting underway in the east." Before being assigned in December 1941 to supervise gas vans operating with the Einsatzgruppen in Russia, Becker had already heard talk in Berlin that other members of the euthanasia program were being sent to Lublin to start "something similar," only this time according to rumor it would be for the Jews.
If the October documents cited above indicate that middle echelon officials of the Fiihrer's Chancellory, Foreign Office, and Ostministerium were then discussing special reception camps and gassing in relation to the Jews, the Chelmno and Beizec testimony indicates that, within the SS, preparation for constructing the death camps was in fact already getting underway in that month. Such evidence makes very compelling the conclusion that by October Hitler had approved the mass-murder plan. It must be kept in mind, however, that the death-camp solution was not self-evident; it had to be invented. Precisely how long the whole process of initiation, invention, and approval took, we do not know. In the accounts of Eichmann and H6ss, they learned from Heydrich and Himmier respectively by late summer of 1941 of Hitier's order to destroy the Jews but not yet how that was to be accomplished. If the death-camp solution had been approved and was being implemented in October, it is at least very probable that the problem was first posed by Himmler and Heydrich to others in August, and that they themselves were first incited to the task by Hitler in late July.
Furthermore, the evidence concerning the founding of the death camps at Chelmno and Beizec does not support the hypothesis of the primacy of local initiative but rather indicates considerable interaction with central authorities in Berlin. Both camps involved the reassignment of personnel formerly involved in the euthanasia program, which was coordinated in the Fiihrer's Chancellory. Both commandants, Lange and Wirth, made trips back to Berlin before their camps began operating. Both camps received visits from Eichmann on inspection tour from Berlin. Both utilized killing technology developed in Germany - in Belzec the stationary gas chamber on the euthanasia institute model, and in Chelmno the gas van, which was developed, tested, produced, and dispatched with drivers by the RSHA.
These conclusions are not compatible with the theories of Adam and Haffner, who date the decision for the Final Solution to the fall or winter of 1941, nor with Broszat's thesis of the primacy of local initiative in setting the process in motion. Central to all these theories is the conviction that the failure of the Russian campaign was crucial in launching the Final Solution: either in forcing Hitler to choose different priorities, as in Haffner's case, or in forcing the Germans to find a solution to the Jewish question other than "resettlement" in Russia, as with Adam and Broszat. If the death camps were already approved and the initial steps were being taken in October, the process involved in launching the Final Solution had to have begun much earlier, at a point when victory in Russia was still expected by the end of the year. Aronson's dating of "late fall," sometime after the implications of American Lend-Lease to Russia had altered Hitler's outlook, likewise is too late to account for this course of events unless the time between the change he postulates in Hider's thinking and the commencement of death-camp construction were almost instantaneous. It would appear that the euphoria of victory in the summer of 1941 and the intoxicating vision of all Europe at their feet, not the dashed expectations and frustrations of the last months of the year, induced the Nazis to set the fateful process in motion. . . .
In conclusion, there was no Hitler order from which the Final Solution sprang full grown like Athena from the head of Zeus. But sometime in the summer of 1941, probably before G6ring's July 31 authorization, Hitler gave Himmler and Heydrich the signal to draw up a destruction plan, the completion of which inevitably involved the exploration of various alternatives, false starts, and much delay. Considerable "lead time" was needed, for the Nazis were venturing into uncharted territory and attempting the unprecedented; they had no maps to follow - hence, a seeming ambivalence surrounding German Jewish policy in the late summer and autumn of 1941, which was aggravated by two factors. The first was the decision in mid-September to deport German Jews before the new killing facilities had been devised. The second was the Byzantine style of government in which initiative from above was informal, information was shared irregularly, and uncertainty was often deliberately cultivated. By October, a not unreasonable two or three months after Hitler had given the green light to proceed, the pieces were falling together. Many outside the SS were now involved, and there had emerged the rough outline of a plan involving mass deportation to killing centers that used poison gas. The first concrete steps for implementing this plan - beginning construction of the earliest death camps at Belzec and Chelmno and the first transfer of euthanasia personnel, both inconceivable without Hitler's approval - were taken by the end of the month. The decision for the Final Solution had been confirmed.
From Fateful Months: Essays on the Emergence of the Final Solution by Christopher Browning (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1985), Permission of the publisher pending.
I thank God you have the freedom to waste your time with what these deniers of history (I do not include Browning on that list) have to say. Browning does not deny the Holocaust, does not deny the numbers, does not deny the gassing, and does not deny the Final Solution. He simply shows its evolution and how it came to be what it was. Clearly, the Final Solution had to have a beginning. He didn't take office and sit in front of a typewriter and say "To Whom It May Concern: I've got this idea."
Call it "spin" if you want, but Hitler actually planned and began to implement the execution of Jews, and succeeded at killing about 6 million of them, many in gas chambers. If that's spin, then "George Washington was the first president of the United States" is also spin.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
70
37
40
Popular Days
Apr 25
42
Apr 28
30
May 16
27
May 2
27
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 43 posts
oldiesman 70 posts
GarthP2000 37 posts
Tom Strange 40 posts
Popular Days
Apr 25 2006
42 posts
Apr 28 2006
30 posts
May 16 2006
27 posts
May 2 2006
27 posts
Tom Strange
OK... assuming this article is factual... SINCE 1949??? C'mon... but OK.. that's comes out to (according to this report) $2.45 billion a year... the U.S. pi$$es that away every day, not too much if you ask me...
But I'm sure there's more somewhere isn't there?
Out of all I said in response to your posts that's the best you can come back with?
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Encouraging is one thing, being mired down with decades of war with the middle east, costing many lives and much $billions, is another...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oldies,
Want to take a look at your numbers again, chief? :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes we should work toward not being dependent on their oil, as well. But I didn't infer that my "solution" was the perfect answer... I infer that it is much safer, and much more cost efficient, for the U.S. to quit supporting Zionism which exposes the U.S. (if not the direct cause, a BIG cause) to being entangled with decades of war with the middle east, costing thousands of lives and billions of money.
Would the terrorists cease their attacks against U.S. if the U.S. showed a good faith effort to cease support of their enemies? I don't know, nobody knows for sure.. but it puts the U.S. in a safer position than what exists today.
ha ha ha... sorry for the typo...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Even the Jews do not agree on either of those points (and they don't even agree amongst themselves since the definition of "who is a Jew" varies based on religious, sociological or ethnical approaches to that identity) and in recent years the term "Ashkenazi Jew" has taken on a completely different meaning in Israel. Distinctions that were perhaps clear a generation or two ago are rapidly vanishing.
There is no ruling body in Judaism that determines "who is a Jew". Jewish law or Halaka does not define who is Jewish by faith. Nor does membership in a local Jewish community or synagogue make one a Jew. Furthermore, a person who does not wish to be considered a Jew any longer is still considered Jewish, whether they do it through apostacy, atheism, a hidden identity or renunciation. There are many famous Ashkenazi Jews who have denied being Jewish, among them being: Felix Mendelssohn (converted to Protestantism), Karl Marx (became atheist), Madeleine Albright (did not know of her Jewish identity until she became an adult, but was already a professing Catholic) and Bobby Fischer, the international chess star who has also claimed the Holocaust is a Jewish invention and a lie - they are considered Ashkenazi Jews.
The definition of "Ashkenazi Jew" is blurring with the reintegration of Jews from around the world. The label "Ashkenazi" is often applied to all Jews living in Israel or European origin, including those whose ethnic background is Sephardic. Jews of non-Ashkenzai background have come to be lumped together as Sephardic - and because of intermarriages between Ashkenzai and non-Ashkenazi partners, they either self-identify or reject those labels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What the Hey, did you happen to check out the "U.S. Financial Aid to Israel" link that I provided?
Pretty staggering isn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You know, when it comes time to exterminate them, no one has any trouble identifying "Who is a Jew." Along comes WTH (which must stand for "What's The Holocaust?"), naysayer, skeptic, smear-spreader and HOLOCAUST DENIER, to say that not even Jews agree that Jews are Jews.
WTH: You have no credibility on this. The evidence is there. The Jews who are Jews share genetics with the Jews who you say are not Jews, proving that Wierwille was wrong. Hitler had no problem identifying the Jews when he proposed, plotted and attempted their extermination. ANd he got close to or over 6 million of them, according to the evidence you don't even refute with any actual evidence of your own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay WTH, Let's say You are right, I don't believe that for a second, but lets say you are right. You still have eleven million dead people at the hands of Hitler--so I guess your stance is since they weren't Jews that's okay????
Face it, Dead is dead, Genocide is genocide, murder is murder. Hitler planned and condoned it and your precious VPW whole heartedly supported it.
Doesn't say much for the lot of you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
How can he wholeheartedly support it? He didn't even believe it existed, let alone know anything about it when it was happening.
It is extremely unfair to equate lack of believing in the holocaust, with supporting it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
But it does mesh rather nicely with his thinly veiled admiration of Hitler...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
There is no evidence that Dr. Wierwille supported the killing of the Jews.
Maybe because Hitler built the autobahns, and his mother was Jewish? :)
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Hitler's mother was Jewish?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Oldies,
I was working on a reply to you with regard to the financial aid, but then I got distracted, hit the wrong key, and you can guess the ending. So, because I do not have the patience to do it all over again I will merely suggested you go to us.gov and do a search on foreign aid. You may find it quite disturbing, especially in light of the fact that Israel has averaged $2.45 billion a year.
Some facts I remember off the top of my head -
for 2005/2006
-Africa 2 Billion
-Jordan 350 million
-Egypt was getting 2 billion a year up until the 9/11 - I am not sure what, if anything they are getting now
-The Palestinians get several hundred million also - though I don't recall the exact figure. I do know Bush authorized a HUGE amount to them for Gaza once Israel completes it's withdrawal.
-Saudi Arabia and Pakestan also get financial support, again I don't recall the figure
-The house recently passed 56 million to "promote democracy" in Iran - the legislation is now pending in the senate.
If you add it up - you will find the Muslem countries get far more money from us than Israel does.
As for Weirwille's logic - well Mo summed it up well . . . .
"Okay WTH, Let's say You are right, I don't believe that for a second, but lets say you are right. You still have eleven million dead people at the hands of Hitler--so I guess your stance is since they weren't Jews that's okay????
Face it, Dead is dead, Genocide is genocide, murder is murder. Hitler planned and condoned it and your precious VPW whole heartedly supported it."
The same is true today. Whether the Jews of today are genetically related to the Jews of Biblical times or not (and DNA studies would support the notion that they are) killing us because we call ourselves Jews is still murder. Just as killing Christians would be. Would you support spending money for Christians who are being persecuted and threatened with genocide? If so, what is the difference. If not, why not?
"Encouraging is one thing, being mired down with decades of war with the middle east, costing many lives and much $billions, is another..."
Our "wars" with the middle east are only minutely tied to Israel at best. They have far more to do with our fight against communism and promotion of democracy than anything else. We have removed and replaced many a dictator in our 'tactical manuevers' against the Soviet Union, including the installation of Sadman Insane in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
"Would the terrorists cease their attacks against U.S. if the U.S. showed a good faith effort to cease support of their enemies?"
I doubt it, for all of the reasons I have already mentioned. If anything, I suspect it would increase because our withdrawl would indicate to them it is working.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
WTH - your posts are so lacking in logic that are not really worth responding to. And yet, fool that I am, I will.
"they don't even agree amongst themselves since the definition of "who is a Jew" varies based on religious, sociological or ethnical approaches to that identity) and in recent years the term "Ashkenazi Jew" has taken on a completely different meaning in Israel."
The term "Jew" can be used in reference to either relgion, ethnicity, or both. One can be religiously Jewish via conversion and have no "Jewish blood". One can be ethnically Jewish and practice any religion they choose.
As it is within Christianity, so it is among many religions including Judaism. There are the more fundamental groups and the more liberal groups and rarely do they agree on much. I don't know why this is a difficult concept for you to understand - beyond it doesn't fit with your agenda.
"There is no ruling body in Judaism that determines "who is a Jew". Jewish law or Halaka does not define who is Jewish by faith. Nor does membership in a local Jewish community or synagogue make one a Jew. "
The same can be said of Christianity. A person can be a member of a Christian church and it doesn't make one a Christian. Likewise there are many differences of opinion regarding what makes one a Christian. Some require a belief in the Trinity, others would call belief in the trinity a false god and therefore those who hold such beliefs would NOT be considered Christians.
And the part that shows your ignorance with respect to Jews the greatest. . . . .
"Ashkenazi Jew" is blurring with the reintegration of Jews from around the world. The label "Ashkenazi" is often applied to all Jews living in Israel or European origin, including those whose ethnic background is Sephardic."
The difference between Ashkenzai and Sephardic jews is not religous or even necessarily "ethnic" in terms of this discussion, but cultural. Ashkenzai Jews are generally those from Eastern Europe and the Sephardic Jews are from Spain and middle eastern countries. Relgiously they would vary in the same sense as all people of one faith - some Ashkenzai Jews are more orthodox, some less. Some Sephardic Jews are more orthodox and some less.
The cultural difference stem from the incorporation of the cultures they were living among. The use different foods for their holidays, their prayers may differ some as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
nuke the bastards!
my marine son just got back from there
i was in a panic all year
is my sons life worth a zillion of theres? sorry imo no frig them
Edited by coolchef1248 @adelphia.netLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
ACTUALLY,
we had a single discussion directly relevant to the HOLOCAUST
and the FACTS of the HOLOCAUST themselves when you
introduced a SECOND discussion into the mix....
on page 1.
One might think you were trying to draw attention away from the main
discussion and the irrefutability of the deaths of millions of Jews in WW II
as systematically planned and executed by Nazi Germany....
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It helps to note he's just cutting and pasting lines from the wikipedia entry
for "Ashkenazi Jews" right now. Without attribution, which means, of course,
that he's plagiarizing their entry. As usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi
If WTH actually wanted to LEARN about the Ashkenazi Jews,
he could have just FINISHED READING THE ARTICLE HE COPIED FROM,
rather than just picked out what he thought would defend his position.
He might have noted that the rest of it REFUTED HIS POSITION
in general, but quibbled over specifics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
By taking a few sentences out of their context from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi
WTH was able to suggest the opposite of the article.
The evidence IS there. It's even IN THE ARTICLE.
"The Jews who are Jews share genetics with the Jews who you say are not Jews,
proving that Wierwille was wrong."
Correct, Raf,
and the proof is right in the SAME ARTICLE,
if WTH was willing to read down to
"ETHNIC DEFINITION"
and didn't stop at the "RELIGIOUS DEFINITION"
and pretend it spoke for CULTURAL and ETHNIC definitions
as well.
According to "ETHNIC DEFINITION",
"Human geneticists have identified certain haplotypes in Y-Chromosome and
mitochondrial studies that have high frequencies among Ashkenazai Jews,
but not in the general European population."
Hm, look at this-they CITE THEIR SOURCES. Imagine that!
Further down,
we see "DNA CLUES",
which is the direct refutation of wierwille AND WTH.
"A study of haplotypes of the Y chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the
paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al found that
the Y chromosome of most Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews was of Middle
Eastern origin, containing mutations that are also common among Palestinians
and other Middle Eastern peoples,
but uncommon in the general European population.
This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced
primarily to the Middle East."
It also addresses the other side, the mitochondrial DNA.
"A 2006 study by Behar et al, based on haplotype analysis of mitochondrial DNA,
suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended
matrilineally from just four women. These four 'founder lineages' were
'likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool' originating in the Near East in the
first and second centuries CE."
(More information pending as more studies are done...)
If he looked at "POPULATION GENETICS",
he'd see the list of genetic disorders that are more common in the Ashkenazi
Jewish population.
Genetic disorders, aka hereditary diseases, increase when you
LIMIT THE GENETICS OF THE POPULATION.
That there are any AT ALL is direct evidence that the population is NOT homogenous
with the whole of society.
If he'd just read thru "ETHNIC DEFINITION", he'd have seen that one of the
concerns OF Ashkenazi Jews is the limited genetic variety as the result OF being
what he claims they're NOT, and why artificial insemination cases AMONG the
Ashkenazi Jews SPECIFICALLY seek out non-Jewish donors in an effort to avoid
genetic disorders that Ashkenazi Jews are already prone to.
Of course, he would have needed to evaluate the implications of what he read,
which seems beyond the skills of our specialist at cutting and pasting.
=====
BTW,
the reason WTH is obviously not posting any refutation of the EVIDENCE
AND EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY of the historical FACT that MILLIONS of JEWS
were killed by NAZIS in WORLD WAR II in an attempt to deliberately kill Jews,
is that he can't find any to cut-and-paste.
So far,
he's cut-and-pasted from Answers.com and Wikipedia.
Neither of them has listed any nonsense indicating the Holocaust,
aka the Shoah, never existed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Indeed it does. If you deny that the holocaust happened, you are in effect, saying that Hitler has taken a bad rap...maybe he wasn't so bad afterall. No doubt that Wierwille admired Hitler...I heard Veepee, with my own ears, say that maybe we were on the wrong side in WW11...I was stunned.
It is also very telling, that the posters who argue in favor of the "myth of the 6 million" are also Wierwille apologists. It's all part of the package deal...doncha know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If Dr. Wierwille did "admire" Hitler, it was probably due to Hitler's fight against world communism and the Soviets, more than anything else; not the way Hitler treated Jews per se (although it has been said that Wierwille agreed with Hitler's plan for the emigration of Jews from Germany). But I can see VP saying we were on the wrong side in WWII, because with respect to communism, WE WERE.
Some also may recall that Wierwille was an admirer of our World War II vets; he spoke highly and respectfully of them, my father included. So if Wierwille were truly this glassy eyed lover of Hitler and fascism, as some posters love to portray him, it doesn't make sense he would admire and speak well of those who fought against Hitler and fascism.
Regarding the Mermelstein affair, I googled and received this response from the IHR website:Best Witness-Mermelstein
My response to this would be, two wrongs don't make a right...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hitler did not have a plan for emigration of Jews from Germany! He had a plan for eradication of Jews from this mortal coil!
And I do not accept IHR's spin on their loss to Mermelstein. It's spin, just like everything else they write. Slapping the word "institute" on something does not make it a place of learning and research. This is disproven propaganda. Jews know it. Nazis knew it. Honest researchers know it. Dishonest pseudo-researchers can pretend all they'd like, and the gullible-beyond-measure can continue believing them, but it doesn't change the truth.
Hitler planned and approved the execution of millions of Jews, and succeeded at killing somewhere around 6 million of them, many of them in gas chambers. This is not a theory. It's history.
Never forget.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I missed Goey's post on this, but I would state that one always has to consider the source.
1. I find a sworn affidavit by a witness who is receiving a huge monetary reward for making the statement to lack credibility unless there are other, unpaid witnesses to support the story.
2. I find IHR's version equally lacking in credibility, because they have an agenda.
3. There are credible witness who have testified regarding the Holocaust.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
There is so so much out there, on this topic. Call it "spin" if you want and maybe it is, but thank God we have brains to accept/consider other viewpoints.
Here's some interesting reading:
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I thank God you have the freedom to waste your time with what these deniers of history (I do not include Browning on that list) have to say. Browning does not deny the Holocaust, does not deny the numbers, does not deny the gassing, and does not deny the Final Solution. He simply shows its evolution and how it came to be what it was. Clearly, the Final Solution had to have a beginning. He didn't take office and sit in front of a typewriter and say "To Whom It May Concern: I've got this idea."
Call it "spin" if you want, but Hitler actually planned and began to implement the execution of Jews, and succeeded at killing about 6 million of them, many in gas chambers. If that's spin, then "George Washington was the first president of the United States" is also spin.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.