Scrapbookpages Blog

February 3, 2016

This is why Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany

Filed under: Germany — furtherglory @ 12:54 pm

BerlinMemorial01

BerlinMemorial02

BerlinMemorial04

BerlinMemorial05

My four photos above, taken in 2002, show what the heart of Berlin looked like just before the Jews built the monstrosity called “Memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe” which is shown in the photo below.

GERMANY, Berlin. Memorial to the Victims of the Holocaust.

GERMANY, Berlin. Memorial to the Victims of the Holocaust.

Hitler was an artist himself.  He painted beautiful pictures, that were nothing like Jewish art. If Hitler could see Berlin now, he would be turning over in his grave, that is, if he had a grave.

This quote is from a news article which you can read in full at http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-inadequacy-of-berlins-memorial-to-the-murdered-jews-of-europe

Begin quote

Just south of the Brandenburg Gate is Berlin’s Holocaust Memorial, with its two thousand, seven hundred and eleven gray concrete slabs, or stelae. They are identical in their horizontal dimensions (reminiscent of coffins), differing vertically (from eight inches to more than fifteen feet tall), arranged in a precise rectilinear array over 4.7 acres, allowing for long, straight, and narrow alleys between them, along which the ground undulates. The installation is a living experiment in montage, a Kuleshov effect of the juxtaposition of image and text. The text in question is the title of the memorial: in German, Denkmal für die Ermordeten Juden Europas—a Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe.

Without that title, it would be impossible to know what the structure is meant to commemorate; there’s nothing about these concrete slabs that signifies any of the words of the title, except, perhaps, “memorial”—insofar as some of them, depending on their height, may resemble either headstones or sarcophagi. So it’s something to do with death. And as for the title itself—which murdered Jews? When? Where? Does the list include Rosa Luxemburg, who was killed in Berlin by rightist thugs in 1919, or the foreign minister Walther Rathenau, also killed here by rightist thugs, in 1922? Or Isaac Babel and Osip Mandelstam, who died in Soviet captivity? Or, pardon my sarcasm, Claude Lanzmann’s uncle, who was (as Lanzmann writes in his autobiography) killed in Paris by his jealous mistress?

End quote

You can read more about the Berlin Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe on my website at http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Berlin2002/JewishMemorial/index.html

205 Comments »

  1. Seriously, this is not a mystery, why Hitler wanted the Jews out Germany. He was just like all the other nations. The awe-inspiring wonder was how he put up with them so long and that he did NOT want them exterminated. That was NOT his mindset.

    Comment by Diane King — February 5, 2016 @ 8:00 am

    • Well, he did have the mindset to authorize the T-4 program, the killing of the disabled.
      It worked out pretty well, 70,000 dead, but public opinion forced him to put the program on hold (though it did continue under the 14f13 program, the killing of ill and disabled concentration camp inmates).
      I think this pretty much proves his “mindset,” don’t you?
      By the way, just so you know, 14f was the designation given to concentration camp deaths.
      Jeff

      Comment by Jeff K. — February 5, 2016 @ 8:07 am

      • I know euthanasia was practiced in the Reich, but I don’t really know to what extent. Frankly, probably not too different from our own mindset concerning death of our weakest members in society, especially the sick. The U.S. can NOT tout themselves on ANY moral high ground because of not only the wretched and heinous practice of murdering the preborn, but instituting medical programs who’s practice actually results in attrition or death before treatment. I only mention this in that National Socialist Germany was a novice when it came to murdering of the very young, very old and very sick.

        Comment by Diane King — February 5, 2016 @ 8:13 am

        • I wrote about euthanasia in this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/euthanasia/

          Comment by furtherglory — February 5, 2016 @ 8:23 am

        • Abortion was illegal in the US before Roe vs. Wade in the 1970’s, Diane.
          There was never a legal euthanasia program, either. There were various eugenics laws but they never dealt with judicial murder of the disabled, only sterilization.
          So, actually, the Nazis were the groundbreakers for this.
          You should be proud.
          Jeff

          Comment by Jeff K. — February 5, 2016 @ 8:27 am

          • You wrote: “the Nazis were the groundbreakers for this (euthanasia). You are correct. I wrote about euthanasia on my website: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Hartheim/exhibits01.html

            “The Nazi euthanasia program began in August 1939 when a five-month-old baby boy, named Gerhard Kretschmar, was “put to sleep” after the boy’s father made a request to Adolf Hitler for a “mercy killing.” Hitler sent his personal physician, Karl Brandt, to conduct a medical examination before giving his permission for the infant to be given a lethal injection.

            Karl Brandt was put on trial at Nuremberg in the “Doctor’s Trial.” In his testimony, Brandt said that the baby’s father, Richard Kretchmar, had written to Hitler’s office in early 1939, asking for permission to kill his blind and deformed son. The following quote is from Brandt’s testimony:

            “The father of a deformed child wrote to the Fuhrer with a request to be allowed to take the life of this child or this creature. Hitler ordered me to take care of this case. The child had been born blind, seemed to be idiotic, and a leg and parts of the arm were missing.”

            An estimated 8,000 deformed children were killed in the same manner, some without the consent of their parents.”

            Comment by furtherglory — February 5, 2016 @ 9:17 am

            • The first case you describe, I understand that father’s pain.
              Jeff

              Comment by Jeff K. — February 5, 2016 @ 9:34 am

          • I doubt that the National Socialists were ‘groundbreakers’ in the issue of “Euthanasia” considering the evil nature of people in general and those in office specifically. Just finished watching a piece about the Spanish Inquisition. I doubt that the targets care much WHY they are eliminated. My point is, our nation though maybe getting a late start through the healthcare program (especially thru the VA and socialized medicine … philosophy of hope – that the needy will die before they can get the help — oops, ‘my bad’) or ‘legal’ murder in abortions, WE HAVE CAUGHT UP with any of those so engaged before and HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM TO SPEAK OR CRITICIZE other nations, especially when said nations (like National Socialist Germany) can’t defend themselves since most have either been murdered (at Nuremberg) or sanctioned in one way or another through the draconian laws presently in place and practiced in the Euro Nations. Again, YOU should be proud – that our nation has far exceeded all hopes and expectations of murder (perhaps even beyond the actions of the communists well, nearly 60 million since 1973 – the communists are still ahead, but we are most definitely catching up! This alone should bring the judgment of God on us ALONE).

            Comment by Diane King — February 5, 2016 @ 9:37 am

            • I don’t know why you seem upset. After all, according to your standards, the judgement at Nuremberg was God’s will.
              I myself disagree with abortion, I find it morally reprehensible, however that choice starts with the mother, not the state. The state does not abort children, mother’s are given the option to do so.
              The rest, the socialist medicine deal, is nonsense. I’ll remind you that the annoying parts of the AFCA were insisted upon by Republicans. This is lost in our collective memory.
              There are several Europeans that post here. Maybe they can give their opinions on a truly “Socialist” medical system.
              As far as the 63 million deal, I have no idea what you are talking about.
              Jeff

              Comment by Jeff K. — February 5, 2016 @ 9:48 am

      • Jeff wrote: “Well, he did have the mindset to authorize the T-4 program, the killing of the disabled. It worked out pretty well, 70,000 dead”

        Exactly half the number of the disabled and demented who [slowly and probably painfully] died in German asylums because of war deprivations (vastly due to the illegal Allied embargo) and diseases during WW1 – 140,000 patients. The T-4 program didn’t work so well after all. Still like irony, Jeff?😉

        Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 7:59 am

        • England uprooted many patients of its asylums during WW1, what made a number of them die, because the country crucially needed beds for its wounded soldiers in those days. War is war. A lack of misplaced sentimentality Under such circumstances would be welcome.

          http://beyondthetrenches.co.uk/the-other-war-dead-asylum-patients-during-the-first-world-war/

          Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 8:04 am

          • Again, this was not a specific policy to eliminate the disabled though some did die.
            Your point would be more valid if the British stuck them in gas chambers or murdered them with lethal injections.
            Jeff

            Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 8:35 am

            • Jeff wrote: “Again, this was not a specific policy to eliminate the disabled though some did die.”

              Just like what happened in the German asylums at that time (WW1). I didn’t say that Britain murdered its asylum patients. I was only saying that wars are hard times sometimes requiring harsh measures and that girly sentimentality was of no use during such times.

              Jeff wrote: “Your point would be more valid if the British stuck them in gas chambers or murdered them with lethal injections.”

              While the slow death of the asylum patients during WW1 was so much more humane and pleasant, wasn’t it? How could anybody even think to inflict a mercy death, instead of a slow death conform to the dumb Christian teachings, to those unfortunate blunders of Mother Nature? Pain is so fun and humane…

              Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 9:19 am

              • You do have me on that one, Hermie.
                Given the choice of starving to death or being shot, gassed or injected, I’d pick the quicker death, whatever it might be.
                I’m going to sign off for a bit. It’s Saturday and I have some things I want to do with the family.
                Feel free to reply, it’ll be awhile before I can get back with you.
                Jeff

                Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 9:27 am

        • The embargo wasn’t aimed at the disabled, it was aimed at Germany. Sadly those people died as a result.
          The T-4 program aimed at specifically elimanating those segments of the population that were disabled.
          Jeff

          Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 8:32 am

  2. Typicial worthless comment from Jeff the Jew:

    “I don’t know how to judge … but in my amateur opinion some are very good, some look crude.”

    They are all lightyears better than anything you could do. In the work of ALL artists there are finished works and quick sketches, and everything in between. Some works are more successful than others; every artist has his “masterpieces” relatively speaking. So since you know nothing about art (or Hitler) and are unable to judge, why waste space and people’s time with your worthless comments? My advice to you: Get Lost.

    Comment by Carolyn Yeager — February 4, 2016 @ 8:22 am

    • The author of this blog stated that Hitler was a good artist but provided no examples.
      My comment was not a criticism of Hitler’s work but an opinion. I provided examples so that people could judge for themselves.
      I actually liked some of the pieces.
      So typical of a Hitler groupie to judge me and call me a Jew. I actually have a more realistic view of Hitler than you ever could.
      My advice to you:
      Go take your medication, put on your tin foil hat and have a nap.
      Jeff

      Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 9:17 am

    • I also never claimed I could paint, you silly Hitler hero worshipping Nazi groupie.
      Jeff

      Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 11:53 am

      • The reason your comment should never have been written is that you are the only one who was not familiar with Hitler’s paintings. It was not discussed in the blogpost, but only indirectly mentioned in a comment. So you can look up the paintings for your own edification and leave it at that. But your style is to write something about every tidbit that passes through your empty mind. You are a BORE. I am never a bore.

        Comment by Carolyn Yeager — February 4, 2016 @ 10:58 pm

        • I wanted people to see Hitler’s art.
          Oh, I’ve never said you were boring. But I will say you are a loon.
          Jeff

          Comment by Jeff K. — February 5, 2016 @ 3:32 am

        • Oh, and Carolyn, you made an assumption that I’ve never seen examples of Hitler’s art before. I have, that’s why I knew how to look for it.
          In other words, with your ASSumption you made an ASS of yourself.
          Have a nice day.
          Jeff

          Comment by Jeff K. — February 5, 2016 @ 9:36 am

  3. Hitler wanted the Jews exterminated but as a realistic criminal he followed a well studie tactic. 1. Discrimination in Germany forcing emigration toward countries he thought to subdue later when moving war. 2. Expulsion toward the same countries where already local pro-nazis set up anti Semite propaganda. 3. Subdueing of all those countries as vassalls or through occupation. Then all the Jews living in those countries to bring back … in the Death Camps and get them all EXTERMINATED. What that Memorial concerns it does not meet the purpose of commemorate the Holocaust victims.
    Whit less waste of space and means at Berlin an interfaith Prayer House should remember all the WWII victims so those of the Holocaust, of the Mass Murders in occupied countries, in the Concentration Camps and on the Battlefield. Without any difference of race, religion or nation. An iscription should blame all the sprayers – philophers, poets, writers, preachers, etc. – of hatred doctrines.

    Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 4, 2016 @ 1:23 am

    • Hitler wanted the Jews exterminated

      Wolf, as you know there is no evidence Hitler ordered or knew about the ‘extermination’ of the Jews. Also at the IMT, Göring expressed surprise when these claims were made — he knew nothing about it. And he’s the one whose letter to Heydrich contained the (now infamous) phrases “Gesamtlösung der Jundenfrage” and “Endlösung der Judenfrage”. Say what you want about Göring, but he was an impressive figure at the IMT (in the witness box), and I personally never had the impression he was a liar.

      Comment by eah — February 4, 2016 @ 3:49 am

      • Note that the Jews were always “exterminated” using bug spray (Zyklon-B) the same poison that was used to kill the lice in the camps. In my humble opinion, the True Believers should use the term “murdered” or “killed” not exterminated like lice.

        Comment by furtherglory — February 4, 2016 @ 7:15 am

        • FURTHERGLORY. The Nazis considered the Jews as “UNGEZIEFER” – lice and verns – to be externinated. It is perhaps also a symbol that they used Zyklon B wich had been easily available and in a closed overcrowded room – a Gas Chamber – is killing people in few minutes. Indeed when in a disinfected room people enter before fully aried there are surely casualties.

          Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 4, 2016 @ 8:19 am

          • “The Nazis considered the Jews as “UNGEZIEFER” – lice and verns ” cant fault them for that, now can we?

            Comment by Schlageter — February 4, 2016 @ 9:39 am

            • SCHLAGETER. LECK MICH AM ARSCH! Dich haette mann im Januar 1945 an die Ostfront schicken sollen. Dort konnte mann krepieren oder nuechtern werden.

              Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 5, 2016 @ 2:06 am

              • Dr. Murmelstein
                I was a POW at the age of sixteen in one of Eisenhower’s Death Camps were about 1,7 millions allegedly died, there is no memorial anywhere for them, nor does anyone ever speak up. I was near starving level. You as a young Jew, although living in a Ghetto in Theresianstadt (as well as in Vienna) had a privileged existence, nor would Eichmann have ever harmed you or particular your father, he respected him far too much for what he was, an intellectual, yet you keep on harping about being ‘a child of the Shoa’. Isn’t it about time you come down to earth and face facts as they really were and stop lamenting in your typical fashion of literati, how much you have suffered.
                You would not be where you are today had it been different, just used as fertiliser on a field near Auschwitz!

                Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — February 5, 2016 @ 3:28 am

                • I am sorry to learn that you were in “Eisenhower’s death camp.” I wrote about this camp on my website at http://www.scrapbookpages.com/EasternGermany/Gotha/index.html

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 5, 2016 @ 6:41 am

                • I have talked with one other person, a 16-year-old German POW who was in Eisenhower’s death camp. He was allowed to escape by one of the American soldiers guarding the camp. He told about how terrible it was in the camp.

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 5, 2016 @ 8:05 am

                • Thank you, Herbert Stolpmann for sharing that – talk about reality hitting us between the eyes. I venture to say the magnanimous ‘gesture’ of allowing you to escape was not shared by one and all at the Eis Camps, where extermination WAS the design and plan.

                  Comment by Diane King — February 5, 2016 @ 12:08 pm

                • STOLPMANN. 1.When speaking about “Eisenhower Death Camps” think what had to go through those wo had been captured by the RED ARMY and taken to Russian Prisonier Camps. 2. A German gentleman I am in contact with until today explained me that his officer managed to surrender to the Allied instead to the Red Army and he, lile many others, could start a new career in West Germany enlisting in the BUNDESMARINE as officer. That Gentleman at 17 years stood in the unit placed from April 10 to April 20 1945 near Theresienstadt ready to repress the FARCE OF A REVOLT provocated by agents provocateurs of Eichmann Staff in order to liquidate all of us at Theresienstadt. With G’D help my Father could stop riots before the SS apeared and so the Comander said EIN GLUECK ICH FAND NIEMANDEN AUF DEN STRASSEN. 2. I am not lamenting as You say but only replying to offensive remarks or so of Negationists. 3. What do you think to know and what is the source about the supposed attitude of Eichmann towards my Father? Indeed Eichmann had been a great anti-Semite and for him the question was only when – sooner or later – a Jew. I look forward to Your reply.

                  Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 6, 2016 @ 6:42 am

                • STOLPMANN. EDIT. Eichchmann … the question for him had been when, sooner or later, liquidate a Jew.

                  Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 6, 2016 @ 10:20 am

          • FURTHERGLORY. For centuries rulers made money through the expulsion of Jews and permitting or calling for their return some times later.

            Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 6, 2016 @ 1:00 pm

      • The following are from Goebbel’s Diary regarding statements made by Hitler regarding the Jews (from Nizkor):
        Goebbels’ diary entries are so revealing that they need no further commentary (Broszat, p. 143):
        August 8, 1941, concerning the spread of spotted typhus in the Warsaw ghetto:
        The Jews have always been the carriers of infectious diseases. They should either be concentrated in a ghetto and left to themselves or be liquidated, for otherwise they will infect the populations of the civilized nations.

        August 19, 1941, after a visit to Hitler’s headquarters:

        The Fuehrer is convinced his prophecy in the Reichstag is becoming a fact: that should Jewry succeed in again provoking a new war, this would end with their annihilation. It is coming true in these weeks and months with a certainty that appears almost sinister. In the East the Jews are paying the price, in Germany they have already paid in part and they will have to pay more in the future.

        February 24, 1942, after a visit with Hitler in Berlin:

        The Fuehrer again voices his determination to remorselessly cleanse Europe of its Jews. There can be no sentimental feelings here. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. They shall experience their own annihilation together with the destruction of our enemies. We must accelerate this process with cold brutality; by doing so we are doing an inestimable service to humanity . . . .
        Hitler’s own words:
        finally, there are the words of the Fuehrer himself. In Hitler’s speech of January 30, 1939, he said:

        Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
        In September, 1942, Hitler recalled:

        In my Reichstag speech of September 1, 1939 [above, wrong date here], I have spoken of two things: first, that now that the war has been forced upon us, no array of weapons and no passage of time will bring us to defeat, and second, that if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan peoples which would be exterminated but Jewry. . . .
        At a public speech in Munich, November 8, 1942, Hitler told his audience (see Jaeckel, 1989 for this and above Hitler quotes):

        You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: If Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now. This realization will spread beyond Europe throughout the entire world. International Jewry will be recognized in its full demonic peril; we National Socialists will see to that.
        From his earliest political ramblings to the final Goetterdammerung, Hitler had it in for the Jews. On April 12, 1922, in a Munich speech later published in the Voelkischer Beobachter, he told his audience (Snyder, 1981, p. 29):

        The Jew is the ferment of the decomposition of people. This means that it is in the nature of the Jew to destroy, and he must destroy, because he lacks altogether any idea of working for the common good. He possesses certain characteristics given to him by nature and he never can rid himself of those characteristics. The Jew is harmful to us.

        Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered a mass extermination of Jews?

        The IHR says:

        No.

        Nizkor replies:

        Of course there is. Himmler, Eichmann, Höss, and others have said that the orders for the genocide came directly from Hitler.

        Consider that Hitler received in December 1942 a report from Himmler stating that 363,211 Jews had been murdered in August-November 1942. This was just one of many reports from the Einsatzgruppen, who had the job of exterminating the Jews and anti-Nazis behind the eastern front. A photograph and the text of the report are available.
        Or consider a phone log from Hitler to Himmler, in which Hitler ordered “no liquidation” of a particular trainload of Jews, because they wanted one suspected passenger questioned. If Hitler did not know of the liquidation process, how could he have ordered it stopped in this one instance? (Ironically, David Irving used part of this phone log out of context to indicate that Hitler was trying to put a stop to the extermination program. Of course, this was before Mr. Irving changed his mind and decided that there never was any extermination program, much less that Hitler knew about it.)

        Hitler met with the Mufti, Haj Amin Husseini, on 28 November 1941. Notes of the meeting were taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt (see Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution, 1984, pp. 101-104). At this meeting, Hitler promised the Mufti that, after a certain objective was reached, “Germany’s only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands.

        So, even if Hitler never put anything down on paper there is plenty of evidence that he knew and approved.
        It is also likely that if there was a paper order it was probably destroyed. We know that right before his death that Hitler destroyed some of his papers, this may have included such an order.
        Jeff

        Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 7:58 am

        • Your last brief paragraph, Jeff, shows that you haven’t got any concrete evidence for what you claim. Just look at the phrases you use ;- “even if”; “It is also likely”; “it was probably”; “some of”; “this may have”. I’m afraid these are not words that will convince very many people at all.

          You quote Goebbels Diary for entries after July 1941. But if I understand correctly, all these were typed-up by somebody else – and not written in the hand-writing of Goebbels himself. So how we do know for certain that these entries are his own words, and not concocted by others.

          Comment by Talbot — February 4, 2016 @ 9:31 am

          • David Irving judged them authentic.
            He even said that reading them shook him up, that they made him rethink his position on the Holocaust.
            Of course, it’s Thursday so it could be completely different for David tomorrow.
            Jeff

            Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 9:39 am

        • Jeff wrote: “The following are from Goebbel’s Diary regarding statements made by Hitler regarding the Jews (from Nizkor): Goebbels’ diary entries are so revealing that they need no further commentary (Broszat, p. 143)”

          Even better without any further commentary!! Imagination is much more powerful than rational thought, isn’t it?😉

          And reading the whole thing could make people realize that Goebbels wasn’t talking about a current mass murder in his diaries.

          http://codoh.com/library/document/1918/
          http://codoh.com/library/document/3109/

          So a few carefully-chosen non-commented quotes are indeed better for the preservation of the Holohoax…

          Jeff wrote: “August 8, 1941, concerning the spread of spotted typhus in the Warsaw ghetto: The Jews have always been the carriers of infectious diseases. They should either be concentrated in a ghetto and left to themselves or be liquidated, for otherwise they will infect the populations of the civilized nations.”

          What part of the word ‘should’ don’t you understand, Jeff? Goebbels’ rabid anti-Semitism and genocidal wishes were no secret. Proves nothing as far as the implementation of a genocidal policy is concerned.

          Jeff wrote: “August 19, 1941, after a visit to Hitler’s headquarters: The Fuehrer is convinced his prophecy in the Reichstag is becoming a fact: that should Jewry succeed in again provoking a new war, this would end with their annihilation.”

          The word ‘annihilation’ comes from the word ‘nihilus’ and means ‘bringing something to nothing’. A total territorial eviction is enough to bring a given population to nothing in a specific area. Claiming that ‘annihilation’ implies mass murder is your own interpretation.

          Jeff wrote: “February 24, 1942, after a visit with Hitler in Berlin: The Fuehrer again voices his determination to remorselessly cleanse Europe of its Jews. There can be no sentimental feelings here. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. They shall experience their own annihilation together with the destruction of our enemies. We must accelerate this process with cold brutality”

          As I wrote above, one can “cleanse Europe of its Jews” and implement the “annihilation” of a people without mass murdering anyone. A harsh territorial eviction is enough for that. And such an operation can be regarded as a “catastrophe” by the individuals experiencing it and even by perpetrators such as Goebbels. Or perhaps arresting many people and expelling them far from their homes is not catastrophic enough for you?

          Jeff wrote: “In Hitler’s speech of January 30, 1939, he said: Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”

          And he immediately added:

          “Thus, the days of propagandist impotence of the non-Jewish peoples are over. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy possess institutions which, if necessary, permit opening the eyes of the world to the true nature of this problem. Many a people is instinctively aware of this, albeit not scientifically versed in it. At this moment, the Jews are still propagating their campaign of hatred in certain states under the cover of press, film, radio, theater, and literature, which are all in their hands. Should indeed this one Volk attain its goal of prodding masses of millions from other peoples to enter into a war devoid of all sense for them, and serving the interests of the Jews exclusively, then the effectiveness of an enlightenment will once more display its might. Within Germany, this enlightenment conquered Jewry utterly in the span of a few years.”

          Is ‘enlightenment’ a new alleged Nazi genocidal code word? Or was Hitler only stating that the legislative and propaganda methods used in Germany to “conquer” Jewry “within the span of a few years” would be implemented on a continetal scale if another world war began? Wasn’t “the annihilation of the Jew race in Europe” to be applied by European ministries similar to Goebbels’ Ministry of Public ENLIGHTENMENT and propaganda? Of course, it was. Of course, that’s what Hitler said on that day…

          Jeff wrote: “At a public speech in Munich, November 8, 1942, Hitler told his audience: You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: If Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe.”

          Hitler was of course talking about a struggle for power between the Jewish race and the European races. He meant that the earth would be ruled by the European races, not by the Jewish race like in the Bolshevik Empire. The idea of Hitler believing that the victorious Jews would butcher hundreds of millions of Europeans if they won the war, is ridiculous in itself. On the hand, Hitler was aware that world leadership was at stake and he was determined to ensure that world leadership remained in the hands of Europeans (as it had been during the previous centuries), what a German victory would have brought.

          Jeff wrote: “International Jewry will be recognized in its full demonic peril; we National Socialists will see to that.”

          Surely something to be achieved by anti-Semitic ministries of propaganda, as I explained above.

          Jeff wrote: “Or consider a phone log from Hitler to Himmler, in which Hitler ordered “no liquidation” of a particular trainload of Jews, because they wanted one suspected passenger questioned. If Hitler did not know of the liquidation process, how could he have ordered it stopped in this one instance?”

          Another exterminationist bamboozlement.

          This phone log said:

          “Arrestation of Dr. Jekelius
          Alleged son of Molotov
          Transport of Jews from Berlin
          No liquidation”

          As the first line wasn’t connected with the second line (Jekelius was the son of Molotov), I fail to see the reason why one should believe that the third line had any connection with the fourth one. This paper was just a reminder summarizing various points discussed with Hitler. Nothing indicates that the fourth line refered to the third one. It may have dealt with the liquidation of almost anything. Some people think that it was about the possible liquidation of the Protectorate of Bohemia & Moravia. The turning of that protectorate into a German province was being debated at that time.

          Jeff wrote: “Hitler promised the Mufti that, after a certain objective was reached, “Germany’s only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands.”

          Once again, annihilation does not necessarily implies any mass murder. Loading all the Jews of Palestine on ships and sending them to another place was enough to achieve “the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands.” The rest is mere fantasy…

          Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 7:41 am

          • edit: Jekelius wasn’t the son of Molotov.

            Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 7:42 am

          • I think it’s cute when deniers spin and squirm and squeak, trying to change the meanings of words and phrases that are obvious.
            I really don’t care what anyone on CODOH says.
            Jeff

            Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 8:26 am

            • Jeff wrote: “I think it’s cute when deniers spin and squirm and squeak, trying to change the meanings of words and phrases that are obvious.”

              No less cute than when believers are unaffected by detailed and argumented refutations and don’t even try to defend their own empty claims. Faith is a beautiful thing, isn’t it?😉

              Your ‘obviousness’ is bogus but comfortable. The meaning of words change through time and geographical areas. What seems obvious at a specific moment and location is not at another moment and location.

              Raul Hilberg had a hard time at Toronto because of such exterminationist word games.

              [quote]
              Christie referred Hilberg to page 570 of his book, The Destruction of the European Jews, where it read as follows:

              From the Dessau Works, which produced the gas, shipments were sent directly to Auschwitz Extermination and Fumigation Division (Abteilung Entwesung und Entseuchung).

              What is the translation for entwesung?, asked Christie.

              “To deprive something of life,” said Hilberg, “that is, extermination. There is no very accurate translation which doesn’t carry connotations, but I think you will find that that’s an acceptable translation of the German term.”

              I put it to you, said Christie, that it means ‘delousing’ and it refers specifically to vermin.

              “No… No. The term wesen is a live thing, anything alive. The prefix ent is to negate life, to deprive it of life. The suffix ung in entwesung, and having been deprived of life, or depriving something of life.”

              Christie produced and showed to Hilberg an English-German dictionary (with which Hilberg said he was not familiar). Christie put to Hilberg that the dictionary referred to wesen to mean disinfect, to sterilize, to exterminate vermin, to delouse, extermination of vermin, delousing, disinfection. Right?, asked Christie.

              “Yes,” said Hilberg. “… What is the date of this dictionary, sir?”

              I don’t know, said Christie. Do the meaning of the words change that much?

              “Well, actually, they do, but without going into that, I would simply say that in ordinary circumstances, including Germany today, extermination is confined to vermin. When we say ‘extermination’ in Canada or in the United States, we generally mean that it is not human beings who are exterminated by commonly styled extermination terms,” said Hilberg. (5-1132)

              So you agree that entwesung is a term meaning to use just disinsecticidization?, asked Christie.

              “It refers to any killing,” said Hilberg, “any deprivation of the quality of life of something that is alive… [And wesen] is anything that walks, anything that has life.” [unquote]

              Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 8:48 am

              • I’ve never read Hilberg’s book. I looked at purchasing it but it does not exist as an e-book and an actual copy is rather pricey.
                Christie was a good lawyer, by all accounts though I believe he lost that one.
                On CODOH, someone translated Himmler’s speech and changed it from extermination to extirpation.
                Sadly, the words mean pretty much the same thing:

                http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extirpation

                Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 9:09 am

                • Jeff wrote: “On CODOH, someone translated Himmler’s speech and changed it from extermination to extirpation.
                  Sadly, the words mean pretty much the same thing: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extirpation

                  Yes, no way anybody can remove or root out something without gigantic homicidal gas chambers. Everything becomes clear now…😉

                  Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 6:29 pm

                • They didn’t just use gas chambers, Hermie. Bullets, disease and starvation work just as well.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 6:59 pm

                • Quibbling…

                  Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 7:36 pm

                • I thought deniers liked the whole quibling thing.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 10:15 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “I thought deniers liked the whole quibling thing.”

                  Not really. ‘Quibling’ and ‘hyper-criticism’ are mere exterminationist fallacious name callings when huge holes and inconsistencies in the Holocaust narrative are exposed in full light by a ‘denier’ or another.

                  Comment by hermie — February 7, 2016 @ 7:36 am

                • You said quibling, not me. I simply pointed out that this is a favorite denier tactic.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 7:59 am

                • That’s what your comment about bullets diseases and starvation was in a debate about vocabulary. Pure unconnected quibling. Gross quibling to avoid conceding that you’ve been totally defeated on that one.

                  Comment by hermie — February 7, 2016 @ 8:59 am

                • “That’s what your comment about bullets diseases and starvation was in a debate about vocabulary. Pure unconnected quibling. Gross quibling to avoid conceding that you’ve been totally defeated on that one.”
                  Totally defeated?????!!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!!
                  Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!
                  That’s hysterical.
                  I think what I like about you the most, Hermie, is that you are completely delusional without realizing it.
                  I didn’t realize we were at war, Hermie. I thought we were having a discussion.
                  So, if you think you have “totally defeated” me you can go on thinking that. I don’t mind.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 9:06 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Totally defeated?????!!!!!!!!!????????!!!!!!! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!! That’s hysterical.”

                  You’re right. You should have tried to first defend your argumentation with stuff stronger than “today’s English-speaking people don’t mean that when they use this specific word” to be ‘defeated’ or victorious. But you didn’t do that.

                  Jeff wrote: “I didn’t realize we were at war, Hermie. I thought we were having a discussion.”

                  Perhaps the word I used was inappropriate. What word should I have used to say that your poor argumentation was demolished item by item by myself? Spanked like never before? Assfucked like mommy???😉

                  Comment by hermie — February 7, 2016 @ 10:11 am

                • Hermie, you weren’t supposed to know I ass fucked your mommy after I spanked her like a Catholic school girl.
                  Oops.
                  Well, if it’s any comfort she did pay me after telling me I was the best she ever had.
                  It’s funny, you say something, I refute it, you claim victory. Not sure how that works.
                  Your problem is you have a tendency to fall back on the whole “it’s all propaganda” argument. That’s not really an argument, that’s you slipping away without having to make an argument.
                  Typical of deniers to scream propaganda or forgery. Jim’s favorite go to is “lies!!!!!!”
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 11:31 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Hermie, you weren’t supposed to know I ass fucked your mommy after I spanked her like a Catholic school girl. Oops.”

                  She couldn’t hold her tongue. You were her first Jew.

                  Jeff wrote: “It’s funny, you say something, I refute it, you claim victory.”

                  Sorry. I had missed your refutation. All I had seen was a series of unsuccessful & quite pathetic attempts to turn old German words into contemporary American English words. It seems that I have finally experienced that Deep/Invisible Web I had heard of…

                  Comment by hermie — February 7, 2016 @ 7:27 pm

                • Well, your mom decided she liked kosher.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 9:04 pm

          • http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/annihilation

            Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 8:28 am

            • Jeff wrote: “http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/annihilation”

              Would maybe be of any use if Hitler had been an American of the 21st century…but he was not.

              The English word ‘annihilate’ comes from the Latin words ‘ad’ (to) and ‘nihil’ (nothing), with the Latin composite word ‘annihilare’ meaning ‘to reduce to nothing’. The German word for ‘annihilation’ was/is ‘vernichtung’, based on the word ‘nicht’ (not) itself related to the word ‘nichts’ (nothing).

              Try again…😉

              Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 9:06 am

              • http://m.interglot.com/de/en/ausrotten

                Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 9:12 am

                • Try to be logical for one second. Would the secrecy thing (alleged code words and euphemisms in documents, alleged gas chambers disguised as shower rooms, alleged Sonderaktion 1005, etc.) even exist within the Holocaust narrative if Hitler had spent his time stating he was mass murdering Europe’s Jews in public speeches during WW2? Hitler referred at least 5 times to his January 1939 ‘prophecy’ in public speeches during the war. If the words ‘vernichtung’ and ‘ausrottung’ meant and only meant ‘mass murder’ in those days, the whole secrecy thing would be 100% nonsensical and even ridiculous.

                  A nice illustration of this with Eduard Schulte’s story

                  [quote] “Within a week and a half after Himmler’s second visit to Auschwitz, Schulte became aware of the purpose of all this activity. He found out that an important decision had been made by Hitler and was about to be executed. Schulte, unlike his deputy Fitzner, was not a Nazi. In fact, unknown to all but those closest to him, he was consumed by a passionate hatred of Nazism. He was utterly convinced that the Nazis would bring about the ruin of Germany. He thought the Nazi leadership capable of committing any conceivable crime or folly. But the secret Nazi plans for Auschwitz and other camps that became known to a few people during the last week of July were so horrendous that even Schulte, who in his circle of close friends would refer to Hitler as “that madman,” hesitated for a moment. Surely, they would not dare . . .

                  The news Schulte learned shed new and ghastly light on the true fate of the Jews. He had listened, like everyone else, to the speeches in which Hitler had promised that he would eliminate European Jewry. But the term “elimination” could be interpreted in various ways. It could mean, for instance, resettling them in Madagascar, as some had proposed. Almost no one, not even a committed anti-Nazi like Schulte, believed that “elimination” should be understood literally”(p.15).

                  Schulte “found out”, but was not present himself when said decision was made. The authors do not inform us as to who told him and what he was told. According to this the decision to murder the Jews was made in Summer 1942, contradicting historians who give a variety of dates but none as late as that (It is alleged that Himmler witnesses a gassing of Jews on that visit, but that would of course not fit into the Laqueur/Breitman tale since according to them the decision to murder the Jews had just been made). What we do know about this visit is that Himmler ordered the camp to be expanded to eventually hold 200 000 inmates. Thus indeed, a decision had been made. The last part is interesting, however. This is plainly about the word “ausrotten”, translated as “elimination”. Schulte admits that the word had different meanings, “it could mean, for instance, resettling…”. Which is absolutely true. [unquote]

                  http://revblog.codoh.com/2009/06/the-origins-of-%E2%80%9Cthe-holocaust%E2%80%9D-or-%E2%80%9Chow-the-holocaust-was-born%E2%80%9D-2/

                  An illustrative example: In 1897, Zionist leader Max Nordau opened the first World Zionist Congress with a speech containing the words ‘Juden auszurotten’ translated as ‘to eradicate/get rid of the Jews’, not as ‘to exterminate the Jews’ like it is in today’s Holocaust lie-terature.

                  Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 6:57 pm

                • Your point would be valid, Hermie, if there was someplace to send the Jews to.
                  Madagascar made a great deal of sense, however the British blocked that.
                  Sending them to Siberia, that also made sense but the Soviets prevented that.
                  Send them into a war zone that the Germans meant to annex anyway? Well, that doesn’t make sense, I thought the whole idea was to drive them out of German territory. That goes for Poland, that was German, too.
                  Himmler ordered the ghettos emptied by December 31st, 1942, so, ghettos are out.
                  Concentration camps? They simply did not have the capacity to hold 3 million Polish Jews, never mind the other Jews the Nazis deported from other places in Europe.
                  Not to mention, there was a food crisis in Eastern Europe with the Germans taking everything they could get their hands on.
                  So, to me, the meaning of the word “ausrotten” becomes very clear.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 7:10 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Himmler ordered the ghettos emptied by December 31st, 1942, so, ghettos are out.”

                  The ghettos within the Generalgovernment., not all the ghettos.

                  42,500 ghettos – the ghettos in the Generalgovernment = enough room for a gigantic gang of millions of Jews😉

                  And let’s not forget the special concentration camps found by the Soviets in Far Eastern Europe.

                  “Upon investigations by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union, it was found that at the front, behind their main line of defense, the Hitlerites had systematically constructed special concentration camps where they kept tens of thousands of children, women who were unfit for work, and old men. I must name the concentration camps of Smolensk (Russia), Stavropol (Russia), Kharkov (Ukraine), Kiev (Ukraine), Lvov (Ukraine), Poltava (Ukraine), Novgorod (Russia), Orel (Russia), Rovno (Ukraine), Dniepropetrovsk (Ukraine), Odessa (Ukraine), Kamenetz-Podolsk (Russia), Gomel (White Russia), Kerch (Ukraine), of the Stalingrad region (Russia), of Kaunas (Lithuania), Riga (Latvia), Mariampol (Lithuania) of Kloga (Estonia) and many others” – Soviet IMT-Chief prosecutor general Rudenko, February 8, 1946.

                  “On March 19, 1944, Soviet forces find in Polesia (White Russia), inside the German defense line three concentration camps in Ozaritschi, between Minsk and Kiev; in those camps there were more than 33.000 children, women, elderly people and people unfit for work” – IMT document USSR-4

                  Comment by hermie — February 6, 2016 @ 8:00 pm

                • Sorry to burst your bubble there sparky but there were not 42,500 ghettos.
                  They were camps that included ghettos (approximately 11,500). This included prisoner of war camps, labor camps, satellite concentration camps, the death camps, etc., etc. Many of these camps had nothing to do with Jews. Many of these camps were opened and closed before the war even began. The SA actually set up many of the camps on your little map in Germany. Those were closed long before the war.
                  Not all of these camps were occupied at the same time, oddly, the concentration camp system actually expanded in 1943-1944 as German fortunes reversed.
                  Naturally most of these ghettos were concentrated in Poland.
                  Oh, another thing. 30,000 does not equal 3,000,000. Yes, the Nazis did herd many Jews together and it makes sense that there were camps in the Soviet Union….but nothing like the numbers you seem so eager to sell.
                  So yes, there were a lot of camps…..but they didn’t all exist at the same time. That number includes all of the camps the Nazis opened and closed over the course of 12 years. That number also includes many POW camps that had nothing to do with the SS.
                  So sorry, your point failed.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 6, 2016 @ 10:33 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “there were not 42,500 ghettos. They were camps that included ghettos (approximately 11,500).”

                  Camps, ghettos, ghetto-camps, whatever. There were very numerous housing facilities – or ‘recreated natural habitats’ as I call those places – for Europe’s Jews, vastly numerous enough to hold them all, during WW2. None of your posturing and gesticulations will change that.

                  Jeff wrote: “Oh, another thing. 30,000 does not equal 3,000,000.”

                  Indeed. But that gives an idea of the size of those ‘special concentration camps’ captured by the red Arly in Eastern Europe.

                  Jeff wrote: “Yes, the Nazis did herd many Jews together and it makes sense that there were camps in the Soviet Union….but nothing like the numbers you seem so eager to sell.”

                  If Soviet propagandists said so, that must be true.😉

                  Even if I fail to see why the Soviets would have destroyed the core of their own war propaganda and myth of heroism by admitting they had found millions of Jews in the lands recaptured by their troops.

                  From today’s perspective, one must concede that deporting your worst enemies to a country claiming you’re butchering the latter for atrocity propaganda purposes, was a very bad idea. But one must also remember that most Nazi leaders had experienced WW1 and its anti-German extravagant atrocity propaganda, and that they had seen that propaganda collapse quite fast after the end of the war. Few of them, if any, could imagine that things would go very differently after the end of WW2, and that the victorious Allies and Soviets, as well as the Zionists, would continue to use that propaganda at an escalated level during decades in order to justify their new domination over the world and the Zionist grabbing of Palestine from its legitimate owners. During WW2, the Nazi leaders probably believed that their enemies’ Holohoax atrocity propaganda would be quickly dropped after the end of the war, and so that they were free to send their unwanted Jews to Soviet lands without serious damages for their future reputation, besides the fact that they believed they would win the war and so be the writers of history books. All this to explain that the Nazi leaders had no good reasons not to expell as many Jews as possible as far away as possible during the war, just as they had forced numerous Polish Jews into Poland shortly before the Polish state deprived all the Polish Jews living abroad of their citizenship (around October 1938).

                  Comment by hermie — February 7, 2016 @ 8:35 am

                • “There were very numerous housing facilities – or ‘recreated natural habitats’ as I call those places – for Europe’s Jews, vastly numerous enough to hold them all, during WW2. None of your posturing and gesticulations will change that.”
                  So sorry, you are wrong. Not all of those camps held Jews. I’ve already explained that.
                  I also explained that many of the 42,500 camps you talked about were opened and closed before the war even started. The historians who are looking into those camps included camps the SA and SS created in Germany in the 30’s. Those concentration camps were not set up to take Jews but enemies of the Nazis. Later they held criminals and the “work shy.”
                  Many of the camps in Poland and the Soviet Union were POW camps and camps to incarcerate Poles. This number may have included some Jews but they were not set up exclusively for Jews.
                  For more information about this I recommend Wachsman’s KL, a History of the German Concentration Camps.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 8:48 am

                • “Even if I fail to see why the Soviets would have destroyed the core of their own war propaganda and myth of heroism by admitting they had found millions of Jews in the lands recaptured by their troops.”
                  Why? Just as easy to show how cruel the Germans were by filming pathetic refugees.
                  Also, how were they supposed to feed these millions? The Soviets faced famine after the war.
                  Deniers seem to forget that humans actually need to eat. How did the Germans feed these millions? How did the Soviets and Poles?
                  One of the driving forces behind the Holocaust was the lack of food. The Germans murdered the unproductive because they didn’t want to feed them. It helped that the people murdered Jews.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 8:58 am

                • Jeff wrote: “So sorry, you are wrong. Not all of those camps held Jews. I’ve already explained that.”

                  That leaves tens of thousands of such camps and ghettos for the internment of Jews during WW2, i.e. more than enough room to house millions of kikes, anyway. I’m afraid you’ll just have to learn to live with that.😉

                  Comment by hermie — February 7, 2016 @ 9:06 am

                • I guess you’ll have to live with the fact you are totally wrong about the camps.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 9:08 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Why? Just as easy to show how cruel the Germans were by filming pathetic refugees.”

                  Much less beneficial for their own atrocity propaganda than claiming all those people were dead. How could they have backpedalled about the alleged lot of those Jews in the first place? By admitting they had lied and many of those Jews were in fact alive??? C’mon!! And what makes you believe that those Jews looked like “pathetic refugees” anyway? There was an intensive black market of food in ghettos after all. At Nuremberg, Bühler even stated “that the fat sold on the free market and the black market in the Government General was several times the quantity of that controlled and distributed officially.”

                  Comment by hermie — February 7, 2016 @ 9:41 am

                • Jeff wrote: “I guess you’ll have to live with the fact you are totally wrong about the camps.”

                  As so masterfully demonstrated by yourself.😉

                  You could at least have tried…

                  Comment by hermie — February 7, 2016 @ 9:43 am

              • Hermie has found the answer that I have suspected for a long time now – that the bulk of Jews from Poland ( and to a lesser extent – from Germany, and Czechoslovakia ), who were transited through Chelmno, Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor finally finished up in labour camps or concentration camps within the Occupied Soviet Union. This is confirmed by General Rudenko, the Soviet prosecutor at the Nuremburg International Military Tribunal in 1946.

                Rudenko states that “many” such camps were found behind the front line as the Soviet Red Army advanced westwards. He names just several of them, including;- Smolensk, Stavropol, Orel, Rovno, Dniepropetrovsk, Odessa, Kamenetz-Podolsk, Gomel, Kerch, Kaunus, Riga, Mariampol, Kloga – even the Stalingrad region. These camps contained large numbers of children, women and older men who were unfit for work. ( We can surmise that all the younger male workers were evacuated with the Germans as their forces retreated, because they were still needed for war work, plus the fact that the Germans did not want them to join up with the Soviets.)

                In other words there were no mass exterminations or gassings going on anywhere in Poland or the Soviet Union. Yes, the Einzatsgruppen units were active in the Baltic States, Byelorussia and the Ukraine, but their size and remit meant that they were only operating on a relatively small scale against communist party cadres, Bolshevik Jews, partisans, and other potentially hostile individuals and groups. There is no way that these battalion-sized SS units could have organised huge massacres over such vast areas of territory.

                Comment by Talbot — February 7, 2016 @ 5:51 am

                • You wrote: “he bulk of Jews from Poland ( and to a lesser extent – from Germany, and Czechoslovakia ), who were transited through Chelmno, Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor finally finished up in labour camps or concentration camps within the Occupied Soviet Union”

                  I believe that you are correct. Everything about these camps screams “transit camp.”

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 7, 2016 @ 5:59 am

                • Yes, Talbot, you are right that initially the Einsatsgruppen units were small. Unfortunately you either didn’t know or didn’t bother to mention that when the Einsatsgruppen’s duties expanded Himmler massively reinforced those units with Order Police and SS cavalry units, to the tune of 30,000 men. These units were available because the German conquest slowed down in July-August of 1941. Local collaboraters also assisted these units, much of killings were committed by locals.
                  As for the men, women and children Hermie and you describe in the camps the Soviets found, as I said, 30,000 does not equal 3,000,000. That’s the number of Polish Jews who vanished during the war. There were a lot of Jews in Poland and the Western portions of the Soviet Union the Germans conquered. These people the Soviets found were remnants the Germans did not kill.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 7:55 am

                • I wrote about the Einsatzgruppen on this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/the-killing-of-the-jews-in-lithuania/

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 7, 2016 @ 8:09 am

                • Talbot wrote: “Yes, the Einzatsgruppen units were active in the Baltic States, Byelorussia and the Ukraine”

                  Why would they have cared about Jews unfit for work? Unfit for work = also unfit for sabotage & partisan activities, of course. Not their business.

                  Comment by hermie — February 7, 2016 @ 9:47 am

                • Unless it was to eliminate useless mouths. Less productive people to feed, more food for those that can work.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 8, 2016 @ 4:50 pm

                • Jeff says that the Einzatsgruppen forces were massively reinforced in July and August 1941 by an order from Himmler. He claims that the German advance into the Soviet Union had slowed down during this period, and thus SS calvary and police units could be transferred to the business of exterminating Jews. Well, this is news to me – my reading of history is that the German armed forces were still fully engaged right up until the Soviet Red Army counter-attacked at the end of November 1941. Jeff is correct to say, however, that the Germans were not advancing as far and as fast as they did in the early weeks of Barbarossa, but this was due to enemy opposition, poor roads, a different railway gauge, logistics problems, and of course, the weather.

                  The admission by General Rudenko at the IMT, that there were “many” of these concentration camps spread across the Occupied Soviet Union, is – in my eyes – as important a revelation as the discovery by Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf that the facilities labelled as gas chambers in Auschwitz and Majdanek could never have operated for the mass killing of human beings.

                  If the Nazis were carrying out a systematic programme of mass extermination of Jews within the Soviet Union, then one has to ask why all these concentration camps existed there in the first place, and also – why the Germans left all these many tens of thousands of women, children and elderly men alive when they were forced to retreat.

                  Comment by Talbot — February 7, 2016 @ 5:02 pm

                • Well, this is news to me – my reading of history is that the German armed forces were still fully engaged right up until the Soviet Red Army counter-attacked at the end of November 1941.
                  I don’t know what you mean by that.
                  The Red Army counterattacked the Germans several times throughout that Summer and Fall. The most successful counterattack occurred in early December. That is the attack that drove the Germans back from Moscow.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 9:23 pm

                • “The admission by General Rudenko at the IMT, that there were “many” of these concentration camps spread across the Occupied Soviet Union, is – in my eyes – as important a revelation as the discovery by Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf that the facilities labelled as gas chambers in Auschwitz and Majdanek could never have operated for the mass killing of human beings.”
                  You also said something about thousands.
                  A truly effective conspiracy would never have admitted this at all….but I digress.
                  I’ll say it again, thousands do not equal millions.
                  I’ve never actually read Rudolf’s take on the gas chambers so I don’t have an opinion.
                  About Leuchter:
                  His samples actually showed the presence of cyanide. Control samples later taken from barracks that the Germans fumigated did not.
                  Leuchter never bothered to consult any historical documentation available at Auschwitz.
                  Leuchter never bothered to consult with any chemical companies about how ZB actually worked. He assumed that ZB was explosive at a much lower concentration that it actually is. He also didn’t know that it takes a lower dose of cyanide to kill humans than insects.
                  He did not tell the chemical company he contracted to test the samples what they were for or where they came from, only telling them that it was an industrial accident. Consequently the company crushed the rocks, diluting the samples. Even then the company still detected cyanide.
                  And, here it comes. I’m going to catch hell for criticizing Fred Leuchter, a lovely man by all accounts.
                  Jeff K.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 7, 2016 @ 9:37 pm

                • I don’t really want to get into a discussion about the work of Fred Leuchter again at this stage. We’ve been through all this before – everyone knows where you stand on that issue, Jeff. In fact, it doesn’t matter what you, I, or anyone else believes, because it’s way past time that the Polish and Auschwitz authorities themselves abandoned their homicidal gas chamber myth, or prove to the world that Zyklon B was used to kill up to 1 million human souls in the manner described. In other words – they must now either put up, or shut up!

                  But the important thing at this moment is what happened in the Occupied Soviet Union during the war – and the amazing scandal that this has never been investigated by researchers and historians over the last 70 years.

                  Back in 1946, at the Nuremburg International Military, we had the chief Soviet prosecutor standing up before the court and announcing that:- “the Hitlerites had systematically constructed special concentration camps where they kept tens of thousands of children, women who were unfit for work and old men…” He goes to name 19 such camps that stood near large Soviet cities, and claims “THERE WERE MANY OTHERS”. He then claims;- “On March 19, 1944, Soviet forces find in Polesia (White Russia)…three concentration camps in Ozaritschi; in those camps there were more than 33,000 children, women, elderly people and people unfit for work.”

                  I find it absolutely staggering that this substantial claim by the Soviet prosecutor has never been investigated by anyone on either side of the Iron Curtain (or during the 25 year period since the Cold War came to an end). Surely the world wants to know how many people were liberated from all these camps; who they were; where they came from; how they got there; what were the conditions like; how many died; and what happened to them afterwards. It is outrageous that such a major event like this has simply been forgotten. If it proves that large numbers of European Jews finally finished up inside the Soviet Union, and were then dispersed far and wide across that vast country – then the holocaust will have to be seriously revised.

                  Comment by Talbot — February 7, 2016 @ 11:40 pm

                • I have to admit, Talbot. What you said about the camps in the USSR intrigue me but I can’t find any information on them.
                  Also, I’ve tried to find Rudenko’s statement but it requires me to wade through mountains of IMT documents.
                  Post Rudenko’s statement here, I want to read it for myself.
                  Thanks,
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 8, 2016 @ 5:24 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “A truly effective conspiracy would never have admitted this at all”

                  Of course, Rudenko didn’t state this to absolve the Germans. He stated this on a charge of mass murder through the use of typhus as a bioweapon. He depicted those places as extermination camps with the inoculation of typhus used as a cheap weapon of mass murder, as a kind of biological gas chamber. He claimed that the inmates in those camps had been deliberately and “systematically infected there with this disease.”

                  Not Rudenko’s fault if the alleged Nazi extermination by germ warfare didn’t last long and quite faded out before reaching us. In Soviet propagandists’ defense, they displayed considerable imagination and tried a lot of things. No surprise a number of their claims were finally dropped. Anyway, what was left was enough to demonize their ‘fascist’ foes and to justify their own seizure of Eastern Europe, as well as to set up the core of Israel’s founding myth.

                  Comment by hermie — February 8, 2016 @ 8:28 pm

                • Rudenko’s statement can be read on the ‘Avalon Project’, Volume 7, 54th Day. The info. comes from Pages 171, and 173.

                  But I have to admit, there is not enough information there to suggest that these “special concentration camps” were built to contain specifically Jewish inmates – either transported in from Poland, or from the Soviet Union itself. General Rudenko, is of course, acting as a prosecuting attorney for one of the victorious powers, and is using the most belligerent polemical language to denigrate the Nazi defendants. Which is fair enough in a military tribunal, but is hardly likely to provide impartial, balanced, information for future investigators to study in order to achieve historical accuracy.

                  Comment by Talbot — February 8, 2016 @ 9:21 pm

                • Thank you, I will look it up and get back with you.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 8, 2016 @ 9:30 pm

                • Here it is.
                  Thank you, Talbot.
                  “The names have already been mentioned here of the camps of Maidanek and Auschwitz with their gas-chambers, in which over 5,500,000 completely innocent people, citizens of Poland, Czechoslovakia, U.S.S.R., U.S.A., Great Britain, France, and other democratic countries were killed. I must name the concentration camps of Smolensk, Stavropol, Kharkov, Kiev, Lvov, Poltava, Novgorod, Orel, Rovno, Dniepropetrovsk, Odessa, Kamenetz-Podolsk, Gomel, Kerch, of the Stalingrad region, of Kaunas, Riga, Mariampol (Lithuanian) of Kloga (Estonian) and many others, in which hundreds of thousands of Soviet nationals belonging to the civilian population, as well as soldiers and officers of the Red Army, were tortured to death by the Hitlerites.”
                  Naturally you are right, no where does this statement mention Jews.
                  Also, Hermie’s statement, talking about the Soviets not separating into ethnic groups, is correct. They did not mention ethnic groups.
                  Naturally, of course, we cannot know who exactly they are talking about.
                  The statement also mentions soldiers and officers. He is undoubtedly talking about POW camps for the Red Army.
                  So, sorry, while the statement is interesting it does not talk about Jews in particular. Therefore it does not prove that there were special camps for Jews in the Soviet Union.
                  One last thing:
                  Only once does he talk in terms of millions, that in connection with Majdanek and Auschwitz. Those numbers are wild exaggerations.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 9, 2016 @ 7:00 am

                • Talbot wrote: “there is not enough information there to suggest that these “special concentration camps” were built to contain specifically Jewish inmates”

                  The Soviets almost never mentioned the ethnicity of people. That was their way to crush racism and anti-Semitism. The French Republic acts in a similar way today. Today’s French Republic is a race denying state. A top French politician named Nadine Morano was recently lynched mediatically and politically for repeating something General De Gaulle had said several decades ago, i.e. that France was originally a White country (‘un pays de race blanche’). One is not allowed to say such a thing in today’s France, no matter how true and obvious.

                  Many Jews, including ‘our’ dear wolfie, cried enough times because the former plaque at Auschwitz mentioned 4 million victims and didn’t single out the Jews as special if not exclusive victims, to avoid being surprised that Rudenko didn’t mention the Jewishness of those people unfit for work in special concentration camps during the Nuremberg mock trials.

                  Why would the Germans have imprisoned local Slavs unfit for work in the first place? If those people were unfit for work, they were also unfit to damage the German war effort in that area. So there would have been no point in using scarce resources to keep such people in special concentration camps there. On the other hand, the establishment of faraway concentration areas for the Jews unfit for work would have made perfect sense as part of a policy of territorial eviction towards that specific race during a war, with the Jews fit for work expelled after victory, when no longer needed in German war factories.

                  Comment by hermie — February 9, 2016 @ 6:26 am

                • “Why would the Germans have imprisoned local Slavs unfit for work in the first place? If those people were unfit for work, they were also unfit to damage the German war effort in that area. So there would have been no point in using scarce resources to keep such people in special concentration camps there.”
                  The Germans imprisoned them because there was a violent partisan war going on. Also, the Germans also incarcerated Poles, Jews and others unfit for work, why not local Slavs?
                  Also, who says they were unfit for work? The Germans were desperate for workers.
                  “On the other hand, the establishment of faraway concentration areas for the Jews unfit for work would have made perfect sense as part of a policy of territorial eviction towards that specific race during a war, with the Jews fit for work expelled after victory, when no longer needed in German war factories.”
                  You still have to feed these people. Also, why would you establish these camps right behind German lines? It makes far more sense these were camps filled with locals, not Jews transported in from Europe. That’s a waste.
                  So, you are making a rather hazy supposition not based on any reality.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 9, 2016 @ 7:09 am

                • Jeff wrote: “He is undoubtedly talking about POW camps for the Red Army.”

                  Unfit for work, but fit to fight a titanic savage war within the ranks of the Red Army. Makes perfect sense. Another good joke from our favorite reality denier…😉

                  Comment by hermie — February 9, 2016 @ 7:14 am

                • Jeff wrote: “He is undoubtedly talking about POW camps for the Red Army.”

                  Hermie:
                  “Unfit for work, but fit to fight a titanic savage war within the ranks of the Red Army. Makes perfect sense. Another good joke from our favorite reality denier… ;-”
                  A stay in a POW camp quickly made those fit to work or fight unfit.
                  You didn’t make much sense on this one.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 9, 2016 @ 7:46 am

                • Jeff wrote: “The Germans imprisoned them because there was a violent partisan war going on. Also, the Germans also incarcerated Poles, Jews and others unfit for work, why not local Slavs?”

                  Nobody was more violent and dangerous for the German troops fighting there than young children, women unfit for work and old people. The well-known terrible ‘Unfit Peril’ feared by all the armies of the world…😉

                  Jeff wrote: “Also, who says they were unfit for work?”

                  Rudenko did say that. That’s what we’re talking about. Memory disorders?

                  Jeff wrote: “You still have to feed these people.”

                  You have to feed them wherever you keep them. Are you implying that the same people eat more food in Belarus or Ukraine than they do in Poland or Austria?

                  Jeff wrote: Also, why would you establish these camps right behind German lines? It makes far more sense these were camps filled with locals, not Jews transported in from Europe. That’s a waste.”

                  Because that’s the farthest place you can reach and where you can send people you want to send as far as possible from you.

                  I don’t doubt President Donald Trump would gladly send a number of illegal latino aliens to Mexican lands temporarily in the hands of American troops in the event of a war between the US and Mexico. By doing this, he would make sure that a significant part of his Illegal Alien problem would become the problem of Mexican authorities after the recapture of those lands by Mexican troops or their retrocession by the US after that war.

                  Comment by hermie — February 9, 2016 @ 7:40 am

                • “Nobody was more violent and dangerous for the German troops fighting there than young children, women unfit for work and old people. The well-known terrible ‘Unfit Peril’ feared by all the armies of the world… ;-)”
                  Apparently the Germans saw everyone as a threat. They did imprison women and children.

                  Jeff wrote: “Also, who says they were unfit for work?”

                  “Rudenko did say that. That’s what we’re talking about. Memory disorders?”
                  Not really, talking to deniers does give me a headache.

                  Jeff wrote: “You still have to feed these people.”

                  You have to feed them wherever you keep them. Are you implying that the same people eat more food in Belarus or Ukraine than they do in Poland or Austria?
                  I’m not actually implying anything, I needed to include the fact that the Germans were snatching up anything they could find to eat. There was a massive food shortage in the Soviet Union because of this. The Germans couldn’t feed the millions of Jews allegedly shipped into a war zone.

                  Jeff wrote: Also, why would you establish these camps right behind German lines? It makes far more sense these were camps filled with locals, not Jews transported in from Europe. That’s a waste.”

                  “Because that’s the farthest place you can reach and where you can send people you want to send as far as possible from you.”

                  This is a massive waste of food, shelter and materials. It makes far more sense to ship them after the war is over.
                  Also, to the Germans, Jews carried disease and formed partisan bands. You are going to send these people right behind your troops into the heart of a partisan war?

                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 9, 2016 @ 7:58 am

                • Jeff wrote: “This is a massive waste of food, shelter and materials. It makes far more sense to ship them after the war is over.”

                  This is no massive waste of food, shelter and materials. The exact same amount of food, shelter and materials would have been needed to keep those people in camps and ghettos located in France, Belgium, Germany or Poland. All the Nazis needed as additional resources to do that was available trains and some coal to make the deportation trains run to those areas. Not a big deal…

                  Jeff wrote: “Also, to the Germans, Jews carried disease and formed partisan bands. You are going to send these people right behind your troops into the heart of a partisan war?”

                  If such people are kept in fenced areas with restricted access, that wouldn’t cause any additional health problem. That’s how the British circumvented the titanic typhus epidemics at Belsen during the final months of WW2. Typhus was already very prevalent there (i.e. in Far Eastern Europe) anyway. And lice can’t jump to the top of watchtowers…😉

                  Comment by hermie — February 9, 2016 @ 8:26 am

                • “This is no massive waste of food, shelter and materials. The exact same amount of food, shelter and materials would have been needed to keep those people in camps and ghettos located in France, Belgium, Germany or Poland.”
                  Not if you are sending an enormous amount of people East. Better to keep them where they are until the end of the war. I do understand sending German Jews out of the Reich but you could incarcerate the other Jews in their home countries without wasting the transportation. It’s also easier to feed and shelter them where they are.
                  “All the Nazis needed as additional resources to do that was available trains and some coal to make the deportation trains run to those areas. Not a big deal…”
                  This is a massive waste, considering that materials, especially food, was at a premium on the Eastern Front.
                  The Wehrmacht lived off the land in the Soviet Union. In addition, the Germans shipped large quantities of food to Germany. The result was an enormous artificial famine. The Eastern Front could not sustain large numbers of additional people, Jews or otherwise.
                  Also, both the Germans and Soviets followed a strict scorched earth policy as they retreated. Again, this caused enormous shortages.
                  “Jeff wrote: “Also, to the Germans, Jews carried disease and formed partisan bands. You are going to send these people right behind your troops into the heart of a partisan war?”

                  If such people are kept in fenced areas with restricted access, that wouldn’t cause any additional health problem. That’s how the British circumvented the titanic typhus epidemics at Belsen during the final months of WW2. Typhus was already very prevalent there (i.e. in Far Eastern Europe) anyway. And lice can’t jump to the top of watchtowers… ;-)”

                  It’s much easier to guard such people when you face no opposition. The British didn’t have to worry about attacks by partisans or the Red Army.
                  So, again, none of what you are saying makes any sense.
                  Let me sum this up for you:
                  Sending an enormous number of people East, Jews or otherwise, made no sense because the Eastern Front could not support them. The Soviet Union faced massive food shortages in the areas the Germans conquered (the Soviet Union faced famine in those years because the Germans conquered enormous areas of farmland. Only US Lend-Lease alleviated this to some degree). The shortages were caused by the Wehrmacht living off the land and shipping food into Germany. In addition, the scorched earth policies on both sides caused an enormous shortage of materials necessary to build those camps.
                  So, the long and short of it is your explanation makes no sense.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 9, 2016 @ 10:30 am

                • Hermie writes;- “On the other hand, the establishment of faraway concentration areas for the Jews unfit for work would have made perfect sense as part of a policy of territorial eviction towards that specific race during a war. With the Jews fit for work expelled after victory, when no longer needed in German war factories.”

                  Yes, that is a reasonable claim – and there is some evidence to back it up from Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the Reich Commissioner of the Netherlands, when he gave evidence at the Nuremburg Tribunals:-

                  “In the course of 1943 I spoke with Hitler and called his attention to this problem in the Netherlands (which was the presence of large numbers of Jews in close proximity to the Dutch coast where an Allied invasion could be anticipated in the near future). In his own convincing way Hitler reassured me and at the same time admitted that he was thinking of a permanent evacuation of the Jews, if possible, from all of Europe, and from countries which Germany wanted mainly friendly relations. He wanted to have the Jews settled on the eastern border of the German sphere of interest in so far as they were not able to emigrate to other parts of the earth.”

                  Seyss-Inquart was then asked by the prosecutor:-

                  “Q. Did you talk with Hitler before 1943.
                  A. I was merely present when Hitler talked about these problems ( ie;- the evacuations of Jews as part of the final solution ). It was always along this line – to eliminate the Jews from the German population and to send then somewhere abroad.
                  Q. But there was no talk about destruction of the Jews?
                  A. Never.”

                  So, if Seyss-Inquart is telling the truth ( which I believe he was ), then there was no plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe, but to transfer them as far to the east as possible – beyond German controlled territory. Thus, it would make sense to transfer all those not fit for productive work to temporary camps just behind the battle zone, from where they could be sent on eastwards if and when the front line advanced.

                  [ This info. comes from the Avalon Project; Volume 16; Day 152; 11 June 1946; pages 2 and 3 ]

                  Comment by Talbot — February 9, 2016 @ 10:13 am

                • “So, if Seyss-Inquart is telling the truth ( which I believe he was ), then there was no plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe, but to transfer them as far to the east as possible – beyond German controlled territory.”
                  Seyss-Inquart was on trial for his life. I’m sure he wanted to put his best foot forward.
                  Besides, why would Hitler flat out admit this to someone who was not directly involved?
                  “Thus, it would make sense to transfer all those not fit for productive work to temporary camps just behind the battle zone, from where they could be sent on eastwards if and when the front line advanced.”
                  No, it does not make sense. As I’ve said multiple times, food was in short supply, as were building materials, medication, clothing, etc.
                  You don’t want civilians in a battle zone. They simply get in the way.
                  By 1943 the Germans were in trouble on the Eastern Front. They lost Stalingrad and it took all of their strength to prevent further ruptures along the front line. Do you honestly believe they wanted unproductive civilians right behind them?
                  By the end of July 1943 the Germans halted their assault at Kursk and were in full retreat mode. Do you want me to believe they were still trying to deport unproductive Jews right behind their retreating troops?
                  Your scenario makes no sense.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 9, 2016 @ 2:42 pm

                • Talbot wrote: “Yes, that is a reasonable claim – and there is some evidence to back it up from Arthur Seyss-Inquart, the Reich Commissioner of the Netherlands, when he gave evidence at the Nuremburg Tribunals”

                  Josef Bühler (Buehler), the deputy governor of the General Government and attendee of the Wannsee Conference, believed that too. He testified at the IMT as a defence witness for Hans Frank.

                  [quote] SMIRNOV: Then the Jewish ghettos were already empty. In that case, what happened to the Jews from Poland?

                  BUEHLER: When these Jewish ghettos were emptied, I assumed they were resettled in the northeast of Europe. The chief of the RSHA had definitely told me at the conference in February 1942 that this was the intention.

                  […]

                  DR. SEIDL: The Prosecution submitted an extract from Frank’s diary in evidence under Number USA-281 (Document Number 2233(d)-PS.) This is a discussion of Jewish problems. In this connection Frank said, among other things:

                  “My attitude towards the Jews is based on the expectation that they will disappear; they must go away. I have started negotiations for deporting them to the East. This question will be discussed at a large meeting in Berlin in January, to which I shall send State Secretary Dr. Buehler. This conference is to take place at the Reich Security Main Office in the office of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich. In any case Jewish emigration on a large scale will begin.”

                  I ask you now, did the Governor General send you to Berlin for that conference; and if so, what was the subject of the conference?

                  BUEHLER: Yes, I was sent to the conference and the subject of the conference was the Jewish problem. I might say in advance that from the beginning Jewish questions in the Government General were considered as coming under the jurisdiction of the Higher SS and Police Leader and handled accordingly. The handling of Jewish matters by the state administration was supervised and merely tolerated by the Police. […] At that moment Heydrich’s invitation to the Governor General was received. The conference was originally supposed to take place in November 1941, but it was frequently postponed and it may have taken place in February 1942.

                  Because of the special problems of the Government General I had asked Heydrich for a personal interview and he received me. On that occasion, among many other things, I described in particular the catastrophic conditions which had resulted from the arbitrary bringing of Jews into the Government General. He replied that for this very reason he had invited the Governor General to the conference. The Reichsfuehrer SS, so he said, had received an order from the Fuehrer to round up all the Jews of Europe and to settle them in the Northeast of Europe, in Russia. […] Heydrich said furthermore that the Fuehrer had given an order that Theresienstadt, a town in the Protectorate, would become a reservation in which old and sick Jews, and weak Jews who could not stand the strains of resettlement, were to be accommodated in the future. This information left me definitely convinced that the resettlement of the Jews, if not for the sake of the Jews, then for the sake of the reputation and prestige of the German people, would be carried out in a humane fashion.

                  […]

                  SMIRNOV: In any case the property of Jews murdered in the concentration camps of Poland was, as a result of your negotiations, transferred to warehouses in the Government General?

                  BUEHLER: That is not correct. The property mentioned was not that which proceeded from Jews who were killed, but simply property which came from Jews and which was removed by the Police after having been converted through the administration department in the regular way.

                  SMIRNOV: But could the Security Police or the SD be in possession of property belonging to Jews who were not murdered?

                  BUEHLER: Why not, Right from the beginning the Police had taken over Jewish problems, and therefore also came into possession of their property in this manner.

                  […]

                  SMIRNOV: Then the Jewish ghettos were already empty. In that case, what happened to the Jews from Poland?

                  BUEHLER: When these Jewish ghettos were emptied, I assumed they were resettled in the northeast of Europe. The chief of the RSHA had definitely told me at the conference in February 1942 that this was the intention.

                  SMIRNOV: On the 21 February 1944 the front line ran through the Government General. How and where could the Jews have been transferred to the northeast?

                  BUEHLER: According to the conference this was to have taken place in 1942. [unquote]

                  Comment by hermie — February 9, 2016 @ 1:52 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Besides, why would Hitler flat out admit this to someone who was not directly involved?”

                  So you finally concede that Hitler’s public speeches about the ‘ausrottung’ and ‘vernichtung’ of the Jewish race in europe, didn’t deal with mass slaughter?

                  Jeff wrote: “Do you want me to believe they were still trying to deport unproductive Jews right behind their retreating troops?”

                  Don’t make as if Jewish kids, women unfit for work and elderlies had been human bombs ready to strike out all life within a radius of one hundred kilometers at the slightest touch. And don’t make as if the inmates of those special concentration camps had been free to come and go as they wished. That’s ridiculous.

                  Comment by hermie — February 9, 2016 @ 7:10 pm

                • “So you finally concede that Hitler’s public speeches about the ‘ausrottung’ and ‘vernichtung’ of the Jewish race in europe, didn’t deal with mass slaughter?”
                  No.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 9, 2016 @ 8:40 pm

                • “Don’t make as if Jewish kids, women unfit for work and elderlies had been human bombs ready to strike out all life within a radius of one hundred kilometers at the slightest touch. And don’t make as if the inmates of those special concentration camps had been free to come and go as they wished. That’s ridiculous.”
                  No, what I’m saying is ridiculous is the notion that the Germans would park unproductive civilians in a battle zone to feed and care for.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 9, 2016 @ 8:43 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “No.”

                  How do you reconcile the Holocaust’s secrecy thing (expressed by yourself as follows: “why would Hitler flat out admit this to someone who was not directly involved?”) with the allegation that Hitler talked about mass murder (supposedly when he talked about the ‘ausrottung’ and ‘vernichtung’ of Europe’s Jewry) in several public speeches before and during the war? Both claims are contradictory and can not coexist.

                  Jeff wrote: “No, what I’m saying is ridiculous is the notion that the Germans would park unproductive civilians in a battle zone to feed and care for.”

                  As already said 100 times previously, those people had to be fed and cared for anywhere. Any ethnic wartime territorial eviction is not only based on military considerations. You can’t both claim that the Nazis were obsessive anti-Semites and that they wouldn’t have used any distant area at their disposal to get rid of their Jews by sending the ones who not needed for their war effort to such areas. You think that such evictions would have been easier after the war. Probably true. But what makes you believe that such a minor consideration would have prevailed over Nazi anti-Semitism and the Nazi desire to get rid of all the Jews within the German sphere of influence and neighborhood? Choices are always a matter of priorities. Do you really believe that your ‘easier’ thing was a higher priority for the Nazi leaders than their desire to get rid of their Jews? C’mooon! You can’t be serious. Moreover, the German leaders of WW2 were far from sure they would have such vast territories still available for a massive population transfer after the war, even if victorious. You can’t tell me that it’s impossible some right-wing European leaders would use a war between Maghreb and Europe as an opportunity to forcibly repatriate millions of North Africans now living in Europe back to Maghreb (assuming they have the power to do it, of course) during that war, even at the expense of their war effort and military interests.

                  Comment by hermie — February 10, 2016 @ 8:57 am

                • I have quoted some of Hitler’s most famous words in German, and then in English, on this page of my website: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/HitlerSpeeches.html

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 10, 2016 @ 9:23 am

                • “How do you reconcile the Holocaust’s secrecy thing (expressed by yourself as follows: “why would Hitler flat out admit this to someone who was not directly involved?”) with the allegation that Hitler talked about mass murder (supposedly when he talked about the ‘ausrottung’ and ‘vernichtung’ of Europe’s Jewry) in several public speeches before and during the war? Both claims are contradictory.”
                  What I would say is this:
                  Anything that Hitler said in public was considered a warning. Anything said privately dealt with specifics.
                  For example, Hitler’s infamous “Prophecy Speech” in 1939.
                  To Hitler, this was an opportunity to warn worldwide Jewery that interference would no longer be tolerated.
                  I also doubt Seyss-Inquart. Frankly, by 1943 Germany was in retreat from areas alleged to be the dumping grounds for the Jews.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 10, 2016 @ 3:46 pm

                • “people had to be fed and cared for anywhere. Any ethnic wartime territorial eviction is not only based on military considerations. You can’t both claim that the Nazis were obsessive anti-Semites and that they wouldn’t have used any distant area at their disposal to get rid of their Jews by sending the ones who not needed for their war effort to such areas. You think that such evictions would have been easier after the war. Probably true. But what makes you believe that such a minor consideration would have prevailed over Nazi anti-Semitism and the Nazi desire to get rid of all the Jews within the German sphere of influence and neighborhood? Choices are always a matter of priorities. Do you really believe that your ‘easier’ thing was a higher priority for the Nazi leaders than their desire to get rid of their Jews?”

                  I’d hardly consider any sort of mass evacuation a minor affair.

                  Look, your scenario makes sense only if the Germans successfully conquered the Soviet Union and more importantly pacified it.

                  Consider what was occurring at the time of these alleged mass evacuations:

                  As the Germans invaded Stalin called for a comprehensive scorched earth policy. At the same time the Wehrmacht expected to feed their troops off the land. So, what you run into is a shortage of food on the Eastern Front. In addition to that, Goering wanted to ship food from the Soviet Union into Western Europe. This created an artificial famine, causing the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens.
                  The German invasion slowed and finally halted outside of Moscow. The Red Army then counterattacked, driving the Germans back from Moscow. The counterattack ground to a halt in the Winter/Spring of 1942. While this was occurring, Hitler planned his attack into the Southern reaches of the Soviet Union in an attempt to cut the Soviets off from their oil. Now transportation becomes a premium, with troops hurrying to the front for both the attack and to reinforce troops in the center and the North.
                  The Partisan War heats up at this point. In retaliation the Germans begin killing everything in sight and burning villages in Belorussia and the Ukraine.
                  As a consequence of this, farmers find it difficult to plow and sow their crops in these regions, exacerbating a precarious food situation.
                  The Germans suffer their reversal at Stalingrad. Transportation becomes even more of a premium, with troops and materials rushing to the front. In addition, Hitler begins to plan a counterattack at Kursk. This fails and now the Germans begin their long retreat.
                  So, where exactly do these Jews fit in? Food and transportation are at a premium (Himmler, one of the most powerful men in Germany, has to ask for trains to “evacuate” the Polish Ghettos in the Summer of 1942).
                  Eventually even ideology has its limits when faced with reality.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 10, 2016 @ 5:45 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Look, your scenario makes sense only if the Germans successfully conquered the Soviet Union and more importantly pacified it.”

                  Your own basic premise only. You’re not in a class on management. During wars, one has to take things as they are and come to terms with that. All is fair in love and war. Thanks for the lesson on how best deport Jews to Far Eastern Europe. But that’s just irrelevant and useless in this debate. Let me know when you have written a convincing paper on how to do things anyway, as can be, during a war…

                  Jeff wrote: “Eventually even ideology has its limits when faced with reality.”

                  And you know a lot about it. Don’t you, reality denier?😉

                  Comment by hermie — February 11, 2016 @ 8:50 pm

                • “Your own basic premise only. You’re not in a class on management. During wars, one has to take things as they are and come to terms with that. All is fair in love and war. Thanks for the lesson on how best deport Jews to Far Eastern Europe. But that’s just irrelevant and useless in this debate. Let me know when you have written a convincing paper on how to do things anyway, as can be, during a war…”

                  That’s not really an answer.
                  What, that’s the best you have?
                  Team Denier is having some problems.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 11, 2016 @ 9:09 pm

                • “And you know a lot about it. Don’t you, reality denier? ;-)”

                  Hey pot, the kettle called.
                  You’re black.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 11, 2016 @ 9:13 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Anything that Hitler said in public was considered a warning. Anything said privately dealt with specifics. For example, Hitler’s infamous “Prophecy Speech” in 1939. To Hitler, this was an opportunity to warn worldwide Jewery that interference would no longer be tolerated.”

                  Only total morons would have believed that Hitler’s wartime numerous references to his 1939 ‘prophecy’ in public speeches were mere warnings. In those speeches, Hitler emphasized that his 1939 ‘prophecy’ was becoming a reality. Your pathetic explanation does not hold water. Back to the nonsensical situation with Hitler both openly stating in wartime public speeches that the ausrottung/vernichtung of Jewry is under way AND [in an exterminationist perspective, supposedly] also trying to conceal the alleged mass murder of Europe’s Jews by various Hogan’s-Heroes-like means. The exterminationist ‘genocidal explicit words in public speeches and genocidal code words in internal documents’ thing is laughable and conflicting.

                  Comment by hermie — February 11, 2016 @ 9:14 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “That’s not really an answer.”

                  Quite rich when remembering your various ‘answers’ and evasions…

                  Comment by hermie — February 11, 2016 @ 9:18 pm

                • “Jeff wrote: “That’s not really an answer.”

                  Quite rich when remembering your various ‘answers’ and evasions…”
                  Not this time.
                  I answered you very clearly on why camps like you and Talbot were impossible.
                  No sarcasm, no evasions.
                  I can see you are struggling with this.
                  Becoming a little harder to force your reality into some semblance of believability…..oh, well.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 11, 2016 @ 9:55 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “I’d hardly consider any sort of mass evacuation a minor affair.”

                  I didn’t say that that mass evacuation was a minor affair. I said that knowing if WW2 was the most appropriate time for such a mass evacuation or not, was a minor consideration to Hitler and Himmler. Your assumption that Hitler wouldn’t have expelled numerous Jews because more appropriate times could have come after the war, is ridiculous and almost turns Hitler into a Jew-lover. Why would Hitler have worried about the well-being of people he hated in war zones? Implying that Hitler cared about their lot so much that he wouldn’t have send them to troubled areas, preferring to wait for the perfect moment concerning the well-being of the expelled Jews, is funny, to say the least. To Hitler, the perfect moment for the territorial eviction of many Jews was any time when possible to do it. And times when large areas had fallen in German hands were certainly such a perfect moment. Do you really think that any potential temporary stoppage of the supplies to those ‘special concentration camps’ because of hard battles and partisan activities in those areas, would have disturbed Hitler’s sleep and prevented him from sending ‘his’ unwanted and unnecessay Jews there??? You must be joking…

                  Comment by hermie — February 11, 2016 @ 9:55 pm

                • “I didn’t say that that mass evacuation was a minor affair. I said that knowing if WW2 was the most appropriate time for such a mass evacuation or not, was a minor consideration to Hitler and Himmler.”

                  Maybe to Himmler but not to Hitler. Hitler’s main consideration was winning the war in the Soviet Union. As near as I can determine the optimum time to transport the alleged millions of Jews to the East would be the Spring, Summer and Fall of 1942. But even then you run into the main problem of interfering with Operation Blue, an attack so vital that Hitler himself thought it would determine the war.
                  Let’s not forget, Hitler also transferred troops from the South to the North to resume the attack on Leningrad.
                  Even Himmler had to ask for trains for his “deportations.”

                  “Your assumption that Hitler wouldn’t have expelled numerous Jews because more appropriate times could have come after the war, is ridiculous and almost turns Hitler into a Jew-lover.”

                  That’s an exaggeration. I’d hardly call Hitler a “Jew Lover.”
                  He certainly wasn’t a Jew lover when he resisted Goebbel’s attempts to deport Berlin Jews in September of 1941. It was a pragmatic decision, based upon the importance of operations in the East. It was only after Stalin deported the Volga Germans that Hitler allowed these deportations to occur….and even then only to the ghettos in Poland.

                  “Why would Hitler have worried about the well-being of people he hated in war zones? Implying that Hitler cared about their lot so much that he wouldn’t have send them to troubled areas, preferring to wait for the perfect moment concerning the well-being of the expelled Jews, is funny, to say the least.”

                  Hitler didn’t care about the well-being of Jews.
                  What he did care about was keeping his people well-fed and content. This meant ripping as much food out of the occupied areas as he could to feed Germans. This meant there was much less food for locals to consume. Shoving millions of Jews into a war zone with a vicious partisan war going on at the same time was sheer lunacy. This would make an unstable situation worse. Why on earth do you think the military would allow something like this to occur? They needed those trains to transport troops and supplies. As I’ve said previously, Himmler himself had to ask for trains. There would never be enough trains to transport millions of civilians into the East, never mind finding the materials to house them. You certainly couldn’t allow civilians to wander around loose. They represented a security risk and would get in the way of military operations.

                  “And times when large areas had fallen in German hands were certainly such a perfect moment. Do you really think that any potential temporary stoppage of the supplies to those ‘special concentration camps’ because of hard battles and partisan activities in those areas, would have disturbed Hitler’s sleep and prevented him from sending ‘his’ unwanted and unnecessay Jews there??”
                  No, but the disruption of possible military operations would disturb his sleep.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 11, 2016 @ 10:45 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “I answered you very clearly on why camps like you and Talbot were impossible.”

                  No, you didn’t. You’ve only explained why a mass evacuation of numerous Jews would have been easier in times of peace (what was incorrect anyway, because the pre-WW2 years had vastly demonstrated that nobody wanted those Jews and was willing to let them in).

                  Impossible? Are you saying that Rudenko lied and just made up those special concentration camps for people unfit for work?

                  Comment by hermie — February 11, 2016 @ 10:07 pm

                • “No, you didn’t. You’ve only explained why a mass evacuation of numerous Jews would have been easier in times of peace (what was incorrect anyway, because the pre-WW2 years had vastly demonstrated that nobody wanted those Jews and was willing to let them in).”

                  I gave very clear reasons why such camps were impossible.

                  “Impossible? Are you saying that Rudenko lied and just made up those special concentration camps for people unfit?”

                  Well, he was a Bolshevik, right?

                  Look, the problem with Rudenko’s statement is that it is not very clear. Plus, he said thousands, not millions.
                  I’ve looked, Hermie. I knew what he was talking about when he said Klooga. I find the idea of German camps on Soviet soil very interesting but details about them are hard to find. I know the Germans set up ghettos in places like Smolensk and Minsk. Those were for local Jews, not foreigners. I think details about them would be interesting but the details are scarce.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 11, 2016 @ 10:55 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “I gave very clear reasons why such camps were impossible.”

                  Clear and convincing are two different things. And as I said in my previous post, you only depicted hard conditions and logistical challenges, no impossibility.

                  Jeff wrote: “Well, he was a Bolshevik, right?”

                  Be careful, because if you abandon all the Soviet claims, you lose a large part of the Holohoax, including all the alleged death camps.

                  As if the American and British claims were any more reliable than the Soviet ones anyway…

                  Jeff wrote: “Look, the problem with Rudenko’s statement is that it is not very clear.”

                  Special concentration camps for children, women and elderlies unfit for work, that sounds very clear to me.

                  Jeff wrote: “Plus, he said thousands, not millions.”

                  As the Soviet document USSR-4 mentioned 33,000 people unfit for work found in 3 concentration camps inside the German defense line in Ozaritschi, I strongly suspect that Rudenko’s “tens of thousands” of people were in fact the inmates found yb the Red Army in EACH of those special camps.

                  Jeff wrote: “I find the idea of German camps on Soviet soil very interesting but details about them are hard to find.”

                  For what ‘reports’ by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union are worth anyway…

                  Comment by hermie — February 12, 2016 @ 3:54 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “I gave very clear reasons why such camps were impossible.”

                  “Clear and convincing are two different things. And as I said in my previous post, you only depicted hard conditions and logistical challenges, no impossibility.”
                  War is about conditions and logistics.
                  The Eastern Front had the worst conditions for the camps you describe. Logistically what you describe is impossible as well.
                  Besides, what happened to the Hungarian Jews? Do you want me to believe that the SS asked the Red Army’s permission to ship the Hungarians across the front lines to these “camps?”

                  Jeff wrote: “Well, he was a Bolshevik, right?”

                  “Be careful, because if you abandon all the Soviet claims, you lose a large part of the Holohoax, including all the alleged death camps.

                  As if the American and British claims were any more reliable than the Soviet ones anyway…”
                  That’s not really an answer.

                  “Jeff wrote: “Look, the problem with Rudenko’s statement is that it is not very clear.”

                  Special concentration camps for children, women and elderlies unfit for work, that sounds very clear to me.”
                  Rudenko did not give the ethnicity or origin of these people. I can buy they were Jews but he did not give their country of origin. They were Soviet Jews, not Polish, not French, not Greek, not Hungarian.

                  “Jeff wrote: “Plus, he said thousands, not millions.”

                  As the Soviet document USSR-4 mentioned 33,000 people unfit for work found in 3 concentration camps inside the German defense line in Ozaritschi, I strongly suspect that Rudenko’s “tens of thousands” of people were in fact the inmates found yb the Red Army in EACH of those special camps.”
                  That’s around 100,000 people in those camps. Again, not millions.
                  You are making an assumption you can’t back with facts.

                  “Jeff wrote: “I find the idea of German camps on Soviet soil very interesting but details about them are hard to find.”

                  For what ‘reports’ by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union are worth anyway…”

                  You are contradicting yourself. First you accept Rudenko’s statement but now you are dismissive.
                  Which is it? Is Rudenko believable or not? For all we know he EXAGGERATED the numbers of people found to elicit sympathy and show the Germans as bigger monsters.

                  The camps as you describe did not exist.
                  I can accept that the Germans set up ghettos and some camps on Soviet soil for SOVIET Jews, not Jews from all over Europe.

                  But, because I’m such a reasonable guy I want to give you an opportunity to explain to me how this was possible.
                  Keep in mind the following timeline:
                  The Germans invaded the Soviet Union on June 22nd, 1941.
                  The Germans remained on the offensive for about two years, naturally with set backs along the way (the Soviet counterattack in December 1941-February 1942, the Soviet counterattack in November of 1942, these are the main German setbacks until the end of the assault at Kursk in July of 1943). So, you have about two years to work with. I want to know where these camps were, how many inmates, how they were supplied and what was the ethnic composition of each camps (how many Polish Jews, how many Greek Jews, how many French Jews, etc.)
                  Take your time.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 12, 2016 @ 5:35 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “War is about conditions and logistics.The Eastern Front had the worst conditions for the camps you describe. Logistically what you describe is impossible as well.”

                  Wasn’t WW2 mainly about ideologies? That’s what mainstream historians say. The latter even claim quite often that Germany lost WW2 because the Nazis were so hateful that they torpedoed their own effort by diverting too many resources for the industrial mass murder of Jews. But as soon as that fable threatens the Holohoax, it is promptly dropped by the puppies of ‘The Lobby’ like yourself, suddenly claiming “Deporting herds of unwanted & unnecessary Jews to Far Eastern Europe would have been so hard during the war that it’s impossible. Would have been easier in times of peace.” Funny. Another nice exterminationist pirouette.

                  Dealing with good or bad conditions for camps in Far Eastern Europe was a job for Pohl’s SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA) (tasked with administering the concentration camps), not for Eichmann’s RSHA Office for Jewish Questions (Referat IV B4) (tasked with overseeing Jewish affairs and evacuation). Had Eichmann been ordered to deport the Jews unfit for work to Far Eastern Europe, he would just have obeyed and dealing with the housing and maintenance of those Jews would have been Pohl’s business, not Eichmann’s one. Pohl would have been the one having to do his best to face a situation brought about by others (i.e. by Eichmann and his guys), whether he liked it or not, whether he was able to do it effectively or not. That’s how state administrations work.

                  Jeff wrote: “That’s around 100,000 people in those camps. Again, not millions. You are making an assumption you can’t back with facts.”

                  No, you didn’t understand. I mean 33,000 people in the 3 camps in Ozaritschi. But as none of us knows how many of such special concentration camps there were, we can’t extrapolate the number of Jews found in such camps, in one direction (tens of thousands) or another (millions). We can only speculate about that. You can’t back up your assumptions with facts either.

                  Jeff wrote: “You are contradicting yourself. First you accept Rudenko’s statement but now you are dismissive. Which is it? Is Rudenko believable or not? For all we know he EXAGGERATED the numbers of people found to elicit sympathy and show the Germans as bigger monsters.”

                  I didn’t accept Rudenko’s statement more than any other statement.

                  To answer your question: Rudenko is believable/credible, what doesn’t mean he must be believed, just as with any other statement from anybody else.

                  Jeff wrote: “The camps as you describe did not exist.”

                  So you concede that the Soviets were liars and their claims were not probative at all. OK. Dully noted. No you can apply your new evidential standards to the Soviets’ gassing claims.😉

                  Jeff wrote: “I can accept that the Germans set up ghettos and some camps on Soviet soil for SOVIET Jews, not Jews from all over Europe.”

                  Feel free to explain the reasons of your abritary acceptance and rejection. Except your political/ideological biases of course.

                  Jeff wrote: “But, because I’m such a reasonable guy I want to give you an opportunity to explain to me how this was possible.”

                  Some ‘evil Nazi monsters’ loaded some Jews on trains somewhere in Western or Central Europe. The full trains travelled for some time to Far Eastern Europe. And other ‘evil Nazi monsters’ collected those Jews at the other end of the railroad and coped with them as they could there. Simple, isn’t it?😉

                  Comment by hermie — February 13, 2016 @ 9:15 am

                • “Wasn’t WW2 mainly about ideologies? That’s what mainstream historians say.”
                  To an extent, yes.
                  However, all three sides, Nazi, Communist and Democratic, dropped those ideologies when they needed to. The Nazis and Communists signed their pact over Poland and the Democracies and Communists got together after the Nazis invaded the USSR.
                  You are oversimplifying.
                  Even Himmler abandoned his ideology towards the end of the war, trying to make deals over Jews to make himself look better.

                  “The latter even claim quite often that Germany lost WW2 because the Nazis were so hateful that they torpedoed their own effort by diverting too many resources for the industrial mass murder of Jews.”
                  Again, an oversimplification.
                  Germany lost the war because they attempted to take on the three most industrialized nation in the world at the same time.
                  The Holocaust of the Jews was submerged in the camp systems the Nazis ran. Auschwitz and Majdanek were large camps but the other death camps were relatively small by comparison and staffed by a small number of personnel.
                  Out of all the information I’ve read on the Holocaust I’ve never seen anything to indicate anyone thinks Germany lost the war because of the Holocaust. It was a waste, certainly. But not a reason why the Germans lost the war.

                  “But as soon as that fable threatens the Holohoax, it is promptly dropped by the puppies of ‘The Lobby’ like yourself, suddenly claiming “Deporting herds of unwanted & unnecessary Jews to Far Eastern Europe would have been so hard during the war that it’s impossible. Would have been easier in times of peace.” Funny. Another nice exterminationist pirouette.”

                  I like puppies. The rest of what you said in the above paragraph is meaningless.

                  “Dealing with good or bad conditions for camps in Far Eastern Europe was a job for Pohl’s SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA) (tasked with administering the concentration camps), not for Eichmann’s RSHA Office for Jewish Questions (Referat IV B4) (tasked with overseeing Jewish affairs and evacuation). Had Eichmann been ordered to deport the Jews unfit for work to Far Eastern Europe, he would just have obeyed and dealing with the housing and maintenance of those Jews would have been Pohl’s business, not Eichmann’s one. Pohl would have been the one having to do his best to face a situation brought about by others (i.e. by Eichmann and his guys), whether he liked it or not, whether he was able to do it effectively or not. That’s how state administrations work.”

                  Thank you for the history lesson. I know what Pohl did, I know what Eichman did. I also work in state government so I’m well aware how they work.

                  “Jeff wrote: “That’s around 100,000 people in those camps. Again, not millions. You are making an assumption you can’t back with facts.”

                  “No, you didn’t understand. I mean 33,000 people in the 3 camps in Ozaritschi. But as none of us knows how many of such special concentration camps there were, we can’t extrapolate the number of Jews found in such camps, in one direction (tens of thousands) or another (millions). We can only speculate about that. You can’t back up your assumptions with facts either.”

                  Sure. However, you say that the Germans built camps to hold Europe’s Jews in the Soviet Union. I say that camps in the Soviet Union held Soviet Jews, not Jews from all over Europe. I make more sense than you because the only thing the Germans had to do was lock up these local Jews, not truck them in from all over Europe. The burden of proof lies with you. You need to show how these Jews got there, where they came from, how they were supplied, etc. You also need to show me how this was done in the middle of a war zone without jeopardizing the German war effort that actually was Hitler’s main concern. Oh, this was also during the most vicious partisan war in history. The partisans attacked German troops, supply chains, etc. In response the Germans burned thousands of villages and shot hundreds of thousands of villagers. How exactly did these camps function in this chaos?

                  “Jeff wrote: “You are contradicting yourself. First you accept Rudenko’s statement but now you are dismissive. Which is it? Is Rudenko believable or not? For all we know he EXAGGERATED the numbers of people found to elicit sympathy and show the Germans as bigger monsters.”

                  “I didn’t accept Rudenko’s statement more than any other statement.”

                  “To answer your question: Rudenko is believable/credible, what doesn’t mean he must be believed, just as with any other statement from anybody else.”
                  Huh? So he is believable but he’s not believable? WTF does that even mean?

                  Jeff wrote: “The camps as you describe did not exist.”

                  “So you concede that the Soviets were liars and their claims were not probative at all. OK. Dully noted. No you can apply your new evidential standards to the Soviets’ gassing claims. ;-)”

                  Now you have to concede the same thing. Rudenko lied when he said they found camps with 33,000 people. Oops, I guess that means there were no camps like you thought.

                  “Jeff wrote: “I can accept that the Germans set up ghettos and some camps on Soviet soil for SOVIET Jews, not Jews from all over Europe.”

                  “Feel free to explain the reasons of your abritary acceptance and rejection.”

                  Sure. Take Poland as an example. After conquering Poland the Germans set up a series of open and closed ghettos to incarcerate Polish Jews. They didn’t send Czech Jews to populate these ghettos, these were for Poles. The Germans took this system with them when they invaded the USSR. They incarcerated the local Jews to eliminate them as threats and to make use of them.

                  “Except your political/ideological biases of course.”

                  Of course. I notice you toss that at me when you don’t have an answer. I think it’s funny when you do so, you know nothing about the politics I follow.
                  I find the term “ideology” rather archaic and very limiting. What exactly are you talking about when you reference me?

                  “Jeff wrote: “But, because I’m such a reasonable guy I want to give you an opportunity to explain to me how this was possible.”

                  “Some ‘evil Nazi monsters’ loaded some Jews on trains somewhere in Western or Central Europe. The full trains travelled for some time to Far Eastern Europe. And other ‘evil Nazi monsters’ collected those Jews at the other end of the railroad and coped with them as they could there. Simple, isn’t it? ;-)”

                  I actually wanted something more specific. I want to know exactly where these camps were, what ethnic Jews populated these camps, how they were supplied, when the Germans built them and what happened when the Germans evacuated the area. I’ve never heard of death marches from the Soviet Union, only from the Baltics and Poland.

                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 13, 2016 @ 11:03 am

                • You wrote: ” Auschwitz and Majdanek were large camps but the other death camps were relatively small by comparison and staffed by a small number of personnel.”

                  Majdanek was not a large camp, compared to Auschwitz-Birkeanau. I have some recent photos of the camp on this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/photos-of-the-majdanek-death-camp/

                  You might be thinking of Majdanek as a large camp because of the first numbers that were given in Holocaust mythology: 1.7 million Jews killed was the first estimate, but this number was quickly lowered to 1.5 million. Now the number of Jews killed at Majdanek is down to 59,000. Note that no Jews died a natural death from disease at Majdanek. No they were all killed.

                  The “other death camps” were Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, which were actually transit camps. I wrote about Treblinka being a transit camp on this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/the-story-of-treblinka-transit-camp-or-extermination-center/

                  and on this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/was-treblinka-really-a-transit-camp/

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 13, 2016 @ 11:52 am

                • “Majdanek was not a large camp, compared to Auschwitz-Birkeanau.

                  Majdanek was a large camp compared to Treblinka, Belzec, Chelmno and Sobibor.

                  You keep calling the above camps transit camps. Transit camps to where?

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 13, 2016 @ 12:00 pm

                • You wrote: “Transit camps to where?”

                  Here is the full story: On May 27, 1942, Reinhard Heydrich was fatally wounded by two Czech resistance fighters who had parachuted into German-occupied Bohemia from Great Britain where they were trained. Even before Heydrich died 8 days later, Odilo Globocnik began preparations for Aktion Reinhard, which was the plan to send Jews to their deaths at Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor, according to Martin Gilbert’s book “The Holocaust.” A fourth extermination camp had already opened at Chelmno in what is now western Poland, and the first Jews were gassed in mobile vans on December 8, 1941, according to the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland.

                  There were no “selections” made at the three Operation Reinhard camps, nor at the Chelmno camp. All the Jews who were sent to these camps, with the exception of a few who escaped, were allegedly killed immediately in gas chambers. There were no records kept of their deaths.

                  Treblinka and the other two Operation Reinhard camps, Sobibor and Belzec, were all located near the Bug river which formed the eastern border of German-occupied Poland.

                  The Bug river is very shallow at Treblinka; it is what people from Missouri would call a “crick” or creek, compared to the Missouri and the Mississippi rivers. It is shallow enough to wade across in the Summer time, or to walk across when it is frozen in the Winter.

                  The territory on the other side of the Bug river was White Russia (Belarus) and the section of Poland that was given to the Soviet Union after the joint conquest of Poland by the Germans and the Soviet Union in September 1939.

                  This part of Poland had formerly been occupied by the Russians between 1772 and 1917; between 1835 and 1917, this area was included in the Pale of Settlement, a huge reservation where the Eastern European Jews were forced to live.

                  The tiny village of Treblinka is located on the railroad line running from Ostrów Mazowiecki to Siedlce; a short distance from Treblinka, at Malkinia Junction, this line intersects the major railway line which runs from Warsaw, east to Bialystok. Trains can reverse directions at the Junction and return to Warsaw, or turn south towards Lublin, which was the headquarters for Operation Reinhard. A few Jews from Warsaw were sent to the Majdanek death camp in Lublin on trains that turned south at the Malkinia Junction.

                  When railroad lines were built in the 19th century, the width of the tracks was standardized in America and western Europe, but the tracks in Russia and eastern Poland were a different gauge. Bialystok is the end of the line in Poland; this is as far east as trains can go without changing the wheels on the rail cars. Treblinka is located only a short distance west of Bialystok.

                  In June 1941, the German Army invaded the Soviet Union and “liberated” the area formerly known as the Pale of Settlement. By the time that the Aktion Reinhard camps were set up in 1942, German troops had advanced a thousand kilometers into Russia. Allegedly the plan was to transport the Jews as far as the Bug river and kill them in gas chambers, then claim that they had been “transported to the East.”

                  In 1942, the Germans built a new railroad spur line from the Malkinia Junction into the Treblinka extermination camp. When a train, 60 cars long, arrived at the junction, the cars were uncoupled and 20 cars at a time were backed into the camp. Today, a stone sculpture shows the location of the train tracks that brought the Jews into the Treblinka death camp.

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 13, 2016 @ 12:12 pm

                • “There were no “selections” made at the three Operation Reinhard camps, nor at the Chelmno camp. All the Jews who were sent to these camps, with the exception of a few who escaped, were allegedly killed immediately in gas chambers. There were no records kept of their deaths.”

                  Selections were actually made at these camps for workers who would collect and sort personal items, do maintenance at the camp, pull the bodies out of the gas chambers and bury them and other tasks designated by the SS, for example, certain gold smiths did ornamental work.
                  What you say about escapes is true for Chelmno and Belzec, however, the Jewish workers revolted at Treblinka and Sobibor and some escaped this way. Perhaps 80 workers from both camps survived the war.
                  Thank for the information about the train systems but it did not answer my question. If these camps were transit camps this means these Jews were shipped somewhere. Where were they shipped and where is the proof of where these Jews were sent?

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 13, 2016 @ 12:23 pm

                • edit: “their own war effort” instead of “their own effort”

                  Comment by hermie — February 13, 2016 @ 9:17 am

                • Going around in circles. Boring…

                  Paul Blobel erased all traces of those camps. Happy now? Meets your usual evidential standards…

                  The burden of proof is not on me. I don’t have to document those special concentration camps (assuming the Soviets were stupid enough to leave a paper trail about that). The Holohoaxsters never documented the alleged death camps, conveniently hiding behind the baseless claim that the Nazis destroyed any evidence of mass murder there. I fail to see why I should do something the entire academia never achieved in 7 decades.

                  Comment by hermie — February 13, 2016 @ 5:23 pm

                • “Going around in circles. Boring…”

                  You can end this by conceding you are wrong.
                  Which you are.

                  “Paul Blobel erased all traces of those camps. Happy now? Meets your usual evidential standards…”

                  Please provide proof that Blobel was involved in erasing all traces of these “camps.”
                  I’m simply holding you to the evidentiary standards deniers insist on.
                  I’ll even accept eyewitness statements from SS men. Certainly you can provide those?

                  “The burden of proof is not on me.”

                  Yes, it is. You have a theory that the SS set up camps in the Soviet Union as collection points for European Jews to be sent on to remote areas of the Soviet Union.
                  Surely there is some type evidence you are working with? Something I don’t know about? Some research dug up by some revisionist scholar, a paper trail discovered by Kues? Or Mattagono?

                  “I don’t have to document these
                  concentration camps (assuming the Soviets were stupid enough to leave a paper trail about that).
                  The Holohoaxsters never documented the alleged death camps, conveniently hiding behind the baseless claim that the Nazis destroyed any evidence of mass murder there. I fail to see why I should do something the entire academia never achieved in 7 decades.”

                  They were documented. The problem is deniers don’t accept the documentation, claiming forgery, torture, intimidated witnesses, etc. and so on.
                  No slip ups on these alleged camps? No transfer slips, delivery of coal or food, bill of sale?
                  No?
                  Nothing?
                  Nada?
                  I think someone needs a puppy.

                  On a lighter note, if you haven’t seen it yet I highly recommend the movie “Deadpool.”
                  It’s awesome.

                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 13, 2016 @ 7:58 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “You can end this by conceding you are wrong. Which you are.”

                  I think I’ll rather end this by having a good laugh at your funny twofold evidential standards (Had you requested the same evidence for the alleged Nazi killing facilities as the ones you’ve just requested for Rudenko’s special concentration camps, you would surely be a ‘Holocaust denier’ today.) and your rejection of the Soviet claims.😉

                  Jeff wrote: “Please provide proof that Blobel was involved in erasing all traces of these “camps.””

                  That was just a joke, Jeff.

                  It seems I’m not exempted to provide you with real evidence for these camps. Why are Holohoaxsters the only ones allowed to play the Blobel card, the so convenient ‘no evidence’ joker?

                  Jeff wrote: “I’m simply holding you to the evidentiary standards deniers insist on.”

                  Welcome to the wonderful world of real history and research, Jeff.😉

                  All you need now is to hold yourself to such standards, and you’ll perhaps become a real historian worth the name.

                  Jeff wrote: “Yes, it is. You have a theory that the SS set up camps in the Soviet Union as collection points for European Jews to be sent on to remote areas of the Soviet Union.”

                  The Holohoaxsters didn’t bother to prove millions of Jews died in the Reinhardt camps. So I don’t have to prove many of those Jews survived somewhere else (assuming such a thing is even possible). If somebody is charged with murder, he doesn’t have to prove that person is still alive. But his accusers have to prove that person is dead and was indeed murdered by myself. That’s how normal justice works.

                  Jeff wrote: “They were documented. The problem is deniers don’t accept the documentation, claiming forgery, torture, intimidated witnesses, etc. and so on.”

                  Ufology-like testimonial ‘evidence’ is no real evidence. (As already conceded by yourself previously.) The alleged Nazi killing facilities are as documented as Rudenko’s special concentration camps. Try to remain consistent. If the words told by Rudenko, Buehler and others prove nothing (what I also think), the words told by witnesses about the alleged Nazi killing facilities prove nothing either.

                  Jeff wrote: “No slip ups on these alleged camps? No transfer slips, delivery of coal or food, bill of sale? No? Nothing? Nada?”

                  Documents not remaining or not yet found don’t prove such documents didn’t exist at some point or don’t exist today in some archives. Or will you tell me that only the Nazis were able to make fire and burn papers???

                  Jeff wrote: “On a lighter note, if you haven’t seen it yet I highly recommend the movie “Deadpool.” It’s awesome.”

                  Good to know. Thanks for your advice. I’ll watch it.

                  Comment by hermie — February 14, 2016 @ 8:20 am

                • Jeff wrote: “You can end this by conceding you are wrong. Which you are.”

                  “I think I’ll rather end this by having a good laugh at your funny twofold evidential standards (Had you requested the same evidence for the alleged Nazi killing facilities as the ones you’ve just requested for Rudenko’s special concentration camps, you would surely be a ‘Holocaust denier’ today.) and your rejection of the Soviet claims. ;-)”

                  I don’t have a “twofold evidentiary” standard. 70 years of research by real historians and researchers have confirmed the Holocaust. Your inability to prove your theory proves that “revisionism” is a house of cards that is blown away when asked to actually provide evidence.
                  If you can’t tell me what actually happened to all of those vanished Jews and prove it than you don’t have a leg to stand on.

                  Jeff wrote: “Please provide proof that Blobel was involved in erasing all traces of these “camps.””

                  “That was just a joke, Jeff.”

                  I know. It was funny. But it still doesn’t prove your point.

                  “It seems I’m not exempted to provide you with real evidence for these camps. Why are Holohoaxsters the only ones allowed to play the Blobel card, the so convenient ‘no evidence’ joker?”

                  Because I have Blobel’s statements and other information that proves Blobel was involved in covering up evidence. You don’t.

                  Jeff wrote: “I’m simply holding you to the evidentiary standards deniers insist on.”

                  “Welcome to the wonderful world of real history and research, Jeff. ;-)”

                  I’m well acquainted with it. I’ve studied history for about 30 years now.

                  “All you need now is to hold yourself to such standards, and you’ll perhaps become a real historian worth the name.”

                  I wish. However, I already have a career, it will simply have to remain a hobby.

                  Jeff wrote: “Yes, it is. You have a theory that the SS set up camps in the Soviet Union as collection points for European Jews to be sent on to remote areas of the Soviet Union.”

                  “The Holohoaxsters didn’t bother to prove millions of Jews died in the Reinhardt camps. So I don’t have to prove many of those Jews survived somewhere else (assuming such a thing is even possible). If somebody is charged with murder, he doesn’t have to prove that person is still alive. But his accusers have to prove that person is dead and was indeed murdered by myself. That’s how normal justice works.”

                  It’s been proved. Over and over again. The problem with your “theory” is that nothing backs it up. You can’t build imaginary camps, Hermie. You have to prove they existed somehow.

                  Jeff wrote: “They were documented. The problem is deniers don’t accept the documentation, claiming forgery, torture, intimidated witnesses, etc. and so on.”

                  “Ufology-like testimonial ‘evidence’ is no real evidence. (As already conceded by yourself previously.)”

                  The infamous Hermie duck!!!!!!!!!!!!
                  When eyewitness testimony is backed by other evidence it works.

                  “The alleged Nazi killing facilities are as documented as Rudenko’s special concentration camps. Try to remain consistent. If the words told by Rudenko, Buehler and others prove nothing (what I also think), the words told by witnesses about the alleged Nazi killing facilities prove nothing either.”

                  Words.
                  You still have nothing to back them up.

                  Jeff wrote: “No slip ups on these alleged camps? No transfer slips, delivery of coal or food, bill of sale? No? Nothing? Nada?”

                  “Documents not remaining or not yet found don’t prove such documents didn’t exist at some point or don’t exist today in some archives. Or will you tell me that only the Nazis were able to make fire and burn papers???”

                  Nothing ever completely disappears. But you can’t build your “theory” on something you are not sure that exists.

                  Jeff wrote: “On a lighter note, if you haven’t seen it yet I highly recommend the movie “Deadpool.” It’s awesome.”

                  Good to know. Thanks for your advice. I’ll watch it.

                  Let me know what you think about it.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 14, 2016 @ 8:56 am

                • Jeff wrote: ” 70 years of research by real historians and researchers have confirmed the Holocaust.”

                  Academic storytellers ‘proving’ things with testimonial ‘evidence’ remain mere well-paid storytellers compiling unproven fables, whether you like it or not.

                  Jeff wrote: ” Your inability to prove your theory proves that “revisionism” is a house of cards that is blown away when asked to actually provide evidence.”

                  I’ve never claimed those camps were proven. I’ve only opened a new research path when you alleged that there was no room for millions of Jews in Eastern Europe during WW2. I think I have disproved your allegation. Explaining and proving if such room was actually used for that or not, how it was used, to what extent it was used, etc. is still to be done.

                  Jeff wrote: “If you can’t tell me what actually happened to all of those vanished Jews and prove it than you don’t have a leg to stand on.”

                  I’m still waiting for solid & reliable evidence that those Jews actually vanished to begin with.

                  Jeff wrote: “Because I have Blobel’s statements and other information that proves Blobel was involved in covering up evidence. You don’t.”

                  And you also have Rudenko’s, Buehler’s and others’ statements about special concentration camps in Far Eastern Europe. But as you have so rightly said, their statements prove nothing, just like any other statement, including Blobel’s one of course.

                  Jeff wrote: “The problem with your “theory” is that nothing backs it up. You can’t build imaginary camps, Hermie. You have to prove they existed somehow.”

                  Nothing but testimonial ‘evidence’. I.e. nothing reliable, serious and probative, you’re right.😉

                  Jeff wrote: “When eyewitness testimony is backed by other evidence it works.”

                  What other evidence? Additional testimonies???

                  There exist tons of testimonies about alien abductions e.g., all more or less corroborating each others. But you won’t tell me nevertheless that superior aliens actually travelled thousands of lightyears only to examine human anuses as witnesses claim.

                  Jeff wrote: “Nothing ever completely disappears.”

                  Indeed. But one has to concede that a few wooden barracks and fences surely left much fewer traces than the [alleged] remains of millions of dead bodies at some precise locations.

                  Jeff wrote: “But you can’t build your “theory” on something you are not sure that exists.”

                  The victors of WW2 and the Zionists of the 1940’s had built their theory of Nazi giant murder facilities long before they were sure millions of Jews had actually vanished and even long before they could have checked that in a serious way.

                  Jeff wrote: “Let me know what you think about it.”

                  I will.

                  Comment by hermie — February 14, 2016 @ 9:56 am

                • Jeff wrote: ” 70 years of research by real historians and researchers have confirmed the Holocaust.”

                  “Academic storytellers ‘proving’ things with testimonial ‘evidence’ remain mere well-paid storytellers compiling unproven fables, whether you like it or not.”

                  So are revisionist “scholars.” They tell their stories and can’t prove them. Throwing up silly “theories” and then daring people to disprove them is ridiculous. It’s your job to prove what you say is true. That goes for other “revisionists.”

                  Jeff wrote: ” Your inability to prove your theory proves that “revisionism” is a house of cards that is blown away when asked to actually provide evidence.”

                  “I’ve never claimed those camps were proven. I’ve only opened a new research path when you alleged that there was no room for millions of Jews in Eastern Europe during WW2. I think I have disproved your allegation.”

                  Nope. You simply said there were camps but you can’t explain where they were, who was in them, how they were supplied.

                  “Explaining and proving if such room was actually used for that or not, how it was used, to what extent it was used, etc. is still to be done.”

                  Ok. You let me know how that goes.

                  Jeff wrote: “If you can’t tell me what actually happened to all of those vanished Jews and prove it than you don’t have a leg to stand on.”

                  “I’m still waiting for solid & reliable evidence that those Jews actually vanished to begin with.”

                  Something happened to them. I know. You simply won’t admit what happened to them.
                  But, you and the other deniers can’t provide any other reasonable explanation.

                  Jeff wrote: “Because I have Blobel’s statements and other information that proves Blobel was involved in covering up evidence. You don’t.”

                  “And you also have Rudenko’s, Buehler’s and others’ statements about special concentration camps in Far Eastern Europe. But as you have so rightly said, their statements prove nothing, just like any other statement, including Blobel’s one of course.”

                  Well, we can agree on that one.

                  Jeff wrote: “The problem with your “theory” is that nothing backs it up. You can’t build imaginary camps, Hermie. You have to prove they existed somehow.”

                  Nothing but testimonial ‘evidence’. I.e. nothing reliable, serious and probative, you’re right.😉

                  Jeff wrote: “When eyewitness testimony is backed by other evidence it works.”

                  What other evidence? Additional testimonies???

                  Blah, blah, blah.

                  “There exist tons of testimonies about alien abductions e.g., all more or less corroborating each others. But you won’t tell me nevertheless that superior aliens actually travelled thousands of lightyears only to examine human anuses as witnesses claim.”

                  Maybe aliens have an ass fetish.

                  At least you switched it up, no witches or elves.

                  Jeff wrote: “Nothing ever completely disappears.”

                  “Indeed. But one has to concede that a few wooden barracks and fences surely left much fewer traces than the [alleged] remains of millions of dead bodies at some precise locations.”

                  Very well.
                  I’m still waiting for you to provide proof of these buildings. And it would be more than a few buildings.

                  Jeff wrote: “But you can’t build your “theory” on something you are not sure that exists.”

                  “The victors of WW2 and the Zionists of the 1940’s had built their theory of Nazi giant murder facilities long before they were sure millions of Jews had actually vanished and even long before they could have checked that in a serious way.”

                  I knew you would work in Zionists some how.

                  Jeff wrote: “Let me know what you think about it.”

                  I will.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 14, 2016 @ 1:46 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Throwing up silly “theories” and then daring people to disprove them is ridiculous.”

                  It is. Indeed. Proving a negative is almost impossible. And that’s what Holohoaxsters have nevertheless been requesting from Holocaust revisionists for 7 decades now. The victors of WW2 came at Nuremberg in 1945 and decreed that they were not “bound by technical rules of evidence” and that they didn’t have to “require proof of facts of common knowledge” (i.e. proof of their own propaganda) from the very beginning (articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter of August 8, 1945). The Nuremberg accusers decreed at the outset that the Nazis were guilty of mass murder against Europe’s Jewry and that the Nazis on trial were the ones having to prove their own innocence (as well as the innocence of their dead leaders & fellows), what they couldn’t have done anyway (assumig such a thing was possible) because the Nuremberg accusers had also decreed that they were free to discard any document or other kind of evidence inconvenient (‘irrelevant’, as they put it) for their own thesis, while they had stipulated that they were free to “admit any evidence which [they] deem[ed] to be of probative value” (the victors’ ‘relevant’ proofs of any kind, i.e. anything supporting their thesis). These rigged rules and this reverse burden of proof remained in force since the Nuremberg mock trials.

                  This realization and admission on your part were worth the long debate above…

                  Jeff wrote: “I knew you would work in Zionists some how.”

                  If you knew how and from where the ‘Holocaust’ came up during WW2, you wouldn’t be surprised by my claim. Or perhaps you know it and that’s the reason why you prefer that the Zionists not be mentioned in ‘Holocaust’ debates.

                  Comment by hermie — February 15, 2016 @ 7:17 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Throwing up silly “theories” and then daring people to disprove them is ridiculous.”

                  “It is. Indeed. Proving a negative is almost impossible. And that’s what Holohoaxsters have nevertheless been requesting from Holocaust revisionists for 7 decades now.”

                  Huh?
                  If you deny that something occurred then it is up to YOU to prove it, not my responsibility. So if in 70 years revisionists haven’t proved their various hypothesis on what did or didn’t happen to the Jews during WW II then I would say it is all bunk, which it is.

                  “The victors of WW2 came at Nuremberg in 1945 and decreed that they were not “bound by technical rules of evidence” and that they didn’t have to “require proof of facts of common knowledge” (i.e. proof of their own propaganda) from the very beginning (articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter of August 8, 1945). The Nuremberg accusers decreed at the outset that the Nazis were guilty of mass murder against Europe’s Jewry and that the Nazis on trial were the ones having to prove their own innocence (as well as the innocence of their dead leaders & fellows), what they couldn’t have done anyway (assumig such a thing was possible) because the Nuremberg accusers had also decreed that they were free to discard any document or other kind of evidence inconvenient (‘irrelevant’, as they put it) for their own thesis, while they had stipulated that they were free to “admit any evidence which [they] deem[ed] to be of probative value” (the victors’ ‘relevant’ proofs of any kind, i.e. anything supporting their thesis). These rigged rules and this reverse burden of proof remained in force since the Nuremberg mock trials.”

                  Ok. Fine. I won’t dispute any of the above because a lot of it was true.
                  My problem with the IMT is that it happened too soon after the war, it was rushed while researchers and investigators were still sifting through documents, speeches, testimony, etc.
                  Better to have taken the time to do it right, preferably 2-3 years.
                  I do notice that you and other deniers only focus on the IMT. There were other trials.

                  “This realization and admission on your part were worth the long debate above…”

                  What admission? That I pointed out that “revisionists” haven’t proved their various theories on what happened to the Jews?

                  Jeff wrote: “I knew you would work in Zionists some how.”

                  “If you knew how and from where the ‘Holocaust’ came up during WW2, you wouldn’t be surprised by my claim.”

                  What about your claim? Somehow that Zionists managed to trick/persuade/coerce the governments to go along with the claim that Jews died during the war in order to force the creation of a small middle Eastern nation?
                  It took them long enough. The state of Isreal was not formed until 1948.

                  “Or perhaps you know it and that’s the reason why you prefer that the Zionists not be mentioned in ‘Holocaust’ debates.”

                  Know what?
                  I simply don’t understand why you overrate their influence so much.
                  If the Zionists had so much power than why did it take them so long to get what they want?

                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 15, 2016 @ 8:22 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Huh? If you deny that something occurred then it is up to YOU to prove it, not my responsibility.”

                  Where? In North Korean courts?

                  If I claim you raped 50 girls, YOU don’t have to prove you didn’t. (How could you anyway?) I have to prove you did. Obvious…

                  Jeff wrote: “I do notice that you and other deniers only focus on the IMT. There were other trials.”

                  All the subsequent trials set the conclusions of the IMT as a undisputable basic premise. So those ‘trials’ always take you back to Nuremberg anyway.

                  Jeff wrote: “What admission? That I pointed out that “revisionists” haven’t proved their various theories on what happened to the Jews?”

                  No. The admission that “throwing up silly theories and then daring people to disprove them is ridiculous.”

                  If you can’t see the parallel between this and the Holohoax, the victors of WW2 & the IMT, there’s nothing I can do to help you.

                  Jeff wrote: ” Somehow that Zionists managed to trick/persuade/coerce the governments to go along with the claim that Jews died during the war in order to force the creation of a small middle Eastern nation?”

                  No need to trick, persuade or coerce them. On the contrary, kilometers of rope and gag would have been needed to prevent the Allied propagandists from brazenly lying about their German enemies during WW2. Atrocity propaganda is just the way Uncle Sam and Perfidious Albion fight wars. The Holohoax or something else, whatever. Anything was/is good as long as it shows the sheeple that the other side is evil. The Allied atrocity propaganda of WW1 had nothing to envy to the Holohoax.

                  Jeff wrote: ” I simply don’t understand why you overrate their influence so much. If the Zionists had so much power than why did it take them so long to get what they want?”

                  – Because not as many Jews as expected/hoped [by Zionists] were very excited about the perspective of growing orange trees in a semi-desert.
                  – Because a number of Jews even objected Zionism very strongly. Quite few American and British Jews wanted to be single out as Jews, as members of a distinct race, as advocated and propagandized by Zionists. Assimilationism gave Zionism a hard time for a while in America and Britain. Some wealthy Jews used their influence to hamper the Zionist movement in their country.
                  – Because Britain had its own interests. Unnecessarily alienating hundreds of millions of Muslims (including many ones within the British Empire) against yourself is not such a great idea if you plan to keep your world empire alive and perhaps even growing. Many Muslims throughout the world displayed anger against the Jewish colonization of their fellow Muslims’ lands in Palestine.
                  – Because the people already living in Palestine violently opposed the Jewish mass immigration there and the Zionist colonization of their lands, what compelled Britain to backpedal and slow down the Zionist seizure of Palestine on several occasions. What happened next vastly demonstrated how right the Palestinian Arabs were to fear Zionism.
                  -Because Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the moderate Zionists, in favor of a slow, step by step, construction of the Jewish state in Palestine, led the Zionist movement for decades and was able to check the impatient extremist Zionists for a long while, as long as Zionism didn’t suffer a major defeat/setback or another. Weizmann was sacked after the British ‘Passfield White Paper’ of October 1930 and he was compelled to yield to the requirements of radical Zionists such as Stephen Wise and Jabotinsky’s guys after the British ‘MacDonald White Paper’ of May 1939. He was sacked again after WW2, when it became clear that Palestine wouldn’t be given to the Zionists as fast and easily as anticipated. Up to May 1939, Weizmann hadn’t envisaged that time could have played against the Zionists, and that the British, exasperated by their unworkable Palestine mandate, might have closed the door of Palestine in the face of the Jews and even turn their back on Zionism (by finally planning the establisment of an Arab-dominated state of Palestine and no Jewish state at all by March 1949 at the latest).
                  – Because the world had changed and public opinion wouldn’t have tolerated an ethnic cleansing and a territorial eviction as brutal as the one that had taken place with the ‘Indians’ in America during the 19th century.

                  Comment by hermie — February 15, 2016 @ 7:55 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Huh? If you deny that something occurred then it is up to YOU to prove it, not my responsibility.”

                  “Where? In North Korean courts?

                  If I claim you raped 50 girls, YOU don’t have to prove you didn’t. (How could you anyway?) I have to prove you did. Obvious…”

                  Uh, no.
                  Revisionists claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
                  Fine.
                  Prove it, real proof, what happened to the Jews during the war. If you say the Germans incarcerated the Jews in the Soviet Union you need to prove it.

                  Jeff wrote: “I do notice that you and other deniers only focus on the IMT. There were other trials.”

                  “All the subsequent trials set the conclusions of the IMT as a undisputable basic premise. So those ‘trials’ always take you back to Nuremberg anyway.”

                  No, they did not.
                  Not all of those trials led to convictions. Not all of those trials led to death sentences.

                  Jeff wrote: “What admission? That I pointed out that “revisionists” haven’t proved their various theories on what happened to the Jews?”

                  “No. The admission that “throwing up silly theories and then daring people to disprove them is ridiculous.”

                  If you can’t see the parallel between this and the Holohoax, the victors of WW2 & the IMT, there’s nothing I can do to help you.”

                  No. What I’m saying is if there is honest proof of some goofy conspiracy or that the Germans stuck the Jews in some camps in the Soviet Union prove it, don’t make suppositions you can’t prove.

                  Jeff wrote: ” Somehow that Zionists managed to trick/persuade/coerce the governments to go along with the claim that Jews died during the war in order to force the creation of a small middle Eastern nation?”

                  “No need to trick, persuade or coerce them. On the contrary, kilometers of rope and gag would have been needed to prevent the Allied propagandists from brazenly lying about their German enemies during WW2. Atrocity propaganda is just the way Uncle Sam and Perfidious Albion fight wars. The Holohoax or something else, whatever. Anything was/is good as long as it shows the sheeple that the other side is evil. The Allied atrocity propaganda of WW1 had nothing to envy to the Holohoax.”

                  What, and the Germans didn’t use atrocity propaganda to stir up German opinion against the Czechs?
                  Or the Poles? Jews? Soviet citizens?
                  Wait, you thought that crap was real?
                  You and Rizoli must take the same medication.

                  Jeff wrote: ” I simply don’t understand why you overrate their influence so much. If the Zionists had so much power than why did it take them so long to get what they want?”

                  “– Because not as many Jews as expected/hoped [by Zionists] were very excited about the perspective of growing orange trees in a semi-desert.”

                  Can’t blame them for that.
                  So, a better idea was to start a world war?
                  Yes, that makes a crapload of sense.

                  “– Because a number of Jews even objected Zionism very strongly. Quite few American and British Jews wanted to be single out as Jews, as members of a distinct race, as advocated and propagandized by Zionists. Assimilationism gave Zionism a hard time for a while in America and Britain. Some wealthy Jews used their influence to hamper the Zionist movement in their country.”

                  That actually makes sense.
                  That still does not mean these crazed Zionist managed to start a world war. Not to create some middling country in the Middle East.

                  “– Because Britain had its own interests. Unnecessarily alienating hundreds of millions of Muslims (including many ones within the British Empire) against yourself is not such a great idea if you plan to keep your world empire alive and perhaps even growing. Many Muslims throughout the world displayed anger against the Jewish colonization of their fellow Muslims’ lands in Palestine.”

                  This is also true, historically British Empire foreign policy was was pro-Muslim.

                  “– Because the people already living in Palestine violently opposed the Jewish mass immigration there and the Zionist colonization of their lands, what compelled Britain to backpedal and slow down the Zionist seizure of Palestine on several occasions. What happened next vastly demonstrated how right the Palestinian Arabs were to fear Zionism.”

                  Can’t fault that, either.

                  “-Because Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the moderate Zionists, in favor of a slow, step by step, construction of the Jewish state in Palestine, led the Zionist movement for decades and was able to check the impatient extremist Zionists for a long while, as long as Zionism didn’t suffer a major defeat/setback or another. Weizmann was sacked after the British ‘Passfield White Paper’ of October 1930 and he was compelled to yield to the requirements of radical Zionists such as Stephen Wise and Jabotinsky’s guys after the British ‘MacDonald White Paper’ of May 1939. He was sacked again after WW2, when it became clear that Palestine wouldn’t be given to the Zionists as fast and easily as anticipated. Up to May 1939, Weizmann hadn’t envisaged that time could have played against the Zionists, and that the British, exasperated by their unworkable Palestine mandate, might have closed the door of Palestine in the face of the Jews and even turn their back on Zionism (by finally planning the establisment of an Arab-dominated state of Palestine and no Jewish state at all by March 1949 at the latest).”

                  Fine argument.

                  “– Because the world had changed and public opinion wouldn’t have tolerated an ethnic cleansing and a territorial eviction as brutal as the one that had taken place with the ‘Indians’ in America during the 19th century.”

                  I have to say, the above was an excellent argument.

                  Now, please provide proof how this conspiracy actually worked. I need names, dates, documented proof, if/when money changed hands, etc.

                  I look forward to your reply.

                  Jeff.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 15, 2016 @ 8:34 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Uh, no. Revisionists claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Fine. Prove it, real proof, what happened to the Jews during the war.”

                  You didn’t rape 50 girls? Fine. Prove it. You can’t? No surprise. This is a Holohoax-like reverse burden of proof.

                  Jeff wrote: “If you say the Germans incarcerated the Jews in the Soviet Union you need to prove it.”

                  Of course, this needs to be proved before becoming a fact. But nothing forbids me to speculate and offer explanations according to this theory nevertheless. This is how science works: some researchers formulate theories and some researchers design experiments and/or perform investigations on site to test those theories.

                  Jeff wrote: “No, they did not. Not all of those trials led to convictions. Not all of those trials led to death sentences.”

                  I didn’t say that the post-IMT ‘trials’ leds to the same convictions as the IMT’s ones. (By the way, note that the IMT didn’t lead to 100% of death sentences either.) I said that the conclusions of the IMT were the basic premise of those ‘trials’, i.e. that the ‘Holocaust’.was not debatable and deniable during the ‘trials’ of the 1960’s and 1970’s. The Big H had become a state ‘truth’ and denying it was as useless and risky as denying a charge of witchcraft in ‘trials’ of the past on the basis of the non-existence of God and the Devil. The existence of God, the Devil and witchcraft was the indisputable basic premise of those ‘trials’. Denying the existence of God, the Devil and witchcraft would have sent the author of such a denial at the stake in the minute.

                  Jeff wrote: “What, and the Germans didn’t use atrocity propaganda to stir up German opinion against the Czechs? Or the Poles? Jews? Soviet citizens? Wait, you thought that crap was real?”

                  Yes, I did and I still do. Are you claiming that the German minority of Czechoslovakia wasn’t persecuted and discriminated against before the Munich conference? Note that the main German accusation against Czechoslovakia before the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia was the presence of Soviet aircrafts there. Not really a thing that I would call ‘atrocity propaganda’.

                  Jeff wrote: “Can’t blame them for that. So, a better idea was to start a world war? Yes, that makes a crapload of sense.”

                  We’re not talking about the Zionist involvement or non-involvement in the outbreak of WW2. You asked me why 5 decades elapsed between the first World Zionist Congress and the establishment of the state of Israel and I explained to you why.

                  Jeff wrote: “This is also true, historically British Empire foreign policy was was pro-Muslim.”

                  While Britain wasn’t pro-Jewish???😮

                  Britain’s alleged pro-Muslim policies was/is mainly Zionist propaganda. Roughly, Britain not giving Palestine to the Zionists (i.e. Britain not dispossessing Palestine locals) as fast and fully as requested was/is labelled as anti-Semitism and pro-Muslim policies by Zionist propagandists. During the final months of WW2 and the following years, some Zionist propagandists even went as far as to claim that Britain was a ‘Holocaust’ co-perpetrator because Britain’s wartime immigration policy in Palestine had condemned hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews to death in gas chambers, they said.

                  Jeff wrote: “Now, please provide proof how this conspiracy actually worked. I need names, dates, documented proof, if/when money changed hands, etc.”

                  You mean the conspiracy to get the state of Israel with the Holohoax? I’m asking this because I don’t want to waste time answering something else than what is asked.

                  Comment by hermie — February 16, 2016 @ 5:12 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Uh, no. Revisionists claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen. Fine. Prove it, real proof, what happened to the Jews during the war.”

                  “You didn’t rape 50 girls? Fine. Prove it. You can’t? No surprise. This is a Holohoax-like reverse burden of proof.

                  Sure I can prove that I didn’t rape 50 girls.
                  Let me know when this allegedly happened, I’ll prove my innocence.

                  Jeff wrote: “If you say the Germans incarcerated the Jews in the Soviet Union you need to prove it.”

                  “Of course, this needs to be proved before becoming a fact. But nothing forbids me to speculate and offer explanations according to this theory nevertheless.”

                  Sure, but has to be based on some sort of reality. What you propose is not based upon reality. If you want me to consider what you are saying is true there has to be based on some sort of reality.

                  “This is how science works: some researchers formulate theories and some researchers design experiments and/or perform investigations on site to test those theories.”

                  Again, I understand that.
                  But eventually you, or someone like you, has to provide evidence.
                  Otherwise it’s just a fairy tale.

                  Jeff wrote: “No, they did not. Not all of those trials led to convictions. Not all of those trials led to death sentences.”

                  “I didn’t say that the post-IMT ‘trials’ leds to the same convictions as the IMT’s ones. (By the way, note that the IMT didn’t lead to 100% of death sentences either.)”

                  Really? Because the way that some deniers talk it seems like the IMT whacked everybody. Nice to see you are grounded in some sort of reality. Maybe you should let Rizoli know that not everybody died, he doesn’t believe me.

                  “I said that the conclusions of the IMT were the basic premise of those ‘trials’, i.e. that the ‘Holocaust’.was not debatable and deniable during the ‘trials’ of the 1960’s and 1970’s.”

                  Never mind that some of those trials led to acquittals.

                  “The Big H had become a state ‘truth’ and denying it was as useless and risky as denying a charge of witchcraft in ‘trials’ of the past on the basis of the non-existence of God and the Devil. The existence of God, the Devil and witchcraft was the indisputable basic premise of those ‘trials’.”

                  Sorry, that makes no sense.

                  “Denying the existence of God, the Devil and witchcraft would have sent the author of such a denial at the stake in the minute.”

                  Oh, crap, you just used the word “witchcraft.”

                  Jeff wrote: “What, and the Germans didn’t use atrocity propaganda to stir up German opinion against the Czechs? Or the Poles? Jews? Soviet citizens? Wait, you thought that crap was real?”

                  “Yes, I did and I still do. Are you claiming that the German minority of Czechoslovakia wasn’t persecuted and discriminated against before the Munich conference?”

                  Sure, the German minority was persecuted….but it was of the petty, annoying type, not mass castrations and baby murder. Certainly not worth the risk of war.
                  The German minority was certainly better treated than a lot of minorities elsewhere.

                  “Note that the main German accusation against Czechoslovakia before the establishment of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia was the presence of Soviet aircrafts there. Not really a thing that I would call ‘atrocity propaganda’.”

                  What does that have to do with the treatment of the German minority?
                  Oh, I’m not you, I don’t slavishly believe Nazi propaganda so if you honestly want me to believe the Soviets were basing aircraft in Czecho-Slovakia you’ll have to provide proof. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m saying I need proof.

                  Jeff wrote: “Can’t blame them for that. So, a better idea was to start a world war? Yes, that makes a crapload of sense.”

                  “We’re not talking about the Zionist involvement or non-involvement in the outbreak of WW2. You asked me why 5 decades elapsed between the first World Zionist Congress and the establishment of the state of Israel and I explained to you why.”

                  Duly noted. I was actually talking about from the end of WW II to 1948. You would think everyone would have handed Isreal over to the Jews right after the war of that was the whole point.

                  Jeff wrote: “This is also true, historically British Empire foreign policy was was pro-Muslim.”

                  “While Britain wasn’t pro-Jewish??? :-o”

                  “Britain’s alleged pro-Muslim policies was/is mainly Zionist propaganda. Roughly, Britain not giving Palestine to the Zionists (i.e. Britain not dispossessing Palestine locals) as fast and fully as requested was/is labelled as anti-Semitism and pro-Muslim policies by Zionist propagandists. During the final months of WW2 and the following years, some Zionist propagandists even went as far as to claim that Britain was a ‘Holocaust’ co-perpetrator because Britain’s wartime immigration policy in Palestine had condemned hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews to death in gas chambers, they said.”

                  Uh huh.
                  Ok.
                  What???
                  So, Britain was pro-Jewish but wouldn’t give Palestine to the Jews?
                  If the British were pro-Jewish, wouldn’t they have given Palestine to the Jews, regardless of what the Muslims wanted?

                  Jeff wrote: “Now, please provide proof how this conspiracy actually worked. I need names, dates, documented proof, if/when money changed hands, etc.”

                  “You mean the conspiracy to get the state of Israel with the Holohoax? I’m asking this because I don’t want to waste time answering something else than what is asked.”

                  I’m probably going to regret this but yes, that is what I’m asking for.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 16, 2016 @ 7:49 am

                • You wrote: “Revisionists claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen.” This is an expression made up by Holohoaxers to make Revisionists look stupid. Of course, the Holocaust happened, but it didn’t happen the way that Holohoaxers claim.

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 16, 2016 @ 8:33 am

                • I am replying to my own comment to point out an old blog post, which is about the lies told by survivors: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/were-there-two-four-year-old-boys-at-buchenwald/

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 16, 2016 @ 9:13 am

                • “Most of the memoirs and reports of Holocaust survivors are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks…”

                  –Samuel Gringauz, “Jewish Social Studies” (New York), January 1950,
                  Vol. 12, p. 65

                  Comment by Diane King — February 16, 2016 @ 12:39 pm

                • “Most of the memoirs and reports of Holocaust survivors are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks…”

                  –Samuel Gringauz, “Jewish Social Studies” (New York), January 1950,
                  Vol. 12, p. 65

                  That’s nice.
                  I fail to see the significance on what I’ve been talking about, alleged camps in the USSR, but thank you for posting that again.

                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 16, 2016 @ 1:26 pm

                • “You wrote: “Revisionists claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen.” This is an expression made up by Holohoaxers to make Revisionist look stupid. Of course, the Holocaust happened, but it didn’t happen the way that Holohoaxers claim.”

                  I’ve always found the word “Holohoaxer” an interesting play on words.

                  So, which is it?
                  The Holocaust happened or it didn’t.
                  Sticking people in camps is not genocide. Sticking people in camps and allowing them to die is. If you toss in gas chambers and mass shootings people die quicker.
                  Granted, what happened at the end of the war was not genocide per se, though I will accept an argument that crowding people together in camps at a time when the country is collapsing around them and you can’t feed them is tantamount to genocide, especially if you’ve trucked many of those people in from Eastern Europe.
                  My argument with Hermie is that it is not possible to imagine a series of camps in the Soviet Union to hold Europe’s Jews under the conditions prevelant at the time. I will accept that the camps in the Soviet Union held Soviet Jews because it is easy to lock up local Jews. Much harder to imagine a situation where outside Jews were brought in from the Europe, local conditions could not support them.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 16, 2016 @ 9:49 am

                • You wrote: “So, which is it?
                  The Holocaust happened or it didn’t.
                  Sticking people in camps is not genocide. Sticking people in camps and allowing them to die is. If you toss in gas chambers and mass shootings people die quicker.”

                  Japanese-Americans were put into camps in America. Was this a “Holocaust”? No, because America was not invaded and there was no fighting in America during World War II. If Germany had invaded America in World War II, there might have been some deaths in the Japanese-American camps. I was a small child during World War II, and when I heard that Japanese-Americans had been put into camps, I was very glad.

                  I have talked to people in Germany, who lived through World War II. Every one of them said that they were glad that the Jews were put into camps, where they could not fight against Germany.

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 16, 2016 @ 10:31 am

                • “Japanese-Americans were put into camps in America. Was this a “Holocaust.”

                  I said sticking people in camps was not a “Holocaust.”

                  “No, because America was not invaded and there was no fighting in America during World War II. If Germany had invaded America in World War II, there might have been some deaths in the Japanese-American camps. I was a small child during World War II, and when I heard that Japanese-Americans had been put into camps, I was very glad.”

                  “Some deaths” is not a Holocaust.
                  I’m sure you were glad as a child.
                  There is nothing wrong about the way you felt.
                  However, comparing US internment camps with concentration or death camps is off base. While the Japanese suffered from racism and the camps were uncomfortable, it was nothing compared to the German concentration camp system, which was lethal on its own without the Holocaust.

                  “I have talked to people in Germany, who lived through World War II. Every one of them said that they were glad that the Jews were put into camps, where they could not fight against Germany.”

                  Good for them. That does not make it right, any more than interning the Japanese.
                  I understand the way they felt about German Jews but what does that have to do with Polish, Czech, French, Norwegian or Belgian Jews?
                  By the way, the US government paid reparations to the surviving Japanese in 1988. I never hear any complaints about that. I wonder why that is.

                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 16, 2016 @ 10:59 am

                • You wrote: “That does not make it right, any more than interning the Japanese.
                  I understand the way they felt about German Jews but what does that have to do with Polish, Czech, French, Norwegian or Belgian Jews?”

                  Germany put Jews into camps because of what happened in World War I. I wrote about this in this blog post:

                  https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/fox-news-reports-that-germany-is-celebrating-the-end-of-world-war-i/

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 16, 2016 @ 11:30 am

                • I read your previous post.
                  One thing stood out to me:

                  “Great Britain and France had borrowed money from American bankers to continue the war after Germany was clearly winning the war in 1916. If not for these loans, Germany would have won World War I. This was one of the reasons that Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany’s loss of World War I, since the bankers, who made the loans, were Jewish.”

                  How was Germany clearly winning the war?
                  What proof is there that the bankers were Jewish?

                  Many Jews served with distinction in the German Army. The German High Command secretly commissioned a study regarding the German Jews in uniform. What they found was that Jews were dying in the same proportion as Gentiles. This is pretty amazing considering there numbers were much lower.

                  Germany lost World War One for a variety of reasons. Jews were not one of them.

                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 16, 2016 @ 1:34 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Sure I can prove that I didn’t rape 50 girls. Let me know when this allegedly happened, I’ll prove my innocence.”

                  Collecting and bringing 50 alibis dating back several years ago won’t be an easy task. And being unable to prove you were somewhere else on some specific dates would be enough to have you convicted if the tribunal is eager to convict you and is not even bound to require some physical evidence of the charges against yourself.

                  Jeff wrote: “Never mind that some of those trials led to acquittals.”

                  What didn’t prevent those show ‘trials’ from fulfilling their purpose of ‘history’ makers. A few acquittals even increased their credibility and made them look like real fair trials.

                  Jeff wrote: “Sorry, that makes no sense.”

                  Do you really believe that the religious tribunals of ‘witch trials’ tolerated God denial (atheism)? They surely regarded that as heresy.

                  Jeff wrote: “What does that have to do with the treatment of the German minority? Oh, I’m not you, I don’t slavishly believe Nazi propaganda so if you honestly want me to believe the Soviets were basing aircraft in Czecho-Slovakia you’ll have to provide proof. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m saying I need proof.”

                  That was just to show that the resort to atrocity propaganda was more a democratic thing.

                  Jeff wrote: “Uh huh. Ok. What??? So, Britain was pro-Jewish but wouldn’t give Palestine to the Jews? If the British were pro-Jewish, wouldn’t they have given Palestine to the Jews, regardless of what the Muslims wanted?”

                  That (giving Palestine to the Jews) is what the Balfour declaration partly did, didn’t it? And Britain also had its share of anti-Zionist Jews, some of them highly influential, anyway. One could be pro-Jewish AND non-Zionist or even anti-Zionist. An nice example of a prominent anti-Zionist Jew in Britain was Lord Edwin Montagu. He once expressed his anti-Zionist feelings to British [pro-Zionist] PM David Lloyd George as follows: “All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto. You want to force me back there.” In May 1917, a committee representing the leading Jewish organizations in Britain, scared by the political advances of Zionism, published a statement saying: “the establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine founded on [the] theory of a Jewish homelessness, must have the effect of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands.” In short, there used to be a time when pro-Jewish didn’t necessarily mean pro-Zionist, when Zionism was regarded as a form of anti-Semitism or at least as something fueling it. Hard to believe today, when Zionism has completely prevailed over its foes and any opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel is massively depicted as anti-Semitism.

                  Jeff wrote: “I’m probably going to regret this but yes, that is what I’m asking for.”

                  It’s already late in here. I’m going to bed. I’ll address this one tomorrow.

                  Bye.

                  Comment by hermie — February 16, 2016 @ 9:05 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Sure I can prove that I didn’t rape 50 girls. Let me know when this allegedly happened, I’ll prove my innocence.”

                  “Collecting and bringing 50 alibis dating back several years ago won’t be an easy task. And being unable to prove you were somewhere else on some specific dates would be enough to have you convicted if the tribunal is eager to convict you and is not even bound to require some physical evidence of the charges against yourself.”

                  Not me. I go to work, home and the gym. I also go to the bookstore and to movies, which means I have receipts.
                  It’s kinda hard in this day and age to prevent oneself from being noticed…if one is innocent.

                  Jeff wrote: “Never mind that some of those trials led to acquittals.”

                  “What didn’t prevent those show ‘trials’ from fulfilling their purpose of ‘history’ makers. A few acquittals even increased their credibility and made them look like real fair trials.”

                  A show trial is a trial where the verdict is already known, so, of course, you are wrong.

                  Jeff wrote: “Sorry, that makes no sense.”

                  “Do you really believe that the religious tribunals of ‘witch trials’ tolerated God denial (atheism)? They surely regarded that as heresy.”

                  Still doesn’t make any sense. That simply was not a defense used by accused witches. They didn’t deny God, they denied they were WITCHES.

                  Jeff wrote: “What does that have to do with the treatment of the German minority? Oh, I’m not you, I don’t slavishly believe Nazi propaganda so if you honestly want me to believe the Soviets were basing aircraft in Czecho-Slovakia you’ll have to provide proof. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I’m saying I need proof.”

                  “That was just to show that the resort to atrocity propaganda was more a democratic thing.”

                  Uh, no. Wrong. Hitler accused the Czechs and Poles of serious atrocities. The key word is “accused.” Not proven, used for propoganda purposes.

                  Jeff wrote: “Uh huh. Ok. What??? So, Britain was pro-Jewish but wouldn’t give Palestine to the Jews? If the British were pro-Jewish, wouldn’t they have given Palestine to the Jews, regardless of what the Muslims wanted?”

                  “That (giving Palestine to the Jews) is what the Balfour declaration partly did, didn’t it? And Britain also had its share of anti-Zionist Jews, some of them highly influential, anyway. One could be pro-Jewish AND non-Zionist or even anti-Zionist.”

                  No shit. Really????? Jews could be ANTI-ZIONIST? I thought Jews were a giant, amorphous herd of blood sucking parasites that think with one herd mind.

                  “An nice example of a prominent anti-Zionist Jew in Britain was Lord Edwin Montagu. He once expressed his anti-Zionist feelings to British [pro-Zionist] PM David Lloyd George as follows: “All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto. You want to force me back there.” In May 1917, a committee representing the leading Jewish organizations in Britain, scared by the political advances of Zionism, published a statement saying: “the establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine founded on [the] theory of a Jewish homelessness, must have the effect of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands.” In short, there used to be a time when pro-Jewish didn’t necessarily mean pro-Zionist, when Zionism was regarded as a form of anti-Semitism or at least as something fueling it. Hard to believe today, when Zionism has completely prevailed over its foes and any opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel is massively depicted as anti-Semitism.”

                  Aaaaawwwww, that’s disappointing.
                  Now we’re back to the giant, amorphous blood sucking parasites that think with one herd mind.
                  I think Jews must be the real life Borg.

                  Jeff wrote: “I’m probably going to regret this but yes, that is what I’m asking for.”

                  “It’s already late in here. I’m going to bed. I’ll address this one tomorrow.”

                  No rush, trust me.
                  I still owe Jim my summary of revisionist ideas and theories. I’m already regretting offering doing this but I think sometimes Jim doesn’t believe I’m paying attention when he replies to me.

                  “Bye.”

                  Have a nice evening.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 16, 2016 @ 9:36 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Not me. I go to work, home and the gym. I also go to the bookstore and to movies, which means I have receipts. It’s kinda hard in this day and age to prevent oneself from being noticed…if one is innocent.”

                  Where were you on, let’s say, April 5, 2004 between 1 o’clock am and 3 o’clock am? And can you prove it with reliable evidence? Your wife’s words don’t count because she’s of course biased in your favor. Failing to prove where you were at that time doesn’t prove that you’re raping a woman on that night, but it shows how hard it is to prove a negative.

                  Jeff wrote: “A show trial is a trial where the verdict is already known, so, of course, you are wrong.”

                  Roughly, the verdict was known beforehand. A few individual cases of acquittals didn’t change the fact that the general verdict was no surprise when it came. Most of the accused were convicted as bloodthirsty monsters, as any sincere person with decent thinking abilities had foreseen before the first day of those ‘trials’. Stop playing fools.

                  Jeff wrote: “Still doesn’t make any sense. That simply was not a defense used by accused witches. They didn’t deny God, they denied they were WITCHES.”

                  Just as the alleged ‘Holocaust perpetrators’ on ‘trial’ did after WW2: most of them didn’t deny the ‘Holocaust’; they denied or minimized their own involvement in it. QED.😉

                  Jeff wrote: “Uh, no. Wrong. Hitler accused the Czechs and Poles of serious atrocities. The key word is “accused.” Not proven, used for propoganda purposes.”

                  In fact, Hitler silenced the German press concerning the anti-German atrocities perpetrated by Poles before the war began. He did that in order not to spoil the meager chances of reaching a peaceful agreement with the Polish government. He allowed the German press to deal with that only after the German-Polish war broke out. That of course made the Allied denial of those atrocities possible and that’s the reason why the victors’ denial is today’s standard narrative about that. That’s why today’s academic historians and mainstream media now claim those atrocities never occured and were mere Nazi propaganda/lies.

                  Jeff wrote: “No shit. Really????? Jews could be ANTI-ZIONIST? I thought Jews were a giant, amorphous herd of blood sucking parasites that think with one herd mind.”

                  Reductio ad absurdum is a well-known fallacy. Sorry. Doesn’t work with me. Try something else.

                  Jeff wrote: “Aaaaawwwww, that’s disappointing. Now we’re back to the giant, amorphous blood sucking parasites that think with one herd mind.”

                  Ditto…

                  Jeff wrote: “No rush, trust me. I still owe Jim my summary of revisionist ideas and theories. I’m already regretting offering doing this but I think sometimes Jim doesn’t believe I’m paying attention when he replies to me.”

                  Jim is Jim and I am me. Your business, you and Jim.

                  So here is my summary about the Holohoax and Zionism during WW2:

                  – The British “MacDonald White Paper” of May 1939: A real death sentence for Zionism

                  The MDWP was a 10-year British program for the liquidation of the Palestine Mandate. It planned a Jewish immigration of only 75,000 Jews into Palestine within the next 5 years (1939-1944) and no Jewish immigration into Palestine at all (without Arab consent) during the following 5 years (1944-1949), as well as a moratorium on Jewish land purchase in Palestine. The MDWP also planned the establisment of an Arab-dominated (as 2 thirds of the inhabitants of Palestine were Arabs) State of Palestine (and no Jewish state at all) before its deadline (March 31, 1949). No rocket science to realize that Zionism itself was doomed to die if the Zionists were unable to have the MDWP cancelled or at least to pour hundreds of thousands (at least 600,000) Jews into Palestine (in order to get a Jewish majority there) before its deadline.

                  – The ‘Sanhedrin of Infamy’ (as Zionist leader Stephen Wise used to call it): Anti-Zionist resistance organizing in America

                  During the second half of 1942, a group of anti-Zionist rabbis and wealthy Jews met on several occasions and established the ‘American Council for Judaism’ in order to counter the growing Zionist propaganda in the United States. The American Council for Judaism planned to found newspapers campaigning against Zionism and to rally as many US Jews, especially most the influent ones, to the cause of anti-Zionism. When the US Zionists heard of that, they became infuriated and they realized that the American Council for Judaism could turn into a great peril for Zionsim if unchecked and allowed to grow. Just before the third organizational meeting of the American Council for Judaism (to be held in November 1942), US Zionist leader Stephen Wise told the world about Hitler’s alleged slaughter of European Jewry at a press conference (November 25, 1942), what enabled him to state some time later :”That such an effort should be made at a time when the Jewish masses of Europe are writhing in fearful agony, adds an element of heartlessness which future générations will neither forget nor forgive.” The trick worked perfectly well and the anti-Zionism movement was never able to recover from that blow and to grow as it could have. The Holohoax enabled the Zionists of America to depict anti-Zionism as a refusal to save the Jews allegedly doomed to death in Europe with the fallacious postulate “Imminent Death in Hitler’s killing facilities, or immediate resettlement in Palestine.” Easy to understand that the anti-Zionists of America couldn’t rally many supporters when they were regarded as people wanting Europe’s Jews in Hitler’s [alleged] slaughter houses instead of Palestine.

                  – The Riegner telegram: The Zionist internal memo for intoxication

                  In August 1942, the Geneva representative of the World Jewish Congress (a Zionist organization founded by Zionist leaders Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann) Reinhart Riegner went to the US ambassy in Switzerland and sent to Zionist leaders Stephen Wise (New York) and Sidney Silverman (London) a telegram about Hitler’s alleged plan for the extermination of Europe’s Jews by December 1942 through transimission channels of the British and American ministries of foreign affairs, knowing very well that the British and US ministries of foreign affairs would read the content of his telegram. Predictably, Sumner Welles of the US ministry of foreign affairs (State Department) requested a confirmation of that ‘information’ from the US ambassador in Switzerland, confirmation generously provided by Gerhart Riegner (him again) and Richard Lichtheim (a Geneva representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, a Zionist organization, the pre-Israel Zionist shadow governement in Palestine) in the form of a few (2 or 3)additional ‘reports’. The trick was successful and in November 1942 Sumner Welles allowed Stephen Wise to held a press conference in order to inform the world about that, with a kind of certificate of authenticity from the State Department (from Welles alone, in fact) in his pocket to strengthen his claims. Around 2 weeks later, Wise was in the office of President Roosevelt (a close friend of his) with a Jewish delegation to advertize that new state ‘truth’ and get Roosevelt’s words of support (very useful to rally most of average citizens under his banner). A few days later, 11 ‘United Nations’ (= UK + USA + USSR + 8 governements-in-exile) issued a public statement condemning Hitler’s “bestial policy of cold blooded extermination” of Europe’s Jewry. The Holohoax had just become the future victors’ official propaganda, a state ‘truth’ of theirs.

                  – ‘Stop Hitler Now!’

                  In March 1943, Stephen Wise held a huge mass meeting in New York City promoting his idea to save European Jewry from Hitler’s alleged slaughter houses. Unsurprisingly, his idea was mainly to use Palestine as a refuge for Europe’s Jews.

                  – Jabotinsky, Peter H. Bergson & Revisionist-Zionist propaganda: Irgunists in the New World

                  In 1940, Revisionist-Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky, a publicist and the founder of the Jewish Legion of WW1, came to America in order to raise an army of Palestinian Jews, something opposed by Britain, knowing very well that such an army would be used soon or late against the British troops in Palestine and the local Arabs. Jabotinsky suddenly died on US soil during summer 1940. His heir was Peter Bergson (aka Hillel Kook), a young Zionist Jew from Palestine and also the nephew of the first chief rabbi of Palestine. Bergson campaigned for a Jewish army and secured the support for the Zionist cause of numerous prominent influential Americans in US media (Hollywood) and politics (called the ‘Bergsonites’). In 1943, Bergson pressured the US government with full-page ads in US newspapers and pétitions, arguing that America had to save Europe’s Jews from extermination by pouring as many of them as possible into Palestine and other temporary havens of refuge in neutral countries and by establishing an Inter-Gvernmental committee tasked with the implementation of that program. Bergsonite politicians also submitted a resolution for the establishment of such a committee in both houses of the US government, what compelled FDR to hastly establish the War Refugee Board. In 1944, Bergson even went as far as to buy the former Iranian ambassy in Washington and unilaterally promulgate the birth of the ‘Hebrew Nation’ (i.e. the state of Israel).

                  – The Vrba-Wetzler ‘report’: Auschwitz offcially becomes an extermination camp

                  The War Refugee Board consisted of 3 men: Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. When the so-called Vrba-Wetzler report was released, Hull was ill and off, and Stimson was completely unaware of it and of its content. Stimson first heard of it in newspapers after it had been released. So Morgenthau, a Zionist Jew with “all the zeal of a neophyte” as Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann once depicted him, was the only originator of that ‘report’. Read below the surreal discussion between Morgenthau and Stimson after the release of the “Vrba-Wetzler report” by Morgenthau alone.



                  In late 1944, the “Vrba-Wetzler report” and its release by Morgenthau, as well as the “Pilecki report” to a much smaller extent, turned what had been so far Zionist baseless claims about Auschwitz-Birkenau and the ‘Holocaust’ in general into an established “fact beyond denial” on the authority of the US government.

                  – The Nuremberg mock trials: The great Zionist spectacle

                  Mainly with ‘information’ from the Institute of Jewish Affairs (an organ of the Zionist “World Jewish Congress”), pro-Zionist prosecutor Robert Jackson, with the help of his Zionist advisor Jacob Robinson (https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=8927), and his Anglo-Soviet-French friends were able to charge and convict the defeated Nazi leaders with an alleged mass murder of six million Jews during the post-war “high-grade lynching party” held by the victors of WW2 at Nuremberg, real godsend for the Zionists.


                  Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organisation, and Israel’s founding president, said the above at the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine on March 8, 1946.

                  After that, neither the British government nor the Arabs of Palestine could resist the Holohoax card for a very long time and the state of Israel was established as a reparation/compensation for the unparalleled martyrdom of European Jewry some time later.

                  Comment by hermie — February 18, 2016 @ 3:06 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Not me. I go to work, home and the gym. I also go to the bookstore and to movies, which means I have receipts. It’s kinda hard in this day and age to prevent oneself from being noticed…if one is innocent.”

                  “Where were you on, let’s say, April 5, 2004 between 1 o’clock am and 3 o’clock am? And can you prove it with reliable evidence? Your wife’s words don’t count because she’s of course biased in your favor. Failing to prove where you were at that time doesn’t prove that you’re raping a woman on that night, but it shows how hard it is to prove a negative.”

                  That’s an easy one. My wife and I were expecting our first child and she was suffering from insomnia. She spent a lot of time out in the living room while I slept. She would notice if I left.
                  My wife is a perfectly acceptable witness/alibi if there is no other evidence to prove I am lying. So, if I was accused of a crime but nothing linked me to that crime my wife could clear me.

                  Jeff wrote: “A show trial is a trial where the verdict is already known, so, of course, you are wrong.”

                  “Roughly, the verdict was known beforehand. A few individual cases of acquittals didn’t change the fact that the general verdict was no surprise when it came. Most of the accused were convicted as bloodthirsty monsters, as any sincere person with decent thinking abilities had foreseen before the first day of those ‘trials’. Stop playing fools.”

                  If so, why did the Soviets keep insisting on convicting everyone and insisting on the death penalty for everyone, only to be overruled repeatedly by the British, US and French? The French didn’t want to put anyone to death and had to be persuaded on each death sentence. Also, why didn’t the British, French and US go ahead with German convictions on the massacres at Katyn? The Western prosecutors washed their hands over the whole affair and the Soviet case collapsed.
                  I think you are the one being foolish. The IMT had its flaws, certainly. But nothing was certain for anyone at the beginning.

                  Jeff wrote: “Still doesn’t make any sense. That simply was not a defense used by accused witches. They didn’t deny God, they denied they were WITCHES.”

                  “Just as the alleged ‘Holocaust perpetrators’ on ‘trial’ did after WW2: most of them didn’t deny the ‘Holocaust’ they denied or minimized their own involvement in it. QED. ;-)”

                  Thanks for making that point. It proves mine.

                  Jeff wrote: “Uh, no. Wrong. Hitler accused the Czechs and Poles of serious atrocities. The key word is “accused.” Not proven, used for propoganda purposes.”

                  “In fact, Hitler silenced the German press concerning the anti-German atrocities perpetrated by Poles before the war began. He did that in order not to spoil the meager chances of reaching a peaceful agreement with the Polish government. He allowed the German press to deal with that only after the German-Polish war broke out.”

                  Your point, you prove it.

                  “That of course made the Allied denial of those atrocities possible and that’s the reason why the victors’ denial is today’s standard narrative about that. That’s why today’s academic historians and mainstream media now claim those atrocities never occured and were mere Nazi propaganda/lies.”

                  Uh, no. The Poles did commit atrocities against their German minorities after the Germans invaded, just not to the degree the Germans claimed.
                  Polish persecution before the invasion was of the petty, annoying sort…..that they also practiced against Jews and Ukrainians.

                  Jeff wrote: “No shit. Really????? Jews could be ANTI-ZIONIST? I thought Jews were a giant, amorphous herd of blood sucking parasites that think with one herd mind.”

                  “Reductio ad absurdum is a well-known fallacy. Sorry. Doesn’t work with me. Try something else.”

                  Actually it was a joke, like your Blobel comment. Mine was funnier.

                  Jeff wrote: “Aaaaawwwww, that’s disappointing. Now we’re back to the giant, amorphous blood sucking parasites that think with one herd mind.”

                  “Ditto…”

                  Right back at you.

                  Jeff wrote: “No rush, trust me. I still owe Jim my summary of revisionist ideas and theories. I’m already regretting offering doing this but I think sometimes Jim doesn’t believe I’m paying attention when he replies to me.”

                  “Jim is Jim and I am me. Your business, you and Jim.
                  Good to know you are you and not someone else.

                  So here is my summary about the Holohoax and Zionism during WW2:

                  “– The British “MacDonald White Paper” of May 1939: A real death sentence for Zionism

                  The MDWP was a 10-year British program for the liquidation of the Palestine Mandate. It planned a Jewish immigration of only 75,000 Jews into Palestine within the next 5 years (1939-1944) and no Jewish immigration into Palestine at all (without Arab consent) during the following 5 years (1944-1949), as well as a moratorium on Jewish land purchase in Palestine. The MDWP also planned the establisment of an Arab-dominated (as 2 thirds of the inhabitants of Palestine were Arabs) State of Palestine (and no Jewish state at all) before its deadline (March 31, 1949). No rocket science to realize that Zionism itself was doomed to die if the Zionists were unable to have the MDWP cancelled or at least to pour hundreds of thousands (at least 600,000) Jews into Palestine (in order to get a Jewish majority there) before its deadline.”

                  As always, your knowledge of Zionism is astonishing. I mean that, no joke. I don’t know much about it, it’s never interested me.

                  “– The ‘Sanhedrin of Infamy’ (as Zionist leader Stephen Wise used to call it): Anti-Zionist resistance organizing in America

                  During the second half of 1942, a group of anti-Zionist rabbis and wealthy Jews met on several occasions and established the ‘American Council for Judaism’ in order to counter the growing Zionist propaganda in the United States. The American Council for Judaism planned to found newspapers campaigning against Zionism and to rally as many US Jews, especially most the influent ones, to the cause of anti-Zionism. When the US Zionists heard of that, they became infuriated and they realized that the American Council for Judaism could turn into a great peril for Zionsim if unchecked and allowed to grow. Just before the third organizational meeting of the American Council for Judaism (to be held in November 1942), US Zionist leader Stephen Wise told the world about Hitler’s alleged slaughter of European Jewry at a press conference (November 25, 1942), what enabled him to state some time later :”That such an effort should be made at a time when the Jewish masses of Europe are writhing in fearful agony, adds an element of heartlessness which future générations will neither forget nor forgive.” The trick worked perfectly well and the anti-Zionism movement was never able to recover from that blow and to grow as it could have. The Holohoax enabled the Zionists of America to depict anti-Zionism as a refusal to save the Jews allegedly doomed to death in Europe with the fallacious postulate “Imminent Death in Hitler’s killing facilities, or immediate resettlement in Palestine.” Easy to understand that the anti-Zionists of America couldn’t rally many supporters when they were regarded as people wanting Europe’s Jews in Hitler’s [alleged] slaughter houses instead of Palestine.”

                  I understand that the Zionists were upset. Proof that they organized the Holocaust in order to found Isreal, please.

                  “– The Riegner telegram: The Zionist internal memo for intoxication

                  In August 1942, the Geneva representative of the World Jewish Congress (a Zionist organization founded by Zionist leaders Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann) Reinhart Riegner went to the US ambassy in Switzerland and sent to Zionist leaders Stephen Wise (New York) and Sidney Silverman (London) a telegram about Hitler’s alleged plan for the extermination of Europe’s Jews by December 1942 through transimission channels of the British and American ministries of foreign affairs, knowing very well that the British and US ministries of foreign affairs would read the content of his telegram. Predictably, Sumner Welles of the US ministry of foreign affairs (State Department) requested a confirmation of that ‘information’ from the US ambassador in Switzerland, confirmation generously provided by Gerhart Riegner (him again) and Richard Lichtheim (a Geneva representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, a Zionist organization, the pre-Israel Zionist shadow governement in Palestine) in the form of a few (2 or 3)additional ‘reports’. The trick was successful and in November 1942 Sumner Welles allowed Stephen Wise to held a press conference in order to inform the world about that, with a kind of certificate of authenticity from the State Department (from Welles alone, in fact) in his pocket to strengthen his claims. Around 2 weeks later, Wise was in the office of President Roosevelt (a close friend of his) with a Jewish delegation to advertize that new state ‘truth’ and get Roosevelt’s words of support (very useful to rally most of average citizens under his banner). A few days later, 11 ‘United Nations’ (= UK + USA + USSR + 8 governements-in-exile) issued a public statement condemning Hitler’s “bestial policy of cold blooded extermination” of Europe’s Jewry. The Holohoax had just become the future victors’ official propaganda, a state ‘truth’ of theirs.”

                  Again, no proof there. Just supposition on your part.

                  “– ‘Stop Hitler Now!’

                  In March 1943, Stephen Wise held a huge mass meeting in New York City promoting his idea to save European Jewry from Hitler’s alleged slaughter houses. Unsurprisingly, his idea was mainly to use Palestine as a refuge for Europe’s Jews.

                  – Jabotinsky, Peter H. Bergson & Revisionist-Zionist propaganda: Irgunists in the New World

                  In 1940, Revisionist-Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky, a publicist and the founder of the Jewish Legion of WW1, came to America in order to raise an army of Palestinian Jews, something opposed by Britain, knowing very well that such an army would be used soon or late against the British troops in Palestine and the local Arabs. Jabotinsky suddenly died on US soil during summer 1940. His heir was Peter Bergson (aka Hillel Kook), a young Zionist Jew from Palestine and also the nephew of the first chief rabbi of Palestine. Bergson campaigned for a Jewish army and secured the support for the Zionist cause of numerous prominent influential Americans in US media (Hollywood) and politics (called the ‘Bergsonites’). In 1943, Bergson pressured the US government with full-page ads in US newspapers and pétitions, arguing that America had to save Europe’s Jews from extermination by pouring as many of them as possible into Palestine and other temporary havens of refuge in neutral countries and by establishing an Inter-Gvernmental committee tasked with the implementation of that program. Bergsonite politicians also submitted a resolution for the establishment of such a committee in both houses of the US government, what compelled FDR to hastly establish the War Refugee Board. In 1944, Bergson even went as far as to buy the former Iranian ambassy in Washington and unilaterally promulgate the birth of the ‘Hebrew Nation’ (i.e. the state of Israel).”

                  No proof of conspiracy, just the usual “PAC” political actions.

                  “– The Vrba-Wetzler ‘report’: Auschwitz offcially becomes an extermination camp

                  The War Refugee Board consisted of 3 men: Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. When the so-called Vrba-Wetzler report was released, Hull was ill and off, and Stimson was completely unaware of it and of its content. Stimson first heard of it in newspapers after it had been released. So Morgenthau, a Zionist Jew with “all the zeal of a neophyte” as Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann once depicted him, was the only originator of that ‘report’. Read below the surreal discussion between Morgenthau and Stimson after the release of the “Vrba-Wetzler report” by Morgenthau alone.”

                  I read it. Again, nothing proving conspiracy.

                  “In late 1944, the “Vrba-Wetzler report” and its release by Morgenthau, as well as the “Pilecki report” to a much smaller extent, turned what had been so far Zionist baseless claims about Auschwitz-Birkenau and the ‘Holocaust’ in general into an established “fact beyond denial” on the authority of the US government.”

                  Again, supposition.

                  “– The Nuremberg mock trials: The great Zionist spectacle

                  Mainly with ‘information’ from the Institute of Jewish Affairs (an organ of the Zionist “World Jewish Congress”), pro-Zionist prosecutor Robert Jackson, with the help of his Zionist advisor Jacob Robinson”

                  “(https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=8927),”

                  CODOH doesn’t work for me as proof.

                  “and his Anglo-Soviet-French friends were able to charge and convict the defeated Nazi leaders with an alleged mass murder of six million Jews during the post-war “high-grade lynching party” held by the victors of WW2 at Nuremberg, real godsend for the Zionists.”

                  Oh. Sorry, I thought there was more to the IMT than convicting Nazi leaders of massacring Jews.
                  That was sarcasm.

                  “Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organisation, and Israel’s founding president, said the above at the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine on March 8, 1946.”

                  That’s nice. Still no proof on conspiracy.

                  “After that, neither the British government nor the Arabs of Palestine could resist the Holohoax card for a very long time and the state of Israel was established as a reparation/compensation for the unparalleled martyrdom of European Jewry some time later.”

                  Three years later, in 1948. They took their sweet time about it.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 18, 2016 @ 12:26 pm

                • Edit: Page 2 and 3 of the conversation between Morgenthau and Stimson

                  Comment by hermie — February 18, 2016 @ 3:10 am

                • Edit bis: sorry…

                  Comment by hermie — February 18, 2016 @ 3:20 am

                • First, thank you for adding another copy, I couldn’t read the first.
                  Second, what exactly does this prove? I’ve read and re-read it a couple of times, it lacks context. There is nothing to indicate a conspiracy of any type. There is very little detail.
                  Please provide some context to what I’m looking at.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 18, 2016 @ 11:31 am

                • Just to summarize, this is a discussion about the Auschwitz Protocols:
                  http://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-features/collections-highlights/mantello-rescue-mission/auschwitz-protocol
                  Apparently they were released without approval and this is a discussion about this.
                  What exactly is this supposed to prove?
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 18, 2016 @ 11:37 am

                • I wrote a couple of blog posts about Rudolf Vrba: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/rudolf-vrba/

                  Comment by furtherglory — February 18, 2016 @ 11:59 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Just to summarize, this is a discussion about the Auschwitz Protocols: Apparently they were released without approval and this is a discussion about this. What exactly is this supposed to prove?”

                  It is supposed to prove that the American endorsement of the thesis that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, was in fact done by one man, a Zionist agent.

                  http://www.holohoax101.org/201/

                  Comment by hermie — February 18, 2016 @ 7:46 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Just to summarize, this is a discussion about the Auschwitz Protocols: Apparently they were released without approval and this is a discussion about this. What exactly is this supposed to prove?”

                  “It is supposed to prove that the American endorsement of the thesis that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, was in fact done by one man, a Zionist agent.”

                  Oh. Well, it doesn’t do that.
                  Reading the text (looks like a transcript) it appears that the Refugee Board released the information without McCloy being consulted on its release.
                  I assume this is the same McCloy who opposed the bombing of Auschwitz-Birkenau (even though Monowitz was bombed shortly thereafter). McCloy also opposed the entrance of refugees (Jews) into the US.
                  He had his reasons.
                  I also understand why he wouldn’t want information about death camps to be leaked. This would only encourage the assignment of military resources to stop the killing. I’m going to be charitable and give him the benefit of the doubt regarding this matter, after all, the destruction of the German military machine took precedence at this point.
                  The reality is that the allies lacked the ability to bomb Birkenau until around August of 1944 and most of the killing was done by then. Bombing rail lines is/was useless, they are easily repairable.
                  Thank you for the documents but unfortunately they don’t really prove your point.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 18, 2016 @ 8:03 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Oh. Well, it doesn’t do that. Reading the text (looks like a transcript) it appears that the Refugee Board released the information without McCloy being consulted on its release.”

                  The War Refugee Board was headed by 3 men: Stimson, Hull and Morgenthau.

                  Hull: off (ill)
                  Stimson: unaware (not informed, not consulted)
                  Morgenthau: sole originator of the Vrba-Wetzler ‘report’ in America

                  So a zealous Zionist was indeed the only decision-maker in the endorsement of the VW ‘report’ by the US government.

                  One has to be acting in very bad faith to fail to see that Morgenthau’s pathetic excuse doesn’t hold water and that the whole thing was gross Zionist intoxication.

                  Jeff wrote: “Thank you for the documents but unfortunately they don’t really prove your point.”

                  You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink…

                  Comment by hermie — February 19, 2016 @ 7:21 am

                • “The War Refugee Board was headed by 3 men: Stimson, Hull and Morgenthau.

                  Hull: off (ill)
                  Stimson: unaware (not informed, not consulted)
                  Morgenthau: sole originator of the Vrba-Wetzler ‘report’ in America”

                  That’s not what I know about the report.
                  Are you saying Morganthau made this up?

                  http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=394983

                  “So a zealous Zionist was indeed the only decision-maker in the endorsement of the VW ‘report’ by the US government.”

                  I understand why. Morganthau as a Jew was rightly concerned about the Jews in Europe. His views were not always popular.

                  “One has to be acting in very bad faith to fail to see that Morgenthau’s pathetic excuse doesn’t hold water and that the whole thing was gross Zionist intoxication.”

                  I don’t act in bad faith. Morganthau released that report, on his own hook, without consulting the others. I understand why, it cut short a lot of political wrangling on whether or not it was the right time to release it. Stimson and McCloy wouldn’t want anything to distract from the matter at hand, winning the war.
                  Again, I understand THEIR reasoning on this matter. The reality is that the closest ally able to halt the destruction of the Jews, the USSR, simply couldn’t care less because their main concern was driving the Germans from their territory.
                  I don’t fault them for that, I just wish that when academics and rabbis with axes to grind remember that the Soviets were much closer to the situation and they did nothing either.
                  The Western allies were too far away to do anything except warn those responsible they would be held responsible.

                  Jeff wrote: “Thank you for the documents but unfortunately they don’t really prove your point.”

                  “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink…”

                  Beer works better with me. 😆

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 19, 2016 @ 8:01 am

                • These postings regarding the morgenthau plan, ad nauseam, should be enough to initiate another war crimes trial against the allies collectively and individually, by country and by each individual . If dead then posthumously, if alive then trot their sorry behinds into court. Their policies and execution of such policies are still an atrocity and should be addressed as such. I look forward to hearing when the date of this new trial will be .

                  Comment by Diane King — February 19, 2016 @ 8:06 am

                • “These postings regarding the morgenthau plan, ad nauseam, should be enough to initiate another war crimes trial against the allies collectively and individually, by country and by each individual . If dead then posthumously, if alive then trot their sorry behinds into court. Their policies and execution of such policies are still an atrocity and should be addressed as such. I look forward to hearing when the date of this new trial will be .”

                  I think that’s the silliest thing I’ve ever read.

                  You do realize that those men died long ago? That no one in their right mind would initiate such court proceedings?
                  Even if those men were alive, who would be responsible for such a court hearing?
                  Also, the Morgenthau plan was just that. A PLAN.
                  Stimson persuaded Roosevelt to drop it after the plan was leaked and public opinion exploded into outrage (rightly, I might add. The plan was sheer lunacy that would have destroyed the economy of Europe).
                  So, calm down with the outrage. It was never put into effect.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 19, 2016 @ 10:14 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Are you saying Morganthau made this up?”

                  No, I’m not. I’m just saying that a single Jew with a hidden Zionist political agenda turned a mere anonymous ‘report’ into a state ‘truth’ for an entire country, a state ‘truth’ that happened to be crucial in the advancing of that very same agenda later. Another amazing coincidence, I suppose…

                  Jeff wrote: “The Western allies were too far away to do anything except warn those responsible they would be held responsible.”

                  …and bomb Buna factories at Auschwitz III.

                  Comment by hermie — February 19, 2016 @ 9:02 am

                • Jeff wrote: “The Western allies were too far away to do anything except warn those responsible they would be held responsible.”

                  “…and bomb Buna factories at Auschwitz III.”

                  After most of the killing actions were done.

                  Are you being critical of the allies for not bombing Birkenau?

                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 19, 2016 @ 10:06 am

                • Jeff wrote; “Are you being critical of the allies for not bombing Birkenau?”

                  No, I’m not. They knew that nothing genocidal was happening there. They knew one cannot bomb atrocity propaganda. They knew the reason why Auschwitz was depicted as an extermination for the first time in March 1944*. They knew so little about Auschwitz that they still believed in January 1945 Höss was a camp, not a guy!! In a letter of January 22, 1945, US Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, Jr. (acting for Department of State and War Refugee Board) talked about “camps Oswiecim, Höss and Birkenau.” Speaks volumes…

                  * http://s25.postimg.org/h1ay2dndr/Holocaust_Letter_by_the_British_Ministry_of_In.jpg

                  Comment by hermie — February 20, 2016 @ 8:15 am

                • Jeff wrote; “Are you being critical of the allies for not bombing Birkenau?”

                  “No, I’m not. They knew that nothing genocidal was happening there. They knew one cannot bomb atrocity propaganda. They knew the reason why Auschwitz was depicted as an extermination for the first time in March 1944*.”

                  You can bomb a camp. The camp itself was real, not propaganda. If you wanted to depict the camp as a death camp you would bomb it and then proclaim to the world that you did it to save the poor inmates.
                  The real reason why the US bombed Monowitz and not Birkenau is that Monowitz was a legitimate military target, Birkenau was not.

                  “They knew so little about Auschwitz that they still believed in January 1945 Höss was a camp, not a guy!!”

                  I know, I thought that was funny.

                  “In a letter of January 22, 1945, US Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, Jr. (acting for Department of State and War Refugee Board) talked about “camps Oswiecim, Höss and Birkenau.” Speaks volumes…”

                  I read the letter. Why on earth would you think the Nazi government would admit they were killing Jews? Do you seriously believe they would tell the truth and give their enemies more fuel for the fire?
                  “Yes, we are gassing Jews by the trainload.”
                  That’s ridiculous.

                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 20, 2016 @ 8:41 am

                • edit: “as an extermination camp for the first time”

                  Comment by hermie — February 20, 2016 @ 8:18 am

                • Jeff wrote: “You can bomb a camp. The camp itself was real, not propaganda. If you wanted to depict the camp as a death camp you would bomb it and then proclaim to the world that you did it to save the poor inmates.”

                  I think that the Zionists who requested the bombing of Auschwitz were betting on this reasoning to credit and strenghten their claims. But even comedy had its limits. In a perspective of atrocity propaganda, such an action would have been better, but not essential (Don’t most people today believe that Auschwitz was a death camp nevertheless?), to support the claim that Auschwitz was a death camp.

                  Jeff wrote: “The real reason why the US bombed Monowitz and not Birkenau is that Monowitz was a legitimate military target, Birkenau was not.”

                  Assumption turning the Allies into cold and cynical bystanders, almost acquiescent accomplices.

                  Jeff wrote: “I read the letter. Why on earth would you think the Nazi government would admit they were killing Jews? Do you seriously believe they would tell the truth and give their enemies more fuel for the fire?”

                  What fire? The fire from people who would not even divert a few planes and bombs to save many trainloads of Jews (in an exterminationist perspective)? So scary…

                  Jeff wrote: ““Yes, we are gassing Jews by the trainload.” That’s ridiculous.”

                  Gassing Jews by the trainload at Auschwitz? In late January 1945? That’s indeed ridiculous.

                  Comment by hermie — February 20, 2016 @ 9:20 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “You can bomb a camp. The camp itself was real, not propaganda. If you wanted to depict the camp as a death camp you would bomb it and then proclaim to the world that you did it to save the poor inmates.”

                  “I think that the Zionists who requested the bombing of Auschwitz were betting on this reasoning to credit and strenghten their claims.”

                  But they couldn’t use their influence to get this done?
                  How odd.

                  “But even comedy had its limits.”

                  What is comedic about any of this?
                  Even if there was no Holocaust Jews still suffered and died, not to mention millions of others.
                  I’m afraid I don’t understand this comment.

                  “In a perspective of atrocity propaganda, such an action would have been better, but not essential (Don’t most people today believe that Auschwitz was a death camp nevertheless?), to support the claim that Auschwitz was a death camp.”

                  Odd reasoning. Those who wanted Birkenau bombed thought it would save lives, those who were against it didn’t want to divert resources away from the war effort.
                  There were Jews who opposed this action because they didn’t want prisoners to die because of allied bombing.

                  Jeff wrote: “The real reason why the US bombed Monowitz and not Birkenau is that Monowitz was a legitimate military target, Birkenau was not.”

                  “Assumption turning the Allies into cold and cynical bystanders, almost acquiescent accomplices.”

                  That is the argument of many academics and rabbis who have the luxury of hindsight.

                  Jeff wrote: “I read the letter. Why on earth would you think the Nazi government would admit they were killing Jews? Do you seriously believe they would tell the truth and give their enemies more fuel for the fire?”

                  “What fire? The fire from people who would not even divert a few planes and bombs to save many trainloads of Jews (in an exterminationist perspective)? So scary…”

                  It’s not my perspective.
                  However, flat out admitting that you are committing mass murder is ridiculous. I’ve explained why in the past.

                  Jeff wrote: ““Yes, we are gassing Jews by the trainload.” That’s ridiculous.”

                  “Gassing Jews by the trainload at Auschwitz? In late January 1945? That’s indeed ridiculous.”

                  You are right. The last gassings took place in the Fall of 1944.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 21, 2016 @ 12:50 am

                • Jeff wrote: “But they couldn’t use their influence to get this done? How odd.”

                  Assuming they really wanted this done. Only requesting it was enough to be able to shake those telegrams after the war crying emphatically: ‘Everybody hates us and wanted us dead. See? The least you can do now, evil anti-Semites, is atone for your sins by giving us what we are demanding.’

                  I doubt the Zionists who requested the bombing of Auschwitz really wanted this done. Zionists vastly demonstrated before and after this that they were very able to agitate on a massive scale and use the pressure of public opinion to get what they really wanted.

                  Jeff wrote: “What is comedic about any of this?”

                  Allied leaders theatrically discoursing as if the ‘Holocaust’ was true but systematically acting as if the ‘Holocaust’ was just atrocity propaganda. Doesn’t make you laugh, Jeff?😉

                  Jeff wrote: “That is the argument of many academics and rabbis who have the luxury of hindsight.”

                  I know that. That’s nevertheless the backlash of history telling within a false paradigm. Endorsing lies is a risky game that may produce unexpected results for the endorsers themselves later. I’m sure that 1st-class Jew-lovers FDR and Churchill would be completely astonished to see that twhistory now depicts them as cynical acquiescent bastards at best and as passive co perpetrators of a giant pogrom of Jews at worst.

                  Jeff wrote: “It’s not my perspective.”

                  What perspective? The exterminationist perspective???

                  Jeff wrote: “However, flat out admitting that you are committing mass murder is ridiculous. I’ve explained why in the past.”

                  So you finally concede that Hitler’s numerous wartime public speeches about the ausrottung/vernichtung of Europe’s Jewry didn’t deal with mass murder but with the elimination/removal/riddance of Jewry on a continental scale. Back to the beginning of our discussion on this topic, it seems…

                  Comment by hermie — February 21, 2016 @ 5:48 am

                • Jeff wrote: “But they couldn’t use their influence to get this done? How odd.”

                  “Assuming they really wanted this done. Only requesting it was enough to be able to shake those telegrams after the war crying emphatically: ‘Everybody hates us and wanted us dead. See? The least you can do now, evil anti-Semites, is atone for your sins by giving us what we are demanding.”

                  Did they also say take your sweet time about it, you have three years? In the meantime is it OK if we continue our terrorist activities against the British so that we can turn public opinion AGAINST us?

                  “I doubt the Zionists who requested the bombing of Auschwitz really wanted this done. Zionists vastly demonstrated before and after this that they were very able to agitate on a massive scale and use the pressure of public opinion to get what they really wanted.”

                  So, like I said above, that includes continuing terrorist activities against the British in Palestine?
                  Seems to me that they would wait quietly while the influence peddlers did their work.

                  Jeff wrote: “What is comedic about any of this?”

                  “Allied leaders theatrically discoursing as if the ‘Holocaust’ was true but systematically acting as if the ‘Holocaust’ was just atrocity propaganda. ”

                  Seems to me this is the weirdest, most contradictory conspiracy of all time. The easiest thing to do is land on the side that benefits you most instead of wobbling all over the map.

                  The actual rational explanation is that there was a lot of confusion about what was going on (it was happening behind German lines after all) so the allies reacted to things as they came to light.

                  “Doesn’t make you laugh, Jeff? ;-)”

                  Lots of things make me laugh. Including some completely inappropriate things.

                  For example, I love this joke:
                  Why did Adolph Hitler commit suicide?
                  Because he saw how much the gas bill was.

                  😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

                  Jeff wrote: “That is the argument of many academics and rabbis who have the luxury of hindsight.”

                  “I know that. That’s nevertheless the backlash of history telling within a false paradigm. Endorsing lies is a risky game that may produce unexpected results for the endorsers themselves later.”

                  I actually think it more has to do with muckrakers hunting for someone to blame now that most of the geriatric Nazis are dying off.

                  “I’m sure that 1st-class Jew-lovers FDR and Churchill would be completely astonished to see that twhistory now depicts them as cynical acquiescent bastards at best and as passive co perpetrators of a giant pogrom of Jews at worst.”

                  Only by annoying muck rakers, see above.

                  Jeff wrote: “However, flat out admitting that you are committing mass murder is ridiculous. I’ve explained why in the past.”

                  “So you finally concede that Hitler’s numerous wartime public speeches about the ausrottung/vernichtung of Europe’s Jewry didn’t deal with mass murder but with the elimination/removal/riddance of Jewry on a continental scale. Back to the beginning of our discussion on this topic, it seems…”

                  Hitler spoke in generalities and actually had very little to do with the actual Holocaust. He was much more concerned with winning the war. He was kept informed.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 21, 2016 @ 7:44 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Did they also say take your sweet time about it, you have three years? In the meantime is it OK if we continue our terrorist activities against the British so that we can turn public opinion AGAINST us?

                  So, like I said above, that includes continuing terrorist activities against the British in Palestine? Seems to me that they would wait quietly while the influence peddlers did their work.”

                  There was no way the Zionist leaders of that time could have kept their mad dogs (especially the ones in the Irgun and the Stern Gang) on a leash any longer if no Jewish state was established immediately after WW2. In December 1942, Zionist leader Stephen Wise had publicly warned Britain that: “If Britain attempts to deny the Jews a homeland or a Jewish Commonwealth, things are going to be very bad.”

                  And the risk of losing the support of public opinion was quite small for the Zionists because they owned enough media to prevent that from happening. In 1946 and 1947, they described the anti-British terrorist activities in Palestine as understandable actions perpetrated by young desperate idealists almost crazed by the pain caused to them by the slaughter of theirs in Europe.

                  Jeff wrote: “Lots of things make me laugh. Including some completely inappropriate things. For example, I love this joke: Why did Adolph Hitler commit suicide? Because he saw how much the gas bill was. 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆”

                  Already knew it. A funny one indeed.


                  😉

                  Jeff wrote: “I actually think it more has to do with muckrakers hunting for someone to blame now that most of the geriatric Nazis are dying off.”

                  Nothing new. In the 1980’s, there was a US commission blaming the Jewish establishment in America, Roosevelt, Churchill, etc. for doing nothing to save the Jews of Europe during WW2. It’s more about Irgunist Bergsonites blaming everybody for not yielding enough to the extravagant demands of their extremist leader (Peter Bergson) during the war.

                  Comment by hermie — February 21, 2016 @ 9:10 am

                • “There was no way the Zionist leaders of that time could have kept their mad dogs (especially the ones in the Irgun and the Stern Gang) on a leash any longer if no Jewish state was established immediately after WW2. In December 1942, Zionist leader Stephen Wise had publicly warned Britain that: “If Britain attempts to deny the Jews a homeland or a Jewish Commonwealth, things are going to be very bad.”

                  I’ll agree that terrorists are mad dogs.

                  “And the risk of losing the support of public opinion was quite small for the Zionists because they owned enough media to prevent that from happening. In 1946 and 1947, they described the anti-British terrorist activities in Palestine as understandable actions perpetrated by young desperate idealists almost crazed by the pain caused to them by the slaughter of theirs in Europe.”

                  Not good enough controlling coverage, there were anti-Semetic riots in Britain.

                  I enjoyed the pictures, especially the “I said glass of juice, not gas the Jews!”

                  You can share more, I thought they were funny.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 21, 2016 @ 10:34 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Hitler spoke in generalities and actually had very little to do with the actual Holocaust.”

                  Generalities or not, whatever. Do you still believe that the German words ‘ausrottung’ and ‘vernichtung’ meant and only meant mass murder in the 1940’s?

                  Comment by hermie — February 21, 2016 @ 9:37 am

                • Not all of comment came through.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 21, 2016 @ 10:28 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Not good enough controlling coverage, there were anti-Semetic riots in Britain.”

                  Britain was going through a deep crisis at that time. Britain ‘had won the war but appeared to be losing the peace’. There was a severe recession at home and an empire dislocating abroad. The brutal lynching of British soldiers in Palestine was too much for the British citizens of those days. Even Zionist propaganda couldn’t prevent anti-Jewish riots from occuring under such circumstances. The fact that such riots culminated in Manchester demonstrated that. Manchester was a Zionist hotspot in Britain. Chaim Weizmann had been a lecturer at the University of Manchester and he had converted several influent British men to Zionism from there, including Winston Churchill, Lord Balfour, David Lloyd George and the editor of the Manchester Guardian. The editor of the Manchester Guardian was a close friend of Weizmann’s and the Manchester Guardian was a Zionist newspaper. In spite of this, the Zionist propaganda of the Manchester Guardian was unable to prevent anti-Jewish riots from taking place at Manchester – the capital of British Zionism. Even propaganda has its limits. Even if one can wonder how bigger the anti-Jewish riots at Manchester and other British cities would have been without the Zionist propaganda of the Manchester Guardian and other Zionist papers.

                  By the way, the Zionists had realized that Britain was more or less over as a world power and that the future of Palestine would be decided in the United States. So their propaganda effort was mainly focused on America at that time. Promoting Zionism in England had become much less important than promoting Zionism in the United States.

                  Comment by hermie — February 21, 2016 @ 8:29 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Not all of comment came through.”

                  Too bad the part with your current opinion about the words ‘ausrottung’ and ‘vernichtung’ fell by the wayside. Perhaps another bad move of Paul Blobel’s?😉

                  Comment by hermie — February 22, 2016 @ 8:12 pm

                • “Too bad the part with your current opinion about the words ‘ausrottung’ and ‘vernichtung’ fell by the wayside. Perhaps another bad move of Paul Blobel’s? ;-)”

                  Actually I was hoping you would repost what you said.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 23, 2016 @ 6:41 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Actually I was hoping you would repost what you said.”

                  What part of what I said exactly???

                  Comment by hermie — February 23, 2016 @ 9:30 pm

                • I guess you’ll never tell me your current opinion about the words ‘vernichtung’ and ‘ausrottung’. But silences are often more telling than words.😉

                  Sieg, sieg, sieg, sieg…

                  Comment by hermie — February 27, 2016 @ 8:24 am

                • Huh?
                  Sometimes I don’t get e-mails when people post from here.
                  Repost what you said and I will answer.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 27, 2016 @ 8:50 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Repost what you said and I will answer.”

                  The whole talking is already on this page.

                  Comment by hermie — February 28, 2016 @ 7:44 am

      • authentic

        To my knowledge the diaries are generally regarded as genuine — when I wrote “evidence” I used the wrong word — I should have written convincing proof — one could cite eg passages in the diaries (as well as some of Hitler’s rhetoric) as a kind of circumstantial evidence — but to me they are far from convincing proof — people who believe or want to believe the conventional story re the ‘Holocaust’ will see convincing proof rather than (unconvincing) circumstantial evidence — in this context, I could also note the well-known anecdote told by Henriette von Schirach about Hitler being aware of, and callous about, the deportation of Dutch Jews — but I would add that deportation is not murder/extermination — eg the Franks were deported, but they weren’t murdered.

        Comment by eah — February 4, 2016 @ 12:40 pm

        • EAH. The deportation had been the first step on the way to murder through 1. Travell in overcrowded close cattlecars (at arrival some Death Person had to carried out of the car), 2, Sudden Gasing in Gas Chamber, 3. Death trough starvation or desease, 4. Death through exhaustion in forced labor. Already in October 1939 at Nisko Eichmann statend smiling:”… OTHERWISE IT WOULD MEAN TO DIE . sonst heisst es eben sterben” But there had veen no other possibility then the Death in one of the above listed ways. Survival had not been forecasted, but is regretted by some people.

          Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 5, 2016 @ 2:24 am

  4. Those rocks have come in handy on several occasions when I visited the Reichshauptstadt.

    I was able to urinate on them and save the euros I would have to cough up for the pay-shitters and spend them on more beer. Prosit!

    Comment by Schlageter — February 3, 2016 @ 4:28 pm

    • I have heard others say the same thing.

      Comment by furtherglory — February 3, 2016 @ 4:33 pm

    • You know, it really is too bad that a police officer didn’t catch you doing that.
      He could have arrested you and put you in a prison to fulfill all your dark Hitler Youth fantasies.
      Dick Heil, Schlageter.
      Dick Heil.
      Jeff

      Comment by Jeff K. — February 3, 2016 @ 6:20 pm

      • Funny you mention. I timed it perfectly as the 2 slovenly cops turned the corner. The larger ones make for good cover.

        Unfortunately you weren’t there else i would’ve pissed on you instead.

        Comment by Schlageter — February 4, 2016 @ 3:33 am

        • So, you like pissing on men.
          That’s a little weird but then you fascist types are into freaky stuff.
          That’s ok, I don’t judge.
          Dick Heil, Schlageter.
          Jeff

          Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 3:36 am

          • calling you a “man” is a stretch. and I piss on things that are worthless

            Comment by Schlageter — February 4, 2016 @ 7:44 am

            • Look, Schlageter, I’m not into dudes so I wouldn’t let you piss on me anyway.
              Again, I don’t judge you for pissing on guys. What you like to do in the privacy of your little Nazi love nest is your deal.
              I’m not judgemental just keep that stuff to yourself, ok?
              Jeff

              Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 8:03 am

            • Just as a follow up, because you piss on things that are worthless, do you call the guys you piss on worthless?
              Wow, that’s freaky. You really are butch, aren’t you Schlageter?
              Do you make them dress up as Hitler youth when you do this?
              Dick Heil, Schlageter.

              Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 8:18 am

              • anyone ever notice how libtards always try to slander others with disgusting behaviors they themselves celebrate? Always douches like Jeff accusing others of being homosexual, racist, pedo, etc etc. All behaviors promulgated and practiced by Jews like him. As Carolyn said above, “get lost”, while FG may enjoy your elegant prose, no one else gives a shit what you think. Your twisting and contorting around the truth changes like the wind anyway. Its normal when you have ideology but not truth on your side.

                Comment by Schlageter — February 4, 2016 @ 9:29 am

                • Look, I’ve never, not once, indicated a desire to piss on anyone.
                  You said you wanted to piss on me. Now, logically, I have to judge you a bull-butch freak for wanting to do something like that.
                  Look, just own it, butch boy.
                  It’s been MY EXPERIENCE that anyone who displays a pathological hatred of something, i. e. your obsession with homosexuals, secretly fears they have those desires.
                  Maybe you should look in the mirror, butch-boy.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 9:45 am

                • Schlageter – anyone ever notice how libtards always try to slander others with disgusting behaviors they themselves celebrate?

                  I remember you called us shit eaters recently – so do you do that too?

                  Comment by srebrenica — February 4, 2016 @ 11:15 am

                • Let’s see.
                  I’ve been called gay, a Jew, a fucking moron/cretin, a cock sucker, probably more that I can’t think off the top of my head.
                  My favorite is the most recent from Carolyn, Jeff the Jew.
                  Oh, and Schlageter wants to piss on me. I think that’s really weird.
                  I generally reserve my insults for those who insult me.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 11:37 am

                • WTF is a libtard?
                  Also, I have never accused anyone of being racist, pedo, homosexual, etc.
                  First, you are racist. Don’t blame me for that, it’s your issue.
                  Second, I never, not once, started any of this. The name calling does not start with me but I’ll be fucked if I let some dipshit try and trample on me.
                  Third, and again, you and Carolyn’s mindset is exposed yet again by calling me a Jew. You mean that as an insult. I’m not a Jew, dumbass. I realize you and Carolyn have a limited capacity to understand basic concepts so I’ll say it again.
                  I’m not a Jew.
                  Jeff

                  Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 2:40 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “WTF is a libtard?”

                  A liberal retard.

                  Comment by hermie — February 9, 2016 @ 7:07 am

    • SCHLAGETER. And a pork and a dog will shite on your grave earliers than you think.

      Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 4, 2016 @ 8:05 am

      • Wolfie, I’ve no illusions about death, nor do I give a shit about who shits on my grave. My regret is you’ll likely expire prior to me being able to drop a few pellets of Zyklon down the chimney in your house to measure the effects.

        Comment by Schlageter — February 4, 2016 @ 9:32 am

        • Why don’t you do us all a favor and experiment with ZB on yourself, Schlageter?
          Tape it and put it on YouTube so I can watch it live.
          If you survive I promise I’ll become a Holocaust denier.
          Jeff

          Comment by Jeff K. — February 4, 2016 @ 9:49 am

  5. “Further Glory”, may I write to you here? Did I do this right? Diane

    Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 20:54:28 +0000 To: dianekayking@hotmail.com

    Comment by Diane King — February 3, 2016 @ 1:48 pm

    • diane king. Certainly further glory for the victims of the Shoah while you in the hell will be greeted and properly cared my master devils Eichmann and Brunner sooner than you think.

      Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 4, 2016 @ 8:09 am

      • “Id rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners are much more fun…” –Billy Joel

        and while we’re on the topic of “only the good die young”, apropos all these holocau$t shysters living to advanced ages. Perhaps the camps were a fountain of youth of sorts?

        Comment by Schlageter — February 4, 2016 @ 9:34 am

        • SCHLAGETER. Would be quite amusing see you in marching in a column of prigioners to forced labot at Auschiwitz, or in a Russian Lager for POW.

          Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — February 5, 2016 @ 2:31 am

  6. I don’t know how to judge but these are some examples of paintings by Adolph Hitler.
    http://sobadsogood.com/2013/07/22/25-rarely-seen-artworks-painted-by-adolf-hitler/
    In my amateur opinion some of them are very good, others look rather crude.
    Jeff

    Comment by Jeff K. — February 3, 2016 @ 1:31 pm

    • Hitler was twice turned down by the Vienna Academy of Art.
      These works make up a collection that he would have submitted and even by today’s acceptance considered of moderate GCSE standards, but was really that bad?
      He believed that it was a Jewish professor who had rejected his application to study at the academy, [his assumption was correct] and the seed was sown for his Anti-Semitism. Vienna at that time was until 1938 a haven for professional Jews, including some of my own friends: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/06/sports/ruth-langer-lawrence-77-who-boycotted-36-olympics.html
      Some have speculated that Hitler’s rejection from the art college helped shape his character in later years.
      His non-entry into the Vienna Academy of Art was something that helped shape his vision on ‘Das internationale Judentum und Freimaurerei’ and turn him into the monster he became later in life.
      In his book ‘Mein Kampf’ he states that Vienna ‘war die Schule meines Lebens’. (was the school of my life) Based on this comment, others claim he had the first sexual encounter with a prostitute and contacted Gonorrhoea. Although once in power he tolerated State-controlled Prostitution to avoid Vernal Diseases to the extent that there were NO cases for medical studies in Germany.

      Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — February 5, 2016 @ 12:42 am

      • Edit: but was it really that bad

        Comment by Herbert Stolpmann — February 5, 2016 @ 12:44 am

      • I don’t know if what I linked to would be considered good enough to get him into a prestigious art school like the Vienna Academy of Art.
        I’ve read bits and pieces of Mein Kampf. I don’t know how accurate a biography of Hitler it really is. I think much of the autobiographical information is exaggerated, certainly the authors I’ve read, Richard Evans, Ian Kershaw and Laurence Rees think so. Rees and Kershaw’s research led them to believe that Hitler was not a hardened anti-Semite until after WW I. Hitler sold his paintings through Jewish art dealers and seemed to have a good relationship with them.
        As far as the whole gonorrheoa story, I don’t put a lot of credence in it. I have a hard time believing someone as fastidious as Hitler would have sex with a prostituite. I guess it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that his natural urges may have caused him to do this. My own opinion is that it did not.
        Jeff

        Comment by Jeff K. — February 5, 2016 @ 7:37 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: