"Calling Holocaust Deniers....part deux"

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,282
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Recently, I read “I’m No Monster,” by journalists Stefanie Marsh and Bohan Pancevski.

It covered the time of the 'monster's' growing up in Germany; the OP is from that book.

It is an appropriate addendum to the thread 'Calling Holocaust Deniers."

Challenge it if you can.


1. On March 12, 1938, Hitler’s troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month, and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.

a. In 1938, Austria had a Jewish population of about 192,000, representing almost 4 percent of the total population. The overwhelming majority of Austrian Jews lived in Vienna.
Austria

2. The little town of Amstetten, halfway between Vienna and Linz, on the Ybbs River, which flows into the Danube. In May, 1938, the Amstettner Anzeiger was proud to report that “the town swimming pool and sunbath declares that Jews are banned from entering. Now we only have to get rid of the mosquitoes from our pool for it to become really ideal.” The town had become a Fuhrerstadt!
By summer, all 28 of Amstetten’s Jews had been expelled.





3. Amstetten’s location as the main railway hub supplying both Germany and Italy made it a target of Allied bombers. The first bombs fell on November 19, 1944.

4. About 25 miles West of Amstetten, on the Danube, was the town of Mauthausen. Prisoners from the concentration camp at Dachau had been sent to build a much larger facility where political prisoners could be held. The state owned Mauthausen expanded, and by 1944, it was grouped with nearby Gusen, as a commercial enterprise.

5. The German mining company DEST, used the prisoners as slave labor, to work in the quarries, or to be hired out to local manufacturers and farmers. The Amstetten railway network came in handy to transport the slaves.

a. The labor supply was inexhaustible…and when a prisoner’s productivity dropped, they would simply be transported to Mauthausen-Gusen and killed.

6. It was a hugely profitable death camp and the only camp designated Grade III (“incorrigible enemies of the Reich ). The motto was ‘Vernichtung durch Arbeit (“Extermination through Work”)

a. Far beyond Jews, the camp included communists, socialists, Polish boy scouts, homosexuals, Romanies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, anarchists, Spanish Republicans who had fled Franco.

b. In 1943, life expectancy in the camps was 6 months; by war’s end it was 3 months.

7. Slave labor was responsible for construction of Austria’s largest steelworks and Steyr munitons, Puch automobiles, and most businesses in Amstetten.




8. It was a place of inconceivable barbarism whose secrecy liberated its masters into horrific inventiveness. In the camp’s gas chambers, quarries, hospitals, isolation units, and crematoria, in its underground brothel, and on its dissecting tables, a creative degeneracy blossomed.

9. The camp was liberated on May 5, 1945 by the 41st Reconnaissance Squad of the US Eleventh Armored Division. They found 85,000 inmates, and estimated the death toll at 320,000. Among the liberated was Simon Wiesenthal.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVKUknLsNtY]The Final Solution - Part 6 - The World at War - YouTube[/ame]

Muslims are of course the biggest Deniers. their jealous because the holocaust receives more world attention than them. there used to be tons of em on here. wonder what happened??? hmmm
 
The Final Solution - Part 6 - The World at War - YouTube

Muslims are of course the biggest Deniers. their jealous because the holocaust receives more world attention than them. there used to be tons of em on here. wonder what happened??? hmmm




I can't decide which is worse....

....declining to admit the reality of the Holocaust....


....or evincing a cavalier attitude about it happening.


Perhaps there is no 'worse.'
 
The Final Solution - Part 6 - The World at War - YouTube

Muslims are of course the biggest Deniers. their jealous because the holocaust receives more world attention than them. there used to be tons of em on here. wonder what happened??? hmmm




I can't decide which is worse....

....declining to admit the reality of the Holocaust....


....or evincing a cavalier attitude about it happening.


Perhaps there is no 'worse.'

German law prohibits public denial of the holocaust. its an automatic 5 years prison sentence. that speaks volumes. and they condem countries like Iran as well. there is no better of the two. only worse. the worst crime in history
 
The Final Solution - Part 6 - The World at War - YouTube

Muslims are of course the biggest Deniers. their jealous because the holocaust receives more world attention than them. there used to be tons of em on here. wonder what happened??? hmmm




I can't decide which is worse....

....declining to admit the reality of the Holocaust....


....or evincing a cavalier attitude about it happening.


Perhaps there is no 'worse.'

German law prohibits public denial of the holocaust. its an automatic 5 years prison sentence. that speaks volumes. and they condem countries like Iran as well. there is no better of the two. only worse. the worst crime in history


As an interesting sidelight, yesterday, March 2, was the anniversary of Saudi Arabia declaring war on Nazi Germany.

Why is that interesting?

The year was 1945.
 
I can't decide which is worse....

....declining to admit the reality of the Holocaust....


....or evincing a cavalier attitude about it happening.


Perhaps there is no 'worse.'

German law prohibits public denial of the holocaust. its an automatic 5 years prison sentence. that speaks volumes. and they condem countries like Iran as well. there is no better of the two. only worse. the worst crime in history


As an interesting sidelight, yesterday, March 2, was the anniversary of Saudi Arabia declaring war on Nazi Germany.

Why is that interesting?

The year was 1945.

for what purpose i have no idea. I can tell during the war Hilter recruited muslims to hunt down jews in the ME
 
German law prohibits public denial of the holocaust. its an automatic 5 years prison sentence. that speaks volumes. and they condem countries like Iran as well. there is no better of the two. only worse. the worst crime in history


As an interesting sidelight, yesterday, March 2, was the anniversary of Saudi Arabia declaring war on Nazi Germany.

Why is that interesting?

The year was 1945.

for what purpose i have no idea. I can tell during the war Hilter recruited muslims to hunt down jews in the ME

The purpose was to be on the winning side....and to be able to join the United Nations. But they certainly supported the Nazis.

You probably know that the name of Persia was changed to Iran in recognition of the Aryan concept of the Nazis.
 
German law prohibits public denial of the holocaust. its an automatic 5 years prison sentence. that speaks volumes. and they condem countries like Iran as well. there is no better of the two. only worse. the worst crime in history
Really??

Worse than the almost total genocide of the American Indian?

Or the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?
 
The Final Solution - Part 6 - The World at War - YouTube

Muslims are of course the biggest Deniers. their jealous because the holocaust receives more world attention than them. there used to be tons of em on here. wonder what happened??? hmmm




I can't decide which is worse....

....declining to admit the reality of the Holocaust....


....or evincing a cavalier attitude about it happening.


Perhaps there is no 'worse.'

I vote cavalier attitude. Denial at least absolves one of having any attitude. Being cavalier about the barbaric destruction of so many sisters and brothers is unpardonable, whoever did the killing, Germans, Russians, Cambodians, etc.
 
German law prohibits public denial of the holocaust. its an automatic 5 years prison sentence. that speaks volumes. and they condem countries like Iran as well. there is no better of the two. only worse. the worst crime in history
Really??

Worse than the almost total genocide of the American Indian?

Or the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?


Beg to differ.

Sorry that you were willing to accept the tale of Indian genocide.....

1. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease. There is the romanticized view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

2. Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states “diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves…[including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus…”

3. During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.

Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
North American Indian population size, A.D. 1500 to 1985 - Ubelaker - 2005 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..
Covered in "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.
 
German law prohibits public denial of the holocaust. its an automatic 5 years prison sentence. that speaks volumes. and they condem countries like Iran as well. there is no better of the two. only worse. the worst crime in history
Really??

Worse than the almost total genocide of the American Indian?

Or the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?


Beg to differ.

Sorry that you were willing to accept the tale of Indian genocide.....

1. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease. There is the romanticized view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

2. Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states “diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves…[including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus…”

3. During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.

Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
North American Indian population size, A.D. 1500 to 1985 - Ubelaker - 2005 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..
Covered in "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.

wasting your time. he's a troll
 
German law prohibits public denial of the holocaust. its an automatic 5 years prison sentence. that speaks volumes. and they condem countries like Iran as well. there is no better of the two. only worse. the worst crime in history
Really??

Worse than the almost total genocide of the American Indian?

Or the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?


Beg to differ.

Sorry that you were willing to accept the tale of Indian genocide.....

1. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease. There is the romanticized view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

2. Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states “diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves…[including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus…”

3. During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.

Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
North American Indian population size, A.D. 1500 to 1985 - Ubelaker - 2005 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..
Covered in "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.

You mean like giving the Indians infected blankets.

You are a holocaust denier.
 
Really??

Worse than the almost total genocide of the American Indian?

Or the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?


Beg to differ.

Sorry that you were willing to accept the tale of Indian genocide.....

1. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease. There is the romanticized view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

2. Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states “diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves…[including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus…”

3. During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.

Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
North American Indian population size, A.D. 1500 to 1985 - Ubelaker - 2005 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..
Covered in "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.

You mean like giving the Indians infected blankets.

You are a holocaust denier.

no she isn't. you are
 
Really??

Worse than the almost total genocide of the American Indian?

Or the millions of black slaves brought to America to be slaves?


Beg to differ.

Sorry that you were willing to accept the tale of Indian genocide.....

1. The decimation of Indian populations stemmed only rarely from massacres or military actions, but the majority of Indian deaths came from infectious disease. There is the romanticized view that paints the settlers as barbaric, and the Indians as peaceful victims. Genocide means deliberate and systematic. As described by the UN Convention, Article II, it involves “ a series of brutal acts committed with intent to destroy, …a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such.”

2. Whatever the original number, historians agree that infectious disease brought about 75-95% decline after European settlement began. Jared Mason Diamond is an American geographer, evolutionary biologist, physiologist, lecturer, and nonfiction author. Diamond works as a professor of geography and physiology at UCLA. He is best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1998), which also won the Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science, in which he states “diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves…[including] smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus…”

3. During the 4 centuries following European entry into North America, Indian population fell. By the beginning of the 20th Century, officials found only 250,000 Indians in the territory of the US, as opposed to 2,476,000 identified as “American Indians or Alaska Natives” in the 2000 census. Scholars estimate pre-Columbian North American population range from 1.2 million (1928 tribe-by-tribe assessment) up to 20 million by activists.

Collectively these data suggest that population numbered about 1,894,350 at about A.D. 1500. Epidemics and other factors reduced this number to only 530,000 by 1900. Modern data suggest that by 1985 population size has increased to over 2.5 million.
North American Indian population size, A.D. 1500 to 1985 - Ubelaker - 2005 - American Journal of Physical Anthropology - Wiley Online Library

The reported population of Native Americans by the most recent Census has soared more than 1000% since 1900, over 3 times that of the US as a whole. A reasonable explanation is that intermarriage and assimilation reveal that a portion of the reported disappearance of native Americans may be that many still exist but in a different description..
Covered in "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.

You mean like giving the Indians infected blankets.

You are a holocaust denier.


Always interesting to see the simpletons who have bought the Leftist rants that are centered on making America, or the early Americans, seen in a bad light.


Let's call them "NoBrains" or is that too close for comfort?
Have you seen a source of such a tale?
Proof....or simply the Leftist academic's version of the game of 'telephone'?


Edification coming right up:

"There is the often repeated story of Lord Jeffrey Amherst ordering the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to the Indians, as an example of ‘germ warfare’ used by Europeans. The story is not documented, except as a ‘possibility.’

See the study of Professor d’Errico:
Historian Francis Parkman, in his book "The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada" [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:

“Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them”. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]

I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.
It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts.
From "The 10 Big Lies," Medved.

Again....d'Errico says: "I have not found this letter."



If some 'scholar' wrote of a note he had heard of in which Obama admits to being born on the moon....I'm certain you'd jump to spread the tale of than note......wouldn't you.


And you are a dunce.
 
The 'Indians' got miserable treatment in far too many cases. 'A raw deal' doesn't even describe it.

They were, in most cases, not peaceful people and were only too glad to partner with the French or the English to attack their enemies. War, as in the rest of the war, was not the big killer.

Disease did the deed.
 
The 'Indians' got miserable treatment in far too many cases. 'A raw deal' doesn't even describe it.

They were, in most cases, not peaceful people and were only too glad to partner with the French or the English to attack their enemies. War, as in the rest of the war, was not the big killer.

Disease did the deed.

Yours is one more variation of NoBrain's tale.


1. Attacks by French-allied Indians hit Pennsylvania in October 1755. Sixty to one hundred arrived beyond the settlements, and divided into smaller groups, which went into different valleys to reconnoiter. Each spy ”lay[ing] about a House some days & nights, watching like a wolf” to see ”the situation of the Houses, the number of people at Each House, the places the People most frequent, & to observe at each House where there is most men, or women.” The individual farmsteads they chose a targets were at last attacked in parallel by still smaller groups, each only big enough to kill or capture the number of people it was likely to meet. Col. James Burd, “Pennsylvania Archives,” 1:3:99-104

a. The brunt of these attacks fell on people who were outside doing field work. The attacks were manufactured to instill paralyzing fear- and they did.

b. In 1756,William Fleming gave an unrivaled account of life in one of these little attack groups. Delawares stormed the house of Fleming’s neighbor, a farmer named Hicks, and took one of the Hicks boys as prisoner. The Indians then went on to instill fear by having Fleming witness the Hicks boys’ murder: they bludgeoned the boy to the ground with a tomahawk, split open his head- pausing at this point, in “Sport…to imitate his expiring Agonies” – and scalped him, and continued “all over besmared with [Hicks’s] blood.”

c. Fleming wrote of watching while a youth from a neighboring family was taken by Indians while inside were “numerous Family of able young Men” and despite his “scream[ing] in a most piteous Manner for help,” his brothers made no attempt to help. A narrative of the sufferings and surprizing deliverances of William and Elizabeth Fleming [electron... | National Library of Australia

d. Northampton County, Pennsylvania, 1778. Four men, two with wives and eight children, were attacked by Indians. [T]his occaion’d our men to flee as fast as they could,…before they were out of sight of the wagon they saw the Indians attacking the women & Children with their Tomahawks.” The net day, the three men came back to the scene for the corpses, which include the stabbed and scalped bodies of Smith’s wife, and of “a Little girl kill’d & sclped, [and] a boy the same.” Pa. Arch. 1:6:591

2. The essential fact about Indian-European warfare in the middle colonies was that the Europeans almost always did very badly. Though the American Revolution brought about a glorified, misleading view of frontier fighters and riflemen, during the eighteenth century country people practically never managed to mount even faintly convincing defenses against Indian attacks….The only thing that worked was leaving.
"Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America," by
Peter Silver, p. 53
 

Forum List

Back
Top