It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Holocaust was carried out by the Allies, not the Nazis! (Hypothesis)

page: 16
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I like that quote because it is exactly what someone who believe that 9/11 was carried out by terrorists would say.


And?

Whats that got to do with you trying to excuse the actions of racial supremacist murderers exactly?




posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I like that quote because it is exactly what someone who believe that 9/11 was carried out by terrorists would say.


And?

Whats that got to do with you trying to excuse the actions of racial supremacist murderers exactly?



I'm not too sure. I could ask you what it has to do with excusing the actions of a dog that bit someone - but that wouldn't apply here any more than your question does.

If anyone is excusing or supporting them, you are.

As a matter of fact, do you work in Nazi marketing? This thread has brought out many of your type who constantly promote their evil acts...

How much does one get for selling their soul to promote the evil version of the Nazi belief system?


[edit on 30-12-2007 by benign.psychosis]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   
I only read the first few pages, but I thought I would chime in anyway.

Firstly, it wasn't Hitlers initial intention to eliminate the Jews. Initially, they were to be deported. Other countries did not help here by refusing refugees, namely the UK and the USA. His actual plan was quite similiar to the situation we have today, in that he wanted them out of Europe and back into the ME. That isn't to say his methods weren't repugnant, as the Ghettos and camps show.

After a while, it became apparent that the creation of a state for the Jews would not be possible, seeing as he was being owned in the War. In order to get rid of the "problem", exterminations began. This was the "Final Solution".

Fit and healthy or educated Jews and other "undesirables" were used in slave Labour camps. Those of no use were sent for extermination.

One thing that springs to mind was the use by American sweetheart, Werner Von Braun, of masses of Jewish slave labour to advance his rocket programme.

This man was single handedly responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths, yet he is lauded in America as a national Hero and the Father of the Space programme. Hypocrisy?

There were extermination camps as well for those that were of no use to the state in it's war efforts.

I think what the OP is alluding to is some claims I have heard myself on History channel et al, in that Allied bombing exacerbated the already poor conditions in the Labour camps by restricting supplies.

This was neither done on purpose nor was it the sole reason, or even a main reason, for the high death toll. As stated, there were extermination camps too busy killing thousands daily.

The bombing reduced the Germans ability to feed themselves, let alone their slaves, so it was natural that those in the camps would suffer as a result.

However, the bombing was necessary to win the war, as without Allied bombing of the German industrial machine, the Russians would have been hard pressed to defeat the Wermacht on the Eastern front.

They already had a hard time with the new tanks coming on stream (tank for tank, the famous Russian T-34 was still very crap against a German tank, taking losses of 10-1 in offensives), yet they were produced in extremely small numbers due to allied bombing.

Had the German industrial might not been destroyed by Allied planes, then the whole world may have had to pay the price. Imagine divisions of Tiger tanks, or worse yet, those Super-Tigers against the flimsy T-34! The Russian numerical superiority in armour would have been utterly destroyed.

So, in short, I think the OP has taken a side not from History and taken it as a major cause for the Holocaust, which it is not.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis

I'm not too sure. I could ask you what it has to do with excusing the actions of a dog that bit someone - but that wouldn't apply here any more than your question does.


Dogs bite out of a natural instinct, usually to protect themselves or to kill for food. The difference between a dog an a human is the capability for rational thought, and therefore the basis of intent. Are you suggesting that both yourself and Hitler are/were not capable of rational thought?



If anyone is excusing or supporting them, you are.


Now theres a strange leap. I wonder how descibing people as being "racial supremacist murderers" can be seen as a sign of support for them? What a strange world you must live in.



As a matter of fact, do you work in Nazi marketing? This thread has brought out many of your type who constantly promote their evil acts...


Sadly, you are confusing education with promotion. As for "many of my type" you mean those who would seek to educate and inform in order to negate the propaganda put forward by bigots, Nazi's and apologists for genocide?



How much does one get for selling their soul to promote the evil version of the Nazi belief system?


Why don't you tell us?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Dogs bite out of a natural instinct, usually to protect themselves or to kill for food. The difference between a dog an a human is the capability for rational thought, and therefore the basis of intent. Are you suggesting that both yourself and Hitler are/were not capable of rational thought?


Am I suggesting that Hitler was not capable of rational thought?

Are you saying that he was rational? Was it rational for him to exterminate Jews? Was it rational for him to commit genocide?

Are you saying it is rational to attempt to exterminate a race?

Or was he merely acting irrational, like a dog?



Now theres a strange leap. I wonder how descibing people as being "racial supremacist murderers" can be seen as a sign of support for them? What a strange world you must live in.


As you propagate one idea, you also propagate it's complimentary "opposite". This causes a split in belief in which different camps like to stay due to ignorance of the human condition. The only effect of this is argument, insult, looking down upon, labeling, differentiation, and further ignorance - kind of like what you are doing.



Sadly, you are confusing education with promotion. As for "many of my type" you mean those who would seek to educate and inform in order to negate the propaganda put forward by bigots, Nazi's and apologists for genocide?


On the same token: Sadly, you are confusing indoctrination with education.



How much does one get for selling their soul to promote the evil version of the Nazi belief system?

Why don't you tell us?


My goal in asking that was to find out so that I could.

---------------------------
Fixed quotes

[edit on 30/12/07 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Am I suggesting that Hitler was not capable of rational thought?


Thats what I asked. Are you?



Are you saying that he was rational? Was it rational for him to exterminate Jews? Was it rational for him to commit genocide?


No, it wasn't.



Are you saying it is rational to attempt to exterminate a race?


No, I'm not.



Or was he merely acting irrational, like a dog?


He was human, was he not? Admittedly barely human, but still that gave him the capacity for rational thought, which kind of sets him above the dogs that you used in your analogy. So no, its not the same as blaming a dog for biting someone.



As you propagate one idea, you also propagate it's complimentary "opposite". This causes a split in belief in which different camps like to stay due to ignorance of the human condition. The only effect of this is argument, insult, looking down upon, labeling, differentiation, and further ignorance - kind of like what you are doing.


Interesting. So what you are saying is that you don't have the power of your own convictions and the reason that you want to try and shift the blame for the holocaust away from the Nazi's is because its the opposite of the actual historical record - thats a pretty shallow reason.

As for labels. If someone is a murderer, calling them anything other than that is a falsehood. Similarly, if someone is a racist, as Hitler was, calling him anything else would be a falsehood. As Aryan supremacy was a key underlining point of the National Socialist agenda put forward by Hitler and led to the systematic extermination of Jews within death camps that were set up and run by the Nazi's, I'd say that describing Nazi's as racial supremacist murderers was quite an apt description, and not a label.

I mean....I did ask you earlier in the thread if you could explain to us all the thinking behind the national socialist agenda before the start of WW2 which does provide the context for the subsequent actions during the course of the conflict. You chose to ignore that. Thats your problem. However, what happened between 1933 and 1939 within the German legal system and society set the stage for what was to follow, and it most certainly did not involve the allies in any way, shape or form, which kind of leaves your hypothesis dead in the water.

If you were to present it as a court case, there would be ample evidence of malice aforethought, witness testimony of the actions taking place and a whole bucket load confessions and forensic evidence to prove the issue at hand, which is that the Nazis were racist murderers who committed genocide.



On the same token: Sadly, you are confusing indoctrination with education.


I think that the person who is confusing those two things is you. I'm also sure you are aware of that.

Still, you do like to try and twist words, and play with them don't you?


[edit on 30/1207/07 by neformore]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Seriously, that is like going to a conspiracy site to factual information about a conspiracy.


50% of the links that I provided come from Jewish Associations, I actually think that is presenting a broader perspective than the one you have so far supplied. Those 'Jewish sources' also represent a number of different political persuasions and motivations within the body of "Jewishness"- Jews like every other religious group come in all different shapes and sizes- the stereo-typical Jew does not exist, it was just propaganda!!. The links that I have provided may contradict each other. Events like objects may not look the same when viewed from different perspectives. If you want to understand the whole you have to see it from all angles.

Instead of just assuming that a conspiracy exists and therefore it must be the "jews that done it", it would be refreshing to actually see you come up with a variety of sources that support your theories absolving the Nazis of responsiblity. I agree with the concept in principle, the issues are complex but the they cannot be absolved from responsibility, Hitler was Dictator. He took on that role, signed on the dotted line. He is therefore ultimately responsible for the deaths of approximately 9-11 million people in the name of Pan-Germanism. Nothing detracts from that.

However along side him there should stand many 'without whom none of this would be possible.' At the end of it, the German people democratically elected Adolf Hitler. In retrospect they can claim they were duped - how could they know etc etc. And the same can be claimed by the businesses and bankers that supported Hitler's rise to power and Himmler's domination of the Reich.

The vast majority of those that profited from the forced labour, compulsory business and property sales of Jews (due to loss of citizenship and property ownership rights), the Melmer Transports (gold and valueables from the mass exterminations) etc etc have never paid any share in reparations..nothing. Tax payers world wide are still carrying the burden of reparations for the loss of assets and accounts to both Jews and other victims of the forced labour and property seizure programme.

I do not see the Jews as the enemy in this equation and fail to see how any educated individual could.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
after hearing interview and watching videos from david cole i have doubts about the gas chambers on the donahue show david presented video of the alleged homicidal gas chambers in one of the camps and found no gas residue or blue stains on the walls yet in the delousing rooms there was blue stains all over the walls,there was also a guy i cant remember his name who tested the auctwitz gas chambers he testified to there was no blue stain or residue in the chambers,its a fact that the gas chambers shown to tourists in auchwitz is a reconstruction and was built after the war this was admited to on video by Dr. Franciszek Piper director of the aushwitz museum,why is this 6 million myth still quoted when for instance for many years the sign outside auchwitz said 4 million people died here and years later it now says 1.1 million,wheres the other 3 million can someone miscount by 3 million,why waste all the time and money giving the prisoners tatoos and haircuts if there only purpose was to be killed,also why isnt the swimming pool and the dance hall where inmates put on plays shown to tourists when they visit auchwitz,the hall and the swimming pool are clearly shown in the video taken by david cole,even in the first trial of alleged holocaust denier ernst zundel he proved in a court of law there were no gas chambers and for it they threw him in jail like david irving who was thrown in jail for a statement he made 20 years earlier,he said in austria to a crowd of people the gas chamber in austria was a reconstruction,the only way to get to the bottom of all this is surely to have an open debate but holocaust supporters refuse to debate the holocaust is one of the only subjects in the world where in some countries its ilegal to discuss,now after saying all this im not saying the whole holocaust is a hoax cause ive heard the other side to,but so called holocaust deniers are not flat earthers they raise very good questions that just scream for an answer,



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I'm not sure this can be debated in the context that the OP would like to do it.

1. Any sources (1000s?) that conflict with the OP’s hypothesis he discounts as Zionist propaganda or not creditable, and only HIS extremely few sources he has used are creditable.

2. Eye witness reports from all sides of this conflict (10,000s?) are not creditable since what they saw and lived through could easily be a misunderstanding at least this is what the OP suggests. The OP would most likely accept any eyewitness view that followed his logic even when those few eyewitness reports are outweighed by a mountain of first person reports in support of the holocaust.

3. Physical proof is not creditable for the Zionist propaganda machine reclassified it all of it to fit their holocaust conspiracy. As example of the OPs picture of a SS guard holding his bayonet at the throat of an old Jewish man, and the OP suggests he was only helping the old guy out to shave.

4. The OP feels the need not to support his hypothesis in any way with timelines and physical restrictions that really limits his off the cuff story from being anywhere close to reality. Such as why was not the whole German population afflicted as the Jewish population was? Or just how could supplies be targeted to the ghettos/camps when the bombers could not hit the side of a barn, AND also since we didn’t do heavy bombing in Poland were they were located.

5. Other areas that would account for the massive deaths such as gas chambers that are also quickly discounted by the OP and are chocked up once again as all Zionist propaganda. This blanket stamp of his to label EVERY thing as Zionist propaganda is used even when logic does not ring true too.

As example: It is a fact that 2000 pounds of Zyklon-B pellets were produced at two German factories per month. This fact is undisputable in the physical evidence available. It is also undisputable that it only requires 0.3 grams per cubic meter of Zyklon-B pellets to kill human beings, whereas concentrations of up to 10 grams per cubic meter are needed to destroy insects. What this means is if you use Zyklon-B on humans to kill lice you are going to kill the human first. The fact that it was first used to fumigate buildings and clothing is the claim against its use on humans even though it is actually more efficient on humans than bugs.

When you add this above to the Chambers designed to put people in and then dump a Zyklon-B canister down into crude compartment it only takes a few minutes to kill. There really is no other explanation for these gas chambers that differed from smaller ones in design that were used to fumigate clothing, and only about 11% of the totals gassed were killed up to 1943.

Even as evil as this whole event was things got even worst in 1943 for this was the year that NEW gas chambers were opened with crematoriums attached. The new ones at Auschwitz could kill about 4500 people in 20 mins. This is also undisputable as to the function of these gas chambers for there was no need for new ones if fumigation of clothing was the purpose for those were already in place from the opening of the camps, and you sure didn’t need crematoriums attached. When you also look at the sheer number of people that died it would take a systematic approach to kill that many in such a short time. When you see the pictures of millions of shoes, clothing and other personal items stacked up in warehouses it doesn’t take much imagination to ask where did the people go?

With all this above it is still a Zionist propaganda for the OP. Because of this stance I do not think this debate can continue affectively in any direction for the OP is basically closing his eyes and covering his ears chanting naw, naw, naw to the mountain of empirical evidence available to prove the holocaust happened in its in original form.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I think thats a fairly accurate summation Xtro.

The way I see it is this. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, then its a duck.

All the evidence prior to, during and after WW2 points to the Nazis being vile racist thugs and genocidal killers. Attempting to revise what is, in effect, 12 years of hard evidence whilst Hitler was in power in Gemany, and several years of him getting there before that attesting to that fact is just plainly crass, and degenerates the memory of the people who fought in WW2 to prevent the Nazi's from - amongst other things - spreading their "final solution".



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by riverdean7


I think you bring up some good points. For Auschwitz documents show that 2.5 million passed through its walls. I believe the 1.1 million was the official number from both Auschwitz and Birkenau who were gassed. 405,000 were used in slave labor and given identity tattoo numbers and these were about 50% poles and 50% Jews. About 65,000 of them survived. It is estimated that a total of 200,000 survived the camps in one fashion or another.

When the soviets liberated the camp there was only about 7500 in it that could not walk for the Nazis evacuated close to 60,000 on a death march as they left the camp. So what we have is about 2.3 million people dying there in one form or another. This is about a 90% plus death rate, and whether it was gas or some other way that is a rather huge percentage of people dying there.

Shaving of the hair had two purposes, one was to reduce lice, and the other was to sell to a company that used it.

One area you bring up is the lack of residue of the gas on the walls at Auschwitz. I really do not know why Majdanek Death Camp would have a lot of visible residue and Auschwitz didn’t. This leads one in the directions of the gassing was done differently, or the gassing was greatly inflated as to the reason for so many deaths there, or the tests were inaccurate.

Since I cannot really comment on the first two directions I’ll comment on the testing. The test on Auschwitz done 40 years or more after it was used has a lot of confounding elements in the tests. It seems that the blue residue would only be a very thin layer on the plaster itself (as clearly seened in Majdanek Death Camp pictures) and the destruction of those chambers and reconstruction for the museum was a cause for the original plaster not to be available.

In testing the samples there was confounding elements too since the samples were ground up in to power to be tested and this greatly reduced the amount of residue per part for the test should have been just on the thin outer surface of the plaster. Leuchter's samples from Cremas 1 through 5 did show traces of HCN but he discounted them because he felt the amounts were not enough when there should not had been ANY traces at all. If he actually tested just the surface of the plaster he collected then the amounts would have been much higher, but even with traces noted that meant gas was present in those chambers anyway you look at it.

Here is quite amount of evidence that there was enough ventilation in the chambers to purge them within 30 mins and the fact that a gas mask completely protected a person from the gas also allows a quicker turn around since the bodies could be quickly removed wearing masks and by the time they were ready for a new patch of people the gas would have been cleared out.

I really feel in the end that people did not think at the time that there would be a need for proof 40 years later with corpses stacked up all over the place for 40 years ago the proof was painfully visible.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   


He was human, was he not? Admittedly barely human, but still that gave him the capacity for rational thought, which kind of sets him above the dogs that you used in your analogy. So no, its not the same as blaming a dog for biting someone.


I am sorry, but you have confused my intent behind the analogy. Absurd is to absurd.

...barely human? What does that mean?



Thats what I asked. Are you?


Hitler was a human with the capacity for rational thought, yes.



if someone is a racist, as Hitler was, calling him anything else would be a falsehood.


Hitler's racism was not formed as a direct cause of Jews existing. His racism has a strong correlation to the Jew because of the effect they had on Germany, it's economy at it's civil population. I do contend that if Japanese people caused the same effect as the Jews, then he would be labeled as a Japanese racist. In this way, the Nazi party were not racial supremacist murderers, but merely protecting the homeland from an unwanted effect while that protection had a strong correlation with what a certain race - whatever race, or species - would have caused.

This is why race was not the real issue in essence, but was merely a label placed upon an undesired effect. In this case, that label was placed upon a specific race. This was Hitler's method to gain public support for driving out those Jews who had powerful influence on the German economy and society. It worked better than he had intended and the power of the label revved the societal engine of Jewish persecution harder than thought possible - and so he was left with no choice but to round up Jewish people and have them placed in labor camps for their protection.

I'm sure you will confuse the above as racism: it is not. By the simple fact that race has a strong correlation to the cause, it is often confused by the majority. I also contend that if aliens from another planet were have undesireable effects on any country, that they would be banished, exiled, persecuted, and whatnot. The race/species aspect only enters into the picture when you ignore the cause and so the concept that all life is sacred.

Also, his belief of the creation of a superior race had little to do with racism, but with Eugenics. Insomuch as he was attempting to speed up natural evolution - as learned from Darwin - he was acting rational.

Where else in history does this confusion of correlation and causation come into play? The other great big racial story - slavery. We are led to believe that slavery was the cause of the civil war, when it was only correlated with it. The direct cause is, of course, state's rights.

When we want to cover something up, we place emphesis on the strongest correlating factor in order to hide the cause in plain sight...

I also do not believe that the Jewish population has been persecuted for thousands of years merely because they are Jewish. Historically, Jewish people were not being seeked for persecution - hench the number of times they have been exiled.

They were not welcome, there is no doubt about it.

Why is this? There must be an action that caused this effect, and to attribute it to racism is very foolish.



3. Physical proof is not creditable for the Zionist propaganda machine reclassified it all of it to fit their holocaust conspiracy. As example of the OPs picture of a SS guard holding his bayonet at the throat of an old Jewish man, and the OP suggests he was only helping the old guy out to shave.


You see, this is an example of what I mentioned previously in the thread - about changing the context of a picture in order to instill a belief in the viewer's mind. It is one of the most basic propaganda techniques and we are lucky to see that such a wonderful presenter of facts such as yourself has admitted to manipulation.

That picture was taken from Shamesh.org, a Jewish website. Their Holocaust photo page has the line, "Please note that these photos are frequently graphic and show a glimpse of the horrors of Nazi Germany's Final Solution of the Jews during World War II."

This is the picture:


Pol-jew2.jpg
[PHoH, p. 78] German soldiers cutting the beard of an elderly Jew in Poland.


What I did was change the context of the picture by giving it a different title so that it would control your focus. What you did was focus on the blade that the guard had in his hand, and perhaps the expression on the elderly mans face, and the proximity of the blade to his neck. You were manipulated into taking the picture out of context - very easy to do.

Look at the picture again as per original title, and you will see that he is in fact shaving the mans beard - nearly complete, the man only has a bit of beard left on his lower neck. Look at the expression on the Nazi officer's face - he is being very careful. There is another man with a beard waiting in line to have his cut.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by benign.psychosis]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
This is why race was not the real issue in essence, but was merely a label placed upon an undesired effect. In this case, that label was placed upon a specific race. This was Hitler's method to gain public support for driving out those Jews who had powerful influence on the German economy and society. It worked better than he had intended and the power of the label revved the societal engine of Jewish persecution harder than thought possible - and so he was left with no choice but to round up Jewish people and have them placed in labor camps for their protection.


How do you explain this? That before Hitler there were 500k Jews in Germany and by 1934 250k left, and so this left only 250k to need protection as you say, but millions were rounded up across all Nazi occupied lands. Those millions didn’t need protection from the Germans for they were not in Germany.

You are right though in they needed protection, but with what a 90% death rate in the camps they didn’t find it. I wonder if Hitler’s blond hair and blue eyed future race had the same attrition rate.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I believe it was Mark Twain who said" When you find yourself in a conversation with a fool, the first thing you need to do is make sure he is not similiarly occupied." I had quit reading and was just skimming the rest of this nonsense when another interjected that he thought the first one was talking about alien participation during WWII. Both agreed it was a stupid idea. Adolph Hitler was well known for his search for arcane knowledge. He was successful. He traded blood for technology. The death camps were the payment centers for that blood. The members of the Nazi party were changed and empowered by these invisible blood thirsty aliens (earth-born). By 1945 the Human Axis was destroyed but the aliens retreated to Antartica. In December of 1946 Admiral Byrd led a task force called "Operation Highjump" to search out Hitler and his secret bases. On February 22, 1947 the United States Navy went to war with the aliens in Antartica and fought against flying saucers that came up from the depths and attacked the ships and planes. Two ships were sunk by a red ray of some type and numberous P51 Mustangs were shot down. The video of this action is on youtube, the secretufo war in Antartica. I don't make conjectures, if i say it, i can prove it with facts, photo's and even video's World War II actually ended on July 8, 1947 with the invasion of Roswell and the dissemination of alien control through the governmental and Militay Hierarchies. The sad part is that they harvest over half a million people every year (as food) and participate in every war going, on both sides. They do it for the pleasure of the pain and the blood. They already rule the world, they did it without firing a shot, killing any of the subjugated races and kept the infrastructure intact. I know all this to be true because i know the aliens who did it and.....they know me.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
DUMB

This has got to be the biggest line of bull ever.

If the Germans cared so much why did they burn half the people who arrived the first day they arrived before America even entered the war.

Once again, to confirm, DUMB



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis

What I did was change the context of the picture by giving it a different title so that it would control your focus. What you did was focus on the blade that the guard had in his hand, and perhaps the expression on the elderly mans face, and the proximity of the blade to his neck. You were manipulated into taking the picture out of context - very easy to do.

Look at the picture again as per original title, and you will see that he is in fact shaving the mans beard - nearly complete, the man only has a bit of beard left on his lower neck. Look at the expression on the Nazi officer's face - he is being very careful. There is another man with a beard waiting in line to have his cut.



If it wasn't so damn tragic and pitiful then I would be laughing my socks off.

I'm no expert of militaria but those soldiers are in my opinion wearing the uniform of a Wehrmacht infantry unit - don't know enough to identify which. They could possibly be Waffen SS but the plain epaulets and pale grey are more obviously Wehrmacht. Even so, whichever, I find it ludicrous to suggest that these soldiers, on active duty, would have been handing out barber services to the peasants they passed on the way.

Not everything has to be so convoluted you know - there are things that cannot be explained, like a photograph, a moment in time. It is all very possible that this soldier was just showing the man his knife because he was very proud of that knife. Who knows? Does it eradicate the evidence of the Nazi genocides? Hardly. Your line of argument gets more ludicrous with each post.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

How do you explain this? That before Hitler there were 500k Jews in Germany and by 1934 250k left, and so this left only 250k to need protection as you say, but millions were rounded up across all Nazi occupied lands. Those millions didn’t need protection from the Germans for they were not in Germany.

You are right though in they needed protection, but with what a 90% death rate in the camps they didn’t find it. I wonder if Hitler’s blond hair and blue eyed future race had the same attrition rate.


Labor camps to support the war machine and coorporations such as I.B Farben. Many dissinters were sent to other camps, others to Ghettos. It was forced laber, and I'm not denying mistreatment in that context, but we need to view this from a historical perspective. There is a complexity to the Holocaust which has been around for almost 70 years, and we should not try to grasp at it from any emotional or moral viewpoint, as it renders the facts increasingly elusive and transparent.

Let's look a a quote that is supposed to be evidence of Hitler's planned killing of the Jews, supposedly recorded 8 months before the start of WWII.

Hitler:


Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!


Annihilation, there, is only going to mean what you want it to mean. It could be anything from killing, to banishing.

Okay, so Hitler hates the international financiers just as much as most people here. Is that really a death threat though, or does it fall in line with every other time Jews were persecuted and banished?

Hans Frank, on Dec 16, 1941 (during the war) supposedly said this:


... if the combined forces of Judaism should again succeed in unleashing a world war, that would mean the end of the Jews in Europe ... They have to be gotten rid of. At present I am involved in discussions aimed at having them moved away to the east. In January there is going to be an important meeting in Berlin to discuss this question ... Whatever its outcome, a great Jewish emigration will commence. But what is going to happen to these Jews? Do you imagine there will be settlement villages for them in the Ostland? In Berlin we were told: Why are you making all this trouble for us? There is nothing we can do with them here in the Ostland or in the Reich Commissariat. Liquidate them yourselves! … Here are 3.5 million Jews that we can't shoot, we can't poison. But there are some things we can do, and one way or another these measures will successfully lead to a liquidation. They are related to the measures under discussion with the Reich…. Where and how this will all take place will be a matter for offices that we will have to establish and operate here. I will report to you on their operation at the appropriate time


What's going on here? International Jewish financiers starting world wars?

... and Germany, Hitler, the Nazi's are publicly revealing this... to the whole world?

Meanwhile it appears they have plans to exile the Jews, but to where?



the end of the Jews in Europe ... They have to be gotten rid of. At present I am involved in discussions aimed at having them moved away to the east


End of Jews in Europe? having them moved away to the "east"?

Should this mean Poland? No, Poland is in Europe.


History of the Jews in the Philippines


Rumors about forcing the German Jews into a ghetto began to circulate. This imminent danger to the German Jews was averted by the more influential leaders of the Jewish community, who negotiated with the Japanese leaders. While the Japanese could not be bothered with Nazi plans to establish a Jewish ghetto in the Philippines, they did not object to episodes of abuse randomly waged against members of the Jewish community by their own soldiers. Dozens of incidents of German Jews, along with other civilians suffering at the hands of the Japanese during these years of occupation, illustrate the horror of the time.




Whatever its outcome, a great Jewish emigration will commence. But what is going to happen to these Jews?



The context of emigration here is just that, banishing. I sincerely doubt that he is asking what will happen to the dead bodies.

Those other quotes were taken from here...
Wikipedia Final Solution



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by riverdean7
after hearing interview and watching videos from david cole i have doubts about the gas chambers on the donahue show david presented video of the alleged homicidal gas chambers in one of the camps and found no gas residue or blue stains on the walls yet in the delousing rooms there was blue stains all over the walls,there was also a guy i cant remember his name who tested the auctwitz gas chambers he testified to there was no blue stain or residue in the chambers,its a fact that the gas chambers shown to tourists in auchwitz is a reconstruction and was built after the war this was admited to on video by Dr. Franciszek Piper director of the aushwitz museum,

I did a search on David Cole, never having heard of him, the site that I found stated that Cole had written a retraction of his claims that the gas chambers did not exist and that he had confirmed to his satisfaction that the Nazis murdered civilians by this means.

In a similar case, Jean Pressac was employed by Robert Faurisson, the French Holocaust Revisionist, to prove that the Gas chambers did not exist and that Prussic Acid had not been used in those buildings. Unfortuately, for Faurisson, Pressac findings actually proved the opposite.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Unlike many of those that have claimed to be able to find no evidence of the use of Prussic Acid, Pressac is actually qualified as a Chemist and therefore experienced in testing for trace chemicals. To my knowledge none of those who claim to have examined the gas chambers at Auschwitz boast any such qualifications. Leuchter (as in the infamous report) was/is an engineer!!


Originally posted by riverdean7
why is this 6 million myth still quoted when for instance for many years the sign outside auchwitz said 4 million people died here and years later it now says 1.1 million,wheres the other 3 million can someone miscount by 3 million,


The numbers were ratified based on the work of academics who had been studying the documents kept at Auschwitz. It has to be remembered that much of this work has only been undertaken in the past two decades following the fall of the iron curtain. Access to Auschwitz's records prior to then was very limited to western scholars.

The original figures of approximately 3.5 million jews murdered at Auchwitz was based upon the interrogation and confessions of the camp Commandant Rudolf Hoess. It is unclear whether Hoess exaggerated the figure or whether he simply over-estimated. Some believe that his 'confession' was coerced, but while I have no doubt he was not treated very well, much of his statements are independantly supported by other members of the SS and camp community.

The death count for Madjanek has also been drastically ratified in recent years. It had previously been assumed that Madjanek was an Action Reinhard camp where in fact it was a labour and transit camp. Like Auschwitz though it did have killing facilities, assisting with Action Reinhard once the temporary death camps at Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec had been dismantled.


Originally posted by riverdean7
why waste all the time and money giving the prisoners tatoos and haircuts if there only purpose was to be killed,


Only those who entered into the Concentration Camp system were tattooed. Those that were sent directly to their deaths were not tatooed.

Haircuts were a means of dehumanising the prisoners, stripping them of individuality, this was a particularly effective method of control and distraction of the women. Similarly nudity acted as an effective barrier against resistence.

The tatoos far from being a waste of money were an essential part of keeping the books. Forced labour proved a very lucrative business for the SS, with men, women and boys being 'hired' out to private and party enterprises. The tatoo acted just as a payroll number. When an inmate died the number was simply matched to the entry and a suitable cause of death entered. According to these volumes there was a very high instance of heart attacks in Auschwitz!!!

For those that arrived and were selected for the gas chambers, no tatoo meant no need to create a cause of death. In this case they indeed chose not to waste the time or the money. Only those processed for work details would have been tatooed.


Originally posted by riverdean7
also why isnt the swimming pool and the dance hall where inmates put on plays shown to tourists when they visit auchwitz,the hall and the swimming pool are clearly shown in the video taken by david cole,


Again, David Cole has since retracted the statements he made about his visit to Auschwitz.

The 'Swimming pool' is actually shown to visitors - my Mum visited Auschwitz and it was included in her tour. I don't know of any theatre or hall, but I'm no expert.

The swimming pool was situated in the main camp, physically removed from the killing facilites by a considerable distance. It was actually a water storage tank but it was, at times, used for swimming. Priviledged inmates were allowed to swim there and there was even a plank that acted as a diving board.

It was seen as good practice to reward those inmates that co-operated and assisted the SS in the administration of the camps. When a Brothel was added to these rewards, a voucher system was introduced which allowed these prisoners (mostly Kapos) to purchase a range of rewards. The Brothel obviously proved very popular.


Originally posted by riverdean7
even in the first trial of alleged holocaust denier ernst zundel he proved in a court of law there were no gas chambers

No he did not.


Originally posted by riverdean7
and for it they threw him in jail like david irving who was thrown in jail for a statement he made 20 years earlier,


The Irving case is very complicated and I for one am a huge admirer of a number of his books. He has not had an easy ride of it and has developed an embittered attitude which in my mind, combined with a formidible ego, has led him a little further right than he belongs. Hitler's War is an extraordinary piece of work and I fully recommend it.


Originally posted by riverdean7
the only way to get to the bottom of all this is surely to have an open debate but holocaust supporters refuse to debate the holocaust is one of the only subjects in the world where in some countries its ilegal to discuss,now after saying all this im not saying the whole holocaust is a hoax cause ive heard the other side to,but so called holocaust deniers are not flat earthers they raise very good questions that just scream for an answer,


I agree with you that the subject should be openly debated and I am more than happy to engage in intelligent well informed debate. However, nine times out of ten, the arguments are geared around the misrepresentation of the events or an accusation of lies directed at Jews. This demonstrates not only prejudice but a lack of the basic knowledge of the wider historical context. No one who has studied the socio-political atmosphere that existed in Germany is in any doubt of the slow and insidious process that led to genocide, not even David Irving.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
An interesting thread though it's topic I've seen many times over and see here the same tired rhetoric I've seen elsewhere. There might be some covers ups here in there. It may have been blown out proportion in some parts. It might even be a mass propaganda thing but without proof it is useless.

Speaking of proof or fact which I have yet to see by the way. I'm curious how you can believe what you have stated in the first place. Did you not say your self that we can't believe the text that we can't believe the testimony of others? We're supposed to throw all that out are we not? Then how may I ask did you come up this hypothesis to begin with? Is your source some sort of text or is it possibly someones testimony? If so then shouldn't you your self deny the validity of your own thread?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


So what you are saying is that the OP has created the Mother of all Strawmen arguments with a helping of Special Pleading.

If so I think you hit the nail right on the head! I have seen some revisionist history in my time, but this one takes the cake for sure.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join