text:
HomeRE: Debunking Holocaust Denial (part 6)
RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial (part 6)
October 6, 2019 June 19, 2021 The Anomalous Host Opinionconversation, debate, denial, denier, discussion, holocaust, revisionism, revisionist
In case you're wondering, part 5 is the Comments on Debunking Holocaust Denial post. In fact, for convenience, I'll just link to them all right here so as you can get some background on the stuff being argued here:
Part 1: https://theanomaloushost.org/2019/07/25/re-debunking-holocaust-denial-part-1/
Part 3: https://theanomaloushost.org/2019/07/26/re-debunking-the-holocaust-denial-part-3/
Part 5: https://theanomaloushost.org/2019/07/29/comments-on-the-holocaust-denial/
Bonus: Review on Schindler's List where I make some historical commentary relevant to this discussion: https://theanomaloushost.org/2019/08/06/schindlers-list-1993-review/
Edit (6-19-2021): some additional links:
Holocaust Twitter Wars part 1: https://theanomaloushost.org/2020/05/20/holocaust-twitter-wars-part-1-anne-frankly-torture-is-offensive/
Holocaust Twitter Wars part 2: https://theanomaloushost.org/2020/05/20/holocaust-twitter-wars-part-2-boycotts-and-reparations/
Holocaust Twitter Wars part 3: https://theanomaloushost.org/2020/05/20/holocaust-twitter-wars-part-3-poland-provocation-fdr-territory-grabs-and-the-cause-for-deaths-at-the-camps/
Thoughts on Mein Kampf Chapter 2 (part 2): https://theanomaloushost.org/2020/08/26/thoughts-on-mein-kampf-chapter-2-part-2/
So, I managed to get into a debate with a fellow named elias (extremely limited intelligence and such; nah I'm sorry, that's being mean, it stands for extraordinary large intelligence archaic superstar) over the previous posts in the series. A discussion that got big enough in the comments section, with enough worthy additions, that I decided to include the bulk of the discussion here. However, it is worth noting that I won't include certain posts. Primarily because they either contribute little to nothing, or because I already deleted them because they contributed little other than insults (I want the insults bundled with constructive criticism thank you very much, which thankfully does happen at one point as you will see). Or because I've bundled some responses into one response for convenience. This becomes a bit necessary when considering that some of these posts are spread across different pages (ie some were in part 2, others in part 4, etc.). And because I don't want the comments cluttered, so as it will be easy for others and newcomers to bring on their own comments, the others will be deleted some time after making this post (but not right away, I'll give it a few days or a week or so).
So, with that introduction out of the way…
A discussion on Germany's invasion of Poland, and the false flags and deaths leading up to it (response to part 1)
Dieter Schenk in "Hitlers Mann in Danzig" on the supposed massacres:
"The number of victims was stated differently in the literature and was probably between 1500 and 5800. The head of the Homicide Commission of the Reich Security Main Office, Dr Bernhard Wehner, quantified this number in a detailed testimony after the war (3479 dead were calculated by Gentzen on the basis of the grave and missing persons file). Wehner had been commissioned with the investigation in Bydgoszcz and first reported the number 5800 to the Foreign Office in mid-December 1939, which was responsible for preparing a German White Paper. Wehner reported: 'A short time later I learned that Hitler had been very excited about this White Paper. On his order, the entire printed edition had to be stamped in February or March 1940.' Hitler ordered that in the edition approved by him the number of victims be increased tenfold. Thus the number of 58,000 murder victims of the 'Polish September murders' was taken over by German propaganda. Internally, Wehner later corrected the total number downwards to 3500, after German police stations in former Polish territory worked 'properly' and recorded the missing cases."
So yeah, a pretty much entirely invented atrocity.
I think I'm going to enjoy the long-term ramifications of your response, if this goes on long enough. Even if I don't, glad to see you actually have some solid topics/data for me to tackle.
Find it strange that this book "Hitler's Mann in Danzig" (full title "Hitlers Mann in Danzig: Albert Forster and Nazi crimes in Danzig West Prussia"), by Dieter Schenk, isn't more widely available, especially on Amazon, in English. I'm not saying that to bash the source of information, I just find it peculiar. Mainly because that usually indicates it's a difficult book to reference. Looking it up made me come across this site, which seems to be either where you quoted, or it's linked to where you quoted it from:
https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=668802
Which also linked me to some rather fascinating discussions on the topic (these links are optional, just in case you were interested in going in-depth with it):
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=179570
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3697
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/polish_atrocities.htm
Aside from the 3479 number, lower than what I thought was the original minimum of 5000 (rounded down), that doesn't really change much of what I had been saying on the page. I even admit that it's possible for Myles' claim that the Germans multiplied the numbers for shock value to get more people supportive of the invasion of Poland. But at the same time, the quote doesn't specify whether or not this number is about Bloody Sunday, the the incidents prior to the invasion. In any case, I also agree that it's possible, if not the most likely scenario, that Hitler was looking for an excuse to invade Poland to take back territory lost to Germany from the Treaty of Versailles, and was willing to exaggerate the number of atrocities, and commit false flags, in order to do it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the Poles weren't very keen on Germans in their country (or at least the part of the country annexed to them post-WWI), and that there was a history of bad blood between them that extends far beyond just WWI, and that there relations were something along the lines of Britain and Ireland during the 80s (see films like In the Name of the Father, or Hidden Agenda, for examples of the latter).
They didn't like each others, and they killed each other in what can only be considered hate crimes. The scale of it differs depending on the source (and make no mistake, legitimate/truthful or otherwise, Dieter Schenk is not the only source of information for these numbers, and his conclusions/statements should be taken with a grain of salt, just as any other). And I have gone through several sources of information on different threads and novels that I can't wrap my head around which numbers are to be believed. Personally, I don't fully believe either side, the Germans or the Poles. I think the truth is somewhere in-between.
So when you say, "invented atrocity," I'm not entirely sure what you mean or even how to take that. What defines an atrocity? You saying the number has to be higher than 3000 (just to round it down the lowest thousand)? At which point do the number of deaths go from non-atrocities to atrocities? And which part about it is "invented?" The whole thing, or just part of it? Because I don't buy that it's invented in the sense that Poles didn't massacre a portion of the German population in Poland amidst all this, whether it's pre or post German invasion into Poland. That's like saying no reason existed outside of "Hitler wanting more territorial control of Europe" for Germany to invade Poland, when there were other reasons.
What I refer to as the "entirely invented atrocity" is the claim that the Poles slaughtered tens of thousands of Germans before the Nazi invasion occurred, as all available evidence shows it to be such. I don't deny that interwar Poland discriminated against many of its ethnic minorities, or that there were massacres of ethnic german civilians after the September 1st.
As to Hitlers motivations, one the main motivations for him starting the war was explicitly stated by him secretly on multiple occasions like here: https://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1939/schmundt/23-05-1939-schmundt.php
"Danzig is not the issue. For us, it is about expanding the living space in the East and providing food, as well as solving the Baltic problem." No "massacres" of ethnic germans figured in his actual reasons for invasion.
You're going to send me to a website that is entirely in German? I think you're under the false impression that I myself speak and read German. If you're able to do that, more power to you, but that doesn't mean much to me. If you're using something like Google Translate, that's not a completely reliable method.
As for the "all available evidence shows it to be such" regarding Hitler invading Poland, that's a damn big assumption. Sure, you have that quote Hitler made at a conference with his generals in May 23, 1939, about how the "Baltic problem" was more of an issue than Danzig (which he claims in the quote was a non-issue, but that could also entail it not being an issue compared to the Baltic problem).
Source: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/de-rearmament.htm
The better question is what is the "Baltic problem." That problem is the "Sovietization of the Batlics. Which brings up the other reason Hitler wanted Germany's territory back from Poland. The Soviets were the ones planning on domination of Europe, and Hitler knew this. He also knew the Soviets had plans of taking over Germany, not just Poland, and France, and many other parts of Europe until they took it as a whole. Taking Poland would push Germany closer to the Soviets to stop them. Hitler convinced Stalin to make a peace agreement with him to stem the tide, while Russia would take one half of Poland, and Germany would take the other half. This is why, before the Soviets decided to mount an attack on Germany (which they were planning to do), Germany did a pre-emptive strike on the Soviets, and intended to drive them all the way back to the capital which Germany would conquer, and leave the Soviets in such a state of dissaray that they wouldn't be able to muster up enough force for an effective counter-attack. Unfortunately for Germany, the plan failed, as the Russian winter decimated their forces, and gave Russia enough time to rally themselves and build up a force to push Germany back. And at that point, Germany was fighting a war on two fronts, between the Soviets, and the other Allies.
So yeah, Hitler anticipated all those countries going to war with him (though he was hoping the U.S. would stay out of it, as he didn't anticipate the Japanese bringing them into the conflict), and wanted countermeasures in addition to reclaiming territory lost by the Treaty of Versailles, lest another repeat of Germany's fate post-WWI would happen again where they suffered economically (among other ways). They failed, and were defeated, harshly. If nothing else, at least as far as what revisionists believe with a decent head on their shoulders, they damaged Soviet Russia badly enough to where they had to put their plans for an entire takeover of Europe on hold. But the Soviets did retain their hold on Poland, as well as East Germany.
So in that context, Danzig is a non-issue. That doesn't mean it wasn't an issue in other smaller contexts. Anyway, now you know what that line about the "Baltic problem" actually means. And why Hitler likely felt justified in having false flag operations and exaggerating the atrocities committed by the Poles.
Studies on cyanide remains, and whether they prove/disprove the gassing chambers and the holocaust (response to part 4)
Using youtube comments to debunk a scientific study is extremely convincing stuff. Well done.
Though seriously, can you actually refute the study by Markiewicz et al, or will you need to resort to youtube comments again? https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/iffr/report.shtml
Now I know you're just a trolling asshole. You clearly didn't read enough of the previous entries to note that I resorted to sources outside of YouTube to debunk the statements made in a YouTube video. And even if I didn't, that shouldn't matter. The source of the information is irrelevant if the information is accurate.
As for that link you put up, it's been refuted to an extent in part 3 of this little series:
https://theanomaloushost.org/2019/07/26/re-debunking-the-holocaust-denial-part-3/
My primary sources have been listed in that blog entry. But just for convenience:
http://www.zundelsite.org/archive/leuchter/report1/us_gas.html
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/auschwitzgaschambers.html
https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/16-tlr.pdf
Note that the Leuchter Reports book isn't written by Leuchter, but uses his findings as a base to expand from there with other researches and findings, and also noting and addressing the weaknesses and controversies of the initial reports.
If you want me to take you seriously, take a quote from the source you're using and point out exactly what you want me to debunk. And also keep in mind this isn't exactly a full-time thing for me. My preference is games and film (and philosophy). This is just a side-project by my standards.
See Tables I-IV in the Polish study where they find substantial cyanide residues in both the delousing, as well as in the remains of the homicidal gas chambers. It completely thrashes the claims by Leuchter which were based on his poor handling of samples.
TABLE III. Concentrations of Cyanide Ions in Samples Taken From the Crematorium Chambers (Or Their Ruins) in Which the Victims Were Gassed.
A – Sample No;
B – Concentration of CN- (µg/kg).
Crematorium I
A 17 17 18 19 20 21 22
B 28 76 0 0 288 0 80
28 80 0 0 292 0 80
Crematorium II
B 640 28 0 8 20 168 296
592 28 0 8 16 156 288
Crematorium III
68 8 12 12 8 16 52
68 8 8 16 8 16 56
Crematorium IV
B 40 36 500 trace 16
44 32 496 0 12
Crematorium V
B 244 36 92 12 116 56 0
248 28 96 12 120 60 0
Oh and I almost forgot, even another neo-nazi chemist, Frenz, tore Leuchters worthless "report" to shreds.
See page 32 http://web.archive.org/web/20120510073015/http://www.resist.com/libertybell/LB-199302.pdf
"It completely thrashes the claims by Leuchter which were based on his poor handling of samples."
Did you not read the fucking part in both the fucking blog post and in me previous fucking comment where I fucking said the fucking book fucking noted that Lauchter's initial fucking findings were controversial at best and weak at worst?
I've already stated what that book is and what it is not, and it is not entirely based upon the Leuchter Reports. It goes by that name because those were the reports that sparked an interest in investigating the gas chambers. There are numerous other reports from other people with much stronger evidence supporting the case that the gas chambers either didn't exist (ie weren't used to kill people, and likely not even used as a gas chamber), or that they weren't used to kill prisoners on a genocidal scale.
Don't make another comment that would could only be replied by repeat this for a third fucking time, for the reading impaired. If you're going to waste my fucking time, I'm going to delete your fucking comments.
And speaking of wasting time, I bet you have no idea what those fucking numbers from those tables even mean. You just linked and copy-pasted from some other site you Googled just thinking, "Oh, this looks intelligent enough to tear that douchebag denier's statements apart, I'll copy paste this link and then copy-paste this data. More work for him, less work for me, which means I can destroy this lame brain with ease without really even needing to think about it."
There is something you didn't take into account though, which proves definitively that you did not read the blog post in it's entirety, if at all; either that or you have a bad case of short term memory loss. This study you link to, with all those fancy tables and numbers, was conducted by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, and Jerzy Labedz at the Institute of Cracow (or Krakow). This study has been debunked. You know how I know it has been debunked? Because I quoted from a source that debunks this study. And not only did I quote from a source that debunks this study, but I quoted from a source that debunks this study ON THIS VERY FUCKING BLOG PAGE THAT YOU COMMENTED ON, BRINGING UP THIS DEBUNKED STUDY THAT I'VE ALREADY STATED HAS BEEN FUCKING DEBUNKED!
I mention in this blog post you're commented on that chemist Germar Rudolf has debunked this fucking study you fucking cited!
You just have to go up a few paragraphs from the last paragraph of the original post to fucking see it!
I don't have time for dumb fucking morons who themselves don't have the time to read the very article they're trying to debunk. That's worse than not watching a movie that you're writing a shitty review on.
Theres no "debunking" the fact that Markciwitz et al. found cyanide traces. You did not quote any actual "debunking" of their study by Rudolf, so i'd like to see the study that you mean before I comment further. Have you actually read their study that I linked? Because thats where the figures I copied come from.
I read it more than you read my blog page, that's for damn sure. Anyway, you want the actual link to the actual debunking report by Rudolf, because you don't want to look it up yourself. That's fine, I'm decent at carrying these debates like HBK carrying Hogan through a wrestling match. The red nosed reindeer created what is known as The Rudolf Report, which is more recently known as "The Chemistry of Auschwitz" in volume 2 of The Holocaust Handbooks series.
Short version: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n5p26_Zaverdinos.html
"In chapter 4, "Evaluation of the Chemical Analyses," Rudolf relates how the samples he collected were analyzed by the prestigious Institut Fresenius in Taunusstein, Hessen, Germany, without the institute being informed of the origin of the samples.40
This chapter includes a comparison of the methods and results of the Institut Fresenius, Alpha Analytical Laboratories and the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute. Rudolf regards the analytical method of the Cracow institute as altogether unreliable, mainly because it excludes the possibility of detecting stable compounds of cyanide like Prussian Blue, which should account for the vast majority of compounds detectable today.41 Table 15 in Rudolf's Report gives the precise place from where each sample was taken, the type of material it contains, the depth in the wall from which it originated, the iron concentration and, finally, the cyanide (CN-) content, measured in the standard ratio of milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Results from morgue No. 1 in Krema II, allegedly the chief killing location, show concentrations of 7.2 mg/kg or less, while the samples from the inner and outer walls of the delousing chambers show up to 13,500 mg/kg, quantities which are not merely larger but of different order. Rudolf also discusses the results of experiments in which he exposed building material to HCN under various laboratory conditions.
The fifth chapter contains Rudolf's conclusions (cited below). In chapter six, "Critique of Counter Reports," he responds to the 1945 and 1990 expert reports by the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute (Cracow),42 and also to the "anti-Leuchter" findings of French researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, German writer Werner Wegner,43 G. Wellers, Austrian chemist J. Bailer,44 Prof. G. Jagschitz,45 and historian Gerald Fleming.
Prussian Blue stains are formed on walls as follows: First the hydrocyanic acid (HCN) gas sticks to the walls, where it is adsorbed on the surface in a purely physical process. Later HCN combines with ferrous iron and, eventually, ferric iron in the building materials to form the permanent blue compound.46 Finally, the compound begins to "migrate" into and through the wall.47 The presence of moisture, as in the damp morgue-cellars of Birkenau Kremas II and III, hastens this chemical process, which may take a long time to complete.
This can be observed in Auschwitz-Birkenau buildings BW (Bauwerk) 5a and 5b, which had delousing or disinfestation chambers that used Zyklon B. The north-west interior wall of the delousing tract in building BW 5a shows intense blue coloring, and there are dark blue patches on the exterior walls of both these buildings, especially the wall of BW 5b which was exposed to wet westerly winds. This shows that Prussian Blue has "migrated" right through the brick. The claim that exposure to the elements would have "washed away" any cyanide compounds is thus shown to be false.48 On the contrary, as Rudolf explains, the wet Polish winds have encouraged the process of Prussian Blue formation in the walls of the disinfestation chambers (especially the west-facing outer-wall of the gas chamber in building BW 5b). If Birkenau's alleged homicidal "gas chambers" — the damp morgue rooms in Kremas II and III — had been exposed to Zyklon/ HCN as claimed, Prussian Blue staining should have been similarly visible.
Rudolf cites the interesting case of a sample of building material taken from a farmhouse in the Bavarian countryside that showed a cyanide concentration of 9.6 mg/kg, which is of the same order as the 7.2 mg/kg found in the "gas chamber" of Krema II. This suggests that such low concentrations may well be a phenomenon of nature, or be below the practical detection level.49
Some revisionists have suggested that the morgue cellars (where homicidal gassings were allegedly carried out) may have been disinfected from time to time with HCN, thus accounting for these low levels of cyanide. This is possible,50 but pharmacist Pressac has plausibly pointed out that HCN would not normally be used as a disinfectant.51 As already noted, however, it appears that such low concentrations may have nothing to do with occasional exposure to Zyklon (HCN). In fact, though, we simply do not know if the morgues were disinfected with Zyklon B or not. If the figures for cyanide found in the Leichenkeller indeed have nothing to do with applications of Zyklon B, that would surely be more satisfactory than having to account for partial gassings there."
Long version: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=2
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.3.2.
You're better off just going to those links yourself (the last one if you want to get closer to the section that actually addresses the Cracow Institute's findings, as they're not easy to format for a comment post like this.
The first thing that needs to be gotten out of the way is the fact that Rudolf himself admits that "chemistry is not a science with the power to prove or refute human gassings in Auschwitz »rigorously«"(http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html)
Right, so in the "Evaluation of Chemical Analyses" I looked at Rudolf presents a table (Table 19) which shows that barracks in Birkenau, indeed just like in the Polish study, show lower or no cyanide residue at all contrary to the morgue/gas chamber of Krema 2. And these are Rudolfs own samples. The low number of samples, just 4 in total from Krema 2 is also remarkable, and so low in fact that it proves nothing about whether the facility was used as a gas chamber or not. No wonder Rudolf came said what he did in his response to Green.
They also say:
"In 1989, the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute in Cracow, Poland, commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum, took samples from the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau, and conducted its own chemical tests, the results of which, in the eyes of many revisionists, appeared to confirm Leuchter's findings, even though the Cracow Institute itself came to the opposite conclusion."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n5p26_Zaverdinos.html
In addition to criticisms that came by Rudolph towards the Cracow Institute's findings in spite of that.
What's your point?
My point is pretty much exactly same as that of Rudolf, that merely measuring cyanide concentrations does not tell singlehandedly whether a gas chamber was used for homicidal purposes or not.
Discussion on the Wannsee Conference documents, and how to define words (response to part 2)
I like how you cite a document which spells out that the vast majority of the Jews are to be worked to death and that those who survive that will also be killed, but then say "this doesn't exactly sound like a plan for genocide to me." You are extremely bad at this holocaust denial-thing.
Was primarily focused on the whole gas chambers thing, rather than the mistreatment of a labor force in a forced labor camp, which was a common thing back then on an international level. From Japanese labor camps, to Russian labor camps (especially those), to Polish labor camps (prior to the Germans taking those over), to UK labor camps (of which they built the first known concentration camps in existence from what I understand), to the labor camps 9 million Germans died in post-WWII. I don't recall anyone calling any of that a genocide.
Just putting people in labor camps is not the same as planning to "comb Europe" of approx. 11 million people, kill all of those deemed unfit for work (that is the reigning implication throughout the Wannsee report, that the Jews deemed unfit for work are already long dead before the last of those deemed fit for slave labor die) and then kill the remnant of the ones fir for work to "prevent a new Jewish revival".
And your labor camps which supposedly killed 9 million germans post war are totally imaginary.
Regarding the first paragraph, that's speculation. I argued in the article that the Final Solution more likely referred to deporting the Jews rather than killing them on a massive scale. The point of preventing the Jewish revival was to have no Jews in Germany to cause another rise in Jews owning/controlling banks that could be used to finance an invasion of Germany, and/or a cultural/political change from within Germany, as had been done to Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. You can claim all you want as to the intent of those words, but it would carry no more weight than mine without context to support the alleged meaning, of which I have provided (in both this page and in other "RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial" pages).
As for the second paragraph about 9 million Germans being killed post WWII being imaginary, the hell it is:
https://truedemocracyparty.net/2014/01/german-holocaust-german-genocide-9-to-15-million-germans-killed-1945-1953-the-morgenthau-plan-eisenhowers-death-camps-a-forgotten-genocide/
http://whale.to/b/starvation_of_germans.html
https://uncensoredhistory.blogspot.com/2012/12/ethnic-cleansing-of-germans-after-ww2.html
http://www.ihr.org/other/july09weber.html
I am not speculating about anything, the protocol literally states that :"In the course of the practical implementation of the final solution, Europe is combed through from west to east." (Im Zuge der praktischen Durchführung der Endlösung wird Europa vom Westen nach Osten durchgekämmt.) https://www.ns-archiv.de/verfolgung/wannsee/wannsee-konferenz.php
The point of the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" was that there would be no Jews alive IN ALL OF EUROPE. That is what the report explicitly states. You have no clue what you are talking about. The protocol is explicitly about implementing the eventual genocide of European Jews and you cant escape that, especially after quoting the very paragraph which shows that in this article.
You are already on thin fucking ice with your demonstration that you're not taking my statements seriously in part 4. You're pushing it still. Go ahead, keep doing it. I'll be here when it breaks, and I'll clean it up.
First of all, you're citing a German page again. I'd prefer something in English. Preferably without me taking you at your word for your translation, as I'm aware at how translations from German to English can pose some problems, as I am aware of the problems that arose from translating Mein Kampf to English in different editions (and one of the earlier editions is biased with the footnotes attempting to make it as one-sided of a translation as possible). I wouldn't be surprised if similar issues could arise from this Wannsee conference.
Second, I've already stated that the report does not explicitly state what you are saying. You're just tossing it aside and just stating, "Of course it does!" That's not going to get us anywhere.
So I'll try to keep it simple. You state that an article from the conference states, "Europe is combed through from west to east" to implement the Final Solution. That can be taken either way, either to gather up the Jews for execution, or to gather up the Jews for deportation. Either way, they get placed in concentration/labor camps before reaching their final destination, whatever/wherever that may be (and I stated in the blog about where those final destinations attempted to be, whether it be Madagascar or Palestine, or those other countries which rejected them, including the U.S. [to be fair, I didn't mention that part, but it's not difficult to look up stories of countries rejected Jewish imports from Germany just prior to, or during, WWII]). That's a fair assumption to make, and you haven't demonstrated how it can be "literally" or "explicitly" otherwise, especially without giving any context to back up your assertion as to the meaning of those Wannsee lines.
If you wan to convince me otherwise, you'll have to point out the exact line, and show that it can be only taken in the way you claim. And just to save us some time, I'll go through some lines right here and now (but keep in mind, these are translations, so some context could be lost due to translation from the original language). And to save time, link to the pdf I used:
https://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf-wannsee/engl/protokol.pdf
"Under appropriate direction the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in an expedient manner in the course of the final solution."
The main thing this does explicitly and literally state is that the Jews are to be used for work, indicating labor camps. Unless it refers to the Jews that were actually fighting in the German army, but I think we both know that's not the case.
It also states this must be done in an "expedient" manner. So they need to be rounded up for work quickly. Why? Because they need to be wiped out quickly? Get taken off the streets quickly (to boost morale or something)? Or to create materials for Germany quickly? Keep in mind this is for work "in the East." In the Eastern front was Poland (where most of these concentration camps already are, already built not by the Germans, but by the Poles). And East of Poland? Soviet Russia. Considering this was 1942, soon after their offensive against the Soviets failed, and their military in a poor state, it would make sense they would need their military to be resupplied rapidly, and have improved/new/fixed roads. And they want to deliberately kill off their work force that they so desperately need when the tide of war is turning against them, when they need that work force now more than ever? That doesn't make practical sense.
"In large (labor) columns, with the sexes separated, Jews capable of work will be moved into these areas as they build roads, during which a large proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction."
Labor force organized, separated by sex, to build roads and such. The part that you take to explicitly/literally mean the Final Solution is all about genocide is the part that states "a large proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction." Specifically, interpreting "drop out" as meaning dying. That's a possibility I will grant you, and currently the one I agree with (as opposed to just being too exhausted or sick or injured to continue working, which is also a possibility, especially with typhus being a problem that was killing both Jews and non-Jews).
But what of "natural reduction?" "Reduction" obviously means less workers overtime, which I currently take to mean they die via some cause. But what is the "natural" cause? Are we to believe that firing squads and executions via Schindler's List movie style are what they consider to be natural? Or is it more likely the disease and work injuries that are the more natural causes? I suppose overworking them (ie working them to death) is also a possibility, but that also wouldn't make practical sense if the Germans are in dire need of a work force to help build Germany back up on an infrastructure and military supply level. Working them to death, deliberately, would cut down on their number of workers faster than they would like.
To suggest that the "natural" in "natural reduction" is anything other than disease or work accidents is sketchy.
"The remnant that eventually remains will require suitable treatment; because it will without doubt represent the most [physically] resistant part,"
"suitable treatment," and a remnant that is "physically resistant." Physically resistant indicates one capable of fighting back physically, resisting orders to move to one place, do another, causing a camp riot, etc. Suitable treatment, in your case, would indicate they should be executed. That is certainly a possibility. It is also possible, in my opinion, it refers to how they are treated when they come back from work, while they are still in the camps. How they are to be treated, suitably, while in the camps. Although the next part does carry a bit of worry in its tone, and is more supportive of your interpretation than anything preceding it.
"it consists of a natural selection that could, on its release, become the germcell of a new Jewish revival. (Witness the experience of history.)"
Natural selection being the naturally strong that survive (which supports my earlier position as to the interpretation of natural reduction). But the "germcell of a new Jewish revival" is the most telling part. And the "Witness the experience of history" is a callback to the Bolshevik revolution, the Jewish bankers (in particular the Rothchilds), and how they caused Germany's poor state of affairs post-WWI (as a result of WWI). As in they didn't want a Jewish revival to cause the same thing to happen again that would cause a repeat of history (hence the "experience of history" indicating they should learn from past mistakes of letting Jews get into such positions of power). There is worry in these lines, a caution that this outcome should be avoided.
The answer to this which you believe is the method they went with is to exterminate these "natural selection" Jews before they are released out of the camps. If it weren't for the fact that there aren't any real known "education camps," I would suspect that the "suitable treatment" could refer to those rather than extermination.
And yet that answer comes with its own share of problems, which becomes obvious when considering the context surrounding this entry I pulled from the Wannsee Protocols. If they really did intend genocide, why wouldn't they just say it? Why wouldn't they just say eliminate, kill, murder, eradicate, buy a farm, for these labor workers?
The entire writing itself is focused not just on how to transport Jews, which Jews to transport and to where (depending on whether they are first or second generation Jew, or whether they are married to a non-Jew German, and/or have children, and/or are over the age of 60), but also how to emigrate Jews. Immigration restrictions are mentioned. I mean, it goes through a considerable amount of worry for deporting Jews in an organized manner out of Germany for something that non-revisionists claim is a document that is all about genocide. Especially when nothing is mentioned on how to actually do the genocide. Such as transporting Zyklon B, gas chamber supplies, bullets and supplies for camp guards on a regular basis, how to handle mass graves, etc. You know, standard stuff for carrying out murder on a massive scale. Seems more concerned with move Jews out of Germany than about killing Jews in Germany.
To pull out a few quotes demonstrating what I'm talking about:
"The Chief of the Security Police and the SD then gave a brief review of the struggle conducted up to now against this foe. The most important elements are:
a) Forcing the Jews out of the various areas of life (Lebensgebiete) of the German people,
b) Forcing the Jews out of the living space (Lebensraum) of the German people."
Sounds bad right? Until you read the lines that follow:
"In pursuit of these aims, the accelerated emigration of the Jews from the area of the Reich, as the only possible provisional solution, was pressed forward and carried out according to plan.
On instructions by the Reich Marshal, a Reich Central Office for Jewish Emigration was set up in January 1939, and its direction entrusted to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD. Its tasks were, in particular:
a) To take all measures for the preparation of increased emigration of the Jews;
b) To direct the flow of emigration;
c) To speed up emigration in individual cases.
The aim of this task was to cleanse the German living space of Jews in a legal manner."
Sounds heavily in support of my position. And it gets better:
"The disadvantages engendered by such forced pressing of emigration were clear to all the authorities. But in the absence of other possible solutions, they had to be accepted for the time being."
Sounds to me like they're not considering genocide as a "possible solution." In fact, it seems to be absent from their list of possible solutions.
So when you say, "the report explicitly states […] [t]he protocol is explicitly about implementing the eventual genocide of European Jews and you cant escape that," I say I can not only escape that, I say you don't know what you're talking about when you state that the protocol is "explicitly" about genocide. If you feel otherwise, then show me otherwise. Show me where I've gone wrong in my interpretations that I have laid out in the most explicit and literal manner possible.
Allright, you may actually be one of the most deceptive denier cretins I have ever responded to, either that or you are just extremely dense. You present the portions on the emigration of Jews as if they are the policy that the Nazis are pursuing at the time of the protocol, and then omit this line: "In the meantime, in view of the dangers of emigration in wartime, and
the possibilities in the East, the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German
Police has forbidden the emigration of Jews." (Inzwischen hat der Reichsführer-SS und Chef der Deutschen Polizei im Hinblick auf die Gefahren einer Auswanderung im Kriege und im Hinblick auf die Möglichkeiten des Ostens die Auswanderung von Juden verboten) That refers to the ban on Jewish emigration that Himmler enacted on 23rd of October 1941. The portions you deceptively quote pertain to the measures Nazis sought against Jews PRIOR TO 1941.
So, the portions on emigration that you selectively quote have nothing whatsoever to do with the "Final solution" that the protocol proposes you fucking moron.
The rest of your post is pure desperate obfuscation and bullshitting. I can put the protocol in its proper context that becomes obvious from all other available evidence on the development of the Nazi "Final Solution" in this period, as can be seen in Hans Franks explicit secret speech to the officials of the Generalgovernment (Nazi-occupied Poland) : "Man hat uns in Berlin gesagt: weshalb macht man diese Scherereien; wir können im Ostland oder im Reichskommissariat auch nichts mit ihnen anfangen, liquidiert sie selber!" (We were told in Berlin: why have this trouble; we can't do anything with them in the Ostland or in the Reichskommissariat, liquidate them yourselves!) https://www.ns-archiv.de/personen/frank/16-12-1941.php
"Diese 3,5 Millionen Juden können wir nicht erschießen, wir können sie nicht vergiften, werden aber doch Eingriffe vornehmen können, die irgendwie zu einem Vernichtungserfolg führen, und zwar im Zusammenhang mit den vom Reich her zu besprechenden großen Maßnahmen."
("We cannot shoot these 3.5 million Jews, we cannot poison them, but we will be able to intervene in a way that somehow leads to a successful extermination, in connection with the great measures to be discussed in the Reich.")
Plus a document on the murder of German Jews via gassing from October 1941 https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/19411025-wetzel-no365/index.html
From Franks speech it is inescapably obvious that the Nazis were planning the extermination of Jews in Poland.
By the way, do you know what the Einsatzgruppen were? Do you know what they had been up to in Nazi-occupied areas of the Soviet Union since July 1941?
In all fairness, it's a bit of both. I'm both dense, and a bit on the deceptive and reckless side (don't take "deceptive" the wrong way, we're already having issues without how to take the meaning of words). That combination tends to work wonders for laying traps like the one you just fell into. Being dense makes my arguments thick. Being deceptive and reckless makes me prone to making an unintentional mistake for others to point out. And 9 times out of 10, when they call me out on it, they make a fatal mistake that makes my error look insignificant by comparison. Haven't found a reason to stop using that method yet.
On the one hand, it's true, I should've caught the line about how emigration was banned by the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police, but I didn't, and you were right to call me out on that and call me a fucking moron (and I'm a bit curious to see how much of a fucking moron I really am after this post).
On the other hand, it also supports my main point. They would like to emigrate them, but don't. And why don't they? One of the two reasons is because of "the dangers of emigration in wartime." Why would they give a shit about the dangers posed to the Jews due to emigration if they would want them dead anyway? So they transport them to the East into labor camps instead, for the reasons I stated above.
So, Himmler declared the ban on emigration October 23, 1941 (though it should be noted it also states "Evacuation Aktionen will remain unaffected," which I take to mean the transportation of Jews to labor camps, particularly since the Wannsee document states on page 9, "The start of the individual major evacuation Aktionen will depend largely on military developments."), while the document for the Final Solution was first put up at the Wannsee Conference on January 20th, 1942, roughly 3 months later.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/order-banning-the-emigration-of-jews-from-the-reich
However, that line about emigration being banned is also followed with information about where the Jews are to be distributed. There was one place I find to be quite peculiar:
If that's the same England as UK England, British England, then this is seemingly contradictory if emigration of the Jews is banned at this point. It got more confusing when it stated it was taking into account the existence of 11 million Jews, when there were less than 300,000 in Germany at this point.
https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-Germany-Statistics-and-Numbers
Which makes me wonder, are the Germans actually tracking the number of Jews all around Europe? Because that seems to be the only logical explanation. Which makes me curious as to where these Jews were primarily located, because Germany certainly lacked that whole 6 million number. According to a source, Poland and USSR contained the bulk of the Jewish population, with Poland containing 3 million Jews, and USSR containing a bit less (at least prior to WWII):
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/jewish-population-of-europe-in-1933-population-data-by-country
And according to the Wannsee Protocol document, Hungary held 5 million Jews at the time it was written. This was notable because the document made special note of this population with this line on page 9:
"In order to settle the problem in Hungary, it will be necessary in the near future to impose an adviser for Jewish questions on the Hungarian Government." In addition, "to send a specialist from the
Main Office for Race and Settlement to Hungary for general orientation" and "will temporarily
be designated officially as Assistant to the Police Attaché."
It's safe to say Germany didn't hold all these countries that are listed. So this begs the question: if the Final Solution was about the extermination of the Jews, does that mean they intended to take over all the listed countries and exterminate the Jews there afterwards? I don't get it. Even by traditional holocaust history, the Final Solution seemed to be all about eliminating the Jews within German controlled territory near the end of the war, at a time where they had no hope of taking some of those listed countries.
Also rather strange that there is an option to either be sterilized or "evacuated" for certain Jewish types within this context of genocide.
One other thing of note is a reason brought up for the Jews to be evacuated, on page 15:
"Jews must be removed as fast as possible from the Government-General, because it was there in particular that the Jew as carrier of epidemics spelled a great danger, and, at the same time, he caused constant disorder in the economic structure of the country by his continuous black-market dealings."
Even with the emigration ban, it is still a strange document to read under the assumption that the Final Solution indicates genocide, especially when the ban on emigration seems to be a temporary status until wartime was over (or so they hoped).
Anyway, regarding the whole, "the portions on emigration that you selectively quote have nothing whatsoever to do with the "Final solution" that the protocol proposes you fucking moron," that depends. Because this ban on emigration is indicated to be a temporary measure in the document, via the words: "In the meantime," which is included in the quote you gave. As in, "In the meantime, until the safety issues are settled, there will be no more emigration." And this safety issue is pointed out primarily because of the dangers of wartime. As in different measures will be taken once the war is over, and they resume deportation dealings such as the Haavara Transfer, and the Madagascar plan. In the meantime, forced labor.
What you call, "pure desperate obfuscation and bullshitting," I call literal translation of the words being written (assuming the English translation is accurate). But, as you go on to say, it's the context that matters. So you bring up the Hans Franks speech, from the infamous Hans Frank diary. You remember the past few times I bitched about you linking to sites that are only in German, and thus am at the mercy of your translation of them? This is one of those times where it really fucking matters. Especially when considering the word might not mean the same today as it was back then.
The "liquidate them yourselves" line doesn't mean much here. That can easily be taken to mean, "remove," which can refer to being transported away.
As for the next one that states, "successful extermination," that's the one where the translation is controversial. Mainly regarding the word Vernichtungserfolg, or more appropriately shortened to Vernichtung. There have been debates as to the actual meaning of this word, and in the context it was used, and even if the alleged diary of Hans Frank it was found in was legit, as there are no actual original copies of it around to verify.
"anti-revisionists frequently cite a speech made on 16 December 1941 (often misdated to 13 December 1941). In this speech, Frank used words which anti-revisionists argue mean "exterminate" and which revisionist argue refer to deportations (see Meanings and translations of German words and Holocaust revisionism). However, Frank also explicitly stated that "We cannot shoot 3.5 million Jews, we cannot poison them" and "I have initiated negotiations for the purpose of deporting them to the east.""
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Hans_Frank
"Etymologically Vernichtung means "bringing to nothing". English words/phrases such as nullify, annul, annihilate, and "bring to naught" have similar etymologies."
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Meanings_and_translations_of_German_words_and_Holocaust_revisionism#Vernichtung
In addition, if shooting the Jews isn't an option, and if poisoning them isn't an option (is Zyklon B not also considered a poison? Just how far off is poison from gas?), then what else would there be in that conversation?
And then you decide to bring in something that comes off as a tangent, but it is certainly a challenge (as is this whole comment you've made; you've finally met my expectations). The document of the Germans gassing Jews, allegedly using vans. This gets fascinating, not only because a revisionist named Samuel Crowell debunked this (page 88),
http://www.samuelcrowell.com/wp-content/uploads/Sherlock-SamuelCrowelldotcom.pdf
but Jamie McCarthy also debunked Crowell's debunking.
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/19411025-wetzel-no365/crowell.shtml
And then Crowell responded again debunking the debunker's debunking.
https://codoh.com/library/document/881/
These are my favorite types of discussions to look over.
So first of all, I find the term "gas vans" hilarious, because I have a hard time believing those things not only existed, but were effective, give how cautious one must be of a stationary gas chamber, let alone a mobile one. And Cromwell notes:
"In contrast, there is no documentary reference to "Vergasungsapparate" either before or during the war which characterizes "Vergasungsapparate" as "gas vans.""
In other words, that German word referred to delousing chambers.
Last point, no, I was not aware of what the Einsatzgruppen are, let alone what they did. Though I question you logic of bringing them into this when the previous topics don't seem to be settled yet, and it's a questionable tactic as to whether this subject of the Einsatzgruppen, or even the Wetzel-Lohse letter referring to "gassing devices," is going to resolve those topics any faster, especially when you seem to be getting rather irritated at my denseness. If it's an attempt to overwhelm me with data, good luck.
Admittedly I feel slightly silly, because I omitted this part of the Wannsee protocol that kills all of your squirming about the protocols meaning: "III. Anstelle der Auswanderung ist nunmehr als weitere Lösungsmöglichkeit nach entsprechender vorheriger Genehmigung durch den Führer die Evakuierung der Juden nach dem Osten getreten." ("III Instead of emigration, the evacuation of the Jews to the East has now taken the place of emigration as a further possible solution, with the corresponding prior permission of the Führer.") "Emigration" has been replaced by the genocidal "evacuation" of the Jews. Does not get clearer than that. And with the exact request by Bühler on the "removal" of Jews from the Generalgovernment the meaning only gets clearer.
And you could try a bit harder next time to not prove me right about you being a blatantly deceptive cretin. Like, when you say that "liquidate" means Jews in the Generalgovernment will be "transported away" when Frank says that Berlin LITERALLY TOLD HIM THAT JEWS CANT BE TRANSPORTED TO THE EAST AND THAT HIS ADMINISTRATION SHOULD SEEK TO KILL THEM THEMSELVES AND WHEN FRANK EXPLICITLY REFERS TO EXTERMINATION AND THAT THERE ARE NEGOTIATIONS ON THE MEASURES ON EXTERMINATION IN BERLIN????? HOW THE FUCK do you expect your bullshit to fly when I quote the full excerpt of what Frank said??????
And you dodge of the content of Wetzels letter is also hilarious.
Its also immensely hilarious to me that you think that the Nazis banned Jewish emigration because they were afraid for their wellbeing, when the obvious reason they refer to a "danger" is their assumption that Jews who emigrate would pass on information to their enemies. Also hilarious is the fact that you apparently also thought that the table in the protocol showing the Jewish population distribution in Europe was meant to show where the nazis would emigrate them.
Admittedly I feel slightly silly, because I omitted this part of the Wannsee protocol that kills all of your squirming about the protocols meaning: […] "Instead of emigration, the evacuation of the Jews to the East has now taken the place of emigration as a further possible solution, with the corresponding prior permission of the Führer.") "Emigration" has been replaced by the genocidal "evacuation" of the Jews. Does not get clearer than that.
Christ in a gas van! You're right! I've been wrong this entire time! That does kill all of my "squirming" about the protocols meaning! Changing "emigration" to "evacuation" which can only mean "genocide" like a mother getting an abortion doctor to evacuate the baby from her womb, that proves everything! Words like "drop out" didn't do it, words like "natural reduction" didn't do it, "suitable treatment" didn't do it. I made arguments regarding how those weren't as explicitly/literally clear as you gave them credit for. But "evacuation," oh, you got me beat there. There's no other way to interpret that other than "genocide, kill 'em all, give 'em a whiff of the gas, bodies and fire, muahahahah!" You can look that up in the dictionary right now and find that very definition from merriam-webster.com:
evacuate verb
1 : to remove the contents of : EMPTY
2 : to discharge from the body as waste : VOID
3 : to remove something (such as gas or water) from especially by pumping
4a : to remove especially from a military zone or dangerous area
b : to withdraw from military occupation of
c : VACATE sense 1
were ordered to evacuate the building
1 : to withdraw from a place in an organized way especially for protection
2 : to pass urine or feces from the body
I can literally and explicitly see how there's no other way to view that word other than genocide. Just as I can see it wouldn't have mattered if I did address the whole "liquidate" meaning, which also can only mean "genocide!" You know, like shown on that same website I used for the "extermination" mistranslation:
Nevermind the other arguments made about there being no original copy of Hans Frank's diary containing those words. That obviously doesn't matter anymore in the context of you demonstrating the proper use of the word "evacuate." Same way on how you've clearly demonstrated that the nuclear Wetzel's letter was completely dodged by me, and not addressed directly at all, in any way that would refute that one sentence with a link.
As for that whole mention of Jewish emigration and the reason for its ban that I gave, I guess that doesn't matter now since my whole argument fell apart because of the meaning of one word (a meaning that can only be taken one way). I was thinking more along the lines of danger to the transportation device itself, and those who operate it (and possibly those it is transporting if we are to consider the possibility of the revisionist's point of view, which we're no longer not due to me getting owned), rather than the danger of Jews passing on information about the Nazi's plans. You know, like when all that other emigration was going on prior to October 1941. But no matter.
And as to you laughing at (yet wrong interpretation of) my alleged take-away of the German's tracking the numbers of Jews all around Europe. Obviously I wasn't indicating that this meant they were tracking the best locations to emigrate the Jews to. Sorry that wasn't as explicit as the word "evacuate." I raised several questions hoping you would give an explicit answer as to how to interpret all that. But given your response, it seems there's only one other possibility. That the Germans planned on taking over all those countries and carrying out the "evacuation" of the Jews there. Something that was obviously and easily achievable given their position in 1942. Good to know.
Welp, since you've shown me the error of my ways, and shown that I am in fact a dense deceptive fucking moron, who was so dense/deceptive/moronic as not to see that "evacuate" meant "genocide," and since that kills the entirety of my argument in spite of any other points that have been made; I see no reason to continue it. My hats off to you sir, for the knowledge you've provided, along with the laughs. In fact, the ownage I felt was so great, I'll be sure to enshrine this in a part 6 of this Holocaust series.
So now if you'll excuse me, I need to do a genocide on the shitter.
PS: Decent page that sums up reasons for the artificial creation of the Holocaust:
https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/115861409/posts/47173
← A response to a #BLM supporter.
Joker (2019) review →
6 thoughts on "RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial (part 6)"
elias says:
Admin's note: This comment has been restored from the spam folder. Note that I was not aware of this comment's existence until after addressing the comment elias made after this one. This will be addressed by me in a later comment below, after the response to elias' second comment on this page.
Anyone who honestly reads the Protocol will see that the "evacuation" the protocol proposes is a part of the "Final Solution", you know, that passage you quote and have even admitted can only refer to eventual mass murder even despite your obvious attempt to obfuscate it as hard as possible, and your deceptive quoting of portions of the protocol on the abandoned emigration policy which I already exposed you on. https://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf-wannsee/engl/protokol.pdf
"Under appropriate direction the Jews are to be utilized for work in the
East in an expedient manner in the course of the final solution. In large
(labor) columns, with the sexes separated, Jews capable of work will be
moved into these areas as they build roads, during which a large
proportion will no doubt drop out through natural reduction.
The remnant that eventually remains will require suitable treatment;
because it will without doubt represent the most [physically] resistant part,
it consists of a natural selection that could, on its release, become the
germcell of a new Jewish revival. (Witness the experience of history.) "
Explain to me, how this is not a program for eventual mass murder.
Its also telling you have nothing to say on the fact that I showed your interpretation of the Frank speech to be COMPLETELY PANTS-ON-HEAD RETARDED. Also retarded is your claim of there being "no original diary":
http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/3799-journal-and-office-records?q=2233-PS#p.171
It contains the explicit speech on the planned extermination on pages 170-171. I have made you look extremely silly now, so I guess you'll just go and squeal forgery, or just do your usual pathetic obfuscation exercise. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
By the way, do you want me to go and find some other nice things Frank said on the "Final Solution"?
Trick question, ill bring them up whether you want me to or not.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/2233-ps.asp:
"That we sentence 1.2 million Jews to die of hunger should be noted only marginally. It is a matter, of course, that should the Jews not starve to death it would, we hope, result in a speeding up of anti-Jewish measures."
https://www.ns-archiv.de/personen/frank/09-06-1944.php:
"Für die Bekämpfung der Juden war es unerläßlich, daß wir Polen bekamen; denn hier in Polen lebte ja die natürliche Fruchtbarkeit des jüdischen Volkes, sie bestand ja sonst nirgendwo mehr. Seit der Ausrottung der Juden in Polen ist es, rein blutsmäßig gesehen, mit der jüdischen Zukunft vollkommen vorbei; denn nur hier gab es Juden, die Kinder hatten. […]"
"For fighting the Jews it was indispensable that we got Poland, for here in Poland lived the natural fertility of the Jewish people, it no longer existed anywhere else. Since the extermination of the Jews in Poland the Jewish future, seen purely under blood aspects, is completely over and out; for only here there were Jews who had children."
And fuck it, lets throw in an explicit Hitler quote on extermination of Jews in Poland as well to make you feel extra-silly:
https://www.hdot.org/evans/#note_evans430h_n10:
"Wenn die Juden dort nicht arbeiten wollten, würden sie erschossen. Wenn sie nicht arbeiten könnten, müßten sie verkommen. Sie wären wie Tuberkilbazillen zu behandeln, an denen sich ein gesunder Körper anstecken könne. Das wäre nicht grausam, wenn man bedenke, daß sogar unschuldige Naturgeschöpfe wie Hasen und Rehe getötet werden müßten, damit kein Schaden entstehe. "
"If the Jews there didn't want to work, they were shot. If they couldn't work, they had to perish. They had to be treated like a tuberculosis bacilli, from which a healthy body could be infected. That was not cruel, if one remembered that even innocent natural creatures like hares and deer had to be killed so that no harm was caused."
Your squealing on gas vans is extremely funny since you seem to believe they used HCN, when the main method, depending on model was either carbon monoxide bottles or piping in the engine exhaust. (And no, we cant say for sure whether the Wetzel letter means gas vans, I personally think it means stationary installations using Co2).
You should probably take a look at some of the surviving, explicit documentation on them, like the Becker Letter: http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/2459-letter-and-administrative-documents?q=PS-501#p.1
Willy Just's memo: https://www.ns-archiv.de/einsatzgruppen/gaswagen/97000.php
And many more compiled here: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2015/10/contemporary-german-documents-on.html
Put this on your fucking blog.
Its become blatantly obvious that you can only argue by concocting filthy strawmen against me: No, I do not claim that "evacuate" means genocide by itself, rather I point out that the protocol makes it obvious that the Nazis have abandoned emigration and are going to "evacuate" the Jews to "the east" to commence the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", which is obvious from the protocol alone to be genocide.
Now, I already made a post showing how silly your attempts at bullshitting on the Frank speech and the source it comes from are, and Im presuming it is pending review because of multiple links to many different sources I used.
Surely, you are not afraid of what I showed and haven't deleted it? You did appear to delete one of my messages where I brought up your blatant and pathetic dodge of the Wetzel letter. In case this post gets deleted as well, I'll have a couple of screenshots of proof of you being afraid to address my arguments.
"Presuming you didn't delete my longer post, you can delete this one when you respond to the long one."
Fuck off. You don't get to tell me what I can and can't delete on my own website you presumptuous cunt. I deleted "this" post just on principle. I've also changed the settings on the website to where I have to now approve "every" comment made before it can be shown because of you. Thanks for that (it was bound to happen eventually; if it wasn't you, it would be someone else).
As to your longer one, there really isn't much point. But since you seem so keen on making threats of screenshots of conversations (admirable, as it's a tactic I share at times when I visit other sites, but highly laughable in this context, because your arguments are a joke at this point, and I'd expect any other reasonable person you share those screenshots with to laugh at your face, assuming you don't cherry-pick the information you do take screenshots of; but even if you do share it with more gullible people, and this causes them to visit my site, then great, more views for me), I'll address you just one more time. Not because your threat carries any weight (though I'm sure you'll feel otherwise regardless), but to make one last attempt at showing why I currently don't give a shit one way or another what you think at this point. You're a lost cause. I'm just playing things up for an potential viewer at this point, and they can make up their own minds on this.
So, to your first point. You claim I was making a strawman out of your statement regarding evacuation of the Jews by the Nazis. Motherfucker, you treat my arguments as if they are strawmen by saying some bullshit about how "evacuation" can only mean one thing, just as how "liquidate" can only mean one thing, and that the whole report explicitly states that it's all about the genocide of the Jews. At best, this is jumping the gun on the entire argument. You only view this words under the assumption that the holocaust is real and definitively happened, as opposed to, "it may or may not have happened." You leave to room for a reasonable argument to be had, especially when you view these words as explicitly showing that they refer to genocide. Motherfucker, you don't even know the meaning of the word "explicit." So let's make that part at least explicitly clear, going back to Meriam-Webster:
explicit (adjective)
fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent
There is nothing explicit about the fucking protocol in relation to genocide. The only thing explicit about it is that Jews are to be evacuated from Germany, as completely as possible, with the exception of certain married Jews, those who were awarded the Iron Cross in the German army (which was a thing by the way, Jews being in Hitler's army, and not just limited to a few Jews here and there; the protocol states as much), those of a certain generation of Jews, etc. It doesn't say anything about killing the motherfuckers. At best, that is implied. You had to state that this is what evacuation meant, because there is nothing quotable in those documents which state the Jews are to be killed. I even went through a section of it, sentence by sentence, to demonstrate the lack of there being anything explicit about a genocide going on, and argued how there was such a lack of it that the revisionist argument was at the very least a plausible one to conclude.
I tried to show you reason with that, I tried to show you that you were only speculating (about as much as I am, which is why the whole thing is open for debate). But no, you just kept jumping back on the "explicit" bandwagon. Unless the document is shown that it intended to murder all those jews via gas chambers (which you at least seem to indicate reluctant agreement on the fact that the chemical science behind the proving and disproving of the gas chambers at Auschwitz to not be entirely reliable, but only as circumstantial evidence in one way or another), or via executions, you don't get to call it a document explicitly calling for genocide. All you have is ambiguity and implications. And none of that changed even when you pointed out the error I made in overlooking the ban on emigration, a mistake I admitted to.
Not to mention, I raised questions about all those numbers of Jews, the full 11 million, listed in the protocols, among which were in certain countries that Germany didn't have under their occupation. You said the protocols clearly called for the combing of Europe to round up all of those Jews and execute them. I raise the question as to how that is possible if Germany didn't have control, and likely wasn't realistically able to gain control, of those countries not occupied by them that held Jews. While also attempting to point out how your argument shows that the protocols are implied, at best, that the Jews would be gathered from all these areas and killed, as opposed to explicit. I wanted an explanation of that, as I was legitimately confused as to whether or not you believed Germany was planning on going through all those places (implying they were planning to take them over and then deal with the Jews in those areas when they did, and by deal I mean ship to some camp where they would be killed), and if you did believe that was the plan, how they could realistically be expected to carry that out under the circumstances of that time period. But you dismissed (and dare I say dodged) those issues and just stated that it was explicitly stated, when I explicitly (ie clearly) demonstrated that this is not the case, and that you had failed to prove that this was anything more than just implied at best (while I argue this implies something other than your preconceived notion).
And you say I'm the one making up the strawman? Get fucked.
As for the Wetzel letter, and my "dodging" of it (considering what I've already pointed out in this response regarding your moronic use of the term "explicit," I find that laughable), that issue got tiresome real fast. I linked not only to the guy and his writings that debunked it, but also to the debunking of his debunk, and the debunking of the debunking of the debunk. I fail to see how that is a dodge. And the fact that you call it a "blatant and pathetic" dodge without explaining how it is a dodge, makes me not want to take it anymore seriously than how you use the term explicit. It's not helping your case of being someone who should be taken seriously.
And lastly, this response of your regarding the Frank speech. Well, it was never pending review to begin with. If a comment has enough links in it (and it isn't a comment made by me, the owner of this site), it automatically gets transitioned to the spam folder, where I almost never look for comments (it gets cluttered with legit spam all the time on a daily basis). This is not something I control, it's an automated process done by wordpress (though I could alter the amount of links a user is capable of posting before it becomes automatically placed in the spam folder as opposed to being posted the moment you are done with the comment, or placed in the Pending Approval section; but I'm not going to do that; users like you will just have to notify me of this, though in your case that won't be an option after this). It's only just now, in this comment of yours I'm responding to, that got me to look into the spam folder to see that's where some of your responses wound up (three of them, I believe).
This whole debate has gotten rather tiresome. When you're not calling my responses dodges and strawmen and moronic, you're opening up more cans of worms by bringing in other topics on top of ones that haven't been fully resolved. That doesn't come off very well.
"Oh, that's been disproven because of this and this and this."
"No it hasn't, and what about, this, and this?"
"Well that addresses this, and–"
"Oh that's stupid, that doesn't refute anything, and what about this and this and–"
"Hold your horses, it does bring up valid points that refute this aspect of–"
"–and this and this and…"
Even assuming you have brought up valid points, you've lost my interest in you as an individual. I've already concluded you're not a reasonable person who is willing to have a reasonable debate. And I'm sure you believe the same about me at this point. We've both traded insults after all. And neither of us is showing any sign of budging. But at least I'm one who is willing to admit when they are wrong on at least one point. But not you. You can't ever be wrong, or so you seem to believe. And that is why there's no point in debating you. There's no point in debating someone who is only interested in confirmation bias.
For the sake of fairness, I will take some of those comments of yours out of the spam folder and restore them. And I will address them directly. But that's as far as it goes. You've lost your privilege of commenting on here. If you want to take screenshots and share your opinion on how much of a misguided dumbfuck I am to others on some other site like reddit or twitter or something (or maybe even your own private little website if you have one), feel free. I don't care. This conversation is over, and I'm ending it. After I deal with those other comments of yours.
PS: The spam aside, I did delete some of your responses. They had nothing constructive to add to this argument. Even if you did save screenshots of them to showcase to others, I doubt they would convince anyone otherwise.
This is the response to elias' comment that I have put on my "fucking blog." Note that this response is made after the one made to his comment below.
So I'm going to skip over that stuff regarding the Wannsee Conference protocols, as they have been previously addressed. Though I will add on to the point that Professor Robert Faurisson shares the exact same view about the interpretation of the Wannsee document noting that Jewish emigration had to be put on hold until the war was over for safety reasons, indicating they intended to continue emigration after the war was over.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/L20Y5XISqJSQ/
So I'll just get to the Hans Frank stuff.
"Also retarded is your claim of there being "no original diary""
Right, about that, I should clarify that statement of mine. I am under the impression that no one has a copy of the original diary. An original diary that is said to have some 10,000 to 12,000 pages in it. At best, there exist transcripts of only a few hundred pages of it (in the case of your link, it seems to have 492 pages). From what I understand, there is no version of the diary published in its entirety, let alone a known existing copy of the original. Not even during the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) trial. In fact, this diary was handed over to the Polish state for safekeeping. The same Polish state that had been taken over by the USSR, run by communists, and was thus in the hands of those that were untrustworthy. So not only should one be skeptical as to the selective use of the diary that was used during the trial (including the taking various sentences and words out of context), but also of potential alterations made to the diary (ie forgeries). Similar arguments made for the Holy Bible (just ask Bart D. Ehrman).
So when I say there was no original diary, I meant that no one has a copy of the original diary. And if anyone ever had possession of the original diary during the trials, it was not used as evidence, at least not in its full unaltered format.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=11789
You can call this obfuscation or squealing forgery all you want, because that's all you really have rather than making a case for it not being a forgery.
Regardless, even if we are to assume that this isn't a forgery, there's still the issue of taking these sentences out of context. Or that it was a forced confession. All of the above was prevalent during the Nurenberg Trials (among others) of German leaders post-WWII, not just with Hans Frank.
"I hope that Irving will allow me to quote here a passage from the transcripts of the sessions of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg regarding defendant Hans Frank. To begin with, I will quote Document PS-2233. It consists of excerpts from Hans Frank's official diary as head of the Generalgouvernement of Poland. That diary in its complete version would be 10,000 or 12,000 pages in length. For the Nuremberg tribunal, the excerpts represent only 269 printed pages. You can trust those who chose the excerpts for the IMT; you can trust that they chose everything that could crush Frank. But, in that mountain of various papers, they have not discovered a single page supporting the theory of the extermination and the gas chambers. The page numbered 503 in Vol. XXIX of the blue series (Trial of the Major War Criminals [= IMT]) of Nuremberg documents contains the most violent rhetoric against the Jews. In it are these words:
Wir muessen die Juden vernichten, wo immer wir sie treffen… (We must annihilate the Jews wherever [or always] we encounter them…)
But, if we put those words back into their context and into the time in which they were spoken (Cracow, 16 December 1941), we see that they are part of that warrior pathos that one encounters among all political men in a country at war. In his own presentation, Irving has shown very well how it is necessary to put the words of Hitler back into their context. The same goes for Hans Frank. And when a political figure sees placed before him such and such a word that he spoke at such a moment of great national or international tension, he can in all justice respond in the very same way that Frank responded to his accusers at Nuremberg on 18 April 1946:
One has to take the diary as a whole. You can not go through 43 volumes and pick out single sentences and separate them from their context. I would like to say here that I do not want to argue or quibble about individual phrases. It was a wild and stormy period filled with terrible passions, and when a whole country is on fire and a life and death struggle is going on, such words may easily be used… Some of the words are terrible. I myself must admit that I was shocked at many of the words which I had used. (TMWC, XII, p. 20)
Hans Frank's sincerity cannot be doubted by anyone, l think. He at first pleaded "not guilty." Then, he suddenly began to believe in the worst inventions of Allied war propaganda about the gas chambers and the rest. He was utterly crushed by it. He accused himself of blindness. He thought that Hitler had shamefully deceived him. He sank into Judeo-Christian repentance. During the war, on the basis of rumors of atrocities at Belzec, he had immediately visited that camp. He had met General Globocnik (spelled "Globocznik," TMWC, Vol. XII, p. 18) and he had simply seen some Jews from the Reich and France digging an immense ditch as a protective enclosure; he spoke to some of them and his investigation ended there. At the trial, defense counsel Alfred Seidl ended by asking him, on 18 April 1946: "Did you ever participate in the annihilation of Jews?" Here is Hans Frank's reply. It is pathetic since it shows the man's good faith and the infamous character of the propaganda that had led him to make such a self-accusation:
I say "yes," and the reason why I say "yes" is because, having lived through the 5 months of this trial, and particularly after having heard the testimony of the witness Höss [three days before] my conscience does not allow me to throw the responsibility solely on these minor people… A thousand years will pass and still this guilt of Germany will not have been erased. (TMWC, Vol. XII, p. 13)
So it was that Frank was duped by the false testimony of Höss, one of the former commandants of Auschwitz, who had signed his written deposition (document NO-1210 of 14 March 1946; he later signed another deposition, document PS-3868 of 5 April 1946 – on which he was interrogated at the IMT) without even knowing what it contained, since he had been beaten so much by his British guards. (Rudolf Höss, Kommandant in Auschwitz [Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1958], p. 145.)"
— quote from Robert Faurisson
https://codoh.com/library/document/2089/?lang=en
You continuously state that the Holocaust is obviously and clearly proven via the accounts of many historians, but there are other historians who disagree, and have addressed those historians' claims, and have more often than not been persecuted and jailed for it (and some people like Myles Power, and possibly even you yourself, would say that they deserved it). Historians such as Robert Faurisson, who debated with Wolfgang Schleffer (a debate in which many say Schleffer lost), one of the historians who interpreted the Wannsee document on The Final Solution to believe the genocide of the Jews, in April 1979 on Italian television; and no, I cannot find a link to the broadcast itself, only references to it.
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches#Hans_Frank
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference#Hans_Frank.27s_diary_and_Josef_B.C3.BChler.27s_postwar_testimony
https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3340&hilit=otto+dietrich&start=170#p150551
And despite me continually stating I don't read or speak German, you continue to link to sources that are all in German. You must be insane, because doing the same thing over and over again isn't going to change my ability to read or speak German. That might change one day, but it's not going to happen like this. You would've been better off linking to "German 101" tutorials or something. Considering how the context matters, and how the words are used in those contexts matters (as I've shown earlier, but you refuse to take into consideration because you deem it petty, when it isn't), I'm not in a position to see if they matter without searching for an alternative source to determine the validity of their translation (or their legitimacy). Because you are not a reliable source for translating these accurately, whether they are legit or not. Because you've proven to be incapable of interpreting documents that have already been translated into English accurately (Wannsee protocols in an earlier post). You would rather have words (like "explicit" and "literal") lose their meanings rather than face the facts. This would just result in me doing the same exact thing, and not getting any better of a response from you (plus you won't be able to respond anyway).
The only realistic way we could even hope to make progress on these is to go through them, one at a time, on a case by case basis. But you continue to throw in multiple quotes that need to be addressed, as well as multiple topics, on a consistent basis, without us addressing a single one on an agreeable level. So far you've shown to be incapable of doing that, so I doubt that would happen even if we did settle on covering just one, and only one, of those quotes. And considering the amount of discussions that have been had surrounding these quotes on a case by case basis on sites outside of this one, who go into them more in-depth than we do, that hardly makes the discussion of context/meaning/legitimacy a petty one that can be as easily dismissed as you believe it to be. So I'm not going to bother doing so, not with you anyway. I'll wait until a more rational-minded individual comes along.
Robert Faurisson Vs. Mikkel Andersson (2002)
That being said, there is one last thing you brought up that I am interested in covering. The Einsatzgruppen. They were a group allegedly created to slaughter 1-2 million Jews in the East, in Soviet territory. However, there is an alternative definition, which brings in some added context to this (and reduces the number they killed considerably):
"The Einsatzgruppen were formed to fight Partisan irregular forces (today called 'terrorists/guerillas'). Jews comprised a high percentage of these non-uniformed combatants (illegal under international law). There were were, ofcourse, deaths on both sides in these clashes."
— https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=336
So, even with the shootings, the Jews were hardly as pacifist as they are made out to be in mainstream media. Yes, the Germans had a portion of them killed, but not in a mass-killing gas chamber fashion, let alone mass-execution fashion for no good reason. They were in terrorist groups (in the manner we define terrorists), and assisted in Polish attacks against Germans in events before, during, and after the German invasion of Poland. Even with that, it's not likely the Einsatzgruppen were able to slaughter 1 million (which would be about a third of the entire Jewish population in Poland at the time, a sixth if we are to include Russia).
https://inconvenienthistory.com/1/3/3103
Anyway, that's all I'm covering. I'm done with this, at least from you. Don't bother making any further comments, they'll be deleted before I can be bothered to finish reading them (let alone approve them).
ilya_muromets says:
https://documents.yadvashem.org/index.html?language=en&&GridItemId=3731740&TreeItemId=3656463 (p.70)
"According to the basic orders, the systematic cleansing work in the Ostland comprised the complete elimination of Jewry. With the exception of White Ruthenia, this goal has essentially been achieved through the executions of 229,052 Jews to date (see Annex). The remainder in the Baltic provinces is urgently needed for work and is housed in ghettos."
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/img007.htm.en.html
"I can state today that the goal of solving the Jewish problem for Lithuania has been achieved by Einsatzkommando 3. In Lithuania, there are no more Jews, other than the Work Jews, including their families."
http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/2459-letter-and-administrative-documents?q=evidence:%22PS-501%22#p.1
"The application of the gas is not undertaken correctly. In order to come to an end as fast as possible, the driver presses the accelerator to the fullest extent. By doing that the persons to be executed suffer death from suffocation and not death by dozing off as was planned."
https://documents.yadvashem.org/index.html?language=en&search=global&strSearch=Babi%20Yar%20O.53&GridItemId=3656462&TreeItemId=3656463 (p.65)
"On 29 and 30 September, 33,771 Jews were executed"
@ilya_muromets
For crying out loud. What's up with you assholes citing documents in non-text format, in non-English format, and hoping I'll just take your word on the legitimacy of the translation, let alone the context of the quotes (if it's taken out of context, what the sentences/paragraphs before and after it say, etc.). Because I'm not one to be expected to go through and translate this shit myself. Can I at least see some resource that translates the damn things? That's the last time I'm approving a comment like that on this page (I'll make a note of that at the top of the page too). Because this is bullshit.
So first off, that whole link to the Yad Vashem thing. Not the best thing to be doing considering:
Yad Vashem—Israel's official holocaust memorial center—has admitted for the first time that its "list of holocaust victims" is inaccurate and that the process of collecting names "is not 100 per cent fail-safe."
http://newobserveronline.com/israels-yad-vashem-admits-list-of-holocaust-victims-isnt-accurate/
Not 100% fail-safe is putting it mildly.
That aside, your quote on the first link can be retranslated as such (from the Stahlecker's Consolidated Report, January 31, 1942):
"According to the orders of establishing basic principles to be followed, the systematic purge operations in the Ostland, including the elimination, as completely as possible of Jewry."
Link to this translation: https://maryeiben541.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-there-any-evidence-that-hitler.html (this isn't the only link that has this version of the translation).
Regardless of what that site states about this being evidence of a holocaust, this can be taken to mean the removal of Jews from Ostland.
As for that line about, "the executions of 229,052 Jews," assuming that translation is accurate, who were these Jews? Were they militants fighting for Soviet Communism (the main reason Hitler hated them was because they were Communists who wanted to turn Germany Communist, among other things), for the Poles? Or just feeble victims as portrayed in the film Schindler's List? That matters, heavily.
And lastly, page 70 appears to be a mostly blank page. Could be I'm not reading the page numbers correctly, but that in of itself is difficult (those images are god-awfully slow to load).
2nd link on the Jaeger Report, that doesn't mean much to me. No more Jews in Lithuania (aside from those in labor camps). Probably means the majority of them left or were forcefully deported to some other place. Whether that be out of Germany, or into some labor/concentration camp, who know.
3rd link, again, how am I to know the accuracy of this translation, let alone the context? Even so, it is titled as a euthenasia program, so even if it is legit, it can refer to non-Jews just as easily as it could to Jews. You know, because the Nazis supposedly had a thing against cripples gays and retards.
4th and last link. Where when how why? Context? Accuracy of translation?


text:
Various Ways To Say Thank You in Japanese
by Azra Syakirah | Sep 15, 2020 | Learn Japanese | 0 comments
Similarly to learning how to say hello, how to thank someone is one of the top phrases one would learn when picking up a new language. In English, there are various ways of thanking someone. It also depends on where one is from; someone from the UK may use "cheers!" as a thank you as well as a kanpai (カンパイ).
It's no different in Japanese. There are also a few different ways to thank someone. In fact, saying "thank you" in Japanese is not as straightforward as you might think. There are a few things you need to consider before picking the most appropriate phrase for a thank you — all within a second or two.
One of the most important aspects is social status — it's pretty significant in Japanese culture. Depending on the social status you're in, you have a different response and way of speaking to others. There are phrases that you can use only with friends, and others that are better off using in an office setting.
A lot to take in? Don't worry, I've done the job of compiling the top 10 ways to say "thank you" in Japanese that covers a wide range of situations.
1. Arigatou (ありがとう)
The first and foremost on the list is definitely "arigatou" (ありがとう). If you have picked up even the slightest bit of Japanese — or have travelled to Japan — you would already know this phrase. It's the most basic and simplest way of saying thank you. You'll quite often hear this, anywhere from the streets and among groups of people to Japanese shows and anime.
"Arigatou" is used more casually, similar to "thanks" in English. Most of the time, you can use this with family members, partner, friends and people who are the same age or younger than you. You can also use it to thank strangers like restaurant and hotel staff.
That doesn't mean it eliminates the phrase from using it with higher-ups. This phrase is quite flexible. You can also use "arigatou" to express your thanks to people older than you — you just have to make a few small changes. Switch it to the polite form: arigatou gozaimasu (ありがとうございます).
A step higher is "domo arigatou gozaimasu" (どもありがとうございます) to express your deepest appreciation. It generally translates to "thank you very much".
2. Doumo (どうも)
If you think that "arigatou" is a bit too much, cut the expression short and use this form of thanks: "doumo" (どうも). It will do just the trick. If you haven't noticed already, this way of thank you actually derived from the previous phrase "domo arigatou gozaimasu" — but only taking the "domo" part and binning the rest.
This phrase is even more casual than "arigatou". It has an extreme light tone and is often used with people who are of the same social status level as you as well as lower, like your friends or younger siblings. Saying it to strangers like restaurant and cashier staff are okay, too.
A fair warning: do not — I repeat, do not — use this with your boss or people of higher social status than you. It's considered extremely rude because the other party may get offended because you didn't take the time to thank them in the proper way.
3. Sumimasen (すみません)
If you have a little bit of Japanese knowledge already, you might be wondering why is "sumimasen" (すみません) — a form of apology — is considered a way to say thank you. Actually, this phrase is used quite often to express gratitude. Even though it's usually used as an apology or "excuse me", it can be used to say sorry and thank you.
Confused? Don't be. In Japanese culture, it's common to apologise to the person you're grateful to instead of thanking them as it acknowledges the fact that the person has gone through the trouble just for you. This is deeply rooted in their custom culture of politeness.
A perfect example is when you drop something and a kind soul behind you picks it up and catched up with you just to hand it back to you. You can use "sumimasen" to both apologise and thank them for the trouble and help.
4. Sankyu (サンキュー)
I hope it already sounds familiar to you even before the explanation. Sankyu (サンキュー) is the Japanified version of the English "thank you". Sound it out — almost the same, right? Since it's a borrowed phrase, the writing is in katakana (カタカナ) and not hiragana (ひらがな) or kanji (漢字).
This phrase for thank you tops any of the rest I've already mentioned previously in terms of casualness. I personally would use this phrase with my friends and people that I'm already familiar with. It's best to avoid using this to your higher-ups, and even people you're not so close with.
5. Kurete arigatou (〜くれてありがとう)
You probably recognised half of the phrase — the "arigatou" part. "Kurete arigatou" (〜くれてありがとう) is just an extensive version of the casual phrase "arigatou", but with a little bit more expression of gratitude. You don't use it on it's own; it has to be connected to another word — particularly a verb.
For example, your friend did you a solid by helping you finish up an assignment or project. To convey your deepest appreciation for their assistance, you can say "tasukete kurete arigatou (助けてくれてありがとう) which translates to "thank you so much for helping me".
Remember how we can change "arigatou" to the polite form to use for higher-ups? Similarly, "kurete arigatou" can be changed into "kurete arigatou gozaimasu" (くれてありがとうございます) for an extra formal tone.
6. Kansha shimasu (感謝します)
This new phrase, "kansha shimasu" (感謝します) has quite a polite tone to it. Unlike the other phrases before, this way of thanking someone is more often used for writing rather than saying it. You'll usually see it in a business setting like sending emails or letters.
A lot of them can start off with "itsumo sapotto shiteitadaki, kansha shimasu" (いつもさーポッとしていただき、感謝します). The sentence translates to "thank you for your continued support". So next time when you send a work email, you can consider using this phrase for a touch of politeness.
7. Osoreirimasu (恐れ入ります)
Another phrase in the formal mix of the thank you phrases in Japanese is "osoreirimasu" (恐れ入ります). You don't really hear this a lot — not every day casually, not even every day in the office. In fact, out of all the thank you phrases on this list, this would have to be the most formal one of them all.
This form of thank you pops up in the most formal situations like meetings. It's quite comparable to "sumimasen", but with a few level-ups. "Sumimasen" can be used to apologise but "osoreirimasu" cannot — it's only used to acknowledge the trouble someone has gone through for you.
Best not say it to your friends or family — reserve it for your customers and bosses. Use it sparingly, I'd say, so you can impress them when the time comes.
8. Azasu (あざす)
In the other category of thank you phrases, we have the slang ones. "Azasu" (あざす) is definitely classified as that. Try saying "arigatou gozaimasu" fast enough and you'll get this slang phrase.
Just like any of the other slang phrases, keep it among your friends and family. It has quite a casual and light tone — I'd say it's the most casual. Younger crowds use it more often. Definitely avoid using this with your boss or colleagues, even — maybe if you're close with them and of the same social status, then it's probably fine.
9. Sumanai (すまない)
The previous phrase is the slang version of "arigatou gozaimasu". Of course, we need to have a slang version of "sumimasen" — and that's "sumanai" (すまない). More often than not, guys are the ones using this phrase to express their thanks. It's not really a gendered phrase, but usually, if a girl uses it, they're perceived to have a slightly harsher tone.
10. Otsukaresama (お疲れ様)
Last but definitely not the least is "otsukaresama" (お疲れ様). This phrase doesn't have just one meaning — it's extremely flexible. One of the ways people use this phrase is to thank someone, especially to thank them for all the hard work they have done. This phrase is great because you can use it with anyone — friends, family, superiors and co-workers.
It's usually said at the end of a long day of hard work, kind of like a subtle pick-me-up for the other party. Sometimes this can be used as a greeting by acknowledging their hard work before starting a conversation.
And there you have it — the top 10 ways to say thank you, covering all sorts of situations from the casual to the formal. Who knew the Japanese have various phrases for different settings. So next time when your first reaction is to say "arigatou", quickly run through this list of Japanese phrases and pick the one that's best for the situation — and impress everyone!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
[VIDEO] Kellen Dunham's gym rat mentality leads to strong season at Butler
By Scott PhillipsDec 16, 2013, 5:10 PM EST
Kellen Dunham is off to a fantastic start during his sophomore season at Butler and the Pendleton, IN native is averaging 19.3 points and playing 35 minutes per game through 10 games this year.
Butler is 8-2 on the season and the 6-foot-6 guard is a big reason why; Dunham is shooting 47 percent from three-point range on the season.
Here's a video showcasing how Dunham worked on his game as a developing player:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JocMjP0D5s]
(h/t: Indianapolis Star Sports)
Follow @phillipshoops


Tap the Breezeworks logo on the top left-hand corner of your app screen. Here, you'll find your Settings. Select Team then Add employee. From there, enter the mobile number(s) of the employees you want to invite to your company account. Those invited employees will receive a text message with an invite link. Make sure they accept the invite code in order to be attached to your account!


ฟังเพลงAngels Lullaby – Richard Marx และ เนื้อเพลง โค้ดเพลงhi5 คลิก!
'Till the day I was blessed with you.
And I will sing my Angel's Lullaby.
The one you can always call.
Are the shadows on your wall.
I'll never catch all the memories I'm chasing.
I'll never be ready to let go.
You will sing your Angel's Lullaby.
Let this be our Angel's Lullaby.