Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:28 am Post subject:
Am I free to speak the Truth as I know it on this forum? I have already been banned from several forums for speaking the Truth as I know it.
Quote:
33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.
"What is Truth? Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from Truth I could keep to the Truth and leave God." ~ Eckhart von Hochheim
Quote:
On Feb. 13, 1327, he stated in his protest, which was read publicly, that he had always detested everything wrong, and should anything of the kind be found in his writings, he now retracts. Of the further progress of the case there is no information, except that John XXII. issued a bull (In agro dominico), Mar. 27, 1329, in which a series of statements from Eckhart is characterized as heretical; another as suspected of heresy (the bull is given complete in ALKG, ii. 636-640). At the close it is stated that Eckhart recanted before his death everything which he had falsely taught, by subjecting himself and his writing to the decision of the apostolic see. By this is no doubt meant the statement of Feb. 13, 1327; and it may be inferred that Eckhart's death, concerning which no information exists, took place shortly after that event.
"Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders."~Martin Luther _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:03 am Post subject:
I just discovered the search utility, as well as the fact that Holborn was OSS during the war. If ANYBODY was in a position to know about the alleged gas chambers, it would have been Holborn. The fact that he, a refugee from the Nazis, was completely silent on the issue speaks volumes.
This concluding volume of a three-volume reassessment of the last five
centuries of German history develops the theme of power into what Gordon A.
Craig calls a "masterly account of the dramatic, tragic and often shameful
history of Germany in the most recent age" (New York Times Book Review). It
deals with the period of nationalism and imperialism, from the abortive
attempt of popular forces to found a liberal national state and Bismarck's
German unification through the Prussian military monarchy to the
expansionist programs of the age of William II and Hitler's world conquest.
Reviews:
"[A] masterly account of the dramatic, tragic and often shameful history of
Germany in the most recent age, which will probably become one of the most
widely read of Holborn's works."--New York Times Book Review
"At a time when most historians are devoting their energies primarily to
small segments of our past, it is heartening to have a person of Professor
Holborn's stature present us with his interpretation of the sweep of
history and of a country whose impact on many phases of Western
civilization has been highly significant."--H. J. Grimm, American
Historical Review
"Dr. Holborn is to be congratulated for his emphasis on the socioeconomic
factors in German history. This is the first major work in English on the
subject in which adequate attention is given to various facets of German
historical development and particularly to economic factors."--L.L. Snyder,
Annals of the American Academy
"The work is persuasive because it evinces the author's first-hand knowledge
of the country and its culture. . . . Wisdom, serenity, and compassion as
well as great historical intelligence and perspicacity have molded
it."--Fritz Stern, The Yale Review
Hajo Holborn (b. Berlin, May 18, 1902, d. Bonn, June 20, 1969) was a
German-American historian and specialist in Modern German History.
Life
Holborn was born the son of the German physicist and "Direktor der
Physikalisch-Technischen Reichsanstalt", Ludwig Holborn, and later became a
scholar of Friedrich Meinecke at Berlin University, where he achieved Dr.
phil. in 1924. After habilitation at Heidelberg in 1926, he became
Privatdozent there until he was called back to Berlin as Carnegie Professor
of History and International Relationships at the private Deutsche
Hochschule für Politik, where he worked until his dismission in 1933.
To avoid the Nazi terror, that same year he fled to the United Kingdom and
emigrated to the United States in 1934. Shortly after coming to America, he
became a guest professor of German history at Yale. He taught Diplomatic
History at Tufts University, Mass., (1936?1942) and was a guest professor
at the University of Vienna, Austria (1955). During the Second World War he
worked as a citizen of the United States (since 1940) for the Office of
Strategic Services as special assistant to the chief of its Research and
Analysis Branch, William L. Langer. At the conclusion of the war he became
Randolph W. Townsend professor at Yale until 1959, when he held the title
of Sterling Professor of History at Yale University, where he continued to
teach and compose until his death in 1969.
In 1967 Holborn became the first president of the American Historical
Association, who was not born in the United States. Several specialists of
German and European History in America (e.g. Peter Gay) were Holborn's
classroom students.
_________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
I've been avoiding this thread, but just felt compelled to note -
Quote:
Do you have the original German text? Ausrottung (aus=out, rottung=rooting).
Quote:
First, it is simply wrong. Don't take our word for it; ask any native German speaker. (Or ask Google.) No native speaker will fall for this, and no German denier has ever dared to suggest it to a German-speaking audience.
Quote:
Saying "aus-rotten" combines to mean "up-root" makes as much sense as an American denier claiming that the Latin roots "ex" (out of) and "terminus" (borders) combine into "ex-terminate"... meaning "deportation." Huh? If you as an English reader just did a double-take, that is how a German reader would react to misreading "ausrotten" as "uprooting" human beings. It's just wrong.
Alexander wrote:
There was no Holocaust or genocide of European Jewry for me to be an "apologist" for
I'm just trying to clarify what is being claimed here
To say there was no holocaust (holocaust denial) is very different from saying there was a holocaust but that our understanding of it needs to be revised (holocaust revision)
Who here wishes to express support for the article written by Winkler that I'm objecting to?
You're waffling Alulim
Just answer the questions so I know what you are claiming and where you are coming from
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:52 am Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
I've been avoiding this thread, but just felt compelled to note -
Quote:
Do you have the original German text? Ausrottung (aus=out, rottung=rooting).
Quote:
First, it is simply wrong. Don't take our word for it; ask any native German speaker. (Or ask Google.) No native speaker will fall for this, and no German denier has ever dared to suggest it to a German-speaking audience.
Quote:
Saying "aus-rotten" combines to mean "up-root" makes as much sense as an American denier claiming that the Latin roots "ex" (out of) and "terminus" (borders) combine into "ex-terminate"... meaning "deportation." Huh? If you as an English reader just did a double-take, that is how a German reader would react to misreading "ausrotten" as "uprooting" human beings. It's just wrong.
I have asked native speakers of German, and the word can mean uproot. It also makes far more sense given the time and content of the speech.
BTW, I have the suspicion that HH and Nizkor are not on the up-n-up. Find anything there that actually provides the kind of proof that we demand with 9/11. AAMOF, some of the "debunking" sites look like global search and replace copies of holocaust sites. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:02 am Post subject:
ian neal wrote:
ian neal wrote:
Do you agree with alexander when he says?
Alexander wrote:
There was no Holocaust or genocide of European Jewry for me to be an "apologist" for
I'm just trying to clarify what is being claimed here
To say there was no holocaust (holocaust denial) is very different from saying there was a holocaust but that our understanding of it needs to be revised (holocaust revision)
Who here wishes to express support for the article written by Winkler that I'm objecting to?
You're waffling Alulim
Just answer the questions so I know what you are claiming and where you are coming from
In fact let me make it real easy for you
Hitler was a war criminal. Yes or no?
If yes, please provide details.
Thanks
Hitler was probably less of a war criminal than Roosevelt or Churchill. Hitler's greatest crime was losing the war.
"Vae Victis." ~ Brennus
"The victors write the history." ~ Traditional
I'm not waffling. I just don't feel like being banned from yet another "Truth" site. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:15 am Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
Just to add, if you search the Holborn book for "Jews", you get stuff like:
Quote:
But like in 1942 when Hitler ordered the physical extermination of all the european Jews
(p.715).
Quote:
(the Nazi leaders) made even greater efforts to suppress any information about the extermination camps
(p.816)
I wouldn't call that "complete silence".
Yes. He did write a paragraph about the matter. He believed the Jews at Auschwitz had been killed in "gas ovens". Probably because he had been aware of the construction of the crematoria. The strange thing is that his account is not consistent with the prevailing view of the sequence of events. I suspect he simply accepted what he had been told by others. I mean, who would tell a lie that big? A lie so big that no one would believe it is a lie.
Edit to add: Holborn also stated that the plan was conceived in 1942 and the facilities to execute it were constructed in 1941. Looks to me as if he was slipping one past the thought police. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Last edited by Alulim on Fri Feb 22, 2008 1:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
I've been avoiding this thread, but just felt compelled to note -
Quote:
Do you have the original German text? Ausrottung (aus=out, rottung=rooting).
Quote:
First, it is simply wrong. Don't take our word for it; ask any native German speaker. (Or ask Google.) No native speaker will fall for this, and no German denier has ever dared to suggest it to a German-speaking audience.
Quote:
Saying "aus-rotten" combines to mean "up-root" makes as much sense as an American denier claiming that the Latin roots "ex" (out of) and "terminus" (borders) combine into "ex-terminate"... meaning "deportation." Huh? If you as an English reader just did a double-take, that is how a German reader would react to misreading "ausrotten" as "uprooting" human beings. It's just wrong.
I have asked native speakers of German, and the word can mean uproot. It also makes far more sense given the time and content of the speech.
BTW, I have the suspicion that HH and Nizkor are not on the up-n-up. Find anything there that actually provides the kind of proof that we demand with 9/11. AAMOF, some of the "debunking" sites look like global search and replace copies of holocaust sites.
If you say so. The fact the whole of Germany doesn't seem to have a problem with the meaning generally ascribed to the Poznan speech is good enough for me. It simply doesn't work in the context you're suggesting - e.g. if the Jews are simply being 'uprooted', why can't it be talked about? Deporting Jews was simply not a secret, the speech also says "kill these people" etc. But you can read it however you like if it keeps you happy. You might wish to note that most modern deniers appear to try to argue (equally ludicrously) Himmler was referring to 'partisans' as most know the 'ausrottung argument' doesn't wash. The fact you can describe Hitler as "less of a war criminal" than Roosevelt or Churchill (not that they were saints by any stretch of the imagination, though Stalin would be a better comparison) tells me pretty much where you're at. I guess you're also 'sceptical' of e.g. his abominable treatment of the Poles, extermination of the Roma and Sinti, killing directly or indirectly enormous numbers of Soviet POWS, explicitly planning to starve millions of Russians etc.
I'd argue deniers in the 911 community have much higher standards of evidence with the Holocaust than 911. Silverstein saying "pull it" compared with your determination to make German mean what you want it to for example. As I said on another thread I'd say if the TM had stuff comparable to Goebbels' diary, the 'gas tight door and shower heads' document, the 'gassing cellar' document, Han Frank's speech, the Wannsee Protocol (yes, yes, I know deniers are determined this among much else is the product of the largest forgery operation in the history of man), the perpetrators all owning up and sticking to their 'story' until they died it would be hardly be reticent about it.
In fact, the denier position is a very crude debunking position:
Documents? Forged or mean something else. Try to give a different meaning first, if not default to "it's a forgery".
Eyewitnesses? Liars or deluded (I guess this probably includes Norman Finkelstein's parents - maybe someone should tell him?)
Perpetrators? All tortured or otherwise coerced. Apparently even when they spoke/speak about it decades later.
Etc.
Who did it? It was the Soviets. No, it was British intelligence. And the Americans were in on it. And obviously the Polish government in exile as some initial reports came via them. Or maybe it was just those pesky Jews all along.
Quote:
Yes. He did write a paragraph about the matter. He believed the Jews at Auschwitz had been killed in "gas ovens". Probably because he had been aware of the construction of the crematoria. The strange thing is that his account is not consistent with the prevailing view of the sequence of events. I suspect he simply accepted what he had been told by others. I mean, who would tell a lie that big? A lie so big that no one would believe it is a lie.
He wrote a massive history of Germany, not a treatise on the Holocaust. I'd assume he would use the work of others.
I don't know how consistent his work is compared to what others think (haven't read it) - there is, of course, plenty of dispute over the exact sequence of events, has been for years and may always be. Of course you already knew that.
You initially said
Quote:
ANYBODY was in a position to know about the alleged gas chambers, it would have been Holborn. The fact that he, a refugee from the Nazis, was completely silent on the issue speaks volumes.
So one minute he would surely know, the next he's just accepting what other people said? It's strange how his authoritativeness suddenly changes depending on whether he's saying (or not saying) what you want him to. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Dogsmilk illustrates very well the major problem the proponents of the holocaust story have.
The problem is the complete absence of hard evidence.
The idea that a planned systematic industrial scale killing of 6 million people could be undertaken AND LEAVE NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is a nonsense.
Without doubt the reason the law is used where possible to shield such a nonsense from scrutiny.
I think rather that the holocaust deniers here illustrate why some countries who fear suffering again under nazism have found it desirable to enact such laws. The holocaust deniers are simply impervious to any kind of evidence that challenges their irrational beliefs, they will find some ludicrous way to dismiss it all.
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject:
Dogsmilk wrote:
If you say so. The fact the whole of Germany doesn't seem to have a problem with the meaning generally ascribed to the Poznan speech is good enough for me.
Germar Rudolf. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject:
Bushwacker wrote:
I think rather that the holocaust deniers here illustrate why some countries who fear suffering again under nazism have found it desirable to enact such laws. The holocaust deniers are simply impervious to any kind of evidence that challenges their irrational beliefs, they will find some ludicrous way to dismiss it all.
Actually, the reason 9/11 clicked almost immediately when I seriously looked at the claims is that I had seen it all before. In particular the unsubstantiated claims bolstered by nothing but dubious shreds of alleged evidence, dogmatic proclamations from authorities and gratuitous argumentum ad hominem. That latter was the clincher.
Denier <=> Conspriacist _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:31 pm Post subject:
One difficulty we face in challenging the Big Lie of "The Holocaust" is that the defenders of the OCT (see The Conspiracy against the Jewish People) accuse us of condoning the alleged crimes and of attempting to rehabilitate the system which allegedly committed them.
brian wrote:
Dogsmilk illustrates very well the major problem the proponents of the holocaust story have.
I would change that to one major problem.
brian wrote:
The problem is the complete absence of hard evidence.
Add to that, the extensive presence of clearly fraudulent "evidence" and mendacious perjury. What happened is that so many lies were told that people sorted through them until they found anything modestly plausible and clutched on to those lies as if they were Truth.
brian wrote:
The idea that a planned systematic industrial scale killing of 6 million people could be undertaken AND LEAVE NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is a nonsense.
Not to mention an ever changing scenario of what allegedly happened. There is the law of conservation of momenergy. The law of conservation of charge. The law of conservation of parity. And the law of conservation of victims.
No matter how you do the calculation. No matter how you account for the deaths. No matter where you claim the murders took place, you MUST arrive at 6,000,000 dead Jews. After that you can tack on any number of additional victim classes you wish in order to enhance the story and give others a shared sense of involvement.
brian wrote:
Without doubt the reason the law is used where possible to shield such a nonsense from scrutiny.
One of the signal charges against the Nazis, which allegedly distinguishes them from their detractors, is that the Nazis are said to have banned books, imprisoned authors and otherwise suppressed free speech. Ironically, there are several people who are now, have been or currently face being imprisoned for expressing honest doubts about "The Holocaust". There are books on the subject which are specifically banned in Germany and other pseudo-democracies.
Even defending our right to express such doubts is enough to be accused of the same crime. Indeed, in Germany it is a crime to prove that "The Holocaust" didn't happen. Yes, it is illegal to prove an objective fact.
It is about time for the shrill screams to be sounded on this message board. We will be accused of spreading disinformation, attempting to introduce "divisive" content, ... http://911review.com/denial/holocaust.html
The WJC now. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
We are dealing with the alleged murder of 6,000,000 people, and the only evidence to support the accusation are a few questionable documents, easily discredited "witnesses", and confessions extracted by torture and/or extortion. In addition there is a huge amount of evidence to prove that there a wholesale miscarriage of justice at the end of WWII.
Concisely put man! _________________ LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...
People will simply stare with their mouths agape in gawking stupidity as others are vaporized by the thought police. They are completely indifferent to the plight of the victim, and will not so much as raise a finger in their defense. The rare person who is so bold as to take a stand is the next to be vaporized. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
The idea that a planned systematic industrial scale killing of 6 million people could be undertaken AND LEAVE NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is a nonsense.
Well deniers routinely dismiss any evidence, physical or otherwise, so it's not surprising that you'd say that.
It's also not surprising that deniers are incredulous the Nazis made some effort to cover their tracks - it's suits their purposes.
It's also not surprising that Alulim says "you must arrive at 6m dead Jews" when he knows damn well there are a variety of estimates for the death toll ranging from around 5m up.
It's mildly surprising Alulim says the Nazis are said to have burned books etc - perhaps an exciting new dimension of denial awaits?
It's not surprising Alulim goes into the standard hand-wringing over the poor, poor persecuted deniers. I do agree laws banning denial are a bit ironic, though I somehow doubt he will extend his irony to that of neo-Nazis like Zundel bleating about free speech being curtailed. You'd think he'd like it surely? That may sound dismissive. Banning denial is contrary to freedom of speech, is thus IMO wrong and does rather ironically ape the Nazis, but there comes a point when your sympathy for these c*nts just runs out, particularly when they consistently pose as innocent doe-eyed truthseekers just before addressing a convention of far-right lunatics (like Irving did a while back) or whatever.
I'm not even surprised Alulim just says "Germar Rudolf" as sees it as some kind of coherent response.
I'm certainly not surprised it's all apparently the fault of the "thought police" that some people don't buy into whatever crank tract is book of the week.
Let's face it boys and girls, if actual footage emerged of Jews being gassed while Hitler pointed and laughed, it would routinely be dismissed as a Soviet fake or else it was a simple shower and all the Jews fainted because the water was too hot.
The question isn't "where's the hard evidence?"
it's
"What evidence would actually satisfy the deniers?"
Let's face it - arguing about it is futile.
Though I really, really, really would like to know what the Gypsy role in this 'hoax' is.
Quote:
It is about time for the shrill screams to be sounded on this message board. We will be accused of spreading disinformation, attempting to introduce "divisive" content,
This could have come from any NPT poster.
Look, some people may be concerned about getting swatted with the Nazi stick. It's fairly hard to ignore the fact that a lot of this stuff comes from neo-Nazi circles who quite obviously have something of a vested interest in denial. For example, you'd quite literally have to have been born yesterday not to notice which team the IHR are batting for. Maybe that's your bag, I don't know, but it isn't everyones cup of tea. That said, Holocaust denial has been a persistent feature of this forum for some time, so I see little reason for anyone to hand-wring about their awful suppression. Indeed, if I'd just discovered the TM I think some of the stuff on this site would put me right off it. That's not a call for censorship - something I have NEVER done - just my personal perspective. Which I reckon I'm as entitled to as your are yours. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject:
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showConnection.php?id1=468&id2=6434
"I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany." ~ Dr. Heinrich Brüning (who preceded Hitler as chancellor), to Winston Churchill _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showConnection.php?id1=468&id2=6434
"I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany." ~ Dr. Heinrich Brüning (who preceded Hitler as chancellor), to Winston Churchill
This is from bullsh!tter extraordinaire David Irving. I don't know about this personally (and I'm not arsed to go researching it), but if we take another other Irving 'bombshell' SimpleSimon posted on that Bobby Fischer thread (sorry not got round to replying to you ss):
Quote:
Here's the clip so others reading this can see what they think:
"And Once again we're quoting from the archives. They're in the British archives, how the Psychological Warfare Executive decides quite cold bloodedly and cynically to start putting out over the radio waves the allegation that the Germans have built special gas chambers for gassing the Jews and getting rid of them. And later on in the files round about 1944, we find the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who is responsible for the Psychological Warfare Executive, writing a hand written minute - his name is Victor Cavendish-Benting(?), eminent banker, industrialist, still alive in England now as Lord Portland as he is now, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, writing in hand, writing in 1944 words to the following effect:
We've had a good run for our money with this gas chamber lie, but really we've got to be a bit careful because eventually it's going to be exposed and our then our entire psychological warfare effort will be brought down with it. So isn't it a bit - isn't it a good time now to distance ourselves from this particular story. We've set the hare running and now we ought to let it go off by itself.”
He could be lying of course. And so could "they". You may wish to ask yourself what motivates individuals to lie, and what motivates institutions to lie.
and see what was pointed out in court
Quote:
11. The documents in the Public Record Office to which Irving refers appear to be well-known minutes by Foreign Office officials Roger Allen and Victor Cavendish-Bentinck which provide no support for the claim that it was the British who actually invented the propaganda claim of gas chambers being used. These minutes, on the contrary, refer only to the use of reports of gas chambers in British propaganda. They clearly imply that these stories emanated from Poland, but they do not refer to Auschwitz, and indeed Cavendish-Bentinck was talking about stories about Polish victims rather than about Jews.
12. Irving cites a letter by Cavendish-Bentinck written in 1943 during the formulation of a joint British-American 'Declaration on German Crimes in Poland' released at the request of the Polish government-in-exile. The relevant part of the original draft of 11 August 1943 read:
Reliable information has reached H. M. Government regarding the crimes committed by the German invaders against the population of Poland. Since the autumn of 1942 a belt of territory extending from the province of Bialystok southwards along the line of the River Bug has been systematically emptied of its inhabitants. In July 1943 these measures were extended to practically the whole of the province of Lublin, where hundreds of thousands of persons have been deported from their homes or exterminated.
These measures are being carried out with the utmost brutality. Many of the victims are killed on the spot. The rest are segregated. Men from fourteen to fifty are taken away to work for Germany. Some children are killed on the spot, others are separated from their parents and either sent to Germany to be brought up as Germans or sold to German settlers or dispatched with the women and old men to concentration camps, where they are now being systematically put to death in gas chambers.96
13. The draft was taken to Quebec where it was proposed to issue the declaration simultaneously in Britain and America.97 In a minute of 27 August Roger Allen (not to be confused with David Allen) of the Foreign Office wrote:
This [Polish] aide-mémoire [on which the declaration was based] is in line with a good deal of information which we have received from time to time. There can, I think, be little doubt that the general picture painted is pretty true to life. On the other hand it is of course extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us to check up on the specific instances or matters of detail. For this reason I feel a little unhappy about the statement to be issued on the authority of His Majesty's Government, that Poles "are now being systematically put to death in gas chambers."
14. Then outlined the only two references to gassings he had been able to find in the appendix to the Polish aide-mémoire: one dated 17 July 1943 from the Commander-in-Chief of armed forces in Lublin of murders in 'gas cells' at Majdanek and a telegram of the same date detailing the murder of two transports of old men, women, and children 'in gas cells.' Roger Allen wrote:
It will be observed that the first of these reports gives no indication of the date of the occurrence, or the number of people concerned; the second is silent as to the place and the source.
It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources.
Personally, I have never really understood the advantage of the gas chamber over the simpler machine gun, or the equally simple starvation method. These stories may or may not be true, but in any event I submit we are putting out a statement on evidence which is far fro[m] conclusive, and which we have no means of assessing.98
15. There was no suggestion here, therefore, that the stories had somehow been dreamed up out of nothing by the British propaganda machine. Cavendish-Bentinck added:
In my opinion it is incorrect to describe Polish information regarding German atrocities as "trustworthy". The Poles, and to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up. They seem to have succeeded.
Mr. Allen and myself have both followed German atrocities quite closely. I do not believe that there is any evidence which would be accepted in a Law Court that Polish children have been killed on the spot by Germans when their parents were being deported to work in Germany, nor that Polish children have been sold to German settlers. As regards putting Poles to death in gas chambers, I do not believe there is any evidence that this has been done. There may have been stories to this effect, and we have played them up in P.W.E. rumours without believing that they had any foundation. At any rate there is far less evidence than exists for the mass murder of Polish officers by the Russians at Katyn. On the other hand we do know that the Germans are out to destroy the Jews of any age unless they are fit for manual labour.
I think that we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence. These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of employment of human corpses during the last war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda.99
16. From a hand-written note appended to Cavendish-Bentinck's minute by David Allen it would seem that it was too late 'to make substantial changes', but a draft was telegraphed to Washington and Moscow. Likewise the Polish 'P.M.' received an amended draft and 'readily accepted the change'.
17. The Foreign Office's doubts were telegraphed to Washington the same day.
On further reflection we are not convinced that evidence regarding the use of gas chambers is substantial enough to justify inclusion in a public declaration of concluding phrase of paragraph 2 of draft and would prefer if United States agree, that sentence in question should end at "concentration camps".100
18. As requested, the original declaration issued on 30 August stood, save that it duly read that some children were 'despatched with the women and old men to concentration camps.'101
19. Thus the sources Irving cites do not support the thesis he is proposing. There is no evidence here that the British Political Warfare Executive invented the story of the gas chambers: only that two officials in the British Foreign Office were giving it as their personal view that reports coming from Poland were not necessarily to be trusted. This material has been known at least since its publication in Martin Gilbert's book Auschwitz and the Allies (London, 1981).
We can clearly see his used car salesman approach to source material. Not the only example either, is it?
So given his track record, call me a hard bitten cynic, but I think I'd want more than him being quoted in an equally devious publication before taking him at his word.
Besides, did German Zionism have a single leader at that time? Maybe you can tell me.
Anyway, going off on a tangent a bit aren't you?
Are you just going to do that 'post random factoids' thing Rodin likes to do?
If so I, for one, aren't playing. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject:
Mr. Justice Grey:
_________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
If the Holocaust happened the way they tell us with loads of "Evidence"it happened.. and it fitted together logically without endless contradictions and mystery... they wouldn't need to send schoolchildren to Auschwitz.. then again they wouldn't need to jail people who question it either... as the story would be able to stand on its own 2 feet and the people who questioned it would be pitied as educationally subnormal.. not historian's and Scientists!! _________________ LFJ is no antisemite or 9 11 truth critic He's anti Zionist Anti A Jones - its not his fault this heavily censored little forum has too many people calling themselves stupid titles & manufacturing self importance - any more than 2 people running this little audio less forum is absurd...
Quote:
Do you have the original German text? Ausrottung (aus=out, rottung=rooting).
Makes sense to me.
Quote:
Quote:
First, it is simply wrong. Don't take our word for it; ask any native German speaker. (Or ask Google.) No native speaker will fall for this, and no German denier has ever dared to suggest it to a German-speaking audience.
Quote:
Saying "aus-rotten" combines to mean "up-root" makes as much sense as an American denier claiming that the Latin roots "ex" (out of) and "terminus" (borders) combine into "ex-terminate"... meaning "deportation." Huh? If you as an English reader just did a double-take, that is how a German reader would react to misreading "ausrotten" as "uprooting" human beings. It's just wrong.
I can't find these quotes in this thread, searching the 3 pages for "German-speaking", "native" and "Huh?". Maybe I'm somehow suddenly unable to search threads, or maybe the forum thought police have been at work.
--That on the page linked, the English translation offered suggests that Himmler would have used "evacuation" and "extermination" within a single sentence with, we are supposed to believe, the same meaning.
--That the speech itself is (supposedly) a hyperlink away. "this speech"
--That when one goes to that page one is presented with another page about the speech, which does however contain a link described as "the full text of the speech".
--That when one follows that link, one is presented with a page titled in bold "The Complete Text of the Poznan Speech".
--That the next and first sentence immediately reduces the claim to "Below is the complete text from the (sites own) QuickTime movie presentation of Heinrich Himmler's Poznan speech..."
--That anyone could have the "Chutzpah" to lie so blatantly in the heading and first sentence of a page.
--That the next sentence describes a "three hour" speech (of which they provide the "complete text")
--That the provided English transcript takes less than 2 two minutes to read, even at the slowest speaking pace.
--That anyone could have the "Chutzpah" to lie so blatantly (again) within a single page.
--That the page says " 'what you are hearing' has not been edited..."
--That anyone could have the "Chutzpah" to suggest that visitors to the page are "hearing" the original, whereas they are merely reading a blatantly dishonest account of it.
Interesting... but not un-typical of holocaustian web sites linked to in this forum.
I would say that "the moderators are letting us down", but I'm for free speech, against censorship, and for letting readers make their own minds up.
Poor confused simplesimon, the answer is on the web page, where you obviously missed the statement, "Of the three-hour speech, only the five and a half minutes presented in this movie concerns the destruction of the Jews" and the complete text is the complete text of the part of the speech that is in the movie. Simple really, simon.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:44 am Post subject: What does this mean?
What does this mean, Ian?
"No fear. Become the campaign and change you want to see and it will be done" _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
If the Holocaust happened the way they tell us with loads of "Evidence"it happened.. and it fitted together logically without endless contradictions and mystery... they wouldn't need to send schoolchildren to Auschwitz.. then again they wouldn't need to jail people who question it either... as the story would be able to stand on its own 2 feet and the people who questioned it would be pitied as educationally subnormal.. not historian's and Scientists!!
When I was a schoolboy, we went on a school trip to a castle. They wouldn't need to do that if there was evidence for the middle ages.
Otherwise, I fail to see how sending a couple of kids from each school to Auschwitz is especially dramatic.
In theory, for many European countries, denying the Holocaust is on a par with denying other genocides:
Quote:
Condoning or “grossly trivialising” genocide will become a crime punishable by up to three years in prison across Europe, although justice ministers failed to agree a specific ban on denying the Holocaust yesterday.
Germany used its presidency of the EU to push through the first Europe-wide race-hate laws, regarded by Berlin as an historic obligation in the 50th anniversary year of the union created to preserve peace and prosperity after the Second World War.
Under pressure from nations worried about freedom of speech, led by Britain, Germany scaled back ambitions to replicate its strict laws of Holocaust denial and dropped plans to outlaw the display of Nazi symbols at an EU level.
All 27 EU nations will be obliged to criminalise “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” but the test for prosecution was set deliberately high to secure agreement in Luxembourg. Cases will succeed only where “the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred”.
The definition of genocide will be that set at the Nuremberg trials and by the International Criminal Court, meaning that it will include Nazi crimes and those in Rwanda and Yugoslavia but not the Armenian genocide — a definition disputed by Turkey.
Poland, Slovenia and the Baltic states lobbied hard for — but failed to win — the inclusion of a crime of denying, condoning or trivialising atrocities committed in the name of Joseph Stalin in the new law.
So if denying the Rwandan genocide is on a par with denying the Holocaust , it must be equally suspicious right? Anyone fancy a crack at denying Rwanda? Y'know - just for a change. Or are there not enough Jews in that neck of the woods?
If the Poles etc get their way, is it the case Stalin's crimes will therefore become less likely to have actually happened?
France criminalised denying the Armenian genocide. Is the Armenian genocide therefore less likely to have happened if you're French?
You could probably count the deniers who are historians on one hand. Regardless, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer are educated people - I rest my case.
This whole post is just meandering, baseless speculation - I thought you were on the 'next level' in opposition to the lying disinfo merchants that apparently make up around 99% of the global population if your other posts are anything to go by.
I was avoiding the thread so as not to get embroiled in yet another Holocaust thread.
I later felt like making a post so I did
I felt like carrying on the conversation so I did.
Simple really.
If I were to write a list of all the simple questions of mine that have been ignored over time, my fingers would be sore from typing.
Quote:
Makes sense to me.
Could you elaborate?
Quote:
I can't find these quotes in this thread, searching the 3 pages for "German-speaking", "native" and "Huh?". Maybe I'm somehow suddenly unable to search threads, or maybe the forum thought police have been at work.
They were from the HHP website, which I cunningly indicated by putting the link underneath the quotes.
Himmler uses "evacuation" and "extermination" in the same line because "the evacuation of the Jews" was like sending them "to the East", or like "special action", "special treatment". - it's a euphemism. The fact Himmler links this with extermination so explicitly (and it actually makes more sense this way than to say "evacuation" then clarify it as "uprooting") is one of the reasons deniers need to make this speech mean something other than it so f*cking obviously does.
This is core denier methodology -
You take each piece of evidence, rip it from its context and must make it mean something else.
Ideally, you change the meaning in such a way you can add an entirely new context. Otherwise, you just try to make it doubtful, argue from incredulity and as a default you can just say something is fake (which is why HHP are keen to point the Himmler speech is authentic and not edited - deniers will be apt to say "it's a fake" or "this section has been carefully edited to make him say these things")
The 'ausrottung argument" is a typical example of this strategy. Even putting aside the translation bullsh!t, any reasonable, honest person can see that if you use "uprooting" it doesn't make much sense. Why can't they talk about it then? Why must we "kill these people"?, why the reference to standing next to hundreds of bodies? "a page of glory never to be mentioned"? We "exterminated the bacillus" or "we uprooted the bacillus"? Which makes more sense?
http://www.iee.et.tu-dresden.de/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/wernerr/search.sh?stri ng=ausrottung&nocase=on&hits=50 http://english.german-dictionary.net/dict.cgi?query=ausrottung&plang=e n&db=tuc&lang=0
You must then get creative and rationalise it all. Moving further and further away from the f*cking obvious that any rational person would grasp on their first reading.
But it doesn't matter - you are simply there to attack each piece of evidence.
If your argument collapses, f*ck it - move on to something else. You can think of a new argument for that thing later or use the same one with someone else who might buy it.
If your denier sources are shown to be liars, that simply doesn't matter. Just stick with their arguments that still work.
You won't care that I've just shown you how Irving lied - you'll move on to something else.
If they lied, you'll move on to something else.
Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
At no point must you say "hang on - these deniers keep talking * and half of them are Nazis."
You must just keep stoically attacking each piece of evidence in the hope you can erode enough so people will eventually see what goddam liars these Jews really are.
That is how Holocaust denial works.
And that is why it is ultimately futile to argue about it.
Quote:
I would say that "the moderators are letting us down", but I'm for free speech, against censorship, and for letting readers make their own minds up.
How are the moderators letting us down? Who has censored you?
What the f*ck is a "holocaustian" website?
Why do you keep saying Chutzpah?
Bushwacker wrote:
Poor confused simplesimon, the answer is on the web page, where you obviously missed the statement, "Of the three-hour speech, only the five and a half minutes presented in this movie concerns the destruction of the Jews" and the complete text is the complete text of the part of the speech that is in the movie. Simple really, simon.
Exactly. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Last edited by Dogsmilk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
It is interesting because making the same claim today regarding communism of that era will elicit vociferous condemnation. _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 290 Location: New Albion
Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: Re: What does this mean?
Anthony Lawson wrote:
What does this mean, Ian?
"No fear. Become the campaign and change you want to see and it will be done"
Link _________________ "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ~ Pennsylvania Historical Review (1759)
What I mean by it is that we should be the change we wish to see in the world and that fear should play no part in our thinking. It means the individuals that make up the truth movement should treat others as they would wish to be treated themselves.
Churchill's views from 1920 in his article, Zionism versus Bolshevism, are interesting:
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
This is quite interesting, as it appears to cast Zionism in opposition to notions of some 'Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy'. So in that sense, if you believe Churchill, you'd have to see the Zionists as some kind of bulwark against 'Jewish communism' surely? Indeed Churchill stresses other, the good Jews that typify 'British' values
Quote:
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the
disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed
tn play an honorable and useful part in the national life
even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have
strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic
resources, and they were foremost in the creation of
those remarkable organizations, the Russian Co-operative
Societies. In politics their support has been given, for
the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and
they have been among the staunchest upholder of
friendship with France and Great Britain.
I'd personally say Churchill vastly exaggerates the role of Jews in Bolshevism and its secular nature means it isn't exactly 'Judaic'.
What's more interesting to me is the way that as a discrete community within nations (and particularly as the concept of 'national identity' emerged), Jews have been cast in this way as whether they fit in or typify alien values. In this sense, Muslims have come to represent something similar. We have narratives of 'ghettos' dominated by Muslims(Asians) and allegedly at times impenetrable to white non-Muslims, the question of 'assimilation' - do these Muslims adopt our values, or are they representative of a threating difference. Are they part of a global conspiracy to overthrow our values and replace them with our own, enslaving us under Shariah Law? Yeah sure, real blow-em-up Islamic fundamentalists exist and have for a long time, but I'd say virtually everyone on the forum would agree the 'Global Islamic Conspiracy' presenting 'the biggest threat since WWII' is essentially a myth which can be/is invoked politically, maybe even some of those that support unequivocally the OT.
There are differences, sure, but I really do wonder why people seem to avoid at all costs the similarity of the narratives and the way they are invoked. It rather seems people are perfectly happy to believe anachronistic Jewish Conspiracy theories while rejecting modern Muslim conspiracy theories. Indeed, some people appear to think it's way radical to disbelieve the Muslim conspiracy but embrace the old Jewish conspiracy, thus the Muslim conspiracy was invented by the Jews. So a contemporary newspaper article shrieking about Muslim fanatics taking over in country X and planning armageddon while the good Muslims are little treaures is rejected, but an old newspaper article going on about Jews, but not those good Jews, isn't. I dunno, maybe in 100 years people will be citing some piece Gordon Brown wrote in the daily mirror about evil Muslims as they go on about Muslim control of the local retail market.
Irving (who again is where you got this from. Is he your hero?) seems to have a thing about notable people who said things about Jews, particularly in private. He seems to think it somehow gives them legitimacy and particularly somehow legitimises his own comments. Yet if the Gordon Brown wrote in his diary "I can't stand them Muslims, me. I think they're arrogant, selfish b&stards" only a zero watt bulb could possibly think these comments were somehow legitimate because he's PM or that it would justify anyone making similar comments. Sometimes you have to wonder what planet the guy's on.
One passage I take particular issue with is:
Quote:
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge
have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.
Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach,
protection was always accorded to the Jewish population,
and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to
prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So
much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda
against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of
the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in
relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have
declared that to their knowledge on more than one
occasion officers who committed offenses against Jews
were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the
front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole. vast
expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not
hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge
at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever
an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of
Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalized their every
success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found
among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an
eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest
forms.
Whereas the Makhnovists were certainly brutal - mainly towards the boss class, they were far more online with the notion of proletarian emancipation than the Bolsheviks. Calling a fiercely ideological anarchist movement "brigands" is very inaccurate.
Furthermore, Churchill is very snide when he accuses them of anti-semitism. Though it's true he was Makhno's mate (at least at the time of writing) and thus certainly biased in favour of the Mahknovists, Pyotr Arshinov was at pains to emphasise the Makhnokists' rejection of anti-semitism - something he simply wouldn't bother with if they were, in fact, anti-semites. For example,
Quote:
In the army of the Mahknovist insurgents there was an exclusively Jewish artillery battery which was covered by an infantry detachment, also made up of Jews.
Quote:
On May 12, 1919, several Jewish families - 20 peoplpe in all - were killed in the Jewish agricultural colony of Gor'Kaya, near Aleksandrovsk. The Makhnovist staff immediately set up a special commission to investigate this event. This commission discovered that the murders had been committed by seven peasants of the neighbouring village of Uspenovka. These peasants were not part of the insurrectionary army. However, the Maknovists felt it was impossible to leave this crime unpunished, and they shot the murderers
Quote:
On May 4th or 5th, 1919, Makhno and a few commanders hurridly left the front and went to Gulyai-Polye, where they were awaited by the Extraordinary Plenipotentiary of the Republic, L Kamenev, who had arrived from Khar'kov with other representatives of the Soviet government. At the Verkhnii Tokmak station, Makhno saw a poster with the words "Death to the Jews, Save the revolution, Long live Batko Makhno."
"Who put up that poster?" Makhno asked.
He learned that the poster had been put up by an insurgent whom Makhno knew personally, a soldier who had taken part in the battle against Deniken's troops, a person who was in general decent. He presented himself immediately and was shot on the spot...
...(Makhno) realised that the insurgent had been cruelly dealt with, but he also knew that in conditions of war and in view of Deniken's advance, such posters could represent an enormous danger for the Jewish population and for the entire revolution if one did not oppose them quickly and resolutely
History of the Makhnovist movement 1918-1921 p.213-14
Furthermore, Churchill stresses what a cuddly bunny Deniken was, yet
Quote:
Presses in white-held territory printed cheap editions of the protocols with a lurid addendum blaming the Bolshevik revolution on a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and linking it to the reign of the Anti-Christ. This had little immediate impact because few Jews lived in the areas occupied by White forces. But when German troops evacuated the Ukraine in accordance with the armistice of November 1918, Russia regained 1.6 million Jews who had come under German rule in the Peace of Brest-Litovsk. The whites moved in, unleashing their rage and frustration on the Ukranian Jews.
General Anton Ivanovich Deniken commanded the main White force in the Ukraine. This so-called Volunteer Army was staffed by Russian officers and consisted primarily of Cossack troops. Although the Jews well remembered the Cossack massacres of their ancestors in 1648-49, they eagerly awaited the arrival of the Whites in 1918. For the most part artisans and tradesmen, the Ukranian Jews were not sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, they wanted stability, law and order. But devastation and death followed in the wake of the Volunteer Army,. First they looted Jewish property. After their forces suffered decisive defeats in late 1919, they initiated well-organised and ideologically motivated massacres of the Jews. These murders were the most successful military campaign of the White Russian Volunteer Army; at its conclusion this army had shot, bayoneted, hanged, burned, drowned and buried alive some 120,000 Jews, or about 8 percent of the Ukranian Jewish population
Holocaust - a history by Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Van Pelt p.46
Typical politician, turning things on their head. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Last edited by Dogsmilk on Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
