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

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
I'm not really leaning either way on the Holocaust issue, however it seems more than obvious that the tragedy of the holocaust has been exploited for many reasons, it would not shock me at all to find that the number have been artificially inflated for political reasons.


What I find sad is the official number killed is 6 million and there are people who argue that ONLY 3 million were killed.

Even if the actual number is lower than 6 million it is still a major tragic event in world history. I also wonder about those who did not die but whose lives were utterly ruined by the Nazis, anyone care to put a number to that?

The OP forgot to add the part about numbers tats on the holocaust victims that if they actually lived they could forever be identified and persecuted as Jews.

I wonder many times what people’s real motives are when they deny the holocaust. I do not see much on old Stalin's 20 million killed by his actions.


[edit on 25-12-2007 by Xtrozero]




posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
The OP is a typical denier. I would say they are probably a NAZI skinhead as well. They expect they can obfuscate the facts with long winded passages of basically nothing but personal conjecture. No facts, no proof, only opinion and what if's. The OP has ignored history, they have failed to peruse the NAZI's own records and footage which clearly tell the history of the death camps. I do not understand why this thread is allowed and the OP is not banned. The NAZIS tried to defend themselves in trials at Nuremburg. I am including a link so the OP may familiarize themselves with history as it is PROVEN to have taken place.

Nuremburg Nazi Trials


You exhibit typical Nazi characteristics in your writing. Banning me from ATS just like they supposedly banned Jews from Germany? Censoring free speech? Good argument. What is that technique called? Are you trying to align me with an "evil" so that what follows next will be picked up by others as more worthy, as the truth?

So you'd like me banned from ATS because I've said that the allied forces had a large, causal part in the Holocaust? You are obviously against free-speech.

Is this really what you are saying?

So, you say that I've presented no facts. Have you? One definition of the word fact is as followes:

truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something.

Maybe it will be more clear if I give you the legal definition of the word fact:

actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance

Tell me, did the Allied forces play any part in the death of internees? Did the allied forces manipulate the actual course of events inside the concentration camps by halting the food, medicine, clothing, etc.. that was to be delivered? This is the right question.

Everything else you say is of little relavence to reality.

The Christian Bible professes that god exists. Christians admit that God exists. Athiests profess that the bible is simply not true.

Athiests admit that the bible exists; however this not not mean that Athiests admit that God exists.

The Zionisist's own protocols admit to NWO tactics and depopulation, but that doesn't actually mean they created it. That doesn't mean they didn't either. It only means that it exists.

But, what purpose has it served in it's existence? That is is the right question.

You're argument has little to do with reality. Any fool can go on trial and lie about being guilty to a crime or innocent to a crime.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Anyway, they had top notch intelligence and sat recon pictures of concentration camps.

Do you mean they had satellite recon pictures?

That would be odd, as the first satellite wasn't launched until 1957.

History changed on October 4, 1957, when the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I.

source
Kinda makes me question your grasp of history.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
my good man...this is idiocy. 30 years ago i was driving to a suburb
of detroit. i stopped at a bagel shop on the way. there was an old lady there behind the counter. somehow we got into a discussion about life
and families. she told me she had been in a german camp during ww2.
she showed me her "tattoo". she told me of the many things and deaths
that surrounded her daily. i gave her a hug and eventually left with tears
in my eyes. that shook me hard. there may not have been 6,000,000
as stated but it did happen. did the u.s. know? i believe she did.
nothing has changed. the government picks and chooses the areas
they wish to intervene based on economical possibilities. africa is still
being taken advantage of..uganda, millions killed no intervention.
hutus and tutsis, same story. janjaweed militias, same story.
mans inhumanity to man is a sickness based on greed & fear.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   


So, you say that I've presented no facts. Have you? One definition of the word fact is as followes:

truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something.

Maybe it will be more clear if I give you the legal definition of the word fact:

actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
.


so where have you offered us any of this?
the only thing ive gathered from any of your posts is your oppinions and belief's on the subject. FACTS require evidence, or they are just your emotional preceptions.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Tell me, did the Allied forces play any part in the death of internees? Did the allied forces manipulate the actual course of events inside the concentration camps by halting the food, medicine, clothing, etc.. that was to be delivered? This is the right question.


So, the fact that the Nazi's were doing systematic genocide, against the Jews, or anyone seen as undesirable by the Nazi group, has nothing to do with it. Good logic. And more than that, the children of that generation that grew up under the Nazi regime were conditioned to believe that all other races were inferior and were subhumans. And the fact that some of those camps were just dedicated systematic execution camps, you'd arrive and about 30 minutes later you'd be dead. See for example Treblinka extermination camp.

In 1965, after a report by Dr. Helmut Krausnick, director of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, the Court of Assize in Düsseldorf concluded that the minimum number of people killed in Treblinka was 700,000.


As for the deaths 'caused' by the allied forces? Well it was a war you know. The concentration camps were forced labour, and the Nazis forcing them to work had no intention of ever letting the prisoners live. Auschwitz was bombed IIRC, because it was next to a factory, which is where the forced labourers worked. And if they bombed supply lines, tell me, how would you coordinate your bombing. Destroying infrastructure, even if it causes collateral damage (such as the deaths of those in concentration camps), while not the best thing, is, when in a large scale war like WW2, 'acceptable'.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Tell me, did the Allied forces play any part in the death of internees? Did the allied forces manipulate the actual course of events inside the concentration camps by halting the food, medicine, clothing, etc.. that was to be delivered? This is the right question.


To answer this one only has to remember the hundreds of hours of film that was taken of attacking allied aircraft destroying the infrastructure of Germany and Europe as a whole.

Does anyone remember the main target in those films? RAIL YARDS, rail lines, locomotives, boxcars, bridges. Remember back then everything was delivered by rail! And the internment camps were no different.

Did the allies play a role in the deaths of the occupants of those camps? It appears so. The only question is if they knew what they were doing....

Instead of calling them "Aliens" I would be a bit more specific, I would call them "Reptilians", for what happened was cold blooded!!!



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
How people tends to belive blindly all what is "official" scare me!
People tend to act like mindless Zombies this days, following "The official" claims like sheeps!
If we realy want one day to discover the major conspiracys of the world, how we will get it blindly beliving in all the official records?!
At the least, even if some claims are so fantastic and absurd, we must keep our mind open and analize all the possible data very very deep.

Read this text, it contains some of the OP claims and much more:

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

Just because what it is writen there look insane or promoting a personal agenda, that do not proof at all it is a lie! Start digging, start comparing things seriously, and you will reach far!


Never forget:: "Where are smoke, are always fire nearby!"

Pic of a RedCross doc saying just 271.504 victims die during the war in the concentration camps:

www.rense.com...

Sure the red cross doc could also be a lie, but with out any type of serious research, we would never know.

[edit on 25/12/07 by Umbra Sideralis]

[edit on 25/12/07 by Umbra Sideralis]

[edit on 25/12/07 by Umbra Sideralis]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The OP forgot to add the part about numbers tats on the holocaust victims that if they actually lived they could forever be identified and persecuted as Jews.

I wonder many times what people’s real motives are when they deny the holocaust. I do not see much on old Stalin's 20 million killed by his actions.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by Xtrozero]


You seem to admit that the actual number of those killed is entirely unknown. This is good, but it has no purpose in this thread; however:

It does havea strong purpose, and I will show that purpose so that you may understand my basis in this thread. The number is an issue. It is an issue to be debated, and concentrated on. It is a number to be proven and disproven by those who are seeking the truth.

What truth? The number killed.

What signifigance is in that? Not much.

It does not matter if 1.1 million were killed, or if 6 million were killed. It is wrong to murder innocent people - this is what matters. The only thing that matters is innocent people were killed - we must move on.

If it really mattered to us the number of people killed, we would all be quoting the "official" number of every single human being who has ever been murdered.

Yet, we don't.

It is a red herring. The numbers are of of no real signifigance. They only appeal to emotion and stand as a guage to how "atrocious" the event was, and how "evil" the Nazi's were. All perceptions, of course.

We seek to blame. We don't want to blame ourselves. We don't want to blame the nature of the human mind so that we may correct ourselves.

No, the cowards among us wish to place blame and disavow the possibilties inherent within their own minds - they do not seek to indentify the problem, to fix it. They are fearful of associating the possibilty of themselves having a Nazi mindset. They feel they are too strong. They feel that it could never happen. They feel that their mind is protected from such "evil" acts.

No, they wish to blame a "seperate" group of people. Seperatte from them. People who are somehow monsters, people who are somehow evil.

This blame is what hides the truth.

Should we place the blame on who we perceive as evil, or do we blame who causally inplimented the atrocities of 1-6 million dead humans - all with minds like our own - all with minds like the Nazis. All human. "Motive" and "desire" do not matter in this realm, only "action".

...

You say "official number".

Whos "official number" do you speak of? is it this side or that? is it the official number of this agenda, or that? is it the official number of this country or that? Is it my official number or yours? Is it the German governments official number, or Israel's official number?

What is official here, on this planet Earth?

What "official" authority, do you - human - bow down to?

What "official" authority, do you let make decicions for you?

What "official" authority controls your mind?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Anyway, they had top notch intelligence and sat recon pictures of concentration camps.

Do you mean they had satellite recon pictures?

That would be odd, as the first satellite wasn't launched until 1957.

History changed on October 4, 1957, when the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I.

source
Kinda makes me question your grasp of history.


That wasn't when the first satellite was launched - it was when the first publicised satellite was launched.

Unless you believe that military technology - especially spy based - is publicaly announced as soon as it is workable.

I'm saying this as someone who had a Great Grandfather who worked with Satellite technology in the 20's and 30's.

Do you live in a world where governments don't keep secrets for national security?

And this is even all text, and typed words like your NASA link.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by scientist
I'm not really leaning either way on the Holocaust issue, however it seems more than obvious that the tragedy of the holocaust has been exploited for many reasons, it would not shock me at all to find that the number have been artificially inflated for political reasons.


What I find sad is the official number killed is 6 million and there are people who argue that ONLY 3 million were killed.

Even if the actual number is lower than 6 million it is still a major tragic event in world history. I also wonder about those who did not die but whose lives were utterly ruined by the Nazis, anyone care to put a number to that?


Just to make myself clear, I was not trying to make a big deal about statistics or anything. The numbers could be accurate, just as much as they could be inaccurate.

Instead of denying the holocaust happened, or trying to trivialize numbers or death counts, more focus should be put on how it all happened in the first place. Also, remember that the "good guys" didn't really intervene until Pearl Harbor anyways. It's not like the US took a moral stance - our involvement in the war itself was just another result of the military industrial complex, and some would suggest that Pearl Harbor was a false-flag operation anyways.

We didn't official enter the war until 1941, 8 years after one of the first Nazi concentration camp (Dachau) was constructed and filled with prisoners. To be fair, the first "death camp" (Chelmno) didn't start operations until 1941, but again - our intervention had nothing to do with morals, otherwise we would have jumped in much earlier.

This is yet another reason why I am skeptical about our real involvement with WWII and the Nazis. Going by the standard logic of cui prodest ("who stands to gain?") - it seems that the United States gained the most from WW2. Using the second most common form of logic - "follow the money," predominant American businessmen and politicians are again linked to the Nazi party.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by scientist]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
This is yet another reason why I am skeptical about our real involvement with WWII and the Nazis. Going by the standard logic of cui prodest ("who stands to gain?") - it seems that the United States gained the most from WW2. Using the second most common form of logic - "follow the money," predominant American businessmen and politicians are again linked to the Nazi party.


Scientist,

I was not trying to suggest you wanted to argue the numbers. I was just making a generic point on how people get caught up on numbers and over look the whole picture.

Actually we were more isolationists in those days and we really didn’t want to jump two feet into world events. With that said, we just didn’t go to war for we built up to it with support to England, and the final war part was inevitable. Japan actually attacked us, but it was mainly a first strike attack for we were already gearing up for war.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
This is pretty much the worst blame America thread that I have seen in a while. I do not believe this thread is anymore than one giant troll attempt. These points have already been discussed in other holocaust threads anyway. No need for a new one. Use the search engine.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Benign.psychosis, I see you talking a lot about papers and records not being proof. And memories being unreliable due to a fog of emotion clouding them, and that we must look elsewhere for answers. Where do we look? All we have is records, papers, and a dwindling amount of personal recollections. All i can see you doing is speculating. I read your entire post hoping that you would say something, a piece of evidence or at least a theory of some kind, but this is just yet more holocaust denier rhetoric.

You're asking us to run with the theory that "it might just have happened totally different than history teaches us, except nobody noticed the coverup" It's a pretty big ask, thumbsdown.

edit: Oh and why did you write indisputable in the thread title? Speculation is 100% disputable.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by unnamedninja]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime

This is pretty much the worst blame America thread that I have seen in a while. I do not believe this thread is anymore than one giant troll attempt. These points have already been discussed in other holocaust threads anyway. No need for a new one. Use the search engine.


I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from posting in this thread. You are obviously not going to discuss anything of concern. Causality is what is being discussed, not whatever form of American-centrism you are preaching.

No one has mentioned America specifically - only the allied forces in general, which consisted of:

United Kingdom
Indian Empire
Crown Colonies
Australia
New Zealand
Newfoundland
France
South Africa
Canada
Denmark
Norway
Belgium
Belgian Congo
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Dutch East Indies
Greece
Kingdom of Yugoslaviaarch
Soviet Union
Tannu Tuva
Panama
United States
American Samoa
Guam
Commonwealth of the Philippines
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands
other unincorporated territories
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Haiti
Honduras
Nicaragua
China
Guatemala
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Peru
Mexico
Brazil
Ethiopia
Iraq
Bolivia
Iran
Italy
Colombia
Democratic Federal Yugoslavia
Liberia
Romania
Bulgaria
San Marino
Albania
Bahawalpur
Ecuador
Paraguay
Uruguay
Venezuela
Turkey
Lebanon
Saudi Arabia
Finland
Argentina
Chile
Mongolia

This thread is not the place. I kindly ask you to refrain from further posting.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by unnamedninja
Where do we look? All we have is records, papers, and a dwindling amount of personal recollections. All i can see you doing is speculating. I read your entire post hoping that you would say something, a piece of evidence or at least a theory of some kind, but this is just yet more holocaust denier rhetoric.

You're asking us to run with the theory that "it might just have happened totally different than history teaches us, except nobody noticed the coverup" It's a pretty big ask, thumbsdown.

edit: Oh and why did you write indisputable in the thread title? Speculation is 100% disputable.

[edit on 25-12-2007 by unnamedninja]


Where do we look? ... That is the correct question.

Long ago - and still today - many look to religion.

Others, they look towards science.

Some, look outward,

While many look toward the heart.

Still, most look toward what is convenent, what is acceptable.

Most, accept the consensus.

...this is not a computer program, and I am not forcing you to compile and do as instructed. If you are looking for something sensational, you will not find it here.

We sometimes get caught up in the trivial - Why did he start that fight? What did the other guy do? What did they say? How many times were they hit? How long have they known each other? Who won the battle? How long before the loser got up?

None of this is as important as the action...

What effects does the destroying of supply lines to concentration camps holding upwards of 250,000 people have - and what actions caused the disruption?

This... is where we look: to the action.



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I have to protect the source of this information. This is not speculation, or opinion. ...


The first indication that what follows is probably complete bull#...


And that this might all well be a troll just to piss people off and yank our chains...

[edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
None of this is as important as the action...

What effects does the destroying of supply lines to concentration camps holding upwards of 250,000 people have - and what actions caused the disruption?


Did they ever hold that many at the same time?


One group, about three-quarters of the total, went to the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau within a few hours; they included all children, all women with children, all the elderly, and all those who appeared on brief and superficial inspection by an SS doctor not to be fully fit. In the Auschwitz Birkenau camp more than 20,000 people could be gassed and cremated each day. At Birkenau, the Nazis used a cyanide gas produced from Zyklon B pellets, which were manufactured by two companies who had acquired licensing rights to the patent held by IG Farben.


Sounds like they wouldn't ever have had as many as 250,00 there at the same time if you ask me.

And they were cremated afterwards, does that answer your question of where were all the bodies?



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Why didn't they just shoot everyone? Why didn't they kill everyone? Why were there survivors? Survivors of what? you ask.


They tried. But being crushed on two fronts, and the fact that the Nazi chain of command was collapsing and orders were ignored or even countermanded, and that many seemed to lose enthusiasm for killing Jews (and others) when it was finally clear that they were losing and Hitler was dead, the German's (and others) guarding the camps probably had other priorities...


Sorry if not everyone got a casket.

Sorry if we had to dig mass graves and throw the bodies in there.

Sorry if we have to execute some people who had highly communicable disease, or send others into the "forbidden zone" to protect the healthy body of inmates.

Sorry we don't have any supplies, the axis forces have been bombing our supply line.

Sorry we couldn't feed you.


You're rather interestingly ignoring that the "supply line" needed to exist to begin with. The Jews were in isolated Ghettos prior to being placed in the "Work Camps."

In fact, one could argue that the amount of resources dedicated to conducting the Holocaust contributed to the defeat of the Third Reich, or at least speed its end...

The entire internment process of Jews is highly questionable to begin with, even for a Holocaust denier. Since, why would they be place in camps away from the factories set up after Allied strategic bombing began in eviscerate the centers of German war production?


We had to be efficient and systematic to protect the healthy internees. They survived well.


So we could work them to death?



"Thanks Germany! It was the thought that counted. Sorry history took a dump on you!"

----


Poor poor Germany. Starting the bloodiest war in human history and allowing a totalitarian to take power. What victims!

I guess no one should ever have to take responsibility for their actions...



[edit on 25/12/07 by Nickdfresh]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nickdfresh

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
Why didn't they just shoot everyone? Why didn't they kill everyone? Why were there survivors? Survivors of what? you ask.


They tried.


Of course, they did try shooting them all, but apparently Goebbels (i think it was him) witnessed a shooting of some of them, and apparently didn't like the fact that someones brain (or at least a piece of one) landed on him. And quite frankly, gassing is a lot more efficient , and you only need one guy, to turn it on to actually do the killing.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join