ForumGarden

I've seen this before. You have to wonder why the Germans in a time of vicious warfare would go through the trouble and expend large amounts of resources to pull of an industrial genocide. Having studied warfare, it simply makes no sense. Your opinions?



A Factual Appraisal Of The 'Holocaust' By The Red Cross

OK. And?

Scrat;1429982 wrote: I've seen this before. You have to wonder why the Germans in a time of vicious warfare would go through the trouble and expend large amounts of resources to pull of an industrial genocide. Having studied warfare, it simply makes no sense. Your opinions?



A Factual Appraisal Of The 'Holocaust' By The Red Cross


It is very noticable that, whilst the article provides a link to a book written to support its conclusions, it provides no link to the source document it so selectively quotes. How are we supposed to check the context of the quoted text?

Also, the source of the article appears to be slightly biassed - when the description of the guy starts with conspiracy theorist and ends with anti-semmite I start out by disbelieving every word he says.

I did go looking, an hour back, but so far I've not found any of the three documents.

Týr;1429987 wrote: I did go looking, an hour back, but so far I've not found any of the three documents.


I found the references to it and had an offer to sell me a copy of volume II but without it, given the source of the article, I could not possibly accept the conclusions as valid.

After my eight years apprenticeship on ForumGarden I think I can authoritatively state that partial quoting from any raw document can, if done with care and forethought, support misleading conclusions.

Scrat;1429982 wrote: Your opinions?


The hosting of the message is a questionable choice if it was meant to be taken seriously.

HostingPros

Main Page rense.com ?????

Rense Disclaimer

That's enough for me..................

Bruv;1429996 wrote: The hosting of the message is a questionable choice if it was meant to be taken seriously.

HostingPros

Main Page rense.com ?????

Rense Disclaimer

That's enough for me..................


It's a lax approach. A fact is a fact, a misleading quote out of context is a foul abuse of the readers, finding the context and demonstrating the misleading nature of the quote makes the original unusable by any reasonable person thereafter. Demonstrating the con-trick is a positive service.

Another perspective:

Full text of "Inside the Third Reich"

Týr;1429997 wrote: It's a lax approach. A fact is a fact, a misleading quote out of context is a foul abuse of the readers, finding the context and demonstrating the misleading nature of the quote makes the original unusable by any reasonable person thereafter. Demonstrating the con-trick is a positive service.


I know all the words are English, I understand most of them very well, it is just the way they are put together that has thrown me, I cannot understand what you are getting at.

LarsMac;1430040 wrote: Another perspective:

Full text of "Inside the Third Reich"I have a copy on the shelf behind me but surely you can narrow down which pages you're referring us to, it's a long book.





Bruv;1430044 wrote: I know all the words are English, I understand most of them very well, it is just the way they are put together that has thrown me, I cannot understand what you are getting at.


I suggested that untrue claims should be countered at all times when they're as important as those referenced in the opening post, not just left to fester.

Scrat;1429982 wrote: I've seen this before. You have to wonder why the Germans in a time of vicious warfare would go through the trouble and expend large amounts of resources to pull of an industrial genocide. Having studied warfare, it simply makes no sense. Your opinions?

A Factual Appraisal Of The 'Holocaust' By The Red Cross


What is your motive here Scrat? What is your opinion? What are you dying to say?

Oh, you studied warfare. No wonder you ask such smart questions. No wonder you know so much. I've studied anti-semites & I think I smell one now.

AnneBoleyn;1430062 wrote: I studied anti-semites & I think I smell one now.


That's a little harsh, Scrat often raises touchy topics.

I have no doubt that the Red Cross did dispatch food parcels to the camps named, and that some parts of Eastern Europe did have less than complete purges of the ghettos, and that the Allied bombing and blockades undoubtedly interfered with food allocation and distribution throughout the Third Reich after 1942, and that the camps were unable to feed the long-term prisoners after 1944. None of that adds up to the three or four sentences slipped into the quoted rense article casting doubt on the Holocaust. There may have been Red Cross observers reporting what they'd been told during some inspections, I'd quite like to read the three main source documents in their entirety. Discussing the article is healthier than knee-jerking at the sight of it. It's a foul article, it should be dissected and shown to be so.

"That's a little harsh, Scrat often raises touchy topics."

Harsh? What is harsh is systematic torture, starvation & death. That's what is harsh. I'm not sure of Scrat's motives & I wouldn't mind knowing what they are.

Holocaust denying seems to be against the law in many countries in Europe. Here, in the first amendment U.S. of A. you are free to be a damn fool or outright racist if that's what you want to be, ask the Westboro Baptists.

Týr;1430056 wrote: I suggested that untrue claims should be countered at all times when they're as important as those referenced in the opening post, not just left to fester.
You enjoy constructing florid sequences of words, don't you?

Týr;1430056 wrote: I have a copy on the shelf behind me but surely you can narrow down which pages you're referring us to, it's a long book.




There is so much to refer to.

But this simple observation is a good place to start.

Speer has been discussing how he came to join the party, and offers the following observation.



In making this decision to join the accursed party, I had for the first

time denied my own past, my upper-middle-class origins, and my pre-

vious environment. Far more than I suspected, the "time of decision" was

already past for me. I felt, in Martin Buber's phrase, "anchored in respon-

sibility in a party." My inclination to be relieved of having to think,

particularly about unpleasant facts, helped to sway the balance. In this

I did not differ from millions of others. Such mental slackness above all

facilitated, established, and finally assured the success of the National

Socialist system. And I thought that by paying my party dues of a few

marks a month I had settled with my political obligations.

How incalculable the consequences were!

The superficiality of my attitude made the fundamental error all the

worse. By entering Hitler's party I had already, in essence, assumed a

responsibility that led directly to the brutalities of forced labor, to the

destruction of war, and to the deaths of those millions of so-called un-

desirable stock— to the crushing of justice and the elevation of every evil.

In 1931 I had no idea that fourteen years later I would have to answer

for a host of crimes to which I subscribed beforehand by entering the

party. I did not yet know that I would atone with twenty-one years of my

life for frivolity and thoughtlessness and breaking with tradition. Still, I

will never be rid of that sin.

From Scrat's link:

"The Red Cross Report is of value in that it first clarifies the legitimate circumstances under which Jews were detained in concentration camps, i.e. as enemy aliens. In describing the two categories of civilian internees, the Report distinguishes the second type as "Civilians deported on administrative grounds (in German, "Schutzhäftlinge"), who were arrested for political or racial motives because their presence was considered a danger to the State or the occupation forces" (Vol. 111, p. 73). These persons, it continues, "were placed on the same footing as persons arrested or imprisoned under common law for security reasons." (P.74).

That's harsh spot. That's what is harsh. Scrat has deliberately chosen a racist link to "prove" a point, or perhaps disprove a point. Fact is, I'd like to know which.

AnneBoleyn;1430065 wrote: "That's a little harsh, Scrat often raises touchy topics."

Harsh? What is harsh is systematic torture, starvation & death. That's what is harsh. I'm not sure of Scrat's motives & I wouldn't mind knowing what they are.

Holocaust denying seems to be against the law in many countries in Europe. Here, in the first amendment U.S. of A. you are free to be a damn fool or outright racist if that's what you want to be, ask the Westboro Baptists.


It's sad that you walked completely past my second paragraph without a word.

LarsMac;1430068 wrote: There is so much to refer to.

But this simple observation is a good place to start.

Speer has been discussing how he came to join the party, and offers the following observation.
Albert Speer was very good at saying he hadn't known the nature of the camps prior to the end of the war. Nobody ever claimed he remained ignorant afterwards or that he was a Holocaust denier. The Nuremberg judges believed him or they'd have had him hanged.

AnneBoleyn;1430069 wrote: From Scrat's link:

"The Red Cross Report is of value in that it first clarifies the legitimate circumstances under which Jews were detained in concentration camps, i.e. as enemy aliens. In describing the two categories of civilian internees, the Report distinguishes the second type as "Civilians deported on administrative grounds (in German, "Schutzhäftlinge"), who were arrested for political or racial motives because their presence was considered a danger to the State or the occupation forces" (Vol. 111, p. 73). These persons, it continues, "were placed on the same footing as persons arrested or imprisoned under common law for security reasons." (P.74).

That's harsh spot. That's what is harsh. Scrat has deliberately chosen a racist link to "prove" a point, or perhaps disprove a point. Fact is, I'd like to know which.


I'm surprised it didn't draw a comparison with the USA which also detained US-born citizens during World War Two as "enemy aliens" on the basis of race. The USA got round to officially apologizing a couple of years ago, the Third Reich didn't survive long enough to apologize for anything. Or was the detention of Japanese-descendant US citizens illegal?

You might consider whether there are any errors of fact in the paragraph you quoted.

Týr;1430073 wrote: I'm surprised it didn't draw a comparison with the USA which also detained US-born citizens during World War Two as "enemy aliens" on the basis of race. The USA got round to officially apologizing a couple of years ago, the Third Reich didn't survive long enough to apologize for anything. Or was the detention of Japanese-descendant US citizens illegal?

You might consider whether there are any errors of fact in the paragraph you quoted.


There is a big difference between "Detaining" and "Eliminating"

Had the Reich survived, there would have no one left to whom they could "apologize"

Týr. I'll wait to see what Scrat has to say for himself. Until then, I really have nothing to say. Besides, LarsMac, above, told you plenty. I'm not an apologist for the United States or for Israel. I don't give my seal of approval to either based on "knee-jerk" reactions. Why would someone use racist dribble to make any point? "Dissecting" it gives respect it doesn't deserve. Could be "foul articles" don't deserve the time it takes to read them, let alone discuss. Surely Scrat, or anyone else, can find better sources to make or unmake their arguments. Btw, I'm not sure if Scrat has a point of view here. Maybe he just dropped this garbage into our midst to see where the fan makes the sh!t fly. Maybe he's a kind of devil's advocate. I'd like to know.

Anne. I'm still questioning the writings and popular opinion of the holocaust, simple as that. There's too much that just doesn't add up when you apply logic to it. Couple that with the fact that someone was recently imprisoned for daring to openly question the holocaust (in Austria I believe) I am further inclined to think somebody has something to hide. I don't believe the current popular version of the reasons behind the holocaust are portrayed in our history truthfully. There are points in that article, such as the bombing that are legitimate. Why operate gas chambers? Disease running rampant through the camps would have been a much more efficient way of exterminating the internees. Don't you think?

Media and historians lie and distort. It's popular to say the the Soviet Union was a failure, it's fashionable AND required. To say otherwise will all but get you ostracized. I've been to the Soviet Union, I've walked the streets of Smolensk and Belgorod, Moscow and St Pete. The Soviets did a lot of things wrong, they did a lot more things right. I'VE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES. It's pretty goddamn amazing what they did. It's amazing that they held together as a country at all after the devastation of the wars of the 20th century.

I think the concentration camps and ghettos did exist, I think there were a lot of Jews in them but not all the people there were Jews. The printed version of what happened in them and within the German state at the time I have my doubts about.

Well, you are right on one point, for sure.

Not all the people in the concentration camps were Jews.

Nobody ever said that.

There were Jehovah's Witnesses, There were Gypsies, there were Poles, and and mentally ill, and Soviets, and many others. some 11 million people. Only 6 million were Jews.

Why the Nazis did what they did is not fully logical. But they did much of what they are accused of.

Question all you want.

I had the honor of knowing some people who saw, first hand.

I have little doubt about what happened.

Go, study up on it. But recognize the sources of the information.

AnneBoleyn;1430080 wrote: "Dissecting" it gives respect it doesn't deserve. Could be "foul articles" don't deserve the time it takes to read them, let alone discuss.
I think you're entirely wrong in that. If an article's left ignored then the lack of engagement could be taken as "yes it's true but we don't want to publicize it". Pointing out that it's an invidious lie wrapped around accurate but misleading quotes is far more educational. All we need is access to the source documents and they're apparently too obscure to easily find.

As for Devil's Advocate, Scrat's too late for that job. It's mine.

Scrat;1430087 wrote: Why operate gas chambers? Disease running rampant through the camps would have been a much more efficient way of exterminating the internees. Don't you think?
Well, actually, no. There was never room in the extermination camps (as opposed to the detention camps which didn't have gas chambers) for all those sent there. The extermination camps were designed to kill on the day of arrival, with each train's complement being divided on the platform into kill groups and detain groups. Martin Gilbert's chief book on the subject, Holocaust, is essential reading for this thread.

Scrat;1430087 wrote: Anne. I'm still questioning the writings and popular opinion of the holocaust, simple as that. There's too much that just doesn't add up when you apply logic to it. Couple that with the fact that someone was recently imprisoned for daring to openly question the holocaust (in Austria I believe) I am further inclined to think somebody has something to hide. I don't believe the current popular version of the reasons behind the holocaust are portrayed in our history truthfully. There are points in that article, such as the bombing that are legitimate. Why operate gas chambers? Disease running rampant through the camps would have been a much more efficient way of exterminating the internees. Don't you think?

Media and historians lie and distort. It's popular to say the the Soviet Union was a failure, it's fashionable AND required. To say otherwise will all but get you ostracized. I've been to the Soviet Union, I've walked the streets of Smolensk and Belgorod, Moscow and St Pete. The Soviets did a lot of things wrong, they did a lot more things right. I'VE SEEN IT WITH MY OWN EYES. It's pretty goddamn amazing what they did. It's amazing that they held together as a country at all after the devastation of the wars of the 20th century.

I think the concentration camps and ghettos did exist, I think there were a lot of Jews in them but not all the people there were Jews. The printed version of what happened in them and within the German state at the time I have my doubts about.


The problem might be you are looking for a logical explanation for the reasons behind it. The logic comes in to play when you look at how they set about exterminating so many. Disease would have been as big a threat to the germans as it was to those they wanted to exterminate. It wasn't all jews that were exterminated - they weren't even amongst the first to be put in concentration camps.

Hitler was austrian - there is also the myth that austrians did not welcome the Anschluss, some may not have done but many did. It all resonates even today and trying to pretend it didn't happen is a sure way to allow it again. What happened in germany - a democracy with a high level of literacy - can happen anywhere how and why hitler came to power and the holocaust is not something that anyone should be allowed to pretend didn't happen. Right wing parties in europe are enjoying a resurgence in popularity.

Nowadays it seems to be the west that wants to restart the cold war and feels free to overthrow governments when it suits them to do so. Business as usual then.

The problem might be you are looking for a logical explanation for the reasons behind it.


Possible. I'm also trying to understand why it is utilized as it is, all we hear about is the Holocaust when it comes to some of the acts perpetrated in WWII. Why should it stand out any more than any other? It's complex to say the least but I will always have my suspicions of what the truth was.

Scrat;1430210 wrote: Possible. I'm also trying to understand why it is utilized as it is, all we hear about is the Holocaust when it comes to some of the acts perpetrated in WWII. Why should it stand out any more than any other? It's complex to say the least but I will always have my suspicions of what the truth was.


I suggest that you start with reading the work of people who lived through it. That link to Albert Speer's memoirs is a good place to start, I think.

Why is it so important?

Because an entire nation of basically good people were talked into supporting an organization who set out to systematically destroy millions of people. Some twenty Million people died in Europe at the Nazis' hands.

Most importantly, understanding how this happened is the only way we can prevent it from happening again.

Here is an interesting view

The six million Jews who were killed were about a quarter of all those wiped out by the Nazi regime.

Though that was nearly half of all the Jews in the world.