Silly Giwer
JTEM
The actual Nazi estimate for the Jewish population
of Europe, used at the Wannsee Conference, was
11 million:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/WannseeList.jpg
Giwer claims 9 million.
: There were slightly fewer than 9 million Jews in Europe
: at the start of the war.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/32a4cf8dc0bd6d19?hl=en&dmode=source
So not only is he contradicting his Nazi heroes, but he
fails to explain WHY the Nazis held a Wannsee Conference
in the first place, and WHY they would bother identifying
Jewish populations in Europe...
The misinformation didn't stop there though...
: However one million is a conveniently round number.
NOTE: Nobody but Giwer was claiming upholding the
"conveniently Round" 1 million figure.
: Perhaps it was an early estimate and in error.
No. It was either the incredibly common act of "Rounding
off" a figure, or you made it all up yourself. However, no
estimate put forward YOUR "Conveniently Round" number.
> In 2004 Israel issued a more refined number still
> alive in that year, 1,092,000, for the purpose of actually
> filing lawsuits.
Again, false.
First off, estimates were necessary for the purposes of
settling insurance claims.
And....
There were several estimates, and the larger of the two was
just over a million. The lower of the two was less than 700
thousand:
http://www.claimscon.org/forms/allocations/An%20Estimate%20of%20the_Ukeles%20ICHEIC_.pdf
Here's where Giwer goes completely over the bend:
: That leaves us with 5,118,750 alive in 1945 if none were
: killed for inability to work and the birthrate were the same
: as it was in peacetime.
Actually, a little over 5 million still alive in Europe at the end
of the war almost exactly matches current estimates of 6
million killed... and that's if we cherry pick his "Conveniently
Round" 1 million figure for the number of survivors still alive
today. If we go with the lower estimate for Holocaust survivors
still alive today, Giwer's figure is actually quite a bit higher
than need be.
Also, Giwer does know that the Nazis did not have access to
all of Europe. There's Britain & Ireland, for example, as well
as Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. Not only were
the Jews of these countries never touched, but they all
became havens for Jews fleeing elsewhere.
Why is this important? Because it's proof that Giwer is lying.
His "Algebra" assumes a minimum age not for survivors, but
for the post-war Jewish population. He pretends that all the
Jews of Europe went into camps.
Secondly, children win sympathies are more easily than
adults. They provoke parental instincts, winning compassion
where an adult would be turned away. For this reason a
child was far more likely to be taken in, or hidden, by a
sympathetic "Christian."
What's more, children are easily explained -- especially during
a war -- while adults aren't.
"He's my cousin's son. I was the closest living relative he had
after the bombing."
But, ultimately, Giwer's argument is against the estimates for
Holocaust survivors, claiming that those estimates prove a
point of his. Yet, what do those very estimates say themselves
regarding child survivors (when Giwer claims that there could be
no survivors under 13 in 1945?)...
} This definition includes anyone who was born before mid-1945
} and who meets the above criterion. If for example, if one
} included only people who were 10 years old at the end of the
} war, the numbers would only be about 75% as large.
NOTE: They are not trying to FORCE anyone to adhere to their
estimates, they are simply explaining the basis for their estimates,
and how you would have to alter them (downwards) if you're not
going to accept their definitions.
Giwer rejects there definitions but DOES NOT adjust the estimates
downwards.
And that even as he cherry picks the absolute highest estimate,
and marries it to the absolute lowest estimate for a pre-war Jewish
population...
Matt Giwer
> The actual Nazi estimate for the Jewish population of Europe, used at the
> Wannsee Conference, was 11 million:
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/WannseeList.jpg
>
> Giwer claims 9 million.
I cited JEWISH sources saying 9 million. Wannsee does bring up one
of the obvious reasons people should not use wikipedia. A person wishing to
cite the so-called protocol should in fact read the protocol and establish
what the Wannsee demographic sources were. Having read it, I can tell you
there are none. Citing Wannsee does not establish the number much less does
its citation by The Children of The Wiki make a unsourced number other than
an unsourced number.
> : There were slightly fewer than 9 million Jews in Europe
> : at the start of the war.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/32a4cf8dc0bd6d19?hl=en&dmode=source
Now a google group is an authoritative source. Will wonders never
cease? They are are Capt. Crunch if he is moderating ... or was that a Yahoo
group.
No wonder you love conspiracy theories.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Thu Nov 12 22:01:16 EST 2009
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> I cited JEWISH sources saying 9 million.
You cited AN AMERICAN source. Singular. No plural.
> Wannsee does bring up one of the obvious reasons
> people should not use wikipedia. A person wishing to
> cite the so-called protocol should in fact read the
> protocol and establish what the Wannsee demographic
> sources were.
You fail to do that with the so-called "Source" you cite.
> Having read it, I can tell you there are none.
There are none... what?
You're saying that the Nazis had no basis for their statistics?
> Citing Wannsee does not establish the number much less does
The point, you lying sack of shit, is that there was never a "Jewish
Census of Europe," so NOTHING can nor does establish anything.
Meaning, you CHERRY PICKED a figure.... exactly as I've always
stated.
> > : There were slightly fewer than 9 million Jews in Europe
> > : at the start of the war.
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/32a4cf8dc0bd6d19?hl=en&dmode=source
>
> Now a google group is an authoritative source.
It's a link to one of YOUR articles, shit head. I quoted you (that's
a cut & paste job on your 9 million claim) and I provided the URL
to your article in which you make the claim.
Why are you pretending something else?
Because, as much as you deny it, a direct link to your article
on the Google archive DOES establish beyond a doubt what
you claimed.
Again, it's a link to YOUR article on the Google Groups archive.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � I cited JEWISH sources saying 9 million.
> You cited AN AMERICAN source. Singular. No plural.
The account was of two jewish sources which participated in the head
count. Plurality is in the English grammer and in the fact.
>> Wannsee does bring up one of the obvious reasons people should not use
>> wikipedia. A person wishing to cite the so-called protocol should in fact
>> read the protocol and establish what the Wannsee demographic sources
>> were.
> You fail to do that with the so-called "Source" you cite.
I would have thought the mention of the protocol itself was
sufficient to refer to the protocol itself. Perhaps it is different in your
reality.
>> Having read it, I can tell you there are none.
>
> There are none... what?
>
> You're saying that the Nazis had no basis for their statistics?
I said there are not cited in the protocol. I do not have your
implicit faith in Nazi sources. My fault I presume.
>> Citing Wannsee does not establish the number much less does
> The point, you lying sack of shit, is that there was never a "Jewish
> Census of Europe," so NOTHING can nor does establish anything.
That is what I cited, in fact two Jewish sources which collaborated
or at least were considered sufficient for mention in the same news article.
What is it you cannot read?
> Meaning, you CHERRY PICKED a figure.... exactly as I've always stated.
While I am quite adept at photoshopping material the citation is
considered appropriate in the holohugger community.
Should you ever have something better than an anonymous wikipedia
source you be sure to get back to me, ya hear now?
--
Happiness is simple. Do not compare yourself to others.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4205
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Fri Nov 13 06:33:04 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
To remind you. I will not engage in the silly pissing matches you so
enjoy with the children. Please try to do better.
--
When one says there are people worse than he is, his is also say he is no
better than them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4198
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Fri Nov 13 08:04:14 EST 2009
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> The account was of two jewish sources which
> participated in the head count.
There was never any head count, and your "source" doesn't
claim that there was. Secondly, it was two groups compiling
the statistics, not two sources for the statistic.
YOU claim two sources, your "source" doesn't not.
Finally, they describe it as the "Latest Available Data" (to
them, here in the United States), not "Comprehensive
data" or even "Accurate data." How old and or incomplete
this data is they do not speculate.
> Plurality is in the English grammer and in the fact.
Given the context, I have no idea what that's supposed to
mean in English.
We have the Germans who clearly -- even by the word of
Nazi cunts like you -- didn't like the Jews and did imprison
them -- producing working estimates on the Jewish
populations of Europe, estimates on which everything from
factories to new railroad lines will be based on, and you're
throwing THAT aside as less accurate than some pre-war
estimates from an UNIDENTIFIED SOURCE from the wrong
continent?
Oh, while you're at it you're pretending that the unidentified
source for the American pre-war estimates is in fact two
sources identified as "Jewish."
Here we go:
http://www.giwersworld.org/images/1938pop.jpg
It says "Compilation of the latest available data"
NO SOURCE IS NAMED!
Sure, it tells us who compiled the data -- and it does name
two Jewish groups -- but neither is named as the "Source,"
merely as the compilers.
There is a difference, you idiot Nazi.
> >> Wannsee does bring up one of the obvious reasons people
> >> should not use wikipedia. A person wishing to cite the
> >> so-called protocol should in fact read the protocol and
> >> establish what the Wannsee demographic sources were.
> >
> > You fail to do that with the so-called "Source" you cite.
> I would have thought the mention of the protocol itself was
> sufficient to refer to the protocol itself.
That doesn't make sense. What I'm pointing out above, and you're
not addressing, is that fact that you have no named "Source" for
your 9 million figure. The origins of your 9 million figure are
entirely
unknown.
I HAVE A SOURCE. That source is the very Nazis planning the
"Final Solution of the Jewish Question," the very figures they
used for their planning. Here's your "Protocols," in English:
http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm
NOTE: The "Protocol Itself" has more Jews fleeing Germany by
the time of the conference that your cherry-picked, unsourced
American statistics had living in pre-war Germany!
You're simply spewing nonsense, hoping to distract, something
you do a lot...
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> To remind you.
You cherry picked a low starting figure, then cherry
picked the highest estimate for still-living Holocaust
survivors.
You pretended that there were no Jews living in
European territories not occupied by Germany or
it's allies. You intentionally tried to confuse "The
post war Jewish population" with "The number of
Holocaust survivors."
They were two different figures.
You invented a minimum age of 13 for Holocaust
survivors, even though the people who compiled
the actual estimates (the ones you misrepresented)
said you had to assume 75% of their figures if you
didn't count the children who were 10 and under.
You didn't count the children of 12 and under.
Even though Europe had (continues to have) longer
life spans, you claimed the average life span in
Europe wasn't long enough to account for a smaller
percentage of living survivors than U.S. veterans who
are still alive.
Martin Edwards
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, JTEM wrote:
>
>> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>>> � � � � I cited JEWISH sources saying 9 million.
>
>> You cited AN AMERICAN source. Singular. No plural.
>
> The account was of two jewish sources which participated in the head
> count. Plurality is in the English grammer and in the fact.
>
>>> Wannsee does bring up one of the obvious reasons people should not use
>>> wikipedia. A person wishing to cite the so-called protocol should in
>>> fact
>>> read the protocol and establish what the Wannsee demographic sources
>>> were.
I have read it, only in English so far. It is true that it only refers
to evacuation. However, the areas the Jews were to be evacuated to were
precisely those which were to be taken over by Himmler's
soldier-peasants. Presumably the two groups were not expected to farm
side by side. Both sides rather miss the point here. It would not have
been necessary for Hitler or any other Nazi leader to give a direct
order. In the culture of "working towards the Führer" there was
considerable latitude in interpreting, or for that matter speculating
on, his wishes.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
JTEM
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have read it, only in English so far. It is true that it
> only refers to evacuation.
No it doesn't.
As far as "Evacuation" goes, it states the following:
: As a further possible solution, and with the appropriate
: prior authorization by the Führer, emigration has now
: been replaced by evacuation to the East. This operation
: should be regarded only as a provisional option, though
: in view of the coming final solution of the Jewish question
: it is already supplying practical experience of vital
: importance.
"Only refers to evacuation"? Please. That's not funny.
Evacuation is clearly represented as a tentative "solution."
But, it goes on...
: ....Jews capable of working will be dispatched to these
: regions to build roads, and in the process a large number
: of them will undoubtedly drop out by way of natural
: attrition.
Now this might surprise you, but the western world has been
building major road systems since at least the days of Rome,
and in all that time nobody has EVER identified a "natural"
cause for an attrition rate which could possibly account for
large numbers of workers.
Now, "As a natural consequence of conditions and treatment,"
on the other hand, DOES make sense given the context. But,
even if you want to grant the Nazis the greatest of doubts, it's
already pretty clear that they believe their (the Nazi's) actions
will result in large numbers of deaths, and that this is intentional.
But it doesn't stop there. The protocols go on to discuss the
people who somehow survive the labor...
: Those who ultimately should possibly get by will have to be
: given suitable treatment because they unquestionably
: represent the most resistant segments and therefore
: constitute a natural elite that, if allowed to go free, would
: turn into a germ cell of renewed Jewish revival.
http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm
So, already we have established that the Wannasee Protocols
laid out the following:
#1.
"Evacuations" to the East are a tentative solution.
#2.
Everyone capable of labor will be put to work in a manner which
will result in large numbers of them dying.
#3.
Any and all who survive this ordeal "must be dealt with" in such
a way that does not involve them seeing freedom.
#4.
As a result of #1-3, above, the "Jewish" religion/culture will be
in need of a "Revival," and that steps will be taken to ensure
that this "Revival" never occurs
.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � The account was of two jewish sources which participated in the
>> head count.
> There was never any head count, and your "source" doesn't claim that there
> was. Secondly, it was two groups compiling the statistics, not two sources
> for the statistic.
If you will get your nose out of wikipedia for a while you will
discover there is an almost decennial jewish activity which is to determine
the number of Jews in the world. It parallels a similar activity by Roman
Catholics and for religions prominent in countries with a significant
population in countries which do not collect population data on religion. If
you were to look further you would find the two groups cited were involved
in collecting such data thus I cited those who did in fact coordinate the
data consolidation.
You can also look into it over the years and find their methodology
which in those days was primarily synagogue membership. These days the
methodology is more contentious with disagreements over who is a Jew. The
two camps are generally those who want the highest possible number and those
who want a Torah definition of who is to be counted. The census in the last
decade has a really nasty spat over counting the children of those who had
married non-jews, just those of the jewesses or both. This stuff is
hilarious.
On the Wannsee side, there is no source given for any of the
numbers. It is as simple as that. Bureaucrats sitting around a table do not
count as a source.
> YOU claim two sources, your "source" doesn't not.
Two agencies collaborated in the published data. It was a single
activity. Two groups put money into it AS I READ IT. I do not care if it is
one or two as there is a single result. There is no need to split hairs.
This was the decennial census for that decade. No, they are not conducted to
conincide with national census taking much less on the US 0 year schedule.
> Finally, they describe it as the "Latest Available Data" (to them, here in
> the United States), not "Comprehensive data" or even "Accurate data." How
> old and or incomplete this data is they do not speculate.
However, I cited an actual census with a tracable methodology should
the methodology become the question. There is nothing tracable from Wannsee
therefore all objections to it are equal.
If you wish to assume the Wannsee numbers are correc then you are
obligated to explain why an actual census methodology is off by some 2
million and to identify the geographic location of those errors. Again,
given a methodology compared to unsourced numbers the error must be ascribed
to Wannsee absent any means of defending Wannsee.
Again, why are you bothering? Rhetorical of course. You are trying
to argue backwards from the sacred six million which has never been properly
sourced. In fact all other religions had established their losses in WWII
within a year of the end of the war with acceptable census methodologies.
Judaism has never done anything to establish a number which is why even at
this late date people are still trying to establish a number politically
motivated though the efforts might be.
>> Plurality is in the English grammer and in the fact.
> Given the context, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean in English.
>
> We have the Germans who clearly -- even by the word of Nazi cunts like you
> -- didn't like the Jews and did imprison them -- producing working
> estimates on the Jewish populations of Europe, estimates on which
> everything from factories to new railroad lines will be based on, and
> you're throwing THAT aside as less accurate than some pre-war estimates
> from an UNIDENTIFIED SOURCE from the wrong continent?
>
> Oh, while you're at it you're pretending that the unidentified source for
> the American pre-war estimates is in fact two sources identified as
> "Jewish."
>
> Here we go:
>
> http://www.giwersworld.org/images/1938pop.jpg
>
> It says "Compilation of the latest available data"
>
> NO SOURCE IS NAMED!
>
> Sure, it tells us who compiled the data -- and it does name two Jewish
> groups -- but neither is named as the "Source," merely as the compilers.
>
> There is a difference, you idiot Nazi.
I do not take the time to detail everything. As above they were
involved in the decennial census. You can research the rest on your own or
not. I could care less.
>>>> Wannsee does bring up one of the obvious reasons people should not use
>>>> wikipedia. A person wishing to cite the so-called protocol should in
>>>> fact read the protocol and establish what the Wannsee demographic
>>>> sources were.
>>> You fail to do that with the so-called "Source" you cite.
>> � � � � I would have thought the mention of the protocol itself was
>> sufficient to refer to the protocol itself.
> That doesn't make sense. What I'm pointing out above, and you're not
> addressing, is that fact that you have no named "Source" for your 9
> million figure. The origins of your 9 million figure are entirely unknown.
Now they are not unknown to you. Are you happier?
> I HAVE A SOURCE. That source is the very Nazis planning the "Final
> Solution of the Jewish Question," the very figures they used for their
> planning. Here's your "Protocols," in English:
> http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm
You should read that carefully some times and compare it to the
German as I have. There are several items in the original German which any
one of which brings it into question.
But accepting it for what people claim it to be note that many
methods are discussed at a date AFTER poison gas and cremation were decided
as the method as per Hoess yet it is not mentioned. Note also no one claims
any of the methods mentioned in it were used nor are any of the claimed
methods used mentioned it in.
At best this can be viewed as a day late and a dollar short report
that was never implemented. A day late because gas had already been decided
and because the methods it mentions were never used so actually many dollars
short.
> NOTE: The "Protocol Itself" has more Jews fleeing Germany by the time of
> the conference that your cherry-picked, unsourced American statistics had
> living in pre-war Germany!
In fact the date of this document is after other holocaustic sources
claims they had all been deported. Like so many claims this is mutually
exclusive to other claims. Some have to be totally false if others are true.
> You're simply spewing nonsense, hoping to distract, something you do a
> lot...
I assumed that is what you were doing as you did not produce any
math at all and were simply desirous of giving me a platform to expound on
the inconsistencies.
After all the differences between the poison gas and Wannsee are
hugely greater than the differences between the Shalamanzer inscription and
the bible tale yet upon the latter differences you reject the bible story.
Just because they mention sterilization with X-rays instead of
extermination by Zyklon-B that is hardly any less different than not being
able to imagine Israel in the Egyptian inscription.
May I suggest you maintain consistent rigor on all subjects?
--
If you believe religion to be infallible be thankful your
neighbor is not a man of the cloth.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4189
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Sun Nov 15 05:20:37 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
I await your math based upon your different assumptions.
It is only algebra.
--
When one says a thing is 'no worse than' he is also saying it is
no better than.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4197
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Sun Nov 15 06:06:48 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> So, already we have established that the Wannasee Protocols
> laid out the following:
> #1.
> "Evacuations" to the East are a tentative solution.
> #2.
> Everyone capable of labor will be put to work in a manner which will
> result in large numbers of them dying.
> #3.
> Any and all who survive this ordeal "must be dealt with" in such a way
> that does not involve them seeing freedom.
> #4.
> As a result of #1-3, above, the "Jewish" religion/culture will be in need
> of a "Revival," and that steps will be taken to ensure that this "Revival"
> never occurs
And all of this after Rudolf Hoess reports extermination by slow
release cyanide pesticide had already been decided.
Why where the people in charge not aware of what they had decided
months earlier?
Where is the mention of the work on matters of use to the war effort
such as the massive effort at the synthetic rubber plant near Auschwitz?
They are going to build roads during the war instead of munitions.
How strange. And all of this because the east had such an inferior to
non-existent road system that public works infrastructure had a higher
priority than munitions work which was in progress at Auschwitz for more
than a year before this decision to do something else entirely. Something
else which no one reports was ever done.
At best you have a classic bureaucratic "file and forget" government
report which had no relationship whatsoever to the religious beliefs under
discussion.
--
What is the point of worshiping a god that cannot be seen when its
performance is no better than a statue of Apollo?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4193
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/ a12
Sun Nov 15 07:18:26 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, JTEM wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>>>> � � � � I cited JEWISH sources saying 9 million.
>>> You cited AN AMERICAN source. Singular. No plural.
>> The account was of two jewish sources which participated in the head
>> count. Plurality is in the English grammer and in the fact.
>>>> Wannsee does bring up one of the obvious reasons people should not use
>>>> wikipedia. A person wishing to cite the so-called protocol should in
>>>> fact read the protocol and establish what the Wannsee demographic
>>>> sources were.
> I have read it, only in English so far. It is true that it only refers to
> evacuation. However, the areas the Jews were to be evacuated to were
> precisely those which were to be taken over by Himmler's soldier-peasants.
How does "to the east" substitute for using WWI POW camps like
Auschwitz as a destination for deportation?
One of these days I will get around to re-reading it in German
alongside the English. Thank Gates for my original file being eaten a decade
ago. What I did find were like finding fahrt Zanzibar directly translated
into English as far Zanzibar to mean beyond reach. Finding a single example
of that in the Protocol is sufficient grounds to reject it as crude forgery.
> Presumably the two groups were not expected to farm side by side. Both
> sides rather miss the point here. It would not have been necessary for
> Hitler or any other Nazi leader to give a direct order. In the culture of
> "working towards the Führer" there was considerable latitude in
> interpreting, or for that matter speculating on, his wishes.
Telepathy is a literary fiction.
At one time I did work which required organizing people towards a
new and specific goal. The US Navy calls it program management. I am
constantly amazed at how many people seem to think it takes no more than a
wish to make it happen.
One of the "training" exercises I was given when new was to fix
projects that had gone off on a tangent. It is amazing just how sideways
things can get without constant reinforcement in writing, funding and
documentation of the objectives and means for a project.
People can work towards the Fuehrer all they want but they can't
read his mind and he is not on record as saying anything on the subject
beyond to put off the expulsion until after the war.
--
When one says there are people worse than he is, his is also say he is no
better than them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4198
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Sun Nov 15 06:59:54 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
>>>> Wannsee does bring up one of the obvious reasons people should not use
>>>> wikipedia. A person wishing to cite the so-called protocol should in
>>>> fact read the protocol and establish what the Wannsee demographic
>>>> sources were.
> I have read it, only in English so far.
Speaking of protocols, Europe is big on things they call protocols.
I am sure you are more familiar with them than I am. Did it really read like
a protocol to you?
To my reading of protocol they say a) will do this b) will do that
and c) will do the other. I see none of that here. This does not rise above
idle chatter as far as government planning goes.
Take for example sterilize with X-rays. Someone there should have
said he would provide the X-ray machines or some would have been tasked to
set up the production line for them.
Imagine yourself as the head of one of the government agencies
participating in the conference which is agreeing on what to do. Where is
there a statement of what you agendy will do? Where is who you will
coordinate with? Why are you there? What is anyone contributing to these
objectives?
And then ask why the conference is being held as Rudolf Hoess
confessed the decision to use a slow release pesticide had been made months
before. He had already tested it and found it killed much faster than
expected -- or much slower depending upon which true truth you accept. Which
agency made that decision? Is it represented here? If so, why did the
representative not speak up and say the decision had been made? If not
represented why not?
--
A biblical archaeologist is like an astrological astronomer
or an alchemical chemist. None are scientists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4199
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Sun Nov 15 09:40:54 EST 2009
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> And all of this after Rudolf Hoess reports
> extermination by slow release cyanide pesticide
> had already been decided.
So you're pretending that you're shocked that nobody
wanted a paper record of their plans to exterminate
the Jewish population of Europe?
Wow, that's lame...
Secondly, you're completely misrepresenting the purpose
of the Wannsee Conference. It was NOT to establish a
method, nor even a reason for the "Final Solution," but was
conceived in order to give Heydrich the power (authority)
he desired -- by establishing him as the head of an important
government policy before various officials -- and to secure
cooperation.
> Why where the people in charge not aware of
> what they had decided months earlier?
Cites.
The above makes no sense, unless you're once again
trying to misrepresent the purpose of the conference.
It wasn't to establish methods.
> Where is the mention of the work on matters
> of use to the war effort such as the massive effort
> at the synthetic rubber plant near Auschwitz?
Wait a minute. They all agree to work as many prisoners
to death as they can, and you think the type of labor
makes a huge difference?
"Sure, we all agreed to use them as labor, even work them
to death, but nobody mentioned anything but roads! Why,
it would be immoral to employ them in a manner which is
actually useful."
--High ranking Nazis, accoding to Giwer the cunt
Hey, Giwer; ever try arguing something that makes sense?
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> I await your math based upon your different
> assumptions.
Why? You made a claim, that claim was shown to
be based on many, many falsehoods. Period.
Nothing is going to change this fact.
Please, Larry...errrr... Giwer, accept reality and move
on.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � I await your math based upon your different assumptions.
>
> Why? You made a claim, that claim was shown to be based on many, many
> falsehoods. Period.
Show your assumptions and your math. That is the only way you can
show it results in 1 million survivors in that year.
That is the only way you can show your different assumptions results
in a different number.
Please review/relearn high school algebra and present your
calculations.
--
Which is better? Many gods or one swiss army knife god?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4202
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Mon Nov 16 05:58:09 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>
>> � � � � And all of this after Rudolf Hoess reports extermination by slow
>> release cyanide pesticide had already been decided.
>
> So you're pretending that you're shocked that nobody wanted a paper record
> of their plans to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe?
> Wow, that's lame...
As this protocol is being presented as a paper record of the plans
believers cannot claim they did not want a record of some sort of plan even
of one not implemented.
> Secondly, you're completely misrepresenting the purpose of the Wannsee
> Conference. It was NOT to establish a method, nor even a reason for the
> "Final Solution," but was conceived in order to give Heydrich the power
> (authority) he desired -- by establishing him as the head of an important
> government policy before various officials -- and to secure cooperation.
I suggest you read it and you will find methods are recited.
>> � � � � Why where the people in charge not aware of what they had decided
>> months earlier?
> Cites.
The same one I have shown you many times. I thought you would know
the material by now.
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html
> The above makes no sense, unless you're once again trying to misrepresent
> the purpose of the conference.
> It wasn't to establish methods.
What was the talk of sterilization? Working to death creating public
roads infrastructure as a matter of good will or for some other unstated
reason?
>> � � � � Where is the mention of the work on matters of use to the war
>> effort such as the massive effort at the synthetic rubber plant near
>> Auschwitz?
>
> Wait a minute. They all agree to work as many prisoners to death as they
> can, and you think the type of labor makes a huge difference?
>
> "Sure, we all agreed to use them as labor, even work them to death, but
> nobody mentioned anything but roads! Why, it would be immoral to employ
> them in a manner which is actually useful."
> --High ranking Nazis, accoding to Giwer the cunt
As they had been working on the war effort for months at the time of
this conference one would have expected someone to have mentioned it.
> Hey, Giwer; ever try arguing something that makes sense?
If I were arguing something I would point out there is no chain of
custody for this document and it exists in two versions with the same copy
number.
--
A biblical archaeologist is like an astrological astronomer
or an alchemical chemist. None are scientists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4199
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Mon Nov 16 05:46:06 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I have read it, only in English so far. It is true that it
>> only refers to evacuation.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> As far as "Evacuation" goes, it states the following:
>
> : As a further possible solution, and with the appropriate
Martin Edwards
apposition, which is rare in German. This is embarrassing.
Martin Edwards
JTEM
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> I do not seek to deny the holocaust, or even the gas
> chambers.
Your statement was factually incorrect, and I took
the opportunity to demonstrate why.
As innocuous as they labored to make the protocols
seem, they clearly state that "Evacuation" was merely
a tentative/initial step, with many intentional deaths
(and worse) to follow.
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> As this protocol is being presented as a paper
> record of the plans
You're the only one here doing that.
As I've pointed out twice now, that was NOT the
intention of the conference. The purpose of the
conference was both to establish Heydrich as the
boss, and to insure the full cooperation of the various
(relevant) department heads.
The purpose of the conference was to make sure that
the maze of Nazi ministries & bureaus didn't leas
anyone else to think that they were in charge, or that
they didn't have to cooperate.
> I suggest you read it and you will find methods are
> recited.
I have read it, I have quoted from it and none of this can
alter the fact that you are pretending the document is
something which it is not.
YOU need to pretend the document is a blueprint for the
Holocaust, because that's the only way the document can
support your lies.
Ironically, you DISMISS the document as inaccurate when
and where it conflicts with your agenda -- as in the example
of Nazi estimates for the pre-war Jewish population.
But it isn't a blueprint for the Holocaust. The conference
wasn't held in order to come up with a final solution. That
much had long since been decided. This is not to say that
Heydrich didn't need things from the people he invited. In
fact, it was precisely because he did that he summoned
them to the conference in the first place.
A TALE OF TWO GIWER'S
First our resident Nazi says...
: And all of this after Rudolf Hoess reports extermination by
: slow release cyanide pesticide had already been decided.
:
: Why where the people in charge not aware of what
: they had decided months earlier?
In the above Giwer is pretending that the all of the attendees
of the Wannsee Conference had previously agreed upon the
use of poison gas to exterminate prisoners. I challenged him
to produce a cite, which he did not do. Instead, he cited a
page on his very own website (that's right, Giwer cited himself
as his source).
What did he -- Giwer -- say on his page?
Well, instead of offering the slightest evidence that all the
attendees of the Wannsee Conference had previously
decided on poison gas, his page claims that the S.S. had
settled on the use of gas. This in no way contradicts the
conference protocols.
Maybe Giwer wasn't aware of the fact that MOST of the
attendees weren't in the S.S.?
Bullshit. Giwer is intentionally LYING HIS NAZI ASS OFF.
http://www.ghwk.de/engl/viten-engl.pdf
See, most of the participants of the conference were what
today might be called "Principles." They were the various
representatives of ministries/departments/bureaus relevant
to "The Final Solution." The S.S. couldn't act without their
help, but it was by no means necessary to share all the
plans with these people at that time.
They knew the plan was to ship Jews to the east. They knew
the plan was to kill off a great many with harsh treatment and
poor conditions. And, what Heydrich needed from them was
their full cooperation in rounding them up and transporting
them. There was also issues pertaining to the construction of
the various camps, plus their associated roads and rail lines.
Germany was at war, after all. They couldn't just run down to
Home Deput and buy all the construction materials and
equipment.
> What was the talk of sterilization?
It talks about sterilization for the children of "mixed" couples
(i.e. Jewish & German parents).
http://www.ghwk.de/engl/protengl.htm
> Working to death creating public roads infrastructure as a
> matter of good will or for some other unstated reason?
Could you rephrase this in a way that makes sense in
English? I'm having difficulty imaging even a Nazi claiming
that they worked someone to death out of "Good Will"...
> As they had been working on the war effort for months
> at the time of this conference
Who?
Don't look now, Giwer, but you just admitted -- in a round
about kind of way -- that you've been lying.
I mean, unless you want to pretend that S.S. men were
experimenting on the use of Zyclon-B on prisoners "As
part of the war effort." If that's not what you're arguing,
then you're admitting that the other principles attendeing
this meeting HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY DECIDED on the
method of killing, as you had claimed.
Let's quote you, again:
: And all of this after Rudolf Hoess reports extermination by
: slow release cyanide pesticide had already been decided.
:
: Why where the people in charge not aware of what
: they had decided months earlier?
But you also know it was only the S.S. who experimented
with the Zyklon-B, and settled on it as a method of execution,
while most of the attendees were not in the S.S.
JTEM
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> It reads like a badly composed protocol.
Worse yet, it is a total misrepresentation of the protocol.
The conference was not held in order to decide on a method
of execution, as Giwer pretends. It was called by the person
ultimately in charge of those executions in order to #1.
establish his authority and #2. secure the cooperation of
all the relevant ministries/bureaus/departments.
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> Show your assumptions and your math.
Why? You made a claim and that claim has been
shown to be based on numerous falsehoods of your
own invention.
Nothing can change this fact, Giwer.
Matt Giwer
> I do not seek to deny the holocaust, or even the gas chambers. Calm down.
For denial he knew was a sin, a sin
Denial he knew was a sin.
--
What are millions of German troops against
billions of British pounds?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4207
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Tue Nov 17 12:46:24 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
Now consider the rank and status of the people involved. Even if
they were all party hacks promoted above their level of competence they
would have expert flunkies to do the job right. Even if they were all party
hacks they would know how a proper protocol should sound. They were not all
party hacks.
How do we explain this?
Notice in this matter the insistence upon arguing in favor of the
certainty of the conclusion as the primary basis for dismissing all of the
objections to the material which supposedly lead to the conclusion.
--
The Holocaust is no worse then Iran having an atom bomb.
Israel says so.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4191
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Tue Nov 17 12:48:57 EST 2009
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> Now consider the rank and status of the people
> involved. Even if they were all party hacks promoted
> above their level of competence they would have
> expert flunkies to do the job right.
That's an alternative view. However, the mainstream view,
the one supported by the facts is that "The Job" was NOT
what you're claiming it was.
Of course, as your agenda requires you to misrepresent
the purpose of the Wannsee Conference, you have to
pretend that they didn't do a good job documenting their
intentions.
But they do.
The conference wasn't held in order to decide on what the
"Final Solution" might be, that much had already been
decided. The conference was held because they had to
get the Jews from the places they were to the places
where the S.S. could enslave and kill them. The men who
attended the conference where the people whose
cooperation (assistance) Heydrich needed in order to
accomplish this.
http://www.h-net.org/~german/gtext/nazi/wanneng2.html
Sure, it's slightly more complicated than that, actually. Nazi
Germany was far from the model of efficiency. There were
few ministries/departments whose authority didn't overlap
someone else's. For those of you who remember that awful
"Time/Life" book series on the war (a friend owned it), they
actually *Credited* these inefficiencies to Hitler's genius,
claiming that it kept potential rivals fighting amongst
themselves... or words to that effect.
Heydrich needed the conference to establish himself as boss,
as well as get what he needed from the other attendees.
Martin Edwards
to were precisely those where the soldier-peasants were supposed to settle?
"Good morning Farmer Klein."
"Good morning Sturmf�hrer Brandt."
Er, I don't think so.
Matt Giwer
> "Good morning Farmer Klein." "Good morning SturmfXhrer Brandt." Er, I
> don't think so.
How does that address the issue of a "poorly composed" protocol when
an official protocol at the level of the participants could not be poorly
composed? What does evacuation have to do with the sin of denying the holy
holocaust?
--
If computers had a sense of irony they would be genies.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4192
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Thu Nov 19 07:37:08 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
evacuated? What it has to do with it is explained in my post. At this
point, over here I'd say, "Don't be dense", but then you'll probably ask
what does density have to do with it, and am I referring to Zyklon B or
the porridge they had for breakfast.
Matt Giwer
What is to happen to them is recited.
> What it has to do with it is explained in my post. At this point, over
> here I'd say, "Don't be dense", but then you'll probably ask what does
> density have to do with it, and am I referring to Zyklon B or the porridge
> they had for breakfast.
As you can see from the references on
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html the use of a slow release
pesticide was decided before this conference convened. Did they not know the
decision had already been made? How could they not know?
--
A biblical archaeologist is like an astrological astronomer
or an alchemical chemist. None are scientists.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4199
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Fri Nov 20 00:52:02 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> As you can see from the references on
> http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html
> the use of a slow release pesticide was decided
> before this conference convened. Did they not
> know the decision had already been made? How
> could they not know?
Your website (NOTE: You "Cite" yourself there, idiot)
mentions only members of the S.S.
As most of the attendees of the Wannsee Conference
were not members of the S.S., were not charged with
carrying out the killings, there is no reason what so
ever to assume that they were aware of the MANNER
of execution chosen.
It simply wasn't their problem.
As this is at least the third time you've raised this nonsense
"argument" of yours -- each time ignoring the response --
why don't just simply admit that you refuse to acknowledge
anything that contradicts your kooky theories?
Matt Giwer
Why are people required to believe mutually contradictory things?
Might I then ask why, in the face of one set of holocaust truths you
do not address a contradictory set of holocaust truths?
If it were really true Jews would not use their dead as a
justification to murder Palestinians.
--
What is the difference between testing a god who will not be tested and a
god that is of stone?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4194
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo2/ a11
Mon Nov 23 06:23:38 EST 2009
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
>> � � � � Show your assumptions and your math.
> Why? You made a claim and that claim has been shown to be based on
> numerous falsehoods of your own invention.
I do not expect you to admit your inability to produce the algebra
but that does not mean I should not have fun taunting you with your
ignorance of high school math.
--
Happiness is simple. Do not compare yourself to others.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4205
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Mon Nov 23 06:29:08 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
Matt Giwer
Obviously I cannot help. You enjoy believing in an idea devoid of
factual basis.
Religions undergo extinction events. Judaism missed that one by a
country mile. What is the point of dwelling upon it?
--
Goldstone, Israel's Dreyfuss.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4203
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Mon Nov 23 11:14:45 EST 2009
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> Why are people required to believe mutually
> contradictory things?
They're not. In fact, nobody believes you except
your fellow Nazis.
> Might I then ask why, in the face of
> one set of holocaust truths you do not address
> a contradictory set of holocaust truths?
Everything you've said has been addressed, ad
nauseum.
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
JTEM
Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> I cannot make anything of the above. Can anyone help?
Well, in this thread Giwer has repeatedly cited
himself, his own claims that S.S. men had settled
on the use of Zyklon-B gas to execute Jews, and
has claimed that this represents a contradiction
because non S.S. members present at Wannsee were
apparently unaware of this fact.
Hmmm.... people not in the S.S. apparently unaware
of what the S.S. did...
Why this is supposed to be a contradiction is a
mystery I care not to explore.
JTEM
Matt Giwer <matt@localhost> wrote:
> I do not expect you to admit your
You're claims have been demonstrated to be
false.
Nothing can change this Larry...errr... Giwer.
Nothing. There is nothing that anyone else can
say which can alter the fact that your claims
are all bogus.
Martin Edwards
Matt Giwer
> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I cannot make anything of the above. Can anyone help?
>
> Well, in this thread Giwer has repeatedly cited
> himself,
The web page I gave does in fact have citations from what passes for primary
sources in holocaustianism. Why would you say I cite myself?
> his own claims that S.S. men had settled
> on the use of Zyklon-B gas to execute Jews, and
> has claimed that this represents a contradiction
> because non S.S. members present at Wannsee were
> apparently unaware of this fact.
If Rudolf Hoess did not know what was going on in his own camp and the
decisions made, who you are talking about as not knowing?
> Hmmm.... people not in the S.S. apparently unaware
> of what the S.S. did...
Obviously Hoess's confession was not coordinated with the creator of the
Wannsee Protocol.
> Why this is supposed to be a contradiction is a
> mystery I care not to explore.
Reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of either the confession or the
protocol and perhaps both.
--
The conundrum of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is simple to state.
Is God circumcized?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4201
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Thu Dec 3 18:27:48 EST 2009
Martin Edwards
> JTEM wrote:
>> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot make anything of the above. Can anyone help?
>>
>> Well, in this thread Giwer has repeatedly cited
>> himself,
>
> The web page I gave does in fact have citations from what passes for
> primary sources in holocaustianism. Why would you say I cite myself?
>
>> his own claims that S.S. men had settled
>> on the use of Zyklon-B gas to execute Jews, and
>> has claimed that this represents a contradiction
>> because non S.S. members present at Wannsee were
>> apparently unaware of this fact.
>
> If Rudolf Hoess did not know what was going on in his own camp and
> the decisions made, who you are talking about as not knowing?
>
As he testified at Nuremburg, where, I feel I must repeat, he was not
himself on trial, the job was croaking Jews, not beating them up.