Why all the hatred?
Helene649
david_michael
Helene649 <hele...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010121120341...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
There's some fun here too if you look for it.
David
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jeffrey G. Brown
(Helene649) wrote:
> Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
Because anti-Semites like the Holocaust deniers are hatemongers. It's just that
simple.
JGB
================================================================== =====
Jeffrey G. Brown jg_b...@my-deja.com
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated what it means
to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
To be human is to choose. - "The Outer Limits: Feasibility Study", 1997
Jeffrey G. Brown
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> Helene649 <hele...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010121120341...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> > Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
>
> There's some fun here too if you look for it.
Of course, 'Hamsterboy' Michael's idea of 'fun' is to post the names of the
relatives of people he disagrees with, encouraging the real-world harassment not
only of the poster he dislikes but their family as well.
Of such morally decrepit slime is the 'White Power' movement made...
AlMagnus
>Date: 1/21/2001 12:03PM EST
>Message-id: <20010121120341...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
>
>Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
Helene649, thank-you for your thoughtful enquiry. Please elaborate...unless
you just stopped by to lay a platitude on us. Also, this might help you
understand:
"All truth goes through three steps:
First, it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed
Third, it is accepted as self-evident"
Schopenhauer
Regards,
Al Magnus
Steven Mock
I kind of like that quote, Al. But I think it works in reverse too. All
bullshit goes through the same three steps: first it is accepted as
self-evident, then it is violently opposed, and finally it is ridiculed.
I think it is evident that Holocaust denial has recently slipped from stage 2 to
3.
Or, as my favourite quote from Carl Sagan puts it: "They laughed at Copernicus.
They laughed at Galileo. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Steven Mock
--
"I may not agree with your bumper sticker;
but I'll defend your right to stick it." - Ed Anger
AlMagnus
>Date: 1/21/2001 1:23PM EST
>Message-id: <3A6B28DF...@nizkor.org>
If I accept something as self-evident bullshit, I might ridicule it, but I
wouldn't waste the energy hating it or violently opposing it. Holocaust
revisionism is being dealt with at present by ridicule and by violent
opposition, as it inexorably makes its way to Schopenhauer's third stage.
They laughed at Bozo the Clown, but they did not persecute or imprison him.
Therein lies the difference, exposing the insecurity of those pushing the
orthodox history.
Al Magnus
Morghus
>
It shouldn't be too surprising to find hatred in a newsgroup
dedicated to hatred. AR is the forum for discussing the Holocaust. The
Holocaust industry is dedicated to carrying on and expanding the WWII
propaganda deliberately designed to spread hatred of Germans. The very
purpose of the many stories of German atrocities was to instill a
deepseated hatred of the enemy in otherwise passive American and British
fighting men. Hate propaganda is one of the most common weapons of war.
Unfortunately, hatred of Germans has become a peacetime program, a self
generating industry which supports a host of haters in books, movies,
magazine articles, and more recently, lawsuits.
Hatred generates more hatred. Every accusation encourages a
response, sometimes a counter accusation of atrocities, sometimes a
accusation of lying, but almost always a response of resentment
and hatred. The scent of hate draws a host of haters like jackals to a
carcass. Even those of us whe would claim we are just defending the
German people actually contribute to the hatred. In our own way, we
hate the German haters, we bait the German haters, we imply, or openly
accuse the German haters of fabrications. They in turn make their
counter accusations, and so it goes.
There is, however, a little extra incentive for the German
defenders. There is an illogical and basically unfair advantage granted
to the German haters. It seems that in most European countries, and even
Canada, the accusers are permitted to make any claim, no matter how
outrageous or patently false, but the accused are not permitted to
refute or deny under penalty of law. It seems to be Europe's way of
breaking the cycle of hatred. Unfortunately, these anti-German laws and
regulations are reaching out into the internet and usenet to threaten
even the right of Americans to free speech. That fundamental unfairness,
and its threat of diluting America's long cherished right to speak on
unpopular subjects, draws some of us into the discussions even though we
know we can expect to be insulted, and even though we know we are
contributing to the cycle.
One thing is certain: the German bashing will not end on its own. It
is now over half-a-century since WWII ended and all those wild stories
are supposed to have happened. Yet, not a day goes by where we are not
bombarded with some tale of horror, some gruesome description of German
cruelty. At the present rate, WWII propaganda will never become history;
it will remain with us, constantly refreshed, constantly embellished,
constantly altered to resolve exposed contradictions, and constantly
generating hatred of anything German. The only way to put an end to it
is to expose it for what it is: wartime propaganda running amok.
Unfortunately, that will generate more hateful reponses, at least for
the present. If you don't want to be exposed to hatred, even the passive
sort found in these discussions, surf the net for other forums.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Jeffrey G. Brown
> It seems that in most European countries, and even
> Canada, the accusers are permitted to make any claim, no matter how
> outrageous or patently false, but the accused are not permitted to
> refute or deny under penalty of law.
It seems that we've seen this claim before, Fungus, but it's never accompanied
by any actual citation of law. Can you do better?
Didn't think so...
Philip Mathews
>alma...@aol.com (AlMagnus) wrote:
That would depend on the bullshit and what motivated it. When it's the denial
of an attempted genocide of a people, and the motivation is usually
antisemitism, one shouldn't expect decent human beings to react with anything
but loathing.
Holocaust
>revisionism is being dealt with at present by ridicule and by violent
>opposition, as it inexorably makes its way to Schopenhauer's third stage.
Bullshit. It hasn't moved one step toward being true revisionism since it
began. It's a collection of denials, which either ignore, distort, or lie about
the evidence for the Holocaust without ever offering an alternative scenario
which fits the facts.
>
>They laughed at Bozo the Clown, but they did not persecute or imprison him.
Bozo was not a hateful liar, just a clown. Deniers are both.
>Therein lies the difference, exposing the insecurity of those pushing the
>orthodox history.
Those who have established the history of the Holocaust are historians, who
have nothing to do with the misguided laws that exist in some countries. Don't
confuse fear and loathing with insecurity.
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson
Philip Mathews
>
>Morghus mor...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <20010121120341...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> hele...@aol.com (Helene649) wrote:
>> Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
>>
>
> It shouldn't be too surprising to find hatred in a newsgroup
>dedicated to hatred. AR is the forum for discussing the Holocaust. The
>Holocaust industry is dedicated to carrying on and expanding the WWII
>propaganda deliberately designed to spread hatred of Germans.
Nonsense. The Nazis are gone for the most part. But people like Morghus are
here to deny established history. Germans find people like him reprehensible,
and hardly feel the need to have him champion a German rehabilitation.
The very
>purpose of the many stories of German atrocities was to instill a
>deepseated hatred of the enemy in otherwise passive American and British
>fighting men. Hate propaganda is one of the most common weapons of war.
>Unfortunately, hatred of Germans has become a peacetime program, a self
>generating industry which supports a host of haters in books, movies,
>magazine articles, and more recently, lawsuits.
Unfortunately for Mr. Morghus, this is all rubbish, a typical conspiracy theory
wheeled out by those who can't dispute the evidence and thus feel the need for
the kind of self-referential system conspiracy talk often adopts. One can
imagine how Germans cringe when they must listen to such foolishness, from
fools who claim to be helping Germany.
Daniel Keren
# Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
Ah, we're just having a bad day.
-Danny Keren.
AlMagnus
>Date: 1/21/2001 2:27PM EST
>Message-id: <94fd6g$tkr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Thanks for the thoughtful and civil contribution, Morghus. Apparently the
holocaust promoters aren't exclusively motivated by hatred because the
most-recent multi-billion dollars settlements (half-a-century after the fact)
indicate that they do have a love of money.
Helene649, or anybody else interested in learning about what the revisionists
are saying, should visit the revisionist websites where the argument is put
forward with calm and reason. Sifting through the "hatred" at alt.revisionism
might not be the best place to start.
Here are some excellent revisionist websites:
http://www.codoh.com
http://vho.org/index.html
http://www.lebensraum.org
http://www.ihr.org
Buck Turgidson
AlMagnus wrote:
Well, AM, there you go proving Mr. Mock's point: at first, bullshit is accepted as
self-evident.
-- Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
"It doesn't require much thought. One does not need 'facts' to interpret."
--The Liar David E. Michael
Daniel Keren
RevWhite
> news:20010121120341...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> > Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
>
> There's some fun here too if you look for it.
I admit, I have a bunch of fun in here. The anti-Gentiles are so easy
to get stirred up.
--
Visit http://www.christianbiblestudy.org and http://www.identity.org
Concerning unethical attorneys and judges in the State of Pennsylvania:
<http://www.clr.org/pa.html> Yale F. Edeiken --Attorney at Law -
Supreme Court ID# 40290
RevWhite
You will notice all the hatred coming from the Zionist bigots in here.
Let me give you a few examples.
Jeffrey G. Brown - loves to call people bastards and bitches and liars.
Clearly the only reason Jeffrey does this is to ignite hatred in this
newsgroup.
Patrick L. Humphrey - only name calls and claims everyone who disagrees
with him as being an idiot. The purpose of Patrick is to ignite hatred
in this newsgroup as he has no intention on being a peacemaker. A known
liar who when caught simply tells another lie to cover up for the last
one he told. This man is also a documented anti-semite who helped
issued death threats against children of Jews.
Philip Mathews - a man who lies on purpose. The only reason he won't
acknowledge his lies is to promote hatred on this newsgroup.
What I do is to use the same standards these people use on revisionist
in judging them. I also point out article proving the holocaust is a
money grabbing scheme. If you think I am anti-semitic you are wrong as
I support the right for Israel to exist according to the boundaries
that existed in 1947. I believe Israel owes thousands of millions of
dollars of reparation money to the Palestinians for stealing their
housing and their land. They also owe Arabs and Palestinians for
illegally occupying the West Bank and stealing properly from them as
well. This is not hatred but simply the facts as I see it.
I gladly will debate any racist Zionist without insult. However, in
order to make them understand what I am talking about, I will lower the
standard to keep it fair to them.
RevWhite
Eugene Holman
<alma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful and civil contribution, Morghus. Apparently the
> holocaust promoters aren't exclusively motivated by hatred because the
> most-recent multi-billion dollars settlements (half-a-century after the fact)
> indicate that they do have a love of money.
>
You would be yelling bloody murder if an invading army:
- declared that you were no longer citizen of your own country;
- killed your elderly relatives, and younger siblings in cold blood,
calling it just treatment for members of a criminal race;
- confiscated all your property and assets, calling it just booty from
a member of a criminal race;
- put you to work for three years doing 12 hour days, 7 days a week, on
1,000 calories a day, calling it just treatment for members of a
work-shy race that good rich by the strength of their mind rather than
by the sweat of their brow;
- marched you through the Polish and Czech countryside in the dead of
winter, with no proper winter clothing, and sleeping in barns or
outdoors during the final weeks of the war, calling it just treatment
for members of a criminal race that had caused Germany to loose yet a
second world war;
and you miraculously survived, not only that brutal and humiliating
treatment, but were still living half a century later, with the
possibility of being compensated only having been made available less
than ten years ago when the iron curtain fell.
This is the reality for hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors in
Eastern Europe today. This is not hate, not even the Germans, who have
inherited this burdensome legacy regard it as hate. The German word is
Wiedergutmachung - literally 'making good again'. You would be advised
to think about the message that word contains.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> In article <20010121120341...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> hele...@aol.com (Helene649) wrote:
> > Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
>
> You will notice all the hatred coming from the Zionist bigots in here.
> Let me give you a few examples.
>
> Jeffrey G. Brown - loves to call people bastards and bitches and liars.
I don't use the first two words anymore, Donnie. As for the third -- well, is
there a better term for those like you, who routinely make statements they know
to be untrue?
RevWhite
Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> In article <20010121153129...@ng-fm1.aol.com>, AlMagnus
> <alma...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for the thoughtful and civil contribution, Morghus.
Apparently the
> > holocaust promoters aren't exclusively motivated by hatred because
the
> > most-recent multi-billion dollars settlements (half-a-century after
the fact)
> > indicate that they do have a love of money.
> >
>
> You would be yelling bloody murder if an invading army:
> - declared that you were no longer citizen of your own country;
Like the Arabs and Palestinians were with the start of the Zionist
state of Israel?
> - killed your elderly relatives, and younger siblings in cold blood,
Just like Israel has done to over 300 Palestinians in the last few
months
> calling it just treatment for members of a criminal race;
Jews view Arabs as inferior people not chosen of God
> - confiscated all your property and assets, calling it just booty from
> a member of a criminal race;
Just like Israel did to 1000's of Arabs and Palestinians on the West
Bank
> - put you to work for three years doing 12 hour days, 7 days a week,
on
> 1,000 calories a day, calling it just treatment for members of a
> work-shy race that good rich by the strength of their mind rather than
> by the sweat of their brow;
Just like Israel does to 1000's of imprisoned Arabs and Palestinians
many held without trial for 15 years or more.
> - marched you through the Polish and Czech countryside in the dead of
> winter, with no proper winter clothing, and sleeping in barns or
> outdoors during the final weeks of the war, calling it just treatment
> for members of a criminal race that had caused Germany to loose yet a
> second world war;
The Germans did that to help save the lives of Jews since the allies
had cut off their food supply.
> This is the reality for hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors
in
> Eastern Europe today.
Hundreds of thousands of living holocaust survivors in Eastern Europe
indicate the Germans had no plan to execute them. Why is it that Eugene
claims the Germans were so efficient at killing Jews but yet over four
million of them survived the holocaust? Still have never heard an
answer for this yet.
--
Visit http://www.christianbiblestudy.org and http://www.identity.org
Concerning unethical attorneys and judges in the State of Pennsylvania:
<http://www.clr.org/pa.html> Yale F. Edeiken --Attorney at Law -
Supreme Court ID# 40290
Philip Mathews
> RevWhite p...@imneverwrong.com wrote:
>In article <20010121120341...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> hele...@aol.com (Helene649) wrote:
>> Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
>
>You will notice all the hatred coming from the Zionist bigots in here.
>Let me give you a few examples.
>
>Jeffrey G. Brown - loves to call people bastards and bitches and liars.
>Clearly the only reason Jeffrey does this is to ignite hatred in this
>newsgroup.
>
>Patrick L. Humphrey - only name calls and claims everyone who disagrees
>with him as being an idiot. The purpose of Patrick is to ignite hatred
>in this newsgroup as he has no intention on being a peacemaker. A known
>liar who when caught simply tells another lie to cover up for the last
>one he told. This man is also a documented anti-semite who helped
>issued death threats against children of Jews.
>
>Philip Mathews - a man who lies on purpose. The only reason he won't
>acknowledge his lies is to promote hatred on this newsgroup.
There you have the rantings of a Jew hating, pretend reverend of the Christian
faith, who spews lies daily, and even pretends to deny the Holocaust, an event
he knows less about than Christianity.
With a newsgroup peopled by such hate filled liars, it shouldn't be too
difficult to come up with an answer to your question.
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> Why is it that Eugene
> claims the Germans were so efficient at killing Jews but yet over four
> million of them survived the holocaust? Still have never heard an
> answer for this yet.
Why is it that you can't give a source for the "four million" figure, Donnie?
Still have never heard an answer for this yet...
Morghus
dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
> http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/camps/belsen
>
> -Danny Keren.
>
>
Belsen? Is that your response? That proves my assertion that all
of this is just wartime propaganda endless propagated. Here is an
excerpt from Kramer, the camp commandant, explaining what was going on
at the Belsen camp. It was a catastrophe--but it was not deliberate
extermination. Your response shows just how far the Holocaust industry
will go to generate hatred of Germans.
From a March 1, 1945, letter to Gruppenführer (General) Richard
Glücks, head of the SS camp administration agency:
"If I had sufficient sleeping accommodation at my disposal, then
the accommodation of the detainees who have already arrived and of those
still to come would appear more possible. In addition to this question a
spotted fever and typhus epidemic has now begun, which increases in
extent every day. The daily mortality rate, which was still in the
region of 60-70 at the beginning of February, has in the meantime
attained a daily average of 250-300 and will increase still further in
view of the conditions which at present prevail.
"Supply. When I took over the camp, winter supplies for 1500
internees had been indented for; some had been received, but the greater
part had not been delivered. This failure was due not only to
difficulties of transport, but also to the fact that practically nothing
is available in this area and all must be brought from outside the area
...
"For the last four days there has been no delivery [of food] from
Hannover owing to interrupted communications, and I shall be compelled,
if this state of affairs prevails till the end of the week, to fetch
bread also by means of truck from Hannover. The trucks allotted to the
local unit are in no way adequate for this work, and I am compelled to
ask for at least three to four trucks and five to six trailers. When I
once have here a means of towing then I can send out the trailers into
the surrounding area ... The supply question must, without fail, be
cleared up in the next few days. I ask you, Gruppenführer, for an
allocation of transport ...
"State of Health. The incidence of disease is very high here in
proportion to the number of detainees. When you interviewed me on Dec.
1, 1944, at Oranienburg, you told me that Bergen-Belsen was to serve as
a sick camp for all concentration camps in north Germany. The number of
sick has greatly increased, particularly on account of the transports of
detainees that have arrived from the East in recent times -- these
transports have sometimes spent eight or fourteen days in open trucks
...
"The fight against spotted fever is made extremely difficult by the
lack of means of disinfection. Due to constant use, the hot-air
delousing machine is now in bad working order and sometimes fails for
several days ...
"A catastrophe is taking place for which no one wishes to assume
responsibility ... Gruppenführer, I can assure you that from this end
everything will be done to overcome the present crisis ...
"I am now asking you for your assistance as it lies in your power.
In addition to the above-mentioned points I need here, before
everything, accommodation facilities, beds, blankets, eating utensils --
all for about 20,000 internees... I implore your help in overcoming this
situation."
Kramer was executed as a war criminal by the brave avengers at
Nuremberg. Holocaust promoters should be ashamed using the deaths of
these unfortunate souls to further their vilification of the German
people.
Philip Mathews
>Morghus mor...@my-deja.com wrote:
Punishing Kramer for his crimes is hardly vilifying Germans. He and the Nazis
were responsible for each and every one of those deaths. They imprisoned those
inmates; and in the closing months of the war they filled Belsen and other
camps with inmates from the eastern camps, many of whom had been death marched
to Germany.
The fact of the matter is that Kramer deprived the inmates of water beginning
some time before liberation, and made no effort to secure bread from a nearby
bakery capable of baking 60,000 loaves of bread daily.
When the camp was liberated food was found in the vicinity and water was
quickly restored by pumping it from a nearby river with equipment found in the
camp.
Kramer didn't care that these poor unfortunates were dying, and his sentence
was deserved.
You're attempts to whitewash Nazi crimes has a very serious problem. The
evidence shows what really happened.
RevWhite
That is why I am married to a half-Jew nitwit... Another lie by Philip
Mathews
>pretend reverend of the Christian
> faith,
Read the Bible on why you just lied.
> who spews lies daily, and even pretends to deny the Holocaust, an >
> event
> he knows less about than Christianity.
Another lie by Philip Mathews
>
> With a newsgroup peopled by such hate filled liars, it shouldn't be
too
> difficult to come up with an answer to your question.
Like Philip Mathews, a man/woman who is too cowardly to repsond via
AOL's instant messager. Of course since philnancy was in a sex chat
room on America ON Line, I can understand why he/she didn't respond,
he/she doesn't do well in an environment where quick thinking is needed.
Philip Mathews
>
RevWhite p...@imneverwrong.com wrote:
>In article <20010121182800...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
> phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
>> There you have the rantings of a Jew hating,
>
>That is why I am married to a half-Jew nitwit... Another lie by Philip
>Mathews
Nah, you prove it all the time. And you shouldn't call you wife a nitwit.
>
>>pretend reverend of the Christian
>> faith,
>
>Read the Bible on why you just lied.
But you're the liar Rev. The Bible won't protect you from that.
>
>> who spews lies daily, and even pretends to deny the Holocaust, an >
>> event
>> he knows less about than Christianity.
>
>Another lie by Philip Mathews
Prove it.
>>
>> With a newsgroup peopled by such hate filled liars, it shouldn't be
>too
>> difficult to come up with an answer to your question.
>
>Like Philip Mathews, a man/woman who is too cowardly to repsond via
>AOL's instant messager.
I don't speak privately to scum. Especially lying scum. But I will take great
delight in pointing out every lie you tell.
>Of course since philnancy was in a sex chat
>room on America ON Line, I can understand why he/she didn't respond,
>he/she doesn't do well in an environment where quick thinking is needed.
Really getting to you, aren't I Rev. old boy.
I thought quickly enough in you IRC channel that you tried to keep me out,
remember!
Putz!
Sara
phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
> In >Message-id: <94g1qg$ejk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
>
> RevWhite p...@imneverwrong.com wrote:
>
> >In article <20010121182800...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
> > phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
> >> There you have the rantings of a Jew hating,
> >
> >That is why I am married to a half-Jew nitwit... Another lie by Philip
> >Mathews
>
> Nah, you prove it all the time. And you shouldn't call you wife a
> nitwit.
>
How culd I have missed this? Rev saying he is married to a half-Jew
nitwit?
Could this be true? I suppose one would have to be a nitwit to...
oh, it's just too easy.
Sara
--
"It's always nice to see a prejudice overruled by a deeper prejudice."
John Sayles, _Lone Star_
steve
david_michael wrote:
>
> Helene649 <hele...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010121120341...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> > Why is there so much hatred in this newsgroup?
>
> There's some fun here too if you look for it.
>
> David
yes, that's true. a good deal of it is at your expense.
steve
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Eugene Holman
<p...@imneverwrong.com> wrote:
> In article <220120010028252910%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi>,
>
> > This is the reality for hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors
> in
> > Eastern Europe today.
>
> Hundreds of thousands of living holocaust survivors in Eastern Europe
> indicate the Germans had no plan to execute them. Why is it that Eugene
> claims the Germans were so efficient at killing Jews but yet over four
> million of them survived the holocaust? Still have never heard an
> answer for this yet.
>
1. It is impossible to say how many Jews survived the Holocaust, since
the Germans defined Jews racially, for which reason many people who
regarded themselves as Christians or as having no religious affiliation
were regarded as Jews in the countries the Germans overran.
2. For the sake of argument, let us accept your 4,000,000 figure. This
stands beside 6,000,000 killed. Actually, the number of Jews in Europe
as defined by the Germansbefore the war was somewhat larger than
10,000,000 - it could have been as high as 14,000,000; while the nujber
of Jews killed by the Nazis is generally estimated as between 5,000,000
and 5,700,000 nowadays. In any case, something on the order of 40 to 60
per cent of European Jews were killed between 1939 and 1945.
3. Why should so many have survived? For the simple reason that the
Nazis were faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, they wanted to kill
as many Jews as possible. On the other hand, they needed the skills and
manpower that the Jews represented. On June 22, 1941, when they invaded
the USSR, they thought the war would be over by the fall, and that the
soldiers would all be home by Christmas. This belief justified killing
Jews with abandon during the summer and autumn of 1941 when some of the
worst Holocaust atrocities (Kaunas, Riga, Kiev, Minsk, Odessa, Pärnu,
Liepaja, Daugavpils, S^iauliai) took place in public view and in cold
blood. Already then, however, voices were being heard in the RSHA and
at lower levels that it was economically not in Germany's interests to
kill off people who could be made to contribute to the war effort.
4. Thus, a new policy developed: kill off those whose existence is a
burden on the war economy - the elderly, women with small children, the
handicapped - and make slave laborers out of everyone else. Insofar as
a slave laborer became ill, his/her fate rested on the decision of the
forced labor camp phtysicians as to whether he/she was more valuable to
the German war effort if cured and sent back to work, or dead.
5. Purely economic factors, which changed in the war situation, thus
determined the fate of Jews over which the Nazis gained control.
Towards the end of the war, for example, healthy Jews such as Anne and
Margot Frank were sent to Bergen-Belsen, with the hope that they could
be used as bargaining chips to gain motor vehicles and fuel, or to
exchange for German POWs. Their father, Otto Frank, on the other hand,
was one of the several thousand sick Jews abandoned at the Auschwitz
lazerette, thus confronting the advancing Soviet Army with thousands of
sick and starving people to care for.
6. The fact that so many survived, and are still with us, is
understandable. True to their ideology, the Nazis weeded out and killed
the weakest Jews, leaving only the strongest and most resilient to
survive.
7. In purely industrial terms, killing between 5 and 6 million people,
most of them within the space of four years, disposing of their bodies,
confiscating, classifying, and liquidating their property, all while
fighting an all fronts war, is quite an accomplishment.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <catamont-3B9139...@news.concentric.net> in
alt.revisionism, on 22 Jan 2001 01:49:53 GMT, Sara
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <20010121204248...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
>phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
>> In >Message-id: <94g1qg$ejk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>> RevWhite p...@imneverwrong.com wrote:
>> >In article <20010121182800...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
>> > phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
>> >> There you have the rantings of a Jew hating,
>> >That is why I am married to a half-Jew nitwit... Another lie by
>> >Philip Mathews
>> Nah, you prove it all the time. And you shouldn't call you wife a
>> nitwit.
>How culd I have missed this? Rev saying he is married to a half-Jew
>nitwit?
>Could this be true? I suppose one would have to be a nitwit to...
>oh, it's just too easy.
Isn't it just?
I'm beginning if "stupid" is really an adequate word to describe the
unfortunate state of being Pat Blakely.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOmwRszfbIykA6SysEQLLLgCgtmfAHqlpnhSTouSqu2gxAy5ccjIAoOKF
jWTbQ4GHvdOzRMm2ZE2Ptdqf
=hHaj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <s94o6to58gj7tt104...@4ax.com> in alt.revisionism,
on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:55:51 GMT, John Morris
<John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
[snip]
>I'm beginning if "stupid" is really an adequate word to describe the
>unfortunate state of being Pat Blakely.
I'm also beginning *to wonder* if I shouldn't either type faster or
think slower. ;-)
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOmwZnzfbIykA6SysEQLoaACgvzaiRs6uNh9kVd6j1lV7cKi0LTYAoKPm
BlI9xWxZu9wl3kRad59x93fd
=YK0+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Morghus
phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
>
> Punishing Kramer for his crimes is hardly vilifying Germans. He and
the Nazis
> were responsible for each and every one of those deaths. They
imprisoned those
> inmates; and in the closing months of the war they filled Belsen and
other
> camps with inmates from the eastern camps, many of whom had been death
marched
> to Germany.
Typical German-hating response: kill them all because they couldn't
overcome wartime shortages caused by allied successes. More "death
march" propaganda. The Germans did not abandon the ill prisoners when
they retreated from the East, but transported them to camps in Germany
and tried their best to care for them. Their humanitarian efforts gained
the Germans nothing but comtempt, and eventually death, from vicious and
vengeful enemies. Even today, 60 years later, the German haters still
reject all evidence that the Germans were not deliberately killing
innocent people.
>
> The fact of the matter is that Kramer deprived the inmates of water
beginning
> some time before liberation, and made no effort to secure bread from a
nearby
> bakery capable of baking 60,000 loaves of bread daily.
>
> When the camp was liberated food was found in the vicinity and water
was
> quickly restored by pumping it from a nearby river with equipment
found in the
> camp.
Sure, the allied forces restored the water supply, but first they
had to repair the pumps, provide the fuel, and lay the pipeline. The
allies came with trucks that ran, lots of fuel, plenty of healthy and
well fed men to load trucks, and the power to take whatever they
wanted--and they didn't have to worry about allied planes strafing the
area. Kramer, on the other hand, was swamped with over 20,000 sick and
starving inmates, many with highly communicable diseases, no trucks, no
manpower, no spare parts, and couldn't get his superiors to divert
scarce food from the fighting troops to his camp. Kramer remained at the
camp after he surrendered it to the advancing allies and did what he
could to help bring relief to the sick and dying inmates. His efforts
were rewarded with a death sentence.
>
> Kramer didn't care that these poor unfortunates were dying, and his
sentence
> was deserved.
>
> You're attempts to whitewash Nazi crimes has a very serious problem.
The
> evidence shows what really happened.
>
> --
> Philip Mathews
>
Nothing demonstrates the deliberate distortion of the facts and the
continuing blind hatred of Germans better than Belsen. Many of the
photographs of piles of dead bodies used by the Holocaust industry as
evidence of war crimes are in fact from Belsen, where the evidence is
indisputable that those bodies are of victims of lack of food, medicine,
and supplies brought about by allied bombing--not from mass murder.
Eugene Holman
wrote:
> In article <20010121195648...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
> phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
>
> >
> > Punishing Kramer for his crimes is hardly vilifying Germans. He and
> the Nazis
> > were responsible for each and every one of those deaths. They
> imprisoned those
> > inmates; and in the closing months of the war they filled Belsen and
> other
> > camps with inmates from the eastern camps, many of whom had been death
> marched
> > to Germany.
>
>
> Typical German-hating response: kill them all because they couldn't
> overcome wartime shortages caused by allied successes.
Why do you interpret anti-Nazi remarks as automatically being
anti-German? Not all Germans were Nazis, and, particularly towards the
end of the war, many dared to show their contempt openly for the Nazis
and what they had done to Germany:
Source: Goldhagen, _HWE_, pgs. 348-349.
<QUOTE>
"Just a few miles outside Hembrechts, in Ahornberg, German civilians
responded to the supplications of the Jews for food and water, only to
meet the interdiction of the guards. On the eighth day of the march,
part of the column paused for a while in the town of Sangerberg, during
which time the Jews communicated to the townspeople standing nearby
that they were suffering from hunger: "A few women from Sangerberg
tried to pass to the prisoners some bread. At once, however, the nearby
SS women prevented it. A male guard threatened one of the women who
wanted to distribute food that he would shoot her if she should try
again to pass food to the prisoners. In two cases, one guard struck
with a rifle butt prisoners who accepted foodstuffs. A female guard
cast bread, which had been intended for the prisoners, to chickens." On
the previous day, the Germans had given the Jews no food whatsoever
after a full day's march and, owing to their hunger and their exposure
from sleeping outside in the coldŠ,a dozen women had died during the
night. This was the backdrop for the scene which saw the German guards
_choosing_ to distribute bread not to the starving women but to
chickens.
</QUOTE>
> More "death
> march" propaganda.
Tell it to the German court who accepted the above as part of the
testimony presented in the case against Alois Dörr.
> The Germans did not abandon the ill prisoners when
> they retreated from the East, but transported them to camps in Germany
> and tried their best to care for them.
Sure, transported, often by marching them through the winter landscape,
ill clothed, ill shod, and ill fed, with those unable to keep up
mercilessly shot by the wayside. Why did they do this? Several reasons
have been suggested:
1. A final chance to get some last licks, after all it was because of
the Jews that Germany lost WW II.
2. Because they sought to delay the advancing allies by leaving large
groups of emaciated Jews for them to care for and feed, thus diverting
their manpower and resources.
3. Because they knew that any Jews that they left to their own devices
would be likely to avenge the loss of their loved ones and property on
the German population.
Call it "propaganda" is you will. The events connected with the death
marches have been well documented by American military secords, the
German court system (e.g. the trial of the commander of Helbrechts,
Alois Dörr, StA Hof 2 Js 1325/62), historians, contemporary
photographs, not to mention the _Memoirs_ of Rudolf Höß which vividly
describe the chaos which reigned along Polish and German roads as
prisoners were being evacuated from Auschwitz.
> Their humanitarian efforts gained
> the Germans nothing but comtempt, and eventually death, from vicious and
> vengeful enemies.
If the enemies were "vicious and vengeful", it was for a reason. Most
people tend to get "vicious and vengeful" when their countries are
invaded and sections of the population are liquidated by the occupation
army and its local operatives.
> Even today, 60 years later, the German haters still
> reject all evidence that the Germans were not deliberately killing
> innocent people.
>
The Nazis were deliberately killing innocent people, and they drew up
train schedules and deportation plans, and designed, constructed, and
ran facilities for doing this. They did not kill every Jew they got
their hands on because even they realized that some Jews were more
valuable to them alive than dead. Nevertheless, there is a
preponderance of evidence indicating that the Nazis were indeed
deliberately killing innocent people on an industrial scale. The many
photographs and newsreels of woman with children being shot and thrown
into ditches suffice to show what the Nazis were engaged in.
>
>
> Sure, the allied forces restored the water supply, but first they
> had to repair the pumps, provide the fuel, and lay the pipeline. The
> allies came with trucks that ran, lots of fuel, plenty of healthy and
> well fed men to load trucks, and the power to take whatever they
> wanted--and they didn't have to worry about allied planes strafing the
> area. Kramer, on the other hand, was swamped with over 20,000 sick and
> starving inmates, many with highly communicable diseases, no trucks, no
> manpower, no spare parts, and couldn't get his superiors to divert
> scarce food from the fighting troops to his camp. Kramer remained at the
> camp after he surrendered it to the advancing allies and did what he
> could to help bring relief to the sick and dying inmates. His efforts
> were rewarded with a death sentence.
>
He showed some humanity, but also knew that he had nothing to lose. He
was already a marked man.
>
> Nothing demonstrates the deliberate distortion of the facts and the
> continuing blind hatred of Germans better than Belsen. Many of the
> photographs of piles of dead bodies used by the Holocaust industry as
> evidence of war crimes are in fact from Belsen, where the evidence is
> indisputable that those bodies are of victims of lack of food, medicine,
> and supplies brought about by allied bombing--not from mass murder.
>
A lot of these people at Belsen died of typhus, a condition brought
about by unsanitary conditions and overcrowding. If you are running a
detention facility, you are responsible for your detainees. You cannot
pass blame for the abominable conditions at Belsen solely on the
Allies. The Nazis designed, built, and maintained the camps. Many of
them were purposely designed to be death traps, with woefully
inadequate infrastructures and diets and work regimes which reduced the
inmates to bags of bones even in the best of times. The RSHA and SS,
not the Allies who were bombing Germany to end an aggressive war which
Germany had unleashed, bear primary responsibility for what happened at
Belsen and other camps.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
RevWhite
Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> 1. It is impossible to say how many Jews survived the Holocaust, since
> the Germans defined Jews racially, for which reason many people who
> regarded themselves as Christians or as having no religious
affiliation
> were regarded as Jews in the countries the Germans overran.
>
> 2. For the sake of argument, let us accept your 4,000,000 figure. This
> stands beside 6,000,000 killed. Actually, the number of Jews in Europe
> as defined by the Germansbefore the war was somewhat larger than
> 10,000,000 - it could have been as high as 14,000,000; while the
nujber
> of Jews killed by the Nazis is generally estimated as between
5,000,000
> and 5,700,000 nowadays. In any case, something on the order of 40 to
60
> per cent of European Jews were killed between 1939 and 1945.
The Israeli standard for defining a holocaust survivor is simple. Any
Jew who was alive while living in any occupied part of Europe or any
Jew who left after 1931 is considered to be a holocaust survivor
according to the Israeli Government. So I will now admit the actual
number of holocaust survivors according the Israeli Government is
actually far greater than four million.
>
> 3. Why should so many have survived? For the simple reason that the
> Nazis were faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, they wanted to kill
> as many Jews as possible. On the other hand, they needed the skills
and
> manpower that the Jews represented. On June 22, 1941, when they
invaded
> the USSR, they thought the war would be over by the fall, and that the
> soldiers would all be home by Christmas. This belief justified killing
> Jews with abandon during the summer and autumn of 1941 when some of
the
> worst Holocaust atrocities (Kaunas, Riga, Kiev, Minsk, Odessa, Pärnu,
> Liepaja, Daugavpils, S^iauliai) took place in public view and in cold
> blood. Already then, however, voices were being heard in the RSHA and
> at lower levels that it was economically not in Germany's interests to
> kill off people who could be made to contribute to the war effort.
You don't go around killing off your cheap labor, it just doesn't make
sense.
>
> 4. Thus, a new policy developed: kill off those whose existence is a
> burden on the war economy - the elderly, women with small children,
the
> handicapped - and make slave laborers out of everyone else.
Never a shred of evidence of this policy. This is your belief but it is
not backed up by documented facts.
> Insofar as
> a slave laborer became ill, his/her fate rested on the decision of the
> forced labor camp phtysicians as to whether he/she was more valuable
to
> the German war effort if cured and sent back to work, or dead.
Just like to do today in hospitals all over the world, the mostly
sickly are generally released if they can't be cured.
>
> 5. Purely economic factors, which changed in the war situation, thus
> determined the fate of Jews over which the Nazis gained control.
> Towards the end of the war, for example, healthy Jews such as Anne and
> Margot Frank were sent to Bergen-Belsen, with the hope that they could
> be used as bargaining chips to gain motor vehicles and fuel, or to
> exchange for German POWs. Their father, Otto Frank, on the other hand,
> was one of the several thousand sick Jews abandoned at the Auschwitz
> lazerette, thus confronting the advancing Soviet Army with thousands
of
> sick and starving people to care for.
Evidence to show the Germans wanted to exchange Jews for fuel?
>
> 6. The fact that so many survived, and are still with us, is
> understandable. True to their ideology, the Nazis weeded out and
killed
> the weakest Jews, leaving only the strongest and most resilient to
> survive.
Physical evidence of this?
>
> 7. In purely industrial terms, killing between 5 and 6 million people,
> most of them within the space of four years, disposing of their
bodies,
> confiscating, classifying, and liquidating their property, all while
> fighting an all fronts war, is quite an accomplishment.
It's quite fantasy.
Morghus
In the first place, whatever happened was over 60 years ago; in
the second place, you personally did not suffer the deprivations you
describe; in the third place, the Germans living today were not the
individuals who inflicted those deprivations so many years ago; and in
the fourth place, Jews were not the only people who suffered during
those years.
Don't bother with the artificial claim that the German government
is responsible. After the war, there was no German government. A new
one was formed under allied supervision. Since then, German citizens
have been drained of billions in reparations to Jews and Jewish
organizations. How much are Jews entitled to? Were all Jewish victims
multimillionaires?
What gives you the right to make such accusations and claim for
reparations after all these years? Because you are a Jew? Because you
are the same ethnicity as some of those who may have suffered? Why are
today's Germans responsible? Because they are Germans, just like those
who are supposed to have inflicted the suffering? That is blatant
racial hatred, burdening a racial stock for sins supposedly committed by
their racial ancestors.
Let's turn the table. Since you are a Jew, are you prepared to pay
for the suffering caused by those Jewish Bolsheviks who disrupted
Germany and killed innocent Germans? Are you willing to accept blame
for the deprivations imposed on Germans from the worldwide boycott of
Germany instigated by some Jews in America and Europe? Are you willing
to accept responsibility for those British and American Jews who helped
plan and carry out the fire bombing of Dresden? After all, if racial or
ethnic stock is sufficient to afix blame and responsibility, it must
work both ways.
Your claims contain the unstated racist assumption that Jews are
entitled to compensation because they are Jews, and Germans are liable
to pay because they are German. That is nothing but blatant racism,
compounded by greed and a vicious thirst for vengeance.
Eugene Holman
wrote:
> In the first place, whatever happened was over 60 years ago;
No, it was over 55 years ago. Many Holocaust survivors and
concentration camp victims are in their mid-60s. Many people whose
property was confiscated and relatives killed are in their mid 70s and
older. We still have a ageneration to go before people whose lives were
disrupted and ruined by the Holocaust are no longer with us.
> in
> the second place, you personally did not suffer the deprivations you
> describe;
I did not. I personally know people who did.
> in the third place, the Germans living today were not the
> individuals who inflicted those deprivations so many years ago;
Not true by a long shot. Many of the people committed atrocities were
in their late teens and early 20s 55 years ago. A few of them are net
yet even retired.
> and in
> the fourth place, Jews were not the only people who suffered during
> those years.
No they are not. And the last wave of compensation has not been
directed at Jews, who have been pretty well compensated, but at
non-Jewish eastern Europeans who were forced to suffer the same
indignities as the Jews were, but for political reasons were not able
to make claims on the German state until the Iron Curtain fell. The
Jews, Roma, Sinti, Poles, and Russians were singled out by the Nazi
government for extermination. These were people living in their own
countries, which the Nazis invaded and started to ethnically cleanse,
enslave, and plunder. We are not dealing here with normally limitary
action, but with murder, kidnapping, enslavement, and grand larceny,
crimes which have no statute of limitations if a charge can be brought.
These were extraordinary crimes, but the Nazis left such a clear paper
trail that they have been easy to trace and document.
>
> Don't bother with the artificial claim that the German government
> is responsible. After the war, there was no German government. A new
> one was formed under allied supervision. Since then, German citizens
> have been drained of billions in reparations to Jews and Jewish
> organizations. How much are Jews entitled to? Were all Jewish victims
> multimillionaires?
The post-war German government is the legal successor to the Third
reich, and it has had to assume repsonsibility for the crimes committed
by its predecessor. These include launching aggressive wars, mass
murder of citizens of other countries on a scale unprecedented in
Europe, and the mass theft of property and assets owned by nationals of
other countries. Many of these assets - works of art, real estate, bank
accounts, insurance policies - have been traced. You are certainly not
claiming that the former owners (or their heirs) of, say, an apartment
seized in Paris by the Nazis from a Jewish family and then sold by them
with all of its furnishings to the French state and now used by some
French ministry, no longer have the right to seek compensation? Or that
the Swiss banks with unclaimed Holocaust era insurance policies have
the right to pocket all the money because the beneficiaries, but not
necessarily their heirs, were killed in the Holocaust?
> What gives you the right to make such accusations and claim for
> reparations after all these years?
In the case of the Eastern Europeans, common human decency, something
which the majority of Germans accept. German induustrial giants such as
Hoechst, I. G. Farben, and Siemens made tremendous profits during the
war using slave labor. Do they have the right to pocket these earnings
without the people who labored in insufferable conditions with no pay
and having to fulfill impossible quotas, month after month, year after
year do not have the right to ask for some compensation, even if half a
century late? German industry, which has the records of the slave
laborers and their input, realizes and understands that the claims are
morally justified.
> Because you are a Jew? Because you
> are the same ethnicity as some of those who may have suffered?
I am not a Jew, and I am not of the same ethnicity as those that
suffered. I do recognize when a terrible wrong has been done, and I
welcome and admire the efforts that the present generation of Germans
is making to amend for the crimes committed in the name of Germany by
their parents and grandparents.
> Why are
> today's Germans responsible? Because they are Germans, just like those
> who are supposed to have inflicted the suffering? That is blatant
> racial hatred, burdening a racial stock for sins supposedly committed by
> their racial ancestors.
This is not a racial thing, this is a påolitical thing. Responsibility
does not disappear with a change of governments or the appearance of a
new generation. Nazi Germany was a criminal state, and its criminality
was of such a type that it affected the lives of tens of millions o.f
people.
If it's any compensation to you, the Baltic states have begun cases
against the Soviet officials who committed unspeakable crimes in their
countries during the Soviet occupation, so this is not just a matter of
Jews getting back on Germans, but one of international law. When the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict is settled, I hope to see some major
lawsuits brought against both sides as well. Countries that commit
international terrorism or genocide have to realize that they will
eventually have to bear the responsibility.
>
> Let's turn the table. Since you are a Jew, are you prepared to pay
> for the suffering caused by those Jewish Bolsheviks who disrupted
> Germany and killed innocent Germans?
It's a hole different ballgame. I am not a Jew, and being a Bolshevik
is a political conviction, not a racial proclivity. Yes, some of the
German communists were also German Jews, but most of them were not,
neither were most Gemran Jerws communists. If a brown-eyed person
commits a crime I don't feel any collective responsibility because I am
also brown-eyed, nor does the fact that Tim McVeigh's surname has two
syllables, as does my name, make me feel any guilt because of our
nominal equisyllabicity.
> Are you willing to accept blame
> for the deprivations imposed on Germans from the worldwide boycott of
> Germany instigated by some Jews in America and Europe?
Note, _some Jews_. How many Jews were involved in this and what was the
reason? One was anti-Semitism within Germany, and the German tendency
to scapegoat an entire group on a continent or world-wide scale for
problems resulting from a complex network of causes.
> Are you willing
> to accept responsibility for those British and American Jews who helped
> plan and carry out the fire bombing of Dresden? After all, if racial or
> ethnic stock is sufficient to afix blame and responsibility, it must
> work both ways.
This is not a question of a racial or ethnic stock, this is a question
of political entities. As a (former) American I feel some guilt about
the firebombing of Dresden, although the A-bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki bother me much more. Insofar as these atrocities can be
defended, they can be justified as having taken place within a military
context, even if they produced an extraordinary number of victims. I
have stood in silent vigil in memory of the vicitms of the atomic
bombings. The Nazi campaign against the Jews of Europe was not
military, but rather it was a concommitent to ethnic cleansing: the
master plan was to gain "Lebensraum" in Eastern Europe by killing off
or enslaving ethnicities regarded as inferior to the Aryans.
>
> Your claims contain the unstated racist assumption that Jews are
> entitled to compensation because they are Jews, and Germans are liable
> to pay because they are German. That is nothing but blatant racism,
> compounded by greed and a vicious thirst for vengeance.
Wrong. My claims are that victims and heirs of Nazi policies of
enslavement, ethnic cleansing, plundering and genocide have the right
to a day in court and compensation if they have a case. They include
the knowledge that sufficent documentary and other evidence usually
exists to prove their case, and that most, if not all, Germans
understand that this is a heavy burden that they have inherited from
the generation that went on the rampage in Europe between 1939 and
1945.
My claims have nothing to do with racism; they have everything to do
with accountability and with ensuring that nations understand that in
today's world of documents, near-universal literacy, forensic evidence,
and systems of international law, the responsibility for the sins of
the fathers often winds up being passed down to following generations.
Germany went crazy between 1933 and 1945, and it did an astounding
amount of damage and killed tens of millions of non-combattants all
over Europe, often stealing their property and squeezing a few years of
slave labor out of them first. The country can't just collectively say
'Sorry about that,' turn its back, pocket the profits, and move on, any
more than a murderer or thief can.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Morghus
You have the effrontery (chutzpah?) to cite something from Goldhagen
to support your claim that you limit your hatred to Nazis? The subtitle
to Goldhagen's book is "Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust." The theme
of his book is that the Holocaust was possible only because "ordinary"
Germans were enthusiastic participants. Goldhagen claims all Germans
firmly believed the mass murder of Jews was justified and necessary. He
insists that a vast majority of Germans condoned not only killing Jews,
but also brutally tormenting them on their death marches to the gas
chambers. I suppose one should expect German haters to cite other German
haters as authorities.
>
> > More "death
> > march" propaganda.
>
> Tell it to the German court who accepted the above as part of the
> testimony presented in the case against Alois Dörr.
War crimes courts have accepted anything which placed the German
military in a bad light, including unsigned documents, affidavits from
unknown witnesses, testimony from known liars, and confessions from
defendants still bruised and swollen from their torture when they
testified. Court decisions prove absolutely nothing.
>
> > The Germans did not abandon the ill prisoners when
> > they retreated from the East, but transported them to camps in
Germany
> > and tried their best to care for them.
>
> Sure, transported, often by marching them through the winter
landscape,
> ill clothed, ill shod, and ill fed, with those unable to keep up
> mercilessly shot by the wayside. Why did they do this? Several reasons
> have been suggested:
> 1. A final chance to get some last licks, after all it was because of
> the Jews that Germany lost WW II.
> 2. Because they sought to delay the advancing allies by leaving large
> groups of emaciated Jews for them to care for and feed, thus diverting
> their manpower and resources.
> 3. Because they knew that any Jews that they left to their own devices
> would be likely to avenge the loss of their loved ones and property on
> the German population.
>
> Call it "propaganda" is you will. The events connected with the death
> marches have been well documented by American military secords, the
> German court system (e.g. the trial of the commander of Helbrechts,
> Alois Dörr, StA Hof 2 Js 1325/62), historians, contemporary
> photographs, not to mention the _Memoirs_ of Rudolf Höß which vividly
> describe the chaos which reigned along Polish and German roads as
> prisoners were being evacuated from Auschwitz.
OK, I will call it "propaganda." It's not even good propaganda.
>
> > Their humanitarian efforts gained
> > the Germans nothing but comtempt, and eventually death, from vicious
and
> > vengeful enemies.
>
> If the enemies were "vicious and vengeful", it was for a reason. Most
> people tend to get "vicious and vengeful" when their countries are
> invaded and sections of the population are liquidated by the
occupation
> army and its local operatives.
Well, at least you will admit that the "trials" were conducted by
vicious an vengeful enemies. That's a start.
Daniel Keren
# dke...@world.std.com (Daniel Keren) wrote:
## http://www.holocaust-history.org/~dkeren/camps/belsen
# Belsen? Is that your response?
Belsen is part of the evidence.
# That proves my assertion that all of this is just wartime propaganda
# endless propagated.
And here we have the educated opinion of an admitted liar, who also
claimed that Nazi documents about mass murder by the Einsatzgruppen
really refer to the Ukrainian Police. He claimed that the Ukrainians
murdered hundreds-of-thousands of Jews, while the Nazis stood and
watched with horror, unable to stop it. What a nutcase.
# Here is an excerpt from Kramer, the camp commandant,
The same one who testified about homicidal gassing in two camps
he was stationed in, right?
# explaining what was going on at the Belsen camp. It was a
# catastrophe--but it was not deliberate extermination.
It was intentional starvation; the Nazis have declared, in the
most unequivocal manner, that the Jews are not worth wasting
food on - and this was much earlier than 1945:
In August 24, 1942, the Governor of Nazi-occupied Poland,
Hans Frank, said the following in a Cabinet session:
"That we sentence 1.2 million Jews to die of hunger should
be noted only marginally".
Frank was reinforcing what Naumenn, President of the Main
Department for Food and Agriculture, said before:
"The feeding of a Jewish population, estimated heretofore
at 1.5 million, drops off to an estimated total of 300,000
Jews, who still work for German interests as craftsmen or
otherwise. For these the Jewish rations, including certain
special allotments which have proved necessary for the
maintenance of working capacity, will be retained. The other
Jews, a total of 1.2 million, will no longer be provided
with foodstuffs".
(See: "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression", Washington, U.S Govt.
Print. Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 893-902).
There was a tremendous death rate in such "work camps"
long before the war's end; see, for instance, a report
sent from SS Main Office of Economic Administration,
stating that in some of the "work camps", between June
and November 1942, 80,000 out of 136,000 new arrivals died
(Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print.
Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 833-835).
There was no lack of food for the SS staff, neither for
the local population and the German soldiers.
The following photos are in
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/bergen-belsen/images
They are all scanned from "The Belsen Trial" - Edited by R.
Phillips, William Hodge and Company, 1949.
belsen01.jpg: A Mass grave in Belsen camp.
belsen02.jpg: A bulldozer being used to bury corpses in Belsen.
belsen03.jpg: Emaciated corpses in Belsen.
belsen04.jpg: Plump, overweight SS-women bury skeletal corpses.
belsen05.jpg: The corpse of a child is thrown into a mass grave.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/buchenwald/images
buchenwald01.jpg, buchenwald03.jpg:
Emaciated corpses of the inmates.
buchenwald04.jpg:
German civilians living near the camp, after the American troops
have taken them to Buchenwald to witness the horrors. Notice how
well-dressed and well-fed they are.
Mr. Ken McVay OBC tells me that the following web pages carry movies
taken at the camps during liberation, which show the contrast between
the good condition of the German population and the starved or dead
inmates:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/bergen-belsen/Bergen-Belsen-00.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/bergen-belsen/Bergen-Belsen-01.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/nordhausen/Nordhausen.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/mauthausen/Mauthausen-00.html
The British troops that liberate Belsen camp - in which
tens-of-thousands starved to death - discovered numerous
amounts of food nearby, in the Panzer training school (See
"The Belsen Trial", p. 53, testimony of Major Berney). See
also testimony of Lieutenant-Colonel Johnston, Senior Medical
Officer, who determined that most deaths in Belsen were due
to starvation; and that those who died of illness had been
so weakened by starvation that they could not resist the
onset of disease ("The Belsen Trial", p. 46).
# Kramer was executed as a war criminal by the brave avengers at
# Nuremberg.
Kramer, apparently, was not a sadist - just a dull minded brute,
the true realization of the cliche "a cog in the extermination
machine". He participated in the murder of numerous people, many
of which he killed with his own hands; he killed without knowing
why he kills, and he died without knowing why he's being killed.
He probably never thought he did anything wrong.
-Danny Keren.
Philip Mathews
>Morghus mor...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <20010121195648...@ng-fc1.aol.com>,
> phil...@aol.com (Philip Mathews) wrote:
>
>>
>> Punishing Kramer for his crimes is hardly vilifying Germans. He and
>the Nazis
>> were responsible for each and every one of those deaths. They
>imprisoned those
>> inmates; and in the closing months of the war they filled Belsen and
>other
>> camps with inmates from the eastern camps, many of whom had been death
>marched
>> to Germany.
>
>
> Typical German-hating response:
Typical cant phrase from an apologist, the likes of which Germans loathe.
> kill them all because they couldn't
>overcome wartime shortages caused by allied successes.
But that's a lie. There was food. And they could have restored the water
supply. It's lies like this that embarrass Germans, who look on your ilk as a
constant reminder of the irrationality that can grip the human mind.
> More "death
>march" propaganda. The Germans did not abandon the ill prisoners when
>they retreated from the East, but transported them to camps in Germany
>and tried their best to care for them.
Rubbish. They died by the thousands from starvation and shooting on the way.
How do you march people on foot, in the winter, with little or no food, and
without warm clothing and characterized that as caring about them.
> Their humanitarian efforts gained
>the Germans nothing but comtempt, and eventually death, from vicious and
>vengeful enemies
Because they were murderers, not humanitarians, you raving lunatic. You don't
really believe characterizing documented cruelties as human concern will
exonerate the murderers, do you?
. Even today, 60 years later, the German haters still
>reject all evidence that the Germans were not deliberately killing
>innocent people.
There is no such evidence. And the only people who don't understand that are a
tiny fringe group of wackos like yourself. >
>
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that Kramer deprived the inmates of water
>beginning
>> some time before liberation, and made no effort to secure bread from a
>nearby
>> bakery capable of baking 60,000 loaves of bread daily.
>>
>> When the camp was liberated food was found in the vicinity and water
>was
>> quickly restored by pumping it from a nearby river with equipment
>found in the
>> camp.
>
>
> Sure, the allied forces restored the water supply, but first they
>had to repair the pumps, provide the fuel, and lay the pipeline. The
>allies came with trucks that ran, lots of fuel, plenty of healthy and
>well fed men to load trucks, and the power to take whatever they
>wanted--and they didn't have to worry about allied planes strafing the
>area.
Rubbish. The water was easily restored with what was in the camp. You don't
even know what you're talking about. Kramer claimed the reason he didn't use
the river water was that it was contaminated. He was lying, as you are now.
> Kramer, on the other hand, was swamped with over 20,000 sick and
>starving inmates, many with highly communicable diseases, no trucks, no
>manpower, no spare parts, and couldn't get his superiors to divert
>scarce food from the fighting troops to his camp.
That's a lie as well. He didn't request food from the nearby Wermacht bakery,
capable of producing 60,000 loaves of bread a day. And we're talking about the
last weeks of the war. The Nazis army was consuming considerably less food at
that point.
Kramer remained at the
>camp after he surrendered it to the advancing allies and did what he
>could to help bring relief to the sick and dying inmates.
He did no such thing.
His efforts
>were rewarded with a death sentence.
His efforts to kill Jews were properly rewarded.
>>
>> Kramer didn't care that these poor unfortunates were dying, and his
>sentence
>> was deserved.
>>
>> You're attempts to whitewash Nazi crimes has a very serious problem.
>The
>> evidence shows what really happened.
> Nothing demonstrates the deliberate distortion of the facts and the
>continuing blind hatred of Germans better than Belsen.
The distortion of facts with respect to Belsen are yours, as has been
demonstrated. Holding Germans of 1945 responsible for their crimes is not a
continuing blind hatred of anyone, let alone of modern Germans, who think
people like you are sick.
The facts of Kramer's failure to secure food, and his deliberate actions not to
restore a water supply evince conduct which was corroborated by other Belsen
Nazis.
Testimony of Herta Ehlert, a member of the SS unit at Belsen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The conditions in Belsen were a shame and a disgrace. I consider that the
people chiefly responsible were Kramer the Kommandant, Dr. Horstmann,
Untersturmfuehrer Klipp, who was for some time Kramer's second in command, and
Haupsturfuehrer Vogler, who worked in Kramer's office and was responsible for
food supply. I say that Kramer was responsible for the conditions, among
other reasons, because on one occasion when I complained of the increasing
death rate to Kramer he replied, "let them die, why should you care?".
========
Testimony of SS-doctor, Obersturmfuherer Fritz Klein
------------------------------------------------------------
Whilst at Belsen I made several complaints to Kommandant Kramer
about the conditions there. I was told that I was only a doctor and that it was
nothing to do with me. Three days before the
British came, when I took over the camp, I had a talk with Kramer about the
conditions. I told Kramer that the corpses
should be removed, and that water should be supplied to prisoners as many were
dying from thirst. Kramer said he did
not take orders from me.
=========
Eugene Holman
wrote:
> In article <220120011704492602%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi>,
> Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > In article <94hcod$eva$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Morghus
> <mor...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote:
>
> You have the effrontery (chutzpah?) to cite something from Goldhagen
> to support your claim that you limit your hatred to Nazis? The subtitle
> to Goldhagen's book is "Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust." The theme
> of his book is that the Holocaust was possible only because "ordinary"
> Germans were enthusiastic participants.
Many were, for a combination of reasons which include the anti-Semitism
which has long been a part of German culture as well as the active
efforts to channel these feelings into concrete actions by the Nazis.
Goldhagen is interested in putting human faces on the perpetrators of
the Holocaust; he gives their names and backgrounds. It's a frightening
book carrying on many of the theses introduced a generation ago by
hannah Arendt in her "The Banality of Evil: Eichmann in Jerusalem":
most of the people who carried out Nazi atrocities were otherwise
normal and respectable German Kleinbürger.
> Goldhagen claims all Germans
> firmly believed the mass murder of Jews was justified and necessary. He
> insists that a vast majority of Germans condoned not only killing Jews,
> but also brutally tormenting them on their death marches to the gas
> chambers. I suppose one should expect German haters to cite other German
> haters as authorities.
Not all, but the majority. We all know that, despite the Gestapo, there
was a solid resistance to the Nazis within Germany right from the
beginning. Names of outspoken anti-Nazi dissidents such as Martin
Niemöller, Heinrich Grüber, and Dietrich Bahnhöfer are well known to
every serious student of the Holocaust.
Goldhagen is making a universal point, not an anti-German one: ordinary
people in otherwise civilized nations can be made to perform
unspeakably inhuman acts given the proper ideological push. What the
Germans did to the Jews and Gypsies of Europe is not much different
from what English colonists did to the natives of North America and
Austyralia, or what the Belgians did to the native of the Congo. the
Germans' "mistake" was to do it quite publicly in the neighbrohood, so
to speak, to people who were culturally and racially similar to them.
Beneath the veneer of civilization lies the ability to be savage and
murderous.
> > > More "death
> > > march" propaganda.
> >
> > Tell it to the German court who accepted the above as part of the
> > testimony presented in the case against Alois Dörr.
>
> War crimes courts have accepted anything which placed the German
> military in a bad light, including unsigned documents, affidavits from
> unknown witnesses, testimony from known liars, and confessions from
> defendants still bruised and swollen from their torture when they
> testified. Court decisions prove absolutely nothing.
The photographs and reports made by the American military of the
victims of the Helmbrecht's march which were used as evidence do, see
Goldhagen pgs. 330, 344, 358, 359.
> > Call it "propaganda" is you will. The events connected with the death
> > marches have been well documented by American military secords, the
> > German court system (e.g. the trial of the commander of Helbrechts,
> > Alois Dörr, StA Hof 2 Js 1325/62), historians, contemporary
> > photographs, not to mention the _Memoirs_ of Rudolf Höß which vividly
> > describe the chaos which reigned along Polish and German roads as
> > prisoners were being evacuated from Auschwitz.
>
>
> OK, I will call it "propaganda." It's not even good propaganda.
>
No. It is documentations of historical fact. Perpetrators, victims, and
eye-witnesses all agree on the factuality of historical events such as
the Helmbrecht's death march.
> > If the enemies were "vicious and vengeful", it was for a reason. Most
> > people tend to get "vicious and vengeful" when their countries are
> > invaded and sections of the population are liquidated by the
> occupation
> > army and its local operatives.
>
> Well, at least you will admit that the "trials" were conducted by
> vicious and vengeful enemies. That's a start.
Of course you understand that you are implying the German behavior
towards its neighbors in general, and the Jews living in those
countries in particular, justifies a vicious and vengeful desire for
retribution. To take a single example, Germany invaded Greece, a
country distant from its borders, and started to destroy its Jewish
communities, many of them more than 2,000 years old, and ship
confiscated Jewish property back to Germany, and Greek Jews to
Auschwitz, where more than 60,000 of an estimated 70,000 Greek Jews
perished. Is this not reason for both Greeks in general and the
surviving 10,000 Greek Jews and their desendants to have more than a
little ill feeling towards Nazi Germany, or to make every effort to
regain as much of the property pillaged from Greek citizens by the
Nazis as possible?
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Morghus
Fine. Now we all know that when you speak of Nazis, you mean all
those "normal and respectable" Germans who, with a few exceptions,
allowed their latent antisemitism to be "channeled" by the Nazis. In
other words,the majority of Germans.
>
> > Goldhagen claims all Germans
> > firmly believed the mass murder of Jews was justified and necessary.
He
> > insists that a vast majority of Germans condoned not only killing
Jews,
> > but also brutally tormenting them on their death marches to the gas
> > chambers. I suppose one should expect German haters to cite other
German
> > haters as authorities.
>
> Not all, but the majority. We all know that, despite the Gestapo,
there
> was a solid resistance to the Nazis within Germany right from the
> beginning. Names of outspoken anti-Nazi dissidents such as Martin
> Niemöller, Heinrich Grüber, and Dietrich Bahnhöfer are well known to
> every serious student of the Holocaust.
>
Of course, the anti-Nazi dissidents are the exceptions to the
general rule, and so are well known to Holocaust students. Your position
is based on the assumption that most of the other "normal" Germans were
avid supporters of the Holocaust.
> Goldhagen is making a universal point, not an anti-German one:
ordinary
> people in otherwise civilized nations can be made to perform
> unspeakably inhuman acts given the proper ideological push. What the
> Germans did to the Jews and Gypsies of Europe is not much different
> from what English colonists did to the natives of North America and
> Austyralia, or what the Belgians did to the native of the Congo. the
> Germans' "mistake" was to do it quite publicly in the neighbrohood, so
> to speak, to people who were culturally and racially similar to them.
> Beneath the veneer of civilization lies the ability to be savage and
> murderous.
OK. Now we know when you refer to the terrible crimes committed by
"Nazis," you mean the bulk of the German population during WWII. That's
fine; but we would all appreciate it if you would just drop that facade
of limiting your hatred to "Nazis." Just admit you hate Germans and be
done with it.
Morghus
Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> My claims have nothing to do with racism; they have everything to do
> with accountability and with ensuring that nations understand that in
> today's world of documents, near-universal literacy, forensic
evidence,
> and systems of international law, the responsibility for the sins of
> the fathers often winds up being passed down to following generations.
So your claims have nothing to do with racism, they just flow
genetically to the children, is that it? Should the children of those
who ordered the bombing of Dresden be imprisoned?
> Germany went crazy between 1933 and 1945, and it did an astounding
> amount of damage and killed tens of millions of non-combattants all
> over Europe, often stealing their property and squeezing a few years
of
> slave labor out of them first.
In your twisted sense of justice, Germans living in 2001 must pay
for the sins of Germans living in 1933. If that isn't blatant racism,
what is?
\The country can't just collectively say
> 'Sorry about that,' turn its back, pocket the profits, and move on,
any
> more than a murderer or thief can.
The fundamental flaws in your position are contained in that last
line. First, the sins of thieves and murderers are not passed on to
their children. Second, Germans pocketed no profits. In case you missed
it in your history books, Germany was literally destroyed in WWII. When
the allies marched in, they travelled through cities and towns which
were little more than rubble. Germany had no government, no banks, no
money, no factories left undamaged, no farms capable of producing food,
no fuel, and no transportation facilities. Their cultural facilities,
churches, schools, museums, and theatres were destroyed. Unemployment
was the rule and starvation was the ever present danger.
They did, however, gain one thing--carpetbeggars. Wealthy
foreigners swarmed into Germany buying up for pennies on the dollar
whole blocks of real estate and tons of idle manufacturing equipment,
claiming ownership of valuable patents, forming new newspapers and
seizing old ones, establishing branch banks under foreign control, and
generally taking over of Germany's economic infrastructure. The German
citizens who were not in prison compounds were forced to work for
subsistence wages or left to beg to avoid starvation. They were
prisoners in their own country. When they could finally find work, they
were taxed to pay war reparations and pensions to foreigners who don't
even live in Germany. Now, half-a-century later, you and yours insist
that their children should keep paying for every trumped-up claim for
damages that is presented. It is nothing but racism and greed directed
at modern day Germans.
Eugene Holman
wrote:
> In article <230120011554503362%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi>,
> Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
> > Not all, but the majority. We all know that, despite the Gestapo,
> there
> > was a solid resistance to the Nazis within Germany right from the
> > beginning. Names of outspoken anti-Nazi dissidents such as Martin
> > Niemöller, Heinrich Grüber, and Dietrich Bahnhöfer are well known to
> > every serious student of the Holocaust.
> >
>
>
> Of course, the anti-Nazi dissidents are the exceptions to the
> general rule, and so are well known to Holocaust students. Your position
> is based on the assumption that most of the other "normal" Germans were
> avid supporters of the Holocaust.
The Germans were living in a totalitarian state which had a monopoly
over information and which gave orders that most people considered it
wiser not to question or obey, even though Goldhagen argues that when
it came to engaging in mass murder, Germans were seldom punished if
they refused to participate. Certainly there are questions of morality
and individual accountability here, but carrying out orders is not
identical with being an avid supporter. There was latent anti-Semitism
in German culture, the Nazis were able to exploit this, and many
"normal" Germans found themselves in situation where they were shooting
or gassing women and babies. That is the historical fact which
historians of WW II tell us, that is the reality that many elderly
Germans live with today. Having lived for a year in Germany during the
1960s, when these now elderly people were in their 40s and relieved to
be able to talk about experiences which obviously burdened their
consciences ("Vati, was haste während des Krieges getan?"), I know what
I am talking about.
> > Goldhagen is making a universal point, not an anti-German one:
> ordinary
> > people in otherwise civilized nations can be made to perform
> > unspeakably inhuman acts given the proper ideological push. What the
> > Germans did to the Jews and Gypsies of Europe is not much different
> > from what English colonists did to the natives of North America and
> > Austyralia, or what the Belgians did to the native of the Congo. the
> > Germans' "mistake" was to do it quite publicly in the neighbrohood, so
> > to speak, to people who were culturally and racially similar to them.
> > Beneath the veneer of civilization lies the ability to be savage and
> > murderous.
>
>
> OK. Now we know when you refer to the terrible crimes committed by
> "Nazis," you mean the bulk of the German population during WWII. That's
> fine; but we would all appreciate it if you would just drop that facade
> of limiting your hatred to "Nazis." Just admit you hate Germans and be
> done with it.
>
There is a difference between giving an order and carrying it out. Many
of the Germans who carried out the orders given by the Nazis were
conscripts in their teens or early twenties. Many of the people in the
Einsatzkommandos were somewhat older, married men in their 30s and 40s.
They were acrrying out orders given by a non-representative,
totalitarian government and, as is normal in such situations, most went
the easy route and did what they were told rather than risk the
possibility of being branded troublemakers and endangering their lives
and those of their families. Much the same, I am sure, holds for the
English colonists who were staking out territory for themselves in
North America and Australia in places inhabited by others. Killers of
Jews, Indians, and Australian aborigines had been convinced by their
ideology or religious convictions that the mass slaughter of thousands
upon thousands of human beings somehow "didn't count".
Any sensible person realizes that the charges the Nazis were bringing
against the Jews of Europe - there were too few Jews in Germany to make
these claims evene semi-plausible - to justify their mass extermination
were insane:
- causing Germany to lose WW I
- causing political instability in Germany
- war profiteering
- supporting the members of their own communities through charitable
organizations when other Germans were starving after the war
- grabbing all the good jobs
- controlling media, the arts, anad academia
- causing the 1929 stock crash and subsequent world-wide depression
- being the source of capitalism
- being the source of communism
- being the source of Christianity
- being the source of non-representative abstract art
- being the source of sentimentalism in art
- defiling the Aryan race by seducing blond-haired, blue-eyed women
- being collectively dedicated to the destruction of the Aryan race
- living as parasites off of the German nation
- being too successful in Germany
- causing the hyperinflation of the German Reichsmark
The Nazi government was able to make this list of claims sound
plausible to otherwise sensible and reasonably well-educated people,
and it embarked upon a continent-wide campaign to neutralize every Jew
it could, viewing the Jew not as a human being, but as an anti-human
race which destroyed human communities like a disease destroys a
healthy body.
Pointing this out and discussing it is not an indication of hate. I've
been contributing to this forum long enough for veterans to know that I
am anything but anti-German, and I certainly do not hate Germans or any
other nationality. Nazism teaches us many leasons that we should never
forget, one being that a people that has otherwise produced so many
positive things for Western civilization can fall victim to
totalitarianism and have its bouts of collective insanity. It is not a
pleasant prospect to ponder.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
wrote:
If I attack you, kill your family, and steal your property, and am then
injured in a car crash due to my exceeding the speed limit while being
pursued by the police in order to resist arrest, thereby becoming an
invalid, that does not absolve me of the responsibility for asnd
obligations arising from what I have done, nor do my heirs have the
unchallenged right to inherit my property, whether legally mine or
stolen from you. If you are a minor and I have killed your parents, my
obligation to provide you with financial support until you reach legal
age, and in today's world, with some compensation for having deprived
you of your parents and siblings, does not stop with my death. A lein
is put on any property I legally own, thus depriving my innocent heirs
of part of their legacy. That's how things work on a person-to-person
basis in the real, and states interact with one another in much the
same way.
The Nazis were sure they would win and thus they gambled away part of
the legacy that should have belonged to the next few generations. They
invaded some fifteen-odd countries spreading death, mayhem and
destruction everywhere they went. If a country is stupid enough to
behave in such an uncivilized fashion, it is necessarily gambling with
the legacy that it can hand down to the next generations. During the
1970s there was best-selling book in Germany called _Deutschland, ein
schwieriges Vaterland_ which dealt quite perspicaciously with these
issues from the perspective of the generation of Germans that inherited
the post-WW II mess.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
z
usual doesn't get a big share of the goodies, the big guys do find no
matter what. The big German industries, IGFarben, for instance, which
was so corrupt that the Allies broke it apart. Yet the small shell that
was left to manage the dissolution of its assets still exists as a
corporate entity today. The insurance companies who realized a *golden*
opportunity to hold back on paying out policies that they had collected
for over lifetimes. The looting and seizure of household possessions
and works of art.
This very day the news is discussing a painting on display at an art
museum at Yale which turns out to have been donated by a wealthy
collector who had been a Nazi during the war, and clearly felt entitled
to scavenge like a jackal around the scraps left by his compatriots who
were sociopathic enough to do the dirty work.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?
newsid=1310194&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7573&rfi=6
In article <94kgr7$6ud$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Morghus <mor...@my-deja.com> wrote:
--
Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.
Reelect Al Gore.
Morghus
z <gzuc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> As has been demonstrated time and again, although the little guy as
> usual doesn't get a big share of the goodies, the big guys do find no
> matter what. The big German industries, IGFarben, for instance, which
> was so corrupt that the Allies broke it apart.
The allies didn't break up I G Farben because it was corrupt, they
broke it up to loot its assets. They left German shareholders with
worthless paper while priceless patents, manufacturing secrets,
contracts, and agreements were auctioned off to foreign bidders. There
was no competition from German citizens--they were penniless
and devastated by the war. The carpetbaggers simply walked in and took
over not only I G Farben but almost every other major German industry
and commercial establishment. It was the biggest robbery in the history
of the world.
I.G. Farben, with its technological know-how and priceless array
of patents, dominated the prewar chemical business of the world. It
contracted a web of worldwide cartels whose members included such
industrial giants as Kuhlmann of France, Imperial Chemical Industries of
Great Britain, Montecatini of Italy, Aussiger Verein of Czechoslovakia,
Boruta of Poland, Mitsui of Japan and Standard Oil (New Jersey), Du
Pont, and Dow Chemical of the United States. Its Nobel Prize winning
scientists developed patents on synthetics of oil, rubber, nitrates, and
fibers. Its medical scientists produced vaccines, sera, and drugs such
as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa drugs.
All of this invaluable technology was simply taken by the Allies as
spoils of war.
Yet the small shell
that
> was left to manage the dissolution of its assets still exists as a
> corporate entity today.
Yes, the shell was left as a buffer against claims; the new
foreign-owned companies formed from the assets were safely immune from
any claims or lawsuits.
The insurance companies who realized a
*golden*
> opportunity to hold back on paying out policies that they had
collected
> for over lifetimes.
Like most German bashers, you speak of German insurance companies as
though they were somehow above the fray, somewhere safe and profitable
while the war raged around them. The truth is insurance companies are
merely banks which collect premiums and invest it in stocks, bonds, real
estate, and mortgages. When the investments are destroyed by bombs,
when business investments go bankrupt, insurance companies go broke just
like any other business. If they lose their capital, they can't pay
benefits; they lose along with the policyholders. All Germans lost their
insurance investments during the war. After the war, some companies
started over by collecting premiums from new customer policy holders and
investing their money in new buildings and new businesses. The new
policyholders should not be burdened with the old policies which were
rendered worthless because of the war.
There is, however, a group who did retain profits from the war, but
they are not in Germany. Like all insurers, the prewar German companies
re-insured with international underwriters like Lloyds of London and
other re-insurers in France, Switzerland, and America. The German
companies paid substantial premiums to the international bankers and
financiers who assumed the obligations to pay losses. When the war
destroyed German office buildings and the records in them, the
international underwriters simply trashed their records and kept the
money. Today, irate claimants are making claims not against the old
established internation financiers who have their money but against the
new German companies, their shareholders, and policy holders, most of
whom weren't even born when the war was raging.
Jeffrey G. Brown
> The allies didn't break up I G Farben because it was corrupt, they
> broke it up to loot its assets. They left German shareholders with
> worthless paper while priceless patents, manufacturing secrets,
> contracts, and agreements were auctioned off to foreign bidders.
OK, Fungus -- you've got another one of your patented fact-free accusations
here. Time to stop blowing smoke and start producing evidence.
What _specific_ "priceless patents, manufacturing secrets, contracts, and
agreements" were "auctioned off to foreign bidders"?
Who _specifically_ were the "foreign bidders" who obtained these items?
Specifics, remember, Fungus. You're not real good with specifics. This will be
good exercise for you.
Eugene Holman
> In article <94ksbq$ida$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> z <gzuc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > As has been demonstrated time and again, although the little guy as
> > usual doesn't get a big share of the goodies, the big guys do find no
> > matter what. The big German industries, IGFarben, for instance, which
> > was so corrupt that the Allies broke it apart.
>
>
> The allies didn't break up I G Farben because it was corrupt, they
> broke it up to loot its assets. They left German shareholders with
> worthless paper while priceless patents, manufacturing secrets,
> contracts, and agreements were auctioned off to foreign bidders. There
> was no competition from German citizens--they were penniless
> and devastated by the war. The carpetbaggers simply walked in and took
> over not only I G Farben but almost every other major German industry
> and commercial establishment. It was the biggest robbery in the history
> of the world.
>
If a country is stupid enough to launch an all-fronts aggressive war
against most of the world, and then loses it, it is oing to have to pay
some hefty bills. One generation will probably not be able to produce
the resources to cover the damage.
> I.G. Farben, with its technological know-how and priceless array
> of patents, dominated the prewar chemical business of the world. It
> contracted a web of worldwide cartels whose members included such
> industrial giants as Kuhlmann of France, Imperial Chemical Industries of
> Great Britain, Montecatini of Italy, Aussiger Verein of Czechoslovakia,
> Boruta of Poland, Mitsui of Japan and Standard Oil (New Jersey), Du
> Pont, and Dow Chemical of the United States. Its Nobel Prize winning
> scientists developed patents on synthetics of oil, rubber, nitrates, and
> fibers. Its medical scientists produced vaccines, sera, and drugs such
> as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa drugs.
> All of this invaluable technology was simply taken by the Allies as
> spoils of war.
>
I.G. Farben was also involved in the production of materiel for the
German war machine, in addition to which it had had some input in the
development of Zyklon B.
> Like most German bashers, you speak of German insurance companies as
> though they were somehow above the fray, somewhere safe and profitable
> while the war raged around them. The truth is insurance companies are
> merely banks which collect premiums and invest it in stocks, bonds, real
> estate, and mortgages. When the investments are destroyed by bombs,
> when business investments go bankrupt, insurance companies go broke just
> like any other business. If they lose their capital, they can't pay
> benefits; they lose along with the policyholders. All Germans lost their
> insurance investments during the war. After the war, some companies
> started over by collecting premiums from new customer policy holders and
> investing their money in new buildings and new businesses. The new
> policyholders should not be burdened with the old policies which were
> rendered worthless because of the war.
Moral: Don't let Nazis or murderous racists eager to do ethnic
cleansing on a continent-wide scale get a hold of the government.
> There is, however, a group who did retain profits from the war, but
> they are not in Germany. Like all insurers, the prewar German companies
> re-insured with international underwriters like Lloyds of London and
> other re-insurers in France, Switzerland, and America. The German
> companies paid substantial premiums to the international bankers and
> financiers who assumed the obligations to pay losses. When the war
> destroyed German office buildings and the records in them, the
> international underwriters simply trashed their records and kept the
> money. Today, irate claimants are making claims not against the old
> established internation financiers who have their money but against the
> new German companies, their shareholders, and policy holders, most of
> whom weren't even born when the war was raging.
Many of those re-organized German companies inherited a corporate name,
which is worth billions of marks, as part of their starting capital.
They are not exactly strapped for funds. If they are going to benefit
from the corporate name and history, inherited assets, they should also
be ready to assume responsibility for the skeletons and other moral
obligations, inherited liabilities, in the corporate closet.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
> In article <94ksbq$ida$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> z <gzuc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > As has been demonstrated time and again, although the little guy as
> > usual doesn't get a big share of the goodies, the big guys do find no
> > matter what. The big German industries, IGFarben, for instance, which
> > was so corrupt that the Allies broke it apart.
>
>
> The allies didn't break up I G Farben because it was corrupt, they
> broke it up to loot its assets. They left German shareholders with
> worthless paper while priceless patents, manufacturing secrets,
> contracts, and agreements were auctioned off to foreign bidders. There
> was no competition from German citizens--they were penniless
> and devastated by the war. The carpetbaggers simply walked in and took
> over not only I G Farben but almost every other major German industry
> and commercial establishment. It was the biggest robbery in the history
> of the world.
>
If a country is stupid enough to launch an all-fronts aggressive war
against most of the world, and then loses it, it is going to be faced
with some hefty bills. One generation will probably not be able to
produce the resources to cover the damage and pay reparations,
something which Germany should have learned after WW I and Versailles.
> I.G. Farben, with its technological know-how and priceless array
> of patents, dominated the prewar chemical business of the world. It
> contracted a web of worldwide cartels whose members included such
> industrial giants as Kuhlmann of France, Imperial Chemical Industries of
> Great Britain, Montecatini of Italy, Aussiger Verein of Czechoslovakia,
> Boruta of Poland, Mitsui of Japan and Standard Oil (New Jersey), Du
> Pont, and Dow Chemical of the United States. Its Nobel Prize winning
> scientists developed patents on synthetics of oil, rubber, nitrates, and
> fibers. Its medical scientists produced vaccines, sera, and drugs such
> as Salvarsan, aspirin, Atabrine, and Novocain, along with sulfa drugs.
> All of this invaluable technology was simply taken by the Allies as
> spoils of war.
>
I.G. Farben was also involved in the production of materiel for the
German war machine, in addition to which it had had some input in the
development of Zyklon B.
> Like most German bashers, you speak of German insurance companies as
> though they were somehow above the fray, somewhere safe and profitable
> while the war raged around them. The truth is insurance companies are
> merely banks which collect premiums and invest it in stocks, bonds, real
> estate, and mortgages. When the investments are destroyed by bombs,
> when business investments go bankrupt, insurance companies go broke just
> like any other business. If they lose their capital, they can't pay
> benefits; they lose along with the policyholders. All Germans lost their
> insurance investments during the war. After the war, some companies
> started over by collecting premiums from new customer policy holders and
> investing their money in new buildings and new businesses. The new
> policyholders should not be burdened with the old policies which were
> rendered worthless because of the war.
Moral: Don't let Nazis or murderous racists eager to do ethnic
cleansing on a continent-wide scale get a hold of the government.
> There is, however, a group who did retain profits from the war, but
> they are not in Germany. Like all insurers, the prewar German companies
> re-insured with international underwriters like Lloyds of London and
> other re-insurers in France, Switzerland, and America. The German
> companies paid substantial premiums to the international bankers and
> financiers who assumed the obligations to pay losses. When the war
> destroyed German office buildings and the records in them, the
> international underwriters simply trashed their records and kept the
> money. Today, irate claimants are making claims not against the old
> established internation financiers who have their money but against the
> new German companies, their shareholders, and policy holders, most of
> whom weren't even born when the war was raging.
Many of those re-organized German companies inherited a corporate name,
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:230120011554503362%> > > wrote:
>
> Goldhagen is interested in putting human faces on the perpetrators of
> the Holocaust; he gives their names and backgrounds. It's a frightening
> book carrying on many of the theses introduced a generation ago by
> hannah Arendt in her "The Banality of Evil: Eichmann in Jerusalem":
> most of the people who carried out Nazi atrocities were otherwise
> normal and respectable German Kleinbürger.
>
During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their political
opponants and for less reason. At the end of the war there was a lot of
deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation because Germany was
being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that the Germans had gas
chambers or an extermination plan.
Newsweek magazine May 15, 1989 says on page 64:
"the way the Nazis did things: the secrecy, the unwritten orders, the
destruction of records and the innocent-sounding code names for the
extermination of the Jews. Perhaps it was inevitable that historians would
quarrel over just what happened"
The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport the
Jews out of Germany. The records show that they planned to move them to
Madagascar.
Here is part of the Leuchter Report:
"Thirty-one samples were selectively removed from the alleged gas
chambers at Kremas I, II, III, IV and V. A control sample was taken from
delousing facility #1 at Birkenau. The control sample was removed from a
delousing chamber in a location where cyanide was known to have been used
and was apparently present as blue staining. Chemical testing of the control
sample #32 showed a cyanide content of 1050 mg/kg, a very heavy
concentration. The conditions at areas from which these samples were taken
are identical with those of the control sample, cold, dark, and wet. Only
Kremas IV and V differed, in the respect that these locations had sunlight
(the buildings have been torn down) and sunlight may hasten the destruction
of uncomplexed cyanide. The cyanide combines with the iron in the mortar and
brick and becomes ferric-ferro-cyanide or prussian blue pigmentation, a very
stable iron-cyanide complex.
"The locations from which the analyzed samples were removed are set out
in Table III.
"It is notable that almost all the samples were negative and that the
few that were positive were very close to the detection level (1mg/kg); 6.7
mg/kg at Krema III; 7.9 mg/kg at Krerma I. The absense of any consequential
readings at any of the tested locations as compared to the control sample
reading 1050 mg/kg supports the evidence that these facilities were not
execution gas chambers. The small quantities detected would indicate that at
some point these buildings were deloused with Zyklon B - as were all the
buildings at all these facilities"
Critics of the Leuchter report have tried to explain this by saying it
takes more cyanide to kill lice than humans and the "gas chambers" were in
ruins. But 1050 mg/kg is still a lot more than the max of 7.9. And they have
admitted that the "gas chamber" which is shown to the tourists at Auschwitz
was actually built by the allies after the war was over. This is what they
wrote:
Brian Harmon <har...@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote in article
<080620000051136373%har...@msg.ucsf.edu>...
"You're confusing Krema I with Kremas II-V. Krema I is a
reconstruction, this has never been a secret. Kremas II-V
are in their demolished state as they were left."
Charles Don Hall <cdhall...@erols.com> wrote in article
<8F4CB71B...@news.erols.com>...
"Certainly not! The word "fake" implies a deliberate attempt to deceive.
"The staff of the Auschwitz museum will readily explain that the Nazis
tried to destroy the gas chambers in a futile attempt to conceal their
crimes. And they'll tell you that reconstruction was done later on. So it
would be dishonest for me to call it a "fake". I'll cheerfully admit that
it's a "reconstruction" if that makes you happy."
They admit that the "gas chamber" shown to the tourists at Auschwitz was
built by the allies after the war was over. There is no physical evidence
that the Germans had gas chambers. No bodies of people who died from gas
have been found. The Communists were the first to enter the camps. How do
the other allies know the Communists didn't blow up the buildings? Then they
could claim that these demolished buildings used to be gas chambers.
But then the believers will say the Gemans confessed. Their main
confession is from Hoess. Here are the details:
"In the introduction to Death Dealer [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1992], the
historian Steven Paskuly wrote: "Just after his capture in 1946, the
British Security Police were able to extract a statement from Hoess by
beating him and filling him with liquor." Paskuly was reiterating what
Rupert Butler and Bernard Clarke had already described.
In 1983, Rupert Butler published an unabashed memoir (Legions of Death,
Hamlyn: London) describing in graphic detail how, over three days, he and
Clarke and other British policemen managed to torture Hoess into making a
"coherent statement." According to Butler [Legions of Death, p. 237], he
and the other interrogators put the boots to Hoess the moment he was
captured. For starters, Clarke struck his face four times to get Höess to
reveal his true identity.
<quote>
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of Jewish sergeants in the
arresting party whose parents had died in Auschwitz following an order
signed by Höss.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from his
body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it
seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.
Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call them off, unless
you want to take back a corpse."
A blanket was thrown over Höss and he was dragged to Clarke's car, where
the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whisky down his throat. Höss
tried to sleep.
Clarke thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in
Geffnan: "Keep your pig eyes open, you swine."
For the first time Höss trotted out his oft-repeated justification: "I
took my orders frorn Himmler. I was a soldier in the same way as you are
a soldier and we had to obey orders."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was
swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Höss and he was made to walk
completely nude through the prison yard to his cell.
</quote>
An article in the Britsh newspaper Wrexham Leader [Mike Mason, "In a cell
with
a Nazi war criminal -- We kept him awake until he confessed," October 17,
1986] following the airing of a TV documentary on the case of Rudolf Hoess
included eyewitness recollections by Ken Jones:
<quote>
Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the Fifth Royal Horse Artillery
stationed at Heid[e] in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when
he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during the
war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in
the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with
Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for
interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with
axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help
break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for
exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a cotton shirt in the bitter
cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down
and made a full confession to the authorities.
</quote>
The confession Hoess signed was numbered document NO-1210; later revamped,
as document PS-3868, which became the basis for an oral deposition Hoess
made for the IMT on April 15, 1946, a month after it had been extracted
from him by torture...
Since what people confess to after they have been captured by the
Communists and their liberal comrades is not proof of anything, this leaves
only the stories of survivors. These contradict each other and not
believable. One professional survivor said that he could tell if the Germans
were gassing German Jews or Polish Jews by the color of the smoke.
The fact that there are so many "survivors" is not proof of an
extermination plan. There may be six million survivors. Just about every Jew
that is old says he is a survivor.
The real "holocaust" was when the Communist Jews murdered millions of
Christians. Communism was Jewish. Here is proof:
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party during
the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception of the
four who had recieved the largest number of votes. Lenin--133 out of a
possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile but he was married to a
Jewess. It was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
The communists took over Hungary in 1919. Their leader was the Jew,
Bela Kun (Cohen).
The leaders of communist Poland were the Jews Minc, Skryeszewski,
Modzelewski, and Berman.
The leader of communist Roumania was the Jewess Anna Pauker
The leader of communist Chechoslovakia was the Jew Rudolf Slansky.
The leader of communist Yogoslavia was not a Jew. He was Tito,
however he was tutored by a Jewish mentor named Mosa Pljade.
Communism in America was also Jewish.
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the Amerasia
case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at one
time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the ringleader of
the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party in the
U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers of
the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress and
sentanced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten were
communist party members and the other four were flagrantly pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of the
American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three nationality
unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was convicted
for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on information obtained
from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of the ring. All of them were
convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first published
in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither Reform
or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there was
Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of Israel than
most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born in Germany in
1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not himself reared as a
Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized a Christian by his
father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him thoughout his days, for
he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby, Gabriel
Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish lineage
played important roles in the struggle that went thoughout Europe in this
period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being waged, whether in
France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there the Jew was to be found.
It was little wonder that the enemies of social progress, the monarchists
and the Churchmen, came to speak of the whole liberal movement as nothing
but a Jewish plot."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominant in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia on
March 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type"
type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 `commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a
January 1918 dispatch to Washington: "The Bolshevik leaders here, most
of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care
little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and
they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920)> "There is much in the fact of Bolshevism
itself, in the fact that so
many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with
many of the highest ideals of Judaism." (Jewish Chronicle, London
April, 4, 1919) "Some call it Marxism I call it Judaism." (The
American Bulletin, Rabbi S. Wise, May 5, 1935).
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to
read articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous stuff.
From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I recalled to mind the
names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then I realized that most of
them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social Democratic representatives in
the Imperial Cabinet as well as the secretaries if the Trades Unions and
the street agitators. Everywhere the same sinister picture presented
itself. I shall never forget the row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler,
Ellonbogen, and others. One fact became quite evident to me. It was that
this alien race held in its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic
Party with whose minor representatives I had been disputing for months
past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Eugene Holman
wrote:
> http://stormfront.org
> "Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:230120011554503362%> > > wrote:
> >
> > Goldhagen is interested in putting human faces on the perpetrators of
> > the Holocaust; he gives their names and backgrounds. It's a frightening
> > book carrying on many of the theses introduced a generation ago by
> > hannah Arendt in her "The Banality of Evil: Eichmann in Jerusalem":
> > most of the people who carried out Nazi atrocities were otherwise
> > normal and respectable German Kleinbürger.
> >
>
>
> During World War Two the Germans put Jews and Communists in
> concentration camps. The USA locked also up the Japanese and their political
> opponants and for less reason. At the end of the war there was a lot of
> deaths in the German camps from disease and starvation because Germany was
> being bombed to rubble. There is no evidence that the Germans had gas
> chambers or an extermination plan.
Japanese-Americans, as well as some German and Italian-Americans were
interned as a matter of national security. This was an over-reaction,
but the people were treated decently. They farmed and lived a snormal a
life as was possible within their compounds. Although the treatment was
psychologically devastating and wrong, nobody was gassed, starved,
summarily executed, or forced to do slave labor. An apology was
subsequently issued by the American government and compensation has
been paid.
>
> The real reason there are no records of an extermination plan is
> because there was no extermination plan. The Germans planned to deport the
> Jews out of Germany.
German Jews account for only some 5% of the Jews killed by the Nazis,
and about half of them survived. The other 95% of the victims of the
Holocaust were citizens of the countries which Germany systematically
attacked, invaded, occupied, and ethnically cleansed. There is abundant
and damning evidence of a continent-wide German policy of identifying
Jews, concentrating them in ghettos and camps, confiscating their
property and assets, and keeping it for themselves, and of either
killing them by various means (mass-shootings, gassing, starvation,
bruatklity, summary execution, keeping them in facilities provided with
woefully inadequate infrastructure, concentration camp liquidations,
death marches). Much the same fate befell the Sinta and Roma
populations [which the Germans only intended to kill] of the countries
that Germany invaded, so we are dealing here with a double policy.
> The records show that they planned to move them to Madagascar.
The records also show that they planned to win the war.
Germany had no rights to Madagascar, nor did it have the right to send
Danish, Norwegian, Estonian, Greek, French, Dutch, Luxembourgian,
Belgian, Romanian, Russian, Latvian, Ukrainian, Byelo-Russian, Finnish,
Lithuanian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Yugoslavian, Jews to
Madagascar.
[DELETIONS]
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Alex Vange
http://stormfront.org
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:230120012141062910%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi...
>
> The Nazis were sure they would win and thus they gambled away part of
> the legacy that should have belonged to the next few generations. They
> invaded some fifteen-odd countries spreading death, mayhem and
> destruction everywhere they went. If a country is stupid enough to
The Germans lost some land to Poland after World War One. The Germans
said that their people living on this land were being severely oppressed by
the Polish goverment. This is why Germany fought Poland . If Rhode Island
were taken away from America, Americans would fight to get it back.
Americans will go to war for far less reason than this.
Britain and the other liberal countries then went to war with Germany
even though the Communists also attacked Poland. After they won the war,
Poland was Communist, which shows what the liberals were fighting for.
Here is a quote from The Nameless War, by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay:
"Can we doubt but that Poland was encouraged to ignore the German note of
March which set forth eminently reasonable suggestions for a peaceful
solution of the problem of the Corridor?
Month after month no reply was vouchsafed by Poland to the German note.
Meanwhile, insult and outrage occurred with suspicious frequency all along
the German frontier, similar to the technique to which the Jews later
introduced the British in Palestine. Day after day the British public was
deluged with war propaganda and misrepresentation of the situation. Finally
their minds were closed against any further regard to the demands of justice
and reason by a new slogan, "You cannot trust Hitler's word." With this lie
the British public was finally stampeded into throwing all reason and
judgement to the winds and accepting at their face value the war propaganda
in the press.
This slogan was founded upon a misrepresentation of Hitler's assurance
given on more than one occasion after a "putsch" such as that in into
Sudetenland, that he "intended to make no further demands.". The
misrepresentation lay in the fact that the press steadily obscured the major
fact, that the "demands" to which Hitler referred were all along five-fold
in character; and covered those five areas taken from Germany by a dictated
peace in which the population was overwhelmingly German, i.e. Sudetenland,
part of Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Corridor and Danzig.
As German troops occupied each successive section, it is, I believe,
accurate to say that Hitler declared, that he had no additional demands to
make. But here it must be clearly stated in the interests of justice that he
never said that this entailed reducing the demands which he had originally
very clearly delineated, and repeated on many occasions, namely, the five
areas in question.
"The British public was deluded by its press into supposing that when
Hitler said he had no further demands, that there had never been any
statement of his full demands, some of which were still unfulfilled. They
were led to believe that Hitler either never had had other demands, or that
he had abondoned the rest as soon as he had obtained some of them. When,
therefore, the next installment was added, the press built on this
misunderstanding the fallacy that Hitler's word could not be trusted. Honest
dealing needs no such trickery and and deception. Such methods are only
necessary to bolster up bad or unjust causes. Fortunately we have the calm
and disspassionate judgement in this matter by no less a person than the
late Lord Lothian, recently British Ambassador to the U.S.A. In his last
speech at Chatham House on this subject he remarked: "If the principle of
self-determination had been applied in Germany's favour, as it was applied
agaisnt her, it would have meant the return of the Sudetenland,
Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Polish Corridor and Danzig to the
Reich."
Here is a very different presentment of the case to the one which was
foisted upon the British public in 1939: and it is the true one. Small
wonder that these facts had to be withheld from the ordinary citizen.
Had the British public realized the truth, that each of these demands of
Hilter rested on a foundation of reasonable fairness, the people of this
island would have ruled out any question of war; and it was war, not truth
or justice, upon which international Jewry was resolved."
Here is another quote from the book:
"The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter to
Mr. Balfour (see page 25), denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan, which if
not checked by the combined action of the European powers, would engulf
Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of that year the red
flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities of Europe. In Hungary the
Jew Bela Kuhn organized and maintained for some time a merciless and bloody
tyranny similar to the one in Russia. In Germany the Jews, Liebknecht,
Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., made a desperate bid for power.
These and other similar convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its
own way just frustated the onslaughts.
In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in the endeavour to
expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one, however, did a political
leader and group arise, who grasped to the full the significance of these
happenings, and perceived behind the mobs of native hooligans the
organisation and driving power of world Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler,
and his group the National Socialist Party of Germany.
Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organized
revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact. We
need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded over
these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of supposing that
Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men everywhere from making a
thorough investigation of the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, if any
value liberty, and set out to seek truth and defend it, this duty of
personal investigation is one which they cannot shirk.
To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentaions of a
Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer idleness, if
for no worse reason."
Brian Blank
>
>
>http://stormfront.org
>"Eugene Holman" <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>news:230120012141062910%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi...
>>
>> The Nazis were sure they would win and thus they gambled away part of
>> the legacy that should have belonged to the next few generations. They
>> invaded some fifteen-odd countries spreading death, mayhem and
>> destruction everywhere they went. If a country is stupid enough to
>
> The Germans lost some land to Poland after World War One. The Germans
>said that their people living on this land were being severely oppressed by
>the Polish goverment. This is why Germany fought Poland . If Rhode Island
>were taken away from America, Americans would fight to get it back.
>Americans will go to war for far less reason than this.
You want to split the Pacific Northwest from the United States. This
is surely a better example to use than Rhode Island. You have also
stated that you wish to expel those that you consider non-White from
the Pacific Northwest.
In the light of your paragraph above, how can you justify this?
Alex will now run from this question.
Regards,
Brian Blank