Holocaust:True Or False ?

[Zidon]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

....... Incidentally it is not a forgone conclusion that a jewish state would have been established in Palestine-at one stage serious consideration was been given to Madagascar , Kenya and Uganda as possible future jewish homeland...

I was typing my earlier post before i saw your post,
gotta say the above might have saved a whole lot of trouble for all involved.
someone just mentioned to me why couldn't have Moses led the way to north america instead of cnaan?
i often think it's a miracle that israel-palestine still exists and hasn't all blown up.
Dr. P, i for one would love to hear more of your doings in the region.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by Zidon

I was typing my earlier post before i saw your post,
gotta say the above might have saved a whole lot of trouble for all involved.
someone just mentioned to me why couldn't have Moses led the way to north america instead of cnaan?
i often think it's a miracle that israel-palestine still exists and hasn't all blown up.
Dr. P, i for one would love to hear more of your doings in the region.

Except all those places had existing populations...who might well resent an influx of immigrants from a (to them) alien culture-and imposed on them by external powers. The plus side would have been the space and natural resources to develop a new homeland.

As for my doings in the region-well lets say it was professionally, a very interesting time.....I may let slip more things now and then, depending where this and similar threads go.....

[deepsepia]

Interesting review in the NY Times today, of a new book on Adolph Eichmann's life in Argentina.

Our picture of Eichmann comes from Eichmann himself at trial in Jerusalem, and from Hannan Arendt's famous book about it, in which she memory described "The Banality of Evil".

However, the new book makes the point that Eichmann was presenting himself as a "small man", just a bureaucrat with no imagination or personal interest -- as a criminal defense. In other circumstances, he said different things.

One thing I might note while we're discussing what are legitimate and contested historical issues: there isn't a question about whether the Holocaust happened. It did, and indeed Eichmann himself was quite pleased by that fact, and said so.

Originally Posted by SS-*Obersturmbannführer (Retired)

et as Bettina Stangneth demonstrates in “Eichmann Before Jerusalem,” her critical — albeit respectful — dialogue with Arendt, these insights most certainly do not apply to Eichmann himself. Throughout his post-1945 exile he remained a passionate, ideologically convinced National Socialist. He proudly signed photos with the title *“Adolf Eichmann — SS-*Obersturmbannführer (retired)” and, quite unlike a plodding functionary, boasted of his “creative” work. At one point he described the mass deportation of more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews as his innovative masterpiece: “It was actually an achievement that was never matched before or since.”

The enduring image of Eichmann as faceless and order-obeying, Stangneth argues, is the result of his uncanny ability to tailor his narrative to the desires and fantasies of his listeners. Arendt was not the only one to be taken in, and Stangneth, an independent philosopher living in Hamburg, is able to present a more rounded picture on the basis of previously unmined archival sources, particularly Eichmann’s own compulsive notes and jottings made in exile, in conjunction with the elusive series of taped conversations known as the Sassen interviews. These were exchanges organized in Argentina by the Dutch Nazi journalist Wilhelm Sassen and attended by a small group of old Nazis and their sympathizers.


The story of the Sassen interviews, one of the most important post-Holocaust documents, is itself a kind of cloak-and-*dagger account as Stangneth tells it, featuring hidden or lost tapes, faulty transcriptions, furtive meetings, profiteering and various other kinds of intrigue. One highly truncated version of the interviews and notes was published in Life in 1960. Another, containing 796 pages, reached Israel in time for the Jerusalem trial, but because Eichmann constantly denied the veracity of the documents and the original recordings could not be found, they were judged unreliable. Only through painstaking digging have Stangneth and other researchers been able to patch together close to the entirety of the material.

It is in these interviews and Eichmann’s own notes that he gave uninhibited vent to his version of the Holocaust and his involvement. Since he had a penchant for tailoring his endless chatting and voluminous writings to what he believed his audience desired, it may not be immediately evident why his statements in Buenos Aires should be considered more authentic than the “little man” portrait he painted in Jerusalem. The answer lies in the stance he took against what his Nazi and radical-right audience wanted to hear. For they were intent on either denying the Holocaust altogether, or outlandishly regarding it as either a Zionist plot to obtain a Jewish state or a conspiracy of the Gestapo (not the SS) working against Hitler and without his knowledge. Eichmann dashed these expectations. Not only did he affirm that the horrific events had indeed taken place; he attested to his decisive role in them. Hardly anonymous, he insisted on his reputation as the great mover behind Jewish policy, which became part of the fear, the mystique of power, surrounding him. As Stangneth observes: “He dispatched, decreed, allowed, took steps, issued orders and gave audiences.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/bo...neth.html?_r=0

As to the "why" the Holocaust or other genocides happen-- they're hard for us to understand, from where we sit. I've seen racial hatred, but never anything close to genocide. When you talk to nutty folks pitching "The Turner Diaries", for example, they seem goofy and third rate.

Of course, Hitler and Ribbentrop seemed goofy and third rate too.

The thing to ponder is how civilzation can go awry, and the cranks get hold of the wheel . . .

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

As to the "why" the Holocaust or other genocides happen-- they're hard for us to understand, from where we sit. I've seen racial hatred, but never anything close to genocide. When you talk to nutty folks pitching "The Turner Diaries", for example, they seem goofy and third rate.

Of course, Hitler and Ribbentrop seemed goofy and third rate too.

The thing to ponder is how civilzation can go awry, and the cranks get hold of the wheel . . .

And for those who said 'it could never happen again' we have the examples of Cambodia, the Balkans and Rwanda---all widely dispersed locations, utterly different political, social and cultural situations-but the same appalling outcomes....

I'm inclined to the view that the potential for genocide is embedded in all of us-and it goes very deep-possibly to a time before we were human. There is evidence from chimpanzee behaviour that suggests warfare, if not genocide is not limited to humans, and there may be some underpinning biological driver...

[george anson]

Historically there have been large numbers of Germans living in Argentina many of whom came from the Volga after finding living conditions becoming intolerable through the 1930's.

Many rose to high rank in Argentina, they still have German festivals there for example in BA. One of the best young striker prospects (only 16 still) for example is Matias Roskopf.

Many German Jews settled there as well for example such as Daniel Barenboim's father and they are highly respected in what is a predominantly Catholic country. They also suffered a terrorist attack there.

As for holocaust deniers ? They are deluded and brainwashed with their fruitless efforts to write revised versions of history.

These massacres not only include those of the Jews in WW2, but the Armenian genocide, the deaths of millions during Stalin's 'agrarian' reforms, the rape of Nanking and indeed China by the Japanese and it does not just extend to contemporaneous events.

Historical events in the past such as the massacre and forced conversions of millions in India by the invading Mughals are said to be complete fiction.

What certainly disturbed Hilary Clinton is when the crone went to some Palestinian schools and saw them teaching the Holocaust is a fiction designed to make non Jews feel guilty.

[charlie6]

there was no holocaust, earth is a disc and 6000 years ago men were riding dinosaurs *facepalm*

[Attila The Hun]

Originally Posted by monogroover

I wonder if racism really is a disorder, or just part of the human condition.

I think it is probably to do with alienation in industrial society because primitive cultures, though often frightened and tense around foreigners they have no dealings with, aren't usually racist. Infact from the bronze age through the medieval era, people were no racist. They felt that all of mankind was created by the same creator. The nearest to being racist were the Hebrews, but they were merely tribal and aggressive.

Originally Posted by haroldeye

So the right, in particular the Nazis slaughtered because they thought the jews and slavs untermensch and the left slaughtered because men had different ideas. That's all right then.

The left have nothing to do with the debate, which is specifically about Nazism and the Holocaust. Do you feel the right is denigrated in some way and thus want to take pot shots at the left? That is a bit weird, we are talking about Nazism not the right in general.

You are mixing up a couple of facts:

No I am not.

After the Contracts of Versailles of the German Empire Army had to be reduced from about 600.000 to 100.000 men (= regulars). That was not free of problems as you can imagine, because a lot of soldiers and officers did not do anything else as being soldiers and officers. Some got the corner to a private job, but the most did not. So they organised themselves to Freikorps (paramilitary units) and fought as mercenaries in different wars or uprisings.

Which doesn't contradict anything I have said.

Most soldiers and specially officers were on the far right. But not Nazis, they were loyal to the former Emperor.

I never said the Freikorps were NAZIs, but it is an undeniable fact that a great many of them became NAZIs and the nexus of the The National Socialist German Workers' Party was with the Freikorp and other similar nationalistic movements in Germany. As stated even top members of the NAZI party such as Himmler were Freikorp members.

What's correct at your description, that a number of them were later Nazis as they had realized, there was no way back to the former Emperor. They were anti-communists, correct, what else on the far right.

Which is what I said anyway:

The NAZI party pretty much came from the Nationalist ''freikorps'', whom the Weimar actually used to crush worker's revolts such as the Januaraufstand. The Freikorps were fiercely anti-Slavic and hated minorities. Himmler and many other prominent members of the NAZI party were members of Freikorps, however, Hitler (never a Freikorps member) came to view Freikorps as a threat and many Freikorps members were killed in 'The Night of The Long Knives'.

I never said that the Freikorp followed National Socialism, which is a little newer.

No, Jews were not clear visible as Jews (except maybe some orthodox at their long hair),

Except we are not literally talking about styles or appearance. ''Clear and visible'' means a prominent minority, and one that can actually be monitored by the state (which is what happened. Looking non-Jewish was not weapon against records).

I mean no offense, but you misunderstood my points. I actually agree with you.

Over the centuries Jews converted to Christians and Christians converted to be Jews, so that race thing becomes a totally "bullshit". It hardly wouldn't work biologically (-incest) either over this long period of centuries.

Agreed. I do not believe in a vast Jewish ethnic group descending from the ancient Hebrews. Most are the product of conversion, just as the Khazars converted (regardless of Zionist propaganda, burial customs confirm it). The idea of mass hordes of Hebrews traveling from the Middle-East to Central and Eastern Europe is ridiculous. And yes, biologically they could not sustain reproduction. The amount of new ''Jewish blood'' needed to continue ''the Jewish race'' every few years is disproven by history. There couldn't have been enough Hebrew making a migration if there was a Hebrew migration to Europe (there was in small amounts, though) and multiply migrations to support the previous one are all absent from historical records.

You are right, that the Nazis have tried to find out that race thing, but that is trash as I have explained before.

Indeed. And the idea of race in general is also bullshit.

I find it darkly funny and revealing that both Zionists and NAZIs believe in the ''Jewish race''.

[Attila The Hun]

Originally Posted by rustler

I may be wrong here, so please correct me if I am so.....but,


Jews were outlawed in England during the reign of King John? Maybe it was Richard, but I believe they were outlawed around that time. Remember the (fictional) story of Ivanhoe, and the Jew's daughter Rebecca?

Actually it was Edward I with his Edict of Expulsion. John was rough with English Jews but they were actually an allied faction in his era and he used them for money-lending and taxing, as had his brother Richard. Actually the Angevin kings were mostly OK with the Jewish community of England, from Henry II to Richard I to John I. However, William de Lonchamp (Richard's regent) abused them. Previously King Stephen, of the House of Blois, had taken actions against Jewish usury but also protected them from riots and violence (other than burning down a house belonging to a Jew who wouldn't pay his tax to the king).

Edward's Edict of Expulsion to stamp out usury and to gain money for the crown - all outstanding debts to the Jewish moneylenders were instead given to the crown.

Mal Hombre's accurate quote says it all:

Anti Semitism was the natural result of 2000 years of Christianity and Medieval rulers seeking to avoid paying debts to Jewish moneylenders.

[Attila The Hun]

Originally Posted by Puhbear69

Not even in Palestine they were happy about it, not the British occupiers, not even the two - one wouldn't believe it - mainly Jewish terror groups, later founded Israel. They worked together with the German Nazis . "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" comes into my mind to this. :head-shaking:

Indeed, Eichmann especially worked with Zionist groups initially. The Zionist groups in Palestine actually refused to take German Jews to live there. If they had done that, they could have saved thousands of lives. But Zionists, racial nationalist adept at propagandizing, knew that anti-Semitism and mass murder would actually help their cause, which was stealing Palestine from a group who had lived there for centuries, and regardless of Arab ancestry descended from Hebrews to begin (Islamification and Arabization were common in the Islamic world; Egyptians descend from Ancient Egyptians by speak Arabic, Moroccans descend from Berbers but speak Arabic and so on). They only gained the areas they named Israel because they played off sympathy caused by the Holocausts. But the troubles that Jews faced doesn't mean it is right to oppress other groups and thankfully not all Jews agree with such horrid and ethical actions; which is why we have Mondoweiss!

[Arturo2nd]

My late Uncle Dick served as an artillery officer in Europe during World War II. He was a very amiable fellow and never discussed his war experience with me. Except one time the TV was on and a holocaust denier appeared. My uncle became very upset and said "Nobody who saw the kinds of things I saw in those camps would ever believe such a stupid statement."