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

reply to post by BlueRaja


so just to clarify, are you saying that history is objective, and not impacted by emotion, distorted views and partial perspectives? For example, would a history book in Russia say the same things about the US as an American history book?

Nobody here is debating dates. The debate is about motive, conspiracy, political strategy, etc. Last time I checked, that was all up for discussion since it's all objective.

I find it amazing this is such a hot button issue, and demands so much attention. There is a freaking holocaust going on right now in darfur, but nobody is going to start getting emotional over that until the tragedy is over and emotionalized.

Just because an issue is offensive, does not mean it should be eliminated from discussion. That is the height of ignorance.

and theres a holocaust going on in iraq at the moment ,

last time i checkd holocaust by the dictionary it ment:

great loss of life and suffering

a word that existed before the "jewish " holocaust,

reply to post by zerbot565


There have been many killed in Iraq, but it is not on the scale of "the Holocaust." It's more akin the the Civil War than WWII. If you're trying to assert that it's the USA conducting a holocaust, that's utter nonsense.
The vast majority of the killing has been Shia vs. Sunni vs. Kurd, if you're wanting to put the blame somewhere. If you want to break it down even further to non combatant deaths, your claim becomes even more nonsensical. The USA may be responsible for 1 out of 50 non combatants killed, and that figure is probably high.


www.google.com...:Holocaust&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

www.answers.com...

www.chgs.umn.edu...

".... In the course of time it came to be used to describe slaughter on a general or large scale, and, especially, various forms of the destruction of masses of human beings. In the 1950s the term came to be applied primarily to the destruction of the Jews of Europe under the Nazi regime, and it is also employed in describing the annihilation of other groups of people in World War II. "

reply to post by scientist


I'd accept eyewitness accounts and recollections of people that lived through it, before some revisionist anti semite propaganda.

The Germans obviously feel pretty guilty about it, so that should tell you something.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by BlueRaja]

reply to post by BlueRaja


"I'd accept eyewitness accounts and recollections of people that lived through it, before some revisionist anti semite propaganda."

So you agree that questioning the accuracy of history when it pertains to Jews and the holocaust is, in fact, anti-semitic? Yet, when it pertains to other situations, say, 9/11, it is not anti-american? How about the Native American Indian genocide - all 500 years of it - How many people do you see running around with such passion calling people who question the numbers racist anti-native propaganda artists?

"The Germans obviously feel pretty guilty about it, so that should tell you something."

I think what you mean is that the German government has declared something in akin to a guilt for political reasons. Governments do not feel guilty.

Saying that the germans feel guilty about the holocaust is like saying Americans feel guilty about slavery. Do you feel guilty about slavery?

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

"I'd accept eyewitness accounts and recollections of people that lived through it, before some revisionist anti semite propaganda."

So you agree that questioning the accuracy of history when it pertains to Jews and the holocaust is, in fact, anti-semitic? Yet, when it pertains to other situations, say, 9/11, it is not anti-american? How about the Native American Indian genocide - all 500 years of it - How many people do you see running around with such passion calling people who question the numbers racist anti-native propaganda artists?

You are right to suggest our treatment of history is rarely even handed - and the point made at the top of this page of the thread about the need to emotionalize history before it can be digested is very pertinent.

However, the value of "questioning numbers", as you put it, depends wholly on the direction and purpose of the argument. It is almost impossible for the mind to conceive the sort of numbers of deaths involved in any genocide - be it the Holocaust, Darfur, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or the Native American Indians. Facts are obviously a hugely important part of history. However, I would question the motives of one who seeks to question the effect, cause, or historical importance of an event based on a spurious (in historical terms) conflict over whether the number of deaths was 4 million or 6 million.

A discussion of the historical facts of the holocaust is not necessarily inherently anti-semetic. It may well be inherently pointless, though.

"The Germans obviously feel pretty guilty about it, so that should tell you something."

I think what you mean is that the German government has declared something in akin to a guilt for political reasons. Governments do not feel guilty.

Saying that the germans feel guilty about the holocaust is like saying Americans feel guilty about slavery. Do you feel guilty about slavery?

With respect, that's completely disingenuous. German society is a lot more affected, split and emotional about the holocaust and the concept of holocaust memory than your slightly glib remark gives it credit for. Any trip to Berlin will tell you that. Society is still practically affected (in other words, it has a real influence on people's lives today) by the legacy of the second world war, and the consequences of it. Germany was only reunified less than twenty years ago.

To compare that to the worldwide slave trade whose ramifications though huge are a relatively distant memory is absurd.

LW

reply to post by LoneWeasel


"However, I would question the motives of one who seeks to question the effect, cause, or historical importance of an event based on a spurious (in historical terms) conflict over whether the number of deaths was 4 million or 6 million.

A discussion of the historical facts of the holocaust is not necessarily inherently anti-semetic. It may well be inherently pointless, though."



Motives, what motives might those be? I'm sure those motives are racist and anti-semitic, arent they?

Pointless? Really? Is it pointless to question history now? Hell, I think I saw a post saying Dinosaurs were wiped out by bugs, and not giant rocks smashing into earth. That's a distant memory if I ever heard of one - we weren't even here. We REVISE history all the time through science, speculation, and the arrival of new facts. It is the holocaust, AND ONLY THE HOLOCAUST that is ILLEGAL in many parts of the world to QUESTION AND REVISE.

To compare that to the worldwide slave trade whose ramifications though huge are a relatively distant memory is absurd.

So what does that mean? Time heals all wounds? As long as something has happened so far in the past, we can ignore it? Well, the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so lets forget it, and concentrate on the holocaust in the middle east.

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
So what does that mean? Time heals all wounds? As long as something has happened so far in the past, we can ignore it? Well, the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so lets forget it, and concentrate on the holocaust in the middle east.

in the words of Doug Stanhope, if we are going to take shelf-life into consideration, then everyone should just stop talking about religion in general.

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Pointless? Really? Is it pointless to question history now? Hell, I think I saw a post saying Dinosaurs were wiped out by bugs, and not giant rocks smashing into earth. That's a distant memory if I ever heard of one - we weren't even here. We REVISE history all the time through science, speculation, and the arrival of new facts. It is the holocaust, AND ONLY THE HOLOCAUST that is ILLEGAL in many parts of the world to QUESTION AND REVISE.

Neither the bugs or the dinosaurs left written records.

People are not imprisoned for revising history, they are imprisoned for spreading hate filled psuedo-history aimed at placing the blame for the genocide (or lack there of) on those people who were a primary victim.

Those whose work resulted in the revision of the numbers murdered at Auschwitz from over three million to approximately one and half million have not been imprisoned.

Those who have written works exploring the motives for the holocaust and concluded that the event was not planned and was a more opportunistic development have not been imprisoned.

The genocides committed under the Third Reich were not millions of years ago they were less than 70 years ago. Not only had pens and paper been invented, but so had photography, film and radio. Only someone completely ignorant of any part of this exceptionally well documented period of history can possibly claim that the death camps did not exist. From beginning to end testimony is supported by eyewitnesses, by written and photographic records, correspondence and diaries, recorded and broadcast speeches. If you don't believe me look for yourself.

The fact remains, and you have continuously failed to refute it, despite repetition, is that there is no evidence that the Allies bombed supply routes to the camps. There is no evidence that sabotage caused any lasting impediment to the rail links to the camps. While the Allies certainly can be accused of prolonging the war and in doing so, in the mind of the Germans, necessitating the 'euthanasia' of the Jews, they did not at any time prevent supplies reaching the camps. It was the Nazi policy of 'no planning' that did that.

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
"However, I would question the motives of one who seeks to question the effect, cause, or historical importance of an event based on a spurious (in historical terms) conflict over whether the number of deaths was 4 million or 6 million.

A discussion of the historical facts of the holocaust is not necessarily inherently anti-semetic. It may well be inherently pointless, though."

Motives, what motives might those be? I'm sure those motives are racist and anti-semitic, arent they?

Pointless? Really? Is it pointless to question history now?

No, of course not - but then, that's not what I said, is it? I asked what the point of arguing about whether it was 5 million or 6 million people that died - and in terms of motive I asked what could academically be gained from discovering the discrepancy beyond statistical fact - what new interpretation of the history of the Holocaust do you propose on the basis of that discrepancy, if it exists?

To compare that to the worldwide slave trade whose ramifications though huge are a relatively distant memory is absurd.

So what does that mean? Time heals all wounds? As long as something has happened so far in the past, we can ignore it? Well, the Holocaust happened a long time ago, so lets forget it, and concentrate on the holocaust in the middle east.

Again, you are twisting what I said, I can't think why. A specific question regarding the weight of the Holocaust on modern-day memory and conscience was raised, and I pointed out that it was a hugely important matter for modern day Germany, contrary to what had been posted, and that it was obfuscatory to compare it to the legacy of the slave trade. It's a simple point, please don't try and twist it into something more complex.

LW

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Pointless? Really? Is it pointless to question history now? Hell, I think I saw a post saying Dinosaurs were wiped out by bugs, and not giant rocks smashing into earth. That's a distant memory if I ever heard of one - we weren't even here. We REVISE history all the time through science, speculation, and the arrival of new facts. It is the holocaust, AND ONLY THE HOLOCAUST that is ILLEGAL in many parts of the world to QUESTION AND REVISE.

Neither the bugs or the dinosaurs left written records.

That's probably a good think, otherwise we wouldn't know if they were hoaxes or not. Nah, I find it odd that people view the Nazi's as such extreme monsters - monsters that keep accurate records even. They kill Jews and make lampshades from their skin - but lie? Never!

If you don't believe me look for yourself.

The fact remains, and you have continuously failed to refute it, despite repetition, is that there is no evidence that the Allies bombed supply routes to the camps. There is no evidence that sabotage caused any lasting impediment to the rail links to the camps.

If you don't believe me look for yourself.

---------------------------------------------
Attempted to fix a confusing set of quotes. If I got it wrong, please U2U me.



[edit on 10/1/08 by masqua]

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

No, of course not - but then, that's not what I said, is it? I asked what the point of arguing about whether it was 5 million or 6 million people that died - and in terms of motive I asked what could academically be gained from discovering the discrepancy beyond statistical fact - what new interpretation of the history of the Holocaust do you propose on the basis of that discrepancy, if it exists?

Well, it's what I asked. Thanks for the redundancy though

Again, you are twisting what I said, I can't think why. A specific question regarding the weight of the Holocaust on modern-day memory and conscience was raised, and I pointed out that it was a hugely important matter for modern day Germany, contrary to what had been posted, and that it was obfuscatory to compare it to the legacy of the slave trade. It's a simple point, please don't try and twist it into something more complex.

I did? I opened with, "So what does that mean?" then asked a few more questions before making a sarcastic statement.

Why is it obscure to compare it to the slave trade? They were both horrible events that never should have happened. Oh right, you suggest that we can ignore it if it happened so long ago.

---------------------------
I think I fixed the quote correctly this time

Please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 10/1/08 by masqua]

reply to post by benign.psychosis


Keep behaving like a child and I will start treating you like one. Get off your backside and do the research to demonstrate your hyphothesis. Form an opinion of your own.

You claimed to have evidence - provide it.

You claim that millions died as a result of the supply lines being severed, it is relatively easy to obtain the details of bombing campaigns - there are hundreds of books on military operation that don't even mention the nature of the camps. There are plenty of books detailing partisan and resistance activities that have nothing to do with the holocaust. Once you comprehend the chain of command, who and what operated where you will get an idea of feasibility.

Do you really want to know? I doubt it, it is much nicer in your bubble isn't it?

Originally posted by benign.psychosis

Well, it's what I asked. Thanks for the redundancy though

I hope you don't talk to your school teachers like this.....the answer to your question is no, of course it isn't pointless to question history. But it's an irrelevant question, because nobody has suggested it is.

Why is it obscure to compare it to the slave trade? They were both horrible events that never should have happened. Oh right, you suggest that we can ignore it if it happened so long ago.

I make no such suggestion, and I would ask you not to put words in my mouth. Please treat the debate respectfully or don't bother - given the subject matter I would say there's even more need to avoid levity.

For the third time, my point related to the specific question of German holocaust memory and conscience, which you suggested, inaccurately, was not heartfelt or important, and was simply gesture politics. It is no such thing. It is very real, very current and very important to a huge number of people.

I stated that a direct comparison to the slave trade was incongruous, because it does not share the immediacy of national social effect. That is not the same as saying "slavery can be ignored", as anyone with half a brain should realise.

I repeat, if you haven't the maturity to deal with this subject matter sensitively, you shouldn't be attempting to deal with it at all.

Thanks

LW

I think we should all be worried about what's coming down the pipe. The holocaust of WWII was only a test, and a sign of things to come in the NWO. Many Jews were indeed slaughtered but it was not exclusively about wiping them out specifically.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Xtrozero, you seem like a really smart guy. Why do you think that ppl have spent 9+ pages continuing to argue and try to reason with the Op, when it was already obvious on page 1, that this was not going to happen? Sorry, I just had to say that. I'm a stickler for relentless questions on getting to the heart of the matter also.
What I really wanted to know was, who is that in your avatar?

Originally posted by sizzle
What I really wanted to know was, who is that in your avatar?

Actually I was just trying to debate his rather outside the box hypothesis to see where he was trying to go with it.

That is Dr. Strangelove from the movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

I use to transport nukes and my crew would always watch that movie before we go out to dinner during our crew rests.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Thank you for answering that. Somehow I knew it wasn't Ronnie Milsap. Back on topic, Sizzle. I think the OP is having a bit of fun with us, don't you?

reply to post by sizzle

I hope so. I'd rather this be a joke than something somebody actually believes.
C'mon fella, show us you have something, anything other than just your speeches and makes this a decent debate instead of a flamer.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by benign.psychosis

 

You claimed to have evidence - provide it.

You claim that millions died as a result of the supply lines being severed, it is relatively easy to obtain the details of bombing campaigns - there are hundreds of books on military operation that don't even mention the nature of the camps. There are plenty of books detailing partisan and resistance activities that have nothing to do with the holocaust. Once you comprehend the chain of command, who and what operated where you will get an idea of feasibility.

Keep behaving like a child and I will start treating you like one.

How ironic.



I thought it was clear that I did that in the first few posts. I've already done my research and created this thread so that others can follow my lead to obtain the truth through the method I have explained. So far, I think maybe two people have understood the point of all of this.

Everyone else is just acting like emotional apes.