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.


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.


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…


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

  1. Just putting people in labor camps is not the same as planning to “comb Europe” of approx. 11 million people, kill all of those deemed unfit for work (that is the reigning implication throughout the Wannsee report, that the Jews deemed unfit for work are already long dead before the last of those deemed fit for slave labor die) and then kill the remnant of the ones fir for work to “prevent a new Jewish revival”.

    And your labor camps which supposedly killed 9 million germans post war are totally imaginary.


  2. 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.

    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:

    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.

    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):

    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.””

    “Etymologically Vernichtung means “bringing to nothing”. English words/phrases such as nullify, annul, annihilate, and “bring to naught” have similar etymologies.”

    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),

    but Jamie McCarthy also debunked Crowell’s debunking.

    And then Crowell responded again debunking the debunker’s debunking.

    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.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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