The Holocaust

[protovack]

Nobody is denying the holocaust here......we're just raising the question of whether support for Israeli policy and radical jewish ideology is bolstered by continually referencing the holocaust. And I think it is.

 

[dr seuss]

i'll be back to post my considered academic opinion. in the meantime, has anyone in this thread ever spoken to any survivors, regardless of their religion?

and did anyone read my posts earlier in this thread? perhaps some fallacious 'points' would have been avoided if people had paid closer attention...

it's quite possible to find survivor stories from many different walks of life; jews, communists, lesbians, gays, those with genetic disorders, physical disabilities, mental illness, alcoholism, criminals, jehovas witnesses; you have to remember that discrimination and radical social reconstruction was a fundamental basis for all applied nazi policy. also bear in mind that different 'undesirables' were dealt with differently; for example, through the Tiergartenstrasse 4 programme, state euthenasia of physically disabled and mentally ill people began well before WWII; criminals and alcoholics were in concentration camps (KZ) which are entirely different from the extermination camps (the 'Aktion Reinhard' camps - treblinka, sobibor, belzec, majdanek). remember that many holocaust victims died from bullets to the back of the head in the Baltic states; or on forced marches. different people were dealt with differently by the nazi state.

the thing is most people don't know anywhere near enough about the holocaust. but then again most people don't know anywhere near enough about history, which is a sad thing.

...

i think people make the mistake of assuming that historical accuracy and a desire to comprehend the lessons of the Holocaust is somehow linked to the modern entity that is Israel and the modern political ideology that is Zionism.

i am jewish by birth, but agnostic in life. i too am frustrated by some aspects of the media coverage of the israeli/palestinian issue, but then again here in britain we have our fair share of anti-israeli bastions in the mainstream press.

but what's absolutely clear to me is the following:

1) it is entirely possible to criticise the state of israel's behaviour in the occupied territories

and concomitantly

2) this has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

yes, there are some Jews who will cry 'Holocaust' at the earliest opportunity and who seek to use the tragedy as justification for all sorts of lunatic ideals and policies. however these people are a minority and - here's the key point - even if they do utilise it for political gain it has precisely NO impact on the historical basis for our understanding of the holocaust. regardless of what you think of israel's current actions or the media coverage thereof, it is simply untenable to try and retrospectively apply ideological convictions to events that happened 60 years ago.

it's akin to saying that the fact that britain & the US went to war together in iraq proves that america never fought against King George

when people do start making such historically useless analyses, they soon wander off into the realm of vast historicist meta-conspiracy, whereby Jews and Lizardmen run the known universe from their stronghold deep under the surface of Jupiter's 14th moon Gamma-4-Klyszot and spend their time controlling the outcome of world events whilst giggling into their beards and tails respectively.

 

[dr seuss]

The reason I remain skeptical of holocaust claims is that there is debate over what happened.

skepticism and interest in the historiographical debates surrounding the holocaust are not the same thing. there is a debate over the connection between autism and immunisations in the UK - are you skeptical about the existence of autism? of course not; it's more complex than that. similarly the actual historical debates and discussions surrounding the holocaust are complex, interesting, and nothing to do with whether it happened or not.

Contrary to popular belief, the holocaust was not all about Jews - Hitler's main goal was military expansion and ethnic cleansing was his political strategy to rile up the masses in Germany. Early during Hitler's rule, Jews were imprisoned not to be killed but to work in camps to fuel the German war machine.

Why would a leader bent on world domination suddenly kill off his workforce?

contrary to your post, the holocaust was all about the Jews . i'm sorry man, but it's simply misleading to state otherwise. to understand what Nazi Germany was like you need to get used to viewing every aspect of policy, procedure and implementation through the lens of eliminationist racism. National Socialism simply doesn't make sense without anti-semitism....

jews weren't killed 'early' in Hitler's rule for a couple of reasons; firstly, there was no physical or practical apparatus to do so. secondly, it was politically impossible and geopolitically unsustainable. and thirdly, before the establishment of the AR camps, the Nazis hadn't yet decided to physically exterminate the Jews. during the early phases of the war there were even plans afoot - discussed in some detail by high-level Nazis - to extract all European Jewry and send them to Madagascar to form a labour-camp-prison-island. how many people know about this? well, not many, because most people don't know much about history in general .

there are many other inaccuracies in your paragraph as well. what you need to remember is that eliminationist anti-semitism was never really as popular a current of social opinion as you may believe. anti-semitism was not that much stronger in Germany than it was in many other countries in Europe, and indeed the world at large. and certainly the proportion of Germans who would have approved of the destruction of the Jewish race was miniscule. that's why the nazi electoral campaigns were curiously short of violently anti-semitic material. 'ethnic cleansing' was simply not a 'political strategy' that would have brought any electoral success in Germany, nor any really significant public support. you do realise that the Nazis kept the details of their programme to eliminate the Jews secret, don't you?

also, your point about the labour force is somewhat misguided. let me make this clear: there existed a separation between concentration camps (KZ) which could harbour communists, gypsies, alcoholics, the mentally ill, those with hereditary diseases, jehovah's witnesses, radical students, common criminals etc. - and the extermination camps of the Aktion Reinhard. the concentration camps were started well before Germany declared war on Poland; and they provided labour from all of the above named groups. germany's rearmament was not based on the slave labour of jews alone; besides, most jews weren't in any camps, even by 1938. in fact the ministry of the interior was still passing legislation trying legalise the eviction of jews from group tenancies in Berlin by the time war broke out... the 'war machine' you mention was in part fuelled by German jews; but it was also reliant on the vast quantities of resources, both human & material, which were taken from the East (and from the rest of Nazi Europe, which was at its largest extent comprised most of the continent). the Nazi forced labour programmes existed in ideological isolation from the specific programme to eliminate the Jewish race.

The point is, the stupidly simple story we are all taught in school about the holocaust is a fiction. Hitler was evil, and millions of Jews were killed. But most people just gloss over the details.

i agree; simplistic reductions of complex issues breed unfamiliarity and mistakes. it's unavoidable, in a sense... but the basic premise (hitler was evil, millions of jews were killed) is no less valid.

And that is the interesting thing.....people don't really know much about the holocaust except that "six million jews were killed." Thus whenever somebody mentions israel without praising it, they are called an anti-semite.

your first sentence is correct. how it is related to your second sentence is beyond me.

furthermore, there are plenty of jewish critics of israel... and plenty who make their thoughts known on the world stage.

And so now whatever Israel does...it's perfectly fine because, "they deserve respect because six million jews were killed."

but that's not true. i can't speak for the US which has a disturbingly parochial and tolerant relationship with israel, but it's certainly not the case in the UK. but either way: the point is this... what israel does or does not do now HAS NO BEARING ON THE HOLOCAUST ITSELF. like i said, britain and the US went to war in iraq. does that mean that actually, the war of independence has been exaggerated? of course not!!!!

My best friend when I was a young child was israeli and for you to call me an anti-semite is laughable.

calling names never helps an argument. i can undertand why Zero is upset by the anti-history spread throughout this thread, but resorting to insults cheapens the entire argument (i know, i've done it myself too many times ).

however, your sentence above sounds a LOT like 'i'm not racist, one of my friends is black!'.

I too would also like to know where the other 5 million survivors of the Holocaust are.

which survivors?

I don't hold anything against Jews in any way (although I'm not particularly fond of Zionists), however the lack of documentation and other evidence doesn't add up.

which lack of documentation are you referring to? can you be more specific? what evidence doesn't add up?

Why is the Holocaust such a sensitive issue when someone publicly denies it? It's alright for historians to openly deny other historic tragedies, so why the heck not the Holocaust?

generally speaking it's not alright for historians to deny the massacre at My Lai, or the genocide in the Congo, or the holocaust. the difference is that in some countries denying the holocaust is a federal offence.

Also, why isn't there any "Prussian Blue" (byproduct of Zyklon B) in the concentration camps?
Alot of this just doesn't add up.

people who don't understand the holocaust often have trouble adding things up. let's take your above post as a simple example.

firstly, if you were really aware of the history of the holocaust, you would note that concentration camps were never designed for killing Jews. you would also remember that most jews who were killed in the holocaust died from bullet wounds, and that a significant proportion of those were killed in the baltic states. you would inform us that many Jews died on forced marches or collapsed in the camps themselves. you would note the difference between Majdanek & Auschwitz, between Treblinka & Chelmno. you would point out that the documentary evidence relating to early gassing experiments highlighted the difficulties in killing Jews using an exhaust-sealed diesel van, and would note the different approaches discussed and utilised by the AR groups responsible.

but from your posts i can't see any real knowledge of the holocaust. don't be offended - it's not expected that everyone knows everything, and there are relatively few historians on bluelight. it just so happens that some of us have worked with the world's most eminent historians of the nazi regime, so we have more experience, more knowledge and - most crucially - better access to historical documents and texts.

Why are you keep on saying I haven't taken the time to do any research into the matter? Alot of the bullshit I was taught in school regarding the Holocaust conflicts with other Historian's accounts. You are aware there is more than one Historian? There are plenty... especially in regards to the Holocaust.

indeed. for the specific inspiration and implementation of nazi policy, i recommend looking at works by the following:

- ajp taylor
- karl dietrich bracher
- joachim fest
- gitta sereny
- alan bullock
- carl j. burckhardt
- arthur r. butz
- saul friedlander
- erich fromm
- lothar gruchmann
- Hitler's Tabletalk
- robert kempner
- ernst klee
- primo levi
- werner maser
- bradley smith
- a.f. peterson
- gerald reitlinger
- the proceedings of the IMT (nuremberg trial references)
- all manner of documents housed in the Federal Archives in Koblenz
- ian kershaw
- j.p. stern
- dokumenter der deutschen Politik, vol I
- h. r. trevor-roper
- felix gilbert
- jeremy noakes
- geoffrey pridham
- otto dietrich
- andre francois-poncet
- werner best
- hans bucheim
- george enno
- felix kersten
- eugen kogon
- ermenhild neususs-hunkel
- bruno blau
- bernhard loesener
- wolfgang scheffler
- simon ernst
- heinz boeberach

and particularly:

- h.g. adler
- jean amery
- raoul hilberg
- rolf hochhuth
- eberhard kolb
- lean poliakov
- hannah arendt
- gerald reitlinger
- reimund schnabel
- j-f steiner
- albert wucher
- nachman blutmenthal
- joseph kermish
- rudolf hoss
- michael molho

I have read alot into the Holocaust, and most of what I read doesn't match with any other accounts. First you're told in school that it was 6 million Jews, you read it was 2 million Jews from a website, it *might* have been 3 million, but much likely less says a documentary on the History channel.
They never match!

dude, some things to remember:

1) a lot of what is on the internet is complete shit. are you really surprised that WHITE POWER nationalists claim only 1 jew and 2 cats died in the holocaust? and because wingnuts who would never get published can suddenly open a blog to disprove the 'lies' of the holocaust, somehow that negates decades of actual study by trained historians?

2) the history channel is basically useless. look - i've watched programmes on Discovery Health & Living. would you allow me to perform brain surgery on you?

You can't tell me that Jewish people haven't benefited today from what did occur in the Holocaust.

yes i can. most of my family died in the holocaust. please explain to me how exactly my family benefited.

I will try and dig it up later, but I was reading something about Jews of today wanting compensation for what their families went through back in WWII.

and i was reading that american families are claiming compensation for 9/11.

what's your point?

Do you think if the Holocaust didn't occur, that the Jews would have as much of an influence in American/Australian politics and media as they do in this current moment?

i'm not sure. do you think this has any bearing on the happenings of the holocaust ?

Now again, I am not completely denying what happened. All I am saying is that unless you were there and experienced the true horror of what was the Holocaust, we don't know exactly what the fuck happened there.

but we do know 'exactly what the fuck happened there', because we have witness statements, documentary evidence, archival footage and photographs, and the sworn testimonies of camp inmates, staff, local villagers, and those involved in the creation and implementation of the policy. what more do you need? there are still people alive who were there, ok?

Tell me, what exactly is "proper research"? Picking up a text-book and reading about WWII?

yes.

Reading up on the Holocaust on a pro-Israel site?

no.

I have done all of this... even on wikipedia.org it says that there is much speculation and denial in the professional world regarding the Holocaust.
One has a right to revise history. If we can't do this... we will NEVER know the truth about anything.

look: historical study is an ongoing investigation into the past, and a concomitant examination of how and why we recorded that past. history is constantly in a state of 'revision' - but i think you're getting misled by the accusations of 'revisionism', which is a school of historiographical thought which seeks to minimalise or deny the existence of the holocaust. they are two separate things

wikipedia is a great place to start finding out some information about a subject. but i'll ask again: i've read about heart transplants on wikipedia. can i perform open heart surgery on you?

no? i'm not suprised!

you're talking with people who have spent years, sometimes decades studying the holocaust and the study of history itself. please, don't patronise us by laughing at the suggestion that a 'textbook' about 'WWII' is the font of all knowledge.

Established? By who, the pro-Zionist Historians?

'pro-Zionist Historians'... such as?

See, I don't get why it is a such a touchy subject when someone denies claims of the Holocaust.

well, i heard that 9/11 was made up by the US to gain sympathy for their invasion of afghanistan.

if i said the above sentence live on MSNBC, what reaction do you think i'd get? let me assure you, death threats would be just the beginning. people are sensitive about mass murder.

but then again i think you're missing the point somewhat: millions of people died. that's why it's a touchy subject when people question whether the holocaust happened or not... because millions of people lost their families. people are alive right now who can remember their grandmother, their aunt, their son being beaten to death, or shot in an alleyway, or raped, or skinned, or fed petrol-soaked bread, or made to walk naked through mid-winter snowdrifts. and you wonder why people get a bit upset when some inbred fuckstick with a copy of Modern Nazi magazine says 'oh, the holocaust never happened'???

it's also problematic because there is SUCH a short leap from 'oh, maybe the numbers were exaggerated' to 'hey, the Jews made the WHOLE THING UP so they can rule the world from their elite headquarters with the Freemasons on Gamma-4-Dylkoz'. all holocaust denialism starts by wanting to speak only about 'truth', and uncover 'bias', and talk about difficulties in establishing historical 'accuracy', painting itself merely as a crusader for the real 'facts'. they start by questioning the numbers - which is, btw, something serious and real historians do all the fucking time - and then they cast aspersions on the 'few survivors', ignoring the archival footage, physical evidence, documentary record and interviews with nazis and locals (as well as survivors). then they get some fucking moron with a PhD in Christian Identity from Jesus College, Bumfuck, Alabama to say 'yeah, them Jews was lyin'!', and some Estonian civil servant with a hoard of Nazi memorabilia and a degree in woodwork to endorse their ideas, to try and bring academic 'respectability'. and before you know it - and trust me on this, it really is frighteningly rapid - you go from 'maybe it wasn't quite 6 million who died' to 'the Jewish elite rule the known universe by telepathic fascism and are in cohorts with the Lizardmen from a secret base under Antarctica'. the progression from talking about reasonable historical methodolgy to completely insane batshit ranting is incredibly swift, and the processs deniers use is exactly the same as creationists use to 'disprove' the existence of the world prior to God.

The fact of the matter is, not many of us were around at the time the Holocaust went on. So, no matter how many Historians we have that tell us it occured (like so many other historical tragedies), we will never know the complete accuracy.

erm - so, do you believe that all historical facts are rendered open to absolute interpretation as soon as the last person who experienced them alive dies? you must be pretty confused a lot of the time. and hey - what do you think about dinosaurs? presumably you must doubt their existence even more than the holocaust, right?

and how some people even get locked up for trying to disprove what happened. What the fuck happened to freedom? These people are getting locked up for "thought-crime". Lol!

heh, that's quite simple.

it is illegal to deny the existence of the holocaust in austria. it is a federal offense punishable by law. David Irving had already broken that law once - and been warned - but chose to return to Austria to break it again. and you're suprised he got locked up?

cry me a fucking river. david irving is in jail for lying. you can go to jail for lying in any country in the world. and hey, did you know he admitted he was talking complete shit? and hey, did you know that he unsuccessfully sued historians who spoke the truth to try and get them silenced? how's that for 'freedom'?

I too wonder Judas. The Holocaust has been shoved in my face since I was a baby. Ask any American to name the biggest tragedy of all time- they'll probably say the Holocaust, and name Hitler as the most evil.

shoved in your face? how strange. still, your upbringing is of no consequence.

Why is it CRIMINAL to inquire into the truth of what happened behind German lines?

it's not.

what are you talking about?

Were there even 6 million Jews in Germany?

Was the moon made of green cheese?

Did the Nazis invade other countries in Europe?

As a predominantly Christian nation, why don't we use taxpayer money to build shrines for the 60+ million CHRISTIANS killed by jewish/zionist communism(schiff warburg lenin stalin trotsky)?

oh, ok, LOL.

do you understand what life was like for Jews in Stalinist russia?

I can't understand why Eisenhower, Churchill, nor de Gaulle mention ONE WORD OF NAZI GAS CHAMBERS.

Three of the best known works on the Second World War are General Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday [Country Life Press], 1948), Winston Churchill's The Second World War (London: Cassell, 6 vols., 1948-1954), and the Mémoires de guerre of General de Gaulle (Paris: Plon, 3 vols., 1954-1959). In these three works not the least mention of Nazi gas chambers is to be found.

Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle's three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi "gas chambers," a "genocide" of the Jews, or of "six million" Jewish victims of the war.

that sounds like it's been lifted directly from another website. of course, we could get into the myriad books published during the same timeframe - and since - which explicitly deal with the holocaust; however, in the meantime, a few prescient things for you to consider: firstly, most jews died from gunshot wounds and considerable numbers were worked or beaten to death. perhaps that will help you understand why NOT ONE MENTION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS BLAH BLAH BLAH . secondly, it took some time for the true horror of the holocaust to be comprehended, partly because of Europe's other preoccupations (i.e. repairing itself after a destructive total war) and partly because of the displacement of both Nazis and Jews in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. thirdly, no serious historian looks to de Gaulle's memoirs or Churchill's account of the war for evidence as to the holocaust. but then this is exactly the kind of misleading bullshit which holocaust deniers specialise in; these three books are not 'best known', and don't relate to the holocaust; they are memorable because they are the personal accounts of well known figures. after establishing a misleading premise they then apply a specific filter - talking only about 'gas chambers' and mentioning 'six million' - which futher distances their reasoning from the truth.

i don't believe you have read these three books - and if you have, whilst examining them for signs of the holocaust - well, i'm afraid you've gone about your studies in a pretty shortsighted and useless fashion

 

[johnmortons]

Tell me, what exactly is "proper research"? Picking up a text-book and reading about WWII?

yea, that might be a good idea. read seuss' post carefully and check out some of the books of the authors' he mentioned. perhaps start with primo levi's first hand accounts of auschwitz ("if this is man") and then move on to some specific studies like christopher brownings "ordinary men" on the final solution in poland.

Established? By who, the pro-Zionist Historians? What is your definition of evidence? A few "survivors".

you don't even know how disrespectful and embarrassing your posts are. do yourself a big favour, go to a proper library and check out some history books. and yea, i've spoken to survivors personally, but that's not necessary to be convinced because the evidence is just so overwhelming.

the way you refer to "the pro-zionist historians" and cite the history channel and the internet as source shows that you have no clue about the historical debate, who's who in it and what is being debated.

 

[PureLife]

So someone throw some sources in his face that disprove his "claims"

 

[Zero the hero]

Why would I waste my time doing that? The burden of proof is on those knuckleheads. Not to mention, Suess posted the names of heaps of authors he could source information from already. How about going to the library and borrowing a few of the many books on the subject that are bound to be available? What about (intelligent usage of) the internet?

 

[Manifespo]

Dr seuss helped me out with that info, gracias senor!

You are right, i don't have time to read books about the horrific wars in our past, but I still find it all quite fascinating...

 

[Manifespo]

Okay historians, help me out...without resorting to popish blustering (yes that's you zero).

What is the deal with Benjamin Freedman? He is an ex zionist who paints quite a conspiratorial view of history.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

 

[Psychedelic Gleam]

" to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe... . "

Well just this statement in the speach is false... The Palestinians who left their homes in 48 did so because the surrounding muslim states declared that they would destroy israel and told all the non-jews to get out so they could do so.

from Wikipedia:

"n the 1948 war, approximately 600,000 Jewish refugees were persecuted and expelled from Arab lands including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco -- leaving behind an estimated $30 billion in assets. These Jewish refugees were welcomed by Israel, and with their descendants, now comprise a majority population of the State of Israel.

In the same war, according to the UN, approximately 720,000 Palestinians refugees fled to Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank and Gaza. The UN estimates that they and their descendents now number about 3.7 million.

The Arab League forbade any Arab country from accepting these refugees or settling them in normal housing, preferring to leave them in squalid camps. Former UNRWA Director Ralph Galloway stated in 1958: "The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die."

It is important to note, as Joan Peters documents in her seminal work, "From Time Immemorial," that the vast majority of these refugees did not live for generations on the land, but rather came from Egypt, Syria and Iraq as economic opportunities increased during the first half of the 20th century, the formative years of Jewish aliyah."

see this last quote, the majority of "palestinians" appeared only after the Jews came and improved the economy of the area, you can see this in the HUGE population bursts of palestinians caused by jews moving into the area and improving/setting up buisnesses, this worked until war was declared...

and check this out...

"There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.

Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily "al-Hoda" (June 8, 1951):"

 

[dr seuss]

Manifespo,

from your article:

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, "Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.

Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.

That continued for some time, and it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now, for anyone to say that -- I don't like to use the word 'anti-Semitism' because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it -- the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three -- did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott -- and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.

...i don't think this has any real bearing on historical fact whatsoever.

 

[Judas]

I feel I have to clarify myself or I might be seen as an anti-semite or somthing. I don't doubt that there was a planned execution of Jews during WWII that killed millions. What I have some doubts on are the details.

Usually, history is educated guesswork. None of it is known for certain. Ever heard of revisionism? Thats when historians throw out a different view of a historical event. Historians do this because they have limited evidence or many times too much evidence (they have to pick and choose), and they come up with varying views.

With the Holocaust, the view of what happened is already set in stone. There will be no further understanding of it. If a historian wanted to study the Holocaust from a new vantage point, he or she will face something close to career suicide. So I doubt many will muster an effort.

Thats my problem with the situation. The Holocaust has become too much of a taboo.

 

[Manifespo]

Could you explain farther Dr Seuss?

Manifespo,
...i don't think this has any real bearing on historical fact whatsoever.

I see...so why did benjamin Freedman, Myron Fagan, and Samuel Untermeyer all point to their zionist brethren as the synarchist banksters (pilgrim society?) behind both sides of the world wars?
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

On a side note, anyone know if Darryl Bradford Smith is legit or disinfo?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_ZionSummary.html

Why didn't Churchill, De Gaulle, nor Roosevelt mention NOT one word of nazi gas chambers or genocide of the jews in their 10,000+ pages of writing?

Why did Germany, a war-torn nation so starved for energy on both fronts, waste untold resources shipping thousands of miles, storing, torturing, killing, and burning over 10 million people? Wouldn't 12 million bullets be much more efficient?

Is the Holocaust the only historical event which is criminal to question (in parts of Europe)?
If so, why? Again, I am only asking- so please do not waste time with ad hominems. No one knows everything- together we may approach objectivity, well, at least intersubjectivity .

 

[johnmortons]

Why didn't Churchill, De Gaulle, nor Roosevelt mention NOT one word of nazi gas chambers or genocide of the jews in their 10,000+ pages of writing?

seuss answered your question above. don't you even read other people's posts?

the problem with all your pseudo-questions and arguments from weird websites is that they are so obviously beside the point and on the fringe of the actual historical discussion, that most people can't be arsed to dig up the information you could easily find yourself.

i know i can't. if you are determined to believe in great conspiracies and refuse to do basic research, that's really your problem. makes you look like the crank you are.

No one knows everything- together we may approach objectivity, well, at least intersubjectivity

nosense, why should we teach you 1 plus 1 is 2; go and do some research in a library on yourself. we are talking about basic historical facts here.

Thats my problem with the situation. The Holocaust has become too much of a taboo.

your problem? what are you even talking about. it would be career suicide to deny the holocaust because the facts and evidence is just so obvious, well documented and cross-checked. there is plenty of discussion about things like the motivation of the actual participants etc. (see e.g. the goldhagen debate in the 1990s).

 

[insanit_e]

I think the reason children are tought about the nazi holocaust was because the usa was involved..

No, its because what happened in the holocaust was actually classed as a genocide, or an attempted genocide.

 

[dr seuss]

I see...so why did benjamin Freedman, Myron Fagan, and Samuel Untermeyer all point to their zionist brethren as the synarchist banksters (pilgrim society?) behind both sides of the world wars?
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

On a side note, anyone know if Darryl Bradford Smith is legit or disinfo?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_ZionSummary.html

Why didn't Churchill, De Gaulle, nor Roosevelt mention NOT one word of nazi gas chambers or genocide of the jews in their 10,000+ pages of writing?

Why did Germany, a war-torn nation so starved for energy on both fronts, waste untold resources shipping thousands of miles, storing, torturing, killing, and burning over 10 million people? Wouldn't 12 million bullets be much more efficient?

Is the Holocaust the only historical event which is criminal to question (in parts of Europe)?
If so, why? Again, I am only asking- so please do not waste time with ad hominems. No one knows everything- together we may approach objectivity, well, at least intersubjectivity .

...

firstly, most jews died from gunshot wounds and considerable numbers were worked or beaten to death. perhaps that will help you understand why NOT ONE MENTION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS BLAH BLAH BLAH . secondly, it took some time for the true horror of the holocaust to be comprehended, partly because of Europe's other preoccupations (i.e. repairing itself after a destructive total war) and partly because of the displacement of both Nazis and Jews in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. thirdly, no serious historian looks to de Gaulle's memoirs or Churchill's account of the war for evidence as to the holocaust. but then this is exactly the kind of misleading bullshit which holocaust deniers specialise in; these three books are not 'best known', and don't relate to the holocaust; they are memorable because they are the personal accounts of well known figures. after establishing a misleading premise they then apply a specific filter - talking only about 'gas chambers' and mentioning 'six million' - which futher distances their reasoning from the truth.

 

[Judas]

we are talking about basic historical facts here.

Some things seem like basic facts but who knows.

The more shit you experience in life, the more cynical you become. An alarm bell goes off in my head when there seems to be censuring on the topic of the Holocaust. Other alarm bells go off when instead of arguments given, the opposing people are slandered as anti-semite or holocaust deniers. Seems to indicate propaganda instead of truth.

And if you know history, you know that its written by the victorious. Once the past is written as something and accepted, it becomes "facts" whether it be the truth or not. Many historians are inlined to the follow the path of previous historians when it comes to the Holocaust. They only perpetuate the "facts".

Now please dont group me with ant-semites like David Irving. I don't buy his arguments at all. I won't buy the arguments of most historians. I will be skeptical about all arguments until I learn to read German. My line of thought comes purely from distrust/skepticism and not from any hatred of any people. Seriously though, do you believe what you read from mainstream media?

 

[johnmortons]

look you joker, i studied history at uni, spent my last year there almost exlusively on Nazi Germany and am a native german speaker. i've seen the evidence, read much of the german and english secondary literature and more than 2000 pages of original documents and even spoken to survivors, and there is simply no doubt about the basic facts of the holocaust.

what you take for "censuring" is simply the disdain of professional historians or knowledgable amateurs for people who don't take the time to study the plentiful evidence (people like you), or people who purposely falsify it because they have an agenda (like right-wing extremists)

Once the past is written as something and accepted, it becomes "facts"

you are just talking out of your ass with no knowledge whatsoever. every professional historian who writes about the holocaust works mostly with primary sources, that is, the original evidence. no historian just bases his studies on the work of other historians without checking the evidence himself. even for a fucking master's thesis you are usually required to present an original hypothesis and proof it with primary evidence.

there is simply no way that something as big as the holocaust could be essentially untrue without a whole school of historians discovering it and pointing it out. contrary to what you allege, if somebody could really PROOF that it was a hoax, he wouldn't be censured but would probably become the most famous historian of all. the point is, all those who have so far tried to proof that it didn't really happen were quickly and easily revealed as being wrong (such as irving, who even had all his mistakes and errors proved to him in court).

And if you know history, you know that its written by the victorious.

yea, funny how virtually all german, austrian and italian historians come up with the same results as the american, british and french ones as far as the basic facts of the holocaust are concerned. surely, they must be collaboraters in an international conspiracy of the victor powers to invent the holocaust!

why don't you do yourself a favour and look at least at one proper history book. look, i'll even recommend you one with lots of pictures:
The Good Old Days: the Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders

get it out of some library if you don't want to pay for it. it's photos and letters from perpetrators and bystanders. and if you are still unconvinced, and really care to know the truth, then go into the archives and dig up the originals. if you really cared this should be not too big a problem (probably requires a trip to germany though). as long as you are not willing to look at the primary evidence yourself, you have no right whatsoever to "doubt" what thousands of historians have checked, cross checked and double-cross checked, and instead to rely "purely" on "distrust/skepticism". skepticism on its own, without knowledge of the subject and evidence, is worth nothing. show some sense and respect for what's probably the biggest human tragedy of all time.

 

[Judas]

Get your head out of your intellectual ass. Why do people with some education have this mightier than thou attitude? You need ackowledgement for an ego boost? Why the need to list your credentials-I ain't trying to employ you. The humanities in college is a joke. Just a bunch of kids regurgitating shit.
Before I sign off, I'll ackowledge that you seem to be much more knowledgeable on the Holocaust. But you also seem to be a naive fool.

 

[johnmortons]

yea, whatever. next time you post, try to make an argument and substantiate it. all you are doing is talking about something you obviously have no knowledge about, and you are insensitive enough not to realize how serious and horrible it is what you are saying.

Why do people with some education have this mightier than thou attitude? You need ackowledgement for an ego boost?

nah, i don't need acknowledgement as an ego boost, not yours anyway. i just got the feeling that you based your "doubt" on impossibly superficial sources without realizing the full extent of study some people (and i'm not talking about myself, although i used my own limited study as example) have spent on this topic and how much discussion and cross-checking of facts there is among professional historians which you will never hear a word about if you don't venture beyond the history channel and other such sources of information.

But you also seem to be a naive fool.

yea, perhaps i am, but at least i am not so naive as to doubt the holocaust, argue with empty phrases like "And if you know history, you know that its written by the victorious" and then fail to back it up with evidence if challenged.

 

[Judas]

Look, before you start thinking I'm some dumb hick who knows nothing, I'll tell you that I am a college graduate. Having gone through the process, I can tell you that I'm not impressed. There's a lot of limitation.

And I may not know as much about the Holocaust as you, but I am aware of most of the arguments made to substantiate the details of the Holocaust. I am also aware of the arguments made by Holocaust deniers and the holes in them. The most recent books I've read on the Holocaust is "Lying About Hitler" by Richard Evans and Lipstadts' "Denying the Holocaust." So I am a little informed.

With all the name droppings of historians that agree with one another, I just wanna know if they came up with new evidences , or they're using the same old evidence such as Himmler's notes, etc that I no longer remember. Give me evidences instead of name droppings.

And just to clarify, I do not doubt that the Holocaust happened, the Holocaust being the planned murder of millions of Jews during WWII. Go back and read my posts.