Holocaust mass graves?

[Erik]

Erik wrote:
The “correct premise” should perhaps consist in a statement that the Holocaust story doesn’t need mass graves to be true?


Bingo, philosopher.

Even if the killers had managed to erase all traces of the mass graves and their contents, the relevant facts of the sequence of events known as the Holocaust - the organized and systematic mass killing of five to six million Jews by Nazi mobile killing squads and in Nazi extermination camps, concentration camps and ghettoes - could nevertheless be considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt through documentary and eyewitness evidence, by the standards of criminal justice and historiography.

As it is, however, the killers also left a considerable amount of physical evidence behind. Some of it is described in detail in my post of Mon Jun 24, 2002 12:22 pm on this very thread.

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Erik wrote:
The "correct premise" should perhaps consist in a statement that the Holocaust story doesn't need mass graves to be true?

Bingo, philosopher.

Which begs the question that it does not need mass-murders to be true either.



How about quoting the rest of my reply, Reverend? It goes like this:

Roberto wrote:
Even if the killers had managed to erase all traces of the mass graves and their contents, the relevant facts of the sequence of events known as the Holocaust - the organized and systematic mass killing of five to six million Jews by Nazi mobile killing squads and in Nazi extermination camps, concentration camps and ghettoes - could nevertheless be considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt through documentary and eyewitness evidence, by the standards of criminal justice and historiography.

As it is, however, the killers also left a considerable amount of physical evidence behind. Some of it is described in detail in my post of Mon Jun 24, 2002 12:22 pm on this very thread.


Physical evidence - which the killers often manage to erase - is not required to prove murder or mass murder if there is enough other evidence in the form of defendants' depositions, eyewitness testimonials and/or documents.

But it's not as if Smith's beloved Nazis had managed to erase all physical evidence to their crimes, is it?

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
But it's not as if Smith's beloved Nazis had managed to erase all physical evidence to their crimes, is it?

Really? That's strange. Funny how those incomparable Nazi bunglers managed to get a crystal ball that told them how to obliterate all the evidence that future investigators would ever think to look for.

I say "they didn't manage to erase all physical evidence to their crimes", and the Reverend answers "funny how they managed to erase all physical evidence".

A more imbecile reply is hard to imagine.

How about reading what I wrote and thinking a bit before recanting your beaten phrases, Reverend?

The exchange above between the giants of this Forum was occasioned by a “bingo” from one of them, to a “correct premise” supplied by your humble servant.(See above.)

The “correct premise” entails : there cannot be any mass graves “missing” from the Holocaust account, according to the incorrect “premise” of Mr Sailor, since they don’t exist anymore – the Nazis obliterated all such evidence during the Enterdungsaktion.

So if a “future investigator” (Scott Smith) would look for such mass grave evidence and not find any, it’s because the evidence can’t be there in the first place.

On the other hand, “they didn’t manage to erase all physical evidence to their crimes” (Roberto), so it’s there, all the same, if anyone would care to look for it.

And if it isn’t there, it’s because it has been erased; and so on, ad infinitum.

Roberto has shown mathematically that all the victims of the Holocaust – and every victim of WW2 besides – could have been harbored, cremated and buried within the confines of the camp Treblinka.

The Nazis could seemingly have committed the “perfect crime”.

But,..”As it is, however, the killers also left a considerable amount of physical evidence behind. Some of it is described in detail in my post of Mon Jun 24, 2002 12:22 pm on this very thread.” (Roberto, above.)

They bungled it, even it they knew how to do it “right”. They left documents and witnesses behind. Then the science of History and the administration of Justice have all they need for their purposes.

The murder weapons and the mass graves can be “reconstructed” with the help of those documents and witnesses, like the Auchwitz and Dachau gas chambers, and the mass graves of Treblinka and Belzec, à la the calculations of Roberto.

The Nazi bunglers imagined that the erasement of physical evidence of the Holocaust would be enough to save their reputation.

They couldn’t imagine that the science of History and the administration of Justice can do without such matters when it comes to crimes on this scale.

The imbecility of “Smith’s beloved Nazis”(Roberto) is perhaps parallelled by the “limited intellect of people like Sailor”(according to Xanthro), who cannot understand the wisdom of something like : “….what any rational person would conclude based on his post” (Roberto’s)…”, is that in the cases of mass killings, there is usually little documentation in relation to the numbers of deaths.”!(Xanthro, above).

When a “rational person” is expected to conclude from non conclusive excavations at Treblinka that ANY amount of persons must have been killed and cremated there, and that this expectation is in accordance with a sort of “Genocide law”, “..that in the cases of mass killings, there is usually little documentation in relation to the numbers of deaths”, then the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” (argument from ignorance) has truly come into its own.

Here is a quote from a standard textbook of logic:

The fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true. But our ignorance of how to prove or disprove a proposition clearly does not establish either the truth or the falsehood of that proposition. This fallacy often arises in connection with such matters as psychic phenomena, telepathy, and the like, where there is no clear-cut evidence either for or against. It is curious how many of the most enlightened people are prone to this fallacy, as witness the many students of science who affirm the falsehood of spiritualist and telepathic claims simply on the grounds that their truth has not been established.

Although this mode of argument is fallacious in most cases, it should be pointed out that there is one special context in which it is not fallacious – namely in the court of law; for in a court of law the guiding principle is that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty. The defence can legitimately claim that if the prosecution has not proved guilt, this warrants a verdict of not guilty. Since this claim is based on the special legal principle mentioned, however, it is quite consistent with the fact that the argumentum ad ignorantiam is a fallacy in all other contexts.

It is sometimes maintained that the argumentum ad hominem (abusive) is not fallacious when used in a court of law in an attempt to impeach the testimony of a witness. True enough, doubt can be cast upon a witness’s testimony if it can be shown that the witness is a chronic liar and perjurer. Where that can be shown, it certainly reduces the credibility of the testimony offered. But if one goes on to infer that the witness’s testimony establishes the falsehood of that which the witness testifies, instead of concluding merely that the testimony does not establish the truth, then the reasoning is fallacious, being an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Such errors is more common than one might think.

A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators.. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence. Of course, the proof here is not based on ignorance but on our knowledge that if it had occurred it would have been known. For example, if a serious security investigation fails to unearth any evidence that Mr X is a foreign agent, it would be wrong to conclude that their research has left us ignorant. It is rather established that Mr X is not one. Failure to draw such conclusions is on the other side of the bad coin of innuendo, as when one says of a man that there is “no proof” that he is a scoundrel. In some cases not to draw a conclusion is as much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to draw a mistaken conclusion.

[Irving Copi: Introduction to Logic, sixth ed., side 101-2 (Collier MacMillan)]

Copi mentions “…such matters as psychic phenomena, telepathy, and the like..” – and I guess he could have added religion and ideology in general.

Every religion and ideology want to “invert” this fallacy to protect its respective “truths”, and also to establish procedures that disqualifies its legitimacy in courts of law – that’s part of the “inversion” of it (see Copi above on the “legitimacy” of the fallacy, in the 2nd paragraph).

When a Truth of this order claims “irrefutability” it turns the argumental fallacy into its “own”. The self evidence of it makes skepticism into lunacy and/or crime.

The middle paragraph quoted from Copi above becomes “inverted” in the sense that the “true” testimony of the witness establishes a sort of argumentum ad hominem(vindicative). He can save both his life and character by doing his part for Truth.

“In some cases not to draw a conclusion is as much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to draw a mistaken conclusion.”, says Copi in the last sentence quoted.

Where the “inverted“ argumentum ad ignorantiam is mandatory, the “breach of correct reasoning” has a tendency to be punishable by law, even.

[Scott Smith]

Read the statement,

The Holocaust is not one monolithic event.

Nobody advances that it is, as there are not monolithic events of the nature that Scott seems to be indicating. Because the Holocaust went on for years, by it's nature it cannot be described as monolithic.

The Holo-pundits don't say so outright, of course, but indeed the Big-H is monolithic. There is no other History but Holohistory; if you cross the pale of orthodoxy you are a Denier or worse. There is ONE enchilada--to either be swallowed whole or not.

Does an intelligent person make the argument that no historical anaylsis is needed because of the size and scope of the event? No.

Except where gaschambers are concerned. Here the technical historiography has been either missing or entirely reactive to skeptics/Deniers, and mostly based on Testimonial and Confession.

I doubt that Scott Smith is an idiot, so what's the alternative explanation for advancing such a blantantly idiotic statement. That he is simply trying to muddy the waters of holocaust history.

Not idiotic, just insane. Scott Smith has entertained forbidden thoughts: Thoughtcrime Is Death! I am sooo scared...

Being able to find errors, or even outright lies in a history doesn't negate the history, at best, sans an alternative explantion, it would merely modify the history.

Um, yes, of course, it would demand Revision. But negating THE History is a false-dilemma.

If someone wants to states that the Holocaust didn't happen, then finding minor players and characters who may have lied, or been mistaken doesn't suffice, since these characters are present in all of history.

Dishonest reductio ad absurdum. Who says "The Holocaust Didn't Happen," again?

It would be akin to arguing that the Vietnam war never took place, because the are people in the United States that claim to be Vietnam Vets who never served in the military.

The Holocaust is largely a mass-sociocultural phenomenon that begs definition. The Vietnam War is not so historiographically complicated.

[Scott Smith]

Could it be that the middle initial of Smith's name stands for "Lindbergh"?

Lindbergh is portrayed by biographers as a deeply-flawed giant. I happen to think him a brilliant man, who unfortunately was not a born-politician.

In his wartime memoirs he described seeing the crematorium at Dora, and he compared it to the garbage pits used in the Pacific to unceremoniously dispose of the Jap dead. He saw the significance of the Good War and the moral perspective, so distorted today. Many Jews and anti-Deniers cannot forgive Lindbergh for what he wrote below, and thereby we get an idea about the entire Holo-mentality itself...

... "A trail of these ashes runs over the side of the filled-up pit where we are standing. They were dumped in carelessly, as we would dump the ashes from coal into a pit at home. And the pit was dug as a man would dig a pit for coal ashes if he cared nothing for the appearance of the grounds around his home--not very far from the furnaces and where the ground appeared easy to dig. Nearby were two oblong mounds which may have marked other pits. The boy picks up a knee joint which had not been left in the furnace long enough and holds it out to us.

"Of course, I knew these things were going on; but it is one thing to have the intellectual knowledge, even to look at photographs someone else has taken, and quite another to stand on the scene yourself, seeing, hearing, feeling with your own senses. A strange sort of disturbance entered my mind. Where was it I had felt like that before? The South Pacific? Yes; those rotting Japanese bodies in the Biak caves; the load of garbage dumped on dead soldiers in a bomb crater; the green skulls set up to decorate ready room and tents.

"It seemed impossible that men--civilized men--could degenerate to such a level. Yet they had. Here at Camp Dora in Germany; there in the coral caves of Biak. But there, it was we, Americans, who had done such things, we who claimed to stand for something different. We, who claimed that the German was defiling humanity in his treatment of the Jew, were doing the same thing in our treatment of the Jap. 'They really are lower than beasts. Every one of 'em ought to be exterminated.' How many times had I heard that statement made by American officers in the Pacific! 'And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?'

"I looked at the young Pole. Where had I seen starvation like that before? It was on Biak Island, too. The picture of a native war canoe came up in memory--paddling slowly toward the shore near our camp, the Japanese prisoners escorted from it by armed, half-naked natives, at the end of the line several so starved that they could not stand to walk, thinner even than this Pole. Oh, we had not starved them in a prison camp like the Germans. We had been too 'civilized', too clever for that. We had let them starve themselves in the jungle (their own fault) by simply not accepting their surrender. It was simple, and one was not bothered by burning eyes of famine or danger of disease. A few miles of jungle hid and smothered all of that. It was only necessary to shoot a few men advancing to surrender with their hands in the air. ('You can't trust a Jap to surrender. He'll throw a grenade at you. The only way is to kill him right now.') Or one could be more blunt about it and shout to an enemy emissary, as our infantry officers boasted of doing at the west caves, 'Get back in there and fight it out you sons of bitches.'

"A long line of such incidents parades before my mind: the story of our Marines firing on unarmed Japanese survivors who swam ashore on the beach at Midway; the accounts of our machine-gunning prisoners on a Hollandia airstrip; of the Australians pushing captured Japanese soldiers out of transport planes which were taking them south over the New Guinea mountains ('the Aussies reported them as committing hara-kiri or "resisting"'); of the shinbones cut, for letter openers and pen trays, from newly killed Japanese bodies on Noemfoor; of the young pilot who was 'going to cream that Jap hospital one of these days'; of American soldiers poking through the mouths of Japanese corpses for gold-filled teeth ('the infantry's favorite occupation'); of Jap heads buried in anthills 'to get them clean for souvenirs'; of bodies bulldozed to the roadside and dumped by the hundreds into shallow, unmarked graves ('where they're so close we can't stand 'em, we have to bury 'em'); of pictures of Mussolini and his mistress hung by the feet in an Italian city, to the approval of thousands of Americans who claim to stand for high, civilized ideals. As far back as one can go in history, these atrocities have been going on, not only in Germany with its Dachaus and its Buchenwalds and its Camp Doras, but in Russia, in the Pacific, in the riotings and lynchings at home, in the less-publicized uprisings in Central and South America, the cruelties of China, a few years ago in Spain, in pogroms of the past, the burning of witches in New England, tearing people apart on the English racks, burnings at the stake for the benefit of Christ and God.

"I look down at the pit of ashes ('twenty-five thousand in a year and a half'). This, I realize, is not a thing confined to any nation or to any people. What the German has done to the Jew in Europe, we are doing to the Jap in the Pacific. As Germans have defiled themselves by dumping the ashes of human beings into this pit, we have defiled ourselves by bulldozing bodies into shallow, unmarked tropical graves. What is barbaric on one side of the earth is still barbaric on the other. 'Judge not that ye be not judged.' It is not the Germans alone, or the Japs, but the men of all nations to whom this war has brought shame and degradation.

"We drive back down the hillside, past the the open, barbed-wire gate, through Camp Dora, and into the underground tunnels of the factory. The walls of the tunnel are simply the rough uneven rock left from the blasting, whitewashed to reflect light. There is even more machinery at this end than there was at the other; and at this end, the V-1s and V-2s were being built, hundreds of them in assembly lines. We spent two or three hours walking through the tunnels and inspecting the machinery and parts." ...

Charles A. Lindbergh, Wartime Journals (1970).

[Roberto]

When a “rational person” is expected to conclude from non conclusive excavations at Treblinka that ANY amount of persons must have been killed and cremated there, and that this expectation is in accordance with a sort of “Genocide law”, “..that in the cases of mass killings, there is usually little documentation in relation to the numbers of deaths”, then the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” (argument from ignorance) has truly come into its own.

The excavations performed at Treblinka by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland may not have been described in great detail in their report, but the few data provided, far from being “non-conclusive”, are enough to calculate the size and the body disposal capacity of the mass graves. We know that

i) the size of the burial area was roughly 20,000 square meters and

ii) human remains were found to a depth of 7.5 meters.

These data corroborate the documentary and eyewitness evidence according to which no less that 713,555 Jews from the General Government were transported to Treblinka until 31.12.1942, killed there and buried in huge mass graves which were re-opened in the spring of 1943, the bodies being incinerated on grids together with those of new arrivals killed and the resulting ashes and other partial remains being thrown back into the emptied mass graves, alternated with layers of earth and sand.

As demonstrated by my calculations, the mass graves of the camp’s burial area could very well accommodate the number of people who, according to other evidence, were killed and disposed of at Treblinka extermination camp.

The documentation left behind in the form of train schedules, transportation documents, reports and correspondence among Nazi officials may be “little” if compared to the presumably much higher amount of documentation that didn’t survive the war, but it was enough to, in conjunction with the depositions of dozens of defendants and witnesses at various trials, prove beyond a reasonable doubt the occurrence of mass killing on the scale that becomes apparent from it.

The physical evidence does not contradict the conclusions warranted by the documentary and eyewitness evidence, but corroborates it instead. That’s the bottom line.

[Roberto]

Does an intelligent person make the argument that no historical anaylsis is needed because of the size and scope of the event? No.

Except where gaschambers are concerned. Here the technical historiography has been either missing or entirely reactive to skeptics/Deniers, and mostly based on Testimonial and Confession.

There’s no such thing as “technical historiography”, except in the minds of Smith et al. The technical details of murder weapons are an irrelevant minor issue that historiography doesn’t care about, and that criminal justice bothers itself with only to the extent required to identify the murderer. Whether the killing method was gassing or shooting or hanging or starvation or whatever, what matters to historiography and criminal justice is that there was planned and organized mass killing and that millions of people were murdered. And for proof of these essential facts the confessions of perpetrators and the testimonials of eyewitnesses, if conclusive and competently assessed, are perfectly sufficient. Even more so if, as is the case in regard to the Nazi mass killings by mobile killing squads and at extermination camps, these sources of evidence are corroborated by documentary and/or physical evidence.

Not idiotic, just insane. Scott Smith has entertained forbidden thoughts: Thoughtcrime Is Death! I am sooo scared...

The problem with Smith’s utterances is not their being forbidden in some countries. It is their being so imbecile that even their being forbidden in some countries doesn’t make them look any better.

Um, yes, of course, it would demand Revision. But negating THE History is a false-dilemma.

History being the Nazi regime’s planned and organized attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe, resulting in the slaughter of 5 to 6
million of them mostly by mobile killing squads or in extermination
camps, negating any or all of the features that characterize this
historical phenomenon is negating history.

Dishonest reductio ad absurdum. Who says "The Holocaust Didn't Happen," again?

Folks like Smith, who of course are too hypocritical to openly state what they are up to and thus keep hiding behind hollow phrases of the “I’m just a skeptic” – kind.

The Holocaust is largely a mass-sociocultural phenomenon that begs definition. The Vietnam War is not so historiographically complicated.

I’d say the Holocaust, meaning the Nazi regime’s planned and organized attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe, resulting in the slaughter of 5 to 6 million of them mostly by mobile killing squads or in extermination camps, is at least as clearly defined as the Vietnam War. The complication Smith alludes to exists only in his own mind.

Lindbergh is portrayed by biographers as a deeply-flawed giant. I happen to think him a brilliant man, who unfortunately was not a born-politician.

In his wartime memoirs he described seeing the crematorium at Dora, and he compared it to the garbage pits used in the Pacific to unceremoniously dispose of the Jap dead. He saw the significance of the Good War and the moral perspective, so distorted today. Many Jews and anti-Deniers cannot forgive Lindbergh for what he wrote below, and thereby we get an idea about the entire Holo-mentality itself...

An instructive piece of apples and oranges polemics indeed. Ignoring the qualitative difference between however brutal a war on the one hand and the planned and organized mass murder of unarmed noncombatants in actions not related to any act of war on the other – the much greater scale of Nazi mass killings aside - , Lindbergh tries to make believe that the horror of Nazi crimes resided in some gory features of inflicted suffering and body disposal. No, Lindy, that was not what made your buddies stand out. What made them stand out was the fact that their killing programs against unarmed noncombatants, while occurring in wartime, had little if anything to do with however barbarous actions directed against military enemies. But how could a block-headed admirer of Göring et al possibly understand that?

[Tarpon27]

Scott wrote:

We, who claimed that the German was defiling humanity in his treatment of the Jew, were doing the same thing in our treatment of the Jap.

Apparently, to Lindbergh, armed Japanese soldiers and Jewish civilians are equivalent.

What the German has done to the Jew in Europe, we are doing to the Jap in the Pacific.

Bull.

Mark

[Scott Smith]

Scott wrote:

We, who claimed that the German was defiling humanity in his treatment of the Jew, were doing the same thing in our treatment of the Jap.

Apparently, to Lindbergh, armed Japanese soldiers and Jewish civilians are equivalent.

No, he said they were trying to surrender. Either way both were "the subhuman enemy."

What the German has done to the Jew in Europe, we are doing to the Jap in the Pacific.

Bull.

That's not much of an argument. Uniqueness is why the gaschamber fantasy must always be punched-up; otherwise, it is just some other ox that's been gored. All Victims are equal in the sight of God, you know.

[Scott Smith]

The Holocaust is largely a mass-sociocultural phenomenon that begs definition. The Vietnam War is not so historiographically complicated.

I’d say the Holocaust, meaning the Nazi regime’s planned and organized attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe...

A paranoid fantasy. This might come as a shock for some Jews (and Christians) but the world doesn't revolve around the Jews.

And besides, it is interesting that with the plethora of Gentile powers from the Egyptians to the Germans that have supposedly tried to "exterminate the Jews," they always wind-up (somehow) bungling the job.


Intolerance (1916)

[Roberto]

The Holocaust is largely a mass-sociocultural phenomenon that begs definition. The Vietnam War is not so historiographically complicated.

I’d say the Holocaust, meaning the Nazi regime’s planned and organized attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe...

A paranoid fantasy.

What is borne out by the evidence as assessed by historiography, as a matter of fact. Care to have another look at it, Reverend? Maybe the thick tomato slices will fall off your eyes this time.

This might come as a shock for some Jews (and Christians) but the world doesn't revolve around the Jews.

Well, Smith's world seems to revolve around them, judging by his incessant rambling about their perfidious "accusations" and "victimology".

And besides, it is interesting that with the plethora of Gentile powers from the Egyptians to the Germans that have supposedly tried to "exterminate the Jews," they always wind-up (somehow) bungling the job.

I'm looking forward to Smith's demonstration that any of his beloved Führer's predecessors ever went as far as good old Adolf, or intended to.

[Roberto]

No, he said they were trying to surrender. Either way both were "the subhuman enemy."

Now that's a comparison - the massacre of surrendering enemy soldiers by combat troops on the one hand, the planned and organized mass murder of millions of civilians independently of any act of war on the other. Poor Lindbergh sucks so much that it's no wonder the likes of Smith admire him.

What the German has done to the Jew in Europe, we are doing to the Jap in the Pacific.

Bull.

That's not much of an argument.

A lot better than any that Smith has produced, I would say.

Uniqueness is why the gaschamber fantasy must always be punched-up; otherwise, it is just some other ox that's been gored.

Whether the Reverend likes it or not, it's not what he would desperately like to be a "fantasy" that is the outstanding feature of genocide in general and the Nazi genocide of the Jews in particular. It is a state's pronouncing a given group of people to be unworthy of living and trying to kill them wherever they are found, regardless of what they do or fail to do.

All Victims are equal in the sight of God, you know.

Sure, but not all crimes are equal. A state-organized program of killing as many members as possible of a certain group of people that doesn't fit into that state's concept of society ranks way on top of the scale, you know.

[Tarpon27]

Scott wrote:

No, he said they were trying to surrender. Either way both were "the subhuman enemy."

I think you need to re-read yourarticle. Where does it say they were trying to surrender where I took the quote from your piece? Or elsewhere?

Lindbergh is certainly interesting; he states that Great Britain, Roosevelt, and the Jews are egging America into the war; when the Japoanese bomb Pearl Harbor he volunteers for the Army AIr Force, but they deny him a military commission.

He then, as a civilian consultant, manages to fly various aircraft in the Pacific theater. Apparently the horrors of armed conflict don't stop him from managing to get his way into military aircraft and attacking the enemy.

That's not much of an argument.

Oh, and what does it require? Are you suggesting that the US forcibly removed millions of Japanese civilians, directed them into concentration camps, practiced a policy of extermination?

Why don't you back this one up?

What are Internment and Relocation?

In discussing the war related domestic policies adopted by the United States during World War II, it is important to know that internment is historically different and legally distinct from relocation.
Internment is a well respected and long established component of international law. It permits a country to intern those aliens residing in its territory who are subjects or nationals of any country with which the former is at war.

Internment is part of U.S. law, (July 6, c. 66, I Stat; R.S. 4067; 50 U.S. Code 21), and is based on the “Enemy Alien Act of 1798”. The constitutionality of internment was twice reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States shortly after the end of WWII in “Ludecke v. Watkins” (335 U.S. 160, 171 nl8 --1948) and “Johnson v. Eisentrager” (339 U.S. 763 --1950).

Internment began on December 7, 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. By 7:30 am December 9, 1941, the U.S. government had already interned 1,291 Japanese, 857 Germans, and 147 Italians. While the U.S. was at war with Japan since December 7th and could lawfully intern Japanese nationals as enemy aliens, the U.S. was not at war with Germany or Italy until December 11th. During those four days, December 7th through December 10th, German and Italian nationals were not enemy aliens and their internment was illegal. The total number of people interned during World War II was 31,275.

This number includes 5,620 Japanese who were renunciants -- i.e., native-born U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry who renounced their U.S. citizenship so they could be deported to Japan and help that country’s war effort. The U.S. government lists no European-Americans who similarly renounced their U.S. citizenship.

The total number of non-renunciants -- i.e., enemy aliens -- interned was 25,655. Of this number 14,426, or 56 percent, were of European origin -- Germans, Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians, even some Czechs and Poles.

Only 16,849 Japanese -- 11,229 enemy aliens and 5,620 who renounced their U.S. citizenship -- were interned.

Internees had been apprehended by the FBI, and after hearings before the alien enemy control boards were held for the duration of the war and longer or for deportation to their country of origin. They were detained in Department of Justice internment facilities administered by the U.S. Army or the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice. Internees were not free to leave these facilities unless paroled by the Department of Justice. Some Europeans remained interned until 1948 -- more than three years after the war in Europe had ended.

Relocation was based on Executive Order 9066 issued by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. It directed “the Secretary of War, and the Military commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion”. The East Coast, West Coast, Gulf Coast, and the Great Lakes were all subject to this policy.

The constitutionality of exclusion was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1944 in “Korematsu v. the United States of America” (323 U.S. 214-248, Oct. 1944 Term).

At the time of Pearl Harbor, there were approximately 127,000 persons of Japanese descent living in the United States. Almost 60 percent of the adults among them were Japanese nationals, enemy aliens by law. The remaining 40 percent of the adults were American by birth, but they were also citizens of Japan by choice (dual citizenship). Many had spent the formative years of their youth and received their education in Japan.

Early in 1942, all persons of Japanese descent, approximately 112,000 people, as well as smaller numbers of German and Italian enemy aliens were ordered to evacuate specific West Coast military areas in the interest of national security. Similar evacuations of German and Italian enemy aliens occurred along the entire East Coast. It was only out West that the U.S. government provided relocation centers as a temporary alternative to resettlement for those who wished it. Such housing was restricted to Japanese evacuees only, however. German and Italian evacuees were on their own. Ten such centers were established and administered by the civilian War Relocation Authority. These relocation centers had the highest live-birth rate and the lowest death rate in wartime United States and were exempt from the rationing programs imposed across the country.

Residents of such centers were free to leave when outside employment and living arrangements for them could be obtained. Of the 112,000 Japanese evacuees, 15,000 were immediately able to relocate elsewhere on their own. Another 35,000 who did enter the relocation centers eventually left and resettled in other parts of the country as employment or college opportunities arose during the war years. In some instances, Japanese living outside the exclusionary zone sought and received admittance to these centers.

The exclusion policy for the West Coast differed from that pursued elsewhere in the country because, in addition to the relocation centers, it also included a National Student Council Relocation Program. Under this government initiative, 4,300 students of Japanese ancestry -- but not those of German and Italian ancestry -- received scholarships to attend more than 500 colleges and universities located outside the exclusionary zone. In both cases of internment and relocation, U.S. citizen spouses and children were permitted to accompany head-of-household enemy aliens into relocation centers or internment camps on a voluntary basis so that families would not be separated.

http://www.foitimes.com/internment/rel_int.htm


So, how many Jewish students got scholarships from the Reich?

Mark

[Dan]

"Lindbergh is certainly interesting; he states that Great Britain, Roosevelt, and the Jews are egging America into the war; when the Japoanese bomb Pearl Harbor he volunteers for the Army AIr Force, but they deny him a military commission."

Mark, do you deny this? I hardly blame the Jews and British in particular for egging us on to fight for their interests, I would have done the same. But do you deny it?

[comrade seinfeld]

In accordance with the general theme of this thread concerning the whereabouts of the mass graves associated with the alleged Nazi massacres of Jews and others, particularly in the Soviet Union, I would like to raise the subject of Babi Yar. The below URL is a revisionist website dealing with Babi Yar, featuring an essay by Herbert Tiedemann, entitled Babi Yar: Critical Questions and Comments:

http://codoh.com/found/fndbabiyar.html

I do think that it is well researched and plausible, but, of course, that does not mean I necessarily believe that it is substantially correct. It does raise many interesting questions that proponents of the official Holocaust narrative would need to deal with. It is, in fact, officially agreed that approximately 34,000 Jews of all ages and conditions were massacred, buried in a ravine, and then the bodies were exhumed and burnt. What is apparent is that there has been no mass grave at Babi Yar uncovered, since there still would be remains if the bodies were burnt on pyres of railroad tracks and tree trunks and these deposited back into the ravine. Thus, under the Communists there was no attempt at a forensic examination, and, in fact, the area where the remains were supposedly deposited was made into a garbage dump. The article also raises the notion that if there were mass graves at Babi Yar and elsewhere, the Soviets would not have been very interested in seeking them out, since what would most likely to have been found would have been the victims of Stalin; but that would not apply today in non-Communist Russia.

Thus, as with nearly all aspects of the Holocaust, as regards Babi Yar the proponents of the extermination thesis are forced to rely on what are usually contradictory eyewitnesses, since there is not apparently any physical evidence, or at least no attempt to find any. Is it the case as regards any murder trial in the normal course of events that a guilty verdict purely on the basis of eyewitness testimony would be regarded as beyond the possibility of reasonable doubt?

[Hans]

Thus, as with nearly all aspects of the Holocaust, as regards Babi Yar the proponents of the extermination thesis are forced to rely on what are usually contradictory eyewitnesses

The massacer at Babi Yar is well documented in the Einsatzgruppen reports and confirmed by SS witnesses.

On 28. September 1941, Sonderkommando 4a reported to Berlin:

"Angeblich 150 000 Juden vorhanden. Maßnahmen eingeleitet zur Erfassung des gesamten Judentums, Exekution von mindestens 50 000 Juden vorgesehen. Wehrmacht begrüßt Maßnahmen und erbittet radikales vorgehen."

The operation took place on 29 and 30 September, Sonderkommando 4a reported the result to Berlin on 2 October 1941:

"Das Sonderkommando 4a hat in Zusammenarbeit mit Gruppenstab und zwei Kommandos des Polizei-Regiments Süd am 29. und 30. 9. 41 in Kiew 33 771 Juden exekutiert."

Ereignismeldung UdSSR Nummer 128 has to say the following about the executions on 3 November 1941:

"Obwohl man zunächst nur mit einer Beteiligung von etwa 5000 bis 6000
Juden gerechnet hatte, fanden sich über 30 000 Juden ein, die infolge
einer überaus geschickten Organisation bis unmittelbar vor der Exekution
noch an ihre Umsiedlung glaubten."

All quotations were taken from Wolfgang Benz, Legenden, Lügen, Vorurteile.

In addition, the massacer is mentioned in the Tätigkeits- und Lagebericht Nr. 6 der Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD in der UdSSR, which are is a summary of the daily "Erfolgsmeldungen" and was written by the RSHA in Berlin:

"Als Vergeltungsmaßnahme für die Brandstiftungen in Kiew wurden sämtliche Juden verhaftet und am 29. und 30. 9. insgesamt 33.771 Juden exekutiert. Gold, Wertsachen und Bekleidung wurden sichergestellt und der NSV zur Ausrüstung der Volksdeutschen und zum Teil auch der kommissariscehn Stadtverwaltung zur Überlassung an die bedürftige Bevölkerung zur Verfügung gestellt."

Source: Peter Klein, Die Einsatzgruppen in der besetzten Sowjetunion 1941/42, page 223.

There is a SS report immeadiately before the massacer saying that it will take place and how many, there is a report immeadiately after the mass execution saying that it took place and how many and there are two SS reports written some time after the massacer saying that it was done and how many. I think it is justified to say that the massacer at Babi Yar is a very well documented crime.

Does "Herbert Tiedemann" mention these reports? Why not?

[Scott Smith]

Mark, I don't see what there is about my article from Lindbergh that is so hard to understand. Lindbergh was an Isolationist (as am I). An Isolationist is not a pacifist (nor am I). An Isolationist believes in America First, whereas Internationalism believes in either imperialism or pulling the chestnuts of others out of the fire for more dissembling motives.

Lindbergh despised the warmonger Roosevelt and believed that the Allies were endangering Western-Christian civilization with the design to broaden the world war with American involvement when it was clear that Germany didn't want to fight the West.

Lindbergh was a patriot, and when the Japanese attacked, the American Firsters abandoned neutrality and fought for the country. Roosevelt hated Lindbergh and didn't want to see him come out of the war a combat hero, and thus a greater political threat to what FDR stood for than he already was. So the vindictive Roosevelt would not allow Lindbergh to be commissioned in the armed forces, but he couldn't prevent him from being used as a civilian technical adviser. IIRC, Lindbergh shot down at least three Japanese aircraft, but they cannot be officially confirmed since Lindy was not officially in combat. Similarly, the Democrats built Marshall up as a great general because they didn't want the blowhard MacArthur, who was a Republican, causing them any political trouble--so this attitude from FDR is not really surprising.

I'm different from Lindbergh in that I'm far more liberal and don't view Communism so hysterically, nor am I very mawkish at all about Western-Christian civilization.

Isolationism is the traditional foreign policy of the United States, as outlined by Washington and Hamilton, and it seeks to pursue neutrality and the avoidance of entangling alliances. The term Isolationism is a bit of disparaging propaganda because it implies xenophobia and Freudian "denial" (there's that word again) in foreign affairs--hence the Dr. Seuss cartoons about ostriches.

Best Regards,
Scott

The Grinch that Stole Europe!
Or, at least, that is clear to everybody who isn't a racist Gentile Anglophobe.

"But no Seuss book is as valuable, or indeed as funny, as this collection of editorial cartoons. Geisel drew them for the interventionist magazine "PM," whose first goal, as founding editor Ralph Ingersoll put it, was 'giving the people of America the facts about the threat of Fascism - at home and abroad.'" ...

"Of course, the debate surrounding World War II, from Munich and appeasement to American isolationism and Pearl Harbor, seems so much clearer when looked at through a child's eyes. That is what Geisel's cartoons accomplish.

"Lindbergh isn't accepted as an American hero for crossing the Atlantic - he is portrayed as a racist and Fascist. There can only be one reason why Americans such as Senator G.P. Nye are isolationists - they are Nazi sympathizers."

CLICK! Dr. Seuss Goes to War!

Sounds familiar...