Yes and that one sentence makes clear what the real intention is:
“Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival.”
Please tell us what your interpretation is of the sentence: “The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly…”
This is a bad plan. Seriously. I strongly suggest you don’t do this.
It is not worth the risk of property damage and loss of life to attempt to prove something to a bunch of people on the internet. Especially since your experiment is all risk and no gain, as there is no way that chicken pieces and a Weber are a reasonable surrogate for a mass grave in the first place.
It’s also pointless because no one except Gack is claiming that bodies were burnt with just bare corpses and gasoline. All the descriptions mention additional fuel, wood, clothing, boxes etc as well as gasoline being used.
That’s neither here nor there when it comes to the validity of the testimony and evidence brought up during the trials.
The Nuremberg trials were inherently injust and “wrong” because they hinged on judging people based on ex-post facto laws, that is to say laws that were drafted after the crime was committed. In part because, before the Holocaust, it didn’t spring to anyone’s mind what kind of punishment to apply to people who’d go out to systematically murder entire countries’ worth of people for shits and giggles. But the same is true of e.g. crimes against peace, which was a new catch-all category drafted to indict people who were instrumental in starting the war.
But Eisenhauer most emphatically isn’t saying that the defendants were blameless of the specific *acts *they were charged with committing, nor that the court just made shit up to convict people with.
Simply that, as a matter of legal procedure, the Nazis shouldn’t have been found guilty of the new kinds of international crimes that their woeful misconduct put in the books for the benefit of future generations, and that they should more rightfully have been tried by pre-war laws only (which would have been horribly injust in its own right, as most would have gotten away Scot free).
It’s an important distinction. Of course, I’m sure you’ll either ignore it entirely or handwave it away.
Eisenhower’s complaint might be a legitimate one, and I seem to see a host of military types complaining as well about the rejection of the “Nuremburg defense”, but what does crop up in some comments is that the detainees were given “enhanced” treatment, which, arguably, could have colored their testimony. Why they would embellish or exaggerate their deeds, though, would be a perplexing question. Testifying to atrocious acts in light if the fact that the punishment would be severe at best.
Addressed and refuted. Pay attention. Poland’s 3 million Jews did not wind up in the USSR, and if they had wound up anywhere else it would have been noticed.
We are discussing the Second World War. Are you really contending the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by Jews?
So what? Are you now suggesting the Holocaust was a hoax perpetrated by the Soviets? You can’t have that both ways. Stalin was fiercely anti-Semitic and never would have been in league with any Jewish cause, now matter how bad it would make the Nazis look; everybody on the winning side already hated the Nazis anyway.
Don’t you think that ought to tell you something? “Resettlement” meant “death.” There is no other reasonable construction to put on the Wannsee minutes.
additional proof: Transcript of Himmler’s speech Oct 4, 1943 from an audio recording:
"I am talking about the “Jewish evacuation”: the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. “The Jewish people is being exterminated,…”
So Gack, please now answer my question in post #540. What is your interpretation of the sentence I highlighted from the Wannsee conference minutes?
Nah. He has no chance to learn how misguided he’s been if he sets himself alight. Five years from now, he may be saying “why was I all up in arms about that crazy stuff? I was in a bad place in my life, I’m so glad I’m in a better place, and that I didn’t get hurt.” Look at Derek Black.
Also, it’s a horrible way to go.
Seriously dude, don’t do this fire/chicken thingy. It is dangerous.
While it’s hardly a shock that you fail to address the actual question as none of these quotes from your friends at the IHR deny that the holocaust took place, and as noted were objections only to some of the charges being for crimes that only became crimes ex post facto (Count 1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace and Count 2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace, neither of which was an actual crime before WW2), what I find particularly amusing are two things: one is you can’t count, there are 23 quotes in the link you cite, which might explain why you confuse the numbers 6 million and 300,000-400,000. Second is the gall of some of the quotes they use. This one springs to mind:
There you go, **Reichsmarschall Herman Göring ** thought the trials were unfair. The hilarity of the quote is only made funnier by the facts that after seeing the trial through for his people’s sake and making this quote he committed suicide by cyanide the night before his execution, and that this quote is being provided in a book by David Irving, known liar, holocaust denier, anti-Semite and racist. Here’s an example from
Hey, when he can’t sell books about holocaust denial anymore, at least he might have a future writing poetry for his Neo-Nazi friends.
I explicitly said that I have no satisfactory explanation for that sentence, and you want me to explain it.
Nonetheless, I’ll say that it is an offhand remark made in the informal minutes of a lengthy meeting that is of no significance. It says that the prisoners will be ‘treated accordingly’. That is not a master plan for exterminating anyone, that’s a casual remark that was made and forgotten. It nothing to do with ‘exterminating Jews’ as is does not refer to the old, the young, the less than ‘able bodied’, etc.
Here is the final analysis … let’s say that it was really a coded order, as (I just checked) the wiki article on the conference states, OK, then we must proceed to…
…
wait a minute, we can’t proceed … here is the statement (from the wiki article)
Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival.
Well, did we have Jewish road gangs in the east? No, not to my knowledge. So the statement has no connection with reality at all. The Jewish road gangs did not happen.
So immediately, without even getting to your sentence, we see that the paragraph has no connection to reality. It has nothing to do with the camps, nothing to do with the Einsatzgruppen, hence, nothing to do with the holocaust as we normally think of it. Then, in addition, none of it came to pass, so it has nothing to do with anything. The whole paragraph is a flight of fancy that has no significance whatever.
If it wasn’t for the whole “pissing on the memory of 5-6 million dead” aspect, Gack could be almost as amusing as the Billy Meier promoters one thread down explaining why Meier is legit despite the aliens in his photos turning out to be members of Dean Martin’s Golddiggers.
Nonsense. That sentence makes it pretty clear that the Final Solution was to get rid of all the Jews of Europe- there’s no other way to read it. Even the able-bodied Jews will be “eliminated by natural causes”- and the rest will be “treated accordingly” to prevent a new Jewish revival. I’m sure pretending it is meaningless makes you feel better, but it’s not meaningless at all.
This, plus the massive amounts of evidence (witness testimony, confessions, documents, and physical evidence like mass graves etc) makes it incontrovertible. The Nazis wanted to kill all the Jews, and they tried to kill all the Jews. And they killed between 5 and 6 million Jews, and made significant efforts to get rid of the evidence. Luckily, they failed. As you are failing miserably.
Many Jews were worked to death- and it’s explicitly stated in that statement that this is part of the Final Solution; no interpretation at all is required. The Nazis planned to work able-bodied Jews to death. How do you explain this?
Fine Gack, thanks for your reply. So what’s your reply to Himmler’s quotation that “evacuation” actually equals “extermination”. This is a recording from a Nazi speech, its not a confession forced under torture, its a historical recording made by the Nazi government for their own historical record and captured by the US as evidence.
Do you deny that its a genuine recording?
Do you dispute the direct statement by Himmler that “evacuation” = “extermination”.