Holocaust Deniers
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: The Minefield
Forum Discription: Controversial topics. Only mods can start new topics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23697
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 10:06
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Holocaust Deniers
Posted By: Parnell
Subject: Holocaust Deniers
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 12:29
| An emotive issue sure, but what do you think is the issue here? Should we lock them up for expressing an opinion, no matter how repulsive? Personally I think allowing these idiots speak in civilised discourse makes them ruin their own arguments. The more these monsters speak, the more we shake our heads and laugh at their absurdity. I have spent time just reading threads on Stormfront - My reactions were a bitter mix of laughter, frustration, anger and pity. No matter what we may think of their opinions, they have no right to be in prison for expressing them. What about you? |
Replies:
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 14:05
|
To be fair with the notion of "free speech" of course they should say whatever they want. Who are we to marginalize a right? Even though such deniers are just that, deniers living in twisted denial, they have a right to their opinion don't they? ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 14:07
|
People should not be persecuted for thier ideas. That's pure fascism. Yet, it happens in several european countries when it comes to the holocaust. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 14:07
|
I would also like to add that in practical reality every country and union has a right to legislate types of speech as they see fit. ------------- |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 14:15
|
I do not agree to prosecuting people for expressing denial of the
Holocaust. The evidence of the truth weighs against them in open and
honest discourse, that it enough.
------------- |
Posted By: Aelfgifu
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 16:00
|
Although I am in favor of feedom of speech, I do believe that freedom of one individual's speech is to a certain extent limited by the freedom of others to not being insulted, discriminated or damaged. With regards to the holocaust, I do believe we cannot put people in prison for denying it, as it is not a crime to express your belief. But I do think that anyone who is hurt by these people, such as survivors of the holocaust are welcome to sue these people for slander or abuse. It is in fact much the same as with popular opinions on Islam and muslims. You are allowed to be critical, but when you offend or discriminate, you are liable for that. I dont know about other countries, but we have the right not to be discriminated against as the first law of the constitution. Therefore, discrimination is a crime. Slander on the other hand is civil law, and anyone who feels slandered can sue the offender for it. ------------- 
Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears. |
Posted By: Theodore Felix
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 16:39
|
The problem I have with Holocaust deniers is that 99% of the time they deny it purely for particular ideological or political reasons. Whether they wish to justify sick Nazi beliefs or to discredit Israel. In most occasions, a Holocaust denier follows up the denial with a tirade against Jews or some other order they attach to Jewry; or propose ludicrous, anti-Semitic based conspiracy theories or have open anti-Semitic feelings. The Holocaust is a recognized event in human history and something that really, based on the level of evidence for it, cannot be denied. It is a historical fact; therefore denying it is simply lying or just ignorant.
While I don't believe that people should be jailed for denying the Holocaust, I do believe that there should be some punishment for those who wish to propagate their hate-filled ideas to the masses in order to boost them. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 17:55
It does not explicitly ban certain type of speech though, all it says is: All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally Which to me means that is is not allowed to give people a better or worse treatment based on their religion, belief, etc., but not that you are not allowed to insult them. I don't think insulting is a kind of discrimination. As for Holocaust deniers, I agree with what most people have said here. Letting them speak is the best way to discredit them. I even think making Holocaust denial illegal will even make it more appealing to certain groups (you know, the "If you can't deny it surely they have something to hide" kind of argument). ------------- |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 17:59
|
To deny the holocaust is like to deny the excistance of the planet earth.
As you might know, today it's accusable in Germany to deny the holcaust. It was a decission of the founders of new democratic Germany after the WWII, to curtal the ambitions of some die-harders to try to qualify the nazi cruel.
A specific German situation but an example for other nations beside Austria?
Does have it the same level like o deny the Armenian genocide, the deoingsof the Red Khmer? Stalin's horror or the genocide of the American natives?
Several centuries ago it was accusable to say that the earth is a ball. Is it a question of proportion of power?
No it is not. The truth will aways win,sure.
So , let the cretins say whatever they want but don't forget to disrupt their hollow brains with the power of the words, the power of the free speech.
Don't stop until the very last of these amyelencephala is sweeped from this planet.
Or, as another option, gather all of them at Buchenau, Auschwitz or somewhere else and let them suffer under the same terms like the victims of the nazis and their mymidions had.
------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:39
You mean they are actually vertebrata? Must be the reptilian family I think. ------------- |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 18:47
just freaks -------------
http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 19:20
|
In France too there has been a law against the denial of the Shoah, which I find utterly disgusting. It gave the lawmakers a first taste of their ability to 'reform' history (a few years later, they were to decide that colonialism actually had a positive impact on the colonised countries during the 19th and 20th century!!!!). The case of Germany might be slightly different as there was a real eduction that needed to be undertaken after 1945, but surely now is time for the country to let the past behind. Surely, nobody in Germany denies the Shoah but a bunch of die-hard idiots for whom the law wasn't made in the first place. What is worst is that in France and I guess many other countries you actually have legal possibilities to ban Holocaust deniers (namely publishing wrongful statement, eulogy of crime, etc.). It actually does nothing more than setting artificially the Jewish community apart, as their Genocide is protected but not the others'. It also solely defines the Jewish community through a negative event instead of defining it for its positive contributions. In every aspects I can think of, this type of legislation is wrong and harmful for a nation and democracy. |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 22:01
|
I see no problem with denying the holocaust, people deny aspects of history all the time, but truth almost always prevails and outlasts falsehood. I don't see why the holocaust 'must' hold a privileged(!!) position amongst genocides. 3.5 million neutral Cambodians lost their lives, everybody knows it, and no one is persecuted for denying it took place. There are many others.
What i do strongly object to is using any denial of such kind as a stepping stone to further a more sinister agenda; this is where the focus should be. By the same token I am equally against the milking of the holocaust for justifying and furthering of political agendas by Jews, as is common with lobby groups and Zionists. ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2008 at 23:21
I think the main argument of the people denying the holocaust is not that it didn't happen, but that it wasn't organized. That the germans didn't mass-murder the jews with gas, but they just let them die like millions of other imprisoned in camps people (russian pows, gypsies etc). And it's still ironic that a german speaks like that about 'the nazis'. It reminds me of a cartoon (simpsons was it?) episode when in a travel in germany the germans presented thier history with a gap between 1939-1945, and when asked they angrily replied 'we were all on vacation!'. As if you and/or your relatives were absent during the holocaust... And what the heck is the 'shoah'? -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 07:17
|
^^ I remember that Simpsons episode. Clever writers.
My opinion is akin to the ones stated by most others here; Maharbbal and malizai especially. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how misguided.
Edit: at least as far as the US goes, the laws in Germany/Austria are understandable considering the extenuating circumstances.
Edit2: I'm glad I saw Temujin's post, it was Family guy, not the simpsons. Whoops. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 16:59
Other than the establishment of Israel in 1948 what political agendas have Jews furthered by "milking"" the holocaust? |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 17:27
|
Really King John? It's a cash cow. Milked every year in the most ingeneous ways as well.
44 Million USD for the Holocaust Museum; 200K and a "Moment" for our Vets
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5923 - http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5923
Does Israel benefit from the poor me syndrome? Does the US also? Yup. We are both intertwined. Now Iraq is too. http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2753 - http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2753
http://www.holocaust-nassau.org/ - http://www.holocaust-nassau.org/ Walk for remembrance. Be sure to bring money.
http://www.forward.com/articles/israel-demands-say-over-holocaust-funds/ - http://www.forward.com/articles/israel-demands-say-over-holocaust-funds/
Israel Demands Say Over Holocaust Funds
------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 18:02
I'm sorry maybe I misunderstood what Malazai was saying but I took "political agenda" as a furthering of objectives put forth by an administration, governing body, or government group. What does the Holocaust Museum have to do with furthering agendas. It is a way of remembering the past that is not milked for political gain/furthering political agendas. There are monuments in Berlin to the Holocaust and the millions who died. How does the US benefit from "the poor me syndrome?" All the things that you have cited have nothing to do with politics or advancing a political agenda, they have to do with memory. A political agenda would be "these people committed these atrocities so we should fight them." |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 18:04
|
Hello King John
Well if kicking an entire nation from it own lands and extracting billions of Dollars of money to this day, Germany paid about 60 billion to Israel and Jewish organizations (including three nuclear powered military subs for free) despite the fact that Israel was created after WWII. Norman Finklestein, a son of Holocaust survivors, wrote a book about certain jewish organizations who are exploiting the Holocaust called the "Holocaust Industry".
Anyway, being a holocaust believer in a holocaust denying society and experienced lots of problems because of that, I dare say the denying the holocaust where I live, and you can generalize that if you want, can be classified into three groups:
The First groups indeed believe that the Holocaust did happen but argue about the real numbers. They say the 6 million is an exaggeration and think of a number ranging from 2.5 to 4 million. as far as I know, even doubting the number of people killed in the Holocaust is a crime in some European countries. This is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of people.
The second group denies that the holocaust was ever an organized event where people were dragged to Aushwitz and systematically gassed. They say people from all over the German occupied territories were killed and some groups like the roma nearly faced annihilation. they also doubt the real numbers and give their own. The supporters of this theory are also numerous.
The third and these are most fringe of the group deny there was ever a Holocaust and most of their talk is bout conspiracy. The problem with these people is they don't mind supporting known racists, who hate Arabs and muslims as much as or even more than jews, just because they attack jews and deny the Holocaust.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 18:14
Hello Al Jassas, Well actually first they kicked out an imperialist power off of the land. From whom are they extracting billions of dollars from? Is it Germany? This is unclear to me. Is it possible that Germany has paid this money because it actually belonged to Jewish families before the Nazis took it along with numerous art masterpieces? This is how a lot of money is given from Germany to Israel and some of its citizens. I know about that book and if I remember correctly that book was very controversial and I think kept him from getting tenured at the University he was at at the time. Again I will ask how do Jews use the Holocaust to further a political agenda? None have answered this yet. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 18:24
|
Hello King John
There is no problem in giving back money that belonged to Jewish victims to let say charitable organizations or close relatives since most wealthy jews had relatives all over the world, but what does Israel have to do with the money? They have as much right to the money as I do and what boggs me is much of the money went to illigal jewish settlements, the Israeli army and maybe even Israel's nuclear program. It is not certain Jewish citizens that recieve the money it is the state itself. Anyway read the book, Finklestein is not Chomsky, he is a mainstream writer and many modertate mainstream jews support what he said in his book which was confiscated in some European countries if I am not mistaken.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 18:34
|
Hello Al Jassas,
What does Israel have to do with the money? Well other than the fact that it has the most Jewish Holocaust survivors in the world, I guess Israel has nothing to do with it (I hope you are picking up on my sarcasm). By the way countries give money to other countries all the time with out getting anything in return but more often than not their is an exchange of goods. Again I cite that Germany could be paying reparations to the nation with the highest amount of Jewish Holocaust survivors. I know who Finklestein is and he is less mainstream than Chomsky who has more support among Jews then Finklestein does. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 19:00
|
Nobody here said that sufferers from the Holocaust should be compensated and given back their money, what I am saying that the State of Israel, since the overwhelming majority of its citizens did not suffer from the Holocaust either directly or indirectly, has no right what so ever in claiming compensation for itself. as for Finklestein I wonder what is the thing that is not mainstream about him. He is a specialist on the subject he talks about and does not divert from it like Chomsky. He has ever been attacked ever since he took on a journalist, not a historian or a political scientist, who wrote crap back in the 80s when nobody dared to do what he did. Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 19:22
|
Chomsky is more mainstream because he is more widely read. If one takes into account the fact that Israel was founded mostly by people escaping from the Holocaust and other anti-semitic government sponsored programs in Europe than most people born in Israel to this day are descendants of people directly impacted by the Holocaust, in my eyes that means that they are indirectly if not directly affected by the Holocaust. By the way we are both off topic right now but you still haven't answered my question.
To get us back on topic I will say this: Laws outlawing Holocaust denials are unjust and should be stricken from the records. If people want to show their ignorance then let them. The only way these stances should be illegal is if they act to provoke people to harmful actions against Jews, Romani, Gays, or anybody else who was persecuted during the Holocaust committed by the Nazis. |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 19:49
I, my freind,was absent,might be i was in the medulla of my dad then, but some of my ancestors were not. Some were victims and some were actors.
There were nazis, there were followers, some look awayers and a few oppositioners.
They were Germans like my dad was, they were men like i am, so what do you mean?
Do you really think i can't evaluate who was guilty and who was not?
Nazis in mind are still around me, here in Iceland or anywhere else i had been in my life.
I'm not a nazi and so i do have the bloody right and the duty to remind those who can't remember any more.
Yes, they were the nazis, no matter whether it was my grandma or my uncle. And if you had followed many threads on AE you will have noticed that i didn't make a difference by naming the cruel of all kinds.
btw, i'm Icelander like i'm german, cause my mother added the nordic blood while my daddy gave my the genes of the nazi population.
I'm prussian like i'm viking, a real dangerous mixture.
-------------
http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 20:30
We live in different mindsets then. You preciesly said: Other than the establishment of Israel in 1948 what political agendas have Jews furthered by "milking"" the holocaust?
I gave you non-governmental and governmental moneymakers. If see it any other way that is your choice. Granted this has nothing to do about my views on free speech or Holacaust survivors, denial or any of the sort. My links only show a direct link to financial gains for events over 60 years ago. And if you do not think there is not a political agenda intertwinded then no amount of proof will wake you up. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 21:00
|
Sympathy for Holocaust survivors is one thing. Creating a business of it is another. But does the trend stop there or does political maneuvering enter the frey? The lack of understanding an interplay between aiding charity networks versus an underlying political machine needs restating. Money, one would assume, should only go to Holocaust survivors and thier families. Insurance claims are then legit. When governmental favoritism takes advantage of this originally altruistic benefit then things get fishy. Recently, Holocaust survivor organizations in America have complained that they do not have enough influence over allocation of funds. The Israeli government also has made past bids for a larger role in the process.http://www.forward.com/articles/israel-demands-say-over-holocaust-funds/ In recent months, it has been the Israeli government that has received criticism for its treatment of survivors. In particular, a few months ago, the Fund for the Social Welfare of Holocaust Survivors in Israel almost closed because it did not have enough money. The government provides only 5% of its budget.
The buck doesn't stop there. Evidently, though not necessarily connected, Israel receives 6.8 million dollars dailly from the United States for economic and military aid. Compare that to a neighboring people that can also lay claims to being victims of persecution, the Palestinians, and the numbers show a disproportionate level.
 http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html - http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html Take into consideration that AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is the second largets lobby group in the US. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/12/08/234927/index.htm - http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1997/12/08/234927/index.htm ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 21:13
While this is true the US gives more money to Israel than to Palestinians, what does it have to do with the Holocaust? What proof do you have that this isn't just a relic of the Cold War (the US supporting the lone "Democracy" (at the time) in the Middle East with the Soviet Union supporting nations like Syria)? |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 21:15
Maybe I should have specified my definition of furthering a political agenda. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 21:27
|
To answer your first post I said, not necessarily connected. But anyone with an imagination who cries about CAIR being a false charity (not you btw) to moslems then one certainly can suspect that not every charitable dollar in the name of Holocaust victims is safely in secure deserving hands. Which led to my point of an strong interplay between Israel and the USA which gets unprecedented favoritism over any other aid trading country. Furthering a political agenda is a wild guess too. Do we need to be repeatedly reminded of this through cinema, television and such? Maybe so for those with poor historical memories. However, like most purposes in life there is always a secondary gain. Whether we agree or differ is of no matter to this thread. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 22:12
it was family guy, not simpsons. anyways, my grandfathers were indeed absent, but they were not exactly on vacation but instead had to fear for their lives on the eastern front for example and eventually ended up in a soviet coal mine as PoW. is it hard to understand germans also suffered at the hands of the nazis? do you also think those germans of jewish faith that died in those camps were not less german than i am? many of them didn't even knew they were jews until the nazis told them they have non-german ancestry...
shoah is the more accurate name for the holocaust ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 22:25
|
"Other than the establishment of Israel in 1948"
At least you admit something. Even if you seem to pass that comment as trivial fact barely making into the footnotes, a mere side event. This fact is nothing of that sort. It is the central issue, with repercussions for the region as well as world health.
Another political and some what irksome use by Zionists is to twist criticism of Israel into anti-semitism, to stifle any meaningful debate. Why use the term 'semite' then?, to attempt a connection with the historical Israelis who 'were' semites.
Ben Gurion: "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves Politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit wheras we want to come here and settle down, and in their view, we want to take away from them their country."
Here is an example of the political use of Holocaust:
Olmert Says Zionism Will Prevent Second Holocaustjpost Jan 29, 2008 Israel cannot stand on the sidelines and watch Iran attain offensive nuclear capabilities, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday, forging an implied link between the Iranian regime and the Third Reich during a special Knesset session to mark International Holocaust Memorial Day. "The Jewish people will never again be homeless and powerless as they were during the Holocaust," the prime minister said. "But our ears are more attuned and our sensitivity is higher to threats of destruction than other nations. We do not allow ourselves to remain complacent when we hear voices calling for the annihilation of Israel, especially when behind those voicing the threats is a fanatical, murderous ideology; a despotic terror-supporting regime that strives inexhaustibly to achieve regional hegemony and a malicious nuclear weapons development program. As far as we are concerned, as far as the Holocaust-taught Jewish people are concerned, this is an intolerable situation." "On the International Holocaust Memorial Day we demand action from the international community," Olmert said. "We respect and value the governments and leaders that assume a decisive stance against this danger, [and] we call upon others whose stance is influenced by various interest-driven calculations to relinquish any foreign consideration and pose a unified determined front to remove the ominous peace- threatening shadow." -------
Contrast with this:
http://www.iranjewish.com/English.htm - http://www.iranjewish.com/English.htm
http://jewishirani.blogspot.com/ - http://jewishirani.blogspot.com/ `
and for a good laugh.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1204546395078 - http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1204546395078 ------------- |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 22:37
Ulrich and temujin, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Don't get agitated. I'm just saying germans must get friends with their past eventually.
How is that? (I mean what does 'Shoah' mean exactly? Why is it more accurate?) -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 00:01
First off I didn't put the Israel comment in as a mere side event. I placed that there as a major concession admitting that the Holocaust was the main reason for Israel's establishment. Second who is twisting criticism of Israel into anti-semiticism? I don't believe I have ever brought up anti-semiticism in this thread. Also I fail to see how Zionists twisting any criticism into anti-semiticism is milking the Holocaust. It is merely a reaction to a perceived offense. As to your question "why use the term 'semite' then? I don't believe I know what you are trying to get at here. Are you trying to say that modern Jews are not a semitic people and that this lack of semiticism negates any and all claims on the territory of Israel? Also you said Jews milk the Holocaust which I categorically disagree with. The statement in question smacks of broad generalizations not all Jews milk the Holocaust. Just like not all Jews are Zionists. This is a broad generalization that isn't even close to true. The truth of the matter is that if the Holocaust is being milked it is being milked by many people. |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 00:16
|
Ok ,i think that people who deny the Holocaust can confidently be called stupid.actually with big letters STUPID.Also many other things.The only clever ones are the ones who do this deliberately.(exept stupid all other things apply to them).
So acording to them milions of Jews disaapeared during the war in a misterious way?
Or do they actually deny the fact they disapeared?????
The creation of Izrael,the policies of America and other political events have nothing to do with the historical truth of holocaust. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 00:53
|
Of course it doesn't. Having read our posts you already knew that too. Anyway I suppose we should all stick to the topic. ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 07:39
They kicked Britain out but weren't the British that allowed them to settle there? Israel was created artificially... Oh, wait that's the other thread.
You ask how do Jews use the Holocaust to further a political agenda. First, it's not "the Jews". Some groups are using the Holocaust in their political or material quests. The example of Germany is quite relevant. As the defetead side in a war it is OK for a country to pay for the damage done. The problem is that Germany paid more to Israel than to USSR for example. And even now there are individuals that claim for the Germans to give them money in the name of the victims of the Holocaust. You mentioned private property stolen from the Jews by the Nazis. Is there an inventory of these things? You might say that the Nazis erased all evidence that showed who those properties belonged to. But that doesn't change the fact that any claim made without being backed by evidence is controversial.
And the worst evidence that Holocaust is used by politicians is the fact that in some countryes there are laws that restrict the freedom of speech for those that do not believe in the Holocaust. Think of a person that didn't had the chance to be properly educated so he just doesn't believe the "story of the Holocaust". The moment he makes his belief public he might be thrown in the jail. Does he think the same about soviet civil losses in the war? No problem, he can brag about it loud and clear, no harm will come to him from the law. That's at least double standard. And such laws do no good to the victims of the slaughter. On the contrary. And yes, these laws are used for political purpose. Either positively or negatively. A nationalist would profit from them by highlighting the fact that jews only beneficiate.
And "Holocaust Denial"(HD) is not formalized. One controversial thing about the Holocaust is the number of Jews that were effectively victims of the Holocaust. This could be a debate. But in some places you might get the hammer for saying that you have doubts. That's an obvious use of the Holocaust.
If I say such a thing nobody might give a damn. But if I would be a billionaire, if something about the Holocaust would come out of my mouth then ....
|
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 13:16
|
Anyone remember what happened the last time the Germans had to pay reparations? ------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 13:55
I repeat what others have said. People should be allowed to make themselves look stupid by denying it. Infringements should not be made on the freedom of speech. If anything, this would only victimise the deniers.
It's Hebrew for cataclysm/calamity. It's not more "accurate", since the words have the same meaning. Besides, it wouldn't make sense to use it in other languages either, since it doesn't mean anything (Swedish is an exception I guess, where tjoa, pronounced the same way, mean "joyful yelling"...). |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 19:36
we are, or what exactly do you mean in particular?
Shoah is how Jews themselves call it. Holocaust was the title of an American TV show about the genocide, and eventually the name carried on, sort of how 3. Reich carried on even though the name was hardly used nor encouraged by the Nazis. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 19:43
So do you think the state of Israel is justified by uprooting Palestinians?
That is why no one has said that you did.
So what purpose does the twisting of Zionist criticism into anti-semitism fulfill? to what effect is the term anti-semitism loaded?.
To your second question, most Jews speak a non semitic language, Yiddish (isn't that some from of Germanic?) and no they are not semitic, except for the Yemeni Jews who were mass airlifted in the 'Magic carpet' operation. Rupert Murdoch is not a semite, , neither is Ehud olmert semites. So Rupert Murdoch is not entitled to a summer house in Palestine, at the expense of a Palestinian, based on what happened three thousand years ago. So no they don't have any claims on the territory of Palestine. The only Jews that do are those who were living in Palestine before Israel, and 'bought' their land to live on.
Here i have a bit of a problem with your statement, and i don't know if you have deliberately inserted "Jews" instead of 'Zionists'. So ironically it seems, you yourself have broadened the statement, where as i was speaking specifically and in context. I know well the difference between Jews, Zionist, and all the in betweens. As you can see here:
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12989&KW=zionists&PN=3 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12989&KW=zionists&PN=3
BTW, Who other than the Zionists is milking the holocaust? and how?
EDIT: Had Dick Cheney down as being Jewish. Has been deleted. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 22:26
|
Hello Maliazi
Dick Cheney is an episcopalian christian from English ancestry and has nothing to do with Jews. As for criticising Israel, it is anti-semitism according to Merriam-Webster. Also the ADL considers almost all criticism of Israel as driven by anti-semetic sentiments no matter how justified it was.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 22:32
|
People who criticise people for criticising Israel and claiming their being anti-semitic are ridiculous. ------------- |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 21:59
Thxs for the correction Al jassas, i was afflicted by his AIPAC connection. I shall correct that. As for ADL, i think it is playing politics plain and simple, if it says that. What's Merriam-Webster? and who cares?. Those that hate Jews are Jew-haters or anti-Jews. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 22:20
|
Rupert Murdoch isn't a Jew either. Here is his genealogy:
http://www.wargs.com/other/murdoch.html - Murdoch ancestors |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 22:47
|
RUPERT MURDOCH, Owner Fox TV, New York Post, London Times, News of the World (Jewish mother) http://www.rense.com/general60/stun.htm - http://www.rense.com/general60/stun.htm I don't keep individual records of Jewish people, so I jotted down the first three I could think of. The specific individual is actually really not that important, i could find many if need be to illustrate the same point. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 23:07
|
His mother is an Irish protestant Protestant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame_Elisabeth_Murdoch - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame_Elisabeth_Murdoch
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 23:20
|
Murdoch's mother is Dame Elisabeth Murdoch who was born Elisabeth Joy Greene in Melbourne to an Irish Protestant father and an upper-class English mother. Making her not Jewish, ergo Rupert Murdoch not a Jew, a Zionist maybe but Jew, no. That link/site is hardly accurate, look at where it takes its information from. At the bottom there is a disclaimer that says:
"Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's. editor@aljazeerah.info" Now when we go back to the mainsite we can clearly see that this is not a reputable site. It has links to stories about UFO's and not to mention a link to a story about how some writer invented the 6 million figure (re # of Jews who died in Holocaust). If we google Jeff Rense we find that he is a conspiracy theorist who thinks that Zionists are behind every bad thing going on in the world. Why should we believe him when he says Murdoch is/was a Jew? If being a Jew is only a religious Identity and not a racial or ethnic one than how is he Jewish if he (Murdoch) does not accept the tenets of Judaism but instead acknowledges Jesus Christ as his lord and savior (as Christians do)? |
Posted By: HEROI
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 23:42
|
I always thought Murdoch was Jewish to.I am surprised to find out he is not.
From holocaust deniers,the topic went to criticising Izrael.Thats the problem,as i try to explain previously,the Holocaust and present day politics surounding the middle east conflict are different things.
As for Izrael i would like to add that it is a democratic country who respects the right of its citezins,including Arabs. ------------- Me pune,me perpjekje. |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 00:25
|
As i said before i tried to think of three famous people that were jewish. As for rense, upon googling Murdoch and Jewish, the first site that came up was http://www.jewwatch.com/ - http://www.jewwatch.com/ , which i didn't want to report from for the obvious reasons. Rense came second, but is not the only place that reports of him as being Jewish.
Born: http://www.nndb.com/lists/588/000106270/ - 11-Mar - http://www.nndb.com/lists/930/000105615/ - 1931 Gender: Male Nationality: United States http://www.nndb.com/people/420/000023351/ -
http://www.nndb.com/company/409/000059232/ - News Corporation CEO (1979-)
Member of the Board of http://www.nndb.com/company/005/000124630/ - British Sky Broadcasting (as Chairman) Member of the Board of http://www.nndb.com/company/142/000053980/ - Hughes Electronics Member of the Board of http://www.nndb.com/company/409/000059232/ - News Corporation (1979-, as Chairman, 1991-) http://www.nndb.com/media/952/000047811/ - The New York Post Publisher http://www.nndb.com/org/494/000049347/ - Cato Institute http://www.nndb.com/org/531/000167030/ - Friends of Hillary http://www.nndb.com/org/816/000041693/ - Motion Picture Association of America http://www.nndb.com/org/116/000123744/ - Partnership for New York City Board of Directors http://www.nndb.com/org/230/000168723/ - Santorum 2006 http://www.nndb.com/event/582/000051429/ - Naturalized US Citizen 1985 http://www.nndb.com/group/682/000165187/ - Funeral: Katharine Graham (2001) http://www.nndb.com/group/599/000165104/ - Wedding: Rudy Giuliani and Judi Nathan (2003) http://www.nndb.com/ancestry/521/000066323/ - British Ancestry http://www.nndb.com/ancestry/481/000045346/ - Jewish Ancestry Maternal Risk Factors: http://www.nndb.com/lists/446/000066248/ - Prostate Cancer http://www.nndb.com/people/420/000023351/ - http://www.nndb.com/people/420/000023351/
Ok! lets have someone that is not controversial.(If it makes any difference).
I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Scooter.html - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Scooter.html
------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 05:41
|
Sykes, Balfour, Churchill, Lloyd George and many more, all of them were staunch Zionists and non were jew. at any given case I think that in a country that claims freedom of speech, the Holocaust issue must be open and the government has no authority on what people should say. But if the country does limit freedoms than they have no right whatsoever to except other groups from the privalge they have given to the holocaust specifically and anti-semitism in general.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 08:12
Churchill wasn't Zionist. He didn't care about Jews. Don't know how is with the rest.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 12:00
|
Balfour was as was Lolyd George. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 16:22
|
Hello to you all
Churchill was at least sympathetic to the Zionist cause if not a Zionist. he voted against the White paper of 1939 which calls for limiting migration towards Palestine and calling for an independent Palestine with guarantees for the jewish populace. It also banned colonization and land purchases from foreign organizations. Lloyd George was not just any Zionist, he hated Arab and especially Turks and Balfour was no different. He handpicked Sykes to divide Syria and was behind Balfour decleration even before taking Palestine from the Ottomans.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2008 at 09:34
In principle, I agree with this sentiment. But I have a few caveats. This sort of propaganda is associated with white power organizations, who often espouse other views, sometimes calling for violence. White power organizations have, over the last 30 years or so, been responsible for a large number of criminal acts ranging from political violence by assaulting persons, to kidnapping, bank robbery, drug trafficking, and murder - in at least one case, of a police officer. Not to mention attempted crimes, like Matthew Hale's plot to murder a federal judge. White power publications also inspired the largest act of domestic terrorism in US history, the Oklahoma City bombing. For these reasons, it is not unreasonable that police agencies pay a little extra attention to people, and especially organizations, espousing holocaust denial. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 07-May-2008 at 20:03
|
Holocaust denials are fine... they just need to be reasonable enough to give the reliable evidence. They should realize that it's impossible to convince the majority that it's a lie, especially when millions of Jews did end up being dead or disappeared during WWII. Starting talking sense, and we will take their words more seriously. I am tolerant about the fact that the numerical figure (6 million) can be disputed due to lack of solid evidence (Difficult in wartime, especially when Germans burned much of their records), but they didn't managed to hide the aftermath of holacoust... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-May-2008 at 21:09
Pekau, I don't know your source for the burning of records but it goes against everything I've read and know. The one thing that cooked the Nazis at Nurnberg was their records. The Nazis were obsessive when it came to keeping records. Destroying them would have gone against everything they believed in.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Parnell
Date Posted: 07-May-2008 at 21:33
|
Churchill came out with a pretty characteristic response to the Zionist cause. He said something along the lines of the 'ridiculousness' of preventing an industrious people from improving land... ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 07-May-2008 at 23:52
Damn, I can't seem to find the source. I am pretty sure that Germans began to burn their records after Hitler's death and prior to their surrender. I will have to get back to you on this one...
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 08-May-2008 at 04:18
|
No, we have extensively compiled records of pretty much everyone who passed through Auschwitz, Dachau, etc. The Nazis recorded names, prisoner numbers (the numbers tattooed on the prisoners), and even minute details down to amounts of food issued day by day, medical procedures, medical experiments, etc. Also, many of the doctors in the camps, as well as Wardens (or whatever they were called), kept exhaustive journal and diaries from which much information was gleaned.
------------- My Name is Eli Manning. Ponce owns my soul. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 09-May-2008 at 02:25
|
Ah... maybe I got confused with the record as Hitler's body. Geeze, I was so sure of this... again, I will get back to you when I have time to search for it. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 14-May-2008 at 07:53
|
The holocaust has long been used as an unquestionable, unapproachable force-field for defending Israeli actions. All one has to do is bring up the holocaust and all critics are silent. Such is the stigma around it that questioning the truth/extent of it is paramount to heresy. Despite this, there is reasonable grounds to deny the holocaust. While I am not siding either way, to deny legitimate historical investigation is questionable to say the least. The main grounds for questioning are these: 1. The body of evidence is not particularly great. 2. All evidence surfaced after the event. 3. All evidence was produced by nations which had a vested interest in portraying Germany and Hitler as evil. 4. Jewish persons had great motivation for exaggerating claims. Whilst I personally think it did happen, I also think it's time we get damn well past it. People should be able to question and examine the evidence. No longer should 'we went through the holocaust' be regarded as a legitimate excuse for morally questionable behaviour in the present. Another thing to remember is that, while 6 million jews died in the holocaust, over 30 million slavic persons also did. ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 15-May-2008 at 05:50
|
Great post Zaitsev. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2008 at 18:24
If six million people disappearing within a few years is not a particulary great body of evidence, then what is?
Those points are contradicting each other. If all evidence surfaced after the event, it means it couldn't have been used as anti-German propaganda during the war.
I'll grant you that, though that fact in itself does not make evidence for the Holocaust any less valid. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 15-May-2008 at 22:07
In normal times, perhaps, but you have to remember this was World War 2. Estimates place the death toll around 80 million people. Many people were simply listed as missing and were never found.
This is actually quite inaccurate, and the statements do not contradict each other. After the war the Allied powers still had very good reason to paint Hitler as evil. They needed to justify the war and portray themselves as heroes of the common people. Britain and the United States also wished Europe to support them in opposition of Communist Russia.
It actually does. When examining evidence one must always analyse bias. All this said, again, I am not denying the events of the holocaust. What I am doing is stating the grounds foe further investigation. ------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 15-May-2008 at 22:26
|
Hello to you all The problem with the holocaust is that it was turned into a sacred cow that nobody can search let alone argue aboutb key facts about it. Even though every mainstream historian believe in the holocaust there is a huge lobbying effort that rose in the last 20 years to turn the entire subject, namely the part of the holocaust that targeted the jews, into a sacred fact that only official story made by official people, namely the holocaust museums, is accepted and any one who wants to search anything about the fact even if he meant well is censored, attacked and even jailed, so much for freedom of speach.
This is poisonous, it is this kind of attitude that fuels conspiracy theories that I mentioned sum earlier in the thread. anti-semitism was unheard of in the EU after WWII until several laws about the holocaust were legistlated against any kind of searching the holocaust. It was after that that a large number of people started, with the advancement of the internet, denying that the thing happened altogether. In America, where the is of course no such laws, there are far more people accepting the official story of the holocaust than in europe which is where the event happened and even though there is a huge number of holocaust deniers and many of them are extremly powerful especially among certain minorities. There is no doubt that the holocaust happened but to restrict searching into just merely confirming the official story is very harmful and such laws should be lifted and people who argue about the event should be left alone.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 00:45
|
Indeed Al Jassas. Why are there not laws prohibiting investigations into the Armenian Genocide? The Spanish Flu? The French Revolution? All these events made a significant impact on humanity and are all grievous and horrid... yet investigation of these events is not prohibited or taboo. Anti-Semitism is a term applied to questioning anything remotely associated with the Jewish people. To question Israel is now Anti-Semitic. To investigate the holocaust - anti-Semitic. To suggest equal rights for Palestinians - anti-Semitic. ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 05:32
|
There is actually many independent studies done and I found one that is quite unique to what have I encountered in the past regarding the number of the Jews killed during WWII. This is pretty long so bear with me: Source: www.holology.com (author goes by name of Freydis) Here's is the link of the site: http://www.holology.com/history.html#11 - http://www.holology.com/history.html#11 Holocausts by the Numbers Although holocaust narratives are interesting studies on their own, the element that intrigues me now is the mechanical aspects of death on a mass scale. Genocidal holocausts are much more difficult than the average person is led to believe – it’s no simple task to make millions of people disappear. How do despotic regimes do it? What logistics elements are really necessary for a mass-extermination campaign? Two examples of holocausts worth comparing are that of Nazi Germany and the Khmer Rouge’s Cambodia. The Cambodian holocaust is very useful from a historical perspective because it is a recent event and a well documented one as well, but even more importantly it is replete with the physical evidence necessary to validate the numbers attached to the event, namely mountains of bones left behind by the victims of execution. The killing methods employed by the Khmer Rouge were brutally simple consisting of nothing more than rope and plastic bags or an iron bar to the back of the head, and of course starvation by default. Examples of Khmer Rouge killing methods can be found in the 1984 film The Killing Fields, which even though it is not a documentary still does an apt job of depicting life and death under the rule of the Khmer Rouge. Actual interviews of KR prison guards can be found in the documentary film S21: The Khmer Rouge Killing Machine (2003). The tools used by the KR thugs may seem primitive and inefficient for mass killing when compared to Nazi gas chambers and crematoria but actually the opposite is true. Mass killings other than war are nearly always done in a very crude fashion. Hutu and Tutsi killed each other in Rwanda using nothing more than machetes during the mass-slaughter of up to one million in 1994. The simplest and most effective way to kill thousands or even millions of people is, and always has been, famine. Stalin was responsible for a mass starvation that killed a roughly estimated eight million Ukrainians from 1932-1933. Mao Zedong was responsible for several famines that killed millions in China as a direct result of the implementation of his foolish and self-defeating policies such as the ‘Great Leap Forward’ that starved to death an estimated 30 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward - [3] Many of the one million Armenians killed by the Turks from 1915-1917 in the “Armenian Holocaust†died from starvation. The events of the Holocaust of Nazi Germany have been repeated so many times it need not be rehashed in detail. Jews, criminals and other portions of the German population deemed undesirable by the Nazi regime, such as homosexuals and Jehovah’s Witnesses, were methodically executed by poison gas and then the bodies cremated leaving no traces. In comparison to other historical examples, the Nazi extermination program seems to be the most elaborate mass execution system devised. Nonetheless, just as the KR left mountains of bones, so should the Germans have left behind mountains of ashes from the cremated bodies and bones from the one that weren't. In any case the of volume of physical evidence has to be commensurate with the number of people that died at the extermination sites. Paper evidence and written documentation concerning the Nazi government's plans and procedures for executing millions has also been troublesome for historians because so much of it is either bogus, misleading or simply non-existent. The orders for mass execution are considered to be either hidden or suggested by vague phrases such as solving the 'Jewish problem'. It seems that the historians that toil to corroborate the Nazi holocaust using period specific documentation are left to assume that little or no written record was left by intent in order to cover up the crime. This would not be without precedent as Stalin was notorious for using verbal orders to liquidate opponents rather than written records that could be traced back to him personally. So as far as Nazi Germany is concerned events imply that Hitler spoke about the ‘Jewish Problem’ and his deputies took it up on their own to interpret a solution to that ‘problem’, i.e. mass execution by poison gas in special extermination camps. It must also be added here that much of the evidence to support the Nazi Holocaust comes from dubious and highly suspect sources. The Soviets ‘discovered’ and concocted bogus evidence on numerous Nazi crimes because they had a strong ideological motivation to make the Germans look as evil and inhuman as possible. Anything that made Hitler seem more ghastly only made Stalin look less insidious himself in comparison. The http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/01/spotlight/ - Katyn Forest Massacre is a classic example of this Soviet policy, they blamed their killings on the Nazis and lied about their own crime all the way up to 1990. But the point here is that regardless of the validity of documents and stories, take them or leave them, certain numerical facts remain and that is where we really begin. Now for some mathematical comparisons. The Khmer Rouges officially took power in Cambodia on April 17, 1975 and their regime lasted three years eight months and 22 days. The Khmer Rouge killed around 1.5 million Cambodians during their reign. Starting with the basic assumption that the Khmer Rouge could only be killing while they were in power, this gives us a fixed time period with which to calculate the rate of killing. Here’s the math:
In actuality most of the 1.5 million killed by the KR were the result of starvation not intentional execution. True executions by the KR may be as few as 50,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge - [4] Recalculating based on this lower limit generates a significantly less dramatic result:
So, we can see that although the KR were busy killing Cambodians the numbers are what we would expect to be practical and possible given the methods used and the established time frame. Since Germany was an open country and since the extermination camps were a factor of wartime, the mass killings associated with Nazi Germany occurred during the war years of WWII, in this case the fall of 1939 until spring of 1945 or about five and a half years. The total number killed in Nazi extermination camps varies widely. The most common number thrown about is six million but that only refers to the number of Jews killed. Including everyone else Nazi Germany supposedly executed in the Holocaust bumps the number up to somewhere between 11 million and an incredible 26 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust - [1] This vast discrepancy makes calculations more difficult so we'll run two examples, one for the lowest number of six million and one for the highest number of 26. Establishing the time frame in this case is a choice between greater accuracy according to the given set of events and providing an intentionally exaggerated allowance to cover every possible act. An exaggerated allowance would use the fall of 1939 until the spring of 1945, the entire length of the war, as the time frame. However, this time frame would be misleading because the killing of the millions in the Holocaust occurred at the Nazi execution camps that only operated from around early 1942 until mid 1944. For greater accuracy I’ll use the time frame from the beginning of 1942 until the middle of 1944, or 30 months. Here’s the math:
Clearly the Nazis were killing people at a frenetic rate the Khmer Rouge could only have aspired towards, as even on the smallest total number, the Nazis out-killed the KR by eleven times on the daily average! This is especially peculiar because it occurred during the largest and most expensive (and expansive) hot war in human history. So even though the KR had only internal issues to deal with and no external war to fight at the same time, the Nazis managed to fight a two front war against three major enemies and still exterminate several hundred people every day for nearly three years, and that's just an average! Another aspect of the Nazi liquidation machine that demands further investigation is that of cremation. Complete cremation of bodies is a very energy intensive operation and even so it still leaves a few pounds of ash and bone fragments per person, 5% of the body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation - [2] So multiply that five pounds minimum (100lb body*.05 = 5 lbs) by the number of people cremated:
That’s a hell of a lot of ash. So where is it all of it? Since the Nazi extermination camps are in Poland, the first place to look for these massive quantities of human ash is, logically, at one of these camps: Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibór, and Treblinka, but more on that in a moment. It should also be mentioned here that these extermination camps were discovered and controlled by the Communist Russian Soviet forces as they rolled west towards Berlin during the final phase of World War II. Another technical problem also exists, the time limit, for it takes at least two hours to cremate one body in a special, modern oven at a constant temperature between 760 to 1150 °C (1400 to 2100 °F). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation - [2] Old cremation ovens would have taken longer, five to ten hours per body, especially if they were fueled by less efficient means than a gas like propane.
These cremation ovens would have to be running constantly for nearly three years in order to destroy the bodies of the number of people Nazi Germany is supposed to have liquidated. However, this assumes that only one body was cremated at a time. If you build a bigger oven then you can logically burn up more bodies in any given time period. A photo of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Majdanek_piece.jpg - Majdanek crematorium reveals that it is not designed for more than one body at a time in a given section but it does have what appear to be five chambers. http://www.remember.org/camps/mauthausen/mau-krem02.html - Mathausen appears to only have one oven with two single body chambers. Other sites were destroyed but it is reasonable to expect the cremation ovens would be of similar sizes. Another technical problem is fuel for the ovens. Could wartime Germany afford the fuel needed to constantly run 2,380 cremation ovens for nearly three years? Cremation ovens need very high temperatures to operate and this requires a constant, energetic fuel supply like natural gas. These fuels were in very short supply because of the war effort. If the Nazis used coal, as is assumed, they would have needed mountains of the stuff and an entire army to continually shovel it into the furnaces. Even more waste product would have been produced from the consumed coal in the form of ash. Given the scale of the purported operation, the burned coal fuel for the crematoria would have been piled into giant heaps something like the waste from a simple coal-fired power plant. The Execution Camps Now let's attempt to break it down by extermination camp to see if the figures make more sense that way. A more specific study of each site reveals the approximate dates of actual operation, a significantly shorter window than the entire war period, meaning that the executions must have occurred at a much more rapid pace than calculated above. It also reveals that most of the dead were not cremated! Auschwitz II (Birkenau) “Large-scale extermination started in Spring 1942. ... Between May and July 1944, about 438,000 Jews from Hungary were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau and the majority were killed there.†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Auschwitz_II - [10] Like Birkenau, Majdanek was also overrun by the Soviets. Belzec “The installation was finished by early March 1942. … by December 1942, the last shipment of Jews arrived in Belzec. ... 434,508 Jews were killed in Belzec ... [T]he corpses were buried in pits covered with only a narrow layer of earth.†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belzec - [5] Thus since none of the victims at Belzec were cremated (according to this story) it should be a straightforward, even if time consuming, matter to exhume the bones and officially number the dead. Chelmno “The death camp operated from December 8, 1941 until April 1943 when it was closed down and its crematorium blown up, ... It is estimated that 200,000 people were killed in the camp†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelmno_concentration_camp - Majdanek Majdanek is the showcase operation because it contains all the primary elements of the execution machinery and is considered to be the best preserved execution camp. “Between April 1942 and July 1944, extermination took place in Majdanek using gas chambers and crematoria. ... It is estimated that over 235,000 human lives were lost in Majdanek,†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majdanek - [8] http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/gallbr/BMAJD11.htm - Majdanek has a monument with ashes that are claimed to be human and there’s a convincing amount. It should also be noted that Majdanek was discovered, liberated, acquired, however you want to put it, by the Soviets. So, if Majdanek was a crime scene then the Soviets are about the least reputable investigator that could possibly be put in control of it. Maly Trostenets Maly Trostenets near Minsk. “No survivors of the camp are known to exist, and estimates of the number of people killed there range from 200,000 to more than half a million. ... the camp became a Vernichtungsl*ger, or extermination camp, on May 10, 1942 when the first transport of Jews arrived there.†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maly_Trostenets - [11] Maly Trostenets ended in June 1944 when the advancing Soviet forces took over. Crematoria are not mentioned, implying yet another simple dump-the-bodies-in-a-grave execution operation. Sobibór “At least 180,000 people were killed in Sobibór.†http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobibor - [6] Cremation is not mentioned so it is possible to count the bones to determine the number of dead. Treblinka “It was operated from July 1942 until October 1943 … approximately 310,000 Jews were transported in freight trains from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka during the period from July 22, 1942 to October 3, 1942." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka - [7] Yet the total is always shown as being much more. Nearly every source gives a different total number killed from 700,000 to 1,400,000 at Treblinka because the records are either non-existent or were destroyed. The story of Treblinka has the bodies being buried in mass graves. So to determine the number dead at Treblinka one should look to count bones not ash volume. Total killed for each execution camp are as follows: Auschwitz II: 1,100,000; Belzec: 436,000; Chelmno: 340,000; Majdanek: 300,000 to 350,000; Sobibór: 260,000; Treblinka: at least 700,000, possibly over 1,000,000; Maly Trostenets: at least 200,000, possibly over 500,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camps - [12] Giving a maximum total of 3,986,000 and that includes Jews and everyone else. The estimated total dead for these major execution camps is still significantly less than total of six million Jews and not even close to the upper limit of 26 million. What about the rest? “Before Operation Reinhard, over a million Jews were killed by the Einsatzgruppen, mobile SS units whose sole purpose was to murder Jews and commissars in territories conquered by the German army.†[7] So someone in some capacity as an expert roughly estimates that another one million were killed and their bodies left scattered around Europe. 4,986,000. The point I’m trying to make is that there’s no way to make any of these numbers credible within the parameters of the given narrative that characterizes the Nazi Holocaust story; it’s a classic example of atrocity inflation. And until an objective, professional and complete forensic examination is conducted it will never be anything more than a claim based on speculation, rumor, interrogations under duress, ridiculously biased sources and estimations of estimated estimates. How difficult is it to forge a document? How difficult is it to get the public to believe the validity of that document if it lends support to the execution stories in the Nazi Holocaust? No, the majority of the real definitive proof hasn’t even been cremated, it’s still in the ground. What really happened? The logistics requirements for the Nazi extermination machine would make it impossible to keep the operation a secret or even moderately covert simply given the energy and manpower requirements needed to maintain and operate it. The smoke and fumes alone would have been an indicator for miles around.
So what are we left with? If we take the given numbers executed by the Nazis and factor in the absolute limitations of time and make plenty of allowance for resources that they likely didn't even have, then something just does not compute. The physical infrastructure is simply not present to support a mass execution on the purported scale and within the purported means. The truth must be much less insidious than the myth, at least on a numerical scale anyway. Just ask yourself, can the known events be explained without the application of the elaborate Nazi Holocaust story? Yes they can! Tolerance for dissent is always at a nadir during a war in any society and the Germans were no exception. The Nazi government rounded up dissenters, troublemakers, and potential problems, most of them non-Germans, and shipped them off to labor and concentration camps. But it made no sense to simply setup a massive mechanism to exterminate millions of these people that would place an enormous drain on manpower and resources when the Germans could instead turn the imprisoned into a cheap labor force that would actually aid the war effort instead of making it more difficult. And that’s what they did. Germany was very pressed for resources even when the war was going in their favor, but especially so towards the end. The Nazi government, typically German in efficiency, ranked and allocated their limited resources according to the needs of the German nation. Germans came first and non-Germans last. So while the German cities and factories were being bombed into rubble by the British and Americans and the German people were running low on food and everything else, the people in the concentration camps were only getting the barest minimum of food and supplies, if even that. Hence the emaciated and diseased victims found at the end of the war and widely filmed for propaganda value. The “gas chambers†in the “extermination camps†were exactly what they looked like and were originally designed for: to fumigate and sterilize clothing and other articles to prevent the spread of insects and disease, always a problem in any cramped quarters but especially so in a concentration camp. Just looking at the pictures of these crematoria, claims of 6, 11 or even 26 million bodies burned up in these ovens is nothing short of outrageous. This does not mean that people were not executed, but claims of millions killed by the Nazis in extermination camps are wildly inflated, far beyond the level of absurdity. In fact these claims are so fantastic that very few people are willing to question them precisely because they are so incredible but at the same time supported by the apparent credibility of time and authority! Which version makes more sense? Even if people were missing this does not prove or even imply that they were murdered. The years before, during and after World War II featured a massive demographic turmoil caused by multiple factors. Indeed it was the largest movement of people in world history! If contact with a relative or friend was lost during this upheaval it should hardly be surprising. Yet practically every Jew who experienced this loss assumes by default that their loss was due to a Nazi murder. Think about it, if one million Haim, Hannah and Hershel’s all lost contact with each other then we have an instant ‘Holocaust’ of six million Jews. Not only that, but after the war half of Europe was cut off from the rest behind the "iron curtain" of strict Soviet control. Separated friends and relatives lived and died on opposite sides of Cold War Europe without ever reconnecting.
Another way of putting it is to always choose the solution that requires the least amount of credulousness. So which one do you choose?
Can the truth be found? No effort was ever made to verify personal claims of the numbers executed with the physical remains after the execution camps were liberated, and that is exactly why the crematoria entered the story because it is the only way to rectify the purported numbers executed with the totally inadequate volume of physical evidence present in the form of human ash and bones. So if the given numbers are wildly inflated then is there really any way to definitively gauge the true number of people executed by the Nazis in extermination camps? The number killed? Yes. The number executed? Only to the extent that it cannot be more than the number of dead. Assuming that all the remains from the people executed did not leave the site of the camp, or if they did, that we know where they went to, then determining the cause of death is still a problematic endeavor but determining number of deaths is not. Where there is ash we can estimate number of people that died based on the volume and chemical composition. Where there are bones we can count the number of bodies, one skull means one person, and often determine the cause of death such as disease or violence. Exactly this necessary verification process is conducted today in the case of a massacre, genocide or war crime. One reason is because the victim group, race, or tribe will exaggerate the numbers killed. Another reason is that in order to build a valid case, and one that is legally prosecutable, the facts have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. This means exhuming the bodies and human remains and carefully cataloging what is found, where it’s found and the approximate date the bodies were buried. This process has to be openly documented and conducted by impartial professionals. For an example of this procedure simply travel a few hundred miles south of Poland, where fifty years after the end of World War II, up to 8,000 Bosnian males were killed in what is referred to as the Srebrenica massacre. This mass killing has been called a genocide because of the ethnic motivation behind it. Forensic investigators are currently excavating the human remains from multiple sites in order to catalog the executions and prosecute those responsible. Do the total murder numbers really matter? Imagine what would happen if authorities claimed for 50 years that Serbs had killed six million Bosnian Muslims, never having conducted any objective forensic investigation, when the Serbs really didn’t kill more than 8,000? And not only that but the authorities making the exaggerated allegations were all enemies or opponents of the accused Serbs, having every reason to lie about the facts, obscure the truth and prevent a fair investigation? Yes, the numbers definitely do matter. Comparative Analysis Despite the variation in time and geography, mass-killings all have certain core similarities that make comparison and analysis a fairly straightforward, even if macabre, study. There’s no fundamental ambiguity about the event, no lingering questions about the main cause of death and the numbers have a fixed range that is capable of being linked back to physical evidence. But in the case of the Nazi Holocaust there’s something very peculiar. No other mass killing is as clouded by contradictory statements and startlingly different narratives while being as intensely polarized. The Nazi Holocaust has more layers than an onion and stings the eyes even worse. Mass killings are ugly but straightforward affairs and the cause of death is rarely in dispute whether it be an artificial famine, thousands of angry machetes or a metal bar to the skull. But not with the Nazi Holocaust, in some cases it is poison gas, in another it is a bullet, in another it is torture, in another it is dynamite, literally every form of killing imaginable has been ascribed to a Nazi execution. Nor are the total numbers killed so violently dispersed across the spectrum in other mass killings because they always leave behind human remains that can be used to measure the scale of the atrocity. Yet in the case of the Nazi Holocaust the story continually grows to exclude the possibility of verification. So when bones are needed they become ash from an incinerator and where the ash should be found it has been obliterated. Where a gas chamber or cremation oven should be found it has been bombed or dismantled. Where objective, independent analysis should be employed to determine fact from fiction, we have personal attacks and a paucity of forensic studies. The Nazi Holocaust is unique in the immunity to questions and criticism that is has acquired, a remarkable allowance that has never been granted to any other recorded event of mass killing. As the ‘Shoah’ it has achieved a level of mythical, mystical sanctity that cannot be questioned, critiqued or evaluated in any objective or critical context as one would with any other historical event. This is something so profoundly unnatural and antithetic to modern, progressive thought it can only be described as a contemporary taboo or religious dogma. Even the law of gravity is open to debate and criticism from anyone that can come up with an explanation that better describes it than the one we have now. No one feels insulted or attacked if traditional concepts of gravity are challenged because, in any open debate, ideas and theories are allowed to stand or fall based on their own internal merit. Yet this is curiously not the case with the Nazi Holocaust story, for some insecure and fearful European countries actually imprison people that question it! Indeed the historical and personal obsession with Nazi crimes borders on the irrational; any library will have shelves full of books written on Hitler, the Nazis, and especially the (Nazi) Holocaust. How many books fill a typical library on the Armenian Holocaust or the Ukrainian ‘Holodomor’? In any objective context the 20th century was a violent, brutal and bloody century but the Nazis had no monopoly on killing in practice, desire or even methodology. Even the purported numbers exterminated by the Nazis remain smaller than the crimes of Mao and Stalin, both of which were Communists, interestingly enough. Mass killings have occurred before the Nazi era and they have occurred after it, it’s not an impossibility. Regardless of what I know some readers are going to assume, I don’t have a stake in this issue one way or the other and I’m not trying to force one set of facts to fit a predetermined bias. If you know of something I'm missing then document it, list the reference, and send it to me. If the Nazis really did liquidate 26 million people in execution camps then let's see the evidence, because an event on that scale will present it unambiguously. But if the Nazis really only killed a few hundred thousand and the lie of millions is still being perpetuated over fifty years later, then something is seriously wrong here. We should remember that truth is the first casualty in war. Not only that but the winners write the history books, and making Nazi Germany look as evil as possible was of critical importance to the Soviets, the Americans and the British too. Not only because they needed to justify their war in the minds of the public but also to deflect against outrageous wartime atrocities of their own. The British and Americans intentionally targeted civilian population centers in Germany and Japan with massive fire-bombing attacks that killed thousands upon thousands of innocent people, cremated you might even say, as a result. 11.08.05 ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 11:16
|
Juggling with numbers. To begin with, those 11 million to 26 million people were not killed in just 3 years, it already started in 1939, some of it in 1933. Secondly not all of them were killed in concentration camps, about 1,5 million Jews were rounded up and exectuded by Einsatzgruppen, others perished in ghettos, etc. This article is counting all people killed by nazis as part of their genocides in six years time as all people killed in concentration camps in two and a half years time. Besides, the idea that one needs advanced technology in order to perpetrate a large scale genocide is mistaken. In 1994 800.000 people were killed in Rwanda in just three months, that's a death rate exceeding both Nazi Germany and the Khmer Rouge, with little more than knives. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 11:43
|
This is a highly controversial (and regrettably in some countries; illegal) topic. A discussion on it is welcome. Use of it for nefarious, racist and vicious ideologys, of whatever stripe is not.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 12:03
This is a good example actually mixcoatl. There are key differences though. The first one being that investigations into the Rwandan genocide are not illegal or strongly discouraged. Secondly, there's the matter of awareness. Whilst so many people were killed in 3 months in Rwanda, everyone was well aware of what was going on. It's very hard to hide something like that. By comparison, very few knew-of, or if they did, believed, the holocaust until after it happens. People who lived next to alleged concentration camps remain, to this day, completely convinced that nothing too bad was happening besides standard forced labour of prisoners. The allied powers only seized on the story after it was useful, when it was already over. While obviously it's possible that these people were simply ignorant and that the Allied powers honestly made a mistake, these facts should, again, be investigated. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 14:00
|
To answer the salient points raised in the link.
The crematoriums needed too much energy; more than the Germans were able to spare.
Nobody said that the Germans were good at prioritising. And secondly not all indeed perhaps not even most of the deaths were due to gasings and then cremation. Many were due to disease and starvations, which were deliberatly allowed too occur. Anne Frank for instance died of typhus.
There were no bodies or little physical evidence.
Says who. Some pictures. **Warning graphic**
Dachau
http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/images/dartmouth/DachauBodiesApril_45.jpg - http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/images/dartmouth/DachauBodiesApril_45.jpg
Buchenwald (from an anti-Zionist site no less)
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/images/aus.gif - http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/images/aus.gif
The systems were not designed for killing.
True, but then nither is my steak knief, or my bat, but both can be adapted for that purpose.
Indeed this counters the lack of resources arguement, since when the order came to kill, instead of building new infrastructure, the camp authrorities improvised/adapted whatever they had.
------------- |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 14:21
|
Once again these forum is used to spread out this crap.
This listings of numbers, relativizing of facts and diversifying of evidence makes me sick.
Please, with all respect, shut up. -------------
http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 15:50
|
Ulrich, better to discuss these things. Res ipsa liqator, the thing speaks for itself. You do not have to say how evil it is, it is obvious even from a dispassionate review of the subject matter.
Asking people to shut up has the opposite effect as to what you want.
------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 17:04
Rwanda was a totally different genocide than Nazi Germany and Khmer Rouge. Most of the killing there was not done by the state but by Hutu citizens which the state encouraged to wipe out Tutsi's. When you have an entire population killing a smaller defenseless one then the killing on massive scale is much easier. The errors in the article that you bring up are valid, but then again even if the calculation were to be done for six years the number killed and cremated is still staggering. It provokes some thinking on how really efficient were these cremation machines and whether Nazi's really had the available resources(and time) all in a middle of a war with the rest of the world. By the way did you get to read this: Even if people were missing this does not prove or even imply that they were murdered. The years before, during and after World War II featured a massive demographic turmoil caused by multiple factors. Indeed it was the largest movement of people in world history! If contact with a relative or friend was lost during this upheaval it should hardly be surprising. Yet practically every Jew who experienced this loss assumes by default that their loss was due to a Nazi murder. Think about it, if one million Haim, Hannah and Hershel’s all lost contact with each other then we have an instant ‘Holocaust’ of six million Jews. Not only that, but after the war half of Europe was cut off from the rest behind the "iron curtain" of strict Soviet control. Separated friends and relatives lived and died on opposite sides of Cold War Europe without ever reconnecting. To demonstrate how incredibly easy it is to create the illusion of a ‘Holocaust’ consider a network of 8 people who all know each other. If each person in this group gets separated from each other person due to natural disaster, war, or whatever reason, and they then report that all of their friends in the network have disappeared, i.e. have been executed, then a ‘holocaust’ of 56 people will be recorded in the history books; a loss of 7 friends is reported by 8 different people, 7*8=56.This is the formula, where A is the number of people in a network: A*(A-1) = ‘holocaust’ total If a network of only 2500 people were completely separated they would report a ‘holocaust’ of 6,247,500! ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 17:07
Which are all basic criteria for objectively studying an event. Facts, numbers and diverse evidence.... ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 17:09
|
Better, probably, to discuss these things. But I stop reading when I see someone idiotic enough to take 'The Killing Fields' as evidence but throw out all the actual evidence that we have from 1945. And when they are silly and childish enough to say the only evidence available surfaces 'after the event'. Of course it did. All evidence only surfaces after or at the time of the event: no event, no evidence. People died in the killing camps after the liberation: their deaths are evidence simultaneous with the event.
I actually have friends (at least I did - they're dead now) that went into Buchenwald and Belsen the day of liberation. I've seen the photographs they took. I've heard the sickness that still infected them years later from what they saw.
The detailed statistics are arguable but immaterial. It doesn't matter if there were six million or four million -how can anyone be low enough to say that it 'was only four million'. Or that it was somehow unimoprtant because there have been other attempts at genocide? Is murdering one person insigificant because some serial killers have killed dozens?
Anyone who denies the holocaust[1] should be ostracised in any decent society, though of course they should be allowed to say what they want: in fact allowing them to say what they want helps to identify them as psychopaths.
[1] Or for that matter the Cambodian or Ruanda/Burundi ones. To claim that the Jewish holocaust was the only one, or the most important one, is equally silly.
------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 17:20
| So are we discounting the stories of survivors as well? Because clearly they can't objectively tell about their experiences. What about the people who say their family members/friends executed or saw them go into the gas chambers and never come out. What about the pictures and stories of liberating soldiers who tell of getting to camps and seeing piles of dead bodies? Surely this carries weight? Or were these claims exaggerated as well? |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 17:22
|
He's not denying it, he is simply making an effort to seriously look at the numbers involved rather than the official six million brought up every time someone even speaks of objectively studying the holocaust. Remember in war truth is indeed the first casualty and the Allies had plenty of reasons to make the defeated Nazis look as evil as possible because they had to cover atrocities that they themselves caused on a grand scale. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 17:28
Yes, i did it for so many times, feel tired of it.
We shouldn't give those unconvincibles a platform, but please, try your best, it's forlorn hope. -------------
http://imageshack.us">
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 17:50
|
Fact: holocaust happened - millions of people died. It was wrong. You can debate the facts of the holocaust until you're blue in the face and I have no problem with that, but the evidence from not just Jewish victims but Nazi perpetrators, collaborators and simple contemporary observers stands.
Even the Iranian state despite what the childish comments by its president recognises the Holocaust as a historical fact.
http://theimpudentobserver.com/world-news/holocaust-tv-serial-in-iran-captivates-nation/ - http://theimpudentobserver.com/world-news/holocaust-tv-serial-in-iran-captivates-nation/ Now whether a certain ideology has taken advantage of this tragic event to justify its oppression of others is the debate as far as I am concerned, not the Holocaust. ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 20:09
|
That is the point of it and obviously the numbers issue whether it was millions of Jews or other people as well.
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 20:16
We know it involved other people. What difference does that make? Is it acceptable because homosexuals and gypsies and communists were treated the same way? And how important can it be to know how many were involved, especially since there is no way of telling exactly anyway? ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 21:36
|
It doesn't matter. Fact is fact. It's irrelevant if all but 1000 Jews were killed by the Nazis; that does not morally justify the fate so righteously bestowed on Palestinians by Zionists. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 22:11
|
Again, the issue of Palestine is irrelevant to the debate. It is an entirely separate manner. GCLE, you're ignoring the fact that the event was ongoing for several years. During that time people who lived right next to concentration camps never realised. The allied states heard maybe a whisper or two. Even the German Jewish population remained unaware of why they were being rounded up. Essentially it became 'fact' only when it was no longer happening. That is grounds to examine the evidence more closely. To those who seem somehow upset: No-one here, to the best of my knowledge, is denying the holocaust. What is being done is that a case for historical investigation is being put forward. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 22:22
Do you have any reputable sources for these claims? The smell of burning flesh is quite unmistakable, I find it hard to believe that neighbors of these camps knew nothing of what went on in them. Generally these camps did not have neighbors. If the Jews didn't know why they were being rounded up why did many flee or attempt to hide? This is how my family came to the US. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 16-May-2008 at 22:48
It is important because it makes the event unique amongst the countless genocides and mass killings committed in this century. Why should it be illegal in many countries to study this event and not the other ones (if anyone mentions them anyway)? You see that when the "6 million" Jews pops up it makes this event take center stage. It was certainly unique, as the author states, in the mechanized way in which it was done but then that brings major problems as to how the Nazis were able to sustain an operation of extermination of such scale. Besides you said it yourself, if there is no way of telling exactly then why do we all accept that 6 million died?? ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 00:19
I think it isn't good that in some states, e.g. Germany, it is forbidden to investigate the Holocost. It is as it it and everybody who perhaps could show something else is a Nazi, a criminal or something else.
On the other hand I think most of the people who critizise the counts have a nationalistic background. Mostly they show by some mathematics that it wasn't possible to kill so many people. There were enough bodies found to believe that it happened as common scientists tell us. And at the end they try to deny it.
As a German I would love to tell you, that people didn't know about what was going on. But is it true? What's about the Jews that were deported. They were neighbours, often friends. In my village some Jews and even communists were chasen through the village. How could people say, they didn't known? What's with the KZ's, yes, the greatest were outside Germany but there were enough within the Reich. In my village there were camps too. It wasn't "Vernichtungsl*ger" just for POW's and foreign workers. People in my village knew about their situation, some of them helped the people in the camps. Some of these "prisoners" were killed, some raped. The Germans knew that there was going on something that wasn't right. If there were people who didn't know what was going on, then they didn't want to know. Perhaps a lot didn't know how great the crimes were we committed, but the people cared just about themselves. Understand me right, I don't want to throw dirt on my fellow citizens. It was an athmosphere of terror, they were afraid. They behaved like the three monkeys, don't see, don't hear, don't speak. It's the "normal" behavior in totalitarian states.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 01:34
Regarding the sources, I have read it somewhere and also seen it in two documentaries. I shall attempt to find the sources. Regarding the Jewish German population, in some areas they did indeed become aware. This is especially true in the later years of the war. Those who were a little more perceptive left before the beginning of the war, when persecution was on the horizon. Regardless, throughout the course of the war the Nazis still managed to round up Jewish persons who, semi-willingly (of course they'd rather not have gone, but resistance was not on a level appropriate for approaching imminent death), went with them and were sorted to go to death and concentration camps. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 03:56
|
To begin, I think it is fairly well proven that the holocaust happened, but I think it is well past time that we should be able to impartially investigate it. Whether 1000, or 30 million people died is irrelevent - the purpose, the oppression of Jews, Slavs, Homosexuals, and Gypsies, is what is wrong. Having said that, my cousins grandmother is from Latvia, and she has a Latvian encyclopaedia which details the ethnic breakup of the country. I forget the exact numbers now, but I remember that according to that book, the total number of Latvian Jews before the war, was less than the total number of Latvian Jews killed in the holocaust. Given that this is an impossibility, I would not be surprised if numbers have been inflated. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 10:53
So? You think they would have held guided tours and open house at weekends?
How many people at the University of Chicago do you think were aware Fermi was working on an atom bomb there? How many people in Los Alamos knew what was going on in the Manhattan Project?
Does that mean the atom bomb was a hoax?
Who do you think was going to tell them? 'Excuse me, Herr Goldstein, we're going to take you and your family and murder you?'
The whole thing was SECRET.
Just tell me something of which we have evidence that it happened dating from before it happened.
We have for instance the records of the Einsatzgruppen, who killed something like a million Jews without even sending them to the camps, we have memoranda discussing the 'final solution of the Jewish Problem', we have confessions and eye-witness evidence from Nüremberg,
No it isn't. There may still be a case for investigating which actual German officers did what and when: for instance studying the career of von dem Bach, or determining exactly who was at the Wannsee Conference.
But saying there is a case for historical investigation of whether the holocaust occurred is like saying there's a case for investigating whether or not an atomic bomb was actually dropped on Hiroshima.
At best it's fantasy land, at worst it is simple racial or political sloganising. Either way it raises doubts about the sanity of people saying there is such a case. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 11:08
What makes it unique? I mean, every example of attempted genocide and mass killing is unique in some way, but qualitatively or morally how is it unique?
Are you simply claiming it's important to know whether more people were killed in the Holocaust than in Cambodia's killing fields or in Rwanda/Burundi? Why would that be important particularly?
It's not illegal anywhere to study it, as far as I know. It's illegal to say it didn't happen in some places. But it's not unique in that.
Over a million of the victims were simply shot in the field. It's true the Germans decided they couldn't afford to waste that much ammunition: the extermination camps were actually a resource-saving solution. That's why they were built; it's part at least of what the Wannsee Conference was about.
Asking why it was considered so important to exterminate the Jews and other 'degenerates' is probably pointless because there is no sane or rational answer. But I guess you can ask if you're studying abnormal crowd psychology.
I don't accept that. In fact I think it's a ridiculous statement. We don't know and never will know how many were killed. Bothering to try and calculate exactly how many is what I see as psychopathic here. It makes no difference to anything important how many were killed. It makes no difference whether more Jews were killed than Tutsis in Rwanda or not.
Would knowng that it was 6 million or 5 million or 4 million or 4,689,763 make any difference to the key issue here, which is how to ensure nothing like it happens again? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 11:38
Hmmm... It's claimed that 70,000 Latvian Jews were killed in the Holocaust.
http://www.rumbula.org/holocaust_latvia_overview.shtml - http://www.rumbula.org/holocaust_latvia_overview.shtml
The same site says that in the 1935 census there were 93,479 Jews living in Latvia.
In the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906 it said that some 30,000 Jews lived in Riga alone.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=291&letter=R&search=riga - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=291&letter=R&search=riga
Given population growth over 35 years plus extending it to the whole country and it doesn't seem impossible.
However, some of the figures for victims of the Holocaust in Latvia may appear inflated because of the fact that numbers of Soviet non-Jewish citizens were also killed there (though that number itself was probably inflated by the Soviets.)
But, like I said, who cares about the exact number? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 17:49
Have you ever smelled burning flesh? Have you ever heard the sounds of gunfire? Perhaps the screams of men and women being taken away to be executed? You would only have to casually glance across at the camps to witness these things. The smell would permeate the entire region. It would be very difficult not to notice.
The Jewish community is a close-knit one. When people were being taken away and never returning, you would think people would hear about these things. Especially when the occasional person escaped from the camps, word would spread like wildfire amongst the population.
We've had this argument before. You are ignoring the stage of when it was happening. The holocaust was not a 2-day event, it was ongoing for years.
I would challenge you, if you are sure, to propose a clear and logical case, not grounded in emotion, as to why individuals should not be permitted to investigate the holocaust. ------------- |
Posted By: Chilbudios
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 18:35
I don't understand this urge to point entire populations as guilty. This is almost as despicable as anti-semitism itself.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 19:21
|
Deniers are a common kind of people, and not only with respect to the Holocaust, but with hundreds of other genocides worldwide. Some people don't even know, for exaple, that Americans killed two million of people in Vietnam.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 19:49
Yes.
Yes.
No. But the people who were gassed didn't know they were being taken to be executed. All the first-hand descriptions of what happened emphasise that. And the ones who died the lingering death of starvation and overwork as slaves didn't have the energy to scream: nor would it have earned them anything but pain.
And how do you know that, pray? Burning human flesh smells exactly the same as any other burning flesh. Quite apart from the fact that, as people have pointed out already, the natural thing is to ignore such things, keep your head down, and avoid trouble.
They did. They didn't even imagine what was happening to them, the most likely belief being that they were being used as slave labour or as pioneers.
But who were they going to tell before the liberation? Ring up the editor of the Frankfurter Zeitung and get him to publish an editorial about it? (Hitler banned it about the time the Holocaust started in earnest.)
While the position of the Vatican during this period is the subject of dissension, even the anti-Vatican groups accept that the Vatican opened its doors in October 1943 to Roman Jews avoiding rounding up and deportation to the death camps. (The Vatican claims it did more than that, and both sides accept the Vatican had some knowledge of what was happening, though opinions differ as to how much.)
How many 'occasional persons' are you now claiming escaped from the camps (and presumably from the country, since they'd get rounded up again).
Your problem is that you are making up hypothetical instances of what might have happened, and arguing on the basis that they did. Or saying things like 'surely so-and-so would have happened', when it simply didn't. And at the same time you ignore what we actually know, and what eye witnesses actually saw, and what people actually confessed to doing, and what people actually kept records of.
So what? You still haven't answered the question.
I didn't say they should not be permitted. I even think investigating the holocaust, in the sense of investigating why it happened and how it could come about and therefore what one might be able to do to prevent it happening again is very worth while and should be encouraged.
I think it insane to challenge that it actually happened, and psychopathic and despicable to bother trying to figure out exactly how many people, or even roughly how many million people, were killed. I also don't think it's very important to worry over exactly how many of them belonged to particular racial or religious or political groups or had what sexual orientations.
But I think people should be free to display their insanity, short of taking violent action against anybody because of it. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 19:57
Sadly so. But equally sadly people are very ready to throw the word 'genocide' around almost meaninglessly.
'Genocide' and 'killing people of other races' are not the same thing. 'Genocide' has to be organised, deliberate, indiscriminate and aimed at extermination.
Well, as I said already, it doesn't matter much whether it was a million or two million, any crime is the same. Armed combatants have to be deducted. And it still isn't genocide, horrific though it may have been. The Americans had no 'intent to destroy' the Vietnamese people. ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 21:20
Unique in the sense of the mechanization of the slaughter that happened and the sheer logistics and communication network that was required for an organized mass extermination of this level. I didn't say it was morally unique to any other genocide but obviously some of the ideologies and myths that guide people to commit such atrocities are. Im not claiming that but the holocaust is an untouchable subject or has been until now, the same can't be said about the rest of genocides.
It is unique in that. If lets say that one day its is clearly proven that no more than 1 million Jewish people were killed, that puts it in the same "category" as the Armenian genocide. Yet there is plenty of people today who deny it and I think you know in which country those people reside. All the pictures, documents, even first hand accounts are there yet one can deny this and not incur too much criticism (if at all).
I don't think they were primarily build to save resources. As the articles suggests camps actually required more manpower and other resources rather than bullets. At least read it first before making comments. The primary reason or at least one of the most important was that the Nazi authorities feared that brutal random slaughter was destroying the morality of the army and turning the german soldiers committing the atrocities very callous to general slaughter.
No but as I said above if the true number is ~1 million then it does make a difference. Of course I seriously doubt that the real number can ever be known. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17-May-2008 at 22:08
Well, I said all genocides are unique in some respect. What, if anything, makes the Jewish Holocaust uniquely unique, if you like? Just saying it was the biggest or the best organised doesn't cut it, because those are just differences in degree.
It's already in the same category as the Armenian genocide (except that whether that was actually genocide or not is somewhat open), which it is also forbidden to discuss in some countries. Including this forum.
I don't see that it matters if there were 'only' one million killed instead of six million. Or 20 million for that matter, or ten thousand.
I kind of lost track there. You mean deny that there were only a million killed? I think it's puerile and psychopathic to care whether it was one million or six. Or you mean deny there was a holocaust? That's just nuts.
Well, they were obviously primarily built to kill people. But they were preferred as an option on the grounds of cost and efficiency. At least that's the reason they gave, and I don't see any reason to deny it, or think the various memoranda and so forth that deal with that issue should be ignored, or taken as hoaxes.
What article is that? Try reading wikipedia on the Wannsee Conference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference
They didn't require more manpower - they required more full-time specialist manpower, but they didn't need to take up the time of trained soldiers, SS or otherwise. Food was hardly a problem. What resources are you talking about?
Granted that's another motive. However it doesn't alter the fact that the extermination camps were the cheaper option too.
Why would it make any difference if it was just one million? What's the difference between systematically exterminating a million people and six million people? What's the magic figure that makes it OK?
Certainly the legal definition of genocide doesn't lay down any numerical limit. Genocide is genocide no matter how many people get killed (of course you have to have the intent to kill them all eventually, but it doesn't matter how successful you are).
------------- |