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.

 

Only one percent of the Holocaust claims can be proven - Says Holocaust Scholar and Expert

page: 22
54
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
There is a lot of emotion on both sides of this debate. People 'know' what they know and ridicule anyone who challenges their beliefs. I used to accept the official version of the 6 million jewish deaths until I started doing my own research. My current opinion is based on a variety of sources, some of which are jewish sources. I have never denied that the 'holocaust' didn't happen because the term 'holocaust' is a political label that is not precisely defined. How many deaths constitute a holocaust? What's the magic number? If the real death toll is 1 million, is that still a holocaust? Depends on who you ask. Is it still a tragedy? Absolutely. Does it exonnerate the Nazis? Of course not. So after a lot of research, this is what I've come to believe.

Were jews and non-jews sent to concentration camps? Yes.
Were jews and non-jews treated badly in concentration camps including slave labor, lack of food, beatings, summary execution, etc.? Yes.
Did both jews and non-jews die in concentration camps due to starvation, deprivation, violence and disease? Yes.
Were camp inmates burned alive? No.
Were camp inmates killed by gas chambers? No.
Were dead bodies cremated? Yes.

My study of the nazis has taught me that above all else, they were practical in the sense that they didn't let their own ideology get in the way of practical considerations. The nazis had a reputation for ruthlessness and efficiency. When I read about the huge program they had to move industry, war production and military research to underground facilities the constant theme is that they used slave labor from nearby concentration camps to build these facilities and operate war production such as V2 production. It makes far more sense from a nazi perspective to get as much work out of concentration camp inmates as possible compared to just killing them off en masse. Winning the war took priority over everything else even if that meant using slave labor. The SS military units by the end of the war had over 1 million non-german soldiers AND it's been documented that even men who had jews in their family background were alllowed to volunteer for the army. It makes no sense for the nazis to try to exterminate the jewish race because most jews lived elsewhere in other countries. And as far as eliminating jews from Germany, allowing/forcing them to leave would accomplish that goal without the need to kill them.

When I combine the above, with the huge discrepancy in the numbers relating to pre and post war worldwide jewish population numbers (from official jewish sources) plus the movement of large numbers of jews from Germany, eastern Europe and Western Russia both prewar and during the war to escape from nazi occupation, (again confirmed by both jewish and non-jewish sources), I can't help but come to the conclusion that the true number of jewish deaths in concentration camps is somewhere between half a million and 1.5 million. Human nature being what it is, jews are naturally going to be more inclined to over-estimate the death toll rather than under-estimate it. I personally think that after 60 years, most well-informed jews know or suspect that the 6 million number is far too high but will not admit that for fear that jews will suffer a backlash or perhaps just from embarassment. And again I submit that regardless of how high or low the real number is, it DOES matter. If it came out that 12,000 people died on 9/11 instead of 3,000, would that matter? Of course it would. So why wouldn't it matter if the real jewish death toll was 1 million instead of 6 million? As I said in a previous post. The Truth is bad enough. It doesn't have to be grossly exaggerated and the German people, most of whom didn't vote for Hitler, who suffered terribly during and after the war, don't deserve to be vilified for all eternity for millions of jewish deaths that didn't happen.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Beancounter72]




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Sure.

Benjamin Blech, The Secret of Hebrew Words, Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ, 1991, p. 214.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   
You think 6 million is a lie?

O.K. Cust it in HALF.

Heck do it again?

Once more?

Is 1.5 million dead Jews believable to you Jew haters?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 



Bravo for all those references. I learned a lot. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sharrow

Originally posted by CaptainIraq
reply to post by Sharrow
 
Your calm facade doesn't fool anyone; we all know that this is just masked antisemitism.
Hmmm. Strange. I didn't know this about myself at all. But thanks for the heads up.
Come on! Taking up questions regarding a contradiction is not anti-semitism. I also asked the people at the beginning of this thread to try to avoid this as I want to hear both sides.

[edit on 6-1-2010 by Sharrow]

You want to hear both sides as long as they both agree with you, right?
You are directly insulting every American who has ever gone to war and been awarded real medals by your childish display of fake ribbons you awarded yourself. I'll bet there are a number of members who would like to award you a real purple heart. I have 2. I'll give you one if you will take my place in my wheelchair for a couple of years.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Why do some people seem to gave a bee in their bonnet about this? The topic keeps coming back like the effects of yesterday's curry. Yeah I know, you are just concerned about historical accuracy. Or maybe it's called 'an agenda'. What would be a good figure? 6 million? 3 million? 1 million? Maybe if you get it down to 1 million we can all go home. That would mean people (specifically the Jews) didn't suffer right? Fine, whatever. And places like Belsen, Birkenau and Auschwitz etc were of course holiday camps.


[edit on 7-1-2010 by unicorn1]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   


You think 6 million is a lie? O.K. Cust it in HALF. Heck do it again? Once more? Is 1.5 million dead Jews believable to you Jew haters?


You are missing the point, whether purposefully or through lack of intellect is simply a matter of you replying a few more times.

Let me help you. Divide it again by 1,500,000. You get one. Is it acceptable? In my world the answer is a resounding NO.

I would even go one step further. Even those measures of persecution during the Third Reich which did not cause the death of anyone were completely unacceptable from a legal and moral point of view. However, such a point of view is unsuitable when it comes to the analysis of statistical data, or as far as the question is concerned whether and, if so, how the extermination of the Jews was carried out.

But lets say we are dealing with roughly 300, 000 ... which is probably accurate. You know what happens then? Non Jews suffered as much if not more than Jews did. Which makes the 'uniqueness' of their suffering not so unique anymore... What do we give all the others? Another part of Palestine? Or other parts of the Arab world?

Apparently, there is more behind this figure of six million than just the sum of the individual fates of the people involved. It has become a symbol which must not be abandoned, because any justified doubts about this number would quickly lead to more undesirable questions into other aspects of the Holocaust.

An allegedly unique crime must, in fact, be open to the detailed analysis of what actually did happen in a way that is applicable to any crime. I will even go one step further: anyone postulating the uniqueness of a crime must also accept a uniquely deep analysis of the alleged crime, before the uniqueness can be accepted. If, however, one were to surround this allegedly unique crime with a protective shield of moral indignation, one would ipso facto commit a unique crime, namely the denial of any defense against such monstrous accusations.





[edit on 7-1-2010 by D377MC]

[edit on 7-1-2010 by D377MC]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeathShield
So where are these palestinian death camps where palestinians are being exterminated en masse that i hear so much about?


Ever heard of Gaza?

I could pull out all kinds of quotes from former and current Israeli leaders about how Arabs and Palestinians should be and will be exterminated, the mindset is well documented, but I'm sure you have seen and heard them all before........

I believe last December, during "Cast Lead" there was a radical Rabbi who even gave lectures or wrote a pamphlet about how (not quoting directly, paraphrasing) it was ok to even kill the Palestinian children, because they might grow up to be a problem, or even anyone who spoke out against the Israeli Palestinian oppression.

Remember that?

[edit on 7-1-2010 by sezsue]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Geez.

Having read through this whole thread... why do alot of people think that it's "Jew hating" to question the actual number that died? Yeah, it's a terrible thing that happened. But I don't think it's right to lump other "groups" (for want of a better word) in as "Jews". I feel it's disrespectful to those "groups" who did have people die to not recognise their loss as their own. Everything I have read about the "Holocaust" explicitly describes the suffering of the Jews, with only a side mention or passing reference to the other "groups" also in the camps. Which to me, proves the idea that the less that there were, the less significant the loss. (No ill feelings toward anyone here, just saying it how I see it). As if, the more it happened to, the bigger deal it was. Just because there were more Jews to imprison than homosexuals, gypsies, people with physical "deformities"/disabilities and mental illnesses, etc, does this mean that the Nazis "Had it in for them more" purely because there were more "available" for internment?

Let's face it - alot of people aren't getting recognition. It DOES make a difference between 120,000 and 6 million. 1.5million and 6 million is a HUUUUGE difference. eg - if you had 6 million dollars in the bank one day, checked it the next - there's only 1.5 million - wouldn't you think that's a glaring inconsistency and ask for answers? You wouldn't settle for "we made an error in calculating your interest" or whatever excuse was given.

I find it ironic that people like to talk up tragedies to make them seem worse than they were, numbers wise. Like billions of dollars worth of damage. tens of thousands of cattle drowned. No-one really wants to come out and say, well, it wasn't really billions, more like 10 million. It wasn't really tens of thousands, more like 15 thousand. Suddenly it's not so bad and people wonder what the fuss was about.

I also notice that atrocities carried out (atleast in part) by, well, I suppose you'd say "English speaking nations" (inc. US, UK, Australia, etc) tend to get swept under the carpet a little more. Like the number of towns fire bombed in Vietnam. Atomic Bombs. But it's ok to spend our guilt points on the "Holocaust" because we weren't the bad guys and we can feel good about persecuting the Germans. Look at the Middle East at the moment - no-one rages about the death toll because they caused it.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by really
 

The whole thread is not based on misinformation, only the fundamental premise. The OP did link to the article which is clear that Van Pelt is an architectural expert. The fundamental preise seems to be that this "expert", who isn't one says, "you can't prove it" "Ergo it didn't happen. And the deniers on this thread would be well served to read the German law which makes denialism a crime and the provisions giving that law extra-territorial application. The US does extradite to Germany. And also realize that England has the internet, and, therefore, this thread, and has some really stringent libel laws. Libel in the US is a civil tort. In the UK, it is a crime, in addition.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Well there you go. Buy the official version or go to jail.... Where did I hear that before...?

Thanks for reminding those still capable of critical thought who are unable to accept lies that they risk serious legal consequences for daring to think for themselves.


[edit on 7-1-2010 by D377MC]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
WOW!
How many times can the anti-semite label come up in a thread!?
Sorry folks, but this tired label doesn't work anymore. It's effectiveness has been eroded by it's constant misuses and abuse. My questioning the holocaust does NOT make me an anti-semite. Besides, as others have already pointed out, the Jews AREN'T even Semite!!! The majority of Jews are Germanic or Spanish in origin. More specifically, those involved in the holocause were Ashkenazim, or Eastern European Jews having no relationship with the Semites!


Next, Jewish groups have effectively worked to stifle any resonable questioning of the holocaust, largely because many of the assertions that they put forth regarding it are patently false and wouldn't survive the light of day. The truth is the great secret that must be protected in order for the Zionist agenda to advance. Unfortuantely for them, they are beginning to whither and die as more and more people are coming to realize the level of manipulation that has been at play for nearly 3 generations.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


I'm glad you brought up Germany's anti-holocaust laws. The nazis made it a crime to publically espouse certain ideas or write books doing the same and unfortunately, the Germans have allowed their legal system to fall into that same trap again. It would be one thing if the german laws prohibited anyone spreading lies about the holocaust but a lawyer is not even allowed to present documented FACTUAL evidence FROM JEWISH SOURCES no less, that questions the holocaust myth. In other words, even the truth is illegal. How bizarre is that?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by D377MC
 


thank you!

i'll be checking that out



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
reply to post by really
 

The whole thread is not based on misinformation, only the fundamental premise. The OP did link to the article which is clear that Van Pelt is an architectural expert. The fundamental preise seems to be that this "expert", who isn't one says, "you can't prove it" "Ergo it didn't happen. And the deniers on this thread would be well served to read the German law which makes denialism a crime and the provisions giving that law extra-territorial application. The US does extradite to Germany. And also realize that England has the internet, and, therefore, this thread, and has some really stringent libel laws. Libel in the US is a civil tort. In the UK, it is a crime, in addition.



Come and freaking get me, a**holes!!!


Germany has absolutely no jurisdiction over me whatsoever! In fact, NOBODY has any jurisdiction over what I believe nor my freedom to communicate it!!!



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Why do you keep showing that book with the skin cover? You do know that is 300 years old, and not connected to the holocaust don't you?

I believe I have read that the reports of, soap made from Jewish fat, and Jewish skin being tanned for lampshades is false.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
A lot of people were mistreated because of world war 2, but focusing on the holocaust does not help to explain why the world went to war in the first place. The presidents vow they will not go to war, there is a false flag attack, and the nation goes to war. The propaganda is peddled to get both sides to fight each other, and the real winner is the military industrial complex making all the money. Is it that hard to figure out? Or is it just too unbelievable to be true?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beancounter72
It would be one thing if the german laws prohibited anyone spreading lies about the holocaust but a lawyer is not even allowed to present documented FACTUAL evidence FROM JEWISH SOURCES no less, that questions the holocaust myth. In other words, even the truth is illegal. How bizarre is that?


It's not bizarre at all if one assumes that this was forced on German people by TPTB in order to protect a certain agenda. I feel sorry for the Germans.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
WOW!
How many times can the anti-semite label come up in a thread!?
Sorry folks, but this tired label doesn't work anymore. It's effectiveness has been eroded by it's constant misuses and abuse. My questioning the holocaust does NOT make me an anti-semite. Besides, as others have already pointed out, the Jews AREN'T even Semite!!! The majority of Jews are Germanic or Spanish in origin. More specifically, those involved in the holocause were Ashkenazim, or Eastern European Jews having no relationship with the Semites!


Next, Jewish groups have effectively worked to stifle any resonable questioning of the holocaust, largely because many of the assertions that they put forth regarding it are patently false and wouldn't survive the light of day. The truth is the great secret that must be protected in order for the Zionist agenda to advance. Unfortuantely for them, they are beginning to whither and die as more and more people are coming to realize the level of manipulation that has been at play for nearly 3 generations.


well said. The people are slowly starting to realize the true causes of war. Buddhasystem, I too feel sorry for the Germans, but I also feel sorry for the Jews, they are the ones that were lied to.


[edit on 7-1-2010 by ancient_wisdom]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sifolux
reply to post by Glass_Eyed_Max
 


Glass_Eyed_Max, when quoting one individual, you have to give the context in wich the quote was sayd, wich you have failed to do.


This is only true for quotes that are incomplete and lacking in context. The quotes listed are not open to opinionated interpretation. They are specific and direct in intent. In other words, they are 'in' context.

"All critics of Jews should not be tagg ed as anti-Semites. We are not a nation of Christs, Spinozas, and Einsteins; that the Nazis are brutes does not make us angels ... Criticism is not the same as hatred, and critics are not our enemies. The greatest friends of a people are not those who praise but those who honestly find fault. A people without criticism is either a dictatorship or a community so deeply embedded in smug self-satisfaction as to be on the road to decadence."
-- William Zuckerman, Jewish author [written before World War II,
in Goldstein, D., p. 119]

Obviously the 'context' or 'interpretation' is about destructive criticism versus constructive criticism. Not all criticism should be considered hateful because, in consequence, the line between destructive and constructive criticism is blurred thus leaving beneficial, constructive criticism to go ignored. The 'subject' of the paragraph is that 'all critics of Jews should not be tagged as anti-semites." That is in the 'context' the paragraph was written in.

Failure to interpret is a result of poor analytical skill. But, you're an intelligent person so I think you got it quite well.

With all due respect: Judging by your bias, opinionated response that only pertains to anti-semitism (destructive criticism) while completely ignoring the topic of constructive criticism, I'd say the above quote hit you very close to home. In other words, the quote applies to you.



[edit on 7-1-2010 by Glass_Eyed_Max]




top topics



 
54
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join