http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/wansee-transcript.html
The words in italics and bold suggest that the plan is not extermination but EXPULSION.Those not expelled would be allowed to remain in the Reich and would be thereafter free of all restrictions to which he was previously subjected provided they submitted themselves to sterilisation.
The "Final Solution" referred to that was being contemplated in same document can only refer to EXPULSION by any reasonable interpretation of the document in its context.
Concentration camp inmates when liberated looked no better and no worse than Japanese PoWs ie emaciated and half-starved because everyone was short of food.
http://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/09/091001.pdf
How is one to know anyway? I only "know" Henry VIII had six wives and beheaded two because no one disagrees with this. But what if the law suddenly required me to say that I believed he only had one wife who bore him twin sons on pain of imprisonment? Shouldn't I be a little suspicious of such a law and wonder what the purpose behind all this was?
Below are a number of theories on the Holocaust.
Before anyone asks me, I do not affirm or deny the Holocaust, whatever that means, and am only expressing bemusement that historians in the 21st century West - which prides itself on its free speech, tolerance and associated liberties - can be imprisoned, as David Irving was, for saying the wrong number or propounding the wrong view of the Holocaust, even if he is logically and factually wrong.
Imagine a history teacher telling pupils this: "Better get your view on the Holocaust exactly right, or you may end up in prison one of these days, if you do not correct your views as required."
"But, sir, don't we have free speech? Do we have free speech or don't we? And what about academic freedom?"
The teacher smiles enigmatically ....
I wonder if China and Russia have similar laws about their own history.
"Race and Settlement Main Office"
"Persons of mixed blood of the first degree who are exempted from evacuation will be sterilized in order to prevent any offspring and to eliminate the problem of persons of mixed bloodonce and for all. Such sterilization will be voluntary. But it is required to remain in the Reich. The sterilized "person of mixed blood" is thereafter free of all restrictions to which he was previously subjected."
The words in italics and bold suggest that the plan is not extermination but EXPULSION.Those not expelled would be allowed to remain in the Reich and would be thereafter free of all restrictions to which he was previously subjected provided they submitted themselves to sterilisation.
The "Final Solution" referred to that was being contemplated in same document can only refer to EXPULSION by any reasonable interpretation of the document in its context.
Concentration camp inmates when liberated looked no better and no worse than Japanese PoWs ie emaciated and half-starved because everyone was short of food.
 |
| http://www.lchs.museum/ww2/pow.htm |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
Holocaust denial includes any of the following claims:
Holocaust denial includes any of the following claims:
- that the German Nazi government's Final Solution policy aimed only at deporting Jews from the Reich, and included no policy to exterminate Jews;
- that Nazi authorities did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews;
- and that the actual number of Jews killed was significantly (typically an order of magnitude) lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.
How is one to know anyway? I only "know" Henry VIII had six wives and beheaded two because no one disagrees with this. But what if the law suddenly required me to say that I believed he only had one wife who bore him twin sons on pain of imprisonment? Shouldn't I be a little suspicious of such a law and wonder what the purpose behind all this was?
@3rdReichStudies In what way is David Irving a charlatan? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014
@timothy_stanley @Politizen1 @keirshiels What actually happened though? How would we know if historians are imprisoned? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014
@jessicasmith_14 What is the Holocaust? How does one support it? In what way do you claim David Irving supports the Holocaust? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014
@Kezdale Why should a historian not be allowed to say what he thinks happened, even if you disagree with him? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014
@Glinner Would you like to define "the Holocaust" as you understand it? Why is it wrong for a historian to "doubt" it?
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014
@minamania84 What is "the Holocaust"? Does David Irving say no Jews were killed by the Nazis? @IrvingBooks
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) November 18, 2014
Below are a number of theories on the Holocaust.
Before anyone asks me, I do not affirm or deny the Holocaust, whatever that means, and am only expressing bemusement that historians in the 21st century West - which prides itself on its free speech, tolerance and associated liberties - can be imprisoned, as David Irving was, for saying the wrong number or propounding the wrong view of the Holocaust, even if he is logically and factually wrong.
Imagine a history teacher telling pupils this: "Better get your view on the Holocaust exactly right, or you may end up in prison one of these days, if you do not correct your views as required."
"But, sir, don't we have free speech? Do we have free speech or don't we? And what about academic freedom?"
The teacher smiles enigmatically ....
I wonder if China and Russia have similar laws about their own history.
The Nazis' Real Plans for the Re-creation of Israel
Holocaust facts: Where does the figure of 6 million victims come from?
6,000,000
Holocaust facts: Where does the figure of 6 million victims come from?
6,000,000
It seems Michael Voris thinks Liberal Catholic clergy are even more evil than the Nazis!
10 comments:
What happened to European Jews? There were 11 million of them before the war. The testimony of Rudolf Höss is pretty compelling. But just read, for example, Michael Burleigh, a right wing historian who is excellent on all matters Germany 1930s and Nazism.
I'm no expert, like I said, but look at the Red Cross figures. Also, as I mentioned the German army protocols for using xyclon-b for delousing barracks and compare that to the testimony at Nuremberg on how the chambers were operated. During Irvings trial he was the party asking for chemical analysis of the Auschwitz chambers that would have proven conclusively one way or another if they were really used for gassing. The other side spent a shitload of cash making sure this didn't happen. I honestly don't have a horse in the race but a lot of what is accepted really does seem a little suspect.
Why are we even still talking about Hitler? He was a fool who got lucky and when the shit hit the fan and real leadership was required he was found woefully lacking. Had he, by some miracle, beaten the USSR, he would've just kept going such was his personality. He was an abysmal failure who brought the very thing he railed against right into the heart of Germany and thus Europe, ushered in the Cold War, US global domination (neither the US or the Soviets would've been in Germany without him). The world we live in today is still marred by this lunatic and his selfish, adolescent fantasies.
Conspiracy theorists might even claim he was actually working for Stalin and the 'Jewish Wall St.' such was the outcome of his adventurism.
The Red Cross was corrupt for a start. They're record is not a very good one for this period.
As I say, start with Burleigh. The deliberate killing of the European Jewish population is not in doubt.
The Nazis are little kids - had they won they would be boasting about what they had done to the Jews (many of them did anyway) but they lost and it's all 'wasn't us gov'. They are truly pathetic.
I agree with all of that. However, the gas chamber but really does seem questionable. And to answer your original question, I'm talking about hitler because I'm staying in a hotel and the fucking TV doesn't work!!!
Well, I mean in general - why can't these Neo-Nazi types get it into their heads that he lost. By his own warped standards he proved to be the subhuman beaten by the mighty Siberian ubermensch. What fools they are as well as showing zero respect for their own ancestors who helped beat this twisted little monster.
Notice how it is always somebody else's fault never his. He chose to set upon a course that lead to the total defeat of his country. Nobody made him do it, not the Jews, the Commies, the British, the US etc, etc. They are in denial.
Crazy that grown adults who are actually allowed out on their own can buy into such obvious shite. Couldn't make it up really.
There is no legislating for stupidity. Like they say, a little information (in this case from some dubious, racist websites) is a dangerous thing.
Aye, easily lead just like their heroes.
Easily led into the Russian winter. Nobody thought to mention what a bad idea that was to the great man? Dumbarses.
Why do you have to interpret it? Can't you read?
To many, just daring to open the document is, so fragile the legend.
Post a Comment