Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Dancing Around Holocaust-Denial

A couple of days ago I posted about the possibility that the Swedish writer Jan Milld could be a Holocaust-denier, as pointed out by IceViking. By doing so I got myself into a mess of hot water with certain Swedes — if you stuck around long enough to see the slugfest in the comments, you know the ones I’m talking about.

According to the dissenters on this topic, I am either:

1. A fool and a dupe, or
2. A deliberate and cowardly suppressor of the truth, possibly motivated by incipient dhimmitude, or
3. Some combination of #1 and #2.

There’s no use arguing with #2 — it’s an are-you-still-beating-your-wife kind of accusation, so that denying it makes one look even guiltier.

But as for #1, I’ll buy the possibility that I’m a fool, that I’m deluded, and that I’m being used by people with sinister motives.

I received yet another vituperative email from one of the Swedes this afternoon on this topic. He included massive amounts of documentation to buttress his case; unfortunately for me, virtually all of it was in Swedish.

Here’s my reply to him:
- - - - - - - - - -
I’m willing to accept the possibility that I have been fooled, hoodwinked, had the wool pulled over my eyes, and been led down the primrose path. That may well be true.

But you won’t convince me by fussing at me and insulting me.

If you want to have an effect, send me material (or send me a link to material) that is in clear coherent English, and that supports your assertions.

That’s what IceViking did. I posted his information. I made no serious judgments about Milld, only that his statement about the gas chambers in Auschwitz was highly suspect.

Send me your information (Readable! And in English!) and I will post a rebuttal. I try to be fair with my readers, especially when the language barrier prevents me from discovering the material myself.

Warning: proving that IceViking is a philo-Semite, or Jewish, or a Zionist, or in the pay of the Mossad will not convince me that you are right. He could be an actual Elder of Zion, and his facts could still be true. Discrediting the source is not an effective argument.

I only want to see a clear refutation of the assertion the Milld is a holocaust-denier. No ad hominem attacks on IceViking are of interest to me.

If you can’t do that, then you had best let this matter drop, since I am going to ignore further email on this topic if it lacks supporting information in English.


Because I am not Swedish and do not speak Swedish nor understand Swedish culture deeply, I can’t make an independent judgment about the case of Jan Milld. I have to rely on translators and my helpful contacts in Sweden.

But, if I were dealing with an American who asserted the same things that Mr. Milld did, I would find two of his statements highly indicative:

1. He asserted that there was no “technical evidence”, only the testimony of witnesses, to support the existence of any gas chambers at Auschwitz.
2. He said (in translation), “The most important thing is that we in the future try to avoid that more Jews have to die. As well as Russians, Palestinians or other people having to die.” [my emphasis]

The instructorIf it were an American who made these statements, I would feel justified calling him a Holocaust-denier. People in this country who make assertions like these are, virtually to a man, anti-Semites of one stripe or another. People who do not dislike Jews are very, very unlikely to say such things.

It’s true that technical evidence carries more weight than eyewitness testimony. But to question the existence of the gas chambers is, in effect, to call all the survivors of Auschwitz liars, and ignores the existence of Nazi documents on the subject. What possible motive could one have to use this argument?

And the inclusion of the Palestinians in such disclaimers, in order to be “balanced”, is a favorite tactic of CAIR spokesmen and their ilk throughout the West.

I repeat: the above judgment would only apply if Mr. Milld were an American. It may be normal for Swedes to say such things and still care about the Jews. I am not qualified to judge.

But to make legalistic pleas about the technical truth of any of these statements is disingenuous. Rather than descend to lawyer-like dodging of the issue, let’s look for some clarity:

Does Mr. Milld believe that millions of Jews were systematically exterminated, simply for being Jewish, by the Nazis and their allies during World War Two, that such an act was unprecedented in history, and that nothing of comparable scope has happened to any other group since then?

If so, let me see the evidence of this and I’ll post it along with a mea culpa.

And I mean clear evidence, not simple assertions. Referring to Mr. Milld’s good works, or his support for noble causes, or his untarnished reputation, will not suffice. Nor will any statements by him to the effect that yes, the Jews have suffered, but [insert the sufferings of some other designated victim group here].

Send me the material, in English, sourced with links, just as IceViking did.

And I will post it.

But if you want to save yourselves trouble, you won’t send me anymore vitriolic email telling me what a deluded fool I am. I’ll stipulate to that: I’m a deluded fool.

However, I’ll also ignore the emails. Take the fight to the comments instead.


mikej said...

Well, the Turks did wipe out a whole bunch of Armenians between 1915 and 1917, presumably just because they were Armenians. Ironically, the biblical Israelites, before settling in Canaan, exterminated the Midianites. So it wasn't unprecedented in history.

The 1994 Rwandan genocide killed people at a faster rate, but was of shorter duration, with half a million to a million people killed in about 100 days. These killings were done with small arms and machetes, so the Rwandan genocide was somewhat nastier.

Without making a career of it, I can't find any technical information purporting to refute the orthodox Holocaust story from a source that you won't instantly label anti-Semitic. That's why I remain skeptical of the orthodox Holocaust story but don't deny it outright. Unbiased information is hard to find.

I'm still wondering why some countries find it necessary to legislate the truth of the Holocaust. This is a risky thing to say, because the Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws will probably be repealed at about the same time that freedom of speech is abolished in this country.

Aside from all that, it's hard to imagine that millions of people would march into gas chambers without challenge or protest. It's hard to feel sympathy for anyone who would. I would have at least made the bastards carry me.

Ypp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
History Snark said...

Well, I have issues with the question of the Romani, aka the Gypsies. They suffered equally to the Jews.

The irony of course is that the Rom are without question "True Aryans". The Nazis had to perform all types of intellectual gymnastics to justify their murder.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Sorry, I tried to put in a live link, but couldn't. I know nothing of HTML. More of a hardware kinda guy.

Conservative Swede said...

With writing "certain Swedes" the Baron gives the impression that I have called him a "fool and a dupe" or "a deliberate and cowardly suppressor of the truth". This is very dishonest of the Baron since I have not done anything remotely of the kind. And for the rest, such as the email, apparently that refers to LN. Nothing of what the Baron writes here refers to me, even though he wants to tar me with it, hiding it behind the phrase "certain Swedes".

And I have not been involved in a "slugfest". I have merely accurately described how the Baron has acted as a "PC inquisitor" and "ostracizer", and so he is continuing to do. I understand that such criticism is hyper-sensitive to the Baron, but that in itself does not amount to a slugfest. This makes me suspect that the description of LN is tainted too, but I cannot know since I haven't seen those emails.

"...that such an act was unprecedented in history, and that nothing of comparable scope has happened to any other group since then?"

This is an absurd criterion for when to call someone a Holocaust-denier. Clearly it's possible to make comparisons, in good faith, to Rwanda, Kampuchea, Armenia and the huge mass-murders in Communist China and Soviet. As well as Bangladesh 1973.

With such absurd standards I'm no longer surprised that you jump at Jan Milld and accuse him of being a Holocaust denier. You are welcome to call me a Holocaust-denier too then, because I do not subscribe to the myth and dogma such as it is held by you. And now it's clear that for you this is all about myth and dogma. Someone that claims that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis but do not agree that "nothing of comparable scope has happened" is a Holocaust-denier by your standards. This is a parody.

But wait: Let's quote the Baron again:
"Does Mr. Milld believe that millions of Jews were systematically exterminated..."

The Baron hesitates to put the proper number of "6 millions" in the description. The way he puts it merely as "millions" exposes doubts about the proper magnitude of it. This suggests to us the the Baron is a Holocaust-denier too. What other motive could he have had to express himself in that way?

And in the comments before me I see two further Holocaust-deniers who are questioning the total uniqueness of the Holocaust. It seems that GoV is a site crowded with Holocaust-deniers. This site probably needs to be black-listed.

Simon de Montfort said...

I need to dust off my old copy of 'Alice In Wonderland', as it might help me navigate the parallel universe I seemed to have stepped into: a realm of holocaust....doubters; holocaust sceptics.

This is sad. We have Europe being 'immigraionally invaded' by hostile non-Europeans who have not only no intent of assimilating but every intent of eventually taking over the 'host ( European ) culture'. Meanwhile, some delusionaal or Very Ill-Informed Euros and North Americans are trotting out the vile lies that the death of 5-6 million Jews and a similar number of Gentiles either did not happen or was due to some strange unknown process 'that cannot be proved'

Incredible: If the Jews were't killed, where did they go? To the Mothership hovering above?

What, the census records were faked? All thos Nazi documents discovered after the war were forgeries? The testimony of the exterminators was coerce?

Anyone see David Irving lurking close by?

You have my sympathy, Baron, but you need to get these Tin Foil Hat Wearers off your blog--or they will taint everything you say here

Am Yisrael Hai ('Israel Lives'). Every decent civilised Gentile know that song, and understand its meaning.

History Snark said...

I'll assume, Conservative Swede, that you are trying to be clever, and that your comment above is sarcastic.

Because the only other explanation I can come up with is that you are arrogant and ignorant.

Conservative Swede said...

Oh, I missed that we have a proper self-described Holocaust skeptic among us:

That's why I remain skeptical of the orthodox Holocaust story but don't deny it outright.
Aside from all that, it's hard to imagine that millions of people would march into gas chambers without challenge or protest. It's hard to feel sympathy for anyone who would.

Obviously I disagree with this. As Simon de Montefort pointed out: If the Jews weren't killed, where did they go?

The Jews were urban people of higher education. Virtually all had registered citizenship where they lived. So there are very good records for them. Better than for any ethnic group. While for the Gypsies it was the opposite.

So it is straight-forward to compare the number of Jews before and after WWII and see that millions are missing. But the good records is also the reason for doubt about the number of 6 millions. As far as I know the numbers do not count up to this.

Simon de Montfort:
You have my sympathy, Baron

It's my opinion that people should not be commended for using stigmatizing expressions such as "racist" or "Holocaust-denier" carelessly. I know it is a Christian thing, stirred by emotions, that one is considered more true to the cause the more carelessly it's used. But it's my opinion that we should stay with truth, facts and proper semantics.

Conservative Swede said...

I'll assume, Conservative Swede, that you are trying to be clever, and that your comment above is sarcastic.

Yes there is sarcasm in my comment above, as most of my comments. But as in most of my comments there is much more. Have another look.

Because the only other explanation I can come up with is that you are arrogant and ignorant.

Possibly arrogant. That's a matter of opinion, so I cannot take it away from you. But what do you suggest that I'm ignorant about. Do you know what ignorant means?

Anyway, you have to be careful with what you say about the Holocaust. You wrote. "[The Romani] suffered equally to the Jews". Naughty, naughty! If Jan Milld had said anything of the kind that would have sealed the case of him being a Holocaust-denier in Baron Bodissey's eyes. Hopefully you get away with it.

History Snark said...

No, they never taught me what "ignorant" means during my 6+ years at University. However, I'll take a stab at saying it means one doesn't necessarily have knowledge. I wasn't pinning it down to a specific subject, I was using it in the general sense.

Or to be more precise, I was using it because I know that Baron and Dymphna don't like obscene language on their blog, and I was trying to respect that, rather than telling you what I really think of your "arguments".

I hardly think that the Baron would call me a "Denier" merely for pointing out that others suffered too. Much of what I've read over the years suggests that on a proportional basis, the Rom suffered worse than anyone. Though I will concede that records are hard to come by.

As an aside, my father is a native of northern Italy. He remembers the Rom wandering through every spring, as my grandmother would warn him to keep away, lest he be kidnapped. However, when I asked him, he realized that it was about the year he turned 8- 1933- that the wanderings stopped in his area. Not sure if that was a coincidence or not.

I do think that we're into "beating a dead horse" territory here. said...

I'm still wondering why some countries find it necessary to legislate the truth of the Holocaust. .

Uh ......because of Jew haters and holocaust deniers like you.

Wiping out half a population? You're down with that eh?

No mention of the Sudan genocide perpetrated by Islamic Jihad in Khartoum.
The Jews brought that genocide to the world's attention so I guess those poor desperate souls don't matter either.

You are pathetic.
And transparent said...

Aside from all that, it's hard to imagine that millions of people would march into gas chambers without challenge or protest. It's hard to feel sympathy for anyone who would. I would have at least made the bastards carry me.

Such a big talker!

But thank you. You've just made the case for the second amendment and why every Jew should have a gun.

:) said...

Someone that claims that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis but do not agree that "nothing of comparable scope has happened" is a Holocaust-denier by your standards. This is a parody.

to say nothing of the 6 million corpses.
But why split hairs?

When it comes to "myth and dogma" FACTS ARE IRRELEVANT!

Conservative Swede said...

Now it's a slugfest.

Conservative Swede said...

No, they never taught me what "ignorant" means during my 6+ years at University. However, I'll take a stab at saying it means one doesn't necessarily have knowledge. I wasn't pinning it down to a specific subject, I was using it in the general sense.

Or to be more precise, I was using it because I know that Baron and Dymphna don't like obscene language on their blog, and I was trying to respect that, rather than telling you what I really think of your "arguments".

Elegantly put. You've got my respect.

Ypp said...

There is a definite logic in PC enforcement of Holocost: "since you used to kill so much before (jews and others) you have no choice but continue, and finally kill yourselves". This evil logic was programmed into Europe by Hitler. Jews are the most obvious example because they were killed rationally and using technical means (features which Europe was always proud of). Denial of the first part (Holocost) is a naive attempt to escape the second (sueside). However, psychologically denial never works (which is best seen on the example of Conservative Swede who is on the verge of emigrating to Argentina, as he wrote to Lawrence Auster). The only way to psychologically reject the second part (sueside) is to accept the first one and to repent. Not for Jews, Jews can live without it, but for European survival.

Unknown said...

The influence of Islam on the Third Reich

We should stop being entangled in the Holocaust debate and concentrate on resisting Islam, because if those guys get in, the next Holocaust will engulf all of humanity.

Baron Bodissey said...

"Robert" sent me an email and asked me to post this comment for him:

"I have a response to Gringo Malo's comment that went:

"Aside from all that, it's hard to imagine that millions of people would march into gas chambers without challenge or protest. It's hard to feel sympathy for anyone who would. I would have at least made the bastards carry me.

"For what it's worth as to how the Nazis got Jews to WALK into the gas chambers, I once heard Nick Guarino of the Wall Street Underground talk about it, and how he had always wondered how the Nazis managed to get the Jews to walk right into the gas chambers, rather than have to drag them in kicking and screaming and fighting all the way. He realized the answer was, that the Jews in the concentration camps had been so demoralized, felt so beaten, so defeated, so thoroughly stripped of self-respect and dignity, and so hopeless from the harsh, brutal treatment they received in those camps on a continual basis, that they had already given up on life long before they were told to 'take a shower'. Only because they had already lost all hope and given up could the Nazis get them to WALK into the gas chambers where they would be finished off and recorded in the 'totbuchs'."

Ypp said...

Come on guys, I'd like to see how you go when they point a machine-gun at you. Recently one maniac with a pistol therrorized a whole university. It is easy to be brave in writing.

History Snark said...


I still find it worth noting that the closest anyone came to standing up to that pathetic little man at Va. Tech was when a single professor gave his life to save the students. And that professor was a Holocaust survivor.

He showed that he wasn't afraid to stand up to a man with a gun.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

I do think that it's insane to blame the victims of the camps. None of us knows how we would react in that situation, and I hope that none of us ever finds out.

However, the ones that came out of there had a courage that is also beyond comprehension. I don't recall where it was, but I read a book in which they talked about dealing with the survivors. Someone in the book, either an American or Brit said that the victims would announce they were going to Palestine to help build a Jewish state. He said if you told him he couldn't, the survivor would just look at you as if to say "After what I went through, you think I care what you think? And you think you have any way of stopping me? There's nothing you can do to me anymore."

(I'm thinking it was in Studs Terkel's "The Good War", but really can't recall.)

I was truly shocked a couple years ago to learn of the actions of "the Jewish Brigade" after the War. The leaders of the fight in "Palestine" sent reliable men to join the British army, so that when they got the chance they could take revenge on the Germans that took part. And they did so, apparently assassinating dozens if not hundreds of people, in a precursor to the "sword of Gideon" operation in the '70s.

At least we know that the Jews won't ever go down again without a fight. Which is more than I can say about most other groups.

History Snark said...

David Irving only claimed to have changed his mind because at the annual Holocaust-deniers picnic at 6 Flags, the Baron, Myself and all the other deniers who've been outed here today told him he should. We were drunk, and it sounded like a good plan. Got lots of laughs.

There. Is everybody happy now?

Mission Impossible said...

Gentlemen (and Ladies): clearly, this subject is a treacherous swamp.

The first fact: the people who assert the Holocaust story, i.e., the Orthodox version, are backed by a lot of money. Furthermore, they already have organizations in place to harrass and prosecute anyone who questions (effectively) their "party line."

The second fact: Because the Holocaust has been accepted as unchallengable fact, and is still spoken of as if it happened just 10 years ago, instead of well over 60, a certain group of people can continue to exact emotional blackmail over another group of people.

The third fact: Reparations to Jews run into $-Billions, and are paid (by the state of Germany) by people who played no part in the persecution of Jews in Europe. The German people continue to be caricatured as evil. Furthermore, the USA has paid more in foreign aid to Israel than to any other state.

The fourth fact: I am led to believe (although I have no documentary evidence) that since 1945, more Jews have claimed compensation for injuries (bodily and psychological) due to the Holocaust than were ever registered in all the Nazi concentration camps (the Germans kept meticulous records). Therefore, it seems embezzlement (by a minority) has featured somewhere along the line.

The fifth fact: Jews control the US Mass Media, the US State Department, Hollywood; and their numerical presence in both the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations have been quite astronomic: especially relative to their population size in the country. More Jews live in the USA than anywhere else, including Israel. In other words, the USA is the Jews' true Zion.


First Comment: Just because someone questions the assumption that Ziklon-B gas was used at Auschwitz does not make him a Holocaust denier. In fact, Ziklon-B was commonly used as a de-lousing agent during the 1940s, which would explain the presence of gas storage tanks at the Concentration Camps.

Second Comment: It is quite possible the majority of Jews died, whilst incarcerated by the Nazis, due to disease, malnutrition, over-work, and other mis-treatments, rather than execution in gas chambers. I only say "it is quite possible." Why? Because it makes more sense once you have studied what the Nazis needed to do with their captives (forced labour was their greatest need). No documentary proof of the "Final Solution" has ever been found.

Third Comment: I don't like being intimidated, harrassed, or bullied by people who insist, with threats of court action (or worse), that I must believe in Version 'A' of a story, when everything I read (and know about human nature) points to Version 'B' being nearer the truth ... because Version 'A' sounds far too fantastic and convenient. Remember Occam's Razor?

Fourth Comment: If the history of the Holocaust was revised, that would not minimize the crime per se. But, what it would do, is put at risk the special status that Jews have enjoyed since 1946 or so, and jeapordize the massive flow of funds currently being expropriated from the USA and Germany to Jewish organizations and to Israel.

Fifth Comment: Truth will win out in the end no matter what threats and intimidations are issued.

Sixth Comment: Jews are just people like the rest of us: subject to the same virtues and vices; including truth tellers and liars.

Seventh Comment: There is much more to the Holocaust story than people realize (or are allowed to realize). Discussing them becomes very difficult because people are too easily spooked into thinking anyone who does so must be a neo-Nazi, anti-Semite, or Palestinian supporter, et al. Perhaps we should outsource the task to the Chinese?


I suppose even this post will attract venomous and abusive responses, but that, ladies & gentlemen, will be the folly of human nature on display.

Captain USpace said...

Wow! Can't we all just get along?

Of course other groups and races have been systematically exterminated just like the Jews were. It doesn't matter how many there were, whether there were more or less killed than the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust. It's all disgusting and evil, and it's also all historical fact.

Anybody who denies the Holocaust and other atrocities of historical records is simply a fool and an idiot.

Do these fools deny that any Jews were killed by the Nazis?

If some were killed, how many do they say were exterminated?

If only 600,000 Jews had been killed would that make the 'Holocaust' any less evil?

Could it not still be called a Holocaust?

I think 'Holocaust Denial' comes from these idiot's belief that this level of evil is just not possible from simply hating Jews.

I believe that most of these Deniers hate Jews but don't condone killing them for being so (except of course the Islamist Terrorist Monkeys like Iran's Ahmadamadamonkey). So they are certainly horrified by the thought that that same hatred when held by others like the Nazis could lead to killing so many Jews.

They deny it because to accept it would mean they would have to compare themselves to human garbage like Hitler and the Nazis. This is just too painful for them to deal with.

These people shouldn't be jailed for this though. They shouldn't be jailed for denying history. They should be debated and ridiculed, and shown to everybody to be the fools, idiots and anti-semites that they are.

Also, the Jews didn't willingly go into the gas chambers of course, they were told by the guards who beat them and had guns to go into the "showers".

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
deny known history

get yourself thrown in prison
be sheltered from debate

absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
free speech is just a slogan

if man denies history
don't ridicule him jail him


Whatever he might be the ICE VIKING, a psycho or a cunning operator, he must rub his hands in satisfaction. He succeeded in his malicious intent. He surfaced from nowhere, was known by nobody and said his peep-bo and got all the old women screeming.

Now Jan Milld, earlier known by nobody here but by this blog's scandinavien readers, has been thorougly associeted to Irving, actually he is even as bad as Irving. He has been 'svartmålad' = painted black once again. Jan Milld is a dangerous person for the bloody Swedish PC-media establishment, for the xenofilic islam hugging elite of Sweden and even for the jewish media dictator in Sweden.

The jewish family Bonnier owns a large part of the leading daily papers of Sweden (Dagens Nyheter, Expressen, Göterorgstidningen, Dagens Industri, Kristinstadsbladet, Kvällsposten, Privata Affärer, Veckans Affärer, Ystad Allehanda,) They are sitting on a big part of the book publishing (Bonnier, Cappelens Forlag, Wahlström & Widstrand, and in Germany Ullstein Buchverlage) and they decide which films are going to be shown in Sweden through owning the big SF(SwedishFilmindustry)-conglomerate of cinemas etc. The publish the majority of weekly and monthly journals and magazines, from popular Femina and amelia and Damernas Värld in which they can influence young or younger women to the 'latte-leftish' culture journal Arena. This was just a selection. Last but not least Bonnier owns Sweden's number two TV-channel TV4.

It now happened that a mouse put up his snout ready to tell Swedish citizens how deceived they are by the political elite above all in matters immigration.

It was the indefattigable Jan Milld who started "broadcasting".
Radio Free Sweden = Sveriges Fria Radio went on the net. Go visit it!
The idea of 'Radio Free Sweden' was presented in Jyllandsposten as early as 02-09-18 by Jørgen Lund Christiansen: a radiotower should be erected on the Danish side of Öresund, which of course was not feasible.

I can guess that Jan Milld's new activity -- he calls it 'a dissident activity' -- is looked upon with dread and horror by the PC-media et consortes. There might now be an evident risk that the truth can be made known to a larger part of the population.

Unknown said...

I've had no real stake in this fight, but would only say that the criteria outlined in the opinion piece are just as valid in Sweden as in America - the technical evidence crowd and the "no different from how they treat Palestinians" crowd invariably tend toward the anti-semitic.

Oh, and ln, my dear, dear compatriot. IceViking might indeed be "a psycho and a cunning operator", but he could be a bumbling incompetent and you'd still hand him an easy victory with your rambling about "jewish media dictator in Sweden".

We haven't forgotten that the extreme neo-nazi right were the chief enablers of the outrage that is Radio Islam, where people like Milld quickly abandoned the values of freedom and western civilization in their glee to march alongside Ahmed Rami so long as they could stick it to the "Zionists".

mikej said...

I fully expected to be flamed by Zionists and neocons, and was not disappointed. As expected, the response is name-calling.

One individual explained the necessity of Holocaust denial laws by writing, "Uh ......because of Jew haters and holocaust deniers like you." Apparently, this person prefers that governments suppress any opinion that doesn't coincide with his. I hope that he doesn't live in America.

As to the question of where the European Jews went, well, a great many ended up in Palestine. I don't have the immigration statistics for the British protectorate, and am too lazy to look them up, but they might be interesting if someone else feels like it. Of course, none of the name-callers will take the trouble, name-calling being the extent of their repertoire.

As to the song "Am Yisrael Hai" ("Israel Lives"), I've never heard of it. It would be amusing to take a scientific poll of non-Jewish Americans to see how many have, and to get their reaction to being called indecent and uncivilized if they haven't. Of course, many gentiles are accustomed to being called goyim, menaing cattle, I believe. Personally, I care nothing aobut Israel. I'm more concerned about my own country.

Wally Ballou said...

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

Appendix II

Semitic Roots

ENTRY: gwy.
DEFINITION: Central Semitic noun *gy-, tribe. goy, from Hebrew gôy, nation, people (usually, and later exclusively, of non-Israelite, and then non-Jewish, people).

The mis-translation of "goyim" as "cattle" has very interestig antecedants. Just Google the combination and see what kid of company you are keeping.

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck." - James Whitcomb Riley


Paraphrasing Dr Aje Carlbom (socialanthropologist)
"The multiculturalist hegemonic order in some western European countries is reproduced via a system of material and discursive means whereby anyone who agrees unconditionally with the values of the ideology has a greater chance of making a successful career and, correspondingly, those who say the "wrong" things risk being punished in various symbolic and even material ways. The most common way to sanction someone who is heterodox enough to criticize the ideology (or some part of it) is to classify him/her as a racist, a nazist, a xenophob, an islamophobe or even as a jew-hater or an holocaust-denier. These terms are effective weapons for silencing criticism since the words signal the ultimate generalized evil in many European countries."

mikej said...

OK, I stand corrected on the meaning of goy, which only sounds like Yiddish koy (cow).

Mission Impossible said...

Dictionary Definitions for Goyim:

WordWeb Pro ... In this sense 'Gentile' denotes a Christian as contrasted with a Jew; 'goy' is a derogatory word for Christians used by Jews.

Merriam-Webster (which is Jewish owned): Yiddish from Hebrew goy, meaning people, nation. Adjective: sometimes disparaging.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
[Origin: 1835–45; < Yiddish < Heb goi nation, non-Jew, Jew ignorant of the Jewish religion]. Often Disparaging. A non-Jewish person; gentile.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Goy / Goyim ... Used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew.

Wikipedia: Goy (plural goyim or goys in Western languages) is a transliterated Hebrew word which translates as "nation" or "people". In practice today it is a synonym for gentile or non-Jew and its use can be controversial. The first recorded usage of goy occurs in Genesis 10:5 and applies to non-Israelite nations. The first mention in relation to the Israelites comes in Genesis 12:2, when God promises Abraham that his descendants will form a goy gadol ("great nation").


The more insulting terms for non-Jews are shiksa (feminine) and shkutz (masculine). These words are derived from the Hebrew root Shin-Qof-Tzadei, meaning loathsome or abomination. The word shiksa is most commonly used to refer to a non-Jewish woman who is dating or married to a Jewish man, which should give some indication of how strongly Jews are opposed to the idea of intermarriage. The term shkutz is most commonly used to refer to an "anti-Semitic" man. Both terms can be used in a less serious, more joking way, but in general they should be used with caution.

M.I. says: There are also a sizeable list of abusive terms regularly used by Negros, Indians (as in Hindu), and the Chinese, to unflatteringly describe or refer to white people. If Jews have no more than three abusive words, then they are being kind.

Conservative Swede said...

Gringo_Malo wrote:
As to the question of where the European Jews went, well, a great many ended up in Palestine. I don't have the immigration statistics for the British protectorate, and am too lazy to look them up, but they might be interesting if someone else feels like it.

Forget about it. It doesn't add up. The evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming.

I'm fine with people jumping on Gringo Malo as he is a self-proclaimed "Holocaust skeptic". Even though it leads to slugfest of course.

My problem has exclusively with the way IceViking and Baron Bodissey jumped on Jan Milld. Who never denied or expressed skepticism about the Holocaust. He only discussed around figures and sources from a factual point of view. And he expressed clearly that he was not interested in pushing even those minor issues. He had only brought it up driven by his general curiosity, the same that is driving him on other issues. The case against him is entirely based on IceViking and the Baron feeling that he agreed with David Irving. Something he never did. This is why I refer to it as "PC inquisition". No evidence. Only based on the feelings of the inquisitors. In the case of Gringo Malo at least you have a clear case of advanced Holocaust skepticism. Go ahead and teach him a lesson!

My concern here is not so much Jan Milld as such. But that by living in Sweden I have seen that the most devastating and paralyzing aspect of this society is the kind of PC inquisition and ostracism. It's very sad indeed that Baron Bodissey is so blind to how he's here acting exactly according to this pattern. This pattern has to be forever opposed in all kind of occasions, otherwise the West will remain in its paralysis.

Jason Pappas said...

My experience is similar to the Baron's. Here in America when someone in casual conversation questions the accuracy of the figure of 6 million it is usually follows that they believe everything about the Holocaust should be considered doubtful. The point, of course, is the order of magnitude. The same is true for communism. I often use a round number -- 100 million killed -- to describe the legacy of communism. Sometimes I use the 148 million figure that the scholar R.J.Rummel reports. Incidentally, Rummel has 20 million killed by the Nazis including 5.3 million Jews and 10.5 Slavs. Rummel spent a good part of his professional career counting death by government. He tends to maintain a lower bound until all his criteria are satisfied. Plus or minus 20% is acceptable for this kind of atrocity.

I do agree, however, that the numbers don't describe the full horror. In many cases the irrational hatred and savagery is greater but the means are lacking. Many people are blind to the Islamic threat because most Muslim societies are poor and pathetic. They believe evil must be powerful. That usually isn't the case. The Nazi case was so horrific because a once civilize nation descended into savagery so easily and quickly. This left the fruits of civilization in the hands of vicious thugs. Long-term primitive barbarian societies usually don't have such means. However, in the age of WMDs and the oil windfall this is about to change. This is today's problem. On the surface it doesn't look exactly like Nazi Germany or the USSR. But superficial looks are deceiving. We need to wake people up to today's threat. Arguing about which rung of hell to place past threats is a distraction.

Ypp said...

There is a large group of commenters here who believes that cunning Jews deliberately died in large numbers in order that later they would be able to enforce PC on Europe. In fact, Jews died from European's hands and PC is enforced by Europeans themselves. Even if Jews control Senate, Hollywood and Vatican, all that has nothing to do with islamization of Europe. There are not many Jews in Sweden. Sweden is ruled and annihilated by its own extra-white population. In France, alliance with arabs was invented by de Gaulle. And so on. America has its faults too, but America did not invite Arabs to Europe. It were you, europeans who did it.

Second. Sueside of Europe is the continuation of the trend started by WW2 and Holocost. Europe or whatever in Europe, sarted with killing 6 mln Jews, 10 million Germans, 20 mln Russians and millions of others. Now, the SAME trend in Europe continue to kill its population. There is something lethal within you, europeans. By denying Holocost you try to avoid admitting this obvious fact. And if you don't admit it, you cannot change it.

Unknown said...

Andrew Nitzberg: I am not active on the internet, but there is a serious lack of information present on Auschvitz and the Nazi Holocaust present here.

Auschvitz is in Poland and was under Communist rule during the 1950's and later. The actual Auschvitz death camp was destroyed and the 'new' Auschvitz (what we see today) was built by the Polish Communist government as evidence of the evil and decadence of the Capitalist world. It has limited evidentiary/historical value. In fact, for decades it was monument to the Polish victims of Auschvitz and the on-site literature did not even mention any Jews.

Regarding 'Jewish exploitation of the Holocaust for influence'; this is a classic racist accusation against Jews. Those who say this are just plain racists and denial of their racism is not credible to anyone but themselves. (Note 'David Duke' of the KKK marKets himself as a civil rights activist for oppressed white people.)

The nearness in time (I myself know personally several living Holocaust survivors) makes the Holocaust a more ready topic. As these survivors pass on, it will become just another historical event known only through old movies and history books.

After all, if anyone actually cared about such matters, people other than Jews would be active in protesting the current genocide in Darfur.


Call in the shrinks!
Now it is clear that the ICE WIKING is suffering from a grave monomanic psychosis.
- - - - - - - - - -
"Sorry but a more accurate translation of this passage is the follwoing:
The Germans planned methodological murder of Jews from 1941 to 1944."

Champ, champ, infinitum.
- - -
And even more methodical it turned after the Wannsee-conference 42-01-20!
- - - - - - - - - -
Can anybody bring the strait-jacket!

Conservative Swede said...

Jason Pappas wrote:
My experience is similar to the Baron's. Here in America when someone in casual conversation questions the accuracy of the figure of 6 million it is usually follows that they believe everything about the Holocaust should be considered doubtful.

So what's supposed to be the conclusion then? That therefore no research should be done that could put the number of 6 millions in question? And that even questions about it should be considered taboo? And that people who bring up such questions should by automation be labeled Holocaust-deniers and be ostracized?

Anyway, nice to see you around, Jason.

Conservative Swede said...


Sorry, but you lost me there. In this passage IceViking is merely modifying his translation of Jan Milld.

Your comment rather makes you look like the one ready for the straight-jacket.

Jason Pappas said...

So what's supposed to be the conclusion then? So what's supposed to be the conclusion then?

No, and I cited a scholar whom I respect that happens to pin the number on the lower end of the range. I mentioned 'casual conversation' because of the pattern that I often observe. The context and manner in which the trope appears usually suggests the intent of the person. Notice that my presentation doesn't suggest holocaust denial when I reported the number 5.2 million.

It isn't just with the holocaust. It's a mode of argumentation. When I hear 9/11 deniers cherry pick odd datum or raise arbitrary doubts about the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, I know where they are going. I can tell the difference between scholarly engineers trying to fine tune the exact nature of the event and those seek to create unwarranted doubt about the fact that we were attacked by Islamic terrorists.

Am I sometimes wrong? Sure but I change my impression as the person talks. But that happens only on occasion. There's a manner of talking that enables the discussion of any subject and that's by maintaining the context and centering the subject matter so that it is clear how you fit a fact into the total picture.

Good to see you, too ... and feisty as ever!

Unknown said...

Conservative Swede;

[i]So what's supposed to be the conclusion then? That therefore no research should be done that could put the number of 6 millions in question?[/i]

I think the point many people have been trying to make in this thread is that we seldom see discussion like this in the splendid isolation of idle historical curiosity. Inevitably, when someone starts questioning these numbers, screeds about how Jews control Hollywood/the media/the banks/the US are sure to follow. I'm willing to acknowledge that perhaps 6 M isn't the number. If Rummel thinks it's 5.3 M that's certainly good enough for me. But I fail to see the significance of the exact body count. The nature of the Holocaust - industrialized murder on entirely racist pretexts - would be just as horrifying if the Germans had killed "only" a hundred thousand Jews under that regimen.

Now, most of us who visit blogs like GoV and other anti-jihadist net info outlets do so because we believe that western civilization and it's fundamental values; liberty, secularism and equality before the law, are at dire peril from islamofascism. While we are happy to see people acknowledge and recognize this threat, we are not happy to see our own home-brewed fascist hitching on to our bandwagon and joining the cause to promote beliefs that ought to have perished in a Berlin bunker in 1945.

That is not why we fight. And those are not people we can trust. The anti-semites have proved time and time again that they will happily join with the islamofascists as long as they think they can strike a blow against the Jews and whatever shadowy conspiracies they imagine the Jews are behind.

These people are our enemies. We will not countenance giving them any kind of legitimacy.

Which is why we are upset with people who start playing numbers games with the Holocaust. There is a remote possibility that they do so out of intellectual curiosity. But chances are that they are into it for entirely different reasons. And we cannot afford to harbor them in our midst, any more than we can afford to harbor the jihadists.

Så är det, min konservative vän. :)

Conservative Swede said...


But does this mean that you agree that the impression by Jason Pappas, Baron Boddisey or IceViking of where a person very probably is going is enough to publicly hang him out as a Holocaust-denier (or 9/11-denier)?

In your context of casual conversation, you can of course just leave the person, before hearing the end of it, and in good faith tell your wife when you come home, how "I met another of those tonight". But don't you think that the standards should be higher before publicly hanging out someone as a Holocaust-denier? Why should the standards for these cases be that they can be based solely on subjective impression and assumptions, when we expect the standard of evidence in all other cases? Isn't it even more important in these cases to actually base your accusations on evidence, considering the consequences for the affected one?

It's the fondness of basing these accusation on impressions and assumptions that makes me draw the parallel to the Inquisition, which were such parodies of trials.

turn said...

Chips on shoulders the size of bergs.

Conservative Swede said...

Derailed Cluetrain,

I read through your comment, and the conclusion is that posing questions about the number of dead Jews equals going to Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denial conference. There is no significant difference between the two for you. They must be equally ostracized.

Nicely written piece, you could be working for DN.

Conservative Swede said...

Addition to my answer to Jason Pappas:

As evidence counts e.g. Gringo Malo's self-proclaimed Holocaust skepticism. There you have some substance to go on. In the case of Jan Milld there are only "impressions" and assumptions.

Jason Pappas said...

Let me add that Europe’s legal prohibitions, such as banning the publication of Mein Kampf and jailing writers who argue for Denial, need to be repealed. These laws assume that the population can’t read and judge on their own. They infantilize Europe's adults and are an insult to today’s population.

It is part of a mindset of self-flagellation, self-loathing, and self-doubt; it blames the current generation for the “sins of their fathers.” These laws are an indignity. If there were a sizable number of stanch Nazis (apart from rebellious youth) no ban would matter. It’s clear that Nazism is dead in Europe. It’s time to move on to today’s threat.

Conservative Swede said...

Jason Pappas,

Sorry to bug you with this, but you avoided my question. You cannot agree with both me and the Baron at the same time on this issue.

Don't you think that the standards should be higher before publicly hanging out someone as a Holocaust-denier than solely basing it on impressions and assumptions? No matter how high the correlation between such an impression and the real thing might be.

Isn't it rather strange, as some, to profess the opinion that X is okay to talk about, but anyone who talks about X is evil, because our experience and impression is that anyone who says X will soon say Y (which is truly evil). Shouldn't we wait until he actually says Y, before we make a public announcement that he is a Y-sayer?

And excuse me everyone for applying logic to this matter, which is so emotionally dear to many of you.

Profitsbeard said...

Jason P.-

"It's clear that Nazism is dead in Europe..."

Au contraire.

It just regrouped, and returned as a Muslim contingent.

Now calling itself a religion, named "Islam".

(Many former Nazis escaped to Arab lands, and "Mein Kampf" -[My Jihad] is still a best seller in Turkey, so their WW II anti-semitic alliance bred a new way to destroy Europe... disguising the invaders as "guest workers" and "refugees".)

As to the question of whether the Third Reich killed 3, 5 or 7 millions Jews, and 4, 6 or 10 million Gypsies, homosexuals, communists, "defectives", dissidents, religious protestors, freethinkers, etc., I find such concerns, at present, of use only to a morbid statistician.

One, or a score, or a hundred unjustly-killed dead is too many.

When you reach a million, or more, it becomes just Horror. Or More Horror. (Those arguing about it so fastidiously have motives that have nothing to do with "accuracy", but pathology.)

Meanwhile, I'm worried about the Next Holocaust.

The Jews can now defend themselves (as kicking ass in 1948, 1967, et al, demonstrated), so I'm more concerned for the non-Jewish Europeans in their eroding birthplace of Western Civilization.

They are being herded into P.C. cattlecars, silenced by "hatespeech" regulations (dare not criticise Islam, as Theo Van Gogh discovered), and driven to oblivion by their multi-culti self-loathing leaders.

Mistaking their somewhat-inconvenienced new Muslims for their nearly-annihilated old Jews is part of the EU's current upside-down worldview, which insanely pemits Islam to march brazenly under the banner of Tolerance.

All while it embodies the most intolerant "faith" on Earth.

The militant Muslims are exactly what Hitler delusionally feared the cultured Jews were: world-dominating, cunning, contemptuous of the infidels, amoral and bloodthirsty.

Europe fought the wrong Semites.

And now fails to fight the right ones.

Simon de Montfort said...

I think that some of you lads need Help

Either that, or you are anti-Semites: you hate Jews, and don't mind them being killed en masse.

or both.........

Whichever one of you it was who claimed that those Jews who were exterminated somehow snuck out of Festung Europa to end up in Palestine ( after hiding Somewhere for several years ) is in dire need of Serious Immediate Help

Dan said...

Baron, by your twisted logic even President Truman is an anti-Semite.

Is the problem that they are holocaust deniers or that you are a dispensationalist, because you are certainly attacking this with a religious fervor?

Mission Impossible said...

This debate, if one can call it that, got too emotional, too quickly. It has been characterized by too much finger pointing and personal accusation. A couple of so-called "big shots" have suddenly appeared on this Blog to accuse others of "writing big" just because they've had their cage rattled. Diddums.

Too many contributors have attempted to demonize those who dare to ask intelligent and reasonable questions. That is what we are supposed to do, is it not, whenever we study history!?!? To allow history, or parts thereof, to be hijacked by vested interests serves absolutely no-one, and can lead to major social and cultural problems.

Names I shan't mention (you know who you are) rush to be judgemental. This topic is simply not a black & white issue I am afraid. Have you ever heard of Fuzzy Logic? Please look it up and learn.

There is devastating information I could post that would have you rigid & intolerant "6-million Holocaust defenders" flapping in the breeze. But that doesn't mean that I believe a holocaust didn't take place. For those computer programmers amongst you ... this isn't an IF ... THEN function.

FYI, I have three disgusting photos on my hard-drive of Palestinians holding the innards of one of those poor, unfortunate Israeli off-duty soldiers who were captured in Ramala a few years back, before being ripped apart in a Police Station by those animals posing as human beings. Do you remember that? I downloaded them from a Jewish website so that I have the proof that Islam is poison for the mind!!!

Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY ... this side of the "Qu'ranic Curtain" ... wants to see Jews suffer en-masse or individually -- !! ever again !! -- just because they are Jews. Have I made that bl**dy clear enough for you, or must I also write it in Swahili???

Even so ...

All the available historical evidence, including technical analysis (NB: a full survey by someone who has worked on constructing gas chambers in North America has already been published) suggests 6-million Jews could not have been gassed in extermination camps by the Nazis. That is NOT the same as saying a holocaust did not happen.

What 98% of the so called "revisionists" believe is that the numbers gassed could only have been a fraction of the total who did die, and that most Jews died by other means: tens of thousands were shot point blank; others died due to forced labour, malnutrition, disease, etc. Tens of thousands of Jews died during the Warsaw Uprising. Tens of thousands of Jews died on forced marches during the final four months of World War II. Furthermore, the cadavers of Jews were NEVER used to make soap: that is a hoax concocted by Communists but nonetheless perpetrated by certain Jewish organizations in the USA. No bodies were turned into soap, but unfortunately obscene medical experiments were indeed performed in some camps (not all).

If the true figure of Jewish deaths due to Nazi action is actually 3.5-million, as some have calculated, then is that not still 'a holocaust?' Surely 3.5-million civilian deaths is already stomach churning? If the Iranian regime had just systematically killed 0.25-million Jews, would that not constitute a crime against humanity, requiring a decisive response, and death sentences for those responsible?

What is so magical about the 6-million figure? I will tell you. the number '6' has kabbalistic properties. That may explain why it was chosen. Otherwise, it has no merit because when you compare the worldwide Jewish populations in 1938 with that of 1946, the 6-million figure simply does not fit. That is most of what the revisionists are saying. Is that criminal?? Does this justify being hounded, vilified, made bankrupt, and thrown into jail? Can you not see that in one sense, the oppressed have now become the new oppressors?

Nobody should be killed due to persecution. Nobody should be singled out for death because of his race or religion. But, war is where the rule-book often gets thrown out of the window.

I haven't been verbally assaulted above, but those who have been deserved, in my opinion, slightly better treatment, especially by those indiscriminately and carelessly throwing out accusations of "Jew hatred" and "anti-Semitism."

Please consider this. Right at the end of World War II, with Germany having already surrendered and occupied, almost one million German soldiers were kept under armed guard by American forces in fields in the west of the country. By the direct order of General Eisenhower, those Germans were allowed to slowly starve to death. Any American soldier defying that order, by giving aid or sustenance to any German soldier, was to be shot. Rare testimonies of this crime against humanity (plus a couple of grainy photographs) provide the only evidence. Those German soldiers were not responsible for the Jewish persecutions. Those few soldiers who did handle Jews were acting under orders. Just prior to their surrender, they were only defending their kith and kin, and their territorial borders, as you and I would do in similar circumstances. Yet, they ended up being murdered by America's exaggerated sense of vengence.

I might also remind you of the mass rapes of Japanese women following the Japanese surrender, until that got out of hand. Then, the US occupying force commanders "kind of legalized it" by setting up brothels, under official protection. Don't you know about this? Then why sprout your big mouth off accusing others of ignorance??

And what about all the art work, jewellery, and other items of worth looted by American troops from European territory and sent back to the USA before the end of 1946? Isn't this crime kind of similar to the appropriations committed earlier by the Nazis against wealthy Jews?

Many of you should think about what Eisenhower and the American Army did during those final months of 1945, next time you irrationally attempt to accuse those who only seek honest and provable answers ... of hatred and anti-Semitism.

Perhaps it is you Inquisitors who need help?

Final words:

Baron Boddisey deserves all our thanks and respect for allowing this debate to unfold on his Weblog. I am sure he has been made to feel very uncomfortable, worrying how far it might go. I do believe most contributors (allowing for the critiques I have already provided above) have shown admirable retraint, maturity, and respect for one another. So, perhaps he can now begin to relax? I do hope so.

Jewish readers should also relax. My favourite comedians of all time are Jewish, and I wouldn't be listening to and admiring the Anglo-Jewish pop/Jazz Diva, Ami Whitehouse if I was truly "anti-Semitic." Meanwhile, another Anglo-Jew, Peter Mandelson I intensely dislike, but only because he was the chief architect of Britain's New Labour Party, helped to stuff the first Tony Blair cabinet full of homosexuals and feminists, and also happens to be a crook.

turn said...

m.i. wrote:"Please consider this. Right at the end of World War II, with Germany having already surrendered and occupied, almost one million German soldiers were kept under armed guard by American forces in fields in the west of the country. By the direct order of General Eisenhower, those Germans were allowed to slowly starve to death. Any American soldier defying that order, by giving aid or sustenance to any German soldier, was to be shot. Rare testimonies of this crime against humanity (plus a couple of grainy photographs) provide the only evidence."

Please source this.

Jason Pappas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason Pappas said...

Don't you think that the standards should be higher before publicly hanging ...
I haven't branded or hung anyone. And yes one should distinguish between a suspicion, a plausible account, and a certain conclusion.

Profitsbeard, I agree that Islam is the new Nazism. ... or the old Nazism.

Mission Impossible said...

turn ... as per your request, here are some links that may lead you to think "out of the box."

I have no affiliations with these sources. I have myself taken the information on face value. I have made my own judgement based upon further reading and research I have carried out into the background, life, and character of Eisenhower. I have dedicated many hours to this task.

I trust you know your Second World War history. If not, then you won't be very receptive at all to what you are about to read.

Let it be known that Eisenhower, before he assumed the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe position, was thrown out of the Asian theatre of war by your General MacCarthur and branded an incompetent: "Get that idiot out of here" ... or words to that effect were made by MacCarthur about Eisenhower. That is why Eisenhower was shipped out and ended up over-seeing the D-Day Landings and assault on Germany. I understand that British Field Marshall Montgomery wasn't very impressed by your Eisenhower guy either.

General Patton died in a car crash that should never have happened, and it came, as they say, "at a very convenient moment" for Eisenhower. Patton had been a vociferous critic of Eisenhower's plans and policies. Essentially, you can blame your mug Eisenhower for the Communist takeover of eastern Europe.

Here are two URL links:

(1) An article published on

(2) This next link opens a page containing lots of "other" unrelated comment. I have found this page via a search. I do not condone or condemn the other content. I am supplying this link on the understanding that you in turn understand you are being requested to scroll down and read only that connected with Eisenhower. I have not vetted the content of the other material on this page. <<>> Books on this subject have already been published. One author is James Bacque. The URL should open with the page automatically scrolled down about 60%. If it does not, then please scroll manually until you see this sub-heading: Mass Starvation of Germans, 1945-1950

The photograph fronting the jacket of the book by James Bacque [Der Geplante TOD] that you will see, is the one I have and the one I referred to in my last posting.

What we all need to educate ourselves about is the The Morgenthau Plan, who I believe was Jewish. Some believe Eisenhower was elevated above his station because he has a Jewish ancestor.

I am telling you; never mind the Japanese and Nazi stink; the American side of the Second World War (NB: only in Europe, not the Pacific) stinks too, because you were used as a tool of vengeance by, shall we say, a "vested interest."

There are many other links within that page section. The topic ends when you get to "East Timor."


Regards, M.I.

Jason Pappas said...

From this review of Bacque's work:

"The mountain of evidence has been building that Bacque's charge of the 'missing million' supposedly perishing in the American (and French) POW camps in Germany and France is based on completely faulty interpretation of statistical data. There was never any serious disagreement that the German POWs were treated badly by the U.S. Army and suffered egregiously in these camps in the first weeks after the end of the war. That the chaos of the war's end would also produce potentially mismatches and errors in record keeping should surprise no one either. But there was NO AMERICAN POLICY to starve them to death as Bacque asserts and NO COVER UP either after the war.

... scholarship remains largely critical of his wildly exaggerated conclusions on POW death rates among German POWs in American hands in Europe and his sloppy methodology."

From the scholar of 20th century democide that I most respect, R. J. Rummel:

"Basque's statistics, arguments, and documentation were subjected to careful and detailed study by a conference of historians (including Germans) ... Basque misread, misinterpreted, or ignored the relevant documents and that his mortality statistics are simply impossible. However, the papers do show that some of the camps, particularly the transit camps that became known as the Rheinwiesenlager,7 were initially lethal, with thousands of German POWs dying, and that these deaths were the responsibility of the American government. While the final toll of the American transit camps was far from that alleged by Bacque, it still could have reached 56,000 dead ..."

History Snark said...

Mission Impossible,

I've tried to keep from calling names here, but I have to say I find your last couple posts a bit over the top. First off, you tell any Jews to relax because you listen to a Jewish singer. Why not go all the way and just say "I'm not anti-semitic, some of my best friends are Jewish"?

Which is not to accuse you of anti-semitism. That's just a comment that used to be made by anti-semites, to "prove" they weren't. And liking a Jewish entertainer is one small step above it.

As for MacArthur firing Eisenhower and ordering him out of Mac's command, I have to ask for documentation on that. I've spent most of my life studying history, including a BA in military history, and I have never heard that. Yes, Mac did call Ike "the best clerk I ever had", and their relationship was not the most solid, but from my military experience (as an Army officer), if an officer of Mac's rank and stature fired another senior officer (defined here as Lieutenant colonel or above) for being an "idiot", I doubt very much that the officer in question would have risen any higher than his current rank.

Ike might not have been a genius, but he was not stupid, despite your claims.

As for your claims of intentional starvation, well I think that ones already been trashed.


Whose truth is the most truthful?
Red Cross sais "NO EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE" -- must be yummy for the holocaust deniers.
- - - - - - - - - -
There is one survey of the Jewish question in Europe during World War Two and the conditions of Germany's concentration camps , the three-volume Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on its Activities during the Second World War, Geneva, 1948. This comprehensive account from a supposed neutral source incorporated and expanded the findings of two works: Documents sur I'activité du CICR en faveur des civils detenus dans les camps de concentration en Allemagne 1939- 1945 (Geneva, 1946), and Inter Arma Caritas: the Work of the ICRC during the Second World War (Geneva, 1947). The team of authors, headed by Frédéric Siordet, explained in the opening pages of the Report that their object, in the tradition of the Red Cross, had been strict political neutrality , and herein lies its great value. The ICRC successfully applied the 1929 Geneva military convention in order to gain access to civilian internees held in Central and Western Europe by the Germany authorities. By contrast, the ICRC was unable to gain any access to the Soviet Union, which had failed to ratify the Convention. The millions of civilian and military internees held in the USSR, whose conditions were known to be by far the worst, were completely cut off from any international contact or supervision. The Red Cross Report is of value in that it first clarifies the legitimate circumstances under which Jews were detained in concentration camps, i.e. as enemy aliens. In describing the two categories. of civilian internees, the Report distinguishes the second type as "Civilians deported on administrative grounds (in German, "Schutzhäftlinge"), who were arrested for political or racial motives because their presence was considered a danger to the State or the occupation forces" (Vol. 111, p. 73). These persons, it continues, "were placed on the same footing as persons arrested or imprisoned under common law for security reasons." (P.74). The Report admits that the Germans were at first reluctant to permit supervision by the Red Cross of people detained on grounds relating to security, but by the latter part of 1942, the ICRC obtained important concessions from Germany. They were permitted to distribute food parcels to major concentration camps in Germany from August 1942, and "from February 1943 onwards this concession was extended to all other camps and prisons" (Vol. 111, p. 78). The ICRC soon established contact with camp commandants and launched a food relief programme which continued to function until the last months of 1945, letters of thanks for which came pouring in from Jewish internees.

The Report states that "As many as 9,000 parcels were packed daily. From the autumn of 1943 until May 1945, about 1,112,000 parcels with a total weight of 4,500 tons were sent off to the concentration camps" (Vol. III, p. 80). In addition to food, these contained clothing and pharmaceutical supplies. "Parcels were sent to Dachau, Buchenwald, Sangerhausen, Sachsenhausen, Oranienburg, Flossenburg, Landsberg-am-Lech, Flöha, Ravensbrück, Hamburg-Neuengamme, Mauthausen, Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, to camps near Vienna and in Central and Southern Germany. The principal recipients were Belgians, Dutch, French, Greeks, Italians, Norwegians, Poles and stateless Jews" (Vol. III, p. 83). In the course of the war, "The Committee was in a position to transfer and distribute in the form of relief supplies over twenty million Swiss francs collected by Jewish welfare organisations throughout the world, in particular by the American Joint Distribution Committee of New York" (Vol. I, p. 644). This latter organisation was permitted by the German Government to maintain offices in Berlin until the American entry into the war. The ICRC complained that obstruction of their vast relief operation for Jewish internees came not from the Germans but from the tight Allied blockade of Europe. Most of their purchases of relief food were made in Rumania, Hungary and Slovakia. The ICRC had special praise for the liberal conditions which prevailed at Theresienstadt up to the time of their last visits there in April 1945. This camp, "where there were about 40,000 Jews deported from various countries was a relatively privileged ghetto" (Vol. III, p. 75). According to the Report, "'The Committee's delegates were able to visit the camp at Theresienstadt (Terezin) which was used exclusively for Jews and was governed by special conditions. From information gathered by the Committee, this camp had been started as an experiment by certain leaders of the Reich . . . These men wished to give the Jews the means of setting up a communal life in a town under their own administration and possessing almost complete autonomy. . . two delegates were able to visit the camp on April 6th, 1945. They confirmed the favourable impression gained on the first visit" (Vol. I, p . 642). The ICRC also had praise for the regime of Ion Antonescu of Fascist Rumania where the Committee was able to extend special relief to 183,000 Rumanian Jews until the time of the Soviet occupation. The aid then ceased, and the ICRC complained bitterly that it never succeeded "in sending anything whatsoever to Russia" (Vol. II, p. 62). The same situation applied to many of the German camps after their "liberation" by the Russians. The ICRC received a voluminous flow of mail from Auschwitz until the period of the Soviet occupation, when many of the internees were evacuated westward. But the efforts of the Red Cross to send relief to internees remaining at Auschwitz under Soviet control were futile. However, food parcels continued to be sent to former Auschwitz inmates transferred west to such camps as Buchenwald and Oranienburg.

One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps towards the end of the war. Says the Report: "In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims. Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1st, 1945 . . . In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp . . ." (Vol. III, p. 83). Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able. The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested on March 15th, 1944 against "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies" (Inter Arma Caritas, p. 78). By October 2nd, 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable. In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis- occupied Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber. It admits that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend. Like the Vatican representatives with whom they worked, the Red Cross found itself unable to indulge in the irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the order of the day. So far as the genuine mortality rate is concerned, the Report points out that most of the Jewish doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front, so that they were unavailable when the typhus epidemics of 1945 broke out in the camps (Vol. I, p. 204 ff)- Incidentally, it is frequently claimed that mass executions were carried out in gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities. Again the Report makes nonsense of this allegation. "Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged" (Vol.III, p. 594).


Rheinwiesenlager = 10 different camps.
Death toll: minimum 8.000 -- maximum 40.000.

Mission Impossible said...

jason_pappas ... thanks for that contribution. I will admit I have not yet had time to research the accuracy of Bacques work, but there is no smoke without fire, right? And in fact you have just helped to confirm that gross mistreatment of German prisoners did take place, whilst they were under the supposed protection of American forces.

As for there being no cover up, well I have lived most of my life thinking the Allied forces were only a force for good, and we did no harm to Germany and Germans after cessation of hostilities. Clearly, there is something contradicting that belief.

I will certainly look up R. J. Rummel at some future time, and see what he has to say. Thanks.

That still leaves us with a few other questions, such as the stolen European Works of Art turning up in the United States (New York I think) and the misguided trade of substantial areas of liberated European territory with Stalin just so we Allies could be given in return, one half of Berlin. I don't think the Czechs (and others) who we liberated but then placed into the Communist Block will forget that deal in a hurry.

Furthermore, it is also commonly accepted that the Nuremburg Trials were not trials at all, but rather Inquisitions with the accused not understanding the wilder charges being made against them. They were essentially rushed 'show trials.' That isn't to say the most of the death sentences were not deserved, but we shall never know, because they were not conducted according to normal western standards. Due process did not occur.


gun-totin-wacko ... I don't claim Eisenhower was stupid; I never met the man. I was relating what others are reported/recorded to have said or felt about him. Perhaps you should broaden your reading matter? No, he certainly wasn't a genius was he? He became US President and deliberately stuffed the British and French in 1956, thus puffing up Arab Nationalism which is why we have, indirectly, to contend with Al-Qaeda today. Come to think of it, maybe that decision could be classified as rank stupidity. Logical?

You are correct. MacArthur didn't 'fire' Eisenhower. He contacted Washington and demanded 'Ike' be posted elsewhere. Seems you know a lot less about Eisenhower and MacArthur than you think you do.

What is being a "bit over the top?" Am I 10% over, 25% over? Is it the way I say it that's getting right up your nose? As you are an ex-Military man (I salute your service to your country) maybe I am just displaying some insubordination IYHO?

Which is not to accuse you of anti-semitism. That's just a comment that used to be made by anti-semites, to "prove" they weren't. And liking a Jewish entertainer is one small step above it.

Frankly, I think you've written that nonsense just to provoke a response. It's a load of b*ll*cks. Will that do? << ... >> Hey, you forget to mention my favourite comedians, who I told you were also Jewish. Then there is another bunch of names I could mention, but that would be grovelling, right? I treat accusations of anti-Semitism with the same contempt I show for accusations of racism or sexism: they are all ad-hominem attacks designed to close down debate.

What is it about you Americans and Jews anyway? Criticise America and you are automatically anti-American ... if you are anti-American then you must also be anti-Semitic. You can be a pathetically touchy lot sometimes. Anyway, you'll be part of Mexico in another 30 years.

Brief reminder wacko. It was we British who gave the Jews the land of Israel and it was a British officer who first taught the early settlers (pre WW2) how to defend themselves. If you want to keep paying for Israel, that's your problem. In which case, why sell modern military equipment (recently announced) to your goon buddies in neighbouring Saudi Arabia?

As for your claims of intentional starvation, well I think that ones already been trashed

At the instant (time) of your posting, they hadn't been 'trashed' at all. But, I shall await and welcome clarification from any other contributor if it is made available. That is presumably why we spend time posting on blogs such as this: to teach, or to learn from others.

Mission Impossible said...

In ... crikes, you've been working hard! Where the heck did you find that stuff on the Red Cross reports?

As for your follow-up on Rheinwiesenlager, Wikipedia is an amazingly good and useful source but as you know, it is "open source" and you can never really be sure about Wiki info on politically sensitive issues until the entry has been fully vetted, cross-checked, and correlated with some other source.

Another point of interest. FDR's many Jewish-American advisors wanted the USAF and/or RAF to bomb Auschwitz Camp during the closing months of the war. Thankfully, wiser heads prevailed. It was feared that if they did so, the world would think the Allies had gone to War only to "save the Jews."

You can read more on this very topic by consulting the Encyclopaedia Britannica, under 'Auschwitz.'


More lies? There is a lot to read about Auschwitz!

Some new facts about Auschwitz are at last beginning to make a tentative appearance. They are contained in a recent work called Die Auschwitz-Lüge: Ein Erlebnisbericht von Theis Christopherson (The Auschwitz Legends: An Account of his Experiences by Thies Christopherson, Kritik Verlag/Mohrkirch, 1973). Published by the German lawyer Dr. Manfred Roeder in the periodical Deutsche Bürger-Iniative, it is an eye-witness account of Auschwitz by Thies Christopherson, who was sent to the Bunawerk plant laboratories at Auschwitz to research into the production of synthetic rubber for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute.

In May 1973, not long after the appearance of this account, the veteran Jewish "Nazi-hunter" Simon Wiesenthal wrote to the Frankfurt Chamber of Lawyers, demanding that the publisher and author of the Forward, Dr. Roeder, a member of the Chamber, should be brought before its disciplinary commission. Sure enough, proceedings began in July, but not without harsh criticism even from the Press, who asked "Is Simon Wiesenthal the new Gauleiter of Germany?" (Deutsche Wochenzeitung, July 27th, 1973).

Christopherson's account is certainly one of the most important documents for a re-appraisal of Auschwitz. He spent the whole of 1944 there, during which time he visited all of the separate camps comprising the large Auschwitz complex, including Auschwitz-Birkenau where it is alleged that wholesale massacres of Jews took place. Christopherson, however, is in no doubt that this is totally untrue. He writes: "I was in Auschwitz from January 1944 until December 1944. After the war I heard about the mass murders which were supposedly perpetrated by the S.S. against the Jewish prisoners, and I was perfectly astonished. Despite all the evidence of witnesses, all the newspaper reports and radio broadcasts I still do not believe today in these horrible deeds. I have said this many times and in many places, but to no purpose. One is never believed" (p. 16). Space forbids a detailed summary here of the author's experiences at Auschwitz, which include facts about camp routine and the daily life of prisoners totally at variance with the allegations of propaganda (pp. 22-7). More important are his revelations about the supposed existence of an extermination camp. "During the whole of my time at Auschwitz, l never observed the slightest evidence of mass gassings. Moreover, the odour of burning flesh that is often said to have hung over the camp is a downright falsehood. In the vicinity of the main camp (Auschwitz I) was a large farrier's works, from which the smell of molten iron was naturally not pleasant" (p. 33-4). Reitlinger confirms that there were five blast furnaces and five collieries at Auschwitz, which together with the Bunawerk factories comprised Auschwitz III (ibid. p. 452). The author agrees that a crematorium would certainly have existed at Auschwitz, "since 200,000 people lived there, and in every city with 200,000 inhabitants there would be a crematorium. Naturally people died there - but not only prisoners. In fact the wife of Obersturmbannführer A. (Christopherson's superior) also died there" (p. 33). The author explains: "There were no secrets at Auschwitz. In September 1944 a commission of the International Red Cross came to the camp for an inspection. They were particularly interested in the camp at Birkenau, though we also had many inspections at Raisko" (Bunawerk section, p. 35). Christopherson points out that the constant visits to Auschwitz by outsiders cannot be reconciled with allegations of mass extermination. When describing the visit of his wife to the camp in May, he observes: "The fact that it was possible to receive visits from our relatives at any time demonstrates the openness of the camp administration. Had Auschwitz been a great extermination camp, we would certainly not have been able to receive such visits" (p. 27). After the war, Christopherson came to hear of the alleged existence of a building with gigantic chimneys in the vicinity of the main camp. "This was supposed to be the crematorium. However, I must record the fact that when I left the camp at Auschwitz in December 1944, I had not seen this building there" (p. 37). Does this mysterious building exist today? Apparently not; Reitlinger claims it was demolished and "completely burnt out in full view of the camp" in October, though Christopherson never saw this public demolition. Although it is said to have taken place "in full view of the camp", it was allegedly seen by only one Jewish witness, a certain Dr. Bendel, and his is the only testimony to the occurrence (Reitlinger, ibid, p. 457). This situation is generally typical. When it comes down to hard evidence, it is strangely elusive; the building was "demolished", the document is "lost", the order was "verbal".

At Auschwitz today, visitors are shown a small furnace and here they are told that millions of people were exterminated. The Soviet State Commission which "investigated" the camp announced on May 12th, 1945, that "Using rectified coefficients . . . the technical expert commission has ascertained that during the time that the Auschwitz camp existed, the German butchers exterminated in this camp not less than four million citizens . . ." Reitlinger's surprisingly frank comment on this is perfectly adequate: "The world has grown mistrustful of 'rectified coefficients' and the figure of four millions has become ridiculous" (ibid, p. 460).

Finally, the account of Mr. Christopherson draws attention to a very curious circumstance. The only defendant who did not appear at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial in 1963 was Richard Baer, the successor of Rudolf Hoess as commandant of Auschwitz. Though in perfect health, he died suddenly in prison before the trial had begun, "in a highly mysterious way" according to the newspaper; Deutsche Wochenzeitung (July 27th, 1973). Baer's sudden demise before giving evidence is especially strange, since the Paris newspaper Rivarol recorded his insistence that "during the whole time in which he governed Auschwitz, he never saw any gas chambers nor believed that such things existed," and from this statement nothing would dissuade him.

In short, the Christopherson account adds to a mounting collection of evidence demonstrating that the giant industrial complex of Auschwitz (comprising thirty separate installations and divided by the main Vienna-Cracow railway line) was nothing but a vast war production centre, which, while admittedly employing the compulsory labour of detainees, was certainly not a place of "mass extermination".

History Snark said...


You miss my point. What I said was that making a claim that you like Jewish entertainers proves nothing. It doesn't make someone any less anti-semitic, and it is a cliche within the US (or was some years back) that "some of my best friends are Jewish/black/whatever" was a way of denying racism without actually denying it.

I like Motown music and '70s funk. Does that "prove" that I like blacks? Or does it merely suggest that I think "those people" make good music? If I make racist statements, will my love of the 4 Tops get me a pass?

That's all I meant there.

As for my statements being intended to provoke a response, well right back at you buddy.

Do I know everything there is to know about Ike and MacArthur? Of course not. All I said was that I have never read anywhere that Ike called him an "idiot". There's no question that they had a falling-out, but prior to that they were, according to some of what I read, fairly close. MacArthur was, to say the least, a very difficult person to get along with, and was not exactly loved by his peers. On the one hand, if he requested- or demanded- someone be transferred, that could be done "without prejudice" as they say. But you state-incorrectly- that he was thrown out of the Asian theater of war. When the Asian war broke out, as I recall, Ike was working in Washington- head of war plans, as I recall.

And Monty didn't like Ike? Well I guess that ought to condemn him to the dustbin of history, no? Along with everyone else that Monty looked down on, which at last count was everyone NOT named Bernard Law Montgomery.

Finally, I quote here the last paragraph from the post *prior* to my last. This is merely to address your comment that your claims of Ike starving Germans had not been addressed:

"From the scholar of 20th century democide that I most respect, R. J. Rummel:

"Basque's statistics, arguments, and documentation were subjected to careful and detailed study by a conference of historians (including Germans) ... Basque misread, misinterpreted, or ignored the relevant documents and that his mortality statistics are simply impossible. However, the papers do show that some of the camps, particularly the transit camps that became known as the Rheinwiesenlager,7 were initially lethal, with thousands of German POWs dying, and that these deaths were the responsibility of the American government. While the final toll of the American transit camps was far from that alleged by Bacque, it still could have reached 56,000 dead ..."

8/10/2007 9:58 AM "

Since most of the commenters here who are aware of the author Jason cited think extremely highly of him, that would seem to be a strong argument against your point. Perhaps "trashed" was too strong a word, but the basic point is that it was dealt a very strong blow.

It's been interesting debating someone who knows everything about the War and all the primary persons and events. When can we expect your great book on the Truth behind everything?


@ mission impossible,

I assumed the German WIKI-version being a bit more truthful, but...
James Bacque writes: of all my books Wikipedia reviews and criticizes only 'Other Losses', and in such a biassed way, that I finally tried to correct their many errors. Starting in March, 2006, I tried repeatedly over many weeks to correct the errors, but found that within a day at first, then within hours, and finally within minutes, some Wikipedian editor had expunged my corrections, replacing them with ever more hostile and denigrating allegations. Friends of mine tried also to correct the flawed Wikipedia article, but found the same situation. Finally we decided that Wikipedia was deliberately censoring my contributions, and that it was pointless to continue trying to present the facts on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia quotes Stephen E. Ambrose as saying that 'Other Losses' is "... spectacularly flawed ..." without saying that Ambrose also wrote that "You have made a major historical discovery which will ... span the oceans and have reverberations for decades, yea centuries to come. You have the goods on these guys ..."

Wikipedia does not say that Ambrose changed his mind only after he was retained by the US Army to lecture at the War College in Pennsylvania. Nor does Wikipedia mention that in his attack on me in the New York Times, he admitted that he had not done the necessary research to reach the conclusions that he published in that same article. Wikipedia fails to mention that the Ambrose it cites as an authority admitted that he had plagiarized several other authors. Wikipedia does not concern itself with the accusations that Ambrose stole work from a graduate student which he published as his own.

Wikipedia ignores my book, 'Crimes and Mercies', which goes far towards balancing the record of western actions after World War Two. The book shows the great charity extended by the western allies, chiefly Canada and the USA, towards the starving around the world after WW2, including the Japanese and Germans. Saying that the overwhelming majority of professional historians reject my work, and citing as an authority one historian who has never worked in this field, Wikipedia ignores the support given me by the eminent US Army military historian Col. Dr. Ernest F. Fisher, a former Senior Historian of the US Army Center for Military History, Washington. Fisher, a professional historian for decades, wrote the official US Army history of the campaign in Italy. He assisted me for months in researching documents in the US National Archives, wrote the Introduction to my book Other Losses, and has supported me with public statements for the seventeen years since its first publication. He helped me for many months researching in the archives.

Wikipedia does not mention the expert editing, research help and public support given me by the eminent epidemiologist and biostatistician, Dr Anthony B. Miller, former head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of Toronto.

Wikipedia also casts aside the support given my work by Richard Overy, King's College, University of London; Otto Kimminich, University of Regensburg; Dr Alfred De Zayas, author of many books on postwar German history; Prof. Dr. Peter Hoffmann, McGill University, author of the most expert books on the German resistance; Prof. J. K. Johnson, Carleton University, Ottawa; Professor Ralph Raico, University of Buffalo; Prof. Ed Peterson, University of Wisconsin; Prof Ralph Scott, University of Iowa; Prof. Pierre Van Den Berghe, University of Seattle; Prof. Dr Richard Mueller, former head, Department of English, University of Aachen; Prof. Hans Koch, University of York and many others.

Among writers who have approved my work and supported me are Julian Barnes; Nikolai Tolstoy; John Fraser, Master of Massey College, Toronto; John Bemrose of Toronto; Robert Kroetsch, Winnipeg; and many others. My work has been published around in the world in ten languages by Macmillan, Little, Brown, Prima, Ullstein, Editions Sand, McClelland and Stewart, New Press, and many many others.

Finally, the most glaring omission is that the massive and detailed KGB Archives in Moscow have millions of documents whose evidence completely confirms the statistical work in Other Losses. The math is simple: about 1.5 million German prisoners alive in allied prison camps at the end of the war never came home, nor were their deaths reported to the German government, their families, the International Red Cross or the UN. The figure was determined by the Adenauer government in Germany, submitted to the UN, and has never been disputed by anyone. Thus when 'Other Losses' came out in 1989, alleging deaths of about one million in French and American camps, that left about 500,000 to be accounted for. They could have died only in the KGB camps, because there were not half a million prisoners in any other camps in the world. Thus, in effect Other Losses was predicting that when the communists opened the KGB archives, they would show deaths of about 500,000. And lo and behold, when Gorbachev brought down the communist rule, and the archives were opened, I went there, and found the Bulanov Report which showed that 356,687 Germans died in Soviet captivity, plus another 93,900 civilians taken as substitutes for dead or escaped prisoners for a total of 450,587.

This astonishing discovery is not mentioned in Wikipedia, nor by any other of the "professional historians." Except one, Stefan Karner, who went to the KGB archives, saw the evidence piled up in enormous quantities, and said he did not believe it. Instead, he preferred to publish his own "estimates," which confirm the conventional view.

Simon de Montfort said...

"Mission Impossible", Ike served in the Philippines for several years in the late 30s as MacArthur's Chief of Staff. He got his first star as the XO of an infantry division ( I think is was the 4th I.D. at Fort Polk in La. His work there caught the eye of the Great Talent-Spotter, George Marshall, and Ike was brought to D.C. as Marshall's protoge'

That is why he was jumped over dozens of more senior generals: Marshall and FDR--and then Chruchill--liked him

Ike said he "studied drama" under MacArthur--and MacArthur thought that EVERYONE was incompetent, except for maybe Walton Walker.

And as for you, you are nuts...

Mission Impossible said...

In ... good work man! Although, I fear it might be too much of a stretch for some angry people posting here to digest and understand.

gun-totin-wacko ... I didn't miss your point at all, my old son. It came across loud and clear. You are employing PeeCee and dishonesty in an attempt to frame someone. Basically, you are are employing disingenuousness in an attempt to silence someone who has rattled your cage.

As Fjordman once accurately asserted in a well-received article ... Political Correctness is American Communism.

All I said was that I have never read anywhere that Ike called him an "idiot"

What are you talking about now? First you waffle on about MacCarthur never calling Ike an idiot; now you are into phase two of your campaign where you insist Ike never called MacCarthur an idiot! I'll leave you to finish this augument with yourself, LOL. Why would anyone bother to debate with you when you keep trying to face both ways at once?

Wacko ... Your reputation for sarcasm and passing cynical judgement on other contributors, both here at GoV and also over at FPM (if I recall correctly) is well known. You contribute little that is original or of lasting worth. You keep looking for war zones to feed your fragile ego. I keep probing for truth by playing devil's advocate. There lies our fundamental difference.

Mmmm ... so you like Motown but hate blacks, eh? You must be a closet racist then.

simon de montfort ... I see you have chosen to hide your Blogging profile, despite christening yourself with a poncy name. Scared of giving something away? I don't like paranoid, anonymous, and secretive people, because of the trouble they cause society. Hey, learn this ... many people thought Einstein was nuts ... Newton too. But you know, you're right; I must be nuts taking the time to reply to your flattering comment!

Ike served in the Philippines during the late 1930s did he? You don't say? Doing what? Drinking San Miguel Beer and feeling up the hot Filipinas in the narrow streets of Makati? Woohah, this is interesting ... according to your timetable, Eisenhower must have presided over, or contributed to, the loss of the Phils to the Japanese invaders then.

Here is a short summary of Eisenhower by some 'other' person, as part of a short intro to Ike's memoirs:

In reality Eisenhower was a second rate soldier, he was handpicked by Bernard Baruch, who surrounded him with competent officers. He was behind the firebombing of Dresden, and Hamburg, and allowed the strafing of civilians.

There is also the massacre of surrendered Germans at Dachau, the responsibility for which goes right back to Eisenhower's quality of "leadership" of US troops.

Here is another clarification:

During World War II when Col. Eisenhower was working for Gen. Douglas McArthur in the South Pacific, McArthur protested to his superiors in Washington (DC) that Eisenhower was incompetent and that he did not want Eisenhower on his staff. In 1943, Washington not only transferred Col. Eisenhower to Europe but promoted him over more than 30 more experienced senior officers to five star general and placed him in charge of all the US forces in Europe.

Montgomery's dislike of Eisenhower is fully justified. The position of Supreme Commander of Allied Forces should have gone to Montgomery, as the British had been in the war since 1939, and Europe was our territory. But, Roosevelt (and Washington DC) were determined to enforce their masterplan to build a new world in accordance with their utopian visions. This is why the U.S.A. (and the White Race) has been in decline ever since.

N.B. Whilst a young trainee, the entry for 'Dwight David Eisenhower' in the West Point Yearbook is far from flattering also.

Here are some quotations by Ike:

Do not needlessly endanger your lives until I give you the signal.

Don't think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed.

How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?


P.S. Field Marshall Montgomery was one the finest military leaders of modern times. The British 8th Army, under his command, inflicted the first military defeat on German forces during World War II. To do that, he out-foxed and out-manouvred even Germany's finest General: Field Marshall Erwin Rommel; eventually driving well-trained and well-equipped German forces right out of North Africa. All this was achieved before one bubble-gum was spat out on African or European soil by any American soldier. He also presided over an excellent performance by British forces on D-Day. But, the general public never learns about this because Hollywood (and thus the world) thinks America won the War single-handed. The History Channel (Satellite channel) chucks out this kind of propaganda to the world every week of the year.

I shall await your abusive responses. Tantrum anybody?

Anonymous said...

Conservative Swede

Whenever I read a comment of yours I always find myself in total agreement with the way you see things. I think you where a little hard on the Baron though. But had he been a Scandinavian, your judgement would have been exactly right. Americans have been suffering from political correctness for a very long time, and its has infected everything in a way we cant imagine, only experience. Sweden might be a a PC hell hole, but you still haven't felt the longtime effects that Americans live with.

So I would sugest that you keep on posting even if you feel like giving up. I would very much miss your posts if you didn't post them.

Your voice have been unique. I have never seen anyone like you who understood how most of the things American conservatives blame Europe for are in fact imports from America. You are one of the very few who see things clearly and can can also explain it in an understandable way.

I am sorry we have all disappointed you. The Baron and Denmark and all of us. Personally I also feel disappointed by this world. It seems clear that no one is going to save us.

I would newer ask you not to give up. But please don't give up posting.

Giving up on things might even give us a new perspective.

If the final showdown where to happen at some Svensk Ødegård, I would be most honored to go down by your side.

Go ahead and give up, but please don't shut up.

Simon de Montfort said...

"Poncy", eh? de Montfort was a lot of things, but not a ponce.

But then, you have no idea of who and what he was, do you?

Your facts are wrong on Ike: He left the Philippines two years or so before America entered WWII.

as for tantrums, I pointed out that in my opinion you are disturbed, and you quality for the American slang term 'nuts'

being nuts is not a problem; being an anti-Semite is.

Good luck with your study of history

Mission Impossible said...

Simon de whatever-'is-name ... thank you for your most civil and erudite response.

Yes, the Japanese commenced their invasion of the Philippines in December 1941. Eisenhower left the islands in 1939 (certainly before mid-1940). So, I guess he wasn't there to clash swords with the Samurai, eh? Didn't take much to work out did it? Can't you see when you are being wound up?

But, my out-of-the-box point was, if Eisenhower (being as he was such a brilliant military chap) had spent two or more years in the Philippines, he didn't do much to bolster the islands' or the American defences did he. After all, he had been trained at West Point and the Japanese had been rattling their sabres from the mid-1930s. You missed that observation because essentially you are too dim.

As for tantrums, eh, what did you say? Ah, don't bother. Those readers that matter will be able to judge for themselves who they'd rather take note of. Many of the best read and don't post.

anti-Semite? Boo-hoo, here we go again. Insults in the playground. You pathetic little worm. Go spin somewhere and grow up.


Did not someone mean that the phenomenon "politically correct" and the practice of it had US origin? Somewhere I have an essay showing just that -- but unfortunately I can't find it just now! Perhaps the following can fit instead or be of interest?
On Wed, 21 Sep 1994, I posted the following query:

In vol. 5.1022 Rex A. Sprouse wrote
In terms of the politics of the discussion [of the term
"informant"], I think that in the United States we have seen a
kind of Orwellian development with the use of the term
"politically correct" as a PEJORATIVE term.
Based on dim personal recollections, my sense of the latter term
is that "politically correct" first surfaced in English in Maoist
literature. There it was used with a straight face, since
correctness was viewed as being, like everything else, subject to
constant definition and redefinition by the Party.
I recall feeling that this world-view implicit in the phrase was so
contradictory to democratic ideals that only a person who accepted
political authority over truth could possibly use it without
ironic intent.
Does anyone have any more concrete data on the history of this
politically loaded expression?

I received replies from eight people; I reproduce them below.
* * * * *
[go to:]
* * * * *
I apologize for the long delay in publishing these.

Mark A. Mandel
Dragon Systems, Inc. : speech recognition : +1 617 965-5200
320 Nevada St. : Newton, Mass. 02160, USA :
P.S.: This document was dictated with DragonDictate v2.0.

- - - - - - - - -