World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Holocaust denial and related subjects.
User avatar
Nessie
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Nessie » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:56 am

With my history degree I am sure there was no reference to convergence. But the training to gather evidence and reach a conclusion was in effect that. My following legal training meant corroboration and the gathering of all evidence, inculpatory and exculpatory was also in effect that.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 877
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby nickterry » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:01 am

Nessie wrote:With my history degree I am sure there was no reference to convergence. But the training to gather evidence and reach a conclusion was in effect that. My following legal training meant corroboration and the gathering of all evidence, inculpatory and exculpatory was also in effect that.


Wigmore would certainly recognise the idea behind 'convergence of evidence', as would other legal theorists, as much as historians do.

The key difference with history is we don't have an adversarial system of knowledge, and don't exclude evidence on a whim; there is no one 'trial' but the same subject is explored over decades and even centuries.

User avatar
Nessie
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Nessie » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:09 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:.......
So then why does Jewish law forbid disturbing the buried remains of dead Jews but has no problems with the remains of Jews being scattered all over the ground and trampled on?


Scots Law also forbids disturbing human remains, it is the common law crime of violation of the sepulchre. Archaeologists are aware of that

http://www.scottishheritagehub.com/cont ... an-remains

"Under Scots law all human remains have ‘the right of sepulchre’ and to violate a burial deliberately is a criminal act. While it is not an offence in every case to disturb or disinter human remains, the right of sepulchre is strongly defended under the law and an offence is considered to have been committed if the treatment of human remains is deemed to have offended public decency."

But they also know there is a difference between archaeological study and someone just going and digging up a body. Hence a ethical standard whereby permissions and agreed action is taken.

Furthermore, Jewish law is not the supreme law in Poland. Polish Law is and the Poles have regarded the sites as to be memorialised and protected against blatant grave robbing, but they do not go out and rebury all the bits of bone. There is a balance between open access and protecting the remains.

Your simplistic attitude towards what Jewish law and attitudes are and your lack of understanding about the remains being in Poland where other laws and attitudes take supremacy (the dead were Polish after all) is why you ask such questions.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Nessie » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:15 am

nickterry wrote:
Nessie wrote:With my history degree I am sure there was no reference to convergence. But the training to gather evidence and reach a conclusion was in effect that. My following legal training meant corroboration and the gathering of all evidence, inculpatory and exculpatory was also in effect that.


Wigmore would certainly recognise the idea behind 'convergence of evidence', as would other legal theorists, as much as historians do.

The key difference with history is we don't have an adversarial system of knowledge, and don't exclude evidence on a whim; there is no one 'trial' but the same subject is explored over decades and even centuries.


Having worked with both, I would trust historians over the police to gather all evidence and present the most accurate conclusion. I have seen courts and the police exclude evidence on a whim and argue over whether evidence can be used or not, which I am sure is why denialists like the idea of the Holocaust on trial. They think that by casting some doubt, they can claim the Nazis are not guilty. What they do not understand is that claiming a document is forged or those sent to TII did not die means the burden of proof for that shifts to them. Until they can prove forgery or survival, there is no reasonable doubt.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
NathanC
Poster
Posts: 493
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby NathanC » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:31 am

I first heard about "Convergence" when I was starting to develop an interest in combatting HD. At that same time, however, I was in college, and our Business research professor also told us about the concept of convergence and stressed just how important it was in any kind of research. This is from one of the presentations she made in class.

Image

It's really not too different from what Dr. Terry said, and shows that Grubach and Monstrous are complete idiots. Grubach's BS in no way illustrates how actual convergence works, and is actually an example of irrelevant outliers being outweighed by actual convergence. The actual convergence of evidence proves murder by Gassing, with "steam" just being an outlier due to misinterpretation.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16155
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:55 am

It is now time for Monstrous to identify for us the source which Grubach used for each of his 6 pieces of evidence in his "steam convergence" argument.
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Has No Life
Posts: 16155
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: World War II statements argued to support Holocaust revisionism

Postby Statistical Mechanic » Sat Sep 16, 2017 10:01 pm

I didn't know where to tuck these . . . so here. They form a bit of a companion to Jon Harrison's HC pieces More Than 100 Nazi Extermination Remarks, 1939-1944 (Updated Chronological List) and More Nazi Mass Murder Statements (Part 1).

First, I happened to re-read excerpts from the SS judgment on Täubner again today. It is clear why EtienneSC grasped at straws and concocted desperate means of salvation: it is as close to a smoking gun as one can get. Issued before Posen, the judgment shows that among SS officials there was already good knowledge of the extermination of the Jews and, more important, strategy for managing both the extermination and information about the extermination. As Jon quotes in his 100 Statements article:
97) Tauebner judgment 24.5.43: "The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself. Real hatred of the Jews was the driving motivation for the accused. In the process he let himself be drawn into committing cruel actions in Alexandriya which are unworthy of a German man and an SS-officer. These excesses cannot be justified, either, as the accused would like to, as retaliation for the pain that the Jews have caused the German people. It is not the German way to apply Bolshevic methods during the necessary extermination of the worst enemy of our people. In so doing the conduct of the accused gives rise to considerable concern. The accused allowed his men to act with such vicious brutality that they conducted themselves under his command like a savage horde [source]."

Täubner's conviction dealt then, not with extermination per se, but with his conducting unauthorized executions outside regular channels - and taking and disseminating incriminating and problematic photographs of these executions. Poor EtienneSC.

Second, Jon includes a statement made by Robert Ley in his 100 Statements list ("We swear we are not going to abandon the struggle until the Last Jew in Europe has been exterminated and is actually dead. It is not enough to isolate the Jewish enemy of mankind - the Jew has got to be exterminated!"). I would like to offer two more difficult statements made by Ley:

- an editorial in Der Angriff 23 February 1943: "Finally the Jew has been selected to be exterminated for his scandalous misdeeds and crimes. We Germans have been assigned by destiny to carry out this verdict of providence."

- a speech in Amsterdam, broadcast by radio, 10 May 1942: "Comrades, believe me. I am not painting too grim a picture. It is bitter for me, bitterly serious. The Jew is the great danger to humanity. If we don't succeed in exterminating him, then we will lose the war. It is not enough to take him someplace. That would be as if one wanted to lock up a louse somewhere in a cage. It would find a way out, and again it would come out from underneath and make you itch again. You have to annihilate them, you have to exterminate . . ." (I've boldfaced Ley's {!#%@} to the namely-pamby, disingenuous camp followers that make up the ranks of deniers and latter-day Nazi wannabes.)

Third, a police ideological instruction training bulletin, Mitteilungsblatt for weltanschauliche Schulung no. 27, published in the very interesting time of December 1941 (1 December 1941), just before the Führer agreed the basic framework of Jewish annihilation, informed police officers that "What even two years ago appeared to be impossible, is now being realized step by step: at the end of the war, Europe will be free of Jews." There's not a specific callout of extermination in this statement but it neatly encapsulated the developing shift in high-level Nazi thinking that took place in December 1941 (see Gerlach and our own Wannsee-Brayard thread).
"World peace is certainly an ideal worth striving for; in Hitler's opinion it will be realizable only when one power, the racially best one, has attained complete and uncontested supremacy. That can then provide a sort of world police, seeing to it at the same time that the most valuable race is guaranteed the necessary living space. And if no other way is open to them, the lower races will have to restrict themselves accordingly."

- Rudolf Hess, letter, 1927


Return to “Holocaust Denial”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests