"John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote:
>What you can't seem to comprehend, mainly because you've been brainwashed by
>all the jewish media mania (or perhaps because you ARE a jew), is that
>"booting the jews out" meant, and still does mean, "booting the jews out".
>>As the population of jews in Germany decreased by 600,000, the population of
>jews in the US increased by 600,000. But the worldwide population of jews
>also increased by 4% by the end of WWII, which is another 550,000 (from 15.2
>million in 1941 to 15.75 million in 1948). The jews were popping up all
>over the place. The population of jews in South America increased by
>200,000 (from 30,000 to 230,000). There were so many more jews at the end
>of WWII than there were before that there was no place for Slimey
>Wiesenthal, et. al., to hide them all, so they made up the holocaust LIES to
>distract your attention from the fact that the jew Hitler and his jew Nazis
>KILLED 48 million Christians while they protected the jews.
>>It's really hard to feel sorry for LIARS who LIED when they claimed that "6
>million jews died in the holocaust", when the REAL holocaust was the 48
>million fellow Christians who died far more horrible deaths in firebombings
>than the vast majority of jews who were sitting in comfy concentration camps
>ever witnessed.
>>The "Final Solution" wasn't to kill the jews--it was to exile them. And
>most of them WERE exiled. The jews who DID die in concentration camps died
>at the end of WWII when WE intentionally bombed the German supply lines
>which brought food and medicine to the concentration camps. Why did we do
>that? Because the inmates were making war materiel used to fight the
>Allies. Why would the Germans want to kill the very people who were
>supplying war materiel for them in the midst of a losing war? This would be
>like cutting your own throat (not that jews could have produced very much,
>but every drop would have counted at that point).
I think I'll take the British Court system as being decisive over your
silly opinion. They ruled against a Holocaust denier, David Irving
who sued for libel in 2000.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/nsindex.html
>David Irving, a British Holocaust denier, sued American professor
> Deborah Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin Books, for libel
> in a 2000 London trial that made headlines around the world.
>>Despite England's draconian libel laws, Lipstadt and Penguin not only
> won resoundingly, but also exposed the inner workings of the deniers,
> who distort 20th century history in order to promote 21st century
> antisemitism and white supremacy.
>>This site is built around the defense's groundbreaking research, the
> riveting trial-room testimony, and the judge's historic opinion which
> found Irving to be a "right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist" who
> "deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."
>From the evidence section:
Expert Opinion , written by Christopher R. Browning
...
>3. Implementation of the Final Solution
>3.1 The Nazi regime implemented the Final Solution or mass murder of
> the European Jews caught within its empire primarily by two
> methods--shooting and gassing. In the territories occupied by Germany
> after June 22, 1941 (with the exception of the district of Bialystok
> and partial exception of the district of Galicia), shooting was the
> most common method employed to kill Jews. The Jews of central and
> western Poland i.e. the Polish territory held by Germany since
> September 1939, and those deported from all over Europe to Poland
> during the war for the most part perished in the gas chambers of
> Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, and the gas vans
> of Chelmno.
>>>3.2 The evidence for these killing operations is of four types used
> commonly by scholars in the writing of history and judicial
> authorities in the conducting of trials: (1) contemporary
> documentation; (2) witness testimony recorded later (from survivors,
> perpetrators, and bystanders); (3) material evidence; and (4)
> circumstantial evidence. Because the Nazi regime sought to destroy
> not only the Jews of Europe but also the documentary evidence and
> material evidence (i.e. the mass graves and death camps), the
> evidence with which scholars and judicial authorities can work is
> both less than complete and not symmetrical for the two killing
> methods. In particular, the documentation of mass killing by shooting
> in the territories occupied by Germany after June 1941 is quite
> extensive, while documents relating to gassing in Poland is scant.
> For gassing, therefore, witness testimony and circumstantial evidence
> play a much larger role.
...
>4.1.3 These cumulative totals do not distinguish between Jewish and
> non-Jewish victims. The Jäger Report (summarizing the activities of
> Einsatzkommando 3 in Lithuania up to December 1941), however, does
> identify all its victims, of which only 2,042 or barely 1.5% were
> non-Jewish (mostly identified as communist functionaries or
> mentally-ill). Einsatzgruppe D did not make this distinction in its
> cumulative totals, but it often did in its bi-weekly reports. For
> instance, on November 5, 1941, it reported killing 11,037 Jews and 31
> communist officials in the previous two weeks. For the period
> November 16-December 15, 1941, it reported executing 17,645 Jews,
> 2,504 Krimchaks (categorized racially as Jews), 824 Gypsies, and 212
> communists.
>From the judgment:
>Irving's concessions
>13.152 It was a striking feature of the case that in the course of it
> Irving made, or appeared to make, concessions about major issues. In
> doing so he resiled from the stance adopted by him in relation to
> those issues before trial. Such concessions were made by Irving in
> relation to the shooting of Jews in the East; the use of gas vans at
> Chelmno and in Yugoslavia; the gassing of Jews at the Action Reinhard
> camps; the existence and genocidal use of gas chambers at Auschwitz
> and the Leuchter report.
>>13.153 Thus the Defendants contend that, having previously asserted
> that the shooting of Jews in the East was generally unauthorised and
> carried out by small bands of criminals with Hitler's partial
> knowledge but without any order from him, Irving accepted at trial
> that perhaps as many as 1.5 million Jews were killed on the authority
> of Heydrich and on a systematic basis. He conceded also that Hitler
> not only knew of the shooting of the Jews in the East but also
> sanctioned their murder. He agreed that Hitler had taken the
> initiative in ridding the Altreich of Jews. Irving's concessions on
> these issues were in stark contrast to his case as it stood before
> trial.
>>13. 154 At a later stage in the trial, however, Irving retracted, as
> least in part, the concessions he had made. He partially withdrew his
> acceptance of Hitler's responsibility for the shooting. In a written
> submission Irving argued that the treatment of deported Jews
> suggested a lack of system and co-ordination and that there was no
> clear and unambiguous evidence of Hitler's awareness of the mass
> murder in the East of European Jews. Irving claimed that he had
> adopted the position before trial that the killing of the Jews in the
> East had been largely systematic and much of it had been carried out
> under orders. He claimed that there was no significant shift of
> position on his part. But it appears to me that Irving did shift his
> ground in a significant way in the course of the trial, especially in
> regard to Hitler's authorisation of the killing.
>>13.155 In regard to the use of gas vans, Irving was prepared before
> trial to accept no more than that there had been an "alleged
> liquidation" of 152,000 Jews at Chelmno and that gas vans had been
> used on an experimental basis and on very limited scale. At trial he
> accepted that there had been a systematic use of gas vans at the
> camp; that in one relatively short period 97,000 Jews had been
> murdered there and that he had been wrong to say that the use of the
> vans was experimental. He also accepted that the Nazis used gas vans
> to kill Jews in Yugoslavia instead of shooting them. Irving's
> explanation for these changes in his case was that he was making
> admissions in order to deal with the issues expeditiously.
>>13.156 In relation to the Reinhard camps, having claimed before the
> trial that there were no gas chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor or
> Belzec, Irving accepted at trial that he could not challenge the
> accepted figures for the numbers of Jews killed at those camps which
> were 700-950,000,200,000 and 550,000 respectively. He again later
> explained his concessions as having been made "formally" in order to
> speed the trial along, adding later that he had seen no documentary
> evidence to support the figures for those killed. I have already
> given my reaction to that response.
>>13.157 I have earlier summarised the manner in which Irving altered
> his position in relation to the number of Jews killed there by gas
> but also to the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. On
> both these issues there was in my view a radical shift of ground.
> Irving says that he has always accepted that many Jews were killed at
> Auschwitz. So he has, but not by gassing.
>>13.158 I have also described Irving's concessions in relation to the
> Leuchter report: see paragraph 7.89. Irving had previously expressed
> the view that the conclusions of the report were irrefutable. At
> trial, as has been seen, he agreed without any great protest that the
> vast majority of Leuchter's findings were wrong and the report was
> fundamentally flawed.
>>13.159 What is the significance of these alterations in Irving's in
> realtion to the issue with which I am at present concerned with,
> namely Irving's motivation? It seems to me that the Defendants are
> justified in their contention that Irving's readiness to resile from
> positions he had adopted in what he has written and said about
> important aspects of the Holocaust demonstrates his willingness to
> make assertions about the Nazi era which, as he must appreciate, are
> irreconcilable with the available evidence. I also consider that
> there is force in the Defendants' contention that Irving's retraction
> of some of his concessions, made when he was confronted with the
> evidence relied on by the Defendants, manifests a determination to
> adhere to his preferred version of history, even if the evidence does
> not support it.
Sounds like the nincompoop, doesn't it.
lojbab
