RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial (part 2)

Point #3: Reasons for the International Jewish Boycott of German Goods, and The Final Solution

Ok, can we get to the Holocaust part now?

This time he says that their hand was forced when it comes to putting Jewish people into concentration camps. That they had no choice, they had to do it, and Jewish people are to blame for that.

Eh, close enough.

Guess I spoke too soon on my previous analysis. Myles does cover “the Final Solution.” The points he makes about why this didn’t mean deporting the Jews out of Germany to Madagascar:

Point 1: Tobin (person who stars in the documentary) states international Zionists organized a boycott in response to Germany’s plan to deport 4 million Jews to Madagascar, making it too financially difficult for Germany to pull that off (that does sound far-fetched). However, the Madagascar plan was proposed in June 1940, seven years after the international Jewish boycott, and 10 months into the war. This makes the timing off with Tobin’s statement, and more likely that the international boycott was in response to German laws made that targeted Jewish people directly.

Point 2: Madagascar was a French colony which Germany had no jurisdiction over, thus Germany couldn’t even hope to deport Jews there until well into the war after they had taken over France.

Point 3: Because the British naval blockade made this deportation plan non-viable even after Germany took France, this deportation plan was shelved in 1942, when the actual “accepted by official historians” version of the Final Solution began.

Ok, so the first thing we should establish is when the first German laws were made that directly targeted Jews.

The first major law to curtail the rights of Jewish citizens was the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service” of April 7, 1933, according to which Jewish and “politically unreliable” civil servants and employees were to be excluded from state service.

Source

Next, establish when Judea declared war on Germany. As shown in the previous post, this was done as early as March 24, 1933, at least 2 weeks before any German laws were enacted. Plus there was this message given by Bernard Lecache, President of the World Jewish League, in 1932:

Germany is our public enemy number one. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her.

Bernard Lecache

So if nothing else, we can at least rule out that these boycotts were done as a direct response to German laws targeting Jewish people, since they were started before those German laws were even enacted. Not to mention some Zionist groups in Germany opposed these boycotts. In any case, things escalated when Germany decided to boycott Jewish goods in response. As you could imagine, things would only get worse from there.

german jewry appeals that demonstrations not be held

Now to establish when this Final Solution was actually proposed, almost. The Europa documentary gets into this a little over 18 minutes into episode 4 (Judea Declares War On Germany chapter). There was this other deportation attempt Germans tried to make prior to that, which they did soon after the international boycott, known as the Haavara Agreement (aka the Transfer Agreement). German officials compromised and attempted to make a deal in secret negotiation with Palestine center of the World Zionist Organization, a deal to deport German Jews to Palestine (similar to the deal Britain made with the elite Zionists in exchange for the Zionists getting America into the war). This deal was made in August 25, 1933. The deal was controversial, as not all Zionists thought it was a good idea. And there was a violent response in Palestine.

On June 16, 1933, the Revisionist newspaper Hazit Haam published what many considered a death threat: “There will be no forgiveness for those who for greed have sold out the honor of their people to madmen and anti-Semites…. The Jewish people have always known how to size up betrayers…and it will know how to react to this crime.” That evening, Chaim Arlosoroff [one of the negotiators of the Haavara Agreement] and his wife Sima took a Shabbat walk along the beach in north Tel Aviv at a point now occupied by the Tel Aviv Hilton. Two men dressed as Arabs approached the couple and asked for the time. Sima was worried, but Arlosoroff assured her, “Don’t worry, they are Jews.” A few moments later, the men returned, one with a Browning automatic. A bullet flashed into Arlosoroff’s chest, mortally wounding him. Two Revisionists were charged with the murder and sentenced to death, but they were released later on technical grounds.

“The Holocaust: Could We Have Stopped Hitler?” by Edwin Black

As for the Madagascar plan itself, this was proposed in August 1940 (after France fell to Germany in June 1940), and was scrapped when the British invaded the island in 1942.

January 20th, 1942, is when the Final Solution was actually proposed, at the Wannsee Conference in Germany. According to the document from this conference that is available online, this primarily composed of plans for deporting millions of Jews to various countries around the world, and trying to factor in costs for doing so. Closest line I could find in regards to exterminating Jews is this one:

Under appropriate direction the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in an expedient manner in the course of the final solution. In large (labor) columns, with the sexes separated, Jews capable of work will be moved into these areas as they build roads, during which a large proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction.

The remnant that eventually remains will require suitable treatment; because it will without doubt represent the most [physically] resistant part, it consists of a natural selection that could, on its release, become the germcell of a new Jewish revival. (Witness the experience of history.)

I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t exactly sound like a plan for genocide to me. Then again, they do argue that references to “resettlement” were code for “kill.” But under the circumstances, we have to go with the sentiment that revisionists argue that this is code for nothing, that they did intend to just deport Jews out of Germany, and that was that.

So, to wrap up this section, yes, Myles is correct in pointing out the error in the JDWoG documentary regarding the timing issue of this plan. In fact, Toben incorrectly associates the Final Solution with the Madagascar plan, and even worse incorrectly associates Germany’s reason for doing to be in response to the bankers, prior to the boycott. There were at least 3 plans regarding the deportation of Jews: the Haavara Agreement in 1933 (which was proposed after the international Jewish boycott), the Madagascar proposal in 1940 and scrapped in 1942, and then the Final Solution plan proposed in January 1942. However, his statement that the Final Solution was to eradicate the Jews is wrong (though we’re not done covering this aspect of the arguments yet), and so is his statement that the boycott was in response to anti-semitic laws (since the first of those laws came after the international boycott started).

 





 

Myles then questions the German concentration camps, why gays/retards/etc. were initially imprisoned there, and then why the Jewish people were imprisoned there afterwards if they were supposedly the enemy of the German people. You know, it’s kinda funny that he even asks that question, since that seems to hurt his own rebuttal, regarding how much the Nazis hated the Jews. But in any case, it’s worth noting that the majority portion of Jews who did wind up in concentration camps were in fact Communists or Communist sympathizers, which is basically what the corrupt Jewish bankers were that put Germany into their post-WWI in the first place, which also caused the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia prior to WWI. The Germans had a reason to be wary, especially with the cries for bloodshed made by international Zionist groups even prior to WWII.

 





 

Then Myles addresses the 6 million number, when Toben mentions how this number was brought up well before the alleged holocaust, in 1919, by Martin Glynn. He shrugs this off as a coincidence, and talks of how other historians came up with other numbers for the holocaust. Nothing is mentioned of the many other times this 6 million number came up, associating it with a holocaust, even prior to this 1919 number, even going as far back as being mentioned in the Talmud (basically the Jewish equivalent of the Bible). That makes it more than just a coincidence.

What are we meant to see apart from an interesting coincidence?

Repeat a lie enough times, people will start to believe it. Or more correctly, have those in power repeat this story enough to the masses via papers and articles and media, and people who don’t fact-check it heavily will believe it. You know, like how Myles believes the mainstream story we’ve all been spoon-fed about Hitler, the Nazis, and the holocaust.

And no Myles, you fucking smart-ass, this number wasn’t brought up in 1919 to attempt to “fake” a holocaust during that time period, or in any of the time periods previous. It’s a reference to a prophecy regarding that number that is found in the Talmud, much as the book of Revelations, and Gilgamesh, have prophecies about the end of days. A prophecy elitest Zionist Jews decided to try and make real to suit their needs (not to be associated with the general Jewish population, which is what Myles is implying). Well, so far, they’ve succeeded.

 





 

And now Myles is jumping the gun a bit here, discussing the numbers of those who died in these concentration camps before allowing the documentary to at least get to the concentration camp part.

 





 

An interesting and surprising fact about the Holocaust is that we don’t actually have a signed order from Hitler actually telling people to kill X amount of Jews. Now there are many reasons for this. The first reason is that the Nazi regime was fairly secretive about what they were doing. They didn’t want to enrage the people they were fighting, and they didn’t want to enrage their fellow Germans, so they kept this on the down-low.

The second reason is when the Germans were retreating, they actually went to great effort to destroy evidence that showed what they were doing.

The third reason is that there isn’t one Final Solution. These things evolved over time. And even although there were different methods, different things going on, they had one goal in mind, and that was to exterminate the Jewish population under Germany’s control.

Theories, of which Myles doesn’t cite any evidence to back up. I mean, if he’s going to counter Toben’s points in that manner, I mine as well as do the same and not take his rebuttals all that seriously. They have just as much ground, likely less, than the points Toben makes regarding the Final Solution. Granted, Toben made some errors regarding the timing and destinations with the Final Solution, but Myles has been shown to not have his facts entirely straight either. Next!

 




 

The Wannsee Protocols. Documents in German used at the Nuremberg Trials as evidence that the Final Solution was for the purpose of exterminating the Jews (and likely one of the earliest points in history where the Nazis were accused of doing this outside of Zionist papers. Toben points out how they were faked (mainly because of German grammar usage). And what does Myles do? He says:

If you say can’t trust the authenticity of the Wannsee Protocols because after the war the Allies had access to stamps, typewriters, and letterheads, then what documents can you trust? The answer should be, you can’t trust any of them. At least that’s the answer this holocaust denier should be giving. But he doesn’t do that. Instead this skepticism is only put towards things that don’t back up his warped views of the holocaust. Anything that he thinks can be used to back him up, that’s fine, that’s naturally authentic! But this, this one document that doesn’t back him up, it’s a fake.

That is not a good argument to be making. Myles accuses him of cherrypicking (which, to be fair, is plausible). Yet Myles is doing the same, with which arguments of Tobens he addresses. Granted, he has shown that Toben has made errors on at least one of his points. And also granted, he shouldn’t be expected to address every single point that’s in the documentary. Regardless, he can also be accused of cherrypicking some of Toben’s points. Plus there’s the bandwagon fallacy much of Myles’ remarks lean on, and the composition fallacy.

Regardless, Myles does get around to directly addressing the grammar issue, stating the writer of the document was an Austrian German named Adolph Eichmann. His Austrian descent accounts for the awkward grammar used in those Wannsee Protocol documents, or so Myles argues. And he argues by saying that this “might” have something to do with the grammatical errors.

Adolf Eichmann

The thing is, these are the same Wannsee protocols of which I got a hold of an English translation from the link above (regarding the January 20, 1942 document). If that’s the same document used to condemn the Germans of genociding Jews, then they had a poor translator or a liar. If it’s not the same document, then fakes were used. Either that, or there are other authentic documents I haven’t seen yet.

It is worth looking at how revisionists deal with the testimony of Adolf Eichmann, who was more or less the only participant to deny neither Wannsee nor its purpose. Of course, during his Jerusalem trial and the pre-trial interrogations, Eichmann embedded his testimony on Wannsee in his general defense strategy, and historians should use it very cautiously. Nevertheless, Eichmann contributed valuable information on the development of the Conference as well as details. For example, he admitted his participation, that he was responsible for taking notes and writing the Protocol. He also admitted he contributed to the preparation and follow-up tasks, and confirmed that the topic was the genocide of European Jewry. Revisionists either keep silent about Eichmann’s testimony, simply deny it or claim that Eichmann had been tortured and/or brainwashed. It is telling that none of the revisionists mentions that during his stay in Argentina in the 1950s, as a free man and without any constraints, Eichmann told the same things to his former SS comrade Willem Sassen during the course of an interview.

Source

Adolf Eichmann had escaped Germany post-war, and fled to Argentina, thought he was free, but was then captured and extradited to Israel on May 11, 1960, and put on a highly publicized trial there alongside John Demjanjuk. He would later be hung in Tel Aviv, Israel on May 31, 1962. I’d hardly call living in hiding under a false identity, and dodging in and out of the Middle East for years before settling in Argentina in 1958, being a free man without any constraints.

In any case, while he is part-Austrian, he wasn’t born there. He moved from Germany to Austria in 1913 (when he was 7 years old), and later moved back to Germany after losing his job in Austria due to the Great Depression, and would join the Nazi party in April 1932. While this could account for his grammar issues, since he was most likely taught to write while in Austria (Upper Austria and Linz, Austria to be more precise), there’s still that possibility that, during those 2 years in Israeli captivity before the trial, that he was tortured and brainwashed into giving the confession he did. Keep in mind Israel came into independence May 14, 1948, well before Eichmann was captured. Considering Israel was ground zero for Jews and Zionists at the time, who no matter how you look at holocaust events, would definitely hold a grudge against someone like Eichmann, it’s not exactly far-fetched to believe he was tortured to an extent.

So yes,  this is all suspect.

It’s also suspect that Myles didn’t point any of that out. And so ends part 1 of his 2 part series in tackling the JDWoG documentary.    To be continued…

ezgif-4-fb7e60acbdd8

13 thoughts on “RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial (part 2)

  1. I like how you cite a document which spells out that the vast majority of the Jews are to be worked to death and that those who survive that will also be killed, but then say “this doesn’t exactly sound like a plan for genocide to me.” You are extremely bad at this holocaust denial-thing.

    Like

  2. Was primarily focused on the whole gas chambers thing, rather than the mistreatment of a labor force in a forced labor camp, which was a common thing back then on an international level. From Japanese labor camps, to Russian labor camps (especially those), to Polish labor camps (prior to the Germans taking those over), to UK labor camps (of which they built the first known concentration camps in existence from what I understand), to the labor camps 9 million Germans died in post-WWII. I don’t recall anyone calling any of that a genocide.

    Like

  3. I am not speculating about anything, the protocol literally states that :”In the course of the practical implementation of the final solution, Europe is combed through from west to east.” (Im Zuge der praktischen Durchführung der Endlösung wird Europa vom Westen nach Osten durchgekämmt.) https://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/wannsee/wannsee-konferenz.php

    The point of the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” was that there would be no Jews alive IN ALL OF EUROPE. That is what the report explicitly states. You have no clue what you are talking about. The protocol is explicitly about implementing the eventual genocide of European Jews and you cant escape that, especially after quoting the very paragraph which shows that in this article.

    Like

    • You are already on thin fucking ice with your demonstration that you’re not taking my statements seriously in part 4. You’re pushing it still. Go ahead, keep doing it. I’ll be here when it breaks, and I’ll clean it up.

      First of all, you’re citing a German page again. I’d prefer something in English. Preferably without me taking you at your word for your translation, as I’m aware at how translations from German to English can pose some problems, as I am aware of the problems that arose from translating Mein Kampf to English in different editions (and one of the earlier editions is biased with the footnotes attempting to make it as one-sided of a translation as possible). I wouldn’t be surprised if similar issues could arise from this Wannsee conference.

      Second, I’ve already stated that the report does not explicitly state what you are saying. You’re just tossing it aside and just stating, “Of course it does!” That’s not going to get us anywhere.

      So I’ll try to keep it simple. You state that an article from the conference states, “Europe is combed through from west to east” to implement the Final Solution. That can be taken either way, either to gather up the Jews for execution, or to gather up the Jews for deportation. Either way, they get placed in concentration/labor camps before reaching their final destination, whatever/wherever that may be (and I stated in the blog about where those final destinations attempted to be, whether it be Madagascar or Palestine, or those other countries which rejected them, including the U.S. [to be fair, I didn’t mention that part, but it’s not difficult to look up stories of countries rejected Jewish imports from Germany just prior to, or during, WWII]). That’s a fair assumption to make, and you haven’t demonstrated how it can be “literally” or “explicitly” otherwise, especially without giving any context to back up your assertion as to the meaning of those Wannsee lines.

      If you wan to convince me otherwise, you’ll have to point out the exact line, and show that it can be only taken in the way you claim. And just to save us some time, I’ll go through some lines right here and now (but keep in mind, these are translations, so some context could be lost due to translation from the original language). And to save time, link to the pdf I used:
      https://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf-wannsee/engl/protokol.pdf


      “Under appropriate direction the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in an expedient manner in the course of the final solution.”

      The main thing this does explicitly and literally state is that the Jews are to be used for work, indicating labor camps. Unless it refers to the Jews that were actually fighting in the German army, but I think we both know that’s not the case.

      It also states this must be done in an “expedient” manner. So they need to be rounded up for work quickly. Why? Because they need to be wiped out quickly? Get taken off the streets quickly (to boost morale or something)? Or to create materials for Germany quickly? Keep in mind this is for work “in the East.” In the Eastern front was Poland (where most of these concentration camps already are, already built not by the Germans, but by the Poles). And East of Poland? Soviet Russia. Considering this was 1942, soon after their offensive against the Soviets failed, and their military in a poor state, it would make sense they would need their military to be resupplied rapidly, and have improved/new/fixed roads. And they want to deliberately kill off their work force that they so desperately need when the tide of war is turning against them, when they need that work force now more than ever? That doesn’t make practical sense.


      “In large (labor) columns, with the sexes separated, Jews capable of work will be moved into these areas as they build roads, during which a large proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction.”

      Labor force organized, separated by sex, to build roads and such. The part that you take to explicitly/literally mean the Final Solution is all about genocide is the part that states “a large proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction.” Specifically, interpreting “drop out” as meaning dying. That’s a possibility I will grant you, and currently the one I agree with (as opposed to just being too exhausted or sick or injured to continue working, which is also a possibility, especially with typhus being a problem that was killing both Jews and non-Jews).

      But what of “natural reduction?” “Reduction” obviously means less workers overtime, which I currently take to mean they die via some cause. But what is the “natural” cause? Are we to believe that firing squads and executions via Schindler’s List movie style are what they consider to be natural? Or is it more likely the disease and work injuries that are the more natural causes? I suppose overworking them (ie working them to death) is also a possibility, but that also wouldn’t make practical sense if the Germans are in dire need of a work force to help build Germany back up on an infrastructure and military supply level. Working them to death, deliberately, would cut down on their number of workers faster than they would like.

      To suggest that the “natural” in “natural reduction” is anything other than disease or work accidents is sketchy.


      “The remnant that eventually remains will require suitable treatment; because it will without doubt represent the most [physically] resistant part,”

      “suitable treatment,” and a remnant that is “physically resistant.” Physically resistant indicates one capable of fighting back physically, resisting orders to move to one place, do another, causing a camp riot, etc. Suitable treatment, in your case, would indicate they should be executed. That is certainly a possibility. It is also possible, in my opinion, it refers to how they are treated when they come back from work, while they are still in the camps. How they are to be treated, suitably, while in the camps. Although the next part does carry a bit of worry in its tone, and is more supportive of your interpretation than anything preceding it.


      “it consists of a natural selection that could, on its release, become the germcell of a new Jewish revival. (Witness the experience of history.)”

      Natural selection being the naturally strong that survive (which supports my earlier position as to the interpretation of natural reduction). But the “germcell of a new Jewish revival” is the most telling part. And the “Witness the experience of history” is a callback to the Bolshevik revolution, the Jewish bankers (in particular the Rothchilds), and how they caused Germany’s poor state of affairs post-WWI (as a result of WWI). As in they didn’t want a Jewish revival to cause the same thing to happen again that would cause a repeat of history (hence the “experience of history” indicating they should learn from past mistakes of letting Jews get into such positions of power). There is worry in these lines, a caution that this outcome should be avoided.

      The answer to this which you believe is the method they went with is to exterminate these “natural selection” Jews before they are released out of the camps. If it weren’t for the fact that there aren’t any real known “education camps,” I would suspect that the “suitable treatment” could refer to those rather than extermination.

      And yet that answer comes with its own share of problems, which becomes obvious when considering the context surrounding this entry I pulled from the Wannsee Protocols. If they really did intend genocide, why wouldn’t they just say it? Why wouldn’t they just say eliminate, kill, murder, eradicate, buy a farm, for these labor workers?

      The entire writing itself is focused not just on how to transport Jews, which Jews to transport and to where (depending on whether they are first or second generation Jew, or whether they are married to a non-Jew German, and/or have children, and/or are over the age of 60), but also how to emigrate Jews. Immigration restrictions are mentioned. I mean, it goes through a considerable amount of worry for deporting Jews in an organized manner out of Germany for something that non-revisionists claim is a document that is all about genocide. Especially when nothing is mentioned on how to actually do the genocide. Such as transporting Zyklon B, gas chamber supplies, bullets and supplies for camp guards on a regular basis, how to handle mass graves, etc. You know, standard stuff for carrying out murder on a massive scale. Seems more concerned with move Jews out of Germany than about killing Jews in Germany.


      To pull out a few quotes demonstrating what I’m talking about:

      “The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a brief review of the struggle conducted up to now against this foe. The most important elements are:
      a) Forcing the Jews out of the various areas of life (Lebensgebiete) of the German people,
      b) Forcing the Jews out of the living space (Lebensraum) of the German people.”

      Sounds bad right? Until you read the lines that follow:

      “In pursuit of these aims, the accelerated emigration of the Jews from the area of the Reich, as the only possible provisional solution, was pressed forward and carried out according to plan.
      On instructions by the Reich Marshal, a Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration was set up in January 1939, and its direction entrusted to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. Its tasks were, in particular:
      a) To take all measures for the preparation of increased emigration of the Jews;
      b) To direct the flow of emigration;
      c) To speed up emigration in individual cases.
      The aim of this task was to cleanse the German living space of Jews in a legal manner.”

      Sounds heavily in support of my position. And it gets better:

      “The disadvantages engendered by such forced pressing of emigration were clear to all the authorities. But in the absence of other possible solutions, they had to be accepted for the time being.”

      Sounds to me like they’re not considering genocide as a “possible solution.” In fact, it seems to be absent from their list of possible solutions.

      So when you say, “the report explicitly states […] [t]he protocol is explicitly about implementing the eventual genocide of European Jews and you cant escape that,” I say I can not only escape that, I say you don’t know what you’re talking about when you state that the protocol is “explicitly” about genocide. If you feel otherwise, then show me otherwise. Show me where I’ve gone wrong in my interpretations that I have laid out in the most explicit and literal manner possible.

      Like

      • Allright, you may actually be one of the most deceptive denier cretins I have ever responded to, either that or you are just extremely dense. You present the portions on the emigration of Jews as if they are the policy that the Nazis are pursuing at the time of the protocol, and then omit this line: “In the meantime, in view of the dangers of emigration in wartime, and
        the possibilities in the East, the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German
        Police has forbidden the emigration of Jews.” (Inzwischen hat der Reichsführer-SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei im Hinblick auf die Gefahren einer Auswanderung im Kriege und im Hinblick auf die Möglichkeiten des Ostens die Auswanderung von Juden verboten) That refers to the ban on Jewish emigration that Himmler enacted on 23rd of October 1941. The portions you deceptively quote pertain to the measures Nazis sought against Jews PRIOR TO 1941.

        So, the portions on emigration that you selectively quote have nothing whatsoever to do with the “Final solution” that the protocol proposes you fucking moron.

        The rest of your post is pure desperate obfuscation and bullshitting. I can put the protocol in its proper context that becomes obvious from all other available evidence on the development of the Nazi “Final Solution” in this period, as can be seen in Hans Franks explicit secret speech to the officials of the Generalgovernment (Nazi-occupied Poland) : “Man hat uns in Berlin gesagt: weshalb macht man diese Scherereien; wir können im Ostland oder im Reichskommissariat auch nichts mit ihnen anfangen, liquidiert sie selber!” (We were told in Berlin: why have this trouble; we can’t do anything with them in the Ostland or in the Reichskommissariat, liquidate them yourselves!) https://www.ns-archiv.de/personen/frank/16-12-1941.php

        “Diese 3,5 Millionen Juden können wir nicht erschießen, wir können sie nicht vergiften, werden aber doch Eingriffe vornehmen können, die irgendwie zu einem Vernichtungserfolg führen, und zwar im Zusammenhang mit den vom Reich her zu besprechenden großen Maßnahmen.”

        (“We cannot shoot these 3.5 million Jews, we cannot poison them, but we will be able to intervene in a way that somehow leads to a successful extermination, in connection with the great measures to be discussed in the Reich.”)

        Plus a document on the murder of German Jews via gassing from October 1941 https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/19411025-wetzel-no365/index.html

        From Franks speech it is inescapably obvious that the Nazis were planning the extermination of Jews in Poland.

        By the way, do you know what the Einsatzgruppen were? Do you know what they had been up to in Nazi-occupied areas of the Soviet Union since July 1941?

        Like

      • In all fairness, it’s a bit of both. I’m both dense, and a bit on the deceptive and reckless side (don’t take “deceptive” the wrong way, we’re already having issues without how to take the meaning of words). That combination tends to work wonders for laying traps like the one you just fell into. Being dense makes my arguments thick. Being deceptive and reckless makes me prone to making an unintentional mistake for others to point out. And 9 times out of 10, when they call me out on it, they make a fatal mistake that makes my error look insignificant by comparison. Haven’t found a reason to stop using that method yet.


        On the one hand, it’s true, I should’ve caught the line about how emigration was banned by the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police, but I didn’t, and you were right to call me out on that and call me a fucking moron (and I’m a bit curious to see how much of a fucking moron I really am after this post).

        On the other hand, it also supports my main point. They would like to emigrate them, but don’t. And why don’t they? One of the two reasons is because of “the dangers of emigration in wartime.” Why would they give a shit about the dangers posed to the Jews due to emigration if they would want them dead anyway? So they transport them to the East into labor camps instead, for the reasons I stated above.

        So, Himmler declared the ban on emigration October 23, 1941 (though it should be noted it also states “Evacuation Aktionen will remain unaffected,” which I take to mean the transportation of Jews to labor camps, particularly since the Wannsee document states on page 9, “The start of the individual major evacuation Aktionen will depend largely on military developments.”), while the document for the Final Solution was first put up at the Wannsee Conference on January 20th, 1942, roughly 3 months later.
        https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/order-banning-the-emigration-of-jews-from-the-reich

        However, that line about emigration being banned is also followed with information about where the Jews are to be distributed. There was one place I find to be quite peculiar:
        England

        If that’s the same England as UK England, British England, then this is seemingly contradictory if emigration of the Jews is banned at this point. It got more confusing when it stated it was taking into account the existence of 11 million Jews, when there were less than 300,000 in Germany at this point.
        https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-Germany-Statistics-and-Numbers

        Which makes me wonder, are the Germans actually tracking the number of Jews all around Europe? Because that seems to be the only logical explanation. Which makes me curious as to where these Jews were primarily located, because Germany certainly lacked that whole 6 million number. According to a source, Poland and USSR contained the bulk of the Jewish population, with Poland containing 3 million Jews, and USSR containing a bit less (at least prior to WWII):
        https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-population-of-europe-in-1933-population-data-by-country

        And according to the Wannsee Protocol document, Hungary held 5 million Jews at the time it was written. This was notable because the document made special note of this population with this line on page 9:
        “In order to settle the problem in Hungary, it will be necessary in the near future to impose an adviser for Jewish questions on the Hungarian Government.” In addition, “to send a specialist from the
        Main Office for Race and Settlement to Hungary for general orientation” and “will temporarily
        be designated officially as Assistant to the Police Attaché.”

        It’s safe to say Germany didn’t hold all these countries that are listed. So this begs the question: if the Final Solution was about the extermination of the Jews, does that mean they intended to take over all the listed countries and exterminate the Jews there afterwards? I don’t get it. Even by traditional holocaust history, the Final Solution seemed to be all about eliminating the Jews within German controlled territory near the end of the war, at a time where they had no hope of taking some of those listed countries.

        Also rather strange that there is an option to either be sterilized or “evacuated” for certain Jewish types within this context of genocide.

        One other thing of note is a reason brought up for the Jews to be evacuated, on page 15:
        “Jews must be removed as fast as possible from the Government-General, because it was there in particular that the Jew as carrier of epidemics spelled a great danger, and, at the same time, he caused constant disorder in the economic structure of the country by his continuous black-market dealings.”

        Even with the emigration ban, it is still a strange document to read under the assumption that the Final Solution indicates genocide, especially when the ban on emigration seems to be a temporary status until wartime was over (or so they hoped).


        Anyway, regarding the whole, “the portions on emigration that you selectively quote have nothing whatsoever to do with the “Final solution” that the protocol proposes you fucking moron,” that depends. Because this ban on emigration is indicated to be a temporary measure in the document, via the words: “In the meantime,” which is included in the quote you gave. As in, “In the meantime, until the safety issues are settled, there will be no more emigration.” And this safety issue is pointed out primarily because of the dangers of wartime. As in different measures will be taken once the war is over, and they resume deportation dealings such as the Haavara Transfer, and the Madagascar plan. In the meantime, forced labor.


        What you call, “pure desperate obfuscation and bullshitting,” I call literal translation of the words being written (assuming the English translation is accurate). But, as you go on to say, it’s the context that matters. So you bring up the Hans Franks speech, from the infamous Hans Frank diary. You remember the past few times I bitched about you linking to sites that are only in German, and thus am at the mercy of your translation of them? This is one of those times where it really fucking matters. Especially when considering the word might not mean the same today as it was back then.

        The “liquidate them yourselves” line doesn’t mean much here. That can easily be taken to mean, “remove,” which can refer to being transported away.

        As for the next one that states, “successful extermination,” that’s the one where the translation is controversial. Mainly regarding the word Vernichtungserfolg, or more appropriately shortened to Vernichtung. There have been debates as to the actual meaning of this word, and in the context it was used, and even if the alleged diary of Hans Frank it was found in was legit, as there are no actual original copies of it around to verify.

        “anti-revisionists frequently cite a speech made on 16 December 1941 (often misdated to 13 December 1941). In this speech, Frank used words which anti-revisionists argue mean “exterminate” and which revisionist argue refer to deportations (see Meanings and translations of German words and Holocaust revisionism‎). However, Frank also explicitly stated that “We cannot shoot 3.5 million Jews, we cannot poison them” and “I have initiated negotiations for the purpose of deporting them to the east.””
        https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Hans_Frank

        “Etymologically Vernichtung means “bringing to nothing”. English words/phrases such as nullify, annul, annihilate, and “bring to naught” have similar etymologies.”
        https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Meanings_and_translations_of_German_words_and_Holocaust_revisionism#Vernichtung

        In addition, if shooting the Jews isn’t an option, and if poisoning them isn’t an option (is Zyklon B not also considered a poison? Just how far off is poison from gas?), then what else would there be in that conversation?


        And then you decide to bring in something that comes off as a tangent, but it is certainly a challenge (as is this whole comment you’ve made; you’ve finally met my expectations). The document of the Germans gassing Jews, allegedly using vans. This gets fascinating, not only because a revisionist named Samuel Crowell debunked this (page 88),
        chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.samuelcrowell.com/wp-content/uploads/Sherlock-SamuelCrowelldotcom.pdf

        but Jamie McCarthy also debunked Crowell’s debunking.
        https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/19411025-wetzel-no365/crowell.shtml

        And then Crowell responded again debunking the debunker’s debunking.
        https://codoh.com/library/document/881/

        These are my favorite types of discussions to look over.

        So first of all, I find the term “gas vans” hilarious, because I have a hard time believing those things not only existed, but were effective, give how cautious one must be of a stationary gas chamber, let alone a mobile one. And Cromwell notes:
        “In contrast, there is no documentary reference to “Vergasungsapparate” either before or during the war which characterizes “Vergasungsapparate” as “gas vans.””

        In other words, that German word referred to delousing chambers.


        Last point, no, I was not aware of what the Einsatzgruppen are, let alone what they did. Though I question you logic of bringing them into this when the previous topics don’t seem to be settled yet, and it’s a questionable tactic as to whether this subject of the Einsatzgruppen, or even the Wetzel-Lohse letter referring to “gassing devices,” is going to resolve those topics any faster, especially when you seem to be getting rather irritated at my denseness. If it’s an attempt to overwhelm me with data, good luck.

        Like

  4. “If they really did intend genocide, why wouldn’t they just say it?” They said pretty much exactly that you fucking cretin, a genocide that would occur through the conditions that the slave laborers would be subjected to as well as through mass killing. Forgetting the section that you quote in this very article?

    Like

  5. Admittedly I feel slightly silly, because I omitted this part of the Wannsee protocol that kills all of your squirming about the protocols meaning: “III. Anstelle der Auswanderung ist nunmehr als weitere Lösungsmöglichkeit nach entsprechender vorheriger Genehmigung durch den Führer die Evakuierung der Juden nach dem Osten getreten.” (“III Instead of emigration, the evacuation of the Jews to the East has now taken the place of emigration as a further possible solution, with the corresponding prior permission of the Führer.”) “Emigration” has been replaced by the genocidal “evacuation” of the Jews. Does not get clearer than that. And with the exact request by Bühler on the “removal” of Jews from the Generalgovernment the meaning only gets clearer.

    And you could try a bit harder next time to not prove me right about you being a blatantly deceptive cretin. Like, when you say that “liquidate” means Jews in the Generalgovernment will be “transported away” when Frank says that Berlin LITERALLY TOLD HIM THAT JEWS CANT BE TRANSPORTED TO THE EAST AND THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION SHOULD SEEK TO KILL THEM THEMSELVES AND WHEN FRANK EXPLICITLY REFERS TO EXTERMINATION AND THAT THERE ARE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE MEASURES ON EXTERMINATION IN BERLIN????? HOW THE FUCK do you expect your bullshit to fly when I quote the full excerpt of what Frank said??????

    And you dodge of the content of Wetzels letter is also hilarious.

    Like

  6. Its also immensely hilarious to me that you think that the Nazis banned Jewish emigration because they were afraid for their wellbeing, when the obvious reason they refer to a “danger” is their assumption that Jews who emigrate would pass on information to their enemies. Also hilarious is the fact that you apparently also thought that the table in the protocol showing the Jewish population distribution in Europe was meant to show where the nazis would emigrate them.

    Like

    • Admittedly I feel slightly silly, because I omitted this part of the Wannsee protocol that kills all of your squirming about the protocols meaning: […] “Instead of emigration, the evacuation of the Jews to the East has now taken the place of emigration as a further possible solution, with the corresponding prior permission of the Führer.”) “Emigration” has been replaced by the genocidal “evacuation” of the Jews. Does not get clearer than that.

      Christ in a gas van! You’re right! I’ve been wrong this entire time! That does kill all of my “squirming” about the protocols meaning! Changing “emigration” to “evacuation” which can only mean “genocide” like a mother getting an abortion doctor to evacuate the baby from her womb, that proves everything! Words like “drop out” didn’t do it, words like “natural reduction” didn’t do it, “suitable treatment” didn’t do it. I made arguments regarding how those weren’t as explicitly/literally clear as you gave them credit for. But “evacuation,” oh, you got me beat there. There’s no other way to interpret that other than “genocide, kill ’em all, give ’em a whiff of the gas, bodies and fire, muahahahah!” You can look that up in the dictionary right now and find that very definition from merriam-webster.com:

      evacuate verb
      1 : to remove the contents of : EMPTY
      2 : to discharge from the body as waste : VOID
      3 : to remove something (such as gas or water) from especially by pumping
      4a : to remove especially from a military zone or dangerous area
      b : to withdraw from military occupation of
      c : VACATE sense 1
      were ordered to evacuate the building
      intransitive verb
      1 : to withdraw from a place in an organized way especially for protection
      2 : to pass urine or feces from the body

      I can literally and explicitly see how there’s no other way to view that word other than genocide. Just as I can see it wouldn’t have mattered if I did address the whole “liquidate” meaning, which also can only mean “genocide!” You know, like shown on that same website I used for the “extermination” mistranslation:
      https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Meanings_and_translations_of_German_words_and_Holocaust_revisionism#Vernichtung

      Nevermind the other arguments made about there being no original copy of Hans Frank’s diary containing those words. That obviously doesn’t matter anymore in the context of you demonstrating the proper use of the word “evacuate.” Same way on how you’ve clearly demonstrated that the nuclear Wetzel’s letter was completely dodged by me, and not addressed directly at all, in any way that would refute that one sentence with a link.

      As for that whole mention of Jewish emigration and the reason for its ban that I gave, I guess that doesn’t matter now since my whole argument fell apart because of the meaning of one word (a meaning that can only be taken one way). I was thinking more along the lines of danger to the transportation device itself, and those who operate it (and possibly those it is transporting if we are to consider the possibility of the revisionist’s point of view, which we’re no longer not due to me getting owned), rather than the danger of Jews passing on information about the Nazi’s plans. You know, like when all that other emigration was going on prior to October 1941. But no matter.

      And as to you laughing at (yet wrong interpretation of) my alleged take-away of the German’s tracking the numbers of Jews all around Europe. Obviously I wasn’t indicating that this meant they were tracking the best locations to emigrate the Jews to. Sorry that wasn’t as explicit as the word “evacuate.” I raised several questions hoping you would give an explicit answer as to how to interpret all that. But given your response, it seems there’s only one other possibility. That the Germans planned on taking over all those countries and carrying out the “evacuation” of the Jews there. Something that was obviously and easily achievable given their position in 1942. Good do know.

      Welp, since you’ve shown me the error of my ways, and shown that I am in fact a dense deceptive fucking moron, who was so dense/deceptive/moronic as not to see that “evacuate” meant “genocide,” and since that kills the entirety of my argument in spite of any other points that have been made; I see no reason to continue it. My hats off to you sir, for the knowledge you’ve provided, along with the laughs. In fact, the ownage I felt was so great, I’ll be sure to enshrine this in a part 6 of this Holocaust series.

      So now if you’ll excuse me, I need to do a genocide on the shitter.

      Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s