Discussion in 'History & Past Politicians' started by Margot2, Mar 22, 2015.
so Hitler used the AJC boycott, as an EXCUSE to murder Jews.
We may have been fed some misinformation on this. I tried to talk about this with you on another thread but you just disappeared.
I'm not saying I'm one hundred percent percent sure this is true. I just want to talk about it.
I found one big lie that Americans are taught (see first issue raised here).
If there's one big lie, there may be others.
Are you going to disappear again?
It may be that nothing would have altered the course of history.
Mark Weber runs the site, he's a member of National Alliance, a white supremist organization. The mainstrem media has more credibility than you tube vids and Holocaust Denial sites. As for your forum with the point, it's like referring to a bar room conversation and using it as factual proof.
The mainstream media are the worst place to get information. Most people who surf the internet know this. What do you think of the info on the media I posted?
Also, what do you think about the confirmed lie I pointed out in my last post? That should tell you how much we can trust mainstream info.
I just googled "National Alliance".
This is the first time I'd ever heard of the organizagion. It looks pretty narrow-minded. How can we confirm that Mark Weber is really a member? This would be quite an embarrassment for him.
I've read lots of his articles and listened to lots of his talks. I've never heard or read anything he said that would be in line with that philosophy so this is a bit strange.
The mainstream media are famous for slandering leftists and truth-seekers so there might be at least some exaggeration here. Check out this article.
Here's a bunch of info from the IHR. If you can find something here that's racist or white supremist, could you post it?
I can't see any connection with the National Alliance way of thinking.
1) Nothing would have changed since Mein Kampf was written in 1926.
2) What would have happened if Hitler didn't wrote Mein Kampf?
That is the question.
Seeing as how he published their magazine and was the treasurer for their church I imagine it is.
You mean check out his bully pulpit where he says anything he wants on his own website. Why not just post a few emails where he says 'I didn't do it.'
Here's a bunch of info from the IHR. If you can find something here that's racist or white supremist, could you post it?
Nah, let's just say actual historians from Organization of American Historians as you posted labeled him right and castrated his faux creds when they turned him down with his request to be legitimized when he mass e mailed them.
His post here is nothing more than a justification for antisemitism shows what he's all about. I sense you believe that focusing on Jews and denying the Holocaust is a mission in life for a sensible person so leave you to it. I hope you and he have a long lasting meaningless life as few people believe your perverted hatred.
I might be able to answer your question from a historic point of view.
The AJC's impact was negligible considering the German economy's exports into the US at that time. Also it tended to be the other way around. US companies saw the German market as much more important than Germans saw the Jewish customers in the US. A fine example of this were the Warner Bros. who originated from Poland and were Jewish at the time. The German market in terms of movie revenue was so important to American studios, that over the years Jewish personal was fired from Hollywood and Jewish characters changed in order to please the German propaganda office and not get censored in the German market.
If you need a more recent example of this now happening, think of the country of China not being displayed negatively in movies in the last decade anymore. This is a result of the Chinese market ranking second in the world, and Hollywood cannot afford getting censored for some random reason, so they put China into a positive light to get access to the market.
This process was true even in the 30s. Independent on how conspiracy theorists want to look at the Jewish people; their numbers are too negligible to be important on a world stage between two countries with each having multiple times the population than all the Jews on the planet.
But to get to the question you asked: It would have had little to no impact on any real policy change on the decade to come. Neither Roosevelt nor Hitler were really protecting Jewish rights, and really cared what they wanted.
This might turn out to be true but could you link to something that proves it?
It looks objective to me.
I never said the Holocaust never happened. I said that according to revisionist I've info I've checked out, it was exaggerated and distorted. Here's some of the info I've checked out.
I don't have hatred. I have curiosity and I'm objective when I look at revisionist and alternative info.
according to Neo-Nazis, the Jews destroyed Germany's economy and they were in a major Depression.
therefore there wasn't much to boycott, as their exports were very minimal.
.....but now we hear that the Jewish boycott actually brought great damage to Germany, which means they DID have lots of exports.
so which is it? was the German economy healthy or not?
Here is just a short exert from a speech made by Goebbels in 1928,
The Jew has no interest in solving Germany’s fateful questions. He cannot, indeed. He lives because they are unresolved. Were the German people to become a united community with freedom to act in the world, the Jew would have no place among us
This is five years before some Jews declared an economic boycott against Nazi Germany. I would think it is quite clear the way the Nazi's intended to treat the Jews from speeches like that. What I find fascinating is that anyone could think that Jews would not boycott an ideology like that. But we know that the Nazi idea was that Ayrans were a kind of superior race and we should all bow down to their greatness.
""The Convention program included reports by National Alliance activists, a feature film presentation, a closing banquet dinner, and seven speeches by NA staff members: Mark Weber examined the cultural crisis of our age, and discussed the right of the Alliance to speak for America. ""
""In their place, a new board of directors was appointed, including Mark Weberwho had been a leading cadre for William Pierces National Alliance in the late 1970s. ""
""Since 1995, the director of the IHR has been Mark Weber, who previously worked with the white supremacist National Alliance.""
I suppose it would to an antisemtic Holocaust Denier.
""Anti-Semitism is not a mysterious disease. As Herzl and Weizmann suggested, and as history shows, what is often called anti-Semitism is the natural and understandable attitude of people toward a minority with particularist loyalties that wields greatly disproportionate power for its own interests, rather than for the common good.""
He just wrote that antisemitism is perfectly fine and understandable. Ergo, it's ok, jump on board his hate ship.
First, you linked to a forum. You may as well link to a conversation in a noisy bar. Second, if you are arguing that any of the main historical facts are wrong (six million Jews and millions of other minorities were systematically exterminated by Nazi Germany) then you are a Holocaust Denier. If you accept that then you are not.
Sorry, I naturally thought that when you spent your time trolling around hate sites like IHR which is run by a White Supremacist that you were sort of like ..... you know .... of the same feather.
fascinating article on the very ununified reaction of the world's Jews, to the AJC/JWV boycott of Germany
So you're just going to dismiss all of this info because it's in a forum.
You have to say why the info is wrong if you want to actually make the viewers think you're point of view is the correct one.
An objective researcher has neither a naive willingness to believe, nor an a priori incredulity. You seem to have an a priori incredulity when you look at revisionist info and a naive willingness to believe when you look at the official info.
Tell us what you think of this.
You too Ronstar
I'm in a bit of a hurry now. I'll look at those links later today.
Ok. You found an article that says it's true. Does that mean it's really true? That may be a propaganda site.
I'm not saying I'm sure it's not true but there are all kinds of articles that say things are true that aren't true so just linking to an article that says it's true isn't proving that it's true. We need more than this to actually prove it.
This article says the Jewish boycott of German goods was a reaction to harassment of Jews in Germany. The alternative sites say that the Jews started it.
This is all second-hand info. I wasn't there so I'm not ruling out the idea that Germany started it but we've found at least one confirmed lie in the official story (see the top of post #1 of this thread).
This pretty much shows that we have to be cautious when we look at the official story and can't simply take what it says as proof so I guess the question is still up in the air.
Don't have to do anything. You vomited out a forum and told me there is something there. I have no idea of what you are trying to show nor where you are trying to show it so, if you wish me to do something the simple criteria for me to work with this is to make your point, then quote something to back your point up with and then provide the link so I may see the context.
Revisionists fight an uphill battle as they initially start from a position where they are loons trying to be taken seriously. Hence, if they wish to be taken seriously they first, must not have a personal stake in the matter being discussed which pretty much leaves out all of them as they have one big thing in common, they are antisemitic. Hence, anything they say about this matter is suspect.
The second problem is where they get their stuff from - it's either all made up or from other revisionist sites where the stuff was made up so, to go against established historical fact with bigoted racist made up stuff is an uphill battle.
The reply or the quote?
I think you know what I mean. You maintain that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. You're basing your opinion on second-hand info. I posted some second-hand info that says that six million Jews didn't die. Here it is.
I want your reaction to this.
Here's something else. Please comment on this second hand info too.
No Evidence Of Genocide
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 toward 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. 7Cool. 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).
There's a document that supports every version. Can we trust documents?
We shall never know how many but estimate six million and have for quite sometime with more to come I'm sure. At this time they have put names to over four and a half million of those victims.
Sure. It comes from a Neo Nazi hate site that simply regurgitates bile. What else do you need to know?
Red Cross Admits Knowing of the Holocaust During the War
The point I'm making is that second-hand info can't be used as proofespecially if it comes from an official source. How do we know the person who wrote this wasn't lying?
How do we know that Mein Kampf wasn't manipulated after the war? David Irving suspects that it was.
The only thing we have to go on that can take us to the truth is tangible physical evidence such as this.
You never commented on this from post #52.
Listen to what Hitler says in those speeches. We weren't taught that in school. I've never seen a history book or a documentary on WW2 that explained what Hitler was telling the German people.
That's a confirmed lie that the mainstream tells. Please comment on that.
Right from the Red Cross themselves says the same thing.
As for your contention I didn't address, I don't understand which part of which post is relevent to our discussion. Why not try to just explain what you are contending, post a quote as proof then provide a link to provide context as no way am I going to chase down posts from other forums.
There are a lot of books Mein Kampf, which were published in Germany until the war .
You're missing the point. Right after the war the Red Cross said this.
Much later they said this.
Your scenario isn't the only possible one. They may have bent to pressure and fabricated the later story. Documents can't be used as proof of something as the people who write documents can lie. Check out the documentaries I posted. That's physical evidence.
I'll copy and paste it.
Now will you comment on it?
Manipulated versions in English could still have been released after the war. That didn't sound to likely to me either but David Irving suspected manipulation in one of his videos. That's why I'm taking it seriously. He didn't say he was sure mind you.
I haven't read it myself. Can you find something important and link to it?
You stated in your last post this;
""The point I'm making is that second-hand info can't be used as proofespecially if it comes from an official source. How do we know the person who wrote this wasn't lying?""
I then post right from the Red Cross themselves and you attempt to refute it using a forum post in which the poster writes about a second hand account of the Red Cross report. By your own criteria your point is lost.
No. I will not waste my time chasing down every you tube video kooks tell me to. As I said earlier, make your point, quote your proof and then link to whatever it is that you used to show context. Telling me to watch an hour of video is stupid. Provide your point, type in the quote that backs up your point and then, if using a video, show at what time that quote appeared.
I'm sure some of the Hitler lovers would have said something by now but, crickets so we can surmise you are barking up the wrong tree with this one.
Then the Red Cross was lying when they provided the original report then? Why would they lie now but not lie before?
Separate names with a comma.