Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Pseudo-historians
Options
Comments
-
You really should do the decent thing and research things rather than blabbering on in ignorance. Firstly, you are evading the point about the lack of all legal foundation to allied actions in 1945 and after. Secondly, everyone recongised that Versailles was an unjust treaty imposed on the Germans. Contracts made under compulsion are not valid. Chamberlain pressurised the Czechs to concede to Hitler because the Germans had the moral right to the Sudetenland. As for Poland, same as Czechoslovakia. If you look at the borders of Germany at the beginning of 1940 they match exactly the pre-Versailles borders.robindch wrote:> Contrary to international law and all precedent.
> Perhaps you subscribe to "might makes right?"
Good heavens, where's all this sudden respect for international law coming from? Didn't Hitler ignore virtually all the treaties signed after WWI in the buildup to WWII? And didn't his armies invade Poland (a nice demonstration of his belief that 'might is right')?
Your ignorance again I'm afraid.Double standards again, I'm afraid!
You see that's the whole point. The BRD is a de facto but not a de jure state, unless you subscribe to the fallacy of might makes right, which I think you do. Similar to what is being done in Iraq at the moment with the new puppet state.> The surrender comes first, then you have a state to make peace with.
Not if you dissolve the state concerned
Its a de facto state. There is no peace treaty between the allies and Germany, there is still a technical state of war. See the Charter of the UN.> The allies created a state ...
Very good; we're getting there, slowly but surely!
> ...but never had a peace treaty with it.
Still are if you understand anything so far.Excellent! And here's the reason: because there was no state to have a peace treaty with! The two *new* states created, after the dismemberment of Germnay, never declared war upon anyone, since they were under the control of the UK, USA and USSR.
Except that you are making this up as you go along. The BRD is an allied creation and has no legitimacy beyond the ability of the allies and their German friends to maintain it. The BRD suffers from the same instrinsic flaw as the Weimar state.Now, since the new states weren't in a state of war, there wasn't really a whole lot of point in signing a peace treaty. Make sense? It's really quite easy to follow the logic!
They are not arguments ad hominem, they are expressions of my contempt for you.> You are the clueless one. [...] I doubt you have
> even the most primitive grasp of logic. [...] You
> have asked impertinent questions and have earned
> my contempt. [...] you don't seem to have any
> knowledge or respect for international law [...]
> give up slandering people [...] gross impertinence
> [...] weasely and cowardly insinuations
Er, could you tell us more about your disdain for "argumentum ad hominem"?0 -
Eriugena wrote:Its a de facto state. There is no peace treaty between the allies and Germany, there is still a technical state of war. See the Charter of the UN.
A peace treat is used to re-enter a state of peace between two countries. It is not the opposite of a state of war. Countries can be not at peace with each other but also not at war. The war between the Allies and German ended when the German army ceased all hostilities.
There is no peace treaty between the allies and the German state, because the German state did not exist after WW2 (as far as the Allies were concerned). There was no state to become peaceful with.
Firstly the German army cease hostilities between 1st May and the 7th May (in the order of the armies in Italy, Holland, Northwest Germany, Denmark and finally the U-Boats). On 7th May General Alfred Jodl signed an unconditional surrender document that said " All forces under German control to cease active operations". This ended the war. Some German officers disobeyed this order, and continued in a state of war until the end of May.
Secondly the "Germany" you describe does not exist anymore. The Dönitz government was not recongised by the Allies. You are probably going to argue that technically Dönitz was head of the German government up until his death in 1980, but it doesn't actually work like that Eriugena.0 -
> expressions of my contempt for you.
With Wicknight, I have to say that I'm none too worried about my reputation amongst the online anti-semitic and Nazi apologist communities. Even still, though, it would still be nice if you could attempt to control some of your overflowing contempt, if you're able to
In partial reference to the other thread's discussion of the value of eyewitness reports, but more for this one's discussion of the activities of the Nazis during WWII, I can recommend Martha Gellhorn's general work, as well as her more specific reporting upon the immediate aftermath of the war in the territory of the former Reich, and her thoughts upon the liberation of Dachau and elsewhere. There are short collections of extracts here and here which give a flavour of her brilliant prose, while her essay Das Deutches Volk upon her observations of Nazi denial amongst post-War Germans, ranks as one of the finest I've ever read. Collections of her essays exist in 'The Face of War' and 'The View from the Ground', both available from Granta and I've no doubt Hodges Figgis and Waterstones on Dawson Street, and I would strongly recommend them to anybody wishing to read a first-hand account of what the Germans did to people, written from the point of view of a human being.
- robin.0 -
Do you understand that a 'state of war' is a legal concept? There may or may not be armed actions during a state of war. The state of war between the allies and the German Reich is still underway.Wicknight wrote:A peace treat is used to re-enter a state of peace between two countries. It is not the opposite of a state of war. Countries can be not at peace with each other but also not at war. The war between the Allies and German ended when the German army ceased all hostilities.
Here is straight question to you: do you affirm the proposition 'might makes right?'There is no peace treaty between the allies and the German state, because the German state did not exist after WW2 (as far as the Allies were concerned). There was no state to become peaceful with.
If the answer is no then you are talking nonsense because the BRD/DDR were imposed on the Germans by force majeur.
If the answer is yes, then you are talking nonsense becasue 'might makes right' is a sophism.
Either way you are caught between a rock and hard place.
There are serious questions marks over whether or not the surrender was valid in the first place.Firstly the German army cease hostilities between 1st May and the 7th May (in the order of the armies in Italy, Holland, Northwest Germany, Denmark and finally the U-Boats). On 7th May General Alfred Jodl signed an unconditional surrender document that said " All forces under German control to cease active operations". This ended the war. Some German officers disobeyed this order, and continued in a state of war until the end of May.
Secondly, unconditional surrender has no precedent in international law and so it is not binding.
Thirdly, all contracts made under duress are invalid. This is an ancient legal principle. The duress here is that the Germans were supposed to sign away all rights including those which are inalienable. This last point is particularly important for it thereby nullifies morally the actions of the allies henceforth in respect of Germany.
Sovereignty for the German Reich resides with the college of princes as guardians pending the reconstitution and restoration of the Reich.Secondly the "Germany" you describe does not exist anymore. The Dönitz government was not recongised by the Allies. You are probably going to argue that technically Dönitz was head of the German government up until his death in 1980, but it doesn't actually work like that Eriugena.
Btw, Reich here doesnot mean Nazis.
I don't mind you arguing against the legal and moral points brought out here, but logically you can only do that by affirming the sophism of 'might makes right', you will at least be consistent.0 -
If you behave in a contemptible way then contempt is what you earn. If you behave in a respect-worthy way, then respect is what you earn. The choice is yours.robindch wrote:> expressions of my contempt for you.
With Wicknight, I have to say that I'm none too worried about my reputation amongst the online anti-semitic and Nazi apologist communities. Even still, though, it would still be nice if you could attempt to control some of your overflowing contempt, if you're able to
Do you have shares in these comapnies or why do you feel a need to give them free advertising?I've no doubt Hodges Figgis and Waterstones on Dawson Street, and I would strongly recommend them to anybody wishing to read a first-hand account of what the Germans did to people . .
LOL! As opposed to what, a Martian?. . .written from the point of view of a human being0 -
Advertisement
-
Is this thread degenerating into something other than a civilised discussion? I'm not following it in detail but this has caught my eye. Stick to the topic and keep the contempt under wraps. Thanks.Eriugena wrote:They are not arguments ad hominem, they are expressions of my contempt for you.0 -
I find it quite intolerable to be indirectly called an antsemite and a nazi through offensive and impertinent questions. That's where those comments were coming from.davros wrote:Is this thread degenerating into something other than a civilised discussion? I'm not following it in detail but this has caught my eye. Stick to the topic and keep the contempt under wraps. Thanks.0 -
So some of you call yourselves sceptics? O.k., here's your chance to show us what your made of in the sceptic's stakes.
Some of you may have seen Claude Lanzmann's seemingly endless film about the so-called holocaust, Shoah. It features many well-known eye-witnesses and has a contribution from raul Hilberg, the so-called dean of holocaust studies. His presence lends respectability to the proceedings.
This is a verbatim transcript of what to many reviewers at the time was the highlight of the whole 9 hours:the interview in the barber shop with Abraham Bomba.
Readers are invited to comment on this interview.
Pt 1 of 2From Claude Lanzmann Shoah: The Complete Text of the Acclaimed Holocaust Film.
First De Capo Press edition 1995 (revised from the first 1985 ed).
p. 17
Abraham Bomba:
There was a sign, a small sign, on the station at Treblinka. I don't know if we were at the station or if we didn't go up to the station. On the line over there where we stayed there was a sign, a very small sign, which said "Treblinka." That was the first time in my life I heard that name "Treblinka," Because nobody knew. There is not a place. It is not a city. It is not even a small village. Jewish people always dreamed, and that was part of their life, part of the messianic hope, that some day they're going to be free. That dream was mostly true in the ghetto. Every day, every single night, I dreamed about that. I think that's going to be good. Not only the dream but the hope conserved in the dream.
The first transport from Czestochowa was sent away on the day after Yom Kippur. The day before Succoth, there was a second transport . . . I was together with them. I know in my heart that something is not good, because if they take children, if they take old people, they send them away, that means it is not good. What they said is they take them away to a place where they will be working. But on the other hand, an old woman, a little child of four weeks or five years, what is work? It was a foolish thing, but still, we had no choice - we believed in them.
p. 24
We were in the wagon; the wagon was rolling in the direction east. A funny thing happened, like maybe it's not nice to say, but I will say it. Most of the people, not only the majority, but ninety-nine percent of the Polish people when they saw the train going through - we looked really like animals in that wagon, just our eyes looked outside - they were laughing, they had a joy, because they took the Jewish people away. What was going on in the wagon, the pushing and the screaming: "Where is my child?" and "Where is my this?" and "A little bit of water." And people were not only starving, they were choking - it was hot. It was just Jewish luck. In September, at that time, when it was usually raining, it is usually cool, it was hot like hell. We had nothing inside. For a child like mine, about the age of three weeks, there was not a little drop of water. Not only not water for the mother, but not for anybody else.
P. 25
We arrived in the morning about, I would say, six, six thirty. On the other side of the tracks, I saw more trains standing there. And I was watching through about eighteen, twenty, maybe more, wagons going away. And after about an hour or so I saw the wagons coming back without the people. My train stayed there until about twelve o'clock.
p. 26
We stayed there at the station waiting to go into Treblinka. Some of the German SS came around and were asking us what we have. So we said some of the people have gold, they have diamonds, but we want water. So they said "Good, give us the diamonds, we bring you water." They took the diamonds away; they didn't bring any water at all.
Lanzmann: How long did the trip last?
Bomba: The trip lasted from Czestochowa to Treblinka about twenty-four hours with interruption, waiting at Warsaw and also waiting at Treblinka to go into Treblinka camp. At (sic.) the last train we went in over there, but like I mentioned before, I saw many trains coming back but the trains were without the people. So I said to myself: "What happened to the people? We don't see any people, just trains coming back."
p. 36
When we came into Treblinka, we didn't know who the people were. Some of them had red armbands, some of them blue: Jewish commandos. Falling out from the train, pushing out each other, over there losing each other, and the crying and the hollering. And coming out, we started one to the right, one to the left, the women to the left and men on the right. And we had no time even to look at each other because they start hitting us over the head with all kinds of things and it is very, very painful, it was. You didn't know what had happened, you had not time to think. All you heard was the crying and all you heard all the time was the hollering of the people.
p. 37
At my transport I was waiting already naked. A man came over and said: "You, you, you, step out." And we stepped out, and they took us a little bit on the side. Some of the people from the transport had an idea what was going on, and they knew already that they will not stay alive. Pushing the people - they didn't want to go or they knew already where they go - toward this big door. The crying and the hollering and the shouting that was going on over there! It was impossible. The hollering and the crying was in your ears and your mind for days and days, and at night the same thing. From the howling you couldn't even sleep a couple of nights. All at once at one time everything stopped by a command. It was all quiet. The place where the people went in and just like a command, like everything was dead. Then they told us to make clean the whole place. There were about two thousand people who had undressed on the outside, to take the whole thing away and to clear up the place. And this has to be done in minutes. Some of the Germans, some of the other people that were there, the Ukrainians and other ones, they start shouting and hitting us that we should do it faster, to carry the bundles to the main place where there big piles of clothes, of shoes, of other things. And in no time this was as clean as though people had never been on that place. There was no trace, none at all, like a magic thing, everything disappeared.
p. 39
At that time we started working in the place they called Treblinka. Still I couldn't believe what had happened over there on the other side of the gate, where the people went in, everything disappeared, and everything got quiet. But in a minute we find out, when we start to ask the people who worked here before us what had happened to the others, they said: "What do you mean, what happened? Don't you know that? They're all gassed, all killed." It was impossible to say anything - we were just like stoned. We couldn't ask what had happened to the wife, to the kid. "What do you mean - wife, kid? Nobody is anymore!" How could they kill, how could they gas so many people at once? But they had a way to do it.
p. 40
That's how the day went through, without anything. Not drinking - we were twenty-four hours without water, without anything. We couldn't drink - we couldn't take anything into our mouths, because it was impossible to believe that just a minute, just an hour before, you were part of a family, you were part of a wife or a husband, and now all of a sudden everything is dead.
We went into a special barrack, where I was sleeping right next to the hallway. And over there, that night was the most horrible night for all the people, because of the memory of all those things that people went through with each other - all the joys and the happiness and the births and the weddings and other things - and all of a sudden, in one second, to cut through without anything, and without any guilt of the people, because the people weren't guilty at all. The only guilt that they had was that they were Jewish.
Most of us were up all night, trying to talk to each other, which was not allowed. The kapo that was sleeping in the same barrack . . . we were not allowed to talk to each other or to express our views or our minds to each other. And till the morning at five o'clock we start going out from the barrack. In the morning when they had the appeal to go out from the barracks, from our group I would say at least four or five were dead. I don't know how that happened – they must have had with them some kind of poison and poisoned themselves. At least two of them were my close friends. They didn't say anything. We didn't even know they had poison with them.
p. 101
Lanzmann: Abraham, can you tell me how did it happen? How were you chosen?
p. 102
Bomba: There came an order from the Germans to take out the barbers they could get - they need them for a certain job. The job they were needed for we didn't know at that time, but we gathered as many barbers as we could.
Lanzmann: How long did it happen after your arrival in Treblinka?
Bomba: This was about four weeks after I was in Treblinka.
Lanzmann: When was it, in the morning?
Bomba: Yes, it was in the morning, around ten o'clock, when a transport came to Treblinka and the women went into the gas chambers. They chose some people from the working people over there, and they asked who was a barber, who was not a barber. I was a barber for quite a number of years, and some of them knew me - people from Czestochowa and other places. So naturally, they chose me and I selected some more barbers who I knew, and we got together.
Lanzmann: Professional barbers?.
continued below0 -
Continued from above.
Pt. 2 of 2.Bomba: Yes. We got together and were waiting for the order. And the order came to go with them, with the Germans. They took us in to the gas chamber, to the second part of the camp in Treblinka.
Lanzmann: Was it far from the first part?
Bomba: No, not too far, but it was all covered with gates, barbed wire and trees covering the gates so that nobody could see there is a gate, or a place going into the gas chamber.
Lanzmann: Is that what the Germans call the Schlauch - the "funnel"?
Bomba: No, the Germans called this the "Road to Heaven."
p.103
Lanzmann: Himmelweg?
Bomba: Yes, Himmelweg: the "Road to Heaven." And we knew about it because we worked for quite a time before going to work in the gas chamber. Going in over there, they put in some benches where the women could sit and not get the idea that this is their last way or the last time they are going to live or breathe or know what is going on.
Lanzmann: How long did the barbers cut the hair inside the gas chamber, as that was not always the case?
Bomba: We worked inside the gas chamber for about a week or ten days. After that they decided that we will cut their hair in the undressing barracks.
Lanzmann: How did it look, the gas chamber?
Bomba: It was not a big room, around twelve feet by twelve. But in that room they pushed a lot of women, almost one on top of another. But like I mentioned before, when we came in, we didn't know what we were going to do. And then one of the kapos came in and said: "Barbers, you have to do a job to make all those women coming in believe that they are just taking a haircut and going in to take a shower, and from there they go out from this place." We know already that there is no way of going out from this room, because this room was the last place they went in alive, and they will never go out alive again.
Lanzmann: Can you describe precisely?
Bomba: Describe precisely . . . We were waiting there until the transport came in. Women with children pushed in to take that place. We the barbers started to cut their hair, and some of them - I
p.104
would say all of them knew already what was going to happen to them. We tried to do the best we could -
Lanzmann: No, no, no. . .
Bomba: - the most human we could.
Lanzmann: Excuse me. How did it happen when the women came into the gas chamber? Were you yourself already in the gas chamber, or did you come afterwards?
Bomba: I said we were already in the gas chamber, waiting over there for the transport to come in.
Lanzmann: You were inside?
Bomba: Yes, inside the gas chamber - we were already in.
Lanzmann: And suddenly you saw the women coming?
Bomba: Yes, they came in.
Lanzmann: How were they?
Bomba: They were undressed, naked, without clothes, without anything else.
Lanzmann: Completely naked?
Bomba: Completely naked. All the women and all the children.
Lanzmann: The children too?
Bomba: The children too. Because they came from the undressing barrack - the barrack before going into the gas chamber - and where they had undressed themselves.
p.105
Lanzmann: What did you feel the first time you saw all these naked women coming?
Bomba: I felt that accordingly I got to do what they told me, to cut their hair in a way that it looked like the barber was doing his job for a woman, and I set out to give them both, to take off as much hair as I could, because they needed women's hair to be transported to Germany.
Lanzmann: That means that you didn't shave them?
Bomba: No, we didn't. We just cut their hair and made them believe they were getting a nice haircut.
Lanzmann: There were no mirrors?
Bomba: No, there were no mirrors. There were just benches--not chairs, just benches--where we worked, about sixteen or seventeen barbers, and we had a lot of women in. Every haircut took about two minutes, no more than that because there were a lot of women to come in and get rid of their hair.
Lanzmann: Can you imitate how you did it?
Bomba: How we did it--cut as fast as we could. We were quite a number of us professional barbers, and the way we did it, we just did this and this and we cut this like this here and this side and this side and the hair was all finished. With big movements, naturally, because we did not waste any time.
p.106
Lanzmann: With big movements?
Bomba: With big movements, naturally, because we could not waste any time. The other party was waiting already outside to do the same thing, the same job.
Lanzmann: You said there were about sixteen barbers?
Bomba: Yes.
Lanzmann: You cut the hair of how many women in one batch?
Bomba: In one batch there was about, I would say, going into that place between sixty and seventy women in the same room at one time.
Lanzmann: And afterwards the doors of the gas chamber were closed?
Bomba: No. After we were finished with this party, another party came in, and there were about 140, 150 women. They were all already taken care of, and they told us to leave the gas chamber for a few minutes, about five minutes, when they put in the gas and choked them to death.
Lanzmann: Where did you wait?
Bomba: Outside the gas chamber and on the other side. Well, on this side the women went in and on the other side was a group of working people who took out the dead bodies - some of them were not exactly dead. They took them out, and in two minutes - in one minute - everything was clear. It was clean to take in another party of women and do the same thing they did to the first one.
Lanzmann: Tell me, these women, they had long hair?
p.107
Bomba: Most of them had long hair - some had short hair. What we had to do was chop off the hair; like I mentioned, the Germans needed the hair for their purposes.
Lanzmann: But I asked you and you didn't answer: What was your impression the first time you saw these naked women arriving with children? What did you feel?
Bomba: I tell you something. To have feeling about that . . . it was very hard to feel anything, because working there day and night between dead people, between bodies, your feeling disappeared, you were dead. You had no feeling at all. As a matter of fact, I want to tell you something that happened. At the gas chamber, when I was chosen to work there as a barber, some of the women that came in on a transport from my town of Czestochowa, I knew a lot of them. I knew them; and some of them were my close friends. And when they saw me, they started asking me, Abe this and Abe that - "What's going to happen to us?" What would you tell them? What could you tell?
A friend of mine worked as a barber - he was a good barber in my hometown - when his wife and his sister came into the gas chamber . . .
Lanzmann: Go on, Abe. You must go on. You have to.
Bomba: I can't. It's too horrible. Please.
Lanzmann: We have to do it. You know it.
Bomba: I won't be able to do it.
Lanzmann: You have to do it. I know it's very hard. I know and apologize.
p.108
Bomba: Don't make me go on please.
Lanzmann: Please. We must go on.
Bomba: I told you today it's going to be very hard. They were taking that in bags and transporting it to Germany.
Bomba: Okay, go ahead.
Lanzmann: Yes. What was his answer when his wife and sister came?
Bomba: They tried to talk to him and the husband of his sister. They could not tell them this was the last time they stay alive, because behind them was the German Nazis, SS men, and they knew that if they said a word, not only the wife and the woman, who were dead already, but also they would share the same thing with them. But in a way, they tried to do the best for them, with a second longer, a minute longer, just to hug them and kiss them, because they knew they would never see them again.0 -
Eriugena wrote:Do you understand that a 'state of war' is a legal concept? There may or may not be armed actions during a state of war. The state of war between the allies and the German Reich is still underway.
Actually we are both wrong. I looked it up and the state of war between the US, Britian, France and Germany was formally terminated in July 1950 (each country did it on a different date in that month except of course the German Reich because they didn't exist any more). As I said, no peace treat was ever entered into, because there was no legal state to make peace with. So now we know.Eriugena wrote:I don't mind you arguing against the legal and moral points brought out here, but logically you can only do that by affirming the sophism of 'might makes right', you will at least be consistent.
I am not arguing that "might makes right", I am arguing that in 1945 "might makes legally binding", considering international law in the 1940s was being written as they went along. For example the Allies had to use the often ignored and irrelivent Pact of Paris in the trial of the Nazi's because no international laws against genocide existed, technically it wasn't a crime.0 -
Advertisement
-
Eriugena wrote:They are not arguments ad hominem, they are expressions of my contempt for you.
:eek:
Priceless Post!! LMAO!!! 0 -
We certainly do not. You have not provided a source for this and you have not explained why the UN Charter still grants the allied powers the unconditonal right to take any action against the axis powers. That is, a state of war still exists.Wicknight wrote:Actually we are both wrong. I looked it up and the state of war between the US, Britian, France and Germany was formally terminated in July 1950 (each country did it on a different date in that month except of course the German Reich because they didn't exist any more). As I said, no peace treat was ever entered into, because there was no legal state to make peace with. So now we know.
Might does not make legally binding because law must be founded on right. In German this is clearer for the word for law is Recht, which also means right. Might can dress itself up i the garb of legal language and so on - pseudo-law - but it is not law, rather a simulacrum of law.I am not arguing that "might makes right", I am arguing that in 1945 "might makes legally binding",
That is not international law, that is allied diktat dressed up in legal language.considering international law in the 1940s was being written as they went along.
That's right. Not only that but one of the most ancient legal principles is that one cannot be tried under a law that did not exist at the time of the alleged crime. The only category of crime that was lawful was that of war crimes. However the mechanism for dealing with war crimes was well established. They were to be prosecuted by the nation concerned, i.e. anyone accused of war crimes should have been tried by a German court. And then what about the allied war criminals? They are hailed as heroes. They would have been more honest if they had gone with the orginal plan which was just to shoot 50,000 German officials, officers etc. Face it, Nuremberg was an unlawful affair, nothing more than a lynch mob.For example the Allies had to use the often ignored and irrelivent Pact of Paris in the trial of the Nazi's because no international laws against genocide existed, technically it wasn't a crime0 -
Eriugena wrote:We certainly do not. You have not provided a source for this and you have not explained why the UN Charter still grants the allied powers the unconditonal right to take any action against the axis powers. That is, a state of war still exists.
Sorry got dates wrong ... it was 1951
You know you can just google this stuff yourself .. it isn't hard to find.
Note the first post is from Irvings own web site, so if you don't believe me I am sure you believe him :rolleyes:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/08/DailyMail.htmlFinally, in July 1951, after six years, came the formal announcement of the end of 'the state of war with Germany'. The Army stayed on, but the Occupation was at an end.
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefId=6274It is expected that the United Kingdom will take formal action to terminate the state of war early in the week of July 9, that the United States will, at about the same time, take the preliminary steps for Congressional action, and that the French Government will issue a decree on or about July 15. It will be proposed to other Allied Governments who have not already declared the termination of the state of war, to take simultaneous action. The Governments which have already declared termination of the state of war are Pakistan and India.
4. The Department of Justice has advised that the legal state of war with Germany may be terminated through exercise of the Royal Prerogative to declare war or peace by means of a Proclamation authorized by an Order-in-Council.
http://www.german-embassy.org.ukThe Federal Republic's London representation was given diplomatic status in June 1951, and on 7 July 1951 Dr. Hans Schlange-Schöningen received the personal title of Ambassador which signified also that the state of war that had existed between Great Britain and the German Reich was officially ended0 -
You have proved my point, thank you.Wicknight wrote:Sorry got dates wrong ... it was 1951
You know you can just google this stuff yourself .. it isn't hard to find.
Note the first post is from Irvings own web site, so if you don't believe me I am sure you believe him :rolleyes:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/08/DailyMail.html
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/history/dcer/details-en.asp?intRefId=6274
The Federal Republic's London representation was given diplomatic status in June 1951, and on 7 July 1951 Dr. Hans Schlange-Schöningen received the personal title of Ambassador which signified also that the state of war that had existed between Great Britain and the German Reich was officially ended
http://www.german-embassy.org.uk
The ambassador of the BRD is not legally or morally competent to accept anything on behalf of the German Reich. Once more I direct you to the UN Charter which you continue to ignore. A state of war still exists between the allied powers and Germany.0 -
Eriugena wrote:You have proved my point, thank you.
The ambassador of the BRD is not legally or morally competent to accept anything on behalf of the German Reich. Once more I direct you to the UN Charter which you continue to ignore. A state of war still exists between the allied powers and Germany.
Umm, yes that would be important if the ambassador had to accept anything .. he doesn't. The Allies terminated the state of war. The German Reich does not have to agree to this, and more importantly the German Reich you mean didn't exisit as a state (any more than the Irish Free State still exisits inside the Commonwealth).
There is no state of war between any of the Allied nations and Germany.
The UN Charter defines Germany as an "enemy state." (53,107) It does not say that an indefinate state of war exisits, all this did was limit Germany's use of the Charter.0 -
He is accepting this announcement from the allies is he not? (accepting in the sense of receiving) Or perhaps this 'signified also' is just an interpretation - The Federal Republic's London representation was given diplomatic status in June 1951, and on 7 July 1951 Dr. Hans Schlange-Schöningen received the personal title of Ambassador which signified also that the state of war that had existed between Great Britain and the German Reich was officially ended.Wicknight wrote:Umm, yes that would be important if the ambassador had to accept anything .. he doesn't. The Allies terminated the state of war. The German Reich does not have to agree to this, and more importantly the German Reich you mean didn't exisit as a state (any more than the Irish Free State still exisits inside the Commonwealth).
Either way it makes not a whit of difference, for the UN Charter make sit illegal to take miklitary action aganst any state not sanctioned by the UNSC except the allied powers in repsect of the axis powers. INother wors there is still a state of war between these countries. The 1951 thing is for public consumption, the UN Charter is the more important factor. These things are all drawn up by lawyers who always leave little loopholes and the like so that those who make these laws or employ the best lawyers can do whatever they like.
See the UN Charter for the Nth time.There is no state of war between any of the Allied nations and Germany.
You don't seem to be able to read.The UN Charter defines Germany as an "enemy state." (53,107) It does not say that an indefinate state of war exisits, all this did was limit Germany's use of the Charter.
This is the UN Charter, the basic document of international law at the moment. This is quite clear therefore you are wrong.no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article,
It is customary under international law and practice since the middle ages, that a war is only at an end when there is a treaty between the combatants. A unilateral declaration of war being over is not valid, its merely a device designed to bedazzle the masses.
What is interesteing to note also is that from the moment of the Charter's declaration the allied powers were no longer fighting qua individual states but qua United Nations. You might like to dwell on the significance of this also.0 -
He accepted it, but he didn't have to. As I have already said (repeatable) the losing side does not have to accept a termination of state of war. What part of that do you not understand. It would be like saying the prisoner has to agree to be let out of jail, and if he doesn't he is still technically a prisoner of the state. Ridiculous :rolleyes:Eriugena wrote:He is accepting this announcement from the allies is he not? (accepting in the sense of receiving) Or perhaps this 'signified also' is just an interpretation - The Federal Republic's London representation was given diplomatic status in June 1951, and on 7 July 1951 Dr. Hans Schlange-Schöningen received the personal title of Ambassador which signified also that the state of war that had existed between Great Britain and the German Reich was officially ended.
That is actually exactly what it does, it basically says that members of the UN do not need a legal reason defined in the Charter, if they want to attack Germany. WHat is does not say is that a state of war exists between Germany and any other state. I have no idea where you are getting that bit from.Eriugena wrote:Either way it makes not a whit of difference, for the UN Charter make sit illegal to take miklitary action aganst any state not sanctioned by the UNSC except the allied powers in repsect of the axis powers.
Er, what words would those be. What it is saying is that a member of the UN does not need the legal reasons defined that it would need otherwise, if it wants to attack Germany. It is basically saying if you want to attack Germany go right ahead. It does not say that anyone actually is at war with Germany.Eriugena wrote:INother wors there is still a state of war between these countries.
You are right it is a loop hole, designed at the time to stop the rise of someone like Hitler from taking place in Germany (basically if the Allies saw that happening they could start a state of war (declare war) against Germany without having to legally justify it as they would another country.Eriugena wrote:The 1951 thing is for public consumption, the UN Charter is the more important factor. These things are all drawn up by lawyers who always leave little loopholes and the like so that those who make these laws or employ the best lawyers can do whatever they like.
What it is not is a declaration that any country is actually in a state of war with Germany.
Maybe you have a secret version of the Charter no one else has. Please point out where the charter says anyone is in a state of war with Germany.Eriugena wrote:You don't seem to be able to read.
Er, no it isn't. It is customary that a country re-opens diplomatic contact after a war with a peace treaty. That doesn't really work if the losing countries government is completely destroyed. A peace treat will end a war, but it is not the only way to end a war. That would be completely unworkable in both a legal and real world sense.Eriugena wrote:It is customary under international law and practice since the middle ages, that a war is only at an end when there is a treaty between the combatants.
Yes it is. In fact that statement is ridiculous if you think about it. A country does not need permission from the opposition country to with draw from the status of being in a state of war. "Please Germany, can we stop being at war with you. Please, we will be really nice to you ... ah please... let us"Eriugena wrote:A unilateral declaration of war being over is not valid
Do you even understand what a "state of war" declaration means? It is a legal definition of the state of the country. If a country terminates its status as being in a "state of war" they do not need permission from the other side. Like I said a prision does not need permission from a prisioner to release him. Likewise a country does not need agreement or permission from the other country to terminate its status as being in a "state of war"0 -
Wicknight wrote:
Ist coming from your little strawman workshop. Its very simple. The allied powers are still in a state of war against Germany. Imposing the BRD is part of that war, the UN Charter is another.That is actually exactly what it does, it basically says that members of the UN do not need a legal reason defined in the Charter, if they want to attack Germany. WHat is does not say is that a state of war exists between Germany and any other state. I have no idea where you are getting that bit from.
That is a state of war, ding dong.Er, what words would those be. What it is saying is that a member of the UN does not need the legal reasons defined that it would need otherwise, if it wants to attack Germany. It is basically saying if you want to attack Germany go right ahead. It does not say that anyone actually is at war with Germany.
Tehy don;t need to decalre anything they could just bomb them. Why? Because a state of war still exists betwen the allied powers and the German Reich. The BRD is an allied-imposed state used to keep Germany down.You are right it is a loop hole, designed at the time to stop the rise of someone like Hitler from taking place in Germany (basically if the Allies saw that happening they could start a state of war (declare war) against Germany without having to legally justify it as they would another country.
That is not necessary.What it is not is a declaration that any country is actually in a state of war with Germany.
The articles Iposted here describe an ongoing state of hostilities. Such hostilities do not have to take the form of military action - an aliied-imposed state, military occupation and repressive laws in that state do the job. Military force can and will be used if the Germans ever decide to excercise real sovereignty.Maybe you have a secret version of the Charter no one else has. Please point out where the charter says anyone is in a state of war with Germany.
You are contradicting yourself and going round in circles. There is no legitimate German state at the present. A war only ends when a treaty is forged bewteen the combatants. No such treaty has been signed. Law is not made just because the guy with the most guns says so. That is not law, that is gangsterism. International law works through agreement, accepted precedent and consensus, and, it is voluntary. There is no basis to unconditional surrender or anything that followed from that.Er, no it isn't. It is customary that a country re-opens diplomatic contact after a war with a peace treaty. That doesn't really work if the losing countries government is completely destroyed. A peace treat will end a war, but it is not the only way to end a war. That would be completely unworkable in both a legal and real world sense.
Trivialising this with asinine remarks is not going to help your case.Yes it is. In fact that statement is ridiculous if you think about it. A country does not need permission from the opposition country to with draw from the status of being in a state of war. "Please Germany, can we stop being at war with you. Please, we will be really nice to you ... ah please... let us"
Reverse that and you will see how ridiculous it is. Germany decides in early 1945, the war is not going well, let us declare it over, they decide. Do you think that would affect the status legal or otherwise of what the allied powers were doing? Do you think the allies would stop their advance and say, "great, war's over, now we can go home?"Do you even understand what a "state of war" declaration means? It is a legal definition of the state of the country. If a country terminates its status as being in a "state of war" they do not need permission from the other side.
I think your difficulty here is differentiating between what is legal in international law and domestic law, what is brought about through force majeur, and more fundamentally, what grants legitimacy in the moral sense.
You must separate out these issues and then it will become clearer.0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Look, that is the second time you have used the term 'undermenschen', its Untermenschen.
Spelling flames now is it? By the way, now that you seem to be so expert in German, since you posted a long German reference which you claimed was about Lachout and supported you story (AND IT DIDNT), have you got around to finding the evidence you promised? Indeed have you any evidence of Lachout being in the Austrian Military police as you claimed? And since you haven't
You also have not stated what the numbers in you r quotes like this : (29-7890 to 7895) signify. Would you please tell me that?Eriugenia wrote:I would have thought there was no need for you to ask these questions of you read my posts here and in the other thread.
There is no documented plan to exterminate anyone.
There is no Fuhrerbefehl (Furher order) ordering such a plan to commence.
There is no Fuhrerbefehlordering it to cease.
There is no document, blueprint, technical plan or photgraph anywhere showing a homicidal gas chamber (don't bother linking to the interior shot of Krema I, the Auschwitz authorities have admitted that is what they call a "reconstruction" built by the Soviet Polish puppet regime in 1947. Of course they don't bother telling the tourists that piece of information.)
There are no holes to be seen in the surviving roof slab of Krema II where it is alleged Zyklon B was inserted through 4 (although the number varies depending on which witness you choose to go with).
There are no gas vans in existence, no plans of such, and no photos either.
There are no mass graves exhumed and no forensic post mortem examination carried out since 1945 on any remains alleged to have been killed by the Germans.
The evidence for the extermination claims consists largely of documents interpreted according to some esoteric theory of telepathy, witness statements, which often contradict each other wildly, and confessions.
I hope this answers your questions.
[isaw]
No it doesen't. You only listed that in your opinion there is not evidence for a particular event in certain places during WWII
I asked if you are claiming the following (as you earlier posts seem to attest):
for Jews below you can add in "and other groups" if you wish.
A. The nazis did not want to rid the world of Jews.
B. the Nazis did not want to kill Jews or allow others to do so.
C. The Nazis did not say so BEFORE WWII.
D. The Nazis did not go about organising the mass killing of Jews.
Now, do you claim any of A B C or D. I am not asking about evidence here I am asking do you claim any of A B C D. Do you? Or do you accept that A B C and D or not true?
You seem to be switching from these general claims to whataboutery. Picking on specific historic interpretations is not stating the claim.
It is patently clear the Nazis discriminated against Jews. Do you also deny that?
Now as to evidence. Other than the Bible do you have any evidence for the jewish holocaust by Pharoah in ancient Egypt. I refer specifically to the deaths of hebrews at the time of Moses (the reason he was put in the basket). Do you believe that holocaust happened?
Do you believe that Christians were presecuted in the past? Is that belief based on evidence?
Did Republicans and Nationalists die for Irish independence in Allied armies in WWI? How many Irish did die in the trenches?
I am sure ther are plenty more examples. If you are a revisionist why don't you devote time to these?
Do you believe in God? Have you evidence for that?
REaders Note: in the above there are different kinds of evidence. Sceptics are in the main concerned with scientific evidence.0 -
Eriugena wrote:
[ISAW] I am still waiting for you evidence for the claim that Lachout won damages and was proved true. I am also waiting for you evidence that Lachout was in the Austrian Military Police in 1948.
Will you withdraw you claim until you supply the evidence?
If you do not you are operating double standards.
And please dont launch into another cut and paste frenzy from revisionist websites. It only clouds the issue.
Just maintain fair standards. If you cant support your claims then withdraw them.0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:
The point is not about spelling but about language proficiency.Spelling flames now is it?
Whatpart do you have difficulty with?By the way, now that you seem to be so expert in German, since you posted a long German reference which you claimed was about Lachout and supported you story (AND IT DIDNT),
I haven't claimed it, Lachout claims it. I believe him in the absence of any compelling reason not to.have you got around to finding the evidence you promised? Indeed have you any evidence of Lachout being in the Austrian Military police as you claimed?
Could you be more specific?You also have not stated what the numbers in you r quotes like this : (29-7890 to 7895) signify. Would you please tell me that?
Wrong. Let's go through each claim again.[isaw]
No it doesen't. You only listed that in your opinion there is not evidence for a particular event in certain places during WWII
There is no documented plan to exterminate anyone. - I have yet tocome across any historian of any persuasion who claims otherwise. I exclude Hilbergian telepathy theories.
There is no Fuhrerbefehl (Furher order) ordering such a plan to commence. - This is not an opinion. There is no order in existence anywhere and no one claims otehrwsie. Exterminationists claim it was verbal.
There is no Fuhrerbefehlordering it to cease. - Same as above.
There is no document, blueprint, technical plan or photgraph anywhere showing a homicidal gas chamber (don't bother linking to the interior shot of Krema I, the Auschwitz authorities have admitted that is what they call a "reconstruction" built by the Soviet Polish puppet regime in 1947. Of course they don't bother telling the tourists that piece of information.) - All of this is true. If you find evidence to the contrary by all means post it here.
There are no holes to be seen in the surviving roof slab of Krema II where it is alleged Zyklon B was inserted through 4 (although the number varies depending on which witness you choose to go with). - If you can find any holes in the pictures of the roof slab then please point them out to me.
There are no gas vans in existence, no plans of such, and no photos either. - Sam as above. That silly picture of people looking at an old van doesn't cut the mustard.
There are no mass graves exhumed and no forensic post mortem examination carried out since 1945 on any remains alleged to have been killed by the Germans. - perhaps you know something I don't on this one.
The evidence for the extermination claims consists largely of documents interpreted according to some esoteric theory of telepathy, witness statements, which often contradict each other wildly, and confessions. - what categories of evidence supporting the holocaust story do you think I have left out?
I asked if you are claiming the following (as you earlier posts seem to attest):
for Jews below you can add in "and other groups" if you wish.
"A. The nazis did not want to rid the world of Jews.
B. the Nazis did not want to kill Jews or allow others to do so.
C. The Nazis did not say so BEFORE WWII."
These options relate to intention and so on and are a matter of interpretation. A. I have covered above. I don't understand B. and I am not aware of C. unless you want to include some statements by Hitler in the Reichstag which have been ripped out of context. The context being anti-German activities by international Jewish organisations from early 1933 onwards (google, for example, Samuel Untermeyer). Of course none of this is ever included in the court histories.
D. The Nazis did not go about organising the mass killing of Jews. Now this is something we can work with. This is a claim that can be supported with hard evdience, for or against. I have not seen any evidence to compel me to believe that there was a plan to exterminate Jews (where is it?), nor do the gassings stories hold up to scrutiny (physical impossibilities; serious witness contradictions etc.)
Your disregard for evidence is shocking. This is not about what people believe but about what actually happened or did not happen. That means it is all about evdience.Now, do you claim any of A B C or D. I am not asking about evidence here I am asking do you claim any of A B C D. Do you? Or do you accept that A B C and D or not true?
I have answered this question many times now - NO ONE DENIES THIS.It is patently clear the Nazis discriminated against Jews. Do you also deny that?
There is not one shred of extra-biblical evidence (that I am aware of) to support this story. Do you know of any?Now as to evidence. Other than the Bible do you have any evidence for the jewish holocaust by Pharoah in ancient Egypt. I refer specifically to the deaths of hebrews at the time of Moses (the reason he was put in the basket). Do you believe that holocaust happened?
This is a difficult topic because of the sources. We know for instance that Eusebius, the historian of the early Church falsified Josephus' text in a very crucial passage which casts a shadow of doubt over his other claims. Other Christian sources must be handled with care. Perhaps we will return to this topic later on if you like.Do you believe that Christians were presecuted in the past? Is that belief based on evidence?
Irishmen died in the tenches having been told that their sacrifice would lead to home rule. Why the hell are you asking such silly questions?Did Republicans and Nationalists die for Irish independence in Allied armies in WWI? How many Irish did die in the trenches?
Has anyone ever doubted that Irishmen died in the trenches?I am sure ther are plenty more examples. If you are a revisionist why don't you devote time to these?
The Judeo-Christian question is of interest to me because of its enormous signifcance for us. Likewise the Holocaust story is of great importance for a number of reasons which I could spell out. I will only mention them at this point.
The post war world order is premised on the moral legitmicay of the Anglo-American alliance (AAA) in defeating evil. The claim to the nazis being evil rests in large measure on the holocaust story. If it is true then they were deeply evil, that does not mean the allies were deeply good, however it does oblige us to applaud the allied victory. This muddies the waters simewhat and helps bolster the claims that the AAA make about their good intentions and their claim to be somehow the guardians of high humanitarian ideals like freedom and democracy and human rights etc. So the allied metanarrative of WWII including the H story is an important moral foundation to their projected image. In other words, the history of WWII has deep political signifcance. Notice how the AAA always portrays its enemies in terms of Hitler and Nazism, most recently Milosevich and Saddam, this resonates deeply with a public indoctrinated with Hitler horror stories.
The other function of the H story is to provide a moral figleaf to Zionist colonialism. Zinists made great play of the H story to gain sympathy for the steting up of a state at the expense of the native population. Zionists use the H story top deflect and disarm criticism. If you criticise Israel you are an "antisemite" or a "nazi" and that's worse than being a child molester! Meanwhile they run an ethnosupremacist state which behaves in the very way that the term Nazi evokes! All of this with the unconditional support of the US. It is therefore not a coincidence that the H is pushed constantly in America. Its on school syllabi, there are chairs of H studies in many universities, there are countless museums and memorials, mcuh of this at public expense. This is part of what Norman Finkelstein calls the Holocaust Industry, which has clocked up $60 Bn so far if the figures are right. So its also big business. As the former Israeli foreign minister said (disapprovingly) "there's no business like Shoah business."
These are some of the main reasons why the H is an event of great importance and which justifies intense and critical scrutiny.
btw, insinuations that I am a nazi and/or anti-semite are very boring and predictable because this is a standard charge thrown at anyone who dares question the holy H story. I personally have been on the receiving end of these charges (made in a much more intemperate fashion than anyone has shown here so far) so often as to have lost count.
This is an impertinent question.Do you believe in God? Have you evidence for that?0 -
Eriugena wrote:So some of you call yourselves sceptics? O.k., here's your chance to show us what your made of in the sceptic's stakes.
You began this thread with claims about a Major Muller and a Lt Lachout under the title
Lt. Lachout Confirms Torture Allegations
YOU claimed Lachout read to the Canadian court a copy of a Circular Letter of the Military Police Service dated October 1, 1948.
You have been asked to provide evidence of an Austrian Military Police Service in 1948. You have not done so. Even it the first three lines of the letter problems have been pointed out to you. You have not produced any evidence of a Major Muller or Lachout being part of an Allied Commissions of Inquiry.
Please withdraw your claims about Lachout. You have produced NO evidence to support them.0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:
The point is not about spelling but about language proficiency.
Whatpart do you have difficulty with?
I have difficulty in you NOT PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE for your claims.
I haven't claimed it, Lachout claims it. I believe him in the absence of any compelling reason not to.
By stating Lachout was in a Military Police force you are reaffirming his claim. whatever next ? Will you post a topic headed "The earth is flat" and then state that it is someone else who is claiming it?
Wrong. Let's go through each claim again.
[ISAW]
Lets not. Lets go through the letter from Lachout which you produced as evidence.
What police force was Lachout in in 1948?
If you can not support the claims of this letter then please admit that and withdraw you claims about Lachout. Or do you just believe him without ANY evidence? What double standards you seem to display.
[snip]
what categories of evidence supporting the holocaust story do you think I have left out?
[ISAW]
The bit where I asked you to support the claims in the Lachout letter or withdraw the claim.
I asked if you are claiming the following (as you earlier posts seem to attest):
for Jews below you can add in "and other groups" if you wish.
"A. The nazis did not want to rid the world of Jews.
B. the Nazis did not want to kill Jews or allow others to do so.
C. The Nazis did not say so BEFORE WWII."
These options relate to intention and so on and are a matter of interpretation. A. I have covered above.
[ISAW]Do you believe A or do you not. Yes or no
I don't understand B.
Do you believe the Nazis wanted jews to die and intended to kill them? do you believe that if others were killing jews (and others) that the Nazis would have stood idly by?
and I am not aware of C.
[ISAW]You ARE aware of C
which of these statements do you deny?
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm
D. The Nazis did not go about organising the mass killing of Jews.
Now this is something we can work with. This is a claim that can be supported with hard evdience, for or against. I have not seen any evidence to compel me to believe that there was a plan to exterminate Jews (where is it?), nor do the gassings stories hold up to scrutiny (physical impossibilities; serious witness contradictions etc.)
[ISAW]
Basically you deny the holocaust happened.
First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how the testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing. This total dismissal of inmates' testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis' own testimony (!), is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust-denial.
This assumption, which is not often spelled out, is that the attempted Jewish genocide never took place, but rather that a secret conspiracy of Jews, starting around 1941, planted and forged myriad documents to prove that it did; then, after the war, they rounded up all the camp survivors and told them what to say.
Michael Shermer has pointed out that the Nazis' own estimate of the number of European Jews was eleven million, and sixty percent of eleven million is 6.6 million. This is fairly close to the actual figure. (Actually, forty percent was a serious overestimate of the survival rate of Jews who were captured, but there were many Jews who escaped.)
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/s/shermer.michael/open-letter
And you calim my disregard of evidence is shocking?
When you produce NOTHING to support you concocted Lachout document?
[Eri]
Your disregard for evidence is shocking. This is not about what people believe but about what actually happened or did not happen. That means it is all about evdience.
[In reference to the biblical holocaust]
I have answered this question many times now - NO ONE DENIES THIS.
There is not one shred of extra-biblical evidence (that I am aware of) to support this story. Do you know of any?
I asked YOU if you believed Pharoah killed the Hebrews. Do you believe that? do you believe the Bible story?
[Eri]
This is a difficult topic because of the sources. We know for instance that Eusebius, the historian of the early Church falsified Josephus' text in a very crucial passage which casts a shadow of doubt over his other claims. Other Christian sources must be handled with care. Perhaps we will return to this topic later on if you like.
[ISAW] Perhaps you will answer whether you believe the bible story or not?
Irishmen died in the tenches having been told that their sacrifice would lead to home rule. Why the hell are you asking such silly questions?
Has anyone ever doubted that Irishmen died in the trenches?
[ISAW] Because it IS revisionism. And that is NOT what I asked! I asked about republicans and nationalists. The enerally accepted figure of 50,000 is wrong. The real figures of aboyt 37,000 is closer to the truth. That IS revisionism and is done correctly and is based on proper sources and not based on made up letters.
[ERi]
The Judeo-Christian question is of interest to me because of its enormous signifcance for us. Likewise the Holocaust story is of great importance for a number of reasons which I could spell out. I will only mention them at this point.
[snip]
Dont bother just answer the question. Do you accepot the Bible story or do you not accept it?
Do you believe in God? Do you practice any religion? I am trying to establish your bona fides. If you are a Christian they you accept the Bible story don't you?
Do you believe in supporting you claims?
For example how about supporting your claim about Lachout ? If you cant support it then withdraw the letter as evidence of anything. Will you do that?0 -
No I didn't. It was the second post in this thread that introduced Lachout.ISAW wrote:You began this thread with claims about a Major Muller and a Lt Lachout under the title
I have not claimed that, that is what happened. No one disputes that he appeared as a witness and read out that statement.Lt. Lachout Confirms Torture Allegations
YOU claimed Lachout read to the Canadian court a copy of a Circular Letter of the Military Police Service dated October 1, 1948.
Yes I have, I posted a number of url's. Perhaps you don't accept it, fine, but dont say I didn't post evidence.You have been asked to provide evidence of an Austrian Military Police Service in 1948. You have not done so.
I'm not inclined to accept the word of that Ziering foundation over my original sources because that is what this comes down to, unless you have some other independent source? I would be happy to see it.Even it the first three lines of the letter problems have been pointed out to you.
Your changing your demand now. Originally it as to show evidence of his compensation claims. I'm happy to set that aside until such time as I receive confirmation or denial of this. The rest of it stands as posted unles you have something more compelling than a private Jewish foundation publication.Please withdraw your claims about Lachout. You have produced NO evidence to support them.0 -
ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:
You cannot deal with the fact that each of my claims which you have snipped is supported, so you try to turn the tables on me with all these aggressive red-herrings. No thanks.Lets not.
Who does that? Not I and certainly no revisionists.First of all, consider the implicit conspiracy theory. Notice how the testimony of every single inmate of every Nazi camp is automatically dismissed as unconvincing.
This is false. IT is a strawman.This total dismissal of inmates' testimony, along with the equally-total dismissal of the Nazis' own testimony (!), is the largest unspoken assumption of Holocaust-denial.
is clueless, see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2455741&postcount=1 and then we will discuss this clown.Michael Shermer
Why do my beliefs matter to you? What is important here is evidence and argument.I asked YOU if you believed Pharoah killed the Hebrews. Do you believe that? do you believe the Bible story?
However, I will answer this one - No.
[Eri]
Thisis not your original question which was about Roman persecution of Christians. Your losing it . . .This is a difficult topic because of the sources. We know for instance that Eusebius, the historian of the early Church falsified Josephus' text in a very crucial passage which casts a shadow of doubt over his other claims. Other Christian sources must be handled with care. Perhaps we will return to this topic later on if you like.
[ISAW] Perhaps you will answer whether you believe the bible story or not?
But it is driven by a tendency to downgrade 1916 and denigrate the founders of modern Ireland. This obsession with the trenches is the preserve of West Brits like Kevin Myers and other confused people who would probably be happier living in Britain.Irishmen died in the tenches having been told that their sacrifice would lead to home rule. Why the hell are you asking such silly questions?
Has anyone ever doubted that Irishmen died in the trenches?
[ISAW] Because it IS revisionism. And that is NOT what I asked! I asked about republicans and nationalists. The enerally accepted figure of 50,000 is wrong. The real figures of aboyt 37,000 is closer to the truth. That IS revisionism and is done correctly and is based on proper sources and not based on made up letters
Do you think this is a court with you as a lawyer and me in the stand or even the dock? Do you think you can dismiss and ignore everything I have posted and attempt this impertinent cross-examination? What are your bona fides? When are you going to address my questions which you have ignored? When are you going to change your tune? That might save the discussion.Dont bother just answer the question. Do you accepot the Bible story or do you not accept it?
Do you believe in God? Do you practice any religion? I am trying to establish your bona fides. If you are a Christian they you accept the Bible story don't you?
Do you believe in supporting you claims?
For example how about supporting your claim about Lachout ? If you cant support it then withdraw the letter as evidence of anything. Will you do that?0 -
Eriugena wrote:No I didn't. It was the second post in this thread that introduced Lachout.
[ISAW]
True. You began this thread. and you posted the Laschout thing before anyone else had replied.
[Eri]
I have not claimed that, that is what happened. No one disputes that he appeared as a witness and read out that statement.
{isaw}
I asked you whether his testimony was true and if you believed it. You stated you did. You accepot his claims! Without ANY evidence for them!
[Eri]
Yes I have, I posted a number of url's. Perhaps you don't accept it, fine, but dont say I didn't post evidence.
[ISAW]
You didn't. Please post the URLs again which you claim support Lachout. Please support the claim that he was awarded damages. will you do that?
[Eri]
I'm not inclined to accept the word of that Ziering foundation over my original sources because that is what this comes down to, unless you have some other independent source?
YOU claimed Lachout was in the Austrian Military Police. I told you iof he was that you should produce the name from the official record at Kew. where is it?
[Eri]
I would be happy to see it.
[ISAW]
So would I but YOU brought up Lachout YOU support him or WITHDRAW him!
[Eri]
Your changing your demand now. Originally it as to show evidence of his compensation claims. I'm happy to set that aside until such time as I receive confirmation or denial of this.
[ISAW]
I am not happy. Either support the claim of WITHDRAW it until you have some evidence!
The rest of it stands as posted unles you have something more compelling than a private Jewish foundation publication.
I am NOT making the claim about Lachout. Your revisionist cut and paste is making that claim. YOU support the claim Lachout was in the Military Police. Whether or not anyone else believes you it is for YOU to SUPPORT ot WITHDRAW the claims about the Lachout letter. Where is you evidence that the Lachout letter ever happened?
REaders note: Double standards methinks!0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:
You cannot deal with the fact that each of my claims which you have snipped is supported, so you try to turn the tables on me with all these aggressive red-herrings. No thanks.
[ISAW]
I snipped you red herrings. You cut and paste revisionist material when asked to back up other revisionist material. I started at the beginning. Lachout. Backup or withdraW HIM. If you withdraw him we can move on to other frauds or unsupported claims!
Why do my beliefs matter to you? What is important here is evidence and argument.
However, I will answer this one - No.
[ISAW]
No you dont believe the Bible?
[Eri]
Thisis not your original question which was about Roman persecution of Christians. Your losing it . . .
[ISAW]
The original question was where is the supporting evidence for Lachouts claims?
But it is driven by a tendency to downgrade 1916 and denigrate the founders of modern Ireland. This obsession with the trenches is the preserve of West Brits like Kevin Myers and other confused people who would probably be happier living in Britain.
[ISAW]
Wrong! Respectable historians and jouornals have devoted attention to this!
[Eri]
Do you think this is a court with you as a lawyer and me in the stand or even the dock?
[ISAW] what I think does not matter here. YOU are the one who brought Lachout into this thread and began by asserting people should be sceptical of claims. YOU support Lachout or WITHDRAW him!
[Eri]
Do you think you can dismiss and ignore everything I have posted and attempt this impertinent cross-examination?
Yes. I can dismiss anything you introduce when you do not answer the question. Where is you support for Lachout? Where is the support for you further claim he had damages awarded?
[snip]0 -
ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:
You cannot deal with the fact that each of my claims which you have snipped is supported, so you try to turn the tables on me with all these aggressive red-herrings. No thanks.
[ISAW]
As I will yours.I snipped you red herrings.
Why do my beliefs matter to you? What is important here is evidence and argument.
However, I will answer this one - No.
[ISAW]
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Where is the ambiguity in the word 'no'?No you dont believe the Bible?
I see. Having been embarassed over this you go on the offensive again.[Eri]
Thisis not your original question which was about Roman persecution of Christians. Your losing it . . .
[ISAW]
The original question was where is the supporting evidence for Lachouts claims?
But it is driven by a tendency to downgrade 1916 and denigrate the founders of modern Ireland. This obsession with the trenches is the preserve of West Brits like Kevin Myers and other confused people who would probably be happier living in Britain.
[ISAW]
It is the interpretation which is what is at issue. No one has ever denied that Irishmen fought in WWI. I am talking about the two pronged approach of vaunting their efforts whilst denigrating the men and women of 1916.Wrong! Respectable historians and jouornals have devoted attention to this!
[Eri]
Do you think this is a court with you as a lawyer and me in the stand or even the dock?
[ISAW]
Double standards. You seem awfully interested in my views on a range of unrelated topics. I would like you to tell me who you think you are?what I think does not matter here.
That works two ways you know.[Eri]
Do you think you can dismiss and ignore everything I have posted and attempt this impertinent cross-examination?
Yes.
So can I.I can dismiss anything you introduce when you do not answer the question.
I have already said we can set that aside pending further information. Everything else stands pending your bringing in something more than Ziering. Then we can consider where to go with Lachout.Where is the support for you further claim he had damages awarded?0 -
Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:ISAW wrote:Eriugena wrote:
You cannot deal with the fact that each of my claims which you have snipped is supported, so you try to turn the tables on me with all these aggressive red-herrings. No thanks.
[ISAW]
YOU began this thread in which you claim the holocaust is pseudo history. In another thread yu said Nuremberg can not be seperated from the holocaust. I disagreed. You posted something about Hoess and Nuremberg. I don't intend to go into that now but I may return later to see if you can back that up.
I didn't ask you about it then and I am not going of on a tangent now. so what DID I ask about?
You then posted something about a Canadian trial on Lachout. I asked you about this. I didn't ask about your first post. My point BEGAN with Lachout and that is where I will remain until you support YOUR claim witrh evidence or WITHDRAW it.
I asked you to support the Lachout claims. Even in the first three points made the document seems to fall apart. I had never heard of it before but a brief look into it shows it up. You also claimed Lachout was awarded damages. You promised to produce evidence for these claims.
You have as yet not produced ANY evidence. I refuse to be drawn into other sideline arguments on this thread until YOU address the evidence for the items I frist asked you about.
Where is the evidence supporting Lachout which I originally took up in my first responce in this thread? YOU promised it.
Where is it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Eriugena wrote:No I didn't. It was the second post in this thread that introduced Lachout.
[isaw]
I FIRST responded to your Lachout claims and NOT to you first post. That is where I came in and that is where I am staying Lachout - support it or withdraw it!
[Eri]
I have not claimed that, that is what happened. No one disputes that he appeared as a witness and read out that statement.
[ISAW]
I did not dispute whether he appeared but I will now. Where is the official record of this trial?
[Eri]
Yes I have, I posted a number of url's. Perhaps you don't accept it, fine, but dont say I didn't post evidence.
I'm not inclined to accept the word of that Ziering foundation over my original sources because that is what this comes down to, unless you have some other independent source? I would be happy to see it.
[ISAW]
I am asking you for the OFFICIAL RECORDS of the trail you claim Lachout was at. I am also asking you what evidence supports the claims made in the Lachout letter?0
Advertisement