Denial Of The Holocaust

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Perhaps you would know of this document. Been finding it a lot yet having difficulty getting the source. Years ago in High School in Canada it was brought up in History class that one of the Judges made a comment like ... "6,000 or 6 Million what does it matter the crime was done"

That is paraphrased, High School was a long time ago... The fact is true the crime was done, but it was from the Nuremberg trials that the 6 million number became 'popular'

So in searching I found this... Hoping someone can verify this or point me to actual trial transcripts covering this info

The alleged Six Million victims first appeared as the
foundation for the prosecution at Nuremberg, and after some
dalliance with ten million or more by the Press at the time, it
eventually gained international popularity and acceptance. It is
very significant, however, that, although this outlandish figure
was able to win credence in the reckless atmosphere of
recrimination in 1945, it had become no longer tenable by 1961,
at the Eichmann Trial. The Jerusalem court studiously avoided
mentioning the figure of Six Million, and the charge drawn up by
Mr. Gideon Haussner simply said "some" millions.

www.textfiles.com...

This is certainly a delicate subject and it is difficult to bring up any question without people making assumptions on your beliefs and character. But my personal opinion is that Isreal needs to move on from this issue, before it comes back to bite them like in Gaza

Surely enough gold has been paid in restitution by Germans who were not even alive when that crazy short Austrian did his dirty deeds. Its time to move on the sympathy factor is quickly become renewed anger

reply to post by KRISKALI777


Hi ATSers,
heres is a factual article to add food for thought.....
There are many examples of this, this being only one.
Makes me wonder.............

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
reply to post by KRISKALI777

 

Hi ATSers,
heres is a factual article to add food for thought.....
There are many examples of this, this being only one.
Makes me wonder.............

I don't see what is so bad about this.
Some people want to separate themselves. So what?
If you don't like it then go somewhere and mingle with whomever you want.

Even if a group of people took control of a large land mass and called it their BLANKish State then so what? Wait a minute....

reply to post by walsbg22

Guys, can you tell me when Jews have used the holocaust for sympathy or to get something. I'd like a video or quote from good source because I've never seen this used.

Have a read of this from alternate historian Norman Finklestein. His parents were survivors of Nazi concentration camps.
www.scribd.com...

reply to post by KRISKALI777


It happened ...accept it ....

The BNP is in no way a fascist party and not nearly any of the things that the media portray it to be. Read the party manifesto and you will find out yourselves. We have to ask ourselves if this sort of reporting is happening to an honest political party today, then what about the stuff they wrote about nazi germany when they lost, World War 1, the germans were supposed to have eaten babies and killed old ladies, but the difference between that reporting and the reporting of ww2 is that after the first war the British atleast had the honour to apologise about writting that nonsense whereas no apology after the 2nd world war.

And contrary to popular belief, it was not the germans who started the war it was the )ews.

Long before the Hitler government began restricting the rights of the German Jews, the leaders of the worldwide Jewish community formally declared war on the "New Germany" at a time when the U.S. government and even the Jewish leaders in Germany were urging caution in dealing with the new Hitler regime.

www.wintersonnenwende.com...

And even some )ews back up this claim

The Daily Express (London) published an article on March 24, 1933 announcing that the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and described a forthcoming "holy war". The Express urged Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and demonstrate against German economic interests.

www.jewsagainstzionism.com...

For those people who ask why the )ews would make up the stuff said about the holocaust, it actually proved very beneficial for the )ews

1. United the )ews of the world
   
2. Since 1951 Germany has paid more than 102 billion marks, about $61.8 billion at 1998 exchange rates, in federal government reparation payments to Israel and Third Reich victims. In addition, Germans have paid out billions in private and other public funds, including about 75 million marks ($49 million) by German firms in compensation to wartime forced laborers, the Welt am Sonntag newspaper reported recently. These figures are based on calculations by the German Finance Ministry, the influential paper said.
   
3. Of the total, Germany has paid out 78.4 billion marks ($47 billion) on the basis of the 1965 Federal Restitution Law (BEG) to persons, especially Jews, who had been persecuted during the Third Reich era on the basis of race, religion, origin or ideology. While most of those who were alive during the Second World War are now dead, in recent years Germany was still paying out some 1.25 billion marks (about $75 million) to 106,000 pensioners in Israel, the United States and other countries on the basis of the 1965 Restitution Law.
   
4. Based in New York City, the Jewish Claims Conference (JCC) has operated for decades as a kind of supra-national governmental agency for Jews around the world. Between 1992 and July 1998, the German federal government paid out 1.1 billion marks (about $647 million) to the JCC. During the first half of 1998, it made available 378 million marks (about $222 million) to the JCC in special one-time restitution payments for Jews who had persecuted by the Third Reich, according to a German government report issued on September 29, 1998. The JCC distributed up to 5,000 marks each to individual claimants. In recent years Germany has paid out nearly 1.8 billion marks on the basis of special bilateral agreements concluded in 1991 and 1993 with Poland and three successor states of the former Soviet Union -- the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus (White Russia) -- even though in 1953 Poland and the Soviet Union each renounced any further reparations payments from Germany.
   

It has become a very profitable scam.

Then there is the case of Solomon morel a )ew who commited horendous war crimes against german civilians after the war. Poland ordered his extradition over 3 times and Israel refused.

reply to post by fapython


Jews declared war on Germany? Well - i kind of miss reports of Jewish tank columns breaking through German defenses. Or maybe current boycot of Israeli products by Iran is a war declared on Israel so we can retaliate by nuking them. According to you it is justified. Wait - something (sixth sense) tells me that you know for a fact that Jews (zionist bankers) paid to Hitler. And even if it contradicts itself my sixth sense also tells me that you do not care.
Please, tell me that mine sixth sense is wrong.

[edit on 28/6/09 by neformore]

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Oh i'm sorry, i forgot that all wars must be fought with weapons and violence. The fact of the matter they were waging an economic war and boycotting all german goods was very damaging to a country who had )ust gotten out of the worst economic depression ever, which hurt germany alot, and could quite possible have destroyed the whole german nation causing untolds amount of pain and suffering to the people who would have starved if the boycott succeeded. Beginning on November 20, 1923, 1,000,000,000,000 old Marks were exchanged for 1 Rentenmark so that 4.2 Rentenmarks were worth 1 US dollar, exactly the same rate the Mark had in 1914. So you can see the damage a boycott would have caused. And with your ignorant statement about iran calling for a boycott against israel, there are hardly any iranians in israel if there are any at all opposed to the millions of )ews in germany. And the iranians have barely any influence at all in the world whereas the )ews have and had quite alot of world power, owning most of the media outlets, the radio stations, they owned hollywood, they held sway over certain countries leaderships i.e Soviet Union and America. The ma)ority of the leaders in communist uprisings and attempted revolutions in alot of countries were almost always )ew.

So please keep your 6th sense and ignorance out of this discussion and if you don't have anything well thought out and intelligent to say, don't say anything at all.

reply to post by fapython


Well - i am curious, German Jews boycotted their own German goods? Or maybe Jewish navy blocked German ports? Boycott on Danish products by Muslims was a declaration of war?
Ans as for buying power, i am flattered that you consider 15 million Jews more capable of buying German goods then few billions of other people, but you are wrong. Actually Soviet Union under Jewish rule of Stalin (Georgian) was very important trading partner of Nazi Germany,all the way until 1941. The same about US - it was very important trading partner of Nazi Germany. So what exactly are you saying? That Jews in Germany boycotted themself, that USSR and US under Jewish rule were boycotting Germany while trading with it? This is what you call intelligence? Then i certainly lack it.
And German poor economy in 1923 was part of global great depression. In 1933 situation was much better. Even reparations ,clearly masterminded by Jewish leaders of France - just trying to stay on the same level of understanding, were paid.
By the way, i am glad that you do not think that Nazis were funded by Jewish bankers.
Edit*2
For our further education - definition of war:
A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
So wars are about weapons and violence.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by ZeroKnowledge]

[edit on 28-6-2009 by ZeroKnowledge]

for me, the strangest thing about this thread is that there is no effort to keep it on topic.

honestly, weather or not the holocaust happened is entirely irrelevant to the thread. all the usual bickering and heated emotions attached to the subject are just clogging up an interesting thread with the usual ignorance.

the OP asked "why is there such a violent reaction to "holocaust denial", to the point where it is against the law?". beyond the first page, i've only seen this addressed a handful of times, usually as a side note.

personally, i think it's a shame, it's an interesting observation and right up ATS's alley (questioning the official story is a crime, why and for what reasons) i would have liked to have heard some reasonable discussion on the matter, should i start a new thread and try again?

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


No, i don't think you clearly understand the situation.The )ews were spread throughout most of the world, and where they lived they were either in positions of power, or held sway over those who were in power. When the )ews declared a world wide boycott it wasn't so hard for them exercise their influence and get their host nations to boycott their enemies the germans so infact you are the wrong one. Also the soviet union under Stalin ()ewish Wife), was only important from 1939-1941 so completely irrelevant to the period of 1933 inwhich i am talking about. With regard to Americans trading with the germans, it was only some big businessess that were trading with germany and not the american government. So no, i'm not saying that the )ews in germany boycotted the germans, I'm saying that the )ews world wide and the countries inwhich they had great influence boycotted germany. With regard to you statement about the situation in 1933 being much better i beg to differ, it was only slightly improving, 30% of the population were unemployed; also you cannot blame germany's poor economy in 1923 as part of the great global depression as the depression did not start until 1929 with the stock market crash. The economic conditions of 1923 were because of outrages conditions stated in the treaty of versaille, the ridiculous war reperations over a war germany did not start i might add( they entered because of their alliance with austria) and the industrial land that the allies chose to take.

Also to better understand the condition of germany in 1933 you must read this article

www.read-all-about-it.org...

A good exert is
"May it be noted in this connection that the state of Israel, after its founding in 1948, never granted equal rights of co-determination or even equal nationality rights to foreigners, certainly not to Germans, living in Israel. But the 70-million nation of Germans which, in 1933, was fighting for its bare existence, its survival, its right of self-determination, was also entitled to think of its own strength, to bring about a change of leadership and, in doing so, to eliminate those people from decisive positions who, Germans believed, were responsible or co-responsible for the nationwide chaos.

The severity of the Kampfzeit (period of struggle) and the memory of a condition which approached that of a civil war during the last years of the Weimar Republic, tended also to intensify the reactions after the take-over in 1933, particularly in cases where those who did not respect majority decisions continued to incite from abroad after having left the country. Who had felt sorry for the disenfranchised, expropriated, expelled and slaughtered Germans - in 1919, 1932 or 1945? History must not be judged by double standards.

It simply will not do, as was done at the 18th Zionist Congress in Prague in August 1933, to just read off the statistics of jobless Jews, creating an atmosphere of slogans, such as "Never forget, never forgive," without pointing at the general world-wide depression, which was particularly severe in Germany, with 6 million on the dole, the vast majority of whom were Germans. The fighting slogans proclaimed by Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress, at the Second Preparative World Jewish Conference on September 5, 1933 in Geneva, was neither consistent with the facts, nor with a policy to maintain peace. He spoke of a "common enemy of mankind having no other aim than to conquer and destroy." He added: "We stand in the front line, in the first row of trenches."

Wise did not even refer to Hitler personally, but to the German nation as a whole when he - contrary to the truth - continued:

"Put even more simply: Shall Jews have any relations whatever, industrial and commercial, with a nation that has declared war . . . against the Jewish people anywhere?" [5]

Compare that kind of dialectic on the part of Wise with the report by Goldmann about his friend Dr. Ernst Jackh. When Hitler came to power, Jackh was director the Akademie für Diplomatie in Berlin. Offered a good position in London, Jackh resigned, and was called to Hitler's office. Hitler asked him to reconsider bis resignation, and Jackh replied, as reported by Goldmann: "As you see, mein Führer, I am smoothly shaved. If I did not resign from my post I could no longer shave myself."
He explained:

"In order to shave, I must stand before a mirror. If I fired my Jewish colleagues, but remained in office myself, then I would be ashamed to look at my own face. This is why I have to resign."

Hitler asked what he could do and Jackh replied that he had decided to accept a good position in England; he asked Hitler, however, to allow bis Jewish colleagues, who were about to be dismissed, a good compensation.

Hitler replied: "Send me a list with the names of those men and indicate the amount of money that should be paid to each. I shall see to it that this will be done." And it was done. [6] "

[edit on 28/6/09 by neformore]

I would also like to make note of the horrifying treatment the germans suffered by the allies in getting out confessions of the holocaust.

Reports of widespread torture at the postwar American-run "war crimes" trials at Dachau leaked out, resulting in so many protests that a formal investigation was eventually carried out. A US Army Commission of inquiry consisting of Pennsylvania Judge Edward van Roden and Texas Supreme Court Judge Gordon Simpson officially confirmed the charges of gross abuse. German defendants, they found, were routinely tortured at Dachau with savage beatings, burning matches under fingernails, kicking of testicles, months of solitary confinement, and threats of family reprisals. Low ranking prisoners were assured that their "confessions" would be used only against their former superiors in the dock. Later, though, these hapless men found their own "confessions" used against them when they were tried in turn. High ranking defendants were cynically assured that by "voluntarily" accepting all responsibility themselves they would thereby protect their former subordinates from prosecution.

One Dachau trial court reporter was so outraged at what was happening there in the name of justice that he quit his job. He testified to a US Senate subcommittee that the "most brutal" interrogators had been three German-born Jews. Although operating procedures at the Dachau trials were significantly worse than those used at Nuremberg, they give some idea of the spirit of the "justice" imposed on the vanquished Germans.

Virtually all of the US investigators who brought cases before American military courts at Dachau were "Jewish refugees from Germany" who "hated the Germans," recalled Joseph Halow, a US Army court reporter at the Dachau trials in 1947. "Many of the investigators gave vent to their hated by attempting to force confessions from the Germans by treating them brutally," including "severe beatings

The case of Gustav Petrat, a German who had served as a guard at the Mauthausen, was not unusual. After repeated brutal beatings by US authorities, he broke down and signed a perjured statement. He was also whipped and threatened with immediate shooting. Petrat was prevented from securing exonerating evidence, and even potential defense witnesses were beaten and threatened to keep them from testifying. After a farcical trial by a US military court at Dachau, Petrat was sentenced to death and hanged in late 1948. He was 24 years old.

These are )ust a few examples of the absolutely disgraceful treatment of the germans by the allies.
More can be read at this link

Trial Link

www.patriot.dk...

reply to post by pieman

for me, the strangest thing about this thread is that there is no effort to keep it on topic.

The fact is that the Holocaust concept effects many areas of modern day living ; and more so for non-jewish.
One intention of the OP was to bring to awareness the apparent 'Green-light' given to Jews; no matter wether they were converts or other.
There are many that have converted post-WII, that seemingly are the greatest voice behind the cause.
At any rate look deeper into recorded history around 70A.D.
If we are to look at this period, Romans were apparently 'Hell-bent' on Hebrew (Jewish?) eradication.
This is why we have documented Mass-suicides in communities around the Dead Sea; such as: Masada and El-Gaib.
Economic control was a BIG reason that Jews have been persecuted in the past. This was essentially the whole reason for the 'Holy Exodus'.
The Hebrews were invited by Pharaoh to come and dwell in the 'fat of the land', along the banks of the nile.
Jacob bought the entirity of the 12 tribes. Drought ensued, as the Hebrews had already been aware of its coming (this was why they fleed from Judah).
Before the drought hit Egypt, they made sure they had monopoly of all grain. Thus control of commerse.
The story is much more detailed than this, with many more shocking realities! This is a shortened version.
Essentiallyeuteronomy 8:16
"16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity on them: neither shalt thou serve their Gods; for that will be a snare unto thee"....etc etc read on in this chapter.

It is therefore engrained within their teachings (as above their Holy Books) to tread on anyone that is not of their faith; used as a stepping stone....dont show compassion though for these different creeds..."It will be a snare unto thee".
Give me a break....and everytime convenient I am supposed to feel empathy for the supposed genocide the happened to only them? in WWII.

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by fapython

 

The person who wrote that is a convicted holocaust denier.

Udo Walendy

Udo Walendy (born 21 January 1927 in Berlin) is a German political scientist. He is a prominent Holocaust denier and also disputes Germany's guilt for the Second World War.

and

Walendy has been charged numerous times under Germany's Volksverhetzung law (incitement to hatred), including twice being sent to jail without probation.

I highly doubt the accuracy, and certainly the impartiality, of the material cited.

Well to be honest, what do you think someone who denies the holocaust is going to be labelled as or charged with???
As soon as you deny the holocaust you are sub)ect to immediate character assassination then are charged with the most anti-democratic, anti-freedom of speech charges imaginable. You cannot even question the holocaust in germany or austria or you will be charged. Absolutely rediculous. You would think that in these country's and if the holocaust was real then they would allow people to question it, and then would be refuted with evidence proving it wrong. But no, you are )ust charged if you question it.

reply to post by neformore

The question itself is born out of ignorance, because the original laws were put in place to prevent a resurgence in the Nazi party, and denial of the crimes carried out by it.

Yeah, isn't that the same as Sedition???
Goodbye freedom of speech.

Originally posted by neformore
The question itself is born out of ignorance, because the original laws were put in place to prevent a resurgence in the Nazi party, and denial of the crimes carried out by it.

seems a little bit far fetched. that may well be the official line but in reality, denial of the holocaust is against the law, not promoting any of the beliefs of the nazi party or fascism in general. doesn't that just scream bull hockey?

Subsequent laws have come about due displays of xenophobia and racism, as part of racial and religious discrimination legislation.

The simple fact is that the whole holocaust denial issue is born out of race/religious discrimination - which is the point I was trying to get across in my post above.

would you mind explaining how anti-denial legislation prevents either racial or religious discrimination. where is the sense in saying that it is acceptable to say "there is an international banking cartel set up by jews to control the world, jews are evil" but it is not acceptable to question the official line on the holocaust.

as far as i'm concerned, the holocaust happened. i have few doubts on the official accounts of the actual events but i'm really suspicious of the reasoning behind prohibiting further discussion and examination of this single element of official history. it doesn't make sense.