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: 15
61
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by Demetre
reply to post by Kram09
 


Sorry, that sentence does leave a lot to be desired.. This article says that before they had ventilation units the doors had to be opened to 'air out', wouldnt that kill any germans. Too many discrepancies for me to believe everything happened th way they say???
www.scrapbookpages.com...


I've held my tongue for a while now, but your stupidity is beginning to annoy me. If you would please go and do some research about the operation of Gas Chambers at Death Camps you would be well aware that, after the gassing of the prisoners in the chamber, ventilation doors/windows/ports would be opened for a period of time to allow the gas to disperse; after this point in time, the Sonderkommando would be sent in to remove the bodies and then salvage from them whatever could be used.

You are entitled to your opinion concerning the holocaust (despite the literal wall of historical evidence against your opinion), but for the sake of the rest of us, please at least use some common sense and do some research before you go scrutinising irrelevant minutiae - irrelevant facts which you are also misinformed about.


Your statement "The Sonderkommando would be sent in to remove bodies then salvage from them whatever could be used"

contradicts the part of the story that says the prisoners thought they were taking a shower, and so they would have been naked, and thus nothing to rummage through. That, by the way, is an exaggeration, the real reason they stockpiled the clothing and hair was to battle typhus, and not to sell the articles. If they were planning on selling the articles, why are they still stockpiled? Wouldn't it be necessary to sell as much as possible to keep the war machine running?


When I said salvage whatever could be taken, I was referring to gold teeth and teeth with heavy-metal fillings and such. I also can't say I know for certain, but if I recall correctly, any clothing/articles found at Auschwitz were only there for a transitory period of time until something could be done with them.

Can I ask you to elaborate on the typhus story? I've not heard that theory before and I'd be interested to hear more about it (and this is me being genuine, not trying to be sarcastic, I assure you). I find it difficult to believe however when you consider that all prisoners (whether they went for liquidation or to slave labor) were all packed and crammed into stock cars, with it not being unusual for several of the prisoners to die along the way or at least regularly defecate and urinate in the stock-cars. The whole 'typhus' story presumably is predicated on the idea that the Camp Guards were instructed to care for the well-being of the prisoners; why would precautions be taken to limit disease amongst the prisoners when they were kept in fetid and often freezing conditions for journeys that could last several days?

Again, I can't recall exactly what department (SS-Hauptamt something or other?) it was that dealt with using confiscated items but as far as I know the SS did indeed profit from the vast swathes of goods confiscated at both the train-stations where the deportation took place, the latter probably accounting for far more money than the collection of several hundred thousand pairs of shoes and glasses.




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
So I guess the elderly jewish people I took care of in the late 1990s as a paramedic in florida had numbers tattooed to their inner arms was just bogus and the stories my grandfather told me of helping liberate a concentration camp (dont remember which one) where ther dead were still mixed in with the barely living and those films of bodies, DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of them stacked like cordwood were all fake too. None of it happened, right?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
So I guess the elderly jewish people I took care of in the late 1990s as a paramedic in florida had numbers tattooed to their inner arms was just bogus and the stories my grandfather told me of helping liberate a concentration camp (dont remember which one) where ther dead were still mixed in with the barely living and those films of bodies, DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of them stacked like cordwood were all fake too. None of it happened, right?


just out of curiosity, who said that none of it happened?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
In WW1 about 100,000 Jews served in the German imperial forces about 12,000 died, Hitler himself was nominated for an Iron Cross by his Jewish immediate superior officer, himself an Iron Cross recipient, Hugo Gutman.

In 1933 Hugo Gutman requested papers validating his war time services, to gain the meagre rights given to Jewish ex servicemen, he eventually escaped to the USA and was at Hitlers personal intervention in receipt of his wartime pension until 1945.

If the Nazis hadn't been dumb under achieving racist weirdos they'd have certainly won the war and had nukes before the allies, Hugo Gutman and all those potentially loyal German Jewish physicists weren't part of any Banktster conspiracy, at that time most underhand deeds were done by the British Empire in its open quest for world domination and sheer love of playing the Great Game.

Whatever went on in the different variety of camps was undeniably a great evil and a terrible waste perpetrated by a sick regime of which there can be no sensible defence even by their obvious supporters, so what is the point of all this denial it's an almost autistic obsession that serves no purpose and frankly makes you look odd.

My last word, because this thread and others like it that regularly appear to stain our collective reputation are just not worth the effort.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Typhus



the terrible scourge of war

none of us here today have ANY IDEA just how catastrophic an outbreak of Typhus was, up until just the latter half of the twentieth century - right after the end of WWII, actually.
discoveries finally made it possible to combat the lice that spread Typhus without using cyanide.

up until then, the ONLY way to control this sort of epidemic pestilence was to remove the clothes, douse them with Zyklon-B AND then burn them.

when war breaks out, Typhus does, too. it is caused by overcrowded unsanitary conditions - just the kind of condition that war forces on all people, soldiers and civilians alike.

and Typhus is VERY deadly, as deadly as it is contagious.

it goes back to the earliest recorded history, always with war and sometimes other situations.

before it kills its victim, it emaciates and shrivels them.
just like the bodies found in piles when the camps were liberated.
the people being liberated were, by and large, not in that shape or even close to.

these days we all have access to pharmaceuticals that prevent pestilence like this from devastating our population.

we all know what a drag it was in school when someone was spotted with lice eggs in their hair when the school nurse came by your classroom to check everyone's hair.

then you had to get some sort of stinky shampoo with that itty-bitty fine tooth comb.
i can only remember twice that happened to my class, and to me.

didn't you ever wonder what the big deal was about some lice? they seemed much like fleas, from what they told us about it.

but it was a big deal.
always will be.

but we have the pharmaceuticals, diligent health care providers, plenty of room for everyone not to be crowded, even in the cities, and indoor plumbing in just about every house, at least in the US - even the poorest of the poor aren't subjected to the kinds of non-sanitary living arrangements that were commonplace up until after the second war.

since things changed right after (so much changed!), it was easy to forget just how frightening it was to just hear the word whispered around camp "Typhus."

if you want links, i will cheerfully and promptly oblige. i'm not going to be bothered digging up a whole lot of stuff AGAIN, that no one ever reads, anyway - not the ones who cry so loudly for the proof, anyway.

if you ain't gonna read it, i ain't gonna bother.
i've posted it at least twice here on ATS, and i can easily find them (i think) and either link-to or re-post.

just know that NONE of us know as much as we think we do - not accurately and not completely.

none of us, no matter on which side of the fence we sit
i like sitting in the middle except that it makes a good target for the fruit-and-veggie chuckers.




posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Typhus



the terrible scourge of war

none of us here today have ANY IDEA just how catastrophic an outbreak of Typhus was, up until just the latter half of the twentieth century - right after the end of WWII, actually.
discoveries finally made it possible to combat the lice that spread Typhus without using cyanide.

up until then, the ONLY way to control this sort of epidemic pestilence was to remove the clothes, douse them with Zyklon-B AND then burn them.

when war breaks out, Typhus does, too. it is caused by overcrowded unsanitary conditions - just the kind of condition that war forces on all people, soldiers and civilians alike.

and Typhus is VERY deadly, as deadly as it is contagious.

it goes back to the earliest recorded history, always with war and sometimes other situations.

before it kills its victim, it emaciates and shrivels them.
just like the bodies found in piles when the camps were liberated.
the people being liberated were, by and large, not in that shape or even close to.

these days we all have access to pharmaceuticals that prevent pestilence like this from devastating our population.

we all know what a drag it was in school when someone was spotted with lice eggs in their hair when the school nurse came by your classroom to check everyone's hair.

then you had to get some sort of stinky shampoo with that itty-bitty fine tooth comb.
i can only remember twice that happened to my class, and to me.

didn't you ever wonder what the big deal was about some lice? they seemed much like fleas, from what they told us about it.

but it was a big deal.
always will be.

but we have the pharmaceuticals, diligent health care providers, plenty of room for everyone not to be crowded, even in the cities, and indoor plumbing in just about every house, at least in the US - even the poorest of the poor aren't subjected to the kinds of non-sanitary living arrangements that were commonplace up until after the second war.

since things changed right after (so much changed!), it was easy to forget just how frightening it was to just hear the word whispered around camp "Typhus."

if you want links, i will cheerfully and promptly oblige. i'm not going to be bothered digging up a whole lot of stuff AGAIN, that no one ever reads, anyway - not the ones who cry so loudly for the proof, anyway.

if you ain't gonna read it, i ain't gonna bother.
i've posted it at least twice here on ATS, and i can easily find them (i think) and either link-to or re-post.

just know that NONE of us know as much as we think we do - not accurately and not completely.

none of us, no matter on which side of the fence we sit
i like sitting in the middle except that it makes a good target for the fruit-and-veggie chuckers.



I've done the reading, as you said, and still remain utterly unconvinced. It seems to me like a very good way of conveniently explaining the construction of crematoria without ever discussing or analysing at length the argument.

I am wholly aware that typhus is another of the wartime scourges (just like cholera et. c.), and that Auschwitz had a serious problem with it in 1942 (still prior to the camp's killing capacity reaching its zenith, however), but the evidence (anecdotal, empirical, and photographic) still suggests, fairly incontrovertibly, that the crematoria were constructed, and were used for, the sole purpose of disposing of human remains.

For what appears to be a prima facie well researched and referenced article/webpage, I would direct you to: www.holocaust-history.org...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I'm amazed this has stirred up so many replies.

I ask: why is it so irrefutably difficult to believe the testimony not only of numerous recorded former upper-echelon SS men, but also the hundreds and thousands of individuals actually directly involved with the Death Camps? I find it peculiar that we choose not believe the eyewitnesses who were actually at these places.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Now this entire Kazhar arguement is a complete irrelevance to the holocaust and anti semitism. Consider the two sides of the issue. On one the oppressed identify themselves as JEWS. On the other side the Oppressors identify the oppressed as Jews. The Opresssors then develop a "final solution to the Jewish problem involving mass murder and brutality of men, women and children.

Where is the relevance of Khazhars to the Holocaust?


Now let us look at anti-semitism. All words are organic. They have an identifiable life cycle driven by social forces. Look at a word like "Gay" the meaning of the word has changed over the years. There is no right or wrong just an observation. If I use the word "Goodwife" or "Prithee" in modern parlance most people would look at me askance or even suggest that I am a time traveller. These words are now dead.


Again I argue that the whole "anti-semitic " definition and arguement is a debating trope. Again in these troubled times why is the whole holocaust denial movement trying to achieve. I argue it is the rehabilitation of Nazism and or Jew-hating and Jew baiting. Again it is a cowards method. Why can't some people just step right up and say they are Jew haters???

This is cyberspace I cannot track anyone down. I have no intention of so doing.
I am no threat to anyone whatsover. Why can't people be honest.
[edit on 8-8-2010 by Tiger5]

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Tiger5]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


This is from your link (first sentence)....




Perhaps no aspect of Holocaust denial is more widely disputed than the issue of body disposal at Auschwitz. Holocaust deniers argue that it was not possible to dispose of the 1.1 million killed at the camp. [


Do you notice that !!!

Not the 4 million deaths, but only 1.1 million ??????

What do you say to that ?

You see it just muddies the waters when you don't know the numbers.
For instance: it maybe impossible to gas and cremate millions, it most certainly would be possible to gas and cremate a few hundred thousand.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by ken10]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by duality90
 


This is from your link (first sentence)....




Perhaps no aspect of Holocaust denial is more widely disputed than the issue of body disposal at Auschwitz. Holocaust deniers argue that it was not possible to dispose of the 1.1 million killed at the camp. [


Do you notice that !!!

Not the 4 million deaths, but only 1.1 million ??????

What do you say to that ?


Who ever said that 4 million people died at Auschwitz? I'd say that describing the death toll as 1.1 million is actually very historically accurate, if admittedly a mildly conservative estimate (the maximum is usually thought to be 1.6 million).

You are of course aware that Auschwitz, efficient in killing though it was, was only one cog in a very large machine, right?

EDIT: having done a bit more reading and investigation, it does appear that over the years the estimate has decreased. I can't say that that is particularly surprising though, and it makes Auschwitz only very marginally less shocking than if 4 million people had died there (which I guess was some wild estimate they used to give?). Rather makes sense, when you consider the deaths from the Einsatzgruppen in the East and the death rates at the other death camps in Poland.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by duality90]

2nd EDIT: Also, I don't think the idea that there were ever merely several hundred thousand people killed at Auschwitz was or could ever be seriously entertained could it? Hoess and Eichmann were proud within SS circles that Auschwitz killing capacity was in the millions, outclassing its closest competitor by at least half a million people annually.

If I'm not mistaken, the most conservative estimates, based on documentation and physical evidence within the camps, provide for something like 3 million concentration camp deaths? Which, when you factor in the at least another 1.5 million dead through Einsatzgruppen operations and the estimated 2 million dead soviet POW's through execution or hard labor, you end up with a figure that roughly at the 6 million mark for jews, minorities, and slavs. And again, I expect that is probably a conservative estimate, as I have been led to believe that the general reduction in European jewish population by 1945 was somewhere in the region of 6 million people alone.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by duality90]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by duality90


You are of course aware that Auschwitz, efficient in killing though it was, was only one cog in a very large machine, right?


There you go: You are touching one of the cornerstones of the whole argument. My impression from participating in this thread is that the majority in here (and certainly most deniers) seem to think that "Holocaust" means just the gassing that was done in Auschwitz.

They disregard the other death camps. the labor camps. the death marches. the Einsatzgruppen. the Reinhard-Aktion. All those things. This list could go on for hours.

I really can't help but have the impression that many of the "critical" questions in this thread stem from people who aren't even familiar with the basics. It's the same with the Nuremberg argument. People act like that was the only trial ever held concerning the Nazis. When the best documentary evidence of the Holocaust is in the late trials of the 1950's and 1960's.

I can't help but think that many critical voices in here haven't even taken the time to look at the so highly despised "official story" (as if there were just one).... Well, anyway. You've done some nice postings in this thread. Thanks for that.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


Apologies, i edited my post while you were responding.



Who ever said that 4 million people died at Auschwitz? I'd say that describing the death toll as 1.1 million is actually very historically accurate, if admittedly a mildly conservative estimate (the maximum is usually thought to be 1.6 million).


Sorry, up until 1989 the accepted number of deaths credited to Auschwitz was 4 million....and was part of the 6 million total. The now revised number of those who died at Auschwitz is 1.5 million according to the newer plaque installed outside of the camp.



You are of course aware that Auschwitz, efficient in killing though it was, was only one cog in a very large machine, right?


Auschwitz as far as i'm aware was the main death camp where most of the deaths occurred.....No ?



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The sad thing is all this, and as most of you can see it now...this will continue to be played down so in the next 40-50 years, when there are NO WW2 survivors and such, that the history books will say that only a few hundred or few thousand would have died in the camps...the same thing will go for 9/11...it will eventually be played down to a matter of little to no significance and the retail stores use it as a reason for a bang out sale day



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
^^^Thanks alot; history of the Third Reich is something in which I am immensely interested, particularly the history of the SS (which again, I don't think most people are aware more or less 'ran the show' when discussing the Holocaust).

I don't have a pro-Jewish or pro-Israeli viewpoint at all; I just examine the historical facts as they appear. It annoys me severely when people choose to just wantonly disregard hard, factual evidence which is entirely contrary to their hypotheses and instead attempt to explain the inconvenient little problem away with a statement which is very plainly false.

I suppose people will choose to believe what they want to, regardless of the evidence mounted against them. I'm all for historical and factual inquiry - but I think that something that most of the deniers/revisionists fail or refuse to realize is that, although they moan about "one can't re-examine the holocaust because it's a crime", there is a very good reason for that. Over the course of the past 65 years, the Holocaust has been thoroughly investigated time, and time again, with every single inquiry always leading to the inevitable conclusion: the truth; the truth that a systematic attempt was made between 1939 and 1945 to eradicate elements of society and human life off of the face of the earth.

Denying the holocaust or saying it is a lie is criminalised because it is generally and widely regarded as one of the greatest, if not indeed the single greatest stains on the history of civilisation, and to say that the entire affair was contrived and a lie is perceived as being so hideously unpalatable, uninformed, blindly stupid, and intolerably disrespectful to the numerous millions whose lives were extinguished that society cannot tolerate such transgression.

Again; I am all free speech and the right to free and factual historical inquiry - but this has already been done, and has shown us that the events known as the 'Holocaust' did indeed take place.

And frankly, I am glad that people keep it's memory alive and remind people of it; we are not taught this in school and in society to make us feel sorry for Jewish people or to make our hearts bleed for the flag emblazoned with the Star of David. The lesson taught to us by the holocaust is one whose application is universal; we are taught it, so that we may not forget it, so that we may never again allow a government so much unfettered power and discretion that it can exercise it's ability to murder a significant portion of its own citizenry, and that of neighboring states.

Complacency is what allows history and the foibles of mankind to repeat themselves over and over again. We should remember the Holocaust because we, as a global society, abhor the idea that the government should be able to strip you of your rights to citizenship, to property, to equality, and finally to life.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Fact: Jew is a religion not a race

Fact: According to the dominant scientific theory, all racial ethnicities that passed through the middle east during their out-of-africa experience will have some Middle eastern DNA, so obvious.

Fact: Most of the "concerned" individuals seemingly "debating" this thread want nothing do do with my initial posts because of the far reaching implications and the fact that they wish to debate only a small isolated portion of this huge issue to IN 15 PAGES OR LESS declare victory over whomever chose to wear the NAZI/NEO NAZI/ANTI SEMITE costume this day.

And again, the same who probably endorse americas quest for resources, irans international isolation and Israels right to exist let alone condone Israels treatment of its neighbors etc etc et cetera.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by duality90
 


Apologies, i edited my post while you were responding.



Who ever said that 4 million people died at Auschwitz? I'd say that describing the death toll as 1.1 million is actually very historically accurate, if admittedly a mildly conservative estimate (the maximum is usually thought to be 1.6 million).


Sorry, up until 1989 the accepted number of deaths credited to Auschwitz was 4 million....and was part of the 6 million total. The now revised number of those who died at Auschwitz is 1.5 million according to the newer plaque installed outside of the camp.



You are of course aware that Auschwitz, efficient in killing though it was, was only one cog in a very large machine, right?


Auschwitz as far as i'm aware was the main death camp where most of the deaths occurred.....No ?


Even I would be the first to say that 4 million was and is very likely a very liberal estimate on the number of dead. Obviously, noone is 100% certain of how many people died there, but I do know that the generally accepted figure (despite probably being smaller than the amount of people actually killed there, and although possibly, very unlikely very slightly higher than the minimum number of people killed there) is usually cast at around 1.5 million at Auschwitz (at least, nowadays).

Although Auschwitz` killing capacity was the highest of any camp in Poland, Auschwitz was still only one of six major death camps in occupied poland, the others being Majdanek, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and Chelmno. The deaths attributed to those other 5 camps, at a minimum, is probably in the 1.5 million death range as well. This of course still even further fails to account for the myriad smaller death camps, who still managed to kill several hundred thousand people. The reason Auschwitz is so well known is because, as part of a 3-camp complex, only one of which was fully devoted to killing, the complex at Auschwitz remained largely intact when the Soviets liberated it in '45. The other death camps served no other purpose than the liquidation of incoming prisoners, and were therefore far smaller in terms of acreage than Auschwitz. At least 2 of those 5 'smaller' camps were also fully demolished by SS Death's Head towards the end of the war as well, their location having already been protected further by their locations more remote than Auschwitz, which was nearby a Polish town (Oswiceim...apologies if the spelling is off).

And again, all of these deaths in the Eastern camps still do not take into consideration the considerable number of people killed by the Einsatzgruppen, whose methods were primarily open pit execution by gunfire or the 'gas vans' which were the precursors the the gas chambers being built (if you choose to believe that or not; invariably I will tell you that that is, with good evidential support, what I believe is the case at least), deaths attributed to whom are also in the 1.5-2 million range.

In all honesty, I don't think will ever know for absolute certain how many people died, and they may not be able to do it with any degree of accuracy; I do not imagine that accounting for several million people who vanished without a trace and who were turned into ash is a very simple process, particularly as the SS only ever bothered documenting the deaths of those prisoners who were pressed into slave labor and were not immediately liquidated after they stepped off the trains.

So, although the figure at Auschwitz may have been backed off a little, a vast number of people still died there, as did in the other 5 'death hubs', and that number is still considerable enough to support the rough estimate of 6 million people who were systematically murdered as part of the Endlosung policy (the German for 'Final Solution').



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by silhouette
I do agree the Jewish community have made a buck from the guilt, it wasn't just the jews who suffered. But it is important to not forget what happened so we can try and prevent it from ever happening again.


Rest assured it will happen again, as long as people inhabit this earth and money and politics are the controlling factors. I have read much on this topic and from what I have put together is that it did happen and like many who have responded before the numbers don't jive and some of the "eyewitness" reports don't jive, Remember they had sensationalism back then too. People stretched the truth and spun things just as they do now days, that for sure hasn't changed. But I agree the facts should be pulled from all the stories if possible and that is what should be passed on. No one should be mad when people use logic to disassemble obvious lies and truth stretching, remember 2+2=4, that of which there is no debate unless your a fool, and like the man from the videos suggests some of the math just doesn't add up. And yes I am on a ATS and I firmly believe that there is a purpose behind the lies projected from the things that happened during WW2, there was a reason for making the world hate the Nazi's and the creation of Israel, thats where we need to concentrate our thinking twords what was the real agenda behind all this not to bicker about the amount of people killed or the means by which they met their makers.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


"Again; I am all free speech and the right to free and factual historical inquiry - but this has already been done, and has shown us that the events known as the 'Holocaust' did indeed take place."

I am not defending anyone yet how can you take this contradictory position?

Also, are you unaware of censorship? Book burning? Book banning? etc etc and how it may have affected what you & I have come to believe as reality?

I am trying to follow along with peoples logic and yours in particular because you chose to comment yet at this point I fell off your wagon.

Does it not occur to you that ALL OF THEM may have been lying?
and if not outright lying then stretching the truth to gain more support for their agenda?

All too easy in my mind, doesnt have to be the case yet some seem unable to even begin to consider it.

What if people wanted more proof for the earth being round or that the earth rotates around the sun? Would you suggest that it has already been done?

Sorry OP.
I am not offended by this post, I do not wish to DEBUNK THIS, was not trying to hijack it just saw a entry for some points I hoped to discuss yet found little or no takers.

Please forgive me.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ningishzida
Fact: Jew is a religion not a race

Fact: According to the dominant scientific theory, all racial ethnicities that passed through the middle east during their out-of-africa experience will have some Middle eastern DNA, so obvious.

Fact: Most of the "concerned" individuals seemingly "debating" this thread want nothing do do with my initial posts because of the far reaching implications and the fact that they wish to debate only a small isolated portion of this huge issue to IN 15 PAGES OR LESS declare victory over whomever chose to wear the NAZI/NEO NAZI/ANTI SEMITE costume this day.

And again, the same who probably endorse americas quest for resources, irans international isolation and Israels right to exist let alone condone Israels treatment of its neighbors etc etc et cetera.


What were your initial posts about? The thread was started by filosopheme wasn't it?

And although people seem to enjoy discussing the genetics of it, the point remains that, for the purposes of this discussion (re: the holocaust) the National Sociality party very plainly had it's own well-defined and documented idea of what it considered to be an Ethnic Jew et. c. so even though, with today's knowledge of genetics and ancestry, such a definition of a "jew" or "semite" may be flawed, the point still stands that such differentiation ultimately has no effect or bearing whatsoever on our discussion of whether or not the holocaust happened as is told in the history books et c.

Furthermore, would it too much to appeal to people to stop going on and on about the semantics of semitism and who counts as a racial semite? The term 'jew' clearly defines for us people of a general racial and cultural background, just as 'black' implies to most people someone of African descent, despite the fact that many Africans come from very diverse and varied tribal ethnicities whose general physical features vary widely, and just as 'caucasian' means to us a white person with European ancestry, despite the fact that Scandinavians and Spaniards look absolutely nothing alike.

Such terms are general. Please add something rather than trying to take us all to pieces over the trite specifics.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Studenofhistory
 


SOF said:
"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."

Stalin supposedly said: "One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." If we look at that statement in a different light, it changes the whole meaning. if you make you statistical differences big enough, they carry the most weight, over-shadowing lesser numbers of service members and civilians killed in other ways. (With the exception Soviet casualities which far out-numbered 6 million.)

Death by gas chamber paints a far worse mental portrait than the typical war death by bullet or shrapnel.



new topics




 
61
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join