Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Denierbud Implodes

Question: When is 5% "very close" to 0%

Answer: When you are as deluded and dishonest as Denierbud.



Denierbud turned up on this JREF thread on the same day that the Negationist Team formally withdrew its acceptance of our challenge to debate the Aktion Reinhardt camps. The dishonesty of his opening post was immediately apparent to that forum's readers. Denierbud wrote:
I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.

There are numerous holocaust denial videos found at:
holocaustdenialvideos.com

I'm most interested in what people think about the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found there but feel free to discuss the other holocaust denial videos also.

I am asking if anyone here can watch some episodes of one of the videos and state specifically that they don't agree with in a specific episode. I request the following guidelines:

1) Discuss a specific episode of a specific video. The videos are all broken up into episodes. Don't change subject to another holocaust topic, which the videos don't cover. For instance the comment "what about the millions who saw it happen?" would be breaking this guideline, since the videos don't cover that and it thus changes the topic.

2) Don't focus on how it is or hateful to be a denier. Rather, state specifically what you don't agree with (or agree with) in a specific episode of a specific video at holocaust denial videos dot com.

Sorry to put "specific" in bold but you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get people to do this. We'll see if anyone can do it here.
The dishonesty here is clear: someone who is genuinely "open to your view" does not formulate rules that close off any questions that force him to explain his position and place his claims in context.

It also became apparent that JREF posters were familiar with our past rebuttals of Denierbud's videos and were able to link to our rebuttals without any prompting from ourselves. When a succession of JREF posters insisted that he respond to those rebuttals, Denierbud fell back on the bizarre claim that Pressac's estimate of Zyklon-B usage at Auschwitz was 'very close' to his own:
The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.
This last sentence is simply untrue. Whilst Pressac's claim has been disputed by other authorities (most notably Van Pelt), Pressac's position is diametrically opposed to Denierbud's, for the obvious reason that Pressac goes on to argue that the remaining 5% was still used to gas hundreds of thousands of Jews. Denierbud's entire dogma requires zero Jewish deaths by this method.

The difference between 5% and 0% is therefore huge in this context, just as it would be if I owned 5% of the USA's national wealth and my neighbour owned 0%.

Does Denierbud not grasp basic mathematics, and indeed basic logic, or is he simply a liar? Either way, his shambolic performance at JREF is further proof that denial, having failed in all other public fora, is now a laughing stock in the Internet community.

EDIT 1: Denierbud now admits:
I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that?
Well nobody did assume it, they knew all along that he was just trying to sell his wares.

EDIT 2: A superb riposte from ElMondoHummus. This should be posted on denial's gravestone as its most succinct and accurate epitaph:
It's not about any one witness being right or wrong, or the subject of a given episode of a video peddling fraudulent alt-history. The whole point is that you can't overturn history by merely picking apart isolated elements. Not when you don't consider the context that has been built over the years from the massive accumulation of evidence. That context provides shape and boundaries to the narrative, and those boundaries cannot be exceeded simply because an isolated issue is in dispute. That's the point Nick Terry was making: You separate out whole reams of accumulated knowledge in your minute focus on individual points. And without allowing those reams of accumulated knowledge to shape your understanding, conclusions drawn from that minute focus fade into irrelevancy. Yes, it's legitimate to begin criticism by discussing isolated issues, but that goes nowhere fast when they stay isolated.

That's the central failure you and other holocaust deniers make. It's the same failure 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy peddlers for other myths make: You all hone in on isolated points as if they overturn the entire narrative, yet you all to a man (or woman) fail to demonstrate how even a legitimate and accurate refutation of any given isolated point shapes context. You all merely state that an isolated refutation equals an overall refutation, and willingly leap to the conclusion that the entire narrative must be junked. That's sloppy reasoning.

Everyone here can see the emphasis on isolated points. But we see absolutely no explanation relating how those points impact the overall narrative, not anything built on more than mere "See, this is wrong, that means it's all wrong" implication.

Even what little you provide goes nowhere and does nothing. Given that, why are we supposed to watch those videos? If all they are are yet continued retailing of isolated facts and contextless points, then there's zero reason to view them. And if you cannot even establish in posts here that there is some legitimate analysis of the impact your claims have on the established narrative, then you fail to sell any of us on the notion that the video is worth watching.

Sell better. You're doing badly.

46 comments:

Bela said...

In relation to the ZyklonB: And the whole issue is leaving aside that you require quite a lot less HCN to kill a human than lice, due to the chemical construction and properties of haemoglobin. Lice deliver their oxygen directly, like all insects, so they are harder to kill with HCN than humans. Biological fact.

In relation to RODOH: I turn my back on you guy for a few month and a lot of fun happens. Shame I haven't the time to spend there. RODOH is one of those fora that require a lot of free-time to go into, IMO. And long threads take ages to get through, even when I cut out the most inane of the "Revisionist" crap.
The Veritas guys give very long, and thoughtful, answers. And they require time to digest.
Still, sad to see the formal debate was called off. Would've been great reading for a few days.

wlucido said...

After reading a few posts and some of his answers, I'm happy to report that Mr. Muehlenkamp's openness to debate and respect for contrary opinions, fit right in with the community of Holocaust, um, non-deniers.

Still, I would be honoured if you could so kindly explain this: why waste time on the petty deniers that come here, or even Mattogno, Zundel, or Faurisson? Why, they're but small fish, compared to the likes of Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle! I mean, 7.061 pages published from 1948 to 1959, without a SINGLE reference to any gas chamber? Clearly we are before Holocaust deniers, or at the very least, people with a very selective memory.

I think its now clear, that defeating Germany was simply part of their plan to conceal the Holocaust. They even had Stalin's help: by "rebuilding" the gas chambers, and showing them to tourists as the real thing, they tried to undermine the public's trust in their existence. Just as they pretended to blame Katyn on the germans, simply to divert attention from the ONLY true tragedy of the 20th century (or any other century, as we'll soon discover): the Holocaust.

That's right: the Holocaust, that they so desperately tried to hide, in all their books. Fortunately, people like Wiesenthal, Lipstadt and Wiesel, through many personal (and financial) sacrifices, managed to bring some - modest - attention to it. Even though Wiesel himself ALSO omitted the gas chambers on his first book, about his experience at Auschwitz... probably because they were so traumatic, that he couldn't deal with them just yet (in 1958).

However, Wiesel managed to overcome his trauma in subsequent years. Finkelstein wrote in 2000, that Wiesel did so «for his standard fee of $25000 (plus chauffeured limousine)». A low figure, in my opinion, since nobody understands the mystical nature of the Holocaust as well as him: it «lies outside, if not beyond, history», it «defies both knowledge and description», and «cannot be explained nor visualized». Indeed. He even reprimanded Shimon Peres for speaking of «the 2 holocausts of the 20th century: Auschwitz and Hiroshima». Heresy!

The Holocaust is, in a way, like Connor MacLeod: there can be only one. And we all know which one. We need more people like Wiesel, more Wiesels, to repeat this ad nauseam. Its the only way, to overshadow deniers such as The Big Three: Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle. Mr. Muehlenkamp, I urge you to partake in this (holy) battle.

Kind regards,
Filipe

Roberto Lucena said...

Filipe remembers Waringham, doesn't he? rsrsrs.

The Kid In The Front Row said...

I've been looking around this blog for a couple of hours now, it's really remarkable the amount of work you've put into it. Some of the things in the comments sections are quite something...

doomaxe said...

Hello.

I have but a few simple questions, and if you can answer these questions with solid evidence and pictorial/technical/scientific proof, I will forever believe in the holocaust and allow the jew to continually rape me of my money.

1) Please direct me to a picture of any SS troop either putting jews INTO the gas chamber or removing jews FROM the gas chamber. I don't want pictures of jews casually strolling around and eating their food like is in all the other books, I want to see some ovens and a gas chamber and SS troops pulling jews out of 'em!

2) How do you kill somebody by using diesel exhaust?

3) Did you know that it can take up to 18 minutes to kill one single human being using cyanide gas with the most modern of equipment? All you need to do is hold your breath and take shallow breaths!

Thank you for the oppurtunity to openly debate.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

You're a little, err, outdated in your "Revisionist" arguments, my friend. Diesel is a dead dog because all knowledgeable eyewitnesses spoke of gasoline and not diesel engines, and as concerns Zyklon B, the most you can reasonably argue is that one or the other eyewitness was mistaken about the timing, big deal. None of the eyewitnesses furthermore examined the bodies to ascertain that they were clinically dead when they fell silent and not in the state of unconsciousness preceding death in cyanide poisoning (which I'm told sets in quite a while before clinical death occurs, also in your gassings with "the most modern of equipment", whatever that's supposed to imply), which means that you're comparing apples with oranges.

Your demanding the photographs you mention suggests that you forgot to switch on what little brain matter you seem to have before hitting the keyboard, not only because SS-men were expressly forbidden to take photographs of the extermination process.

And this is not about trying to make crackpots like your abandon their articles of faith. We have long realized that one cannot convince a true believer against his beliefs. This is about showing whoever might be interested what hopelessly illogical creatures the Jew-haters and/or Hitler-kissers and/or "it's cool to be political incorrect" clowns who call themselves "Revisionist" are (you obviously belong to the former of the three varieties). Your continued contribution is appreciated.

wlucido said...

The absence of photos is one of those things that seems inconsistent for both sides.

On the official version side, its highly doubtful that no photo was ever taken, being forbidden or not. There are numerous photos of atrocities throughout the war, photos of prisoners, etc.

As usual, holocaust... non-deniers, blame the germans for being too careful (no photos!) and too reckless (but lets leave plenty of eyewitnesses), both at the same time.

On the revisionist side, why didnt someone just MAKE the photos? If they bothered to invent such an ellaborate (and at the same time preposterous) story, and tried to lie about some photos that actually exist, why didnt they go all the way, and photographed some allied/russian soldiers dressed in german uniforms?

They could have used some of the "reconstructed" gas chambers. If they tried to present them as real, why not use them for photos as well?

Maybe they just forgot about it? Or thought it was too far-fetched? What's Mr. Muehlenkamp's opinion? Thanks, Filipe.

doomaxe said...

Hey Robert. Appreciate the comments. However, any good person that has studied this subject at all has to admit that for YEARS it was DIESEL EXHAUST that gassed so many millions! The horror! Now the story has changed? How can that be? Slightly odd, wouldn't you think? Do we just simply ignore the "eyewitness testimonies" of so many "holocaust survivors" that they had to mistake that it was NOT a diesel engine from an old soviet tank, it's a gasoline engine instead. It really doesn't matter, because every eyewitness account describes a blue-colored dead body covered in feces. That's all well a good, except a body is cherry-red upon carbon monoxide poisoning. So, diesel or gasoline, the story still doesn't stick. (I wonder how many times they'll be able to revise their holocaust until people final figure it out. People were smart enough to ignore the first threat of holocaust after world war one.)

Zyklon-B was used all throughout Europe and in the state of which it was, was not a practical way to kill people. There was much more effective poisons in the world that could have done the job more simple and easier.

You mean to tell me, with the over-abundance of German engineering and intellectual fortitude that was present in that country, that the Germans were absolutely stupid enough to use these largely ineffective methods for mass extermination? Why spend the time rounding them up? Stalin just shot people in the back of the head if they weren't to the Communist standard. Why waste the money, time, and the Nazi war effort to seek out Jews and round them up when one could have simply just patrolled and shot them all to death?

And why not just use the delousing chambers instead of building leaky 'gas chambers' with wooden doors and windows?

Thanks again for the debate, although it would appear that even Holocaust Believers still feel the need to throw out personal insults. I'm quite used to it at this point in time.

Keep fighting the Zionist fight, my friend.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>The absence of photos is one of those things that seems inconsistent for both sides.

>On the official version side, its highly doubtful that no photo was ever taken, being >forbidden or not. There are numerous photos of atrocities throughout the war, photos of >prisoners, etc.

Including Nazi atrocities against the Jews, as a matter of fact. Have a look at my collection of Photographic documentation of Nazi crimes.

>As usual, holocaust... non-deniers, blame the germans for being too careful (no photos!) >and too reckless (but lets leave plenty of eyewitnesses), both at the same time.

Even in extermination camps photos were sometimes taken in violation of an express prohibition to do so, namely by Treblinka's second-in-command Kurt Franz for his private photo album (he later removed some of them, presumably the explicit ones). And if eyewitnesses of the killing at those camps were left behind, that was not due to Nazi recklessness. It was due to chaos during evacuations towards the war's end or due to escapes, the latter especially resulting from the Sobibor and Treblinka inmate revolts.

>On the revisionist side, why didnt someone just MAKE the photos? If they bothered to >invent such an ellaborate (and at the same time preposterous) story, and tried to lie >about some photos that actually exist, why didnt they go all the way, and photographed >some allied/russian soldiers dressed in german uniforms?

>They could have used some of the "reconstructed" gas chambers. If they tried to present >them as real, why not use them for photos as well?

>Maybe they just forgot about it? Or thought it was too far-fetched? What's Mr. >Muehlenkamp's opinion?

Thanks for further illustrating that and why "Revisionism" sucks.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Hey Robert. Appreciate the comments. However, any good person that has studied this >subject at all has to admit that for YEARS it was DIESEL EXHAUST that gassed so >many millions! The horror!

Nonsense. Diesel exhaust was casually mentioned by historians or judges (at the West German Belzec and Treblinka trials, whereas the judges at the Sobibor trial correctly concluded that gasoline exhaust had been used) who relied on certain eyewitness testimonies in this respect, didn’t really care much about this detail and had not reason to care much about it. Nowhere was diesel exhaust mentioned as something particularly horrific, more horrific than gasoline exhaust or any other killing method for that matter.

>Now the story has changed?

Now the record has been corrected, to the extent that it was mistaken regarding this particular detail. It happens all the time in historiography and is called revisionism (as opposed to the "Revisionism" of Jew-hating and/or Hitler-kissing propagandists, which has nothing to do with revisionism).

>How can that be?

Someone took a closer look at the evidence and realized that the knowledgeable eyewitnesses, i.e. those who either operated a gassing engine or where otherwise familiar with it, always spoke of a gasoline engine. As simple as that.

>Slightly odd, wouldn't you think?

About as odd as any other correction of a historical record. Not at all, that is.

>Do we just simply ignore the "eyewitness testimonies" of so many "holocaust survivors" >that they had to mistake that it was NOT a diesel engine from an old soviet tank, it's a >gasoline engine instead.

No, we just reasonably assume that witnesses who spoke of a diesel engine were understandably mistaken about this particular detail, big deal. How many witnesses are we talking about, anyway? Take a look at the RODOH thread Testimonies about Engines used for Homicidal Gassing.

>It really doesn't matter, because every eyewitness account describes a blue-colored dead >body covered in feces.

I don’t think you can show me three who so did. The only one to mention blue-colored bodies was Gerstein, IIRC. Pfannenstiel and Schluch mentioned a bluish tinge on certain parts of some of the victims' faces, not blue-colored bodies. And that’s about it.

>That's all well a good, except a body is cherry-red upon carbon monoxide poisoning.

Not necessarily, especially when the victims have a compromised ability to oxygenate, which is likely to have been the case with Jews from miserable Polish ghettos due to anemia and other conditions related to prolonged malnutrition. And besides, the victims didn't necessarily die of carbon monoxide poisoning. Suffocation as the incoming exhaust further reduced the already sparse amount of available oxygen may well have killed a great many before carbon monoxide poisoning got to them. Pfannenstiel expressly attributed the bluish tinge he observed on some of the victims' faces to suffocation.

>So, diesel or gasoline, the story still doesn't stick.

Even if that were so, you'd still have to explain why all known evidence points to mass murder and none supports claims that Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were transit camps en route to the "Russian East".

>(I wonder how many times they'll be able to revise their holocaust until people final >figure it out. People were smart enough to ignore the first threat of holocaust after world >war one.)

I’ll tell you what you have to do if you want people to "figure out" that there’s something to your imbecilic articles of faith: produce evidence that the Jews known to have been deported to certain camps and not known to have ever again shown up thereafter were eventually transported anywhere beyond those camps. Good luck!

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Zyklon-B was used all throughout Europe and in the state of which it was, was not a >practical way to kill people.

I don’t see why. It's highly toxic to people and evaporates rather quickly even at low temperatures.

>There was much more effective poisons in the world that could have done the job more >simple and easier.

What could have done the job "more simple and easier" than some extra cans of a standard insecticide that had to be stockpiled at concentration camps anyway for disinfestations, dropped through some openings into basements packed with people? Nothing, if you ask me.

>You mean to tell me, with the over-abundance of German engineering and intellectual >fortitude that was present in that country, that the Germans were absolutely stupid >enough to use these largely ineffective methods for mass extermination?

The methods used were not "largely ineffective". They allowed for killing large numbers of people without much engineering effort and very little manpower. Quite an innovation, and just the thing I would expect folks blessed with intellectual fortitude to do.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Why spend the time rounding them up? Stalin just shot people in the back of the head if >they weren't to the Communist standard.

So did your heroes where they didn't care about what the surrounding population thought because it consisted of sub-humans earmarked for decimation and enslavement anyway, like in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union. But they understandably had a problem with committing large-scale massacres right in front of the civilian population of Germany and of "worthier" occupied or allied countries. Even in Poland they considered some discretion to be convenient. And then there was Himmler's concern for the psychological well-being of his subordinates, many of whom were cracking up after bumping off women and children day in day out, with blood and bone fragments and brain matter all over the place. Taking people to extermination camps and killing them in gas chambers allowed for carrying out the program more or less discreetly, with comparatively little manpower, and sparing the killers a direct confrontation with their victims.

>Why waste the money, time, and the Nazi war effort to seek out Jews and round them >up when one could have simply just patrolled and shot them all to death?

For the reasons explained above.

>And why not just use the delousing chambers instead of building leaky 'gas chambers' >with wooden doors and windows?

I didn’t know that Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka had any delousing chambers. Auschwitz-Birkenau did but these chambers were too small to kill the required numbers of people and making bigger ones would have been more effort than making the basements dedicated to homicidal gassing. I didn’t know that the gas chambers of AB were "leaky", by the way. Or that the underground ones had any windows (for the above-ground ones there are documents ordering "gastight" windows – care to explain what these would have been for?). Or that their doors were made of wood, whatever that is supposed to imply.

>Thanks again for the debate, although it would appear that even Holocaust Believers >still feel the need to throw out personal insults. I'm quite used to it at this point in time.

There’s no such thing as "Holocaust Believers", my friend. The believers are in the "Revisionist" camp, for it's there that they have no evidence to support their conspiracy theories and must therefore believe. And if reasonable people insult the "Revisionist" believers, that's an expression of warranted contempt for those poor creatures.

>Keep fighting the Zionist fight, my friend.

You should get used to the idea that most if not all folks who thrash "Revisionist" nonsense do so out of personal aversion to such nonsense and have nothing to do with and don’t give a flying fuck about Zionism. Many of them – like this writer, for instance – are not even Jewish.

But then, you need the perceived glamour of fighting Zionism as much as you do your "Revisionist" articles of faith, don’t you?

wlucido said...

Roberto wrote:

«Have a look at my collection of Photographic documentation of Nazi crimes»

- Some photos have already been removed. Still, I think nobody denies that many atrocities did take place. But not just by the nazis. Mr. Eisenhower in particular, liked the concept of "death camps" so much, that decided to make some of his own. Strangely though, they're not mentioned very often. Maybe you could include some photos in your collection?

«Even in extermination camps photos were sometimes taken»

- But NO PHOTOS exist of the extermination process: dropping the pellets, removing the corpses (while smoking cigarrettes or not), etc.

«Eyewitnesses of the killing at those camps were left behind (...) due to chaos during evacuations towards the war's end or due to escapes»

- And why evacuate prisoners, when the war was almost lost? Why feed them, delouse them, and treat them in hospitals, instead of killing them all? Looking at the number of eyewitnesses who survived, I'd say it was a more than "chaos", it was total incompetence - something that the germans are notorious for.

«Thanks for further illustrating that and why "Revisionism" sucks»

- Thank you too, Mr. Muehlenkamp.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Roberto wrote:

>«Have a look at my collection of >Photographic documentation of >Nazi crimes»

>- Some photos have already been >removed.

Thanks for informing me. Broken links in sections 1.3 and 1.4 have been replaced, and I'll see what I can do about Photobucket's policy against showing a mass grave full of naked dead bodies.

>Still, I think nobody denies >that many atrocities did take >place. But not just by the >nazis.

No, the Nazis just murdered more systematically and killed more people than their opponents. My estimate of their total record of criminal killings is rather conservative.

>Mr. Eisenhower in particular, >liked the concept of "death >camps" so much, that decided to >make some of his own. Strangely >though, they're not mentioned >very often. Maybe you could >include some photos in your >collection?

Please tell me you're not one of those nuts who believe in James Bacque's "Other Losses" nonsense. I'd be mighty disappointed otherwise.

>«Even in extermination camps >photos were sometimes taken»

>- But NO PHOTOS exist of the >extermination process: dropping >the pellets, removing the corpses >(while smoking cigarrettes or >not), etc.

If so, what would that imply? Nothing except that SS-men at these camps essentially complied with their secrecy undertaking and prisoners didn't manage to take photographs and smuggle them out, if you ask me. There are a couple of photos of corpse removal from gas chambers at AB, by the way. Exceptions confirming the aforementioned rule.

>«Eyewitnesses of the killing at >those camps were left behind >(...) due to chaos during >evacuations towards the war's end >or due to escapes»

>- And why evacuate prisoners, >when the war was almost lost? Why >feed them, delouse them, and >treat them in hospitals, instead >of killing them all?

To use them as forced labor (e.g. in underground factories building V-rockets). The policy of genocide against prisoners of a certain ethnicity had been abandoned months before the evacuation of AB, anyway. Himmler must have been concerned with improving his image in the victors' eyes.

>Looking at the number of >eyewitnesses who survived, I'd >say it was a more than "chaos", >it was total incompetence - >something that the germans are >notorious for.

There actually was a lot of incompetence in organizing evacuations and accomodation of evacuees in camps further west, besides criminal negligence (even Germans are not always efficient, except in the fantasies of certain people). But the survival of many inmates of a certain ethnicity, which is what you are obviously referring to, was rather related to the aforementioned cancellation of the genocide program against that ethnicity, which benefited those of its members among the prisoners who had been selected as able to work and managed to stay alive.

>«Thanks for further illustrating >that and why "Revisionism" sucks»

>- Thank you too, Mr. Muehlenkamp.

For what, for further illustrating that and why "Revisionism" sucks? You're welcome.

Joe said...

> Please tell me you're not one of those nuts who believe in James Bacque's "Other Losses" nonsense. I'd be mighty disappointed otherwise.

* Canadian author James Bacque's (http://www.jamesbacque.com/) most important huistorical works are Other Losses (Little Brown and Company, 2 Revised edition: 2008) and Crimes and Mercies (Time Warner Paperbacks, New edition edition: 1998). There is an almost fair page about him on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bacque). Probably his numbers of dead German people he gives are a bit exaggerated. But, exactly as for the nazi massacres, just the numbers (and some details) can be rationally and honestly disputed, not the subsatnce of the facts. The so called "democrats" and "progressives" was and ARE not at all ethically better than the "evil" Germans. If you've any doubt you can ask Palestinian martyrs, or the ones from Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan... and... the lethal list is huge.

Joe Fallisi

(flespa@tiscali.it
www.nelvento.net)

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Do you think that numbers do not matter, Joe?

Does it make no difference whether up to 56,000 German POWs (the highest estimate accepted by any historian) died in US captivity after World War II, or if the number of dead was around one million (as baselessly alleged by Bacque)?

I don't think so.

When all is said about what wrong the Allies did during and after World War II and what wrong was done by the Nazis, the fact remains that the murder record of the latter greatly exceeded that of the former, and that only the Nazis' murders largely had the quality of genocide. Besides, what the Nazis did was but the beginning of much larger murder programs that would have been carried out if Nazi Germany had won.

So I can accept that both the Allies and the Nazis were bad, but saying that they were equally bad is an exaggeration.

Joe said...

> Does it make no difference whether up to 56,000 German POWs (the highest estimate accepted by any historian)

* I don't think at all, Roberto, that such of numbers are realistic and, on the contrary, the ones given by Bacque, who didn't invented anything but made his own serious (and courageous) researches, are absurd. Never forget that the post wars history is written by the winners, and that only with a rational and truly revisionist historical work it's possible, then (sometimes even many years after), to go close to the truth. As for genocide, after 1941, nazis actually made it, first of all through the Einsatzgruppen and within Action Reinhardt lagers. But how do you define things like Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki (only as few examples among many possible)... and, before, holodomor and, then, what it was made since 1945 till 1950 on German civil population and then and then and then... The fact is that nazi regime existed only for 12 tragic years, but their "democrat" winners started to destroy the world SIXTYFOUR years ago. And, by the way, only in the last ones progressive Americans (who built their own nation on the natives total holocaust) killed almost 1.500.000 Iraqui people.

Joe Fallisi

(flespa@tiscali.it
www.nelvento.net)

Joe said...

P. S.: I apologize for my horrible English.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>* I don't think at all, Roberto, that such of numbers are realistic and, on the contrary, the >ones given by Bacque, who didn't invented anything but made his own serious (and >courageous) researches, are absurd.

I didn’t say that the “courageous” Mr. Bacque invented anything, but he obviously misread the documents he based his conclusions on and then coaxed a half-blind old man into confirming his reading. What’s utterly absurd is the notion that about one million German POWs can have died in US prison camps without such catastrophe leaving a distinguishable mark in German oral history (where there’s little if anything about this subject, while there’s a lot about the horrors of Soviet captivity), in the records of German state administration (which in the 1950s went out of its way to establish the fate of prisoners of war in Allied hands) and in the works of German historians, including Rüdiger Overmans and Paul Carell, who have written extensively about the fate of German POWs in Allied hands. Paul Carell, a former Nazi propagandist by the name of Paul Karl Schmidt, whose works about the war are dedicated to glorifying the German soldier, would have been the first to decry a crime of such magnitude if there had been any evidence that it occurred. There obviously is none.

>Never forget that the post wars history is written by the winners, and that only with a >rational and truly revisionist historical work it's possible, then (sometimes even many >years after), to go close to the truth.

Truly revisionist work is the work of historians, who revise previously accepted notions based on new evidence or new interpretations of evidence all the time. There’s little in the history of World War II as “written by the winners” that has not been confirmed by the work of independent and largely German historians.

>As for genocide, after 1941, nazis actually made it, first of all through the >Einsatzgruppen and within Action Reinhardt lagers. But how do you define things like >Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki (only as few examples among many >possible)... and, before, holodomor and, then, what it was made since 1945 till 1950 on >German civil population and then and then and then...

Mass murder aimed at destroying the morale of the enemy civilian population and thus hastening the end of the war is what I would call the bombings. They ended with the end of hostilities. Mass killing by Einsatzgruppen and in extermination camps, on the other hand, occurred on the occupied territory of an already defeated enemy, and was aimed at nothing other than wiping out a population group seen as useless and potentially harmful eaters.

The Holodomor did not occur during the war or the postwar period but long before that, so I didn’t consider it a crime committed by members of the anti-Hitler alliance during the period in which the Nazis committed their crimes. As far as I know it is still disputed if and to what extent the famine was intended, rather than a result of Soviet recklessness and incompetence. If intentionality can be proven, I would qualify the Holodomor as genocidal and the closest Soviet match to what the Nazis did to the Jews and intended to do and made some progress in doing to the Eastern Slavs.

The postwar expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe was brutal ethnic cleansing, with many atrocities happening in its course. But it was not aimed at wiping out the ethnic German populations of Eastern Europe.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>The fact is that nazi regime existed only for 12 tragic years, but their "democrat" >winners started to destroy the world SIXTYFOUR years ago.

How so?

>And, by the way, only in the last ones progressive Americans (who built their own >nation on the natives total holocaust)


Not so sure about that
.

>killed almost 1.500.000 Iraqui people.

What’s that number supposed to represent? Excess deaths in Iraq since the 2003 US invasion? If so, I would consider the number to be distinctly exaggerated. And while the current mess in Iraq would have occurred but for the US invasion (in that case Saddam Hussein would still be killing his own people), I don’t think it’s justified to blame all deaths on the US. They are not the ones responsible for violence between ethic or religious groups or for attacks by Islamist terrorists, are they?

>P. S.: I apologize for my horrible English.

Your English is fine, don’t worry.

Joe said...

> I didn’t say that the “courageous” Mr. Bacque

* Why your inverted commas of contempt? He was courageous, be sure. And you should read even his second book, before to judge him as almost a crazy or an idiot. He WASN'T. At all.


> They ended with the end of hostilities.

* To say something like this about, for instance, Hiroshima and Nagasaki is really shameless. The war against Japan was already in fact won, no way. But such of new bombs had to be experienced in vivo - even to showing Stalin what Angloamerica would have been able to do against his Empire.

Joe Fallisi

(flespa@tiscali.it
www.nelvento.net)

Joe said...

> How so?

* Look around.


> Not so sure about that.

* Read some good books. For instance:

Angelo Schwarz, 1854-1915: cronaca fotografica del genocidio delle nazioni indiane d'America, Priuli & Verlucca, 1980
Brunetto Chiarelli, Colombo e la riscoperta dell'America: genocidio, etnocidio, ecocidio, Pontecorboli, 1992
Bruno Marcon, Tragedia degli indios: cronaca ultima di un genocidio che dura da 500 anni, Edizioni del noce, 1994
Enzo Braschi, Sono tra noi: Storia del genocidio degli indiani d'America, Mursia, 1995
Noam Chomsky, Year 501: The Conquest Continues, South End Press, 1999
Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present, Harper Perennial Modern, 2005


> What’s that number supposed to represent? Excess deaths in Iraq since the 2003 US invasion? If so, I would consider the number to be distinctly exaggerated. And while the current mess in Iraq would have occurred but for the US invasion (in that case Saddam Hussein would still be killing his own people), I don’t think it’s justified to blame all deaths on the US. They are not the ones responsible for violence between ethic or religious groups or for attacks by Islamist terrorists, are they?


* "Excess deaths"... after have read that, I'm no more interested not even to reply to you. I leave you to your beloved torturers and State terrorists and murderers (by the way: United States of Abomination is the first country in the history to have legalized the torture with his drunk idiot criminal "President", son of another war criminal of course). FOR SURE Iraqui people was extremely better under Saddam. If you think I'm wrong, go there and ask them,

Joe Fallisi

(flespa@tiscali.it
www.nelvento.net)

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

> I didn’t say that the >“courageous” Mr. Bacque

>* Why your inverted commas of >contempt? He was courageous, be >sure. And you should read even >his second book, before to judge >him as almost a crazy or an >idiot. He WASN'T. At all.

The first book was enough, thanks. I was actually impressed by the first parts of it. But what came after that was pretty thin.

> They ended with the end of >hostilities.

>* To say something like this >about, for instance, Hiroshima >and Nagasaki is really shameless. >The war against Japan was already >in fact won, no way. But such of >new bombs had to be experienced >in vivo - even to showing Stalin >what Angloamerica would have been >able to do against his Empire.

I don't remember having said that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a crime. Still, and independently of whether or not it was necessary to bring the war to an end, it was part of a war effort, not of a genocidal undertaking.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

> How so?

>* Look around.

Plenty of shit in today's world, but blaming it all on the victors of World War II is comfortable oversimplification, to put it politely.

> Not so sure about that.

>* Read some good books. For instance:

>Angelo Schwarz, 1854-1915: cronaca fotografica del genocidio delle nazioni indiane >d'America, Priuli & Verlucca, 1980
>Brunetto Chiarelli, Colombo e la riscoperta dell'America: genocidio, etnocidio, >ecocidio, Pontecorboli, 1992
>Bruno Marcon, Tragedia degli indios: cronaca ultima di un genocidio che dura da 500 >anni, Edizioni del noce, 1994
>Enzo Braschi, Sono tra noi: Storia del genocidio degli indiani d'America, Mursia, 1995
>Noam Chomsky, Year 501: The Conquest Continues, South End Press, 1999
>Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present, Harper >Perennial Modern, 2005

I like Zinn. But I wouldn't quote him as presenting a "natives total holocaust". Nor would I blame the decimation of the North American native population on the United States alone. Most of it occurred before the US came into being.

> What’s that number supposed to represent? Excess deaths in Iraq since the 2003 US >invasion? If so, I would consider the number to be distinctly exaggerated. And while the >current mess in Iraq would have occurred but for the US invasion (in that case Saddam >Hussein would still be killing his own people), I don’t think it’s justified to blame all >deaths on the US. They are not the ones responsible for violence between ethic or >religious groups or for attacks by Islamist terrorists, are they?

>* "Excess deaths"... after have read that, I'm no more interested not even to reply to you.

Excess deaths means deaths in excess of mortality expectable under normal circumstances, irrespectively of cause. Excess deaths may be due to deterioration of living conditions or due to downright massacres. The term is value-neutral.

>I leave you to your beloved torturers and State terrorists and murderers (by the way: >United States of Abomination is the first country in the history to have legalized the >torture with his drunk idiot criminal "President", son of another war criminal of course). >FOR SURE Iraqui people was extremely better under Saddam. If you think I'm wrong, >go there and ask them,

You sure sound like the kind of fellow who would be impressed by Bacque-style conspiracy history. I try to be more objective.

Joe said...

I had written: "almost 1.500.000"... actually not yet (time to time). TIl now (September 8th 2009) the poor Iraqui people dead because of the invasion of "progressive" and "democratic" vampires is: 1.339.771 (cfr. http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq). A modest true genocide, increasing day by day.

Joe Fallisi

(flespa@tiscali.it
www.nelvento.net)

Joe said...

Here some achievements of necroyankhamburgers heroes (not only) in Iraq:

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=36757

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=25045

http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22depleted+uranium%22&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=qrOlSqvuO9mvsgbh5tHSBA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4

http://images.google.com/images?hl=it&client=safari&rls=en&um=1&q=%22depleted+uranium%22&sa=N&start=20&ndsp=20

http://images.google.com/images?hl=it&client=safari&rls=en&um=1&q=%22depleted+uranium%22&sa=N&start=40&ndsp=20

http://images.google.com/images?hl=it&client=safari&rls=en&um=1&q=%22depleted+uranium%22&sa=N&start=60&ndsp=20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_RqK_tpkBU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhCTUD7ubOQ&feature=PlayList&p=767D5E1154709867&index=10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diNO0in4m_M&feature=PlayList&p=767D5E1154709867&index=17

http://www.uruknet.de/index.php?p=m57696&hd=&size=1&l=e

Joe Fallisi

(flespa@tiscali.it
www.nelvento.net)

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>I had written: "almost >1.500.000"... actually not yet >(time to time). TIl now (September >8th 2009) the poor Iraqui people >dead because of the invasion of >"progressive" and "democratic" >vampires is: 1.339.771 (cfr. >http://www.justforeignpolicy.org
>/iraq). A modest true genocide, >increasing day by day.

I just love their methodology:

For the Iraqi Death Estimator, Just Foreign Policy accepts the Lancet estimate of 601,000 violent Iraqi deaths attributable to the U.S. invasion and occupation as of July 2006.

To update this number, we need to obtain a rate of how quickly deaths are mounting in Iraq. For this purpose, the Iraq Body Count (IBC) provides the most reliable, frequently updated database of deaths in Iraq. (The IBC also usefully provides a database of all violent Iraqi deaths demonstrable through press reports and thus relatively undeniable.) The IBC provides a maximum and minimum. We opted to use the midpoint between the two for our calculation.

We multiple the Lancet number as of July 2006 by the ratio of current IBC deaths divided by IBC deaths as of July 1, 2006 (43,394).

The formula used is:

Just Foreign Policy estimate = (Lancet estimate as of July 2006) * ( (Current IBC Deaths) / (IBC Deaths as of July 1, 2006)


I wonder what the folks of IBC would stay to that. Their record stands at 93,040 - 101,537, see under http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ .

To be sure, not all deaths are recorded in cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures, which are IBC's sources. But nobody is going to convince me that well over 92-93 % of violent deaths in Iraq never show up in the cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures that IBC bases its count on. That's bullshit.

It's also bullshit to blame all violent deaths in Iraq on the US invasion or occupation. When Al Qaeda terrorists or other fanatics blow themselves up together with lots of innocent people in a crowded place, that's the responsibility of such fanatics, not of the US. Dito for people killed in inter-ethnic or inter-religious violence among Iraqis.

And these "Just Foreign Policy" polemicists should look up the word "genocide". They seem to have no idea what it means.

>Here some achievements of >necroyankhamburgers heroes (not >only) in Iraq:

You're too emotional, Joe. Try to be more rational. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.

Joe said...

> You're too emotional, Joe. Try to be more rational. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.

* Again, I leave you, no problem, with/to all your "progressive" and "democratic" tyrants, murderers, torturers, poisoners and slaughterers. Wishing to be polite, I don't tell you what YOU are.

Joe Fallisi

(flespa@tiscali.it
www.nelvento.net)

Joe said...

Finally, to end, as for myself, this anti-dialog, do you really think to be "rational" and worthy "to be taken seriously"? You "rational"???!!!... wth all your obvious bad faith full of hate and your radical double standard "judgement"?... Yes, the human being is the most selfillusionist being.
Goodbye, "Roberto".

Joe Fallisi

(flespa@tiscali.it
www.nelvento.net)

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Sorry to tell you, Joe, but I think you should seek psychiatric treatment. Your hysteria suggests that you have some mental problem.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Talk about "double standard", by the way:

Civilian death toll in the Soviet Union

The Russian Academy of Science in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR at German hands, including Jews, totaled 13.7 million dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR. This included 7.4 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 2.2 million deaths of persons deported to Germany for forced labor; and 4.1 million famine and disease deaths in occupied territory. There were an additional estimated 3.0 million famine deaths in the USSR not under German occupation. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR in 1946-1991 borders, including territories annexed in 1939-40.[6] The deaths of 8.2 million Soviet civilians, including Jews, were documented by the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission.[7]


(From the Wikipedia page Generalplan Ost)

Compare with my estimates of the number of Soviet civilians murdered by the Nazis in the blog
5 million non-Jewish victims? (Part 2).

Joe said...

> Sorry to tell you, Joe, but I think you should seek psychiatric treatment. Your hysteria suggests that you have some mental problem.

* You're even worst than I could figure. And in deep bad faith. You actually support - even for free! -all the worst TODAY really operative tyrants, torturers and bodysnatchers (USA, UK, the horrible Zionist entity and its octopus Mafia-Lobby...). I don't envy you, be sure. This is my last message to you. You can go on alone. I don't care of your judgement and "psychiatric" stalinoadvises. Maybe it would be better that you think of yourself, of who and what YOU are.
Goodbye.

Joe Fallisi

(flespa@tiscali.it
www.nelvento.net)

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

:-)

Robert86 said...

Huh, seems that Joe guy was simply your average, rabidly anti-American, conspiraloon. You really know how to attract them Roberto! :D

True, US foreign policy and that of it's allies leave much to be desired but the accusations made by such people are grossly exaggerated.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Huh, seems that Joe guy was simply your average, rabidly anti-American, conspiraloon. You really know how to attract them Roberto! :D

If only they knew that I'm a big fan of John W. Dower's War without Mercy and Howard Zinn's A People's History of American Empire. :-)

Robert86 said...

Huh, I thought Zinn's book was called 'A People's History of the United States'? :P

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

There's also "A People's History of American Empire".

Robert86 said...

Oh, thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I was only aware Howard Zinn's previous work. Despite his rather leftist bent, I hear he is quite renowned and I really need to read his work. :)

Balsamo said...

Dear Roberto,

I find your site very interesting indeed.

Your fight against ignorence is worth your effort.

but you seems to have the same problems as the "basic denier";

That is the FACT that the "official history is full of bullshit does not mean that other theories are free of bulshit, and Vice versa".

The fact is that you seem to rely completly on the "official side of the story" to fight against the deniers is your weakness.

I am (or used to be an historian), and as i respect your willingness to debate (which is rare), i am uneasy with the point of start of your arguments; with the absence of comments of all that could be viewed as "uncortable" with the official theory which you rely upon.

of course one crime does not excuse another.

concerning the work of Bacque, it is a fact that more than a million german POW are missing! That the West blamed it all on the Russians.

the Question : How is it you have so many photos of nazis concentration camp and almost NONE of the "post-1945" one's ???

anyway, historical sciences HAS to rely on sources, on all of them not a selection.

i WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOUR CRITICAL REVIEW ON THE GERSTEIN REPORT(s).

i don't deny the holocaust but only admit that currently it is impossible to give any numbers.

Ausschitz is another tricky problem, and i would love to have a precise description of the camps from you.

Anyway, your points would be much more efective if you could agree with the crimes commited by the allies; Because it is this silence that gives strength to the "basics deniers";

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Balsamo,

The issue is not what is the "official" version of history and what goes against the "official" version. It is what is well supported by evidence and what is not. What is well supported by evidence stands at least a good chance of corresponding to the facts, whether or not it is "official". What is not well supported by or even at odds with evidence stands little if any chance of corresponding to the facts, even if it is a "courageous" challenge to "official" history. Facts that are "politically correct" are still facts, and nonsense that is "politically incorrect" is still nonsense.

As to Bacque, it's a fact that roughly 1 million German soldiers from World War II are missing to this day. But it is not known how many of these became POWs and how many died in battle. What is more, most of the MIAs went missing on the Eastern Front fighting the Red Army and not in Western Europe.

As to the Gerstein Report, I refer to the assessment of Prof. Browning in his expert opinion Evidence for the Implementation of the Final Solution:

Many aspects of Gerstein's testimony are unquestionably problematic. Several statements he attributes to Globocnik are clearly exagerrated or false, and it is not clear whether Gerstein or Globocnik was the faulty source. In other statements, such as the height of the piles of shoes and clothing at Belzec and Treblinka, Gerstein himself is clearly the source of exaggeration. Gerstein also added grossly exaggerated claims about matters to which he was not an eyewitness, such as that a total of 25 million Jews and others were gassed. But in the essential issue, namely that he was in Belzec and witnessed the gassing of a transport of Jews from Lwow, his testimony is fully corroborated by Pfannenstiel. It is also corroborated by other categories of witnesses from Belzec.

Rarely is a witness right or wrong about everything. Witnesses are usually right about some things and wrong about others, as any trial judge or lawyer will tell you. Gerstein is no exception to the rule.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

>Ausschitz is another tricky >problem, and i would love to have >a precise description of the >camps from you.

There are many things I would also like to have. If you're interested in Auschwitz matters I suggest reading the RODOH Scholars Debate, starting with the Veritas Team Opening Statement, which was mostly written by me.

>Anyway, your points would be much >more efective if you could agree >with the crimes commited by the >allies; Because it is this silence >that gives strength to the "basics >deniers";

Where did I say that the Allies committed no crimes, and what "silence" are you talking about? I have provided more information than many about crimes committed by the Allied site during World War II. Read the following Reference section threads on the RODOH forum:

Notes from a Land of the Dead

Red Army Crimes on German Soil 1944/45

The Soviet War Crimes Against Poland: Katyn

The Fate of Ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia

Father, shoot me

States of Terror

Stalin and the Jews

1930s Famine Genocide in Ukraine

Carpet Bombing and Nuclear Bombs

No, you'll find no Bacque baloney there. But if I have access to something about the Rheinwiesenlager from a historian like Rüdiger Overmans,
I'll be glad to add it.

Balsamo said...

OK, thanks for your links and for your site in generals. It is quite rare to find a instructive debate on those matters

Good luck

Balsamo said...

Hi

At first look, all your crimes are related to the red army. They commited a lot of crimes, especially during the war and the invasion of Germany. But it’s a fact that everyone knows them! Thanks to the cold war?

Now just let me give some example:
It is widely written that Germany was responsible for the famine that hit some part of Europe.

1942 Oxfam is created to fight against the Allied blockade which was the cause of hundred of thousands dead.

The withdraw of the fleets around the British Empire disrupted the import of food in India (millions of dead in Bengal)

What about the Morgenthau plan?

What about the transfer of all Russians citizens from the west to the East, knowing they would be shot or send to gulag. (Even the civilian Russians who fled communism in the 20’s were concerned, the citizen of the Baltic States as well!)

Was IBM ever jugged by any court for its participation of the Holocaust?
What about Ford and GM’s Opel factory who used Russian POWs and Jews?
What about the bombings of obvious civil targets (forbidden by the La Haye convention and considered as war crimes by the law?)
Were any Gi’s or officer jugged for the killings of surrendered German troups?

What about Hiroshima and Nagazaki, considering that japan had approached the Russian for a surrender BEFORE!

Albert Speer was sentenced to 20 years for using POWs as workforce, the allied used those millions Germans POW as workforce as well, some to clean up mines fields. (in contravention with the Geneva convention), including very old pals and children under 14, while jugging the Nazis for the very same reason!

As far as the work of Bacque is concerned, Even if it is exaggerated, the official number smells bullshits to me, 56.000 deaths out of 6.1 millions prisoners, held in camps with no accommodations. There is plenty of eye witness describing the famine in those camps. Civilians could face death penalty if caught trying to feed the prisoners.
What do you do with those witnesses? Are they all liars?

Why is it still forbidden to dig the lands where those camps used to be?

Anyway; where are the sources? Did you find a single report from the Red Cross concerning one of those camps? What about the French camps ?

Where are the pictures of those camps? (Except the one that covers Bacque’s Book which shows hundred of thousands POWs without any shelter?)
How is it?

NO ONE (except Bacque) has done any research on them.

Anyway as I said one crime doesn't justify another.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Hi

At first look, all your crimes are related to the red army. They commited a lot of crimes, especially during the war and the invasion of Germany. But it’s a fact that everyone knows them! Thanks to the cold war?


How about carpet bombing and nuclear bombs?

Now just let me give some example:
It is widely written that Germany was responsible for the famine that hit some part of Europe.


The Nazis were certainly responsible for the famine that hit Eastern Europe, especially the occupied territories of the Soviet Union and the city of Leningrad, as a consequence of their Hungerplan. The 1941/42 famine in Greece was also largely their responsibility, and so was the 1944/45 famine in the Netherlands. See my blogs One might think that … and 5 million non-Jewish victims? (Part 2).

1942 Oxfam is created to fight against the Allied blockade which was the cause of hundred of thousands dead.

What are you talking about, what's your source (hopefully something better than Bacque), and on what basis do you blame the Allied blockade and the Allied blockade alone?

The withdraw of the fleets around the British Empire disrupted the import of food in India (millions of dead in Bengal)

The Bengal famine had several possible causes. I wouldn’t wholly blame it on the British.

What about the Morgenthau plan?

The work of a lunatic, fortunately not put into practice.

What about the transfer of all Russians citizens from the west to the East, knowing they would be shot or send to gulag. (Even the civilian Russians who fled communism in the 20’s were concerned, the citizen of the Baltic States as well!)

Send me a good source about that and I'll put it on the RODOH Reference section.

Was IBM ever jugged by any court for its participation of the Holocaust?

Not that I know. Should they have been?

What about Ford and GM’s Opel factory who used Russian POWs and Jews?

They were accomplices to the Nazis' crimes, if they so did.

What about the bombings of obvious civil targets (forbidden by the La Haye convention and considered as war crimes by the law?)

Covered in my carpet bombing and nuclear bombs thread.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Were any Gi’s or officer jugged for the killings of surrendered German troups?

According to this site,

"A total of 49 US soldiers were hanged for crimes that were committed on French soil after the D-Day landings. In the whole European theatre of operations, 109 civilians were murdered by American soldiers. In Germany, 107 German nationals were murdered. At the same time 214 US soldiers were also murdered by their own countrymen.

In France, there were 181 reported cases of rape by US Forces. In Germany there were 552 reported cases of rape. Those sentenced to death for various crimes amounted to 443 (245 white men and 198 coloured) Only 21 per cent of those sentences of death were actually carried out. (Only one Canadian soldier was executed in WWII, the charge being murder and black market dealings)".

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

What about Hiroshima and Nagazaki, considering that japan had approached the Russian for a surrender BEFORE!

An unforgivable crime, covered in my thread about carpet bombing and nuclear bombs.

Albert Speer was sentenced to 20 years for using POWs as workforce, the allied used those millions Germans POW as workforce as well, some to clean up mines fields. (in contravention with the Geneva convention), including very old pals and children under 14, while jugging the Nazis for the very same reason!

If the son of a bitch was tried by people who had no moral authority to do so, that was still better than if he had not been tried at all. Speer’s crimes were not limited to using POWs as a workforce, by the way. And he got off too lightly.

As far as the work of Bacque is concerned, Even if it is exaggerated, the official number smells bullshits to me, 56.000 deaths out of 6.1 millions prisoners, held in camps with no accommodations.

I'd say that depends on how long they were being held. Besides, only a part of the POWs were held under the very bad conditions of the Rheinwiesenlager. Where did you get those 6.1 million prisoners from, by the way?

There is plenty of eye witness describing the famine in those camps. Civilians could face death penalty if caught trying to feed the prisoners.

Your source for the latter?

What do you do with those witnesses? Are they all liars?

Those witnesses describe conditions in the Rheinwiesenlager, where about 1-2 million German soldiers were held from April to September 1945. Thousands died there in those few months, but not hundreds of thousands.

Why is it still forbidden to dig the lands where those camps used to be?

Why, is it usually allowed to dig as and where you please, especially in public real estate? I didn’t know that.

Anyway; where are the sources? Did you find a single report from the Red Cross concerning one of those camps?

Not that I know. What would the absence of Red Cross reports mean?

What about the French camps ?

Conditions were very bad there, as far as I know.

Where are the pictures of those camps? (Except the one that covers Bacque’s Book which shows hundred of thousands POWs without any shelter?)

There are some more photos on this Wikipedia page. And I don't think they are the only ones.

How is it?

NO ONE (except Bacque) has done any research on them.


That's not what the above-mentioned Wikipedia site suggests. You will probably also find information about the Rheinwiesenlager in this book by a German historian:

Rüdiger Overmans, Soldaten hinter Stacheldraht. Deutsche Kriegsgefangene des Zweiten Weltkriegs

Anyway as I said one crime doesn't justify another.

Who said it does?