Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wiseguy

The Holocaust Is A Zionist Hoax To Blackmail The West

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds
Sorry, the transcripts are several orders of magnitude larger than the judgement, which is a pretty big document itself, and I don't remember where it was. If you think the point is important you can read the transcripts as well as the judgement.

 

So you don't remember where it was. What an excuse! Any excuse will serve a tyrant

 

However the point is not important. It makes no difference to the fact of the Holocaust whether or not part-Jews (most of whom were Catholic or Protestant and did not self-identify as Jewish) were allowed to serve in the Wermacht.

 

The purification of the German race by the Nazi regime (according to Zionist propaganda) means that it rejects part-Jews etc.

 

they were not allowed to serve in the SS. In fact the SS required that there was no non-Arayian ancstor back to 1750!

 

You lie again. The fact is Danish, Belgian, Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish and Dutch etc had served in the combat arm of the Schutzstaffel or SS. For example:

 

In late 1940, the creation of a multinational SS division, the Wiking, was authorised. Command of the division was given to SS-Brigadeführer Felix Steiner. Steiner immersed himself in the organisation of the volunteer division, soon becoming a strong advocate for an increased number of foreign units. The Wiking was committed to combat several days after the launch of Operation Barbarossa, proving itself an impressive fighting unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

johnmarvin,

 

Hahahahahahahahah you are really sick :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
banjo,

 

I am still waiting for your evidence and answers not your baseless allegations.

 

 

 

Hold your breath waiting ###### . Yours is simply a diversion away from the unavoidable FACT , this thread topic is BOGUS , UNTRUE , LIBELOUS ,HAS NO BASIS IN FACT , REMAINS TOTALLY UNPROVEN , and IS A FIGMENT OF YOUR OVER -ACTIVE IMAGINATION .

 

 

It is something you wish to be true , not something that is true or consists of reality .

 

 

Maybe it didn't sink in ....YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING ALLEGATIONS .

 

 

I merely quote history , facts ,witnesses and volumes of documented evidence .

 

 

These are not "allegation " .

 

These crush any foolish arguments like the one this thread is attempting to peddle off on the ignorant.

 

Wake-up ###### , get in touch with reality ....you DON't get to rewrite history for your own personal motives .

 

[ although you try in vain ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not so much 'lenient' as being rather busy fighting the Russians on one front and the other Allies on several others. The question arose because they might be part Jews but that meant that they were also part (usually mostly) German.

if they were part german, how do you explain the "reich citizenship law"? it stated that all Jews, even quarter- and half-Jews, were not germans. you just argued for the sake of argument, didn't you? so you make up stuff ...

 

You might be right that evidence about the fate of part-Jews is in the trial transcripts rather than the judgement. The same link will get you to the transcripts.

what exactly are you talking about? don't talk nonsense with me.

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if they were part german, how do you explain the "reich citizenship law"? it stated that all Jews, even quarter- and half-Jews, were not germans. you just argued for the sake of argument, didn't you? so you make up stuff ...

 

It's possible to be less than half or quarter Jewish (the SS wouldn't accept people with one Jewish ancestor in 1751, for example). I really don't see where you're going with this. You use the Nuremberg laws as evidence, and they alone show extreme racist barbarity. Yes, historians who accept the Holocaust as fact (as do ALL qualified historians with the possible exception of the discredited Davd Iriving) also accept that there were some part-Jews in the Wermacht. So what?

 

what exactly are you talking about? don't talk nonsense with me.

 

It was pretty straightforward - here it is again: You might be right that evidence about the fate of part-Jews is in the trial transcripts rather than the judgement. The same link will get you to the transcripts.

 

Still clueless? OK - the lengthy trial took place. Everything that was said in the trial was recorded (as it is with all trials). That is known as the trial transcripts. The judge then wrote his judgement. This is known as the judgement. Got it?

 

As you claim to have read the judgement I'm surprised that you didn't notice that the transcripts were available on the same site. Here's the link again: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethdot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/trial/judgement"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethdot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/trial/judgement[/url] click on the 'Transcripts' link to see the transcripts.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh .....Yasnov ....how could Hitler "be lenient to part jews until after the war " ....he commited suicide before the war ended . Do you know what your talking about Yasnov ?

There is no one who would make a statement like that , least of all , the book you are apparently "quoting " BUT NOT READING .

 

you may want to read what packham wrote:

 

It's irrelevant how I define Jews, it's the Nazi definition that counts. The Nazis recognised a distinction between Jews and part Jews. Part Jews were not considered as bad as Jews, as they were part German. The problem of what to do with part Jews was seen as something they could put off until after the war..

 

he made so many blunders in that one post. and his only face-saving tactic is "read Irving v Lipstadt & Penguin Books"

 

and then when confronted about the books, he'd say:

 

Sorry, the transcripts are several orders of magnitude larger than the judgement, which is a pretty big document itself, and I don't remember where it was. If you think the point is important you can read the transcripts as well as the judgement.

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's possible to be less than half or quarter Jewish (the SS wouldn't accept people with one Jewish ancestor in 1751, for example). I really don't see where you're going with this.

i asked you where Nazis recognised a distinction between Jews and part Jews? that's what i am going with this.

 

Still clueless? OK - the lengthy trial took place. Everything that was said in the trial was recorded (as it is with all trials). That is known as the trial transcripts. The judge then wrote his judgement. This is known as the judgement. Got it?

what i asked you is that where and when Nazis recognised a distinction between Jews and part Jews?

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i asked you where Nazis recognised a distinction between Jews and part Jews? that's what i am going with this.

 

Yes, of course they did. They even used a special word for part Jews: Mischling. Google it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, of course they did. They even used a special word for part Jews: Mischling. Google it.

good ... now follow the argument. you said:

 

Part Jews were not considered as bad as Jews, as they were part German.

 

when did nazis say that mischling are part german?

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then when confronted about the books, he'd say:

 

What books? Yes, some part Jews served in the Wermacht. No, this has not altered any qualified historian's understanding that the Holocaust happened. You're off in full cry after a red herring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good ... now follow the argument. you said:

 

Part Jews were not considered as bad as Jews, as they were part German.

 

when did nazis say that mischling are part german?

 

I read it in the trancripts or the judgement of Irving vs Lipstadt & Penguin Books. As I said previously.

 

But really, use some brains - if someone is part Jewsih they are also part something else. German part Jews are mostly part German. You don't need 'evidence' for that surely! The less the Jewish part the greater the German part. Pretty obviously really. The Nazis were horrible but they weren't stupid. I think they might have been able to grasp that point, even if you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a sensible overview: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethistory.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/jewishlife/JewishSoldiersMark.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethistory.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcus...oldiersMark.htm[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But really, use some brains - if someone is part Jewsih they are also part something else. German part Jews are mostly part German. You don't need 'evidence' for that surely!

if you stick to your "it's Nazi definition that counts", then according to nazi definitions, part jews were not german. got it?

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a sensible overview: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethistory.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/jewishlife/JewishSoldiersMark.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethistory.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcus...oldiersMark.htm[/url]

did your link mention that the nazis believe that part jews are germans?

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but they were part-German. Obviously.

 

The world is a lot more subtle and complex than you think. Read the article I linked then come back.

 

I'll ask you again - where are you going with this? As usual I'm asking what's your point? No qualified historian doubts that the Holocaust happened, with the possible exception of David Irving.

Edited by packham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, but they were part-German. Obviously.

so does nazi definition count or not?

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't read the article, did you? You actually rarely read evidence, do you?

 

Here's another link (I'd post the para but it's a book on the Google Book site and you can't C&P from it).

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_books.google(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/books?id=JnB7cM1zUG4C&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=solution+to+the+mischling+problem&source=web&ots=D-vn4rl3GO&sig=O6RLye_5bi5EUaO48kz-tfBDhaQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_books.google(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/books?id=JnB7cM1zU...1&ct=result[/url]

 

If that is too long here's the TinyUrl: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_tinyurl(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/5on9bm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_tinyurl(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/5on9bm[/url]

 

it says in part, and you really need to read the rest of the page: "Germans with three or four Jewish grandparents were Jews and had almost no civil rights. Those with no Jewish grandparents were Arayans. A mishling - a German with one or two Jewish grandparents - was legally neither a Jew nor an Arayan."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good old Google. I've found what I was looking for in Irving vs Lipstad & Penguin Books. (It isn't the actual bit that had read previously, where the evidence is argued, but it will do).

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethdot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/trial/defense/evans/430eii"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethdot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/trial/defense/evans/430eii[/url]

 

It's full of good stuff. here's an example (from a Nazi document about a conference held to discuss the fate of Mischlings):

 

According to a communication from the representative of the Party Chancellery, the view had been expressed, in the highest quarter [ie Hitler], in connection with the discussion of half-Jew questions in the Army, that it was necessary to divide the half-Jews into Jews and Germans, and that it was in no way tenable to keep the half-Jews permanently alive as a small race. No account would be taken of this demand if all half-Jews were to be sterilised and allowed to stay on Reich territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

######:

I have said again and again that the Holocaust is a Zionist hoax and I will dispute the judgment in Irving vs Lipstadt & Penguin Books because the West has the law that forbids any persons to dispute the Holocaust so I don't expect the biased Western court of law to make a fair judgment.

 

There's no Holocaust denial law in the UK, where the trial was held. (You seem to think that all the nations that you call western have the same laws. That is incorrect, or as you would say, A LIE AND A SLANDER!!!.)

 

Even if the judge was not fair, the judgement goes through all the evidence (and most of the things that Holocaust deniers claim were part of the evidence) and gives the arguments by both sides, and the judge says which he considers correct on the basis of the evidence Even if the judge was biased, the evidence and the arguments from both sides are there to see. It's a remarkable resource and you can't really say that you know anything about the Holocaust if you haven't read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't read the article, did you? You actually rarely read evidence, do you? ."

ok, you didn't lie this time.

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, you didn't lie this time.

 

wassalam,

y

 

 

LOL....Yasnov, do you think this is a "revelation " ?

 

Your familiar pattern arises again, as in every discussion you enter , you are rought kicking and screaming to have your nose forced down and rubbed into the truth .

 

 

And " AGAIN " , you latch on to another untenable statement and view , which is supported only by agenda- driven OPINION , and arrogantly ignoring facts throughout .

 

But when one falls they all fall for the Holocaust was real ,and therefore the statement that it was " a hoax intended to blackmail the west " is totally and unashamedly BOGUS AND FALSE .

 

And this is not atypical amongst your like-minded fellows , you fall in line to an ideological point of view again IGNORING for your own purposes the overwhelming facts .

 

 

The only differences literally around the globe , are the variations , as the hamas leaders are now claiming that the Holocaust was contrived by the Zionists ,to eliminate the "weak and infirm " of their flock , so in effect they "caused Hitler to kill jews " ....this is in the realm of the utterly ridiculous, but it is nonetheless spouted anyway , and I do believe that the people spouting these views, know thhat they themselves are guilty of embracing liesand ignoring truth for the sake of taught ideology .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL....Yasnov, do you think this is a "revelation " ?

ok .. i'll let you know what a revelation really is. since pachkam talked about nazi definition, here is what nazi believes:

 

The Nazi party and other officials (for instance in the Sicherheitsdienst) pushed for a change in policy and demanded that 'half-Jews' be treated in the same way as 'full Jews'

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethdot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/trial/defense/evans/430eii"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yethdot(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/trial/defense/evans/430eii[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ok, you didn't lie this time.

packham, since you turned out to be lying again, i'll withdraw that statement of mine.

 

These laws affected millions of Germans, the exact number depending

on precisely how a Jew was defined. That definition was published November 14, 1935. The Nazis

defined a Jew as anyone who either 1) had three or four racially full Jewish grandparents, 2) belonged

to a Jewish religious community or joined one after September 15 when the Nuremberg Laws came

into force. Also regarded as Jews was anyone married to a Jew or the children of Jewish parents. This

included illegitimate children of even the non-Jewish partner. There appears to have been no serious

public objection to these laws.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetwzaponline(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/WhowasaJewinNaziGermany.pdf"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetwzaponline(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/WhowasaJewinNaziGermany.pdf[/url]

 

wassalam,

y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×