Edit to remove own post since Mods addressed the issue.

[edit on 26-6-2009 by maybereal11]

rofl... gosh this is the most foolish thread...

Just because most of the survivors are dead, it doesn't mean those of us who knew them are...

I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears all I ever need to know the holocaust happened...

The fact is facts aren't always true. I don't know what to think because I don't know all the "facts".

I am sitting here at work, but the following are my summary thoughts about the comments made about David Cole.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, the following range anywhere from 99% likely to absolutely true.

1) Cole's research exceeds that of 99.9% of humans who have any position on whether or not the holocaust happened.

2) His effort included "bothering" to travel to Auschwitz himself and gain special treatment (1-1 tours, interviews).

3) What is the significance of the age of the Cole video? Sounds like a self-defeating statement.

4) To say he was a boy and needs to grow up, as being rock-solid truth, would require uncanny capabilities (telepathic, perhaps?). Any reasonable amount of research logically must allow for the plausibility that Cole feared for torture and his very life (holo-hoax is BIG BUSINESS not to mention politically crucial to the aims of the NWO).

Regarding #4, here is a parallel statement. The person who said Cole needs to grow up is a disinformation junkie who needs a new heart.

I can't prove that as well, but if we're gonna play the game of attacking someone's character, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.


Finally, as a generic statement: this is not ONLY about the number of Jewish persons who died. After all, typhus and starvation could have killed huge amounts.

It is also about whether or not a nation truly desired the extermination of an entire ethnic group. In other words, the numbers, as horrific and telling as that is, are one thing. But, WHY the numbers are whatever they are, is quite another.


o2

Originally posted by o2bwise
Regarding #4, here is a parallel statement. The person who said Cole needs to grow up is a disinformation junkie who needs a new heart.

I didn't say that Cole needed to grow up, I said that he had grown up.

Originally posted by o2bwise
I can't prove that as well, but if we're gonna play the game of attacking someone's character, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I did not attack his character, I was in fact commending him on having one. He was a teenager when he made those films and he became a man when he was able to admit that he was wrong. I have enormous respect for David Cole.

Originally posted by o2bwise
Finally, as a generic statement: this is not ONLY about the number of Jewish persons who died. After all, typhus and starvation could have killed huge amounts.

Starvation and typhus did kill millions, especially Russian POWs, but with minimal hygiene facilities, if any at all, typhus was rife in the larger Concentration Camps and in the Ghettos. Starvation became a significant factor after 1942 when the German supply lines ran dry.

Originally posted by o2bwise
It is also about whether or not a nation truly desired the extermination of an entire ethnic group. In other words, the numbers, as horrific and telling as that is, are one thing. But, WHY the numbers are whatever they are, is quite another.

The Nazis did not want to annihilate the Jews, they wanted them out of the Reich, they, in the end, when all other means had failed, chose to murder them, over the sixteen months or so of Aktion Reinhard because they felt it was 'kinder' than allowing them to starve to death. To the SS heirarchy, Himmler and Heydrich, it was beneath them to commit genocide, ungentlemanly or in their minds un-German. It is a very complicated set of events, but, in my opinion the Nazis did not set out to commit genocide, what they did was set in motion a series of events that led to genocide.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
rofl... gosh this is the most foolish thread...

Just because most of the survivors are dead, it doesn't mean those of us who knew them are...

Yeah, what he said. A doctor I knew (he recently passed) was one of the first doctors sent into Auschwitz after it was discovered. That man, whom I trust without reservation, still cried when he talked about what he had seen more than 60 years earlier.

Originally posted by mopusvindictus

I have seen with my eyes and heard with my ears all I ever need to know the holocaust happened...

Exactly.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by sweetpeanc]

Originally posted by Truth4hire
I really wish you would not start your un-informed half truths again in here.

Could you be specific? Where am I being untruthful? Which half is the truth?

Originally posted by Truth4hire
Would you have studied you would have indeed found the pectoral typhus link and the real tragedy of the camps and stories behind the infamous pictures from e.g. Bergen-Belsen.

I am really missing your point here, are you making one? I agreed that there were many deaths as a result of disease and starvation. I know that from reading books, watching documentaries etc, does your link provide any variation on the accepted opinion that millions of deaths were caused by disease and starvation? Or are you saying that millions didn't die as a result of disease and starvation? I apologise but you're not making a great deal of sense.

Originally posted by Truth4hire
And no KilgoreTrout, not at any point in history did Hitler or anyone in his command order any complete ethnic group to be killed, nor did they "do things that made them commit genocide".

Hitler made numerous speeches where he spoke of the removal of the Jewish and Slavic peoples from what would be the Greater Reich. The Nazi controlled press and media promoted the notion of the Jews as racially inferior and of the Slavic race as being untermensche. The Jews of Germany were stripped of all legal rights and then removed from their homes and transported several hundred miles to a region where the SS were already deeply desensitised to the suffering of others after the bloody and almost complete annihilation of the Slavic people of Eastern Europe.

Hitler did order the removal of the Jews, and he indicated to Himmler that how that was done was Himmler's problem. You've got to love the Fuhrer Prinzip. While it may not have been his intention to murder the Jews, that is what he set in motion. His direct orders, issued to his Generals preceding Operation Barbarrossa make clear that he expected the Jewish Bolsheviks to be treated with maximum ferocity, and they were. Do you question the authenticity of these events too? Can you provide sources that contradict the testimony of several Wehrmacht General?

Originally posted by Truth4hire
The Germans did the correct thing by doing what they could to keep the camps healthy. Once that was no longer possible (for whatever reason) outbreaks of typhus were a very common thing in the camps with hundreds dying a day, INCLUDING guards. And how does typhus spread? It is called the Rickettsiae bacteria which enters humans via the bite of fleas or lice.

According to the testimony given at the trial of IG Farben's German executives, the Nazis ordered sufficient Zyklon B to cause the deaths of several million people. IG claimed that the Nazis had a rolling order, at no time were they ever in any shortage of Zyklon B. At the trial the details of the tests that IG carried out on Soviet POWs for the SS were presented in court. The tests took place in August 1941, immediately following a series of memos from Himmler requesting that a more efficient means of death be investigated other than mass shootings which were having an unhealthy effect on his men, he said.

The majority of the camps that suffered the worst from disease, did so because they had limited washing facilities and little or no medical care. These camps were not death camps, the death camps, with the exception of Chelmo and Auschwitz, had no problem with Typhus. The Jews were murdered upon arrival, their lice dying alonside them no doubt, so that the Sonderkommando who then were forced to dispose of the corpses had little to fear from infestation. The SS would order them into the gas chambers soon enough anyway.

In a recent study, a group set out to map the camp network. They knew of 3500 camps and expected that their research would uncover somewhere in the region of 5000. They in fact found that there had been 15000. Obviously this number includes sub camps. Some of those camps would only have been housing a few hundred for a particular work detail, but still that is an awful lot of camps. The people interred in those camps would have been lucky to have access to clean drinking water and lived on very meager rations, in the early days due to corruption in the supply of food, later because there was no food. Little food, water limited to drinking only, of course disease was rife. Why do you think that Speer was constantly haranging Saukel to get him more labour squads, by any means? They were always dying. Hitler himself sent a memo to the Labour office requesting that the Ukrainians receive better treatment, that if they were working for the Reich they should be given food. Sadly, Hitler's grasp on the wider situation was very limited otherwise he would have realised the futility of such a request. Or at the very least would have instituted rationing on his own people so that the food that was available went a little further. But that wouldn't be good for morale or so he argued with Goebbels who proposed rationing as early as 1941, it would finally be implemented in 1944.

Originally posted by Truth4hire
All clothing had to be fumigated for any new entry into the camp without exceptions. To combat lice, ALL inmates were shaved. It was part of protocol, whereas putting people in gas chambers was not.

Only at the camps where typhus was rife were inmates routinely shaved. Only during Aktion Reinhard were civilians transported directly to the death camps. When the Aktion Reinhard camps were destroyed in early 1943 the mass killings were concentrated at Auschwitz. They would be selected on arrival, only those who had a needed skill or characteristic were saved. Not all of those selected for work details were shaved, it depended on the detail.

Originally posted by Truth4hire
All the above information and much more is freely available to anyone.

Ditto.

In war the victor will dictate history,
I wasnt there at the time so i can only go on what was written after,
and from what i have read the holicaust happened to what extend i do not know
And if youve ever spoken to some one that went through it you will get the feeling that it was real.
If you speak to some one that was there at the end that is the rescue part of it some say it wasnt as bad as others make out it to be and thats war, others say it was hell on earth .
I dont know what it was like i wasnt there but i think it happened and i hope it never happens agian ,
but i always keep this in mind the term [ in war the victor will dictate history]
as a true statement .

i hope you get my meaning writting isnt my biggest strenght

Originally posted by OhZone
Goering said "Bormann stayed with Hitler day and night and gradually brought him so much under his will that he ruled Hitler's whole existence." ("Martin Bormann" by James McGovern, p.160)

I haven't read James McGovern's book on Martin Bormann, but I presume that it is the same James McGovern, to whom Reinhard Gehlen handed a report to in 1953 stating (quoted from Gehlen: Spy of the Century by E H Cookridge, 1971) '...that whilst the ultimate fate of Bormann could not be fully ascertained, it must be presumed that the Nazi leader had been killed in cross-fire during the fighting in Berlin on 1st May 1945.' (p35)

At that time James McGovern worked for the CIA.

Allen Dulles was very keen to locate Bormann and in 1965 initiated an investigation into the claims that Bormann had been sighted in South America. Gehlen assisted with the inquiry. According to Cookridge, the only time that Gehlen mentioned that Bormann might have survived the war was when he was attempting to get his own book published.

E H Cookridge though was a British SIS agent during the war, he could be trying to cover MI6s backs as much as McGovern might be trying to cover the CIAs. Can't trust either side to be providing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Maklow doesn't clarify matters. Who are these Illuminati that he speaks of? I have two biographies on Victor Rothschild and he was certainly very active in intelligence matters during WW2 but he was not in anyway connected to banking at that time and was not involved in the 'family business' at all. He was a Chemist and headed Counter Sabotage for SOE.

Also it was Himmler and not Bormann who headed up the 'Circle of Friends', the financiers and industrialists who provided the financial backing of Hitler's campaign for power. Himmler and Bormann though did become closer towards the end of the war and it may be possible that they were in cahoots and that Himmler may have given Bormann all the account details for the SS and the minutes of the Maison Rouge meetings which would have enabled him to take over in Himmler's absence. Himmler's other alternatives, of whom to trust, were somewhat limited. The main purpose of those meetings was to attempt to prevent investors money from being tied up in Germany and therefore subject to be paid as reparations. Or for assets to be claimed as booty. While the Soviet Red Army ploughed through Europe seeking retribution the British and the US had special task forces set up to seize 'booty'. If Bormann assisted Himmler, he assisted in the successful masking of assets that were later refunnelled into the West German economy. That had been Himmler's major activity in the closing days of the war. That and concealing the evidence of the crimes that he and his subordinate had ordered be committed. The murder of the German Jews was a lesser concern here.

At that time, in law, it was not a criminal act or a crime against humanity for a country to murder it's own people. Slavery was though. As was the transportation of the citizens of occupied countries for work purposes related to the war effort. It was also a crime not to give due care to POW and those citizens that come under your occupation. The crimes that they committed against their own people were not therefore criminal acts, only those committed against other peoples.

It is odd therefore that the eastern block, when it was established, removed all those who had had a crime committed against them from any legal process. Could it have been because while their testimony would have damned Germany, it would also have implicated numerous companies and individuals in the USA, UK, and Europe in profiteering from slavery, then, a greater crime than genocide?