'Nazi Grandma,' sentenced for denying Holocaust, goes to prison

[juleswin]

I would go with Option B.

To my understanding, the opposite position relies on the bald assumption that the documentary and oral evidence was forged/coerced.

But a lot of it were forced and coerced, there is no denying that the German prisoners of war were tortured in captivity, one even came to the court room with a blood mouth, one of the female was raped and impregnated by her captors. Assumption? not really.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

But a lot of it were forced and coerced, there is no denying that the German prisoners of war were tortured in captivity, one even came to the court room with a blood mouth, one of the female was raped and impregnated by her captors. Assumption? not really.

To take one example, the commandant of the Auschwitz camp testified to the goings on there, IIRC.

What evidence is there that his testimony was coerced?

And then, apart from such specifics, Hitler and other top party members made numerous public speeches about extermination through the 30s.

Surely no one is denying that the NSDAP was radically anti-semitic?

 

[juleswin]

To take one example, the commandant of the Auschwitz camp testified to the goings on there, IIRC.

What evidence is there that his testimony was coerced?

And then, apart from such specifics, Hitler and other top party members made numerous public speeches about extermination through the 30s.

Surely no one is denying that the NSDAP was radically anti-semitic?

https://rudolfhoess.wordpress.com/tag/nuremberg-trials/

You can read some of the details here.



One of the prisoners talking about the torture he received.



Lastly, you can read some of the critiques about the so called justice delivered at the trials and ask yourself this question. Would the people conducting this already unfair trial have any qualms using torture? I think the answer is no.

Also, please give evidence of Hitler and other public officials making statements about exterminating Jews? Words and evidence of gas chambers would make even the most staunch skeptic believe in the allies claims of gas chambers

 

[juleswin]

To take one example, the commandant of the Auschwitz camp testified to the goings on there, IIRC.

What evidence is there that his testimony was coerced?

And then, apart from such specifics, Hitler and other top party members made numerous public speeches about extermination through the 30s.

Surely no one is denying that the NSDAP was radically anti-semitic?

Lets not forget Ilse Koch becoming pregnant after being captured by the allied forces. I am sure even you doesn't condone prison guards having sex with female prisoners. But this cannot be said for the people trying the captured Germans.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Lets not forget Ilse Koch becoming pregnant after being captured by the allied forces. I am sure even you doesn't condone prison guards having sex with female prisoners. But this cannot be said for the people trying the captured Germans.

I don't know who you're referencing, or what this has to do with the actions of the German socialist state.

Lastly, you can read some of the critiques about the so called justice delivered at the trials and ask yourself this question. Would the people conducting this already unfair trial have any qualms using torture? I think the answer is no.

Also, please give evidence of Hitler and other public officials making statements about exterminating Jews? Words and evidence of gas chambers would make even the most staunch skeptic believe in the allies claims of gas chambers

Alright

"This is the first demand we must raise and do [reversal of the Versailles Treaty provisions]: that our people be set free, that these chains be burst asunder, that Germany be once again captain of her soul and master of her destinies, together with all those who want to join Germany. (Applause) And the fulfillment of this first demand will then open up the way for all the other reforms. And here is one thing that perhaps distinguishes us from you [Austrians] as far as our programme is concerned, although it is very much in the spirit of things: our attitude to the Jewish problem.

For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. (Applause)

If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!"

There are a couple.

Those are the deranged views of the little draft-dodger Adolf.

More?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

It's a great tragedy that Germany-Austria lost the first war (they very well could have won with a bit better planning and cooperation).

...a near run thing.

This would have prevented both Adolf (who ought to have been shot for treason) and Lenin (likewise) from doing anything.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm always astounded that there are still NSDAP partisans.

..."Oh, no, I'm not a NAZI..."

And so, who else wants to defend their crimes?

Why?

If you were to insist that the Red Army in 1918-19 only "did what it had to do," you would be a bolshevik and deserve more than odium.

There is no difference.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Hitler, 1922. If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!"

This quote looked a little dubious, so I looked it up. It's actually from a 1955 document, which claims that these words were presented in their current form in 1945. It appears that a former German major and journalist, Josef Hell, interviewed Hitler in 1922 and made some notes to this effect. It's odd that I don't find any reference to Hell actually publishing this in 1922. Wouldn't this quote alone made for a popular story?

Hell discusses how Hitler was shouting when he uttered the above words. I don't see how Hell captures all of Hitler's words verbatim, especially when Hell said of Hitler, "...his explanation grew increasingly voluble until he fell into a kind of paroxysm that ended with his shouting, as if to a whole public gathering."

I'm not saying that Hitler did not have this sentiment or say words to that effect. You can speculate on whether Hitler's was only discussing the hanging of leading Marxist Jews. Maybe he thought he was discussing something off the record, and hence, really felt this way personally. I wonder if it's more likely that Hell just embellished this in the style of Capote's "non-fiction novel," especially since this was over two decades after the fact and some of the history was already likely being rewritten.

I think the embellishments get at the crux of what some of this was about. For example, the story about lampshades made from human skin was not demonstrated. If so much of this true, then why the embellishment? Were the allies wholly intent on taking any attention away from their own atrocities that they needed to do this? What was the reach of the UN Palestine commission pushing for Israel's creation shortly after the war?

Either way, words should not be in quotes unless it is reasonably demonstrated that someone actually said those exact words.



Source for your quote: http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/archiv/zs/zs-0640.pdf

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I don't know who you're referencing

Ilse Koch is the woman who was accused of making lampshades from human skin. The prosecution eventually dropped that charge.

 

[Ender]

This quote looked a little dubious, so I looked it up. It's actually from a 1955 document, which claims that these words were presented in their current form in 1945. It appears that a former German major and journalist, Josef Hell, interviewed Hitler in 1922 and made some notes to this effect. It's odd that I don't find any reference to Hell actually publishing this in 1922. Wouldn't this quote alone made for a popular story?

Hell discusses how Hitler was shouting when he uttered the above words. I don't see how Hell captures all of Hitler's words verbatim, especially when Hell said of Hitler, "...his explanation grew increasingly voluble until he fell into a kind of paroxysm that ended with his shouting, as if to a whole public gathering."

I'm not saying that Hitler did not have this sentiment or say words to that effect. You can speculate on whether Hitler's was only discussing the hanging of leading Marxist Jews. Maybe he thought he was discussing something off the record, and hence, really felt this way personally. I wonder if it's more likely that Hell just embellished this in the style of Capote's "non-fiction novel," especially since this was over two decades after the fact and some of the history was already likely being rewritten.

I think the embellishments get at the crux of what some of this was about. For example, the story about lampshades made from human skin was not demonstrated. If so much of this true, then why the embellishment? Were the allies wholly intent on taking any attention away from their own atrocities that they needed to do this? What was the reach of the UN Palestine commission pushing for Israel's creation shortly after the war?

Either way, words should not be in quotes unless it is reasonably demonstrated that someone actually said those exact words.



Source for your quote: http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/archiv/zs/zs-0640.pdf

A post of mine in The Vent:

I haven't come to an final opinion on this (The Holocaust) and have been reading several different POVs.

One thing that is very interesting is that when Patton became the leading force in defeated Germany, he came to the startling conclusion that everything that Hitler had said about the Jews was correct.

Not long after that, Patton mysteriously died in a car wreck.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

A post of mine in The Vent:

I haven't come to an final opinion on this (The Holocaust) and have been reading several different POVs.

One thing that is very interesting is that when Patton became the leading force in defeated Germany, he came to the startling conclusion that everything that Hitler had said about the Jews was correct.

Not long after that, Patton mysteriously died in a car wreck.

This thread here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?522001-IQ-Isn-t-Genetic-But-The-Holocaust-Is

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I'll conclude by saying that I don't approve of the views expressed here and don't wish to be associated with them.

 

[juleswin]

This quote looked a little dubious, so I looked it up. It's actually from a 1955 document, which claims that these words were presented in their current form in 1945. It appears that a former German major and journalist, Josef Hell, interviewed Hitler in 1922 and made some notes to this effect. It's odd that I don't find any reference to Hell actually publishing this in 1922. Wouldn't this quote alone made for a popular story?

Hell discusses how Hitler was shouting when he uttered the above words. I don't see how Hell captures all of Hitler's words verbatim, especially when Hell said of Hitler, "...his explanation grew increasingly voluble until he fell into a kind of paroxysm that ended with his shouting, as if to a whole public gathering."

I'm not saying that Hitler did not have this sentiment or say words to that effect. You can speculate on whether Hitler's was only discussing the hanging of leading Marxist Jews. Maybe he thought he was discussing something off the record, and hence, really felt this way personally. I wonder if it's more likely that Hell just embellished this in the style of Capote's "non-fiction novel," especially since this was over two decades after the fact and some of the history was already likely being rewritten.

I think the embellishments get at the crux of what some of this was about. For example, the story about lampshades made from human skin was not demonstrated. If so much of this true, then why the embellishment? Were the allies wholly intent on taking any attention away from their own atrocities that they needed to do this? What was the reach of the UN Palestine commission pushing for Israel's creation shortly after the war?

Either way, words should not be in quotes unless it is reasonably demonstrated that someone actually said those exact words.



Source for your quote: http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/archiv/zs/zs-0640.pdf

Thanks for the assist. I know these Hitler exterminations quotes are usually very dubious and always some hearsay sources. The man made so many recorded public speech and yet he never said anything about exterminating the jews, he wrote a manifesto and again said nothing. Also, we were told that the operation was so secretive that many Germans did not even know about it. Yet, some people want us to also believe that he was public and open about it.

Give me a break.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Thanks for the assist. I know these Hitler exterminations quotes are usually very dubious and always some hearsay sources. The man made so many recorded public speech and yet he never said anything about exterminating the jews, he wrote a manifesto and again said nothing. Also, we were told that the operation was so secretive that many Germans did not even know about it. Yet, some people want us to also believe that he was public and open about it.

Give me a break.

This summary sort of gives a decent framework:

Functionalism Versus Intentionalism


Functionalism (or structuralism) versus intentionalism is a historiographical debate about the origins of the Holocaust as well as most aspects of the Third Reich, such as foreign policy. The debate on the origins of the Holocaust centers on essentially two questions:


• Was there a master plan on the part of Adolf Hitler to launch the Holocaust? Intentionalists argue there was such a plan, while functionalists argue there was not.
• Did the initiative for the Holocaust come from above with orders from Adolf Hitler or from below within the ranks of the German bureaucracy?

Extreme intentionalist interpretation

Extreme intentionalists believe that Hitler definitely had plans for the Holocaust by 1924, if not earlier. Dawidowicz argued that Hitler already decided upon the Holocaust no later than by 1919. To support her interpretation, Dawidowicz pointed to numerous extreme anti-Semitic statements made by Hitler. Criticism has centered on the fact that none of these statements refer to killing the entire Jewish people; indeed, very few refer to killing Jews at all. Only once in Mein Kampf does Hitler ever refer to killing Jews when he states that if only 12,000 to 15,000 Jews had been gassed instead of German soldiers in World War I, then "the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain." Given that Mein Kampf is 694 pages long, Dawidowicz's critics contend, she makes too much of one sentence. Daniel Goldhagen went further, suggesting that popular opinion in Germany was already sympathetic to a policy of Jewish extermination before the Nazi party came to power. He asserts in his book Hitler's Willing Executioners that Germany enthusiastically welcomed the persecution of Jews by the Nazi regime in the period 1933–39.



Moderate intentionalist interpretation

Moderate intentionalists such as Richard Breitman believe that Hitler had decided upon the Holocaust sometime in the late 1930s and certainly no later than 1939 or 1941. This school makes much of Hitler's "Prophecy Speech" of January 30, 1939 before the Reichstag where Hitler stated if "Jewish financiers" started another world war, then "...the result would be the annihilation of the entire Jewish race in Europe." The major problem with this thesis, as Yehuda Bauer points out, is that though this statement clearly commits Hitler to genocide, he made no effort after delivering this speech to have it carried out. Furthermore, Ian Kershaw has pointed out that there are several diary entries by Joseph Goebbels in late 1941, in which Goebbels writes that "the Führer's prophecy is coming true in a most terrible way." The general impression one gets is that Goebbels is quite surprised that Hitler was serious about carrying out the threat in the "Prophecy Speech."



Extreme functionalist interpretation

Extreme functionalists such as Götz Aly believe that the Nazi leadership had nothing to do with initiating the Holocaust and that the entire initiative came from the lower ranks of the German bureaucracy. This philosophy is what is known as the bottom-up approach of the Holocaust. Aly has made much of documents from the bureaucracy of the German Government-General of Poland arguing that the population of Poland would have to decrease by 25% to allow the Polish economy to grow. Criticism centers on the idea that this explanation does not really show why the Nazis would deport Jews from France and the Netherlands to death camps in Poland if it was Poland the Nazis were concerned with, and why the Jews of Poland were targeted instead of the random sample of 25% of the Polish population. Additional criticism of functionalism points out that Hitler and other Nazi leaders delayed railcars providing supplies to front line troops in the Soviet Union so that Jews could be deported by rail from the USSR to death camps thus demonstrating the pursuit of genocidal policies over pragmatic wartime actions.



Moderate functionalist interpretation
Moderate functionalists, such as Karl Schleunes and Christopher Browning, believe that the rivalry within the unstable Nazi power structure provided the major driving force behind the Holocaust. Moderate functionalists believe that the Nazis aimed to expel all of the Jews from Europe, but only after the failure of these schemes did they resort to genocide. This is sometimes referred to as the "crooked path" to genocide.

http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/functionalism_versus_intentionalism

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Give me a break.

I think it's too bad that so many people in the world refuse to even discuss this. Some even think attempts to discuss mean you're a NAZI. It's ironic that imprisoning people today simply for an opinion is exactly what the NAZIs did.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Can we add a poll to this thread?

 

[Jamesiv1]

//

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The ironic thing is this is totally something like the Nazis would do. You become what you hate apparently, in Europe.

 

[timosman]

Why have the Jews been kicked out of so many places?

Apparently the host nations were not ready to embrace diversity. Now, that we have this shameful history behind us, let's concentrate on the future and the benefits the diversity brings to us.