Scrapbookpages Blog

August 21, 2016

Reinhard Heydrich is back in the news

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust, World War II — furtherglory @ 9:03 am

The following quote is from a news article, which you can read in full here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3751377/They-deserve-heroes-burial-Daring-Czech-assassins-Holocaust-chief-Reinhard-Heydrich-buried-unmarked-graves.html

Begin quote

A campaign is growing to give a proper burial to the two daring Czech assassins who killed [Reinhard Heydrich] a chief of the Holocaust and one of Hitler’s most fanatical henchmen.

British trained Czech paratroopers Jozef Gabcik and Jan Kubis are credited with killing Reinhard Heydrich in 1942, by ambushing his car on the streets of Prague.

They are believed to have been buried in the Czech capital in an unmarked grave in the Dablice cemetery when they were later killed in an attack on their hideout by the SS.

End quote

Reinhard Heydrich is the man on the left

Reinhard Heydrich is the man on the left

Reinhard Heydrich is back in the news because the bodies of the brave men, who assassinated him, are now being moved from their unmarked graves; they are now going to have a “heroes burial” according to the news article.

Normally, when you kill someone, you are a murderer, but if you kill a Nazi, you are a hero and you deserve all the honor given to a hero.

Here is the story of what happened to Reinhard Heydrich:

On May 27, 1942, Reinhard Heydrich was wounded when a group of Czech resistance fighters, who had escaped to England, returned and made an attempt on his life in Prague. Heydrich died of his wounds on June 4, 1942.

After World War II ended on May 8, 1945, the Allied powers began a search for the Nazi documents that they would need as evidence at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal which was set to begin in November 1945.

They found tons of paperwork including secret documents hidden in salt mines and behind walls in the Nazi administration buildings. But the one most important document, the order signed by Adolf Hitler which would have given the authority for the genocide of the Jews, was never found.

Finally, in 1947, long after the first proceedings of the Nuremberg IMT had ended, the minutes of a conference held on January 20, 1942 at a villa in Wannsee, a district of Berlin, were found.

At this conference, the plans for the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” had been discussed. Today, tourists can stand in the very room where the plans were made for the genocide of the Jews.

Fifteen top officials of the Nazi bureaucracy and the SS attended the Wannsee conference, which was led by 38-year-old Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, the chief of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA).

In the past, I have written several blog posts about Reinhard Heydrich:

https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/reinhard-heydrich/

The following quote is from one of my previous blog posts about Reinhard Heydrich:

Begin quote

On January 20, 1942 at Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, a conference was held to plan “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question” for Europe’s 11 million Jews. SS General Reinhard Heydrich, who was the head of RSHA (Reich Security Main Office) as well as the Deputy of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (now the Czech Republic) led the conference.

The protocols from the conference, as written by Adolf Eichmann, contained the expression “transportation to the East,” a euphemism that was used to mean the genocidal killing of all the Jews in Europe.

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 had been 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 entitled “The Holocaust.”

A fourth extermination camp had already been opened at Chelmno in what is now western Poland, and the first Jews had already been gassed in mobile vans on December 8, 1941, according to the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland.

The Jews believe that the Holocaust was planned at the Wannsee Conference, and as the leader of this conference, Reinhard Heydrich was the worst of the Nazi war criminals.

End quote from previous blog post

82 Comments »

  1. @ Hermie:

    Jeff wrote: “The Soviets actually excavated those sites. Now, prove it was them and not the Germans.”

    “I was not in the Soviet or Nazi thing. I was in the fact or war lie thing.

    Your Soviet archaeological ‘demonstrations’ are funny and 100% unconvincing, Jeff. Find something else…”

    Duck and cover, Hermie. Your favorite activity.

    Jeff wrote: “I gave you Frank, Goering, Goebbels and Streicher. I also gave you an entire chapter on Nazi corruption that included small fry.”

    “None of your examples was reliable info. Sounded much like victors’ usual vilifying stories. And your examples didn’t even deal with corruption. Your ‘Goebbels forced a German actress to sleep with him’ claim was the most ridiculous of your examples.”

    Bribes are corruption. Withholding supplies for your own benefit or that of your family is corruption. Using power to get women to sleep with you is corruption.

    “Your link didn’t work. All I got was a description of that book.”

    Wouldn’t have done any good anyway. The Hermie way is to plow ahead and ignore anything that disrupts his rosy view of the Nazi government and the man he worships, Adolf Hitler.

    Jeff wrote: “Giving them the green light to do whatever they wanted in the region, this included the basing of Red Army troops in these countries and later annexing them (the Baltic states). Oh, the Germans repeatedly asked the Soviets to invade Eastern Poland. In other words, introducing Red Army troops into the region. That seem like stopping a Soviet invasion to you? So, giving the Soviets a green light to extend their “influence” seem like a good idea to prevent a future Soviet invasion to you?”

    “That was the best way to avoid a 2-front war.”

    The best way to avoid a 2-front war is not to start one.

    Jeff wrote: “Would you like to rethink that really stupid fucking statement? I’m the one pointing out that the Germans invited Soviet troops into Eastern Poland. I’m the one pointing out the really bad strategic move in allowing the Soviets into the Baltics.”

    “You’re also the one depicting the Soviets as peace-loving hippies as soon as anybody says Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike intended to break an imminent Soviet invasion. Embroiled in your inconsistencies, it seems…”

    I don’t depict the Soviets as “peace loving hippies.” I point out the reality that Barbarossa was not a preemptive strike, due to the fact that Soviets were not prepared for war and Stalin knew that.
    Stalin wanted, if at all possible, to get out as cheaply as he could by staying out of the fighting. His real hope was that the Germans and the West would get bogged down in fighting each other so that he could do as he pleased in Eastern Europe. When it didn’t happen the way he wanted it he had to bide his time and hope that as long as Britain held out that the Germans would concentrate their power on the Brits.
    The idea that Barbarossa was a preemptive strike is laughable. Initial planning started in the Summer of 1940, long before any cracks started showing in the agreement between the Soviets and the Germans. Hitler believed that destroying the Soviets would force the British to negotiate by eliminating their last possible hope on the continent (the reality is the British looked to the US far more than the Soviets) and give him access to the natural resources he believed would make Germany unassailable.

    Jeff wrote: “In a sense I agree with you. Replacing the empires in Europe with a series of small states made trade difficult and disrupted the balance of power.”

    Obviously.

    Jeff wrote: “Are you trying to be funny again? Versailles was a half measure that failed because it took just enough from the Germans to aggravate them while essentially leaving them in a position to still dominate Central Europe.”

    “You’re free to swallow the excuse of Wilson’s alleged concern for the so-called right to self-determination of the peoples in Central and Eastern Europe if you want to. I’m free to laugh at Wilson’s deceptive excuse and see his real intents and goals.”

    What were Wilson’s real intents and goals?
    This should be fun, I can’t wait to see the whacked out bullshit you are going to come up without any proof to back it up.

    Jeff wrote: “German industry remained intact, it’s loss of territory, insignificant.”

    “Insignificant? 10% of territory and 15% of population lost isn’t insignificant. And Germany was deprived of a very significant amount of resources. The Versailles robbery deprived Germany of 75% of its iron for instance. And were Austria’s territorial losses insignificant too?”

    Yet somehow the Germans got it together enough to wage war 20 years after the Versailles Treaty.
    Hermie, the Versailles treaty essentially left Germany in the position to dominate Central Europe again. Germany lost Alsace-Lorraine, French Territory it gained after the Franco-Prussian war (that’s what happens when you lose a war), Denmark got a slice, Poland got the Corridor, Czechoslovakia got a district, Belgium got a slice (good for you!!!!) and the Saar was placed under the League of Nations (returned in 1935). The Rhineland was demilitarized but left under German control. The Germans lost between 6-7 million people and actually about 13% of its territory. Oh, forgot Memel.
    Did this leave Germany weakened? Sure. But the reality is that the territory it lost was on the periphery, leaving the heart of Germany intact.

    You do have a point with Austria and it was hypocritical of the allies to not allow Austria to join Germany like it wanted after the war.

    “German industry remained intact…and ‘free’ to ship what it was producing directly to the victors of WW1. How lucky! Why didn’t they just say ‘Thank you for being so generous with us, masters’?”

    Well, it didn’t impede German efforts for their next war.
    Really, the whole arrangement was ridiculous, a fact acknowledged during the 1920’s. The US and British backed off because they recognized that Germany was important to the economic health of Europe itself.

    Jeff wrote: “Except that the government in Moscow was completely different than the ineffectual Czars. It was more logical to keep the Baltics and Poland intact as buffers against Bolshevist expansion. Hitler gave them up to keep the USSR out of the developing conflict in the West, not on any high handed ideal of restoring conditions that existed 200 years previously.”

    “Was it more logical to get a 2-front war against England, France, Poland and the Soviet Union from September 1939? C’mon, Jeff. Laughable.”

    No, it made more sense for Hitler to back off from the precipice he was hurtling towards. Hitler was the catalyst, not the cowardly British or French. He wanted to push the issue because he believed the West would not, in the end, go to war over Poland.

    Jeff wrote: “Really? By introducing Communism in areas previously hostile to it? By allowing Red Army troops closer to the heart of Europe (something that happened anyway by Hitler’s ill-conceived attack on the Soviet Union while Britain stood defiant, exacerbated by the ill-conceived declaration of war on the US)?”

    “Reasoning within the false paradigm that the ruling elites in England, America and the Soviet Union wanted no war. Reasoning within false paradigms always leads to erroneous conclusions…”

    They didn’t. Now you are starting to trip over your own contradictions. If Stalin wanted war, why would he sign an agreement with Hitler in the first place? Why not back the West? We both know Stalin wasn’t squeamish about shedding blood. Waging war in conjunction with the West and Poland would likely netted some of the territorial gains he wanted, maybe not everything he got at the end of WW II but a lot. With a lot less bloodshed on his part.
    Germany stood no chance against the combined forces of the USSR, Poland, France and Great Britain. If this was what everyone wanted, why didn’t this happen in 1939?

    Jeff wrote: “Apparently I understand them better than you do. For example I understand that it’s better to have buffers between you and a potentially powerful enemy.”

    “Yes, buffers are much better than immediate 2-front wars. Congrats, Professor!!”

    They do if your idea is peace, not war. You don’t want your potentially most powerful enemy butting up against you, you want them as far away as you can.

    Jeff wrote: “I actually understand why Hitler agreed to this arrangement, he believed that the British and French would back off, allowing him to deal with the Poles without interference. If they didn’t this left Poland isolated and easier to deal with because Hitler believed (this belief was completely justified) that the French and British would not attack him without Soviet assistance. This was Hitler at his pragmatic best. This agreement secured the Eastern Front, allowing him to destroy the Poles without interference and then turn on the West without worrying about the Soviets. However it couldn’t have made him comfortable, the knowledge that he no longer had the luxury of the Balts and Poles sitting between him and the Soviets. This made any Soviet attack easier and made any invasion more difficult. Subsequent events proved this without question.”

    “A policy of the lesser evil made the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact perfectly logical.”

    We agree, then (in a way).

    Jeff wrote: “Are you trying to be funny again? Or just displaying your piss-poor knowledge of military operations?”

    “No, I’m not. And no, I’m not. My plan requires the use of Russia’s nuclear arsenal to get rid of the American pest once and for all. All what Europeans need to do is make Russia & America believe that the other side is attacking them. Already found a name for it: Operation Skynet… ;-)”

    It’s cute how deeply you live in a fantasy world. A little frightening, too.

    Jeff wrote: “How’s that? Why don’t you explain it to me?”

    “The culprit of any war is the side that made a war inescapable, i.e. in this case America,”

    America was isolationist at this point, whatever Roosevelt wanted. So, irrelevant, except for the cuckoo-land you inhabit.

    “England”

    Yes, again irrelevant. The British (and French, did you forget about them? More piss-poor understanding of history) were, to a large degree, bluffing.

    “and Zionist Jewry, with the help of the Colonels’ Regime of Poland,”

    How, exactly, did that work? There were connections between the Polish Government and the Zionists in the 1930’s but that was to reform Israel to have a place for Polish Jews to go, not start a war with Nazi Germany.

    “not the side that was defeated and unsurprising depicted by some victors as guilty. The latter is just a mixture of convenient pretexts and fairy tales for simpletons.”

    The fairy tale is what whack-a-doodles cook up to justify….whatever it is you are trying to justify.

    Hermie, what you are describing requires an enormous amount of coordination and planning. It hinged on a wild card, Adolf Hitler. Do you now believe that these “forces” were controlling Hitlers movements?
    What if Hitler didn’t bite? The initiatives came from him. Hitler inquired about access through the Corridor and Danzig, the Poles didn’t initiate this.
    If the idea was to eventually crush Hitler, why jerk around for so long and give him exactly what he wanted? Why weren’t the Poles better supplied? Why didn’t the French and British immediately attack right after their declarations of war? Most German forces were actively engaged in Poland.
    And so on….
    Whatever this weird “conspiracy” is that you’ve cooked up to maintain your Hitler idol-worship is unworkable and frankly ridiculous. If this is true, your little fantasy, it’s the most piss-poor excuse of a conspiracy in the history of conspiracies.

    Jeff wrote: “While you are at it, why don’t you explain to me how it would be possible for “European nations willing to survive should seriously consider the complete obliteration of that degenerate colony”?

    “Already done. See above.”

    Again, cute and somewhat frightening.

    Jeff wrote: “Apparently you think it is. You apparently think it would be possible for Belgium to attack the United States. I hate to break it to you but it’s 2016, not 1716. Or even 1816. Oh, shit, that’s still funny. Seriously, I read the “European nations willing to survive should seriously consider the complete obliteration of that degenerate colony” and laughed out loud.”

    “Don’t stop laughing as long as you can. Keep looking at the sky and wait for the coming of the mushrooms… ;-)”

    If it didn’t happen during the Cold War it isn’t going to happen now.
    But, if I was you, my hope would be that there are no mushrooms. I live fairly close to an Air Force Base, my end will be quick because the resulting blast will turn me into dust.
    Europe, on the other hand, will suffer. Any nuclear exchange between Russia and the US will turn both countries into melting slag heaps. Europe would be caught in the middle, victims of fall out, radiation poisoning, vast unpredictable climate change, the contamination of food and water supplies, the nuclear pollution of the environment, etc. Basically we are looking at an end of the world scenario.
    I’d be careful of what you wish for, bunkie. The nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia are capable of making the mass extinctions of the past look like a breezy Spring day.

    Jeff wrote: ”The Germans did both. The initial Communist attacks led to both the deportation of Jews and the execution of French citizens. However, the German military attempted to lower the executions by balancing them against the deportation of Jews. They wanted to limit French anger over executions by lowering the deaths.”

    “Or they were just fair and good.”

    Fair and good would be to find those responsible and punish them, not the innocent. I personally have no objections to the execution of terrorists. If the Germans had caught the Communists and their handlers they were perfectly justified in executing them.
    Killing hostages out of frustration is wrong and frankly counter productive. These killings served the cause of the Communists by causing anger among the population.

    Jeff wrote: “They deported French Jews, not foreign Jews living in France. Later these deportations would primarily be foreign Jews.”

    “Most of the Jews deported from France were foreign Jews living in France.”

    We were talking about the initial deportations in response to Communist bombings.

    “And all the Jews deported from Belgium were foreign Jews living in Belgium.”

    OK.

    Jeff wrote: “Auschwitz isn’t located in the former “Pale of Settlement,” doofus. Those were Austro-Hungarian lands after the various partitions of Poland between Austria, Prussia and Russia. Now we can add a shitty understanding of history and the inability to read a fucking map to your piss-poor understanding of military operations.”

    “Auschwitz was a major railway hub and so also a transit camp aka a dispatching center.”

    It was also a concentration camp, labor camp and extermination camp. See, there’s proof of German efficiency right there.

    “Only morons as yourself believe that Auschwitz was actually the final destination of the Jews not needed for labor in German factories.”

    Ok. Prove it. At the last count we had about 2.5 million Jews that real history says were gassed. Tell me where these Jews were sent, with proof, and we’ll call it even.

    Jeff wrote: “So, I’m back to being a kike? Make up your mind, damn it. I’m happy to mock you over this but I need you to settle on one delusion at a time. This scatter shot approach is confusing.”

    “You’ve never stopped to being that, Moshe.”

    Oh, so I am a Jew? Ok, glad we got that cleared up.
    Now that you’ve revealed my true identity, be prepared to lose your job, your shelter and your bank account. The female members of your family will be sold into slavery and you will live the rest of your life in destitution.

    😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    I have no doubt that you will believe that stupid bullshit because it feeds the paranoid delusions that fuel you.
    God, deniers are so fucking stupid. The fact that you think I’m a Jew proves that. Anyone that doesn’t believe in your delusions has to be a Jew, right, moron?
    This is so much fun.
    Hey, Hermie, be careful. The “Tribe” is everywhere. I can get one of my fellow “co-religionists” to hide in your closet and jump out at you when you least expect it. I’ll have him do it when there is a full moon so his fangs and horns are showing.
    😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

    Jeff wrote: “No, the Geneva Conventions bound each signatory to treat POWs of foreign armies humanely, even those by countries not signatories. So, the Germans were bound by international law by treaties they willing signed (and never withdrew from) to treat the Soviet POWs in a humane manner. It didn’t matter that the Soviets never signed or ratified those treaties.”

    “Legislative nitpicking.”

    That bound the Germans to treat all POWs humanely, regardless of whether or not that Soviets signed it or not.

    Jeff wrote: “I understand that reality does not match the ideal. Both sides murdered POWs or allowed harsh conditions in POW camps but never to the extent of what the Germans did in less than a year to some 2 million Soviet POWs.”

    “If the Soviets claimed it was, that must be true. Holohoaxsters are the last people on earth pretending to regard Soviet claims as real information. Except for Fidel Castro and the rulers of China maybe.”

    Ducking and dodging, no attempt to provide proof.

    Jeff wrote: “I asked you for proof of this. Do you not have any?”

    “I don’t have time now. I’ll provide what you asked later.”

    I won’t lose sleep over it.

    Jeff wrote: “I could be a smart ass and just say, “It’s something I read somewhere””

    “Already forgotten I came back to that later and provided you with the source of that claim??? I remember your hilarious reaction to that. Visibly, you couldn’t understand why I was reviving that debate by providing you with the source you had previously asked.”

    You gave me unsubstantiated testimony from someone on trial for his life.
    I’m still waiting on additional proof. I won’t lose sleep over it.
    I also provided you information to read.

    Jeff wrote: “but I’ll give you some sources to look at:”

    “I could see no source. All I can see is the same unsourced propaganda papers as usual…”

    Prove otherwise.

    Jeff wrote: “Someone has been taking rhetoric lessons.”

    “‘Rhetoric’ is your magic word to put inconvenient things aside. Your pathetic trick stopped working a long time ago.”

    Yet you still keep engaging with me.

    Jeff wrote: “See how pathetic deniers are.”

    “Patently the reply of a kid…”

    At least I’m not a paranoid delusional freak.

    Jeff wrote: “Oh, so all the defendants at Nuremberg were executed? Huh. News to me. Back to the whole, “shitty understanding of history.””

    “The main ones, the biggest fish, were. Nazi Germany was beheaded (i.e. deprived of its leaders). So the goal of those ‘trials’ was reached. Your claim that the Nuremberg ‘trials’ were not mock trials because the accusers didn’t butcher all the convicts is laughable.”

    It’s what the Soviets wanted. They wanted everyone hung. If they were controlled by the Jews and the Jews controlled the trial, why didn’t this happen.

    I snipped off the rest, because, frankly, I’m now bored.

    Comment by Jeff K. — August 29, 2016 @ 12:38 pm

  2. Please provide, in German, the Wansee Protocol that CODOH is using to translate. I want to see the original document in German.
    Comment by Jeff K. — August 22, 2016
    well here you are Jeff K; I m not sure it is of any help to you though as you are monoglot.

    http://www.ghwk.de/ghwk/deut/protokoll.pdf

    Comment by peter — August 23, 2016 @ 9:48 am

    • Why, thank you Peter.

      Oh, and Peter, there’s this little thing called “the Internet” that has translation programs…..even for us monoglots.

      I actually translated some pages in Russian that Gasan sent me. So, no worries. When I get a chance I can translate it my self.

      Comment by Jeff K. — August 23, 2016 @ 10:11 am

      • You make me laugh Jeff if you think Google translate will provide you with an accurate translation. You’re stuck in your monoglot world where all your news is provided by CNN . Sad.

        Comment by peter — August 23, 2016 @ 10:48 am

        • “You make me laugh Jeff if you think Google translate will provide you with an accurate translation. You’re stuck in your monoglot world where all your news is provided by CNN . Sad.”

          You also make me laugh with your endless Hitler hero worship, Peter. What is sad is admiring a man dead for 71 years who led his country to ruin.
          I don’t watch CNN, Peter.

          Comment by Jeff K. — August 23, 2016 @ 11:05 am

          • There’s the reason progress will never be made on this topic. Everyone is too busy hurling insults at each other. There’s educated people here,it’s just when someone’s opinion doesn’t go the way someone else thinks it should,out comes the barbs.
            I’m not pointing fingers at anyone,it’s just at times this tends to look like that Facebook thing. There’s absolutely dick for educated people on that site. To be honest,people on FB,remind me of a bunch of under educated high school kids,who think Justin Berber is for cultured people.
            I’ve mentioned before,I’m trying to figure this whole thing out,but then the Chop fight starts. Once again I’m at square one trying to figure it out again.
            I’ve not spent a long time studying on this topic. What I know of it,is from school. To me,it was just another point on the historical timeline of man.
            I took an interest in this topic,because of this site. Both sides tend to present good arguments . At the same I’ve seen questionable facts presented the opposition every now and again.
            I know I’ve said this a billion times before,but I’ve taken either side here yet. I don’t think I have enough of anything to go on.
            People from both sides will sometimes answer my questions. Both sides seem to be knowledgable,but then the chop fights start between the opposing sides,and I get lost.

            Comment by Tim — August 23, 2016 @ 12:55 pm

          • You wrote: “I don’t watch CNN”

            At least we agree on something. I don’t watch CNN either.

            Comment by furtherglory — August 24, 2016 @ 8:15 am

            • CNN. Barry’s favorite network. They carry all his water.
              I heard one of the anchors said in relation to CNN,”we’ve given Clinton a free ride,as far as we can”. What’s the skinny on that?
              Maybe Clinton just needs to get back on the subway and work on the people there.

              Comment by Tim — August 24, 2016 @ 8:22 am

    • You wrote: “Please provide, in German, the Wansee Protocol that CODOH is using to translate. I want to see the original document in German.”

      The house where the Wannsee conference was held has all of the documents in the original German. They provide a guidebook that you can use to translate all the documents into English, as you take the tour.

      Wannsee is 50 miles from Berlin and there is a lake there. Brad Pitt has a house on the lake. You could visit him while you are there.

      Comment by furtherglory — August 24, 2016 @ 8:19 am

      • Peter already provided it but thank you.

        Comment by Jeff K. — August 24, 2016 @ 8:27 am

      • 15 miles – about an hour from the centre of Berlin by public transport

        Comment by Anonymouse — August 28, 2016 @ 5:03 pm

        • You wrote: “15 miles – about an hour from the centre of Berlin by public transport”

          The city of Berlin might have grown, since I was there, and the Wannsee house might now be only 15 miles from the city by public transport. This was not the case when I visited the Wannsee house. I had to hire a taxi cab to drive me there.

          Comment by furtherglory — August 29, 2016 @ 12:13 pm

          • Have you ever heard of Uri Gellar?

            I forgot all about him,until I ran across a website that had a story about him.
            I was reading a skeptics website. He just flat out called Gellar a common criminal. He said the guy got rich peddling BS to people about,his mind powers.

            Uri was on the Tonight Show with Carson back in ’73. Carson wasn’t all together convinced this idiot was for real. It said Carson was talking to his buddy,Randy the Magician as to how to trip this idiot up. Randy told Carson to pick out the spoons that Uri was gonna use to bend with his mind. He came on the Carson show and couldn’t bend any spoons with his mind. He couldn’t read anybodies mind. He gave Carson the excuse he couldn’t perform with his mind that night,because he wasn’t feeling “strong”. I guess the Jews are good with coming up with BS,and getting half the world to believe them

            I’m just trying to figure out why he was never hauled into court,and charged with being a fraud.

            Comment by Tim — August 29, 2016 @ 1:48 pm

            • You wrote: ” I’m just trying to figure out why he [Uri Geller] was never hauled into court,and charged with being a fraud.”

              I have heard of him, but I have never blogged about him. He was never hauled into court because he is Jewish. What’s not to like?

              Comment by furtherglory — August 29, 2016 @ 2:35 pm

              • Well he had nothing to do with the holo,but he’s running around trying to make people think he can do the impossible, getting rich doing it.

                Typical Jew mindset from what I’m seeing. Randy the Magician and Carson both thought he was a fraud. This idiot failed to realize,Carson was a magician too.

                Look up uri Gellar tonight show 1973. It’s the clip when he fell flat on his ass. If you watch Carsons looks,you can tell he’s getting pissed with Uris BS. No this idiot targets people who are stupid enough to buy into his BS. The Jewish way I guess.

                Comment by Tim — August 29, 2016 @ 3:05 pm

              • FG. You told me one time Hebs don’t believe in hell. If they don’t buy into hell,then I’m gonna deduce,they don’t believe in satan.

                I mean the saints stay in heaven,demons and satan stay in hell. Satan was around in the Old Testament . He used the snake to f–k over eve. The Old Testament is pretty much geared towards Jews . So if that’s the case,why don’t they accept Lucifer as being real. I’ve heard of exorcisms from Jews before. If they don’t go with satan being real,why do they have exorcisms? Or is this just another thing Jews do to lead general population astray? To me,they just seem to contradict themselves

                Comment by Tim — August 29, 2016 @ 8:00 pm

  3. Every time democrashit demonstrates that it is a dumb foolish political system which never worked (not even in Ancient Greece) and will never work, the old dying democratic witch gets another alleged Nazi monster out of her hat in order to show its supposed utility to the mesmerized masses. Quite pathetic. And laughable.

    Comment by hermie — August 23, 2016 @ 5:52 am

    • Long as we’re talking about Dems, everyone see where Clinton took the subway?
      Next thing she’ll be standing in like at the soup kitchen,with all the homeless people.

      Comment by Tim — August 23, 2016 @ 8:52 am

    • “Every time democrashit demonstrates that it is a dumb foolish political system which never worked (not even in Ancient Greece) and will never work, the old dying democratic witch gets another alleged Nazi monster out of her hat in order to show its supposed utility to the mesmerized masses. Quite pathetic. And laughable.”

      Yes, we can all see how well party dictatorships worked out in Germany and the USSR.
      Who doesn’t want mass murders and corrupt political systems that ruin the countries they spawn in?
      Yup, sign me up!!!!

      Comment by Jeff K. — August 23, 2016 @ 9:34 am

      • The mass murder thing only works with the childish and dishonest use of a distorted history designed by the victors of WW2 for self-revering purposes and consisting in blaming defeated Nazi Germany for the entire death toll of WW2. Without that gross bamboozlement trick for morons, the German National Socialist revolution was and remains the least bloody revolution ever. Around mid-1933, when Zionist anti-German atrocity propaganda was already running high in America and England, Goebbels even offered a reward to anybody able to provide him with the name of a single Jew murdered during the National Socialist Revolution. No need to say nobody was able to get the money offered by Goebbels at that time.

        And you’d better not mention corrupt political systems. Corruption is the core of democracy. No politician can go very far in a democracy if he/she refuses to be corrupt. Democracy is nothing but a machine selecting the most corrupt as efficiently as Mother Earth selects the fittest. No US or European politician can rise above the position of assistant mayor in a small town if he/she refuses to play the Zionist Lobby’s game.

        Comment by hermie — August 24, 2016 @ 8:34 am

        • “The mass murder thing only works with the childish and dishonest use of a distorted history designed by the victors of WW2 for self-revering purposes and consisting in blaming defeated Nazi Germany for the entire death toll of WW2.”

          What’s childish is continuing to revere a man dead for 71 years that started the European end of the bloodiest conflict in world history.

          “Without that gross bamboozlement trick for morons, the German National Socialist revolution was and remains the least bloody revolution ever.”

          Initially, yes. In the 30’s National Socialism was practically a bloodless revolution (compared to the Bolshevist Revolution in the USSR). The “Night of the Long Knives” was nothing compared to the Great Purge conducted by Stalin. It was only after National Socialism oozed beyond its borders that it drenched itself in blood.

          “Around mid-1933, when Zionist anti-German atrocity propaganda was already running high in America and England, Goebbels even offered a reward to anybody able to provide him with the name of a single Jew murdered during the National Socialist Revolution. No need to say nobody was able to get the money offered by Goebbels at that time.”

          As if anyone would have dared. Don’t be such a child.

          “And you’d better not mention corrupt political systems. Corruption is the core of democracy.”

          Corruption is the core of all political systems. Germans called Nazi party members “Golden Pheasants,” Communist party members were referred to as “Fat Cats.”

          “No politician can go very far in a democracy if he/she refuses to be corrupt.”

          Same thing with the Nazi Party. Goering was infamous in this regard.

          “Democracy is nothing but a machine selecting the most corrupt as efficiently as Mother Earth selects the fittest.”

          Obviously the Nazi Party was not “the fittest.”

          “No US or European politician can rise above the position of assistant mayor in a small town if he/she refuses to play the Zionist Lobby’s game.”

          Spare me the childish bullshit.

          Comment by Jeff K. — August 24, 2016 @ 10:57 am

          • Empty puerilities based on pseudo-historical falsehoods and infantile philosophy as usually. Boring…

            Comment by hermie — August 25, 2016 @ 12:37 am

            • “Empty puerilities based on pseudo-historical falsehoods and infantile philosophy as usually. Boring…”

              Nice. I enjoy the vocabulary lesson. Is it a substitution for an actual argument? I think so.

              Comment by Jeff K. — August 25, 2016 @ 6:11 am

              • Jeff wrote: “Is it a substitution for an actual argument?”

                No argument needed to reply the empty rambling in your previous comment. Already embarrassing enough for you. Nothing but playground games. Uninteresting…

                Comment by hermie — August 26, 2016 @ 7:33 am

                • “No argument needed to reply the empty rambling in your previous comment. Already embarrassing enough for you. Nothing but playground games. Uninteresting…”

                  Maybe so. But it’s all true, what I wrote.
                  I realize it is hard for you to deal with the fact that Hitler was really no better than someone like Stalin, that the Nazi Party was just as corrupt as the Communists or the Democratic parties.
                  I stopped believing in fairy tales a long time ago. Maybe you should do the same.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 26, 2016 @ 7:43 am

                • Oh yes, it’s very hard to deal with your ridiculous empty claims, Jeff. So scary…😉

                  For info, the first 100,000 members of the NSDAP, the Alte Kämpfer (Old Fighters), were called ‘golden pheasants’ because of the colors of their party badge, the Golden Party Badge. And Nazi Germany ‘drenched itself in blood’ mainly because of the activities of various terrorists orthodox history has now recorded as ‘resistants’ and ‘partisans.’ Causing German retaliation in order to ruin any peaceful, quiet occupation, was their purpose. Georgian Uncle Joe didn’t send his Partisans against the Germans in order to protect Mother Russia or similar propaganda BS. He did that in order to ruin the relationships between the German troops and the locals just liberated from his ‘Workers’ Heaven.’ He unleashed his herds of partisans in order to make the lot of the civilians in Eastern Europe as bad as possible during the war. And he succeeded in doing that…

                  Comment by hermie — August 27, 2016 @ 1:03 am

                • “Oh yes, it’s very hard to deal with your ridiculous empty claims, Jeff. So scary… ;-)”

                  Really? Ever get around to proving that the Ponary Massacre was committed by Communists and not the Nazis?

                  “For info, the first 100,000 members of the NSDAP, the Alte Kämpfer (Old Fighters), were called ‘golden pheasants’ because of the colors of their party badge, the Golden Party Badge.”

                  And continued as a pejorative term by not only Germans but by citizens in other countries.

                  The Nazi Government was riddled with corruption. This is what happens in dictatorships because the people placed in power answer to no one. In democracies scandals topple people from power, not so in dictatorships. That only happens in dictatorships when the offender becomes so blatant it can’t be ignored, for example Julius Streicher. But, even then Streicher enjoyed the protection of Hitler and never did prison time.

                  “And Nazi Germany ‘drenched itself in blood’ mainly because of the activities of various terrorists orthodox history has now recorded as ‘resistants’ and ‘partisans.’ Causing German retaliation in order to ruin any peaceful, quiet occupation, was their purpose.”

                  Ah, so, the Germans came to spread peace, life and mana among the occupied countries, especially in the East? Did they hand out lollipops and puppies?
                  That’s hysterical, you really are a funny guy, Hermie.
                  Wait, you’re serious?
                  😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

                  Why would the Germans set out to murder the Polish elite if that was the case? Force millions of Jews and Poles out of their homes? Enact punishing agricultural quotas and occupation costs? Plunder valuable artwork and industry?
                  Hermie, I haven’t even gotten to the USSR yet. Those things happened in Poland, France and Greece (among others). Those actions caused resistance that had nothing to do with Soviet partisans.
                  It only got worse when the Germans invaded the USSR. The deliberate starvation and maltreatment that led to the deaths of 2 million Soviet POWs in less than a year, the kidnapping and shipping of Soviet citizens to Germany for slave labor, the plundering of agriculture and industry, the wild “partisan hunts” that left thousands dead and dozens of villages burned (with maybe the capture of a few weapons and a few actual partisans dead), the withholding of food from the native population allowing them to starve, the list goes on and on.

                  Much of the Soviet population, especially Ukrainians, did initially welcome the Germans. It was German cruelty that turned that around long before the partisans had any real effect.

                  “Georgian Uncle Joe didn’t send his Partisans against the Germans in order to protect Mother Russia or similar propaganda BS. He did that in order to ruin the relationships between the German troops and the locals just liberated from his ‘Workers’ Heaven.’ He unleashed his herds of partisans in order to make the lot of the civilians in (I changed “Eastern Europe” to) the USSR (it makes more sense, the Red Army and Soviet partisans didn’t reach “Eastern Europe” until 1944) as bad as possible during the war. And he succeeded in doing that….”

                  Agree, somewhat. Stalin didn’t want his populace getting too cozy with the Germans.
                  He didn’t need to worry. The Germans did a fine job pissing off the locals without his help.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 27, 2016 @ 9:10 am

                • You wrote: “That only happens in dictatorships when the offender becomes so blatant it can’t be ignored, for example Julius Streicher.”

                  I wrote about Julius Streicher in this blog post:
                  https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/julius-streicher/

                  Comment by furtherglory — August 27, 2016 @ 9:42 am

                • Julius Streicher was a vile man disliked by many top Nazis, including Herman Goering.

                  That being said, I don’t think his crimes warranted execution. Even Telford Taylor didn’t believe so.

                  However, I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep over the execution of a human stain like Streicher.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 27, 2016 @ 10:32 am

                • Jeff wrote: “Really? Ever get around to proving that the Ponary Massacre was committed by Communists and not the Nazis?”

                  One should first try to prove it happened and it happened on a scale close to that alleged. Except Ufologists, who care about alleged investigations by Soviet Extraordinary Commissions and testimonial (anedoctical) history telling?

                  Jeff wrote: “And continued as a pejorative term by not only Germans but by citizens in other countries.”

                  What shows? Except that there are so many people who understand almost nothing…

                  Jeff wrote: “The Nazi Government was riddled with corruption. This is what happens in dictatorships because the people placed in power answer to no one. In democracies scandals topple people from power, not so in dictatorships. That only happens in dictatorships when the offender becomes so blatant it can’t be ignored, for example Julius Streicher. But, even then Streicher enjoyed the protection of Hitler and never did prison time.”

                  A single example? Waw! Nice demonstration that “the Nazi government was riddled with corruption.” In the best tradition of Holohoaxers’ methodoly…

                  Moreover Streicher was neither the pillar of the NSDAP nor the influent propagandist depicted by today’s orthodox history. He was a mere gauleiter publishing a newspaper read by not many people. Never at the core of the Nazi party. Not even consulted in the drafting the Nuremberg racial laws, nor involved in the works of the Institute on the Jewish Question at Frankfurt. As legitimate in a depiction of the Nazi party as the Democrat governor of a small US county in a depiction of the Democrat party.

                  Jeff wrote: “Ah, so, the Germans came to spread peace, life and mana among the occupied countries, especially in the East? Did they hand out lollipops and puppies? That’s hysterical, you really are a funny guy, Hermie. Wait, you’re serious.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂”

                  No, they came to crush the Soviet threat by breaking the imminent Soviet invasion of Central Europe.

                  Jeff wrote: “Why would the Germans set out to murder the Polish elite if that was the case? Force millions of Jews and Poles out of their homes? Enact punishing agricultural quotas and occupation costs? Plunder valuable artwork and industry?”

                  Because Poland was to be redrawn for starting the war.

                  Jeff wrote:” Hermie, I haven’t even gotten to the USSR yet. Those things happened in Poland, France and Greece (among others). Those actions caused resistance that had nothing to do with Soviet partisans.”

                  There’s nothing easier than putting a chicken or egg causality dilemma upside down, isn’t it? The pattern of German occupation of France shows very clearly that the Communist partisans really began their sabotage and murder activities after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war and that the Germans were in fact compelled to react to the growing violence of those gangs. Crystal clear…

                  Jeff wrote: “It only got worse when the Germans invaded the USSR. The deliberate starvation and maltreatment that led to the deaths of 2 million Soviet POWs in less than a year, the kidnapping and shipping of Soviet citizens to Germany for slave labor, the plundering of agriculture and industry, the wild “partisan hunts” that left thousands dead and dozens of villages burned (with maybe the capture of a few weapons and a few actual partisans dead), the withholding of food from the native population allowing them to starve, the list goes on and on.”

                  You’re funny with your deliberate starvation of Soviet POWs. The Germans captured much more Soviet prisoners than expected and they were unable to accomodate properly so many prisoners in so little time. And they also offered Stalin an agreement on the mutual treatment of their POWs. Stalin rejected it (unsurprising, since he had even ordered the destruction of the Soviet POWs in German hands), so leaving no doubt as to the fate of the German POWs in Soviet hands. You can’t request that any army cares much about the fate of some enemy POWs when its own men are dying in captivity on the other side. Ridiculous…

                  You can call forced laborers during a world war ‘kidnapped slave laborers’ if you want to. But I’m afraid your trick won’t cross the Atlantic. Everybody older than 5 years old should be able to understand that a world war is likely to cause various shortages and specific needs justifying the use of forced laborers from abroad and similar things such as seizures. In Europe, a world war means something other than it does in America. It’s not only something people saw in movies and read in newspapers. The Europeans of that time would have dreamed of a sweet world war with posters calling for fuel & paper savings.

                  The burned villages seems largely due to Stalin’s harsh scorched earth policy.

                  Jeff wrote: “Much of the Soviet population, especially Ukrainians, did initially welcome the Germans. It was German cruelty that turned that around long before the partisans had any real effect.”

                  See the chicken? See the egg? Who’s first?😉

                  Jeff wrote: “Agree, somewhat. Stalin didn’t want his populace getting too cozy with the Germans. He didn’t need to worry. The Germans did a fine job pissing off the locals without his help.”

                  If Soviet-Allied propagandists said they did, that must be true. Probably. Maybe. Might be. Not utterly impossible…

                  Comment by hermie — August 27, 2016 @ 9:20 pm

                • “Jeff wrote: “Really? Ever get around to proving that the Ponary Massacre was committed by Communists and not the Nazis?”

                  “One should first try to prove it happened and it happened on a scale close to that alleged. Except Ufologists, who care about alleged investigations by Soviet Extraordinary Commissions and testimonial (anedoctical) history telling?”

                  Are you saying it didn’t happen?

                  Jeff wrote: “And continued as a pejorative term by not only Germans but by citizens in other countries.”

                  “What shows? Except that there are so many people who understand almost nothing…”

                  That makes no sense whatsoever.

                  Jeff wrote: “The Nazi Government was riddled with corruption. This is what happens in dictatorships because the people placed in power answer to no one. In democracies scandals topple people from power, not so in dictatorships. That only happens in dictatorships when the offender becomes so blatant it can’t be ignored, for example Julius Streicher. But, even then Streicher enjoyed the protection of Hitler and never did prison time.”

                  “A single example? Waw! Nice demonstration that “the Nazi government was riddled with corruption.” In the best tradition of Holohoaxers’ methodoly…”

                  It was the one I came up with. Here are some others:

                  Hans Frank-Himmler found that Frank was hoarding foodstuffs for his family to use and sell, enriching himself with state property and funds and was sending back food and other plundered items back to Germany for his personal use. He was reprimanded but stayed in power.

                  Herman Goering-once halted tax evasion proceedings against a tobacco firm by taking a three million mark bribe. Goering plundered art treasures from all over Europe for his personal collection, accepted half a dozen “salaries” from different ministries, enjoyed taking over property from dispossessed Jews (something done by many upper level Nazis) and by 1942 preferred spending time playing with diamonds rather than looking after his quickly outmatched and overextended Air Force.

                  Joseph Goebbels-used his power and position to force German actresses to sleep with him, actually got into Hitler’s dog house by sleeping with a Czech actress. Goebbels used his position as Gauleiter of Berlin to receive dues in excess of his salary, also profited by seizing Jewish property.

                  In fact, here’s an entire chapter on corruption in the Third Reich.

                  https://books.google.com/books?id=poikX8ecYRwC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=corruption+Hermann+Goering&source=bl&ots=W-vwU8EDkt&sig=eEQv98XQrlWcj8ZdBHzi04nZnto&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjanpejrOPOAhVC6GMKHeY3Dhw4ChDoAQgnMAQ#v=onepage&q=corruption%20Hermann%20Goering&f=false

                  “Moreover Streicher was neither the pillar of the NSDAP nor the influent propagandist depicted by today’s orthodox history. He was a mere gauleiter publishing a newspaper read by not many people. Never at the core of the Nazi party. Not even consulted in the drafting the Nuremberg racial laws, nor involved in the works of the Institute on the Jewish Question at Frankfurt. As legitimate in a depiction of the Nazi party as the Democrat governor of a small US county in a depiction of the Democrat party.”

                  Ok. Read the chapter I posted.

                  Jeff wrote: “Ah, so, the Germans came to spread peace, life and mana among the occupied countries, especially in the East? Did they hand out lollipops and puppies? That’s hysterical, you really are a funny guy, Hermie. Wait, you’re serious.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂”

                  “No, they came to crush the Soviet threat by breaking the imminent Soviet invasion of Central Europe.”

                  Really? By signing a treaty with the Soviets giving them half of Poland and the Baltic states? Isn’t that kinda giving them a good head start? Would you like to rethink that?

                  Jeff wrote: “Why would the Germans set out to murder the Polish elite if that was the case? Force millions of Jews and Poles out of their homes? Enact punishing agricultural quotas and occupation costs? Plunder valuable artwork and industry?”

                  “Because Poland was to be redrawn for starting the war.”

                  Really? Poland invaded Germany? I think you have that mixed up. Germany actually invaded Poland, starting the European theater of the Second World War.

                  Jeff wrote:” Hermie, I haven’t even gotten to the USSR yet. Those things happened in Poland, France and Greece (among others). Those actions caused resistance that had nothing to do with Soviet partisans.”

                  “There’s nothing easier than putting a chicken or egg causality dilemma upside down, isn’t it? The pattern of German occupation of France shows very clearly that the Communist partisans really began their sabotage and murder activities after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war and that the Germans were in fact compelled to react to the growing violence of those gangs. Crystal clear…”

                  By deporting Jews to Auschwitz? How does that punish the Communists in France?

                  You only mentioned France. What about the other countries?

                  Oh, please prove that the Communist partisans in France were Jewish.

                  Jeff wrote: “It only got worse when the Germans invaded the USSR. The deliberate starvation and maltreatment that led to the deaths of 2 million Soviet POWs in less than a year, the kidnapping and shipping of Soviet citizens to Germany for slave labor, the plundering of agriculture and industry, the wild “partisan hunts” that left thousands dead and dozens of villages burned (with maybe the capture of a few weapons and a few actual partisans dead), the withholding of food from the native population allowing them to starve, the list goes on and on.”

                  “You’re funny with your deliberate starvation of Soviet POWs. The Germans captured much more Soviet prisoners than expected and they were unable to accomodate properly so many prisoners in so little time.”

                  No, they simply didn’t care. It suited their purposes to allow these men to die, that way they didn’t have to feed them. Hitler himself believed that because the USSR never agreed to the Geneva Conventions Germany was not bound by it in regards to Soviet POWs (he was wrong). The Germans captured about as many French and British during the Western campaign yet very few of these prisoners died. The Germans built no shelters for these men and made no real attempt to feed them, even forbidding the locals to feed them on their own initiative. German war games actually predicted about the amount of prisoners they actually captured, primarily due to the encirclement tactics practiced by the Wehrmacht.

                  It is also worth noting that the death toll among Soviet POWs declined once the decision was made to use these POWs for industry.

                  “And they also offered Stalin an agreement on the mutual treatment of their POWs. Stalin rejected it (unsurprising, since he had even ordered the destruction of the Soviet POWs in German hands), so leaving no doubt as to the fate of the German POWs in Soviet hands. You can’t request that any army cares much about the fate of some enemy POWs when its own men are dying in captivity on the other side. Ridiculous…”

                  Yet the percentage of German POWs that died (33%) is lower than the percentage of Soviet POWs that died (57%). If what you say is true, why isn’t the percentage reversed?

                  Also, I want to see proof of this “offer.” My understanding is that it was the other way around, that the Soviets offered to abide by the Geneva Conventions and the Germans turned them down.

                  “You can call forced laborers during a world war ‘kidnapped slave laborers’ if you want to. But I’m afraid your trick won’t cross the Atlantic.”

                  Really? The European historians I read agree with me.

                  “Everybody older than 5 years old”

                  So, not deniers.

                  “should be able to understand that a world war is likely to cause various shortages and specific needs justifying the use of forced laborers from abroad and similar things such as seizures.”

                  Sure. But seizing foreign nationals against their will, deporting them to foreign countries and treating them like dogs is not going to gain you any sympathy.

                  This sort of thing falls under “Crimes Against Humanity.”

                  “In Europe, a world war means something other than it does in America. It’s not only something people saw in movies and read in newspapers. The Europeans of that time would have dreamed of a sweet world war with posters calling for fuel & paper savings.”

                  Drivel, therefore, unimportant.

                  “The burned villages seems largely due to Stalin’s harsh scorched earth policy.”

                  No, it happened during German “partisan hunts.” There is no “seems” about it.

                  Jeff wrote: “Much of the Soviet population, especially Ukrainians, did initially welcome the Germans. It was German cruelty that turned that around long before the partisans had any real effect.”

                  “See the chicken? See the egg? Who’s first? ;-)”

                  Do I see you not making any fucking sense? Why yes, I do.

                  Jeff wrote: “Agree, somewhat. Stalin didn’t want his populace getting too cozy with the Germans. He didn’t need to worry. The Germans did a fine job pissing off the locals without his help.”

                  “If Soviet-Allied propagandists said they did, that must be true. Probably. Maybe. Might be. Not utterly impossible…”

                  Again, do I see you not making any fucking sense? Why yes, I do.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 27, 2016 @ 11:32 pm

                • Jeff wrote: “Are you saying it didn’t happen?”

                  I’m saying that it was not conclusively and reliably proved and as long as it remains so I’ll keep regarding it as a groundless claim.

                  Jeff wrote: “It was the one I came up with. Here are some others:”

                  Waw! 1 single example and 2 rumor-based additional examples! I’m stunned…by your naivety. Perhaps you should consider a career as a hairdresser. Could probably satisfy your taste for the dissemination of gossips…erh history of WW2.

                  Jeff wrote: “Really? By signing a treaty with the Soviets giving them half of Poland and the Baltic states? Isn’t that kinda giving them a good head start? Would you like to rethink that?”

                  The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was about the definition of distinct spheres of influence. It didn’t compel the Soviets to invade Eastern Europe. It just said: Do what you want in that area. Not my business.

                  Would you like to rethink your claim that the Soviets were some kind of peace-loving flower growers only wanting to live quietly at home?

                  The Versailles-inherited mess in Central and Eastern Europe had vastly proved the ineptitude of the maps drawn by the hypocritical victors of WW1 for the everlasting prostration of Germany and Austria. Was logical to restore the conditions prevailing in that area for centuries until only 20 years earlier. When something has proved its complete inefficiency, it’s time to cancel it and restore conditions having vastly proved their efficiency. May the US ignoramuses never believe again that they have the intellectual abilities needed to understand Europe and its needs. Otherwise European nations willing to survive should seriously consider the complete obliteration of that degenerate colony…

                  Jeff wrote: “Really? Poland invaded Germany? I think you have that mixed up. Germany actually invaded Poland, starting the European theater of the Second World War.”

                  There are ways to start wars other than invasions, American simpleton. Life is no Hollywood movie or comic book.

                  Jeff wrote: ” By deporting Jews to Auschwitz? How does that punish the Communists in France?”

                  I had the retaliatory executions of French hostages, not the ‘Back to the Pale’ trip of the Jews living in France at that time, in mind, Judeocentric kike.

                  Jeff wrote: “No, they simply didn’t care. It suited their purposes to allow these men to die, that way they didn’t have to feed them.”

                  Don’t waste your precious time trying to prove that.

                  Jeff wrote: “Hitler himself believed that because the USSR never agreed to the Geneva Conventions Germany was not bound by it in regards to Soviet POWs (he was wrong).”

                  No, he was right. The Geneva convention was a bilateral contract implying a mutual good treatment of POWs. No country would treat foreign prisoners better than the way its own guys are treated on the other side. Would be nonsensical. Countries of course signed the Geneva conventions with the hope that their men would be treated well by their enemies, NOT with the hope that they would be compelled to treat foreign prisoners well while their own men were dying in foreign hands. Stop asking the Nazis to be more catholic than the Pope. Ridiculous.

                  Doesn’t change the fact that Hitler offered Stalin a kind a Russo-German Geneva convention on the treatment of POWs and Uncle Joe refused it.

                  Jeff wrote: “The Germans captured about as many French and British during the Western campaign yet very few of these prisoners died. The Germans built no shelters for these men and made no real attempt to feed them, even forbidding the locals to feed them on their own initiative. German war games actually predicted about the amount of prisoners they actually captured, primarily due to the encirclement tactics practiced by the Wehrmacht. It is also worth noting that the death toll among Soviet POWs declined once the decision was made to use these POWs for industry.”

                  Different conditions, different results.

                  Jeff wrote: “Yet the percentage of German POWs that died (33%) is lower than the percentage of Soviet POWs that died (57%). If what you say is true, why isn’t the percentage reversed?”

                  Source of this claim? The findings of a Soviet Investigation Commission?

                  Jeff wrote: “Really? The European historians I read agree with me.”

                  Historians as you said. Or in other words, ludicrous storytellers who would sell their own mother in order to keep their spot under the sun.

                  Jeff wrote: “So, not deniers.”

                  And visibly not yourself either. See the pathetic puerility of this ‘reply.’

                  Jeff wrote: “Sure. But seizing foreign nationals against their will, deporting them to foreign countries and treating them like dogs is not going to gain you any sympathy.”

                  What else than “treating them like dogs” could the victorious liars say?

                  Jeff wrote: “This sort of thing falls under “Crimes Against Humanity.””

                  Hypocritical code word for “vanquished to be executed.” He who wants to drown his dog…you know the rest of it. Laughable…

                  Jeff wrote: “Drivel, therefore, unimportant.”

                  Obviously true and inconvenient, therefore labelled unimportant or irrelevant. Nothing new.

                  Jeff wrote: “No, it happened during German “partisan hunts.” There is no “seems” about it.”

                  Academic historians’ job is not, and has never been, the formulation of “seems.” Their job is the repetition of victors’ propaganda narrative.

                  Jeff wrote: “Do I see you not making any fucking sense? Why yes, I do.”

                  Call somebody near you with an IQ above room temperature so that he can make sense of it and help you.

                  Jeff wrote: “Again, do I see you not making any fucking sense? Why yes, I do.”

                  You’re seemingly very tired. Go to bed and have a good night…

                  Comment by hermie — August 28, 2016 @ 8:03 am

                • “Jeff wrote: “Are you saying it didn’t happen?”

                  “I’m saying that it was not conclusively and reliably proved and as long as it remains so I’ll keep regarding it as a groundless claim.”

                  http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/einsatz/ponary.html

                  http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/ponary.html

                  The Soviets actually excavated those sites.
                  Now, prove it was them and not the Germans.

                  Jeff wrote: “It was the one I came up with. Here are some others:”

                  “Waw! 1 single example and 2 rumor-based additional examples! I’m stunned…by your naivety. Perhaps you should consider a career as a hairdresser. Could probably satisfy your taste for the dissemination of gossips…erh history of WW2.”

                  I gave you Frank, Goering, Goebbels and Streicher. I also gave you an entire chapter on Nazi corruption that included small fry.
                  I’m stunned by your inability to count. Perhaps you should consider a career as an elementary school teacher, that could help your problem with numbers. After all, the best way to learn something is to teach it.

                  Jeff wrote: “Really? By signing a treaty with the Soviets giving them half of Poland and the Baltic states? Isn’t that kinda giving them a good head start? Would you like to rethink that?”

                  “The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was about the definition of distinct spheres of influence. It didn’t compel the Soviets to invade Eastern Europe. It just said: Do what you want in that area. Not my business.”

                  Giving them the green light to do whatever they wanted in the region, this included the basing of Red Army troops in these countries and later annexing them (the Baltic states). Oh, the Germans repeatedly asked the Soviets to invade Eastern Poland. In other words, introducing Red Army troops into the region. That seem like stopping a Soviet invasion to you?
                  So, giving the Soviets a green light to extend their “influence” seem like a good idea to prevent a future Soviet invasion to you?

                  “Would you like to rethink your claim that the Soviets were some kind of peace-loving flower growers only wanting to live quietly at home?”

                  Would you like to rethink that really stupid fucking statement?
                  I’m the one pointing out that the Germans invited Soviet troops into Eastern Poland. I’m the one pointing out the really bad strategic move in allowing the Soviets into the Baltics.

                  “The Versailles-inherited mess in Central and Eastern Europe had vastly proved the ineptitude of the maps drawn by the hypocritical victors of WWI”

                  In a sense I agree with you. Replacing the empires in Europe with a series of small states made trade difficult and disrupted the balance of power.

                  “for the everlasting prostration of Germany and Austria.”

                  Are you trying to be funny again? Versailles was a half measure that failed because it took just enough from the Germans to aggravate them while essentially leaving them in a position to still dominate Central Europe. German industry remained intact, it’s loss of territory, insignificant.

                  “Was logical to restore the conditions prevailing in that area for centuries until only 20 years earlier.”

                  Except that the government in Moscow was completely different than the ineffectual Czars. It was more logical to keep the Baltics and Poland intact as buffers against Bolshevist expansion. Hitler gave them up to keep the USSR out of the developing conflict in the West, not on any high handed ideal of restoring conditions that existed 200 years previously.

                  “When something has proved its complete inefficiency, it’s time to cancel it and restore conditions having vastly proved their efficiency.”

                  Really? By introducing Communism in areas previously hostile to it? By allowing Red Army troops closer to the heart of Europe (something that happened anyway by Hitler’s ill-conceived attack on the Soviet Union while Britain stood defiant, exacerbated by the ill-conceived declaration of war on the US)?

                  “May the US ignoramuses never believe again that they have the intellectual abilities needed to understand Europe and its needs.”

                  Apparently I understand them better than you do.
                  For example I understand that it’s better to have buffers between you and a potentially powerful enemy.

                  I actually understand why Hitler agreed to this arrangement, he believed that the British and French would back off, allowing him to deal with the Poles without interference. If they didn’t this left Poland isolated and easier to deal with because Hitler believed (this belief was completely justified) that the French and British would not attack him without Soviet assistance. This was Hitler at his pragmatic best. This agreement secured the Eastern Front, allowing him to destroy the Poles without interference and then turn on the West without worrying about the Soviets.

                  However it couldn’t have made him comfortable, the knowledge that he no longer had the luxury of the Balts and Poles sitting between him and the Soviets. This made any Soviet attack easier and made any invasion more difficult. Subsequent events proved this without question.

                  “Otherwise European nations willing to survive should seriously consider the complete obliteration of that degenerate colony…”

                  Are you trying to be funny again? Or just displaying your piss-poor knowledge of military operations?

                  Jeff wrote: “Really? Poland invaded Germany? I think you have that mixed up. Germany actually invaded Poland, starting the European theater of the Second World War.”

                  “There are ways to start wars other than invasions, American simpleton.”

                  How’s that? Why don’t you explain it to me? While you are at it, why don’t you explain to me how it would be possible for “European nations willing to survive should seriously consider the complete obliteration of that degenerate colony”?

                  My God, that’s funny.

                  “Life is no Hollywood movie or comic book.”

                  Apparently you think it is. You apparently think it would be possible for Belgium to attack the United States. I hate to break it to you but it’s 2016, not 1716. Or even 1816.
                  Oh, shit, that’s still funny. Seriously, I read the “European nations willing to survive should seriously consider the complete obliteration of that degenerate colony” and laughed out loud.

                  Jeff wrote: ” By deporting Jews to Auschwitz? How does that punish the Communists in France?”

                  “I had the retaliatory executions of French hostages,”

                  The Germans did both. The initial Communist attacks led to both the deportation of Jews and the execution of French citizens. However, the German military attempted to lower the executions by balancing them against the deportation of Jews. They wanted to limit French anger over executions by lowering the deaths.

                  “not the ‘Back to the Pale’ trip of the Jews living in France at that time,”

                  They deported French Jews, not foreign Jews living in France. Later these deportations would primarily be foreign Jews.

                  Auschwitz isn’t located in the former “Pale of Settlement,” doofus. Those were Austro-Hungarian lands after the various partitions of Poland between Austria, Prussia and Russia.
                  Now we can add a shitty understanding of history and the inability to read a fucking map to your piss-poor understanding of military operations.

                  “in mind, Judeocentric kike.”

                  So, I’m back to being a kike? Make up your mind, damn it. I’m happy to mock you over this but I need you to settle on one delusion at a time. This scatter shot approach is confusing.

                  Jeff wrote: “No, they simply didn’t care. It suited their purposes to allow these men to die, that way they didn’t have to feed them.”

                  “Don’t waste your precious time trying to prove that.”

                  Why should I bother? You wouldn’t understand it if I did. After all, you have a shitty understanding of history, you can’t read a fucking map and you have a piss-poor understanding of military operations.

                  Jeff wrote: “Hitler himself believed that because the USSR never agreed to the Geneva Conventions Germany was not bound by it in regards to Soviet POWs (he was wrong).”

                  “No, he was right. The Geneva convention was a bilateral contract implying a mutual good treatment of POWs. No country would treat foreign prisoners better than the way its own guys are treated on the other side. Would be nonsensical. Countries of course signed the Geneva conventions with the hope that their men would be treated well by their enemies, NOT with the hope that they would be compelled to treat foreign prisoners well while their own men were dying in foreign hands. Stop asking the Nazis to be more catholic than the Pope. Ridiculous.”

                  No, the Geneva Conventions bound each signatory to treat POWs of foreign armies humanely, even those by countries not signatories. So, the Germans were bound by international law by treaties they willing signed (and never withdrew from) to treat the Soviet POWs in a humane manner. It didn’t matter that the Soviets never signed or ratified those treaties.

                  I understand that reality does not match the ideal. Both sides murdered POWs or allowed harsh conditions in POW camps but never to the extent of what the Germans did in less than a year to some 2 million Soviet POWs.

                  “Doesn’t change the fact that Hitler offered Stalin a kind a Russo-German Geneva convention on the treatment of POWs and Uncle Joe refused it.”

                  I asked you for proof of this. Do you not have any?

                  Jeff wrote: “The Germans captured about as many French and British during the Western campaign yet very few of these prisoners died. The Germans built no shelters for these men and made no real attempt to feed them, even forbidding the locals to feed them on their own initiative. German war games actually predicted about the amount of prisoners they actually captured, primarily due to the encirclement tactics practiced by the Wehrmacht. It is also worth noting that the death toll among Soviet POWs declined once the decision was made to use these POWs for industry.”

                  “Different conditions, different results.”

                  By about a month. The Germans attacked France in May, the USSR in June. Granted, the Soviets continued to fight while France, Belgium and the Netherlands folded in about a month, making it easier to deal with POWs. However, the Germans treated Western Europe differently, this included POWs.

                  Jeff wrote: “Yet the percentage of German POWs that died (33%) is lower than the percentage of Soviet POWs that died (57%). If what you say is true, why isn’t the percentage reversed?”

                  “Source of this claim? The findings of a Soviet Investigation Commission?”

                  I could be a smart ass and just say, “It’s something I read somewhere” but I’ll give you some sources to look at:

                  http://www.historynet.com/soviet-prisoners-of-war-forgotten-nazi-victims-of-world-war-ii.htm

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_mistreatment_of_Soviet_prisoners_of_war

                  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_prisoners_of_war_in_the_Soviet_Union

                  http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/prisoners-of-war-in-ww2/german-prisoners-of-war/

                  Jeff wrote: “Really? The European historians I read agree with me.”

                  “Historians as you said. Or in other words, ludicrous storytellers who would sell their own mother in order to keep their spot under the sun.”

                  Someone has been taking rhetoric lessons.

                  Jeff wrote: “So, not deniers.”

                  “And visibly not yourself either. See the pathetic puerility of this ‘reply.’”

                  See how pathetic deniers are.

                  Jeff wrote: “Sure. But seizing foreign nationals against their will, deporting them to foreign countries and treating them like dogs is not going to gain you any sympathy.”

                  “What else than “treating them like dogs” could the victorious liars say?”

                  Please provide proof of the conditions of foreign workers in German care to refute that they were “treated like dogs.” Should be easy to find information on how well they were treated.

                  Jeff wrote: “This sort of thing falls under “Crimes Against Humanity.””

                  “Hypocritical code word for “vanquished to be executed.” He who wants to drown his dog…you know the rest of it. Laughable…”

                  Oh, so all the defendants at Nuremberg were executed? Huh. News to me.
                  Back to the whole, “shitty understanding of history.”

                  Jeff wrote: “Drivel, therefore, unimportant.”

                  “Obviously true and inconvenient, therefore labelled unimportant or irrelevant. Nothing new.”

                  Nope, just Hermie drivel.

                  Jeff wrote: “No, it happened during German “partisan hunts.” There is no “seems” about it.”

                  “Academic historians’ job is not, and has never been, the formulation of “seems.” Their job is the repetition of victors’ propaganda narrative.”

                  ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz……

                  Jeff wrote: “Do I see you not making any fucking sense? Why yes, I do.”

                  “Call somebody near you with an IQ above room temperature so that he can make sense of it and help you.”

                  That would actually be a she, I’d ask your mom but it would be rude for her to talk with her mouth full.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 28, 2016 @ 1:06 pm

                • There’s one thing I’ve always wanted to ask about the pact. We all know it went straight to hell in a handcart. Did either side actually ever think this pact was gonna hold up?

                  It seems like before the ink dried on the document,both sides were at each other’s throats.

                  Comment by Tim — September 1, 2016 @ 10:52 am

                • Jeff wrote: “The Soviets actually excavated those sites. Now, prove it was them and not the Germans.”

                  I was not in the Soviet or Nazi thing. I was in the fact or war lie thing.

                  Your Soviet archaeological ‘demonstrations’ are funny and 100% unconvincing, Jeff. Find something else…

                  Jeff wrote: “I gave you Frank, Goering, Goebbels and Streicher. I also gave you an entire chapter on Nazi corruption that included small fry.”

                  None of your examples was reliable info. Sounded much like victors’ usual vilifying stories. And your examples didn’t even deal with corruption. Your ‘Goebbels forced a German actress to sleep with him’ claim was the most ridiculous of your examples.

                  Your link didn’t work. All I got was a description of that book.

                  Jeff wrote: “Giving them the green light to do whatever they wanted in the region, this included the basing of Red Army troops in these countries and later annexing them (the Baltic states). Oh, the Germans repeatedly asked the Soviets to invade Eastern Poland. In other words, introducing Red Army troops into the region. That seem like stopping a Soviet invasion to you? So, giving the Soviets a green light to extend their “influence” seem like a good idea to prevent a future Soviet invasion to you?”

                  That was the best way to avoid a 2-front war.

                  Jeff wrote: “Would you like to rethink that really stupid fucking statement? I’m the one pointing out that the Germans invited Soviet troops into Eastern Poland. I’m the one pointing out the really bad strategic move in allowing the Soviets into the Baltics.”

                  You’re also the one depicting the Soviets as peace-loving hippies as soon as anybody says Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike intended to break an imminent Soviet invasion. Embroiled in your inconsistencies, it seems…

                  Jeff wrote: “In a sense I agree with you. Replacing the empires in Europe with a series of small states made trade difficult and disrupted the balance of power.”

                  Obviously.

                  Jeff wrote: “Are you trying to be funny again? Versailles was a half measure that failed because it took just enough from the Germans to aggravate them while essentially leaving them in a position to still dominate Central Europe.”

                  You’re free to swallow the excuse of Wilson’s alleged concern for the so-called right to self-determination of the peoples in Central and Eastern Europe if you want to. I’m free to laugh at Wilson’s deceptive excuse and see his real intents and goals.

                  Jeff wrote: “German industry remained intact, it’s loss of territory, insignificant.”

                  Insignificant? 10% of territory and 15% of population lost isn’t insignificant. And Germany was deprived of a very significant amount of resources. The Versailles robbery deprived Germany of 75% of its iron for instance. And were Austria’s territorial losses insignificant too?

                  German industry remained intact…and ‘free’ to ship what it was producing directly to the victors of WW1. How lucky! Why didn’t they just say ‘Thank you for being so generous with us, masters’?

                  Jeff wrote: “Except that the government in Moscow was completely different than the ineffectual Czars. It was more logical to keep the Baltics and Poland intact as buffers against Bolshevist expansion. Hitler gave them up to keep the USSR out of the developing conflict in the West, not on any high handed ideal of restoring conditions that existed 200 years previously.”

                  Was it more logical to get a 2-front war against England, France, Poland and the Soviet Union from September 1939? C’mon, Jeff. Laughable.

                  Jeff wrote: “Really? By introducing Communism in areas previously hostile to it? By allowing Red Army troops closer to the heart of Europe (something that happened anyway by Hitler’s ill-conceived attack on the Soviet Union while Britain stood defiant, exacerbated by the ill-conceived declaration of war on the US)?”

                  Reasoning within the false paradigm that the ruling elites in England, America and the Soviet Union wanted no war. Reasoning within false paradigms always leads to erroneous conclusions…

                  Jeff wrote: “Apparently I understand them better than you do. For example I understand that it’s better to have buffers between you and a potentially powerful enemy.”

                  Yes, buffers are much better than immediate 2-front wars. Congrats, Professor!!

                  Jeff wrote: “I actually understand why Hitler agreed to this arrangement, he believed that the British and French would back off, allowing him to deal with the Poles without interference. If they didn’t this left Poland isolated and easier to deal with because Hitler believed (this belief was completely justified) that the French and British would not attack him without Soviet assistance. This was Hitler at his pragmatic best. This agreement secured the Eastern Front, allowing him to destroy the Poles without interference and then turn on the West without worrying about the Soviets. However it couldn’t have made him comfortable, the knowledge that he no longer had the luxury of the Balts and Poles sitting between him and the Soviets. This made any Soviet attack easier and made any invasion more difficult. Subsequent events proved this without question.”

                  A policy of the lesser evil made the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact perfectly logical.

                  Jeff wrote: “Are you trying to be funny again? Or just displaying your piss-poor knowledge of military operations?”

                  No, I’m not. And no, I’m not. My plan requires the use of Russia’s nuclear arsenal to get rid of the American pest once and for all. All what Europeans need to do is make Russia & America believe that the other side is attacking them. Already found a name for it: Operation Skynet…😉

                  Jeff wrote: “How’s that? Why don’t you explain it to me?”

                  The culprit of any war is the side that made a war inescapable, i.e. in this case America, England and Zionist Jewry, with the help of the Colonels’ Regime of Poland, not the side that was defeated and unsurprising depicted by some victors as guilty. The latter is just a mixture of convenient pretexts and fairy tales for simpletons.

                  Jeff wrote: “While you are at it, why don’t you explain to me how it would be possible for “European nations willing to survive should seriously consider the complete obliteration of that degenerate colony”?

                  Already done. See above.

                  Jeff wrote: “Apparently you think it is. You apparently think it would be possible for Belgium to attack the United States. I hate to break it to you but it’s 2016, not 1716. Or even 1816. Oh, shit, that’s still funny. Seriously, I read the “European nations willing to survive should seriously consider the complete obliteration of that degenerate colony” and laughed out loud.”

                  Don’t stop laughing as long as you can. Keep looking at the sky and wait for the coming of the mushrooms…😉

                  Jeff wrote: ”The Germans did both. The initial Communist attacks led to both the deportation of Jews and the execution of French citizens. However, the German military attempted to lower the executions by balancing them against the deportation of Jews. They wanted to limit French anger over executions by lowering the deaths.”

                  Or they were just fair and good.

                  Jeff wrote: “They deported French Jews, not foreign Jews living in France. Later these deportations would primarily be foreign Jews.”

                  Most of the Jews deported from France were foreign Jews living in France. And all the Jews deported from Belgium were foreign Jews living in Belgium.

                  Jeff wrote: “Auschwitz isn’t located in the former “Pale of Settlement,” doofus. Those were Austro-Hungarian lands after the various partitions of Poland between Austria, Prussia and Russia. Now we can add a shitty understanding of history and the inability to read a fucking map to your piss-poor understanding of military operations.”

                  Auschwitz was a major railway hub and so also a transit camp aka a dispatching center. Only morons as yourself believe that Auschwitz was actually the final destination of the Jews not needed for labor in German factories.

                  Jeff wrote: “So, I’m back to being a kike? Make up your mind, damn it. I’m happy to mock you over this but I need you to settle on one delusion at a time. This scatter shot approach is confusing.”

                  You’ve never stopped to being that, Moshe.

                  Jeff wrote: “Why should I bother? You wouldn’t understand it if I did. After all, you have a shitty understanding of history, you can’t read a fucking map and you have a piss-poor understanding of military operations.”

                  Wrong and wrong. As explained above. Sorry. Seems you’ll have to find something else.

                  Jeff wrote: “No, the Geneva Conventions bound each signatory to treat POWs of foreign armies humanely, even those by countries not signatories. So, the Germans were bound by international law by treaties they willing signed (and never withdrew from) to treat the Soviet POWs in a humane manner. It didn’t matter that the Soviets never signed or ratified those treaties.”

                  Legislative nitpicking. The goal of all the signatories was of course the will to get the same treatment for their men in captivity.

                  Jeff wrote: “I understand that reality does not match the ideal. Both sides murdered POWs or allowed harsh conditions in POW camps but never to the extent of what the Germans did in less than a year to some 2 million Soviet POWs.”

                  If the Soviets claimed it was, that must be true. Holohoaxsters are the last people on earth pretending to regard Soviet claims as real information. Except for Fidel Castro and the rulers of China maybe.

                  Jeff wrote: “I asked you for proof of this. Do you not have any?”

                  I don’t have time now. I’ll provide what you asked later.

                  Jeff wrote: “I could be a smart ass and just say, “It’s something I read somewhere””

                  Already forgotten I came back to that later and provided you with the source of that claim??? I remember your hilarious reaction to that. Visibly, you couldn’t understand why I was reviving that debate by providing you with the source you had previously asked.

                  Jeff wrote: “but I’ll give you some sources to look at:”

                  I could see no source. All I can see is the same unsourced propaganda papers as usual…

                  Jeff wrote: “Someone has been taking rhetoric lessons.”

                  ‘Rhetoric’ is your magic word to put inconvenient things aside. Your pathetic trick stopped working a long time ago.

                  Jeff wrote: “See how pathetic deniers are.”

                  Patently the reply of a kid…

                  Jeff wrote: “Oh, so all the defendants at Nuremberg were executed? Huh. News to me. Back to the whole, “shitty understanding of history.””

                  The main ones, the biggest fish, were. Nazi Germany was beheaded (i.e. deprived of its leaders). So the goal of those ‘trials’ was reached. Your claim that the Nuremberg ‘trials’ were not mock trials because the accusers didn’t butcher all the convicts is laughable.

                  Jeff wrote: “Nope, just Hermie drivel.”

                  More and more mature, I see…

                  Jeff wrote: “ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz……”

                  At least, you don’t ridicule yourself when sleeping. Wise choice…

                  Jeff wrote: “That would actually be a she, I’d ask your mom but it would be rude for her to talk with her mouth full.”

                  Very sophisticated, agent provocateur Jeff. Congrats!!

                  Have you not yet realized that your boorish provocations don’t work with me??? Sad.😮

                  Comment by hermie — August 29, 2016 @ 8:47 am

  4. Tim and others
    Minutes during the Wannsee Conference were most likekely taken in Pitman-Sorthand with a soft special pencil that will indicate a heavier marking thus a change within a noun, subsequently minutes are later typed for distribution.

    I have done this numerous times for the ‘Endsieg des Dritten Reichs’ until May 1945. And, yes German is a difficult language when it comes to a proper translation.

    Comment by Herbert Stolpmann von Waldeck — August 22, 2016 @ 10:10 pm

    • Interesting HSW – the minutes were probably done in pencil in shorthand and then typed up later. But even then, there must have been an original type-written document taken from this shorthand, which would have to be approved and signed-off by Heydrich (or whoever) before other copies were made and distributed.

      I remember Germar Rudolf saying words to the affect that to be a serious holocaust researcher one would have to be able to read and understand the German language proficiently. That’s undoubtedly true – which means that those of us who aren’t, are largely reliant upon those people who can study and translate documents. But if you say that German is rather a difficult language to provide a proper translation – then we are all in a bit of a pickle !

      Comment by Talbot — August 23, 2016 @ 5:37 am

      • Translation and shorthand. Wouldn’t that throw up a couple red flags here?
        The man I have working for me,is from Guatemala . He’s told me,the Spanish he speaks as opposed to that of a Mexican,is somewhat different .
        I’ve known some people to have their own system of shorthand.
        Couldn’t either one of these,if not done properly,throw a monkey wrench into the whole program ?

        Comment by Tim — August 23, 2016 @ 8:27 am

  5. Ah yes RH. Knocked off because he was too good to the Czech common worker. Unlike the rickets infested and dwarf statured Ukabo working scum Czech workers didn’t prop up a load of workshy 1000 yearkreepzoids. This combined with his being “serious” and not a game boy NAZI, not a schachtmench like Hitler, made him too dangerous to live and torpedo 1943s tricksy general’s plot and general phukwittery through to 45. He’d have painted Wolf into an Italian grotto pronto in 43.

    Comment by thestoker — August 22, 2016 @ 2:24 am

    • The Stoker is back. Did Britain run out of beer?

      Comment by Jeff K. — August 22, 2016 @ 7:37 am

  6. OT, Schlageter posted this a couple of days ago:

    https://www.darkmoon.me/2016/official-german-records-of-prisoners-in-auschwitz-concentration-camp-from-may-1940-to-december-1944/

    This document is a forgery, created by a man named Peter Stahl, a man disavowed by David Irving and Germar Rudolf:

    http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/diary_extracts.html

    https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=51162#p51162

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=41726#p41726

    That’s how you prove a document is a forgery, folks.

    Maybe you should try it.

    Comment by Jeff K. — August 21, 2016 @ 5:23 pm

    • What do they use to prove a letter may or may not be bogus? Aside from historical accuracy.
      What I’m referring to is,the ink that was used in the letter. It might be ink in the letter, that’s regional. It might be ink that’s no longer in use. I saw something in the article that made reference to a typewriter. Companies sometimes make products ( in this case the typewriter), that slip past quality control. There may be a quirk that would be exclusive to a typewriter if that were the case. Xerox was mentioned in the article somewhere. As far as I’m concerned,I’m pretty sure anybody would dismiss anything that was photo copied. Once again Russia is bought into the picture. There was something in one of your articles,that led me to believe,something here had to do with the archives in Moscow .
      Once again,I’ve made it known,I don’t trust the Reds for shit.
      If any of this hinges on Moscow,then it’s all gonna go out the window for me.
      I would mention handwriting if any of that was bought up . Then again I’ve seen some forgers that are to forged handwringing,what Picaso and Dali are to the art world.

      Comment by Tim — August 21, 2016 @ 5:40 pm

      • Tim, deniers themselves disavowed this Stahl, Germar Rudolf stated he never compiled this list. Stahl forged this document and attributed it to Rudolf.

        Irving will not do business with this man.

        In other words, the list is crap.

        Comment by Jeff K. — August 21, 2016 @ 5:45 pm

  7. Contemporary film taken in Prague would seem to show that many Czechs adored him in 1942. Attitudes would change in 1945.

    Comment by peter — August 21, 2016 @ 4:00 pm

  8. Okay they wanna play that game. I want history to say Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli to be remembered as heros.
    Remember those 2? They were the ones that the CIA came to,when the CIA wanted Castro rubbed out. They never got a chance to do it,but they were willing to.
    Talk about risky business. Who ever ended up with the contract,would’ve had to have gotten into Cuba and out,with no one being none the wiser.
    We all know how Castro felt about made men.

    Comment by Tim — August 21, 2016 @ 3:53 pm

  9. FG writes;- ” At this conference, the plans for the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” had been discussed. Today, tourists can stand in the very room where the plans were made for the genocide of the Jews.”

    No, alas not, the tourists cannot stands in the room where plans were made for “the genocide of the Jews” – simply because no such plans were discussed there, and nor were any formulated beforehand or afterwards.

    FG goes on to write;- ” The Jews believe that the Holocaust was planned at the Wannsee Conference, and as the leader of this conference, Reinhard Heydrich was the worst of the Nazi war criminals.

    Now, that is a more promising statement – “The Jews believe that the Holocaust was planned at the Wannsee Conference”. Yes, the Jews certainly believe that to be the case, and the more credulous elements of the goyim likewise – but nobody else does!

    And whether Reinhard Heydrich was “the worst of the Nazi war criminals”, we shall never know the answer to that startling claim, because he was assassinated by terrorists sent from England in the middle of the war.

    Comment by Talbot — August 21, 2016 @ 10:24 am

    • “No, alas not, the tourists cannot stands in the room where plans were made for “the genocide of the Jews” – simply because no such plans were discussed there, and nor were any formulated beforehand or afterwards.”

      Please prove that this is not the case. Specifically, do you not believe that this conference ever took place? If so, what makes you believe this? What is your proof that this conference did not take place?

      If you do believe this conference took place, what do you think was discussed? What documentation do you have proving what discussions took place? What proof do you have that the documents you posses are real?

      “Now, that is a more promising statement – “The Jews believe that the Holocaust was planned at the Wannsee Conference”. Yes, the Jews certainly believe that to be the case, and the more credulous elements of the goyim likewise – but nobody else does!”

      Actually, the information I’ve read leads me to believe that actual historians no longer believe that any real planning took place. It was more in the line of coordination of effort and acknowledgement that the SS was in charge of solving the “Jewish Question.” Heydrich wanted everyone to understand this. The reality is that the Einsatzgruppen, Order Police, SS Cavalry and local collaboraters were shooting large numbers of Jews, Chelmno was in full operation and Globocnik was busy building Belzec.

      Comment by Jeff K. — August 21, 2016 @ 5:56 pm

      • Quote;- “the information I’ve read leads me to believe that actual historians no longer believe that any real planning took place”.

        So the historians themselves are confirming that “tourists cannot stand in a room where plans were made for the genocide of the Jews”.

        A meeting of government and Nazi officials that history records as the “Wannsee Conference” probably did take place in early 1942, in order to discuss evacuations, deportations and transportation of Jews to the east. But if the protocols of the conference are anything to go by, then there is no mention of mass killing or genocide.

        And to my knowledge, there is no other credible evidence that the Nazis were planning genocide either before the conference took place or afterwards. If such conclusive evidence does exist, then I await with anticipation for its publication.

        The SS were in charge of solving the Jewish Question – yes
        The Einsatzgruppen were operating in the occupied Soviet Union – yes ( although I question the words “large numbers of Jews”)
        Chelmno was in full operation – yes ( although we disagree on what was actually taking place there )
        Globocnik was busy building Belzec – yes (but once again, we disagree on what the purpose of the camp was for )

        Comment by Talbot — August 21, 2016 @ 6:40 pm

        • “So the historians themselves are confirming that “tourists cannot stand in a room where plans were made for the genocide of the Jews”.”

          Commonly misunderstood.

          “A meeting of government and Nazi officials that history records as the “Wannsee Conference” probably did take place in early 1942, in order to discuss evacuations, deportations and transportation of Jews to the east. But if the protocols of the conference are anything to go by, then there is no mention of mass killing or genocide.”

          True. However, considering that the EG was busy shooting mass numbers of Jews, the SS was busy gassing Jews at Chelmno and Globocnik was busy building Belzec nobody really needed to be told. Heydrich mainly wanted people to understand this was an SS project and that no one was to interfere.

          “And to my knowledge, there is no other credible evidence that the Nazis were planning genocide either before the conference took place or afterwards. If such conclusive evidence does exist, then I await with anticipation for its publication.”

          You wouldn’t believe it if there was a video of Hitler saying “I’m going to gas the Jews.”

          “The SS were in charge of solving the Jewish Question – yes
          The Einsatzgruppen were operating in the occupied Soviet Union – yes ( although I question the words “large numbers of Jews”)”

          Please prove otherwise. I’m willing to read any documentation on your possession.

          “Chelmno was in full operation – yes ( although we disagree on what was actually taking place there )”

          Yes. I actually have proof, you have nothing.

          “Globocnik was busy building Belzec – yes (but once again, we disagree on what the purpose of the camp was for )”

          Yes. Again, the proof is on my side, you have nothing.

          But, as always, if you actually have proof I’m willing to see it.

          Comment by Jeff K. — August 21, 2016 @ 6:52 pm

          • Well, if you read the “Holocaust Handbook” series, then you will find some good information regarding Chelmno and Belzec. But it would appear that you can’t prove that the Nazis planned any program of genocide, and you try and hide this fact by saying something flippant like ” You wouldn’t believe it if there was a video of Hitler saying “I’m going to gas the Jews”.

            On the contrary – if you were to produce real, conclusive, evidence that Hitler, Himmler or Heydrich authorised and planned a genocidal operation involving large groups of human beings then I would be receptive to such a revelation.

            But all you’ve done so far is produce documents, websites, books and you tube videos that don’t add up to anything remotely conclusive. In fact, some of the stuff you’ve produced just made me laugh, or I simply discarded it with contempt.

            Comment by Talbot — August 21, 2016 @ 7:31 pm

            • “Well, if you read the “Holocaust Handbook” series, then you will find some good information regarding Chelmno and Belzec.”

              I have read some of them. The books themselves are worth printing out…….if my son’s birdcage ever needs lining and I don’t have a newspaper.

              “But it would appear that you can’t prove that the Nazis planned any program of genocide, and you try and hide this fact by saying something flippant like ” You wouldn’t believe it if there was a video of Hitler saying “I’m going to gas the Jews”.”

              You wouldn’t believe it if something like that existed, Talbot.
              It doesn’t but it doesn’t matter. I’ve noticed that deniers simply cannot or will not accept evidence that threatens to penetrate the haze they live in. I think it comes from drinking denier Kool-Aid.

              “On the contrary – if you were to produce real, conclusive, evidence that Hitler, Himmler or Heydrich authorised and planned a genocidal operation involving large groups of human beings then I would be receptive to such a revelation.”

              No, you are incapable of such a thing, even if it existed.

              “But all you’ve done so far is produce documents, websites, books and you tube videos that don’t add up to anything remotely conclusive.”

              That’s the Kool-Aid talking again. I noticed you couldn’t prove anything was a forgery.

              This goes along with your inability to provide any evidence that the Holocaust is a hoax.

              “In fact, some of the stuff you’ve produced just made me laugh, or I simply discarded it with contempt.”

              But you can’t refute it. It goes along with your inability to provide proof of a “hoax.”

              You recently told me that Churchill was included in this “hoax”…..you even gave me the years he was involved. Now, that’s a bold statement. But, no proof.
              My assumption is that you have knowledge of Churchill’s involvement in this “hoax.” Naturally if something like this occurred of course Churchill would be involved. You said he was involved in 1944? 1945 and 1946? Correct me if I’m wrong.

              So, show me. What is the basis of your statement that Churchill was involved in this hoax from 1944-1946? Or, whatever years you said he was involved.

              Comment by Jeff K. — August 21, 2016 @ 7:56 pm

              • I said what I thought about Churchill – that’s my opinion, you are free to take it or leave it as you wish. If you want to dismiss my observations, then that’s fine – no problem at all.

                But please get back to me if you have any evidence that the Nazi leadership authorised and planned a program of genocide. And please don’t forget to take your own glass of “Kool-Aid” – I’m sure it will do you good.

                Comment by Talbot — August 21, 2016 @ 8:17 pm

                • “I said what I thought about Churchill – that’s my opinion, you are free to take it or leave it as you wish. If you want to dismiss my observations, then that’s fine – no problem at all.”

                  No, I thought you had something that you based that on….silly me.
                  So, this is how this whole denial thing works? Baseless opinions, wild speculation, guessing?

                  “But please get back to me if you have any evidence that the Nazi leadership authorised and planned a program of genocide. And please don’t forget to take your own glass of “Kool-Aid” – I’m sure it will do you good.”

                  But, apparently I don’t have to provide evidence. I’m a Holocaust denier denier.
                  Hitler, Goering, Himmler and Heydrich planned the gassing of the Jews on April 15th, 1941. Why? Because they decided it would kill two birds with one stone. The Jews would die and their clothes would be disinfected at the same time.

                  You want proof? I don’t have to give any. I’m a Holocaust denier denier.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 21, 2016 @ 8:43 pm

            • I did write about Reinhard Heydrich in my Blog : http://dachaukz.blogspot.co.nz/2016/03/reinhard-heydrich.html,, more or less why he finished up as as the alleged architect of the Holocaust, an expression that was coined well after WWII.During the Wannsee Conference Heydrich in his polished manner in parts commented to his guests, of the fate he envisaged for those Jews already under German control: “Under appropriate leadership,the Jews should be put to work in the East in the context of the final solution. In large, single-sex labour columns, Jews fit to work will work their way eastwards constructing roads. Doubtless the large majority will be eliminated by natural causes”. “Any final remnants that survive will no doubt consist of the most resistant elements”. These elements would have to be dealt with appropriately’ in order to avoid, as the experience of history confirmed, the formation of the germ cell [Kernzelle] of a new Jewish revival. (Which became Israel, ‘die Kernzelle’,sic)

              The fate of the millions of Jews deemed unable to work in the first place, most noteable the elderly and the sick, was much more straightforward. It was so obvious that it did not even need to be discussed.

              Comment by Herbert Stolpmann von Waldeck — August 21, 2016 @ 9:40 pm

              • The Codoh website publishes an article from 2001, entitled “The Wannsee Conference Protocol” by Johannes Peter Ney. In it, he provides a persuasive debunking of the protocals and the accompanying letters.

                He sums up by saying;-

                ” 5.1. Documentary Evidence for the Planned Genocide?

                To substantiate the claim that millions of Jews were deliberately murdered in concentration camps during World War Two, on the orders of German authorities, two and only two contemporaneous papers have been presented: the ‘Franke-Gricksch Report’ and the ‘Wannsee Conference Protocol’. The Franke-Gricksch Report was recently exposed as fabrication by Canadian researcher B. A. Renk.[29] It is a particularly clumsy fabrication and is thus hardly ever cited any more today.

                5.2. The Wannsee Conference

                That a conference between high officials and Party leaders took place in January 1942 in the villa ‘Am Großen Wannsee’ is probably true, although the precise date is unknown. No other documentation of this conference exists other than the ‘protocol’ and its accompanying letter(s). There is no entry in a guest book, an appointment calendar, or any other kind of incidental evidence.

                The invitations specify thirteen invitees. According to the ‘protocol’, however, eighteen persons showed up. Whether the discussion pertained to the Jewish question is not certain, but it is likely. What actually was discussed there is unknown.

                5.3. The Protocol

                No legally valid transcript or protocol of the discussion exists. The ‘Minutes of Discussion’ of unknown origin, first submitted in 1947 by Kempner, deposited in the Foreign Office and copied repeatedly, is a fabrication in the sense that the text of this paper was concocted years after the alleged discussion, by a person not involved in the conference, and this assessment is supported not only by the as yet unrefuted analysis by the five authors quoted herein, but also by the opinion of many earlier and more recent researchers…

                5.4. Allegations

                The crucial points which the media, leading politicians of all political parties in Bonn, and Holocaust experts allege time and again as being at the heart of the discussion in the Wannsee villa are not even present in this fabricated protocol. Specifically, the commonly-held opinions about the protocol, and the most common allegations, are:

                1.Hitler had participated in the discussion, according to Simon Wiesenthal.[30] There is no evidence to indicate this.
                2.Ernst von Weizsäcker had counter-signed the protocol. This is Reitlinger’s claim.[31] No such version has ever turned up.
                3.Eichmann had taken the minutes, i.e. had written or at least dictated them. This is according to Kempner.[32] There is no evidence for this.
                4.In thousands of newspaper articles, books, textbooks, radio broadcasts, memorial speeches and television shows, the claim has been advanced that the mass murder of the Jews was decided on at the Wannsee Conference, or at the least, that the plan to carry out Adolf Hitler’s order in this respect had been worked out there. As well, it is claimed, the means of killing had been discussed and the establishment of extermination camps was decided on. This is not in the protocol, and leading Holocaust historians are now repudiating it (cf. Jäckel (21)), even if Eichmann did give testimony to this effect in the course of his show trial in Jerusalem.[33]
                5.On the occasion of the 1987 anniversary, Federal Chancellor Helmut Kohl said that this conference had been “an extermination of the Jews in the German sphere of influence, launched with bureaucratic perfection.” A glance at the text of the ‘protocol’ would have shown Kohl that what we have here is not bureaucratic perfection, it is amateurish blabber at best

                Comment by Talbot — August 22, 2016 @ 8:03 am

                • I have written several blog posts about the Wannsee Conference:
                  https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/wannsee-conference/

                  Comment by furtherglory — August 22, 2016 @ 8:33 am

                • “No legally valid transcript or protocol of the discussion exists. The ‘Minutes of Discussion’ of unknown origin, first submitted in 1947 by Kempner, deposited in the Foreign Office and copied repeatedly, is a fabrication in the sense that the text of this paper was concocted years after the alleged discussion, by a person not involved in the conference”

                  Where is the evidence that this is a fabrication? What is the name of the person “not involved in the conference?”

                  and this assessment is supported not only by the as yet unrefuted analysis by the five authors quoted herein, but also by the opinion of many earlier and more recent researchers.”

                  What is the proof of this? Which researchers is this paragraph referring to when it says “but also the opinion of many earlier and more recent researchers?”

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 22, 2016 @ 8:34 am

                • Where is the evidence that this is a fabrication?

                  Analysis of the Wannsee Conference Protocol

                  3.2.1. Form

                  While it is claimed that the copy of the Wannsee minutes held by the Foreign Office is the original, this cannot in fact be the case, since it is identified as the 16th copy of a total of 30. Regardless whether it is genuine or fake, however, its errors and shortcomings as to form render it invalid under German law, and thus devoid of documentary value:

                  The paper lacks a letterhead; the issuing office is not specified, and the date, distributor, reference number, place of issue, signature, and identification initials are missing (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8]). The stamp with the date of receipt by the Foreign Office, which is (today!) named as the receiver, is missing (Tiedemann[11]). The paper lacks all the necessary properties of a protocol, i.e. the minutes of a meeting: the opening and closing times of the conference, identification of the persons invited but not attending (Tiedemann, ibid.), the names of each of the respective speakers, and the countersignature of the chairman of the meeting (Tiedemann, ibid., and Ney[10]). The paper does, however, bear the reference number of the receiving(!) office, namely the Foreign Office – typed on the same typewriter as the body of the text (Tiedemann[11]). The most important participant, Reinhard Heydrich, is missing from the list of participants (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8]).

                  3.2.2. Linguistic Content

                  The Wannsee Conference Protocol is a treasure-trove of stylistic howlers which indicate that the authors of this paper were strongly influenced by the Anglo-Saxon i.e. British English language. In the following we will identify only the most glaring of these blunders; many of them have been pointed out by all the authors consulted, so that a specific reference frequently does not apply.

                  The expressions “im Hinblick” (“considering”,* 8 times), “im Zuge” (“in the course of”, 5 times), “Lösung” (“solution”, 23 times), “Fragen” (“questions”, 17 times), “Problem” (6 times), “Bereinigen” (“to clarify”, 4 times), frequently even more than once in the same sentence, bear witness to such a poor German vocabulary that one may assume the author to have been a foreigner.

                  Further, the expressions “Lösung der Frage” (“solution of the problem”), “der Lösung zugeführt” (“brought near to a solution”), “Lösungsarbeiten” (“tasks involved” [in a solution; -trans.]), “Regelung der Frage” (“to settle the question”), “Regelung des Problems” (“to settle the problem”), “restlose Bereinigung des Problems” (“absolutely final clarification of the question” [i.e. the “problem”; – trans.]), “Mischlingsproblem endgültig bereinigen” (“securing a final solution of the problem presented by the persons of mixed blood”), “praktische Durchführung” (“practical execution”; is there such a thing as a theoretical execution?), and especially the frequent repetition of these expressions, are not at all the German style (Walendy[8]).

                  The phrase:[T0]

                  “der allfällig endlich verbliebene Restbestand […]” (“the possible final remnant”)

                  may perhaps appear in a prose text, but certainly not in the minutes of a conference. The text is interspersed with empty phrases such as;

                  “Im Hinblick auf die Parallelisierung der Linienführung” (“in order to bring general activities into line”) (Tiedemann[11])

                  and nonsensical claims such as;

                  “Die evakuierten Juden werden Zug um Zug in […] Durchgangsghettos gebracht […]” (“The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, into […] transit-ghettos […]”).

                  Since the evacuation of the Jews was not then ongoing, but rather was planned for the future, this would have to have read:

                  “Die zu evakuierenden Juden […]” (“The Jews to be evacuated […]”).

                  Further:

                  “Bezüglich der Behandlung der Endlösung” (“Regarding the handling of the final solution”)

                  How does one handle a solution? (Walendy[8])

                  “Wurden die jüdischen Finanzinstitutionen des Auslands […] verhalten […]”

                  Does the author mean “angehalten”?[T1]

                  “Italien einschließlich Sardinien” (“Italy incl. Sardinia”)

                  Why the need to specify? In Europe people knew very well what all was part of Italy.

                  “Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der […] Juden: […] städtische Arbeiter 14,8%” (“The breakdown of Jews […] according to trades […]: […] communal workers 14.8%” [i.e. “municipal” workers; -trans.]

                  Were all of these people common laborers? (Ney[10]) “Salaried employees” is probably what the author meant here. “[…] als Staatsarbeiter angestellt” (the Nuremberg Translation renders this as “employed by the state”, which glosses over the difference between “Arbeiter”, i.e. blue-collar workers, and “angestellt”, i.e. the condition of employment enjoyed by salaried and public employees; -trans.): so what were they, laborers or government employees? Did the author mean civil servants? (Ney, ibid.)

                  “In den privaten Berufen – Heilkunde, Presse, Theater, usw.” (“in private occupations such as medical profession, newspapers, theater, etc.”).

                  In German these are called “freie Berufe”, not “private Berufe”. Such persons are known as doctors, journalists, and artists. “usw.” is never preceded by a comma in German, whereas the English “etc.” almost always is.

                  “Die sich im Altreich befindlichen […]”

                  Well, German is a difficult language. (Ney, ibid.)

                  3.2.3. Contradictory Content

                  “[…] werden die […] Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt”: literally, “the Jews will be taken to these districts, constructing roads as they go”.

                  Migratory road crews?! Not a single road was constructed in this fashion! (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8])[T2]

                  “Im Zuge dieser Endlösung […] kommen rund 11 Millionen Juden in Betracht.” (“Approx. 11,000,000 Jews will be involved in this final solution […].”

                  Even the orthodox prevailing opinion holds that there were never more than 7 million Jews in Hitler’s sphere of influence. In actual fact there were only about 2.5 million. (Wahls[7] and Walendy[8])[19]

                  “[…] teilte [Heydrich] eingangs seine Bestellung zum Beauftragten für die Vorbereitung der Endlösung […] durch den Reichsmarschall mit” (“Heydrich gave information that the Reich Marshal had appointed him delegate for the preparations for the final solution […])

                  Göring did have the authority to appoint Heydrich to the position of his choice, but he would have done so via the proper channels. Heydrich’s superior was Himmler, and it would have taken Himmler’s orders to appoint (“ernennen”, not “bestellen”, which means “to summon”) Heydrich to anything. (Ney[10])

                  “Mit der Endlösung im Generalgouvernement zu beginnen, weil hier das Transportproblem keine übergeordnete Rolle spielt […] Juden müßten so schnell wie möglich aus dem Gebiet des Generalgouvernements entfernt werden” (“[…] the implementation of the final solution […] could start in the Government General, because the transportation problem there was of no predominant importance. […] The Jews had to be removed as quickly as possible from the territory of the Government General […]”

                  “To be removed as quickly as possible” and “constructing roads as they go” is quite a contradiction. But none of those attending the conference spoke up. Clearly Germany could muster only mental defectives as her Under Secretaries of State! (Walendy[8])

                  “Von den in Frage kommenden 2

                  “[…] Dr. Bühler stellte weiterhin fest, daß die Lösung der Judenfrage im Generalgouvernement federführend beim Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD liegt […]” (“[…] Bühler further stated that the solution of the Jewish question in the Government General as far as issuing of orders was concerned was dependent upon the chief of the Security Police and the SD […]”.

                  On the date of the conference at Wannsee Bühler could not have known this, for according to the ‘Protocol’ Heydrich had only just “announced his appointment as delegate” and his overall authority for the preparations involved. Dr. Bühler certainly did not have the authority to simply declare his superior, Dr. Hans Frank, the Governor General of Poland, removed from office! (Walendy, ibid.)

                  “Der Beginn der einzelnen Evakuierungsaktionen wird weitgehend von der militärischen Entwicklung abhängig sein” (“The carrying out of each single evacuation project of a larger extent will start at a time to be determined chiefly by the military development”).

                  This statement is false, for the eastward evacuation transports of Jews from the Reich territory, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, had already been ongoing since October 1941 – as Heydrich’s first invitation to the Wannsee conference had explicitly stated, by the way. (Walendy, ibid.)

                  “Die berufsständische Aufgliederung der im europäischen Gebiet der UdSSR ansässigen Juden war etwa folgende […]” (“The breakdown of Jews residing in the European part of the USSR, according to trades, was approximately as follows […]”

                  This clearly gives away the forger, at work years after the conference; at the time of the Wannsee Conference one would not have written “was”, but “is”. (Tiedemann[11])

                  3.2.4. Internal Consistency

                  Why were only the “seconds-in-command” invited to this conference if it was really so crucial, and why did not even these seconds-in-command bother to attend? Why, for example, would Dr. Hans Frank send, as his stand-in, Dr. Bühler, who lacked the authority to make any decisions since he was obliged to report anything of significance to his superior? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

                  Is it conceivable that subordinates decided on the genocide? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

                  Why was no one invited from offices whose cooperation would have been indispensable to the implementation of such an enormous murder scheme, such as the top management of the German Railway? (Tiedemann, ibid.)

                  Comment by Talbot — August 22, 2016 @ 9:02 am

                • Please provide, in German, the Wansee Protocol that CODOH is using to translate. I want to see the original document in German.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 22, 2016 @ 9:42 am

                • FG wrote in a blog;-

                  ” The minutes or protocols of the Wannsee meeting, 15 pages in all, were written by 36-year-old Adolf Eichmann. The copy that was found in 1947 was undated and unsigned; it had no stamp of any Bureau. The copy appeared to be a draft report of the meeting that was held on January 20, 1942 at Wannsee. ”

                  So the document produced by Robert Kempner was not even the original one, but a mere copy. ( and of course original documents are difficult to fabricate or tamper with – while a proficient forger can have a field day at making copies! )

                  And Johannes Peter Ney says;-

                  “According to his own statements, Robert M. W. Kempner, the prosecutor in the Wilhelmstraßen Trial of Ernst Weizsäcker, had been expecting a shipment of documents from Berlin in early March 1947. Among these papers, he and his colleagues discovered a transcript of the Wannsee Conference. The author of the protocol, it was claimed, was Eichmann.

                  I did read somewhere that this copy was discovered in the office of one of the alleged participants – Martin Luther, but how true that is, we don’t really know. The vagueness of its origin is not good enough for anyone to accept the protocols at face value.

                  Comment by Talbot — August 22, 2016 @ 9:42 am

                • How did they prove these were fake? Was it done with different ink that the original would’ve been done? What about the characteristics of the paper? What about the pressure that was used when writing it. There’s forgers out there,that are Picasos in the forgery field . If a typewriter was used,did they check into the typewriter ? The only thing I could think of,is maybe the facts clashed with each other in that letter. That would be the easiest way to prove it. Now if they prove it being a forged document through one of the other ways,that shits not easy to do. There’s even people that can forge handwriting like nobodies business. It’s not easy proving that either.

                  Comment by Tim — August 22, 2016 @ 12:46 pm

                • “Please provide, in German, the Wansee Protocol that CODOH is using to translate. I want to see the original document in German”.

                  No – you are quite capable of going to CODOH yourself and asking for the information that you require.

                  Comment by Talbot — August 22, 2016 @ 9:46 am

                • No, this is your point.

                  Are you saying you don’t have it? You don’t know what copy CODOH is using for their translation?

                  How can you trust them, then? Are you simply taking their word?

                  Isn’t that what deniers complain about?

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 22, 2016 @ 10:57 am

                • I wrote about the Wannsee protocol in English on my website. Sorry, but I did not quote the original German.
                  http://www.scrapbookpages.com/EasternGermany/Wannsee/Museum.html

                  Comment by furtherglory — August 22, 2016 @ 11:58 am

                • To be honest, I don’t really care. I’m just holding Talbot to the same standards he holds me to.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 22, 2016 @ 12:25 pm

              • I thought Eichman got tagged as the father of the architect. I’m just going on what history claims.
                No I don’t much by into what the liberal puke historians say. That’s all I’ve had to go on,up till I found out they also gave that moniker to Heydrich .
                If they said Heydrich was the bad guy on that one,why did the Jew court try to label Eichman as the father of the Holo?
                This is what I’m always talking about. Shit keeps getting shifted around.
                They blame Heydrich,then they blame Eichman. To me that would be like one person saying John Gotti was the head of The Gambinos,then someone else saying Sammy the Bull ran the family.

                Comment by Tim — August 23, 2016 @ 4:13 pm

                • That’s the beauty of this holocaust – the top villain keeps changing according to time and fashion. Hitler himself is always a favourite in the running, but of course, there is no connection between himself and this non-existent genocide. The holocausters try desperately hard to find some link between them, but after 71 years they have been singularly unsuccessful. And so, they pounce instead upon the subordinate personnel, who they imagine were instrumental in the “worst mass murder in history”. Himmler’s name is always to the fore, as is Heydrich. The inconsequential Eichmann was brought out of retirement to become a holocaust superstar in The Jerusalem Show Trial back in 1960, and perhaps surprisingly has never lost his high-ranking status.

                  The cruel Doctor Mengele appears regularly filling top spot in the charts, while Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz never seems to rise up into the top three. Name recognition is probably the main problem here, which is exacerbated by Hitler’s own deputy – who was named Rudolf Hess. Franz Stangl – the Treblinka commandant – was a household name back in the mid-1960’s when he was brought to trial – and was billed as the most wicked monster in the world, but he has since rapidly slipped down the charts, and is almost unknown today. The commandant of Belzec – named Christian Wirth ( nicknamed “The Savage Christian” ) was certainly regarded as a top-ranking mass murderer throughout Eastern Europe in the decades after the war – but he never really took-off in the west – plus the fact, he died in Italy during the war. And we mustn’t forget the top female villain – Ilsa Koch – “The Bitch of Buchenwald”, whose only crime was to be married to the commandant there, who really was a low-level villain, and was duly executed by the SS themselves, and so she had to take the rap for his misdeeds.

                  Comment by Talbot — August 23, 2016 @ 5:28 pm

                • It’s shit like this that makes me question the holo. This is turning into more of av,”he said,she said” type of deal.
                  There’s somethings that history points out about the holo that I’m kinda like,”okay,I can accept that”. However when they can’t make up their mind on something as simple as the “architect of the Holo”, they force me to start questioning the shit.,
                  I don’t wanna think that man could do something like this to his fellow man,yet the Jews want to make everyone think it did happen.
                  If they would stick by certain facts,I might start believing what they say.
                  Number of dead Jews . Who the father of the holo was. They can’t seem to stick to facts that are fairly easy. Since they can’t do that,I can’t move to look into the more complex claims they make

                  Comment by Tim — August 23, 2016 @ 11:40 pm

                • “It’s shit like this that makes me question the holo. This is turning into more of av,”he said,she said” type of deal.”

                  Tim, it’s not really like that. Talbot is simply being ridiculous.

                  “There’s somethings that history points out about the holo that I’m kinda like,”okay,I can accept that”. However when they can’t make up their mind on something as simple as the “architect of the Holo”, they force me to start questioning the shit.,”

                  Again, Talbot is simply being ridiculous.
                  The reality is that if you want to pinpoint who the “architects” of the Holocaust are you can look at Himmler, the overall head of the SS and Heydrich, his deputy. Heydrich issued the orders to the Einsatzgruppen that initiated the mass shootings of Jews in the Summer of 1941. Himmler ran the SS, the SS ran the camps.
                  There were a series of meetings between Hitler and Himmler in the Summer of 1941, after these meetings the killings escalated. In September of 1941 Hitler authorized the deportation of German Jews from the Reich into the killing zones of the Baltics and Poland. Local initiatives led to more killings, these initiatives also led to more effective and efficient methods of killing (especially after some of the Einsatzgruppen began having mental issues with the killing of unarmed men, women and children).
                  The truth is that Hitler left much of this to his subordinates like Himmler and Heydrich. He was busy losing, I mean er, directing the war in the East. He also realized after the Euthanasia Program caused an uproar in Germany it was better to distance himself from any type of mass killings undertaken by these subordinates.

                  “I don’t wanna think that man could do something like this to his fellow man,yet the Jews want to make everyone think it did happen.”

                  Humans are capable of horrible things, Tim. You fought in a war, you understand this.

                  “If they would stick by certain facts,I might start believing what they say.
                  Number of dead Jews .”

                  It isn’t as simple as that, Tim. The numbers of the dead are somewhat hard to calculate. I’ve seen numbers as low as 4.8 million to a high of 5.9 million.
                  But, really, it’s hard to calculate some numbers to any accurate degree. Take the number of Germans that died during the Allied bombing campaigns. I’ve seen numbers ranging from 400,000 to 600,000, yet I never hear any whining from deniers about that. Or the number of Soviet dead, I’ve seen numbers ranging from 15,000,000 to 27,000,000. Why the discrepancy? Well, in some ways it depends on how you calculate what casualties. Stalin actually downplayed the number after the war to hide how weak the USSR really was but serious research indicates that a lot of Soviet citizens died, not only due to being in combat zones but famine created by the Germans capturing some of highest food producing areas of the USSR, like the Ukraine.
                  The numbers of Chinese dead also fluctuate, I’ve seen numbers from 15,000,000 to 20,000,000, but again, no whining from deniers about the discrepancy of those numbers. I’ve read books on WW II that estimate the total number of dead from 50,000,000 to 60,000,000.
                  There’s even some dispute over the number of dead from the American Civil War, I’ve seen numbers as high as 800,000. So, there is always some discrepancy over numbers, especially when it comes to wars.

                  “Who the father of the holo was. They can’t seem to stick to facts that are fairly easy. Since they can’t do that,I can’t move to look into the more complex claims they make”

                  The overall responsibility rests with Hitler but, as I’ve said, it was his subordinates that carried it out. Talbot stretches things to ridiculous lengths but he mistakes what the public perceives as important to the reality of what happened. Someone like Mengele arouses morbid curiosity but the reality is that Mengele was simply a cog in a much larger machine. The same with Hoess or Eichman, they were important because of what they did but they were hardly “architects.”

                  Someone told me recently that deniers can only attack symbols, they can’t refute the reality of what happened. Talbot enjoys bagging on Barry the dog or squawking geese but these are just symbols, unimportant to reality. Talbot can’t tell me where the Jews went, he can’t tell me how the “hoax” was pulled off, he can’t even prove his statement that Churchill was involved in the hoax from 1944-1946. When I ask these things of other deniers they can’t do it either.
                  So, Tim, I’d suggest reading some books on the subject or visiting other sites. If you want I can provide you links and book titles. You aren’t going to find the information you need here.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 24, 2016 @ 7:11 am

                • I wrote about the Einsatzgruppen killing the Jews in Lithuania.
                  https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/the-killing-of-the-jews-in-lithuania/

                  Comment by furtherglory — August 24, 2016 @ 8:09 am

                • Okay. As long as you bought hitler up. I read in a book,or heard this one time on a show dealing with the holo.
                  What I heard was hitler only signed his name to an order one time. I don’t recall what it was,but it was in relation to holo activities.
                  Hitler signed his name to this order,and a few days down the road,he determined it could be very damning. After that,he never signed anything again. I guess the lackeys signed everything after that. Do you have any idea what it pertained to that he signed? Like I said,I remember it dealt with the holo,I just can’t remember the specifics of the document

                  Comment by Tim — August 24, 2016 @ 8:17 am

                • It was the Euthanasia Order, backdated to September 1st, 1939.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 24, 2016 @ 8:29 am

                • So it was nothing to do with the actual holo then

                  Comment by Tim — August 24, 2016 @ 10:39 am

                • No, not in the sense that it was specifically aimed at the Jews.
                  Yes, if your definition of the Holocaust includes the non-Jewish victims. My definition includes those non-Jewish victims.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 24, 2016 @ 11:19 am

                • I gotta keep the euthanasia program separate from the dead Jews . Jews got enough damned advocates. I don’t hear to many people bringing up the people who were killed because of their diminished capacity .
                  Just I “was” taking the free holo course from university of Tel Aviv. Where did they mention about all the dead souls from the euthanasia program? I don’t think I’ve ever heard the Jews mention them at all.
                  I’m the type of person,who’s “not” gonna support the euthanasia program. Wether those poor souls live or die,is not my decision to make.
                  True. A lot of them probably didn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground,but I’m not the one who decides their final fate.
                  If one of them had physical ailments ( in addition to the mental part),where they were in extreme pain 24/7, with no way of helping them out,then I’ll probably be willing to go along with putting them down. I don’t want to anyone suffer.
                  The other ones had the wits of a bag of hammers,but that no reason to have them eliminated. The Ol Man upstairs makes that call.

                  Comment by Tim — August 25, 2016 @ 10:05 am

                • “There were a series of meetings between Hitler and Himmler in the Summer of 1941, after these meetings the killings escalated.”

                  No one is disputing that that there were meetings between Hitler and Himmler – but is there any record in existence of a clear order from Hitler to Himmler authorising the extermination of all the Jews in Europe. And is there a clear directive from Himmler to Heydrich and to other subordinate personnel indicating specifically what is proposed, and detailing the plans and resources needed to implement this massive program of mass killing.

                  There would have to be voluminous correspondence taking between the various levels of the SS hierarchy, with documents and memos recording the program’s development and implementation – plus the progress reports that would be sent up the chain of command to Himmler’s office

                  And is it any surprise that large numbers of killings were taking place in the east by all sides in the major conflict that was unfolding there at the time. But you are just reduced to talking vaguely about “local initiatives”.

                  You go on to say;- “The numbers of the dead are somewhat hard to calculate. I’ve seen numbers as low as 4.8 million to a high of 5.9 million.

                  You see – the holocaust proponents cannot even give a realistic figure to the nearest 100,000. A discrepancy of 1.1 million is simply an enormous number of human beings whose very existence is in doubt. How can anyone accept these sort of totals unless there is genuine documentation recording where these people resided at their former addresses in each country, and the actual numbers who were transported by train to the various ghetto and camps.

                  We would then need an accurate total for the people who are alleged to have perished in these camps. The world should not have to rely on the claim that those who were destined for immediate extermination were not registered there. If this is the best explanation that the holocausters can provide – then they must provide us with full, detailed, technical reports of how these extermination facilities actually functioned, and also allow truly independent, international teams to search properly – and carry out forensic analysis – on any human remains that can be found at each of the sites where it is alleged that these mass killings killings took place.

                  Comment by Talbot — August 24, 2016 @ 8:40 am

                • That’s one that makes me scratch my head. If he in fact had 6 ( or 4 or 1.5 ) million Jews wasted,why would he be worried about putting his John Hancock on a paper,saying to bump as many Jews as possible.
                  If they had that many stiffs,who’d be worried about signing something.
                  Another thing. Hitler was dead when the trials started. If I was one of the defendants,I wouldn’t be so loyal anymore.
                  If he did in fact order all this,I’d be singing like a bird,hoping to get a reduced sentence.
                  I don’t give a damn who a person is,if their facing the death penalty,they’re gonna be looking to cut a deal.

                  Comment by Tim — August 24, 2016 @ 10:37 am

                • “That’s one that makes me scratch my head. If he in fact had 6 ( or 4 or 1.5 ) million Jews wasted,why would he be worried about putting his John Hancock on a paper,saying to bump as many Jews as possible.
                  If they had that many stiffs,who’d be worried about signing something.”

                  You just answered your own question, Tim. Hitler learned by signing the Euthanasia Decree he opened himself up to criticism and opposition.

                  “Another thing. Hitler was dead when the trials started. If I was one of the defendants,I wouldn’t be so loyal anymore.
                  If he did in fact order all this,I’d be singing like a bird,hoping to get a reduced sentence.
                  I don’t give a damn who a person is,if their facing the death penalty,they’re gonna be looking to cut a deal.”

                  They did sing, Tim. Eichman, Hoess, etc. Their excuse wasn’t “it didn’t happen,” it was “I was under orders” or “I didn’t know.”

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 24, 2016 @ 11:39 am

                • I was referring to more like,”states evidence”.
                  Like when Sammy the Bull turned on John Gotti to get a reduced prison sentence,by selling out to the prosecution.
                  Did any of the defendants offer to play snitch for the prosecution,in order to get a reduced sentence ? I can say from my own experience,prosecution loves a snitch. I just figured they wanted slam dunk convictions,they’d gladly entertain a douchebag snitch.
                  Like we used to say,”snitches are a dying breed”.

                  Comment by Tim — August 25, 2016 @ 9:50 am

                • Please provide, in detail, any evidence to support your “opinion” that Winston Churchill was involved in concocting the alleged “hoax” from 1944-1946.

                  While you are at it you can provide any evidence in favor of said “hoax,” including, but not limited to, leaked memos, interviews with alleged whistleblowers, witnesses to the altering or concoction of documents, witnesses to the construction or altering of any buildings, fakes regarding human remains or mass graves, any details regarding where the missing Jews wound up, leaked telephone recordings or transcripts therein, really anything to convince me that this “hoax” wasn’t dreamed up by delusional deniers.

                  Let me know what you find.

                  Comment by Jeff K. — August 24, 2016 @ 11:34 am

                • Indeed Tim – ” why would he [Hitler] be worried about putting his John Hancock on a paper,saying to bump as many Jews as possible.
                  If they had that many stiffs,who’d be worried about signing something. ”

                  Hitler was confident he was going to win the war at that time, so what did it matter to him if he put his signature on his orders to carry out the alleged mass murder.

                  And would his subordinates really go ahead with such an enormous and diabolical plan without covering their arses in advance with a written order, and clear directives, signed by the big cheese himself in Berlin.

                  Can you imagine Himmler then going to Heydrich – or anyone else for that matter – and saying “I’ve just received word from the Fuhrer that you are to prepare a plan, and organise the complete extermination of every single Jew that you can lay your hands on inside German-occupied Europe. But remember – hush, hush is the word.”

                  Even if Heydrich was loyal and stupid enough to obey such verbal instructions, surely someone else down the line would exclaim; “wait a minute here – before I go ahead with all this, I would like to see the official written command from the Fuhrer, because all other directives and orders are delivered in written form, and something on this magnitude requires something more than my immediate boss just whispering in my ear. I don’t want to be left carrying the can for the whole thing afterwards”.

                  Comment by Talbot — August 24, 2016 @ 11:05 am

  10. Seems to me the Jews are the only ones that can murder people and get away with it and then they become Heroes for doing it.

    JR

    Comment by jrizoli — August 21, 2016 @ 9:14 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: