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.

 

Calling all Debunkers, and anyone who thinks Holocaust Denial is offensive, debunk this!

page: 11
61
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 




For me, personally, it makes no difference if they were gassed,
shot, or worked to death. The effect is the same. It is still a Holocaust.


"Holocaust" implies death by fire.

But semantics aside, I assert that cause of death matters very much. If you look at the pictures, you'll notice that the corpses are always severely emaciated. These are people who died from starvation, not gassing or cremation.

So I ask, if germany was losing the war, and supplies were running thin...who do you think would have been given a higher priority for receiving food, their soldiers or their prisoners?

If the US had lost the war, would the japanese in our internment camps faced any different a fate?

If germany imprisoned people against their will and failed to take care of them, I see that as a different event than deliberately attempting to exterminate a race.




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

6 million was never - and certainly isn't anymore - a dogmatic number that is considered to be the absolute truth among historians. It was a first rough estimate. Of course it was going to be refined once all of the archives were opened.


Try going to Canada, residing there and then publishing material questioning that 6 million figure.

Then you'll see 'a real big deal' get made about things.

Even try making a pamphlet saying it was 4 million and see what happens. You'll learn alot.



Edit:

Actually don't do that. I don't want anyone to get in trouble and be ruined because they are trying something they read on ATS.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Exuberant1]


Pamhplet Schmamphlet...

Please provide me with even one case of a canadian SCHOLAR who has presented an estimate of victims based on declared sources, gone through peer-review, published the study and then was indicted for it. This has simply never happened - not in any country with these laws.

Blanket denial will get you indicted. Scholarly research won't. That's a fact.

I have made this challenge in the beginning of the thread and I'll repeat it:

If your position is that Historians are being hindered by some nefarious "Jewish Cabal" from bringing forward other numbers, then please cite cases of scholars who have been indicted for RESEARCh (not for pamphlets, not for self-published books, not for comments made at lecture but for presenting a scholarly, footnoted, source-based estimation of victims. Please do.

This simply never happened. Of course, if you write a denial pamphlet and then simply whine that you are a legit researcher... you won't get that far.

These laws were made for blanket denial and inciting of race hatred - not to surpress scholarly investigation. You can't stop that. You can't control that.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
No, the "Drivel" comes from those who cannot accept FACTS. But try to use said "Drivel" to lesson the value of those Facts.


What facts? That possibly 1.5 million died instead of 6?

How is 1.5 million dying more justifiable?

1.5 Million people. Thats like wiping Valencia, or Zurich, or Tyneside, or Portsmouth completely off the map.

And you think thats justified somehow because the original number might have been factually incorrect?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


You see more "Drivel".!!!

If i started a thread tomorrow and stated within that thread the 3.5 million jews who died in WW2 was a shame, I would be instantly jumped on for it....and you know it.

So don't tell me the numbers don't matter.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket


"Holocaust" implies death by fire.



That is simply a linguistic interpretation. The term Holocaust was in use before World War two and aside from the linguistic interpretation that you have given it is generally used to refer to massive, organized destruction of groups of people.

"Holocaust" as understodd by historians today does not mean "death by fire". It denotes the whole of the campaign of the Nazis against the Jews.



So I ask, if germany was losing the war, and supplies were running thin...who do you think would have been given a higher priority for receiving food, their soldiers or their prisoners?


This is not a question of "imagening something". The documents are there. The germans didn't just give the food allocated to the inmates to the soldiers. They had a complex rationing system. The soldiers got most, forced laborers got some, and people selected for extermination did not get anything. The situation where they had to decide "us or them" just never appeared; they needed the forced labor just as much as they needed their soldiers. The options to just allocate the food for inmates to the guards was not pursuable since the forced laborors were in need of food and their work was deemed just as "Kriegsentscheidend" as feeding the combat troops. So the point is pretty moot. The allocation system never came to the point were they said "now just feed the soldiers" - this is clear from testimony of survivors, of soldiers, and it is in the documents of the third Reich itself.




If germany imprisoned people against their will and failed to take care of them, I see that as a different event than deliberately attempting to exterminate a race.


But both being the case was impossible? You do understand that there were hierarchies among inmates? That some were selected for gassing and others deemed fit to work?
The plan was never to just exterminate them. The plan was to kill them by using their labor. But the great schemes they had in mind never played out. Forced labor and extermination were seen as 2 sides of a coin - and thorugh military necessity the plan changed from year to year. It's not a simple story.

They started out with the idea that the Jews and Russian prisoners would build the infrastructure of the new East-Reich. They never got to that point. They let most Russian soldiers starve and used the Rest as well as the Jews for forced labor. But since the jews were going to be exterminated in the long run anyways, they selected all Jews unfit for forced labor for immediate extermination. The rest was thought to be worked to death. Then the war fortunes changed. The emphasis shifted a bit. There were many voices who by 1944 said that killing the Jews was wasting their labor - and they were proven right - the Germans had to drastically increase their recruitment of non-jewish foreigners for labor - forced and other.

It's not a black and white issue. The Jews were not simply "all gassed" - that was never the plan.

I don't see any contradiction. No one has ever claimed that each and every deported Jews was gassed or burned. The term "Holocaust" was never used that narrowly - at least not among historians.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


Yes, you would.

And the reason you would be jumped on is exactly the same.

Its not because of the figures, its because you'd be making the claim to supposedly try and trivialise the event solely because of your dislike for jewish people



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 





"Holocaust" as understodd by historians today does not mean "death by fire". It denotes the whole of the campaign of the Nazis against the Jews.


And it is this that is the "Crux" of the matter isn't it !

The Fact that around 50 million innocent civilians died in WW2 becomes irrelevant.....it is the term "holocaust" that gets used to describe the suffering of just some of them. But people get up in arms when others point out the unfairness that a group of 6 million and now revised down to 3.5 million, Get all the sympathy.

Many as i used to, Thought the term "holocaust" referred to ALL innocents who perished in the war. That is why we have the bad feeling we have today.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 





its because you'd be making the claim to supposedly try and trivialise the event solely because of your dislike for jewish people


How the heck can stating Facts be "Trivialising" ?

I realise that sometimes the truth hurts, but come on, these facts were realised 20 years ago.

Oh and thats a big leap of faith to say i have a dislike of jews..........A typical tactic of someone when they know they have no answer........You have exposed yourself.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10


The Fact that around 50 million innocent civilians died in WW2 becomes irrelevant.....it is the term "holocaust" that gets used to describe the suffering of just some of them. But people get up in arms when others point out the unfairness that a group of 6 million and now revised down to 3.5 million, Get all the sympathy.

Many as i used to, Thought the term "holocaust" referred to ALL innocents who perished in the war. That is why we have the bad feeling we have today.


Well. They don't seem to get your sympathy. So you yourself - by your own writing - have demonstrated that they do not get ALL of the sympathy. Nice try.

Nevertheless if you would read about the History of Nazism then you would realize that a) the Jews held a unique position in the Ideology of Nazism (uncomparable to any other group) and that b) they were - systematically - treated differently by the Nazis than any other group (Census, Wholesale deportation, Selection, Mode of Selction, Law-making--- the list is ridiculously long.)

These are all historic reasons why the case of the Jews under Nazism was singular. In the historic view, they simply are.

This does not mean that other victims are disregarded or neglected by historians. There has been tons of work done on them too. It's disingenious to claim that only Jewish people are awarded the status of "victims of Nazism" (allthough they were the prevalent victims)..

Just because you have a vague impression that Jewish Victims matter more doesn't make it true. Certainly not in the history books I have read.

You are confusing the singularity of th persecution of the Jews with the claim that the "Jews were the only victims of Nazism" - quite frankly a position I have never encountered in my 10 year career as a historian :-)

[edit on 8-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 





Nevertheless if you would read about the History of Nazism then you would realize that a) the Jews held a unique position in the Ideology of Nazism (uncomparable to any other group) and that b) they were - systematically - treated differently by the Nazis than any other group (Census, Wholesale deportation, Selection, Mode of Selction, Law-making--- the list is ridiculously long.)


But you yourself said the holocaust is solely that of the jews. so you are completely ignoring the plight of others that suffered exactly the same "Targeting" and "Treatment" as the jews.........Well done.......Your credibility just went.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10


But you yourself said the holocaust is solely that of the jews. so you are completely ignoring the plight of others that suffered exactly the same "Targeting" and "Treatment" as the jews.........Well done.......Your credibility just went.


That is simply how the term is used today. I did not make up that convention. That's how things go.

Just because the Jews reserved the term "Holocaust" for their plight under Nazism does not mean that other victims are disregarded. In fact, the opposite is true. Many Jewish Academics have done fantastic work on the persecution of non-Jews by the Nazis.

The thing that sill won't change is that the Jews as a group held a unique place in Nazi ideology and therefore were treated differently. I have pointed out the differences in many foregoing posts.

The claim that other victims of the Nazis Persecution are disregarded is a simple lie. In Academia as well as in the press they have been widely discussed and acknowledged.

But maybe your are right. Maybe there is 1 or 2 people of the Jewish faith who believe that speaking of other victims is to denigrate the Holocaust. What's that got to do with the general consenus on world war two and what's that got to do with what I write?
I wouldn't feel my responsible to defend such a position.

Your claim that Jewish people in general deny others the status of victims of Nazism is disngenious.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
 






If germany imprisoned people against their will and failed to take care of them, I see that as a different event than deliberately attempting to exterminate a race.

But both being the case was impossible?


Certainly it's possible. Just like it's possible there was no genocidal intent. Just like it's possible Custer deliberately gave out infected blankets, and it's possible he and his men were just trying to be nice and helpful. I wasn't there for either event. I don't know.

But I'm not going to attach myself to one particular interpretation and make it a criminal offense to say it didn't happen and imprison people who disagree. 123



It's not a black and white issue.


I'm willing to accept that. But I don't get the impression that many others feel that way. Like I've pointed out repeatedly in this thread there seems to be a tremendous emotional attachment to it that I think is not only unjustified, it's unhealthy. Both to society as well as to individuals.

To the jews...I have to ask: do you understand what you're doing to yourselves by 'never forgetting?' Do you understand the sort of reciprocal energies you're generating when you get angry and hurl insults at people who question you? Do you understand the resentment you've been building for generations of accusing people of anti-semitism when the vast majority of the time these people have no intention of causing harm or offense?

A quote comes to mind. "Lord, I understand that we're your chosen people. But once in a while, couldn't you choose somebody else?"

Jews have built a culture out of being the downtrodden. There are consequences for that. And I don't think those consequences will be pleasant or beneficial for either jews, or gentiles. Like I pointed out here there are people with no reason to be connected to this issue who get angry and bitter and lose sleep over it. There's so much anger being perpetuated that it's spilled out to people who have no reason to be involved.

If we really want to heal, this is something that needs to be overcome. Outgrown. Accepted. Not beaten into heads and suffered over.



[edit on 8-8-2010 by LordBucket]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Demetre
 


I used to think there were no silly questions....
Are you under the impression that there Was a German government left at the end of the war?
The remnants of the German armies fled before both the conquering American and Russian troops...Some of them tried killing every prisoner they could...while others tried dumping food and water near the starving prisoners....

Either action had no bearing on their culpability....It is real ,stop feeding the hate.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 




solely because of your dislike for jewish people


If you keep telling people that they hate jews, eventually they might start to believe you.

Is that really what you want?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
So the bottom line for me at this point in time is that yes jews were systematically killed by the nazis, that 2.5-3.5 million were killed and no, gas chambers were not used for killing. Does it matter if the number is 2.5 million instead of 6 million? Yes I think it does. The truth is horrible enough. It doesn't have to be exaggerated and the German people don't deserve to be vilified(and pay compensation) forever for deaths that did not occur.


Late in the war Germany was desperate for war supplies, Bullets being one. They switched to gas because it was more efficient. I cant believe people deny it when our own troops who were there can barely speak of the camps they discovered without falling apart in tears. Anyone who denies it is just doing what the devil wants them to do in these end times.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
How is there over 6 billion people in the world, and only 13.3 million Jews?

Thats not even 1% of the worlds population. Uh, how are they pushing so much weight around in turns of opinion and gathering sympathy? I feel Jews are seen as this group with an opinion that matters, and I suppose I always assumed they were a large number. I don't get it.

I'm starting to think the worlds population count is a lie at this point.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by stars15k
 



Well said, those lovely sweet nazis, only starved, beat, worked and just plain old dehumanised to death (insert random number less than 6 million, cos it really matters), Jewish investigators weren't impartial, who'd a'thunk it.

A, titled The Holocaust happened arguing about exact numbers is pathetic and kinda crass and has nothing to do with the founding of Israel or subsequent US support those wheels were set in motion in the 19th century!

The evil is inherent in Nazi or nazi lite ideology and the personality types drawn to the movement always use it for personal corrupt aims.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
If you keep telling people that they hate jews, eventually they might start to believe you.


Firstly, I did not use the term hate. I used the term dislike.

But hey...heres a challenge for you.

Heres a list of genocides in history

Show me a thread on ATS that claims the numbers were less than stated for any other genocide except the holocaust in WW2.

There is a reason why you can't, and its nothing to do with "accuracy".



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Reply to something posted by LordBucket

Dear Lordbucket-

I know what you feel. Yes, for some people, even thinking about this is anathema and will get you in trouble with them. I can understand that mindset. But I don't respect it.

But this is one big straw-man: History is not written by "general opinion". History is written by Historians, scholars. So the position you attribute to those people may exist in the media and on discussion boards, but you will not find it in the writings of serious historians.

That's why we differ so much. Quite frankly this is the first time that I have witnessed these emotional reactions. In Academia they are very seldom and always arouse attention. For me the issue - spoken from an academic viewpoint is moot - there is simply no restriction on researching and refining our view of the Holocaust. And never has a scholar been indicted for researching, not in any of the countries with these laws.

I understand your need to fight against knee-jerk reactions. But don't let those reaction lead you to think that they represent something like the mainstream view of history.

And again. If you have compelling, source-dervided evidence that the Holocaust happened in a different way or with way less victims then for god sake's write it down and enroll yourself at a university. Your career would be made. You'd be a star. Many Academics started out with that intention. None ever succeeded. More importantly, none of them was ever indicted, arrested or harrassed by officials.

The law prohibits blanket denial and inciting racial hatred (in most countries). The law is not there to inhibit scholarly research.

You and I are caught in this discussion now on both sides. I think that has allot to do with the straw-man positions on both sides of the issue. I can't help but feel that you aren't that extreme .. You seem rather rational.. I wouldn't be surpised if, given the same information and some time to analyze it, we would come to the same conclusions.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 




Firstly, I did not use the term hate. I used the term dislike.


Ok. So then I'll rephrase to humor you.

If you keep telling people they "dislike" jews, eventually they might start to believe you. Is that really what you want?

Now how about you think about it and answer the question rather than playing games?



heres a challenge for you.
Show me a thread on ATS that claims the numbers were less
than stated for any other genocide except the holocaust in WW2.


That seems like a complete non-sequitor. Why are you making this challenge and why is it relevant? Even supposing no such thread exists...so what?

Are you suggesting that if such a thread did exist, it would be ok to get angry and throw people in jail for it and generally throw hissy fits for decades?


EDIT

Oh, and incidentally...there's one right here.

You'll notice that nobody freaks out and insults the poster or accuses him of hatred or anti-anything.


[edit on 8-8-2010 by LordBucket]




top topics



 
61
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join