I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, June 05, 2010

"Systematic" holocaust would be impossible even with DNA testing!

I have long contended that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews. This claim is often pooh-poohed with examples of how supposedly easy it was for the Nazis to objectively and reliably identify Jews. The stories go something like this: Nazis raiding a synagogue find the rabbi there. They torture him, forcing him to reveal the synagogue's membership list. The Nazis then hunt the members down one by one.

I have speculated about whether the Nazis could have objectively and reliably identified Jews and non-Jews by means of DNA testing, which of course was not a available to them. This study shows that the answer to that question is no.

Labels:

50 Comments:

Anonymous Forent said...

So you have demonstrated that, yet again, you have failed to understand an article.

In the mean time you even cite one of the ways that Jews could be identified while making no effort to refute it.

Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:28:00 AM  
Blogger Rupert said...

You vile person. There is much more evidence for the reality of the holocaust then there is for your so called bible and god.
The identification of the jewish people was easily (but not always accurately) effected by simple factors such as name, church attendance, attire, their social groups, the businesses they ran, their neighbors etc. It was different times and peoples' various 'creeds' were more visually and socially obvious.
Homosexuals were treated in a similar way and yet they were most assuredly less obvious in those times.

Sunday, June 06, 2010 5:58:00 PM  
Blogger Erin said...

Merriam Webster defines "systematic" as: "methodical in procedure or plan; marked by thoroughness and regularity"

By this definition, the Holocaust could have been systematic even if it wasn't a particularly reliable system. Simply because they didn't have a GOOD system, doesn't mean they didn't have a system at all.

Monday, June 07, 2010 9:14:00 AM  
Blogger Erin said...

Merriam Webster defines Systematic as: "methodical in procedure or plan, marked by thoroughness and regularity"

By this definition, it didn't particularly matter whether it was objective and/or reliable. The Nazis clearly had a system (see systematic) and therefore a SYSTEMatic method was used, whether or not it was particularly good.

Additionally, the SYSTEM that they appear to have used was fairly reliable. Initially, they had the Jews identify themselves. Thereafter, they persecuted them. Seems pretty reliable to me.

Monday, June 07, 2010 9:19:00 AM  
Blogger Erin said...

Merriam Webster defines Systematic as: "methodical in procedure or plan, marked by thoroughness and regularity"

By this definition, it didn't particularly matter whether it was objective and/or reliable. The Nazis clearly had a system (see systematic) and therefore a SYSTEMatic method was used, whether or not it was particularly good.

Additionally, the SYSTEM that they appear to have used was fairly reliable. Initially, they had the Jews identify themselves. Thereafter, they persecuted them. Seems pretty reliable to me.

Monday, June 07, 2010 9:25:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Bozos, you completely missed the point of my article. If objective and reliable identification of Jews and non-Jews is impossible even with DNA testing, then how is such identification possible without DNA testing?

Monday, June 07, 2010 10:44:00 AM  
Anonymous Forent said...

> how is such identification possible without DNA testing? <

It appears that Erin answered that. Didn't you read it?

Monday, June 07, 2010 12:03:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

And as I stated knucklehead, there were a range of means by which jews were identified. they may not even have been very accurate. But they were used.
It was systematic. It may have been a poor, inaccurate and unreliable system, but systematic it was.
To attempt to deny the holocaust because methods you deem 'reliable' weren't used is deplorable.

Monday, June 07, 2010 6:37:00 PM  
Blogger Erin said...

I personally would use cultural factors and government records for my identification. Additionally. . .to reiterate, simply because they lacked a GOOD system doesn't mean they lacked a system at all.

Also, sorry my comment got posted twice, blogger told me it didn't get posted at all.

Monday, June 07, 2010 10:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If objective and reliable identification of Jews and non-Jews is impossible even with DNA testing, then how is such identification possible without DNA testing?"

A moot question, since the article says that it is possible to reliably identify Jews with DNA testing.

Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:11:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

There is no objective definition of "Jew."

The method(s) for identifying Jews and non-Jews must be virtually perfect and infallible -- otherwise non-Jews are going to be afraid of being mistaken for Jews.

The problem with you lousy Darwinists and holocausters is that your minds are closed to new ideas.

Wednesday, June 09, 2010 6:37:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

'There is no objective definition of "Jew."' - this may be true.

'The method(s) for identifying Jews and non-Jews must be virtually perfect and infallible -- otherwise non-Jews are going to be afraid of being mistaken for Jews.' this may also be true.

But that's not the point. People were rightly or wrongly identified as 'jews' and subject to the horrors of the holocaust.

'The problem with you lousy Darwinists and holocausters is that your minds are closed to new ideas.' - what you are displaying is not a new idea. It is the same old attempt to find anything which may assist in holocaust denial.

Your ignorance and bigotry are on clear display.

Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Forent said...

> The method(s) for identifying Jews and non-Jews must be virtually perfect and infallible -- otherwise non-Jews are going to be afraid of being mistaken for Jews. <

I am sure that a few non-Jews were mistaken for Jews and went up the chimney.

> There is no objective definition of "Jew." <

You disagree with the usual definitions? What could be non-objective about them?

Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:10:00 AM  
Anonymous Extrot said...

I even found definitions for subgroups of Jews. How about this one from Webster's Online Dictionary:

Self-hating Jew - a person of Jewish origin who exhibits a strong shame or hatred of her or his Jewish identity, of other Jews, or of the Jewish religion.

Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:15:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rupert barfed,

>>>>>> what you are displaying is not a new idea. It is the same old attempt to find anything which may assist in holocaust denial. <<<<<<

WHAT? Anything that can assist in holocaust denial cannot be a new idea? What a jerk.

Forent barfed,

>>>>> You disagree with the usual definitions? What could be non-objective about them? <<<<<<<

The mere fact that you used the plural of "definitions" shows that there is more than one definition, doofus.

Friday, June 11, 2010 10:46:00 AM  
Blogger Rupert said...

Larry dribbled 'WHAT? Anything that can assist in holocaust denial cannot be a new idea?' - no, because they've all been tried. The only jerk is he who would persist in attempting denial of the holocaust.

Friday, June 11, 2010 5:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Presba said...

> The mere fact that you used the plural of "definitions" shows that there is more than one definition, doofus. <

Please give a word, any word in any language, for which there is not more than one definition.

Friday, June 11, 2010 10:44:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rupert barfed,
>>>>>>Larry dribbled 'WHAT? Anything that can assist in holocaust denial cannot be a new idea?' - no, because they've all been tried. <<<<<<

That is what I mean when I say that your mind is closed, bozo.

Presba barfed,

>>>>>>>>
> The mere fact that you used the plural of "definitions" shows that there is more than one definition, doofus. <

Please give a word, any word in any language, for which there is not more than one definition.
<<<<<<<

There are lots of such words, doofus -- just look at any dictionary.

If there is more than one definition of "Jew," then a person could be a Jew according to one definition and not a Jew according to another definition.

Saturday, June 12, 2010 11:16:00 AM  
Blogger Erin said...

Larry blurted "If there is more than one definition of 'Jew,' then a person could be a Jew according to one definition and not a Jew according to another definition."

Unfortunately, this is seriously flawed logic. It didn't seem to matter how Jew was defined for the Nazis. They seemed to want to get rid of all of them. And, actually, upon thinking about it, this solves one of the other "problems" that Larry harps on. If Jew was poorly defined, then the Nazis didn't need a particularly good system to identify them.

Saturday, June 12, 2010 7:16:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

What a spurious load of drivel Larry, you think my mind is closed because I refuse to concede holocaust denial?!?
That's tantamount to telling me I have a closed mind because I refuse to concede that I may have three legs!
The holocaust was real, it is proven, it took place in our lifetime. To attempt to deny it is contemptable.
You are the one with a closed mind, still believing in an invisible friend in the sky despite a complete lack of evidence or proof.

Saturday, June 12, 2010 10:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Presba said...

> There are lots of such words, doofus -- just look at any dictionary. <

I only asked for one and you couldn't find it among "lots of such words".

Sunday, June 13, 2010 6:27:00 AM  
Blogger gary said...

I can't believe you are still making this argument. No way to identify Jews? Some deny that the Nazis killed millions of Jews. But NO ONE denies that the Nazis imprisoned millions of Jews. No one. How were they able to do this? They must have had some way to identify Jews or this would be impossible. Answer please.Your answer will reveal whether you are even capable of reason.

Sunday, June 13, 2010 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Erin said,

>>>>>It didn't seem to matter how Jew was defined for the Nazis. They seemed to want to get rid of all of them.<<<<<<

But then we are back to the idea that non-Jews would have been afraid that they would be mistaken for Jews. What evidence is there that such a fear existed?

Rupert barfed,
>>>>> What a spurious load of drivel Larry, you think my mind is closed because I refuse to concede holocaust denial?!? <<<<<<

No, bozo, your mind is closed because you won't even consider anti-holocaust arguments, not because you won't "concede" them. What an idiot. Your attitude only contributes to ignorance of history. Even if there were only an ounce of truth to holocaust-denial claims, that truth is lost when those claims are censored or ignored.


gary said,
>>>>>> I can't believe you are still making this argument. No way to identify Jews? Some deny that the Nazis killed millions of Jews. But NO ONE denies that the Nazis imprisoned millions of Jews. No one. How were they able to do this? They must have had some way to identify Jews or this would be impossible. <<<<<<<

The Nazis imprisoned lots of people, not just Jews.

One of my points is that Jew identification is central to the holocaust, yet has hardly even entered the debate. The book "IBM and Holocaust" by Edwin Black, one of the few attempts to seriously address the Jew identification issue, is absurd -- it claims that the Nazis identified all of the Jews of Europe by using primitive IBM machines to process data stored on billions of IBM Hollerith cards. But all those machines could do was just read, sort, and merge a few cards at a time.

Monday, June 14, 2010 6:49:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

'...you won't even consider anti-holocaust arguments...' - because they do not exist in fact, reality or truth. You are attempting to create doubt where none exists.

'Your attitude only contributes to ignorance of history.' - no, that would be your ignorance. The facts, reality and truth of the holocaust. Again you attempt to create doubt for your own purpose.

'...if there were only an ounce of truth to holocaust-denial claims...' - and now you really give yourself away. There is none. This is an event which occurred in our lifetime, there are living witnesses.

All the above are indicative of your feeble attempt to deny the holocaust. You fail. You are reprehensible. You fascist moron.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:03:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Rupert, you are a stupid dunghill. What else can I say?

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:13:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

I'm quite happy for anyone reading this blog to decide who is stupid, who is a dunghill and who is the holocaust denier, smeg-head. There is nothing else you can say without digging yourself into an even deeper hole of your own tawdry, hypocritical, anti-Semitic nonsense, dipstick.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 7:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Rupert barfed"
"Forent barfed"
"Presba barfed"

Sounds like an epidemic. Tsk!

Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:42:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

It is.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010 3:39:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

As long as we're discussing Nazis, this seems to be a rather fitting place to report what Darwinist biologist Steve Matheson has recently said about biologists and others who disagree with his devout Darwin-fan views (such as biologist Richard Sternberg. Sternberg is currently at the Biologic Institute, which doesn't automatically adhere to old Darwinist and materialist dogmas, and which is associated with The Discovery Institute.)

Matheson dislikes Sternberg, but he likes the DI much less. He wildly spews that The Discovery Institute is "a dangerous cancer on the Christian intellect...it needs to be destroyed, and I will do what I can to bring that about." (He says this even though some of the guys at Discovery are not Christians. Some are agnostics. And Matheson says he's a Christian.) See Dembski's blog Uncommon Descent for links to Matheson's seemingly deranged rantings.

At one point he says he has "a simple message" for The Discovery Institute: which he follows with a picture of a Skull and Crossbones. Presumably that's his emblem.

So my point here is that Matheson might perhaps have chosen the Swastika as his extremist symbol. In a free society, we don't set out to suppress those who disagree with us (as did the Nazis), and we aren't pirates. We express our disagreement with others, but we don't make balmy threats to "destroy" them. Darwinists, it seems, often march to a creed which opposes freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, and free discussion. Much like the Nazis,to a degree.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010 3:59:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Jim Sherwood said,

>>>>> Darwinists, it seems, often march to a creed which opposes freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, and free discussion. Much like the Nazis,to a degree. <<<<<<

Yes, Jim, I have noted similarities between Judge Jones and Adolf Hitler. For example, Judge Jones said in his Kitzmmiller v. Dover opinion, "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," just as Hitler asserted that people with Jewish ancestors cannot uncouple themselves from their Jewish ancestry. Humans have supposedly evolved to the point of uncoupling themselves from their protozoan ancestors, but ID cannot evolve to the point of uncoupling itself from creationism and religion. Nosirree.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:42:00 PM  
Blogger Rupert said...

Jim (Robin of) Sherwood and Larry Fartalot, you are the sorriest pair of intellectually dishonest, truth dodging, misrepresenting fools I have come across in a long time.

You, Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, the BioLogos Foundation, sites like Uncommon Descent and people like Ken Ham and Ray Comfort persist with either ignorance or arrogance in your dreamworld claims.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Definition of a Jew under Nazi Law:
Someone with 1 or more Jewish grandparents.
Now, you ask how they would find out if someone is a Jew.
1. Religious clothing
2. Synagogue attendance - Nazis seized lists from synagogues to find Jews
3. Ask the neighbors- People tend to know who is Jewish.

Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:04:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous said,
>>>>>> Definition of a Jew under Nazi Law:
Someone with 1 or more Jewish grandparents.
Now, you ask how they would find out if someone is a Jew.
1. Religious clothing
2. Synagogue attendance - Nazis seized lists from synagogues to find Jews
3. Ask the neighbors- People tend to know who is Jewish. <<<<<<<

That's one of my points: these methods of identifying Jews are not objective and/or not reliable.

Thursday, June 17, 2010 6:35:00 PM  
Blogger Cameron said...

They were circumcised, there's one way of telling. Also, you seem to think the Nazis actually cared if they got someone who wasn't jewish. They were looking for political scapegoats. Besides jews, those scapegoats also includes roma (gypsies), poles, slavs, gays, cripples and people with opposing political views.

Oh, but I forgot; you're a bigot who'd probably support genocide against all or nearly all of those groups. Why is it that people who deny that the holocaust happened are usually the ones who would most like to see it happen?

Friday, June 18, 2010 11:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, because you can't think up a perfect system of figuring out who's Jewish, the Holocaust didn't happen?

That makes absolutely no sense.

By that same logic, since there is not a 100% reliable method of determining whether or not someone belongs in a particular subgroup, then there hasn't been any ethnic-related mass killings at all.

If I declared an ethnic subgroup to be the source of my country's problems, and started telling the people that we needed to get rid of them, I wouldn't really care about a perfectly reliable method for determining whether or not they fit the mold, if they were good enough, they'd be gone. The burden of proof would be on them.

And lastly, the Nazis were not widely known for their power of rational thought. I doubt that that didn't extend to their methods of determination.

Friday, June 18, 2010 8:51:00 PM  
Blogger Erin said...

Larry said, "That's one of my points: these methods of identifying Jews are not objective and/or not reliable."

Ok Larry.
Are you saying that the Nazis couldn't have killed all of the people identified by the above methods? Or are you saying that it would not be agreed that these people were Jews? Perhaps you're trying to say that their friends/neighbors/synagogue records/any other method of identification that the Nazis used were less reliable than self identification (which would, presumably be the most reliable way to identify Jews) because the Jews might have previously, under no particular threat, misidentified (intentionally or perhaps by accident) themselves to others? Maybe you were thinking that non-Jews might have misrepresented themselves as Jews by going to synagogue, or simply telling people they were Jewish, because being subject to the prevailing anti-semitism was so vogue at the time.

Or did you have some other specific objection? something more specific than "THAT'S NOT RELIABLE. . .OR OBJECTIVE DAMNIT!!!"

Friday, June 18, 2010 11:40:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Cameron said,
>>>>>> They were circumcised, there's one way of telling. <<<<<<

I don't hear a lot of stories about Nazis pantsing guys to see who was circumcised. I don't think the Nazis would have done that -- that would have made them look homosexual, and if anything, they hated gays more than the hated Jews.

And what about women?

>>>>>> you're a bigot who'd probably support genocide against all or nearly all of those groups. Why is it that people who deny that the holocaust happened are usually the ones who would most like to see it happen? <<<<<<

Way to go -- when you run out of arguments, resort to ad hominem attacks.

I should have added that had the Nazis attempted a real "systemnatic holocaust," we would have heard more complaints from people who believed that they had been mistakenly identified as Jews.

The debate over the holocaust is like the debate over Darwinism -- it is assumed that everything has already been thought of and that there cannot possibly be any new ideas.

Saturday, June 19, 2010 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger gary said...

The holocaust happened. The Nazis killed millions of Jews, probably between 5 and 6 million. It is a fact of history, well-documented. No one except extremists and idiots thinks otherwise, and the two categories are not mutually exclusive.

Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:38:00 PM  
Blogger Whateverman said...

Larry the Tool wrote the following: I don't hear a lot of stories about Nazis pantsing guys to see who was circumcised. I don't think the Nazis would have done that -- that would have made them look homosexual

Larry, you should try GOOGLE some time. Granted, the suggestion assumes you actually are open to learning some thing new, but the evidence here shows you're determined to be a bigoted dumb-ass


REF: Circumcision

In a tradition dating back to the biblical patriarch Abraham, infant male Jews have been ritually circumcised as a sign of the Jewish people’s covenant with God. Even during the bleakest days of Nazi persecution, Jews tried to observe this practice. Because non-Jews in continental Europe generally were not circumcised, German and collaborationist police commonly checked males apprehended in raids. For boys attempting to hide their Jewish identity, using a public restroom or participating in sports could lead to their discovery. More rarely, they underwent painful procedures to disguise the mark of circumcision or even dressed as girls.



REF: there are many ways in which Jews were found. One of the crucial ones for men was circumcision: for the most part, only Jews were circumsized in Europe in the 30s and 40s. So, if there was suspicion, which was frequently caused by terrified neighbors, all that was needed to confirm it was to force the men in the family to expose themselves ... and off they went to the death camps along with their wives, in-laws, and children.

Another factor that contemporary Americans don't appreciate is that in many places in Europe - even today! - people are not only required to register their address with the local police, but also their personal details including their religion. Imagine that when you move you are required to go to the Kreisburo and tell them that your new address is XXX and that you are a Jew and your wife and children are A, B, and C ... and then think of how you might find a way to delete that info once it is in their system. And people's passports in at least some European countries NOWADAYS will list the person's religion.

Such things sound horrible to Yanks, but they are still the norm in Europe, and were entirely accepted in Germany in the 1930s.




REF: The Jews succumbed to daily humiliations, ranging from little boys being maliciously teased for being circumcised to older Jews being treated like social pariah's by one-time friends

Looks like the Germans weren't afraid of looking at penises, Larry. Taker your bigoted ignorance and shove it up your ass.

Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:31:00 PM  
Blogger Erin said...

Larry said:
"I should have added that had the Nazis attempted a real "systemnatic holocaust," we would have heard more complaints from people who believed that they had been mistakenly identified as Jews."

Larry, do you remember the "fairy tale" about the "systematic" holocaust that the Nazis attempted to undertake? Do you remember what they did to people who they identified as Jews?. . .They killed them, or tried to. . .in case your memory about that is missing.

Who exactly would have complained?

Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:45:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Erin barfed,

>>>>>>> Who exactly would have complained? <<<<<<<

The survivors would have complained, doofus.

Monday, June 21, 2010 6:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Forent said...

> The survivors would have complained, doofus. <

I see. Those who survived attempts to exterminate them should call attention to themselves.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 7:35:00 AM  
Blogger gary said...

"The Nazis imprisoned lots of people, not just Jews."

Agreed. The Nazis imprisoned lots of people. But millions of them were Jews, and this was not an accident. It was done as a matter of deliberate policy. And so, by logical necessity, the Nazis must have had some means, not perfect but good enough for government work, to identify and imprison millions of Jews. Which they did. And then they killed most of them. Your argument that the Nazis could not have killed Jews because they could not have identified them, has been discredited completely, as a matter of simple logic. Your argument that the Nazis did not kill millions of Jews is discredited by the compelling and overwhelming evidence, excepted by all historians, that it happended. Give it up Larry. Go back to denying evolution. You are just as wrong there of course, but at least evolution denial is not as contemptible as holocaust denial.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[[[I don't hear a lot of stories about Nazis pantsing guys to see who was circumcised. I don't think the Nazis would have done that -- that would have made them look homosexual, and if anything, they hated gays more than the hated Jews.
...
I should have added that had the Nazis attempted a real "systemnatic holocaust," we would have heard more complaints from people who believed that they had been mistakenly identified as Jews.]]]

Let's kill two birds with one stone. This is what Necdet Kent, the Turkish Deputy Consul General in Marseille had to say about "pantsing":

Kent continues, "Every day, Germans used to find new ways to arrest Jews. They even used to stop a Jewish man on the street, surround him, and force him to lower his pants to see if he was circumcised or not. But Nazis mistakenly arrested many Muslim men too, for they were circumcised as well. I used to go to the Gestapo headquarters and tell the Nazis that Muslims get circumcised too. When they did not understand what I meant, I told them that a medical doctor could examine me. In this way, I saved many innocent people."

That said, "pantsing" wasn't used all that often, mainly as a verification, and primarily in France, where foreign Jews were targeted by local authorities and records were not only notoriously spotty, but were stolen by the French Resistance. "Pantsing" as an identification technique has been popularized due to the humiliation factor beyond what is historically accurate. It happened, but not as often as portrayed.

Another thing to keep in mind: people generally had anywhere from 6 months to a decade to contest being classified as Jews. There are thousands of court cases, many successful, where people tried to prove that they weren't Jews. Also, keep in mind that there were thousands of people who didn't consider themselves Jews, but admitted that they met the Nazi criteria. Pretty much everywhere but France* and the Eastern Front**, the Nazis didn't just go grab people off the streets because they might be Jews. Rather, they segregated them in their hometowns for long periods of time, periodically shipping them off to work camps on the basis of professional skills, as needed by the Reich. This gave ample time for mistakes to be corrected.

*France is a special case because it was unusually difficult to identify French Jews (the locals had fewer qualms about foreign Jews). As a result, Nazis in France had to make "street grabs" to meet quotas.

**The Nazis simply shot anyone who lived in a Jewish community on the Eastern Front. There were hardly any survivors to make complaints, and the Nazis didn't particularly care if they made a mistake.

Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry if I posted multiple times, there was an error page. No need to approve the duplicates.

Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:03:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous, you are only proving my point. You admit that "pantsing" is not reliable (Muslims could be mistaken for Jews), and was mainly used only in France. And it doesn't work on women.

>>>>>> Another thing to keep in mind: people generally had anywhere from 6 months to a decade to contest being classified as Jews. There are thousands of court cases, many successful, where people tried to prove that they weren't Jews. <<<<<<

Why don't we hear more about these "court cases"?

>>>>>>> Also, keep in mind that there were thousands of people who didn't consider themselves Jews, but admitted that they met the Nazi criteria <<<<<<<

What about all the people who did not admit to being Jews but were classified as Jews anyway?

Anyway, one of my main points is that legitimate criticism of official holocaust history is being suppressed and ignored. This issue of Jew identification is a legitimate issue, but I am subjected to the worst invective when I raise this issue.

>>>>>>> Sorry if I posted multiple times, there was an error page. No need to approve the duplicates. <<<<<<<

I hope not.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:09:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous, you are only proving my point. You admit that "pantsing" is not reliable (Muslims could be mistaken for Jews), and was mainly used only in France. And it doesn't work on women.

>>>>>> Another thing to keep in mind: people generally had anywhere from 6 months to a decade to contest being classified as Jews. There are thousands of court cases, many successful, where people tried to prove that they weren't Jews. <<<<<<

Why don't we hear more about these "court cases"?

>>>>>>> Also, keep in mind that there were thousands of people who didn't consider themselves Jews, but admitted that they met the Nazi criteria <<<<<<<

What about all the people who did not admit to being Jews but were classified as Jews anyway?

Anyway, one of my main points is that legitimate criticism of official holocaust history is being suppressed and ignored. This issue of Jew identification is a legitimate issue, but I am subjected to the worst invective when I raise this issue.

>>>>>>> Sorry if I posted multiple times, there was an error page. No need to approve the duplicates. <<<<<<<

I hope not.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>>>Anonymous, you are only proving my point. You admit that "pantsing" is not reliable (Muslims could be mistaken for Jews), and was mainly used only in France.<<<<<<

And yet, despite your assertions, it did happen, and it did lead to complaints. It's a poor example, albeit popular among non-historians, but it did happen.

>>>>>>And it doesn't work on women.<<<<<<

And as we all know, no Jewish woman has ever had a father, husband, son, or brother. How dumb are you?

>>>>>>Why don't we hear more about these "court cases"?<<<<<<

Several reasons:

1) these courts were used for all Nazi eugenics programs - the mandatory sterilization cases made up the bulk of the caseload

2) when constructing a narrative on how awful genocide is, court cases that sometimes exonerated would-be victims aren't all that thrilling

3) stories of graphic humiliation, such as pantsing, resonate much more strongly than stories of people lining up to register their status because they know the government already has their data on file

4) you categorically refuse to read scholarly articles and books on the Holocaust, instead assuming that random people on the internet know everything there is to know about the Holocaust

5) you ignore people on the internet who tell you about the court cases

>>>>>>What about all the people who did not admit to being Jews but were classified as Jews anyway?<<<<<<

They were identified by other means. This included official government records extending back decades (for example, Germany required all Germans to register their religion starting in 1875, 60 years before the Nuremberg Laws were enacted), as well as church and synagogue records dating back centuries. Churches in particular had a powerful incentive to cooperate with identification: by turning over their records, they could prevent the vast majority of their congregants from being identified as Jews. Not to mention being able to find the Jews hidden in their midst.

Non-Jews didn't have to worry about being identified as Jews because they could prove they weren't Jewish.

But one thing you're forgetting, Larry: the majority of Jews self-identified to the Nazis. Not all, and not in all places, but enough to simplify the task drastically.

>>>>>>Anyway, one of my main points is that legitimate criticism of official holocaust history is being suppressed and ignored. This issue of Jew identification is a legitimate issue, but I am subjected to the worst invective when I raise this issue.<<<<<<

How can you possibly make legitimate criticism of official Holocaust history if you refuse to find out what the official history according to historians actually is. There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles written in the last 50 years that illustrate the methods the Nazis used to identify Jews. And you have only admitted to reading the introduction of one book.

You know nothing about official Holocaust history. And that is why you are reviled.

Friday, July 09, 2010 3:52:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> And yet, despite your assertions, it did happen, and it did lead to complaints. It's a poor example, albeit popular among non-historians, but it did happen.<<<<<<

You are just dodging the question.

>>>>>>> And as we all know, no Jewish woman has ever had a father, husband, son, or brother. How dumb are you? <<<<<<<<

Some women don't have male relatives, bozo. And you have to find their male relatives. And some Jews have non-Jewish relatives, and vice-versa. That's not a reliable way.

Anyway, circumcision does seem to be an unreliable way of identifying Jews and non-Jews. I never heard "Jewish male" defined as "a circumcised person."

>>>>>>Why don't we hear more about these "court cases"?

Several reasons:

1) these courts were used for all Nazi eugenics programs - the mandatory sterilization cases made up the bulk of the caseload <<<<<<

Aha! So the Nazis took shortcuts in identifying Jews.

>>>>>> you categorically refuse to read scholarly articles and books on the Holocaust, instead assuming that random people on the internet know everything there is to know about the Holocaust <<<<<<

Wrong bozo. I am condemned merely for questioning official holocaust history.

Anyway, I don't need to go on. I think I have made my point.

Saturday, July 10, 2010 7:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>>>>>>You are just dodging the question.<<<<<<

No, that's what you did.

>>>>>>Some women don't have male relatives, bozo. And you have to find their male relatives. And some Jews have non-Jewish relatives, and vice-versa. That's not a reliable way.<<<<<<

But most do. And it's a lot more reliable than you think. If the Nazi's had checked the circumcision status of European males on a concerted basis, about 75% of all Jews would have been identified, with only about 5% being falsely accused. And as everyone here has pointed out, it would not prevent them from using other methods.

But that's a moot point. While Nazi collaborators did use pantsing on occasion, the Nazis primarily used other methods, methods much more in keeping with their ideology.

In response to this:

>>>>>>1) these courts were used for all Nazi eugenics programs - the mandatory sterilization cases made up the bulk of the caseload <<<<<<

you said:

>>>>>>Aha! So the Nazis took shortcuts in identifying Jews.<<<<<<

How the hell do you get that out of what I wrote?! The fact that Nazis used the same courts for deciding whether to sterilize mental retards as they used for allowing a person accused of being Jewish to contest that classification does not mean they were taking shortcuts. My statement merely meant that these courts were more often used for challenging sterilization decisions than challenging identification decisions.

And now for an even more bizarre response. You asked:

>>>>>>Why don't we hear more about these "court cases"?<<<<<<

I responded, in part:

>>>>>>Several reasons:

4) you categorically refuse to read scholarly articles and books on the Holocaust, instead assuming that random people on the internet know everything there is to know about the Holocaust<<<<<<

And your response:

>>>>>>Wrong bozo. I am condemned merely for questioning official holocaust history.<<<<<<

Talk about dodging the question! One of the reasons you didn't hear more about these court cases (btw, a confession on your part that you did know about them previously) is that you refuse to actually read official holocaust history. Your only sources are random people on the internet, yet you treat them as if they were the world's foremost authority on Holocaust history. Your lack of knowledge has nothing to do with people condemning your views, and everything to do with you not doing your own damn homework.

By the way, since I haven't mentioned it recently - your following statement from the original post is an outright lie:

>>>>>>... whether the Nazis could have objectively and reliably identified Jews and non-Jews by means of DNA testing, which of course was not a available to them. This study shows that the answer to that question is no.<<<<<<

The answer, had you actually read the study, is yes.

>>>>>>Anyway, I don't need to go on. I think I have made my point.<<<<<<

If your point is that you are incapable of understanding what you read, that point was made long ago.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:24:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home