Just In Case You Were Thinking of Denying The Holocaust

Look, anyone care to discuss the film? I'm tired of arguing semantics.

One particular spot stood out to me when they showed the faces of two American soldiers in tears and sheer disbelief over what they were seeing. That was extreme.

Originally posted by airspoon

In fact, one has to wonder why it is the Jews only who are to be remembered and engrained into our brains? It makes one think that there is political motive behind such a disrespectful notion.

Is the story of others the story for the Jews to tell? Sounds like others have failed to tell the stories they should pass from generations to generations...

Amazing that the video states that american jews were held for a short time. Kinda says that someone at some level knew that jews were being exterminated. Many would have you believe that jews were exterminated without any US knowledge.

I dont dispute the holocaust. I dispute the use of the holocaust in Israel's foreign policy TODAY!


History is written by the victor? Who is the victor, in the long run?

I don't necessarily deny the holocaust but the narrator states in the first 1:10 of the video that 156 people die on the day they came of Malnutrition? How do you die of malnutrition on the first day? Am I lost? I am afraid to watch the rest in fear of more inaccuracies I cannot register.

AAC

Im in no way anti semitic. But to utilize "shrunken heads" and "jewish skin lampshades" as some form of proof that the jews have had it worse than many other races throughout history? Many races have had it much harder, and they are forgotten. Perhaps they were not as focused or coherent in their publication of such misdeeds. Perhaps they didnt have a group of sympathizer's in other countries. Wealthy and stable sympathizers willing to support the victims they left to the gallows, for a much more enjoyable life in non SS controlled lands?



I dont hate jews at all. I just dont like the discussion preempted by history that happened years ago. I appreciate that a race can work together. I appreciate that things are done rationally. i appreciate that change and action have come to lands that have been stagnant for years. I get it. But dont spit in my face and tell me its raining.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


It really doesn't matter what that dictionary does or doesn't say about it, as reality is how people percieve it. Furthermore, other dictionaries, to include Google Define, define "holocaust" to be:

the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime from 1941 until 1945


If more people took the term as that one dictionary (your source) defines it, then that definition would have relevance. However, when most people (99.999 percent) refer to the holocaust, they are referring to the Jewish loss of life at the hands of the Nazis. In fact, you can do a little experiment and ask the next person that you see what the Holocaust was. I can almost guerentee that they will tell you the Nazis attempted extermination of the Jews. When people use the term "Holocaust", they are referring to the Jewish suffering during WWII, thus the two are synonymous.

Even if not a single dictionary defined it to be Jewish suffering and death, it would still be irrelevant as the only relevence is how the vast majority of people define it. For instance, if you use the term "holocaust" to refer to Catholic deaths, most people aren't going to have a clue what you are talking about and they are going to walk away with an incorrect interpretation of the information relayed by you. The implied meaning is everything and when people bring up the holocaust, they are implying Jewish deaths. More importantly, when the media or our politicians bring up the holocaust, they are implying Jewish suffering at the hands of the Nazis, essentially singling out one race and distinction over the others.

--airspoon

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I don't necessarily deny the holocaust but the narrator states in the first 1:10 of the video that 156 people die on the day they came of Malnutrition? How do you die of malnutrition on the first day? Am I lost? I am afraid to watch the rest in fear of more inaccuracies I cannot register.

AAC

Yeah, you're a bit lost. I hate to laugh. Excuse me, sorry.

What the film says is that 150 people died of malnutrition the first day they, meaning the guys filming, came to the camp. And the same number died again the second and third days they were there.

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
I don't necessarily deny the holocaust but the narrator states in the first 1:10 of the video that 156 people die on the day they came of Malnutrition? How do you die of malnutrition on the first day? Am I lost? I am afraid to watch the rest in fear of more inaccuracies I cannot register.

AAC

Hmm maybe they were starving for a long time and on the first day of being liberated 156 were beyond any point of recovery. I’m not sure how you interrupt it the way you did…

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by airspoon

In fact, one has to wonder why it is the Jews only who are to be remembered and engrained into our brains? It makes one think that there is political motive behind such a disrespectful notion.

Is the story of others the story for the Jews to tell? Sounds like others have failed to tell the stories they should pass from generations to generations...

If I went around implying that something has to be done as white people have died on 9/11, I would be labeled a racist and the crazy thing is, the vast majority of those killed were white so I would have more stable legs to stand on.

How about.. The tragedy of the gang problem in the US, is that white people have died. Something needs to be done about the gang problem because it is an afront to whites and specifically targets whites. Whites are the losers of America's gang problem. Oh and the crack epademic too. Crack is horrible because it targets whites and has killed a lot of whites. Whites have suffered because of crack and gangs, so it time we do something about it. "Let no man deny this, lest he be racist".

Now, not only would that be considered racist, but we shouldn't blame folks for denying such a notion. It would not be foolish or racist to deny that whites are the biggest losers of the crack and/or gang epidemic. Why is it okay for the Jews to do the same thing, but it wouldn't be okay for the scenario listed above?

No matter how effective we are at relaying our story, we shouldn't ignore the enormous loss of life by everyone esle and we shouldn't condemn those for pointing out the obvious and denying that it happened only to one group of people.

--airspoon

reply to post by TrueAmerican


the shrunken heads and the human skin lamp shade were proven to be not true as was the human jew soap, take some time one day to look into why some people have chosen to become revisionists, whether you choose to accept what they say or not it is still a very interesting subject, i think that a lot of the people who you see as denying the holocaust, realy dont, they just dont believe that it happened quite the way that we are told it happened, i will not let you know what my stance on it is, it will be interesting to see what is said, but, go and look into their claims, become educated first before starting threads like this , you never know it might just make you think

My own personal opinion is what happened regarding to what we reverently refer to as the Holocaust is not as simple as it’s made out to be, regarding its policies and logistics.

I think some important aspects have been glossed over with the “A whole lot of people died, how dare you, what does it matter, type of arguments.

One of the first things I think we have to take into consideration is at the time the camps were liberated a shortage of food, fuel, materials and men likely led to conditions at the time of liberation that were not typical during most of the war. It’s safe to say that what had previously been an asset when the war was going well, slave labor, was then a liability once the war was all but lost. This would have led to some very harsh conditions in the camps.

Two and Buchenwald is a classic example, is that the various regional governors empowered by the Nazis in the occupied territories tended to be given wide latitude on how they ran their little fiefdoms, this held true too for many camp commanders and other high ranking Nazi Officials. Yet the longest serving commandant at Buchenwald as was his wife, were both charged by the Nazi state for improprieties including theft and abuse of prisoners.

So what might have been abuses carried out by certain rogue or corrupt commanders and officers might have led to some general distortions of what the overall policies were.

Three is I do believe the majority of the camps really functioned as forced labor camps, utilizing slave labor to keep mines, and factories, and other vital menial services running cheaply.

I do think that they eliminated the elderly and the very young that could not perform labor. Those that had no value to the state but I don’t believe they were just systematically executing everyone.

Except in the more Eastern reaches of the occupied territories where the transportation logistics of large groups of what were essentially prisoners, would have slowed down fast moving combat units, and bogged down transport trains loaded with fresh troops and munitions and supplies streaming to the front, but wounded soldiers and loot going back.

So I do believe in those cases they did just more or less line Slavs, Ukrainians, Estonians, Latvians, etc., etc., up and just shot them where they stood, so they wouldn’t be a potential rear element that could sabotage supply lines. I don’t think Jews were exclusively singled out, but any able body, man woman or child who might partake in some kind of resistance in what would now be rear area vital supplies had to flow through.

I do believe the diet for camp inmates was purposefully manipulated to provide only enough calories to allow people to perform manual labor that required a minimum level of dexterity but not enough nutrition and calories to lead to the kind of vitality that would have made it easy for them to escape or fight back.

I am sure this significantly impacted the health and longevity of many, especially living in cramped over crowded barracks where germs and disease could spread quickly.

I do believe if you ended up too sick to work, they likely did then exterminate you once you had no value to the state.

I don’t believe though that the camps functioned primarily as death camps, human beings, slave labor is just too vital a resource to casually toss away like that, and there is just too much evidence of camp inmates working in all kinds of industries and labor intensive projects to dismiss that these were labor camps.

Towards the end when supplies stopped coming, and the labor was no longer needed, and the writing was on the wall, I am sure it left many commanders between a rock and a hard place, with a starving mass of human beings on their hands and a skeleton staff of guards as able bodied men in uniform were stripped away, and shipped to the east and the west to try to slow the allied advance.

I do believe millions perished through all this, simply because of the camps harsh nature, being too old, too young, too sick, and then finally at the end not needed at all.

I do however believe that we also have been fed a lot of distortions about what really went on and why, for the sake of Zionist and Israeli politics, and frankly I don’t care who that offends.

Today we are watching a resurgence of the kind of bigotry that led to whole swaths of society in Hitler’s Germany being persecuted, but a lot of us are slow to accept it because the people being persecuted this time aren’t Jews.

They are Muslims. Constitutionalists won’t be far behind. So I think there is a real danger in letting just one group of the many groups targeted by Hitler’s Germany make it all about them, to the point that if they aren’t involved similarly in our current situation and circumstances there is no need for alarm.

The similarities between Hitler’s early Germany and the United States presently are too, too many, but because it’s not Jews being targeted the alarm bells aren’t going off for many of us.

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it, and allowing one group with political motive to control and define history this important is very dangerous indeed.

Originally posted by airspoon
It really doesn't matter what that dictionary does or doesn't say about it, as reality is how people percieve it.

Oh really now. You're not going to fricken spoon feed me my reality pal. The Holocaust to me has always meant the slaughter of ALL those people, not just the Jews.

It doesn't matter what the dictionary says? Is that what you teach your kids? "Only listen to daddy's interpretations now kids, cause daddy knows. The dictionary is wrong."

Bull Fricken Junk! The dictionary exists for word definitions, and to provide the CORRECT interpretations of words, the basis, by which words are defined. And if you think I am going to listen to an agenda-driven Google Define over Webster's (that has always been a standard) you're nuts. And hell, that proves it right there. Look how Google changed the definition to do exactly that- make the word a sole plight of the Jews, when it wasn't.

Originally posted by airspoon

If I went around implying that something has to be done as white people have died on 9/11, I would be labeled a racist and the crazy thing is, the vast majority of those killed were white so I would have more stable legs to stand on.

Just one of the luxuries of being a minority.

What if 19 million blacks were rounded up let’s say in the 1950s and everything was taken from them and all were put into camps to die where let’s say 5 million did before they were rescued, and 1 million other non-blacks were also labeled undesirables how would the black community express this atrocity years later?
I don’t think we would see much of a difference, and I would not have any issues with it either.

The holocaust is BS it always has been anyone with half a rational brain can quickly realise this

There were no more than 4 million Jews living in Nazi-occupied territory. As the Nazi army advanced, the Jews fled rather than be captured. On June 30, 1965, the West German government announced that 3,375,000 Jewish “holocaust survivors” had applied for reparations. Now, if we subtract 3,375,000 from 4,000,000, that leaves 625,000 unaccounted for. If we take 625,000 and add a zero to the figure, we arrive at the fictitious and truly fantastic six million lie.

625,000 is nothing compared to some of the stats around the world for things like coronary heart disease and starvation and many many other things ... It was a war of course people were going to die, we should be more concerned about people dying for no reason outside of wars to be totally honest.

simple math dictates that it is bull# and or a fantastical exaggeration of what actually occurred

want some more maths ... since the "mass graves" theory has been completely debunked by multiple tests with ground penetrating radar, cremating 6,000,000 bodies in order to dispose of the evidence would have left 15,000 tons of ashes. No such volume of ashes was ever found, and no air reconnaissance ever revealed enormous clouds of smoke, and certainly there was never any such total of bodies found. mathematically speaking, Auschwitz, one of the largest concentration camps, had only about twenty ovens in its crematory. The crematoria at the various concentration camps were very crude and required lots of fuel and many hours to consume one body (3-4 hours minimum). One researcher has calculated that, given the exact number of ovens available and hours per body, the ovens would have to be going day and night from the War’s beginning until 1975 before that many bodies could be cremated, its simple maths, not to mention all the wood ash and teeth that would of have to have been disposed of ....

Also why when Winston Churchill wrote his book about the war .. did he not mention at all the mass killing of the Jews ... his mother was Jewish so id assume he would have at least mentioned it but he didn't ... not a word ... seems like an odd thing to leave out ??

The so-called Diary of Anne Frank was not written by Anne Frank at all. Photocopies of the supposed manuscript show two distinct styles of handwriting, one which is not handwriting at all but printing, and the other a very smooth handwriting angled at two o’clock. At least half of the manuscript was handwritten in ballpoint pen. The ballpoint pen, invented during WWII, was not commercially available until after the war. In addition, the American Jewish writer, Meyer Levin, sued Anne Frank’s father and won an award of $50,000 for his participation in the writing of “Anne Frank’s” supposed diary. This fact was only brought to light because one Jew tried to cheat another.


World Almanac, 1940, pg. 129: World Jewish Population- 15,319,359
World Almanac, 1949, pg. 289: World Jewish Population- 15,713,638
World Almanac, 1996, pg. 646: World Jewish Population- 14,117,000

reply to post by TrueAmerican


How anyone can deny the Holocaust I will never know.

It is a huge insult to those who suffered, those who died, and those who lost loved ones.

And it seems to me that we have not taken the lessons of the Holocaust to heart.

Humans still cause misery, starvation, suffering and death to other humans.

What a pathetic species.

We do not deserve to survive.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

How anyone can deny the Holocaust I will never know.

It is a huge insult to those who suffered, those who died, and those who lost loved ones.

And it seems to me that we have not taken the lessons of the Holocaust to heart.

Humans still cause misery, starvation, suffering and death to other humans.

What a pathetic species.

We do not deserve to survive.

You know whats really pathetic .. harping on about a very insignificant event like the sham that is the holocaust, when millions of people outside of wars are dying needlessly from disease and starvation TODAY.

reply to post by King Loki


So the "sham" Holocaust was a non-event - tell that to the descendents of the people who died.

And my point was exactly that - we are still letting (causing) people to suffer, starve and die.

I am concentrating my attention on the present. That does not mean that I will deny the past.

Originally posted by catwhoknows
reply to post by King Loki

 

So the "sham" Holocaust was a non-event - tell that to the descendents of the people who died.

And my point was exactly that - we are still letting (causing) people to suffer, starve and die.

I am concentrating my attention on the present. That does not mean that I will deny the past.

did you read my post above that .. please debunk that before telling me the holocaust was a significant event please ... try not to drive by post without reading the thread ... its a pointless activity

what about bosnia and the extermination of the people there?, what about americas eugenics program from the 30's, they taught the nazis all they knew, england and the invention of the concentration camps during the boer war, i could go on like this for ages, why so much focus on the jewish ?

reply to post by King Loki


I think it's important to understand since the dawn of time, one of the principle prizes of war, was slaves. The conquered owed their life if it was spared to the conquerers. Typically then they were hauled back to that nation and city state, and sold or traded for profit.

In many ways the same thing did occur with Hitler's Germany but instead of selling the people enslaved and taken captive they were kept by the State that simply leased them out as labor to the corporations.

So in the history of warfare in essence what happened was not exactly new, just carried out differently. Had slavery still been legal in Germany, many of the people that ended up in the camps, might have been sold to private individuals and owners of businesses and farms, and better maintained.

Whether it was for the sake of progressive political correctness (Slavery is amoral) or simply for the profit of the State running the slave labor pool as a business, is hard to theorize.

What is not hard to theorize is since the dawn of time, wars of conquest always included taking prisoners and enslaving them, and those that would not make good slaves because they were too old, too sick, too young, or too strong and defiant, were typically killed.

In a lot of ways what the Holocaust was, was simply a corporate statist twist on a time honored practice of war known to man since the dawn of time.

That by no means excuses it, war and all it's various by products and ellements are by their very nature, unpleasant and deadly and reprehensible to reasoned and peaceful people.

Yet considering we still fight wars today, often for very flimsly pretext to secure resources like opium and oil, and still use dispraportionate force that kills many innocent men, women and children, we tend to excuse that because they weren't first rounded up and tatooed and cataloged.

We in fact haven't learned much in regards to World War II, and in part it's because of the invention of the word Holocaust that has ended up defining the definition of what World War II was.

As a result we will certainly end up having a World War III.