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.

 

Is Holocaust revisionism (as opposed to denial) a legit topic?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I think the OP is a very legitimate question. Problem is that nowadays, if you question the current official story, you are called a racist and an anti-semite. I remember that 30 years ago, the official story was not the same as it is now. Back then they spoke of non-Jews who also died, among many other things.

The official story is wrong as it is continuously being updated to suit an agenda; not the Jewish agenda, but the agenda of a few people who want it this way. Then it is fueled by Jewish people (understandably, given the circumstances).

A lot of proven falsehoods are still widely believed and widely spread by the Jewish community at large (like the lamps supposedly made of human skin that all turned out to be made of pig skin). Also consider that only 2 Jewish prisoners were heard as witnesses at the Nuremburg trials and that their statements are completely at odds with their written affidavits and with the written affidavits of hundreds of other prisoners.

There is also common sense to be considered. 40 000 people arriving at a death camp, manned by a handful of soldiers and yet, no revolts (except perhaps one). Jews have no survival instinct? You may be well-armed, but a gun, even a machine gun, is useless close-up and 20 people assaulting a guard; the guard has no chance.

While I could go on all day, I agree that something nasty and vicious happened and that a lot of people (Jewish and non-Jewish alike) died. But the facts don't hold up.

And for anybody stating that Hitler hated Jews above anybody else, take the time to actually research this. Hitler was terrified of Gypsies above anybody else. And you know those tatooed numbers? (That were all entered into an IBM database, by the way, although IBM claim they did know about it...) The number in the sequence that was used to identify a prisoner as a Jew was 8, not 1. That should tell you something.




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Talk about a knee-jerk reply...

No one will seriously 'deny' that the holocaust happened. But history is always written by the victors, and is always subject to revision. How about 5.4 million instead? How about 6.2 million?

The numbers are important for history if for no other reason than just for historical statistics.

WWII was much worse than the 6 million Jewish holocaust, though, which always seems to be the focus when people discuss WWII - always the Jews are the first to be brought up and Hitler is always condemned right away for being Anti-semitic... which he was.

But this is very sobering:

World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed. The tables below give a detailed country-by-country count of human losses.

WWII casualties wiki

Why don't people focus on the international bankers who financed both sides of the conflict?

Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Let me ask you all this: When was a truth ever enforced by a law and jail time? Discussing the topic shouldn't be illegal but in many countries it is.

Sounds to me like someone has something to hide and are willing to go to great lengths to protect it...



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I agree with the OP on the principle that there should not be any historical Sacred Cows. Everything should be open to question and revision. The fact that anyone who questions anything about this particular event in history is ostracized or in some countries jailed is ridiculous.

That being said, I have not seen any reason to doubt that millions of Jews were deliberately exterminated.

What I do doubt is that that was the plan all along. I think more likely the Nazis wanted to kick them out, like a Trail-of-Tears-style forced migration somewhere outside of Germany proper. Things probably went south when the war started raging and they became strained economically, and Germany had a hard time feeding its favored people let alone its prisoners. This is not the first time this has happened; look at pictures of Union POWs in Confederate camps (particularly Andersonville prison camp, one image linked below) toward the end of the Civil War; it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between them and a Nazi victim.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Eventually the Nazis took an "ends justify the means" approach and just figured they'd cut off the excess baggage. I don't deny that the extermination of the Jews was a deliberate decision, but simply saying "Hitler was crazy and hated the Jews so he decided to kill them" prevents us from analyzing the pressures that led to that decision. It doesn't mean the decision wasn't evil, but moral judgements are dead ends for the historian. The historian is interested in the sequence of events and how A led to B.

I also agree that the Allies had every reason in the world to harp on the war crimes of the Nazis, to distract attention from the millions of civilians they killed or rendered homeless at Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. When you hear about World War II war crimes, you think Holocaust, and that's just fine and dandy for Allied leaders like "Bomber" Harris and Harry Truman who ordered some very controversial actions.

Every side in that conflict was drenched in innocent blood.



edit on 21-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Frontkjemper
 


The Holocaust is a touchy subject in a lot of countries. For a variety of reasons. I used to be of the opinion, since discarded, that these laws were a good thing.

That reasoning went along these lines. If people are prevented from writing/talking about the Holocaust, the deniers will eventually go the way of the dodo...

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that. The only way to silence, and make no mistake, they need to be silenced; is to expose them for what they are. They are, almost without exception, motivated by hatred of Jews, or a desire to rehabilitate the Nazi cause.

Research into the Holocaust is heart-wrenching stuff. It gives a view into human nature that most of us find, at the very least, uncomfortable.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
I agree with the OP on the principle that there should not be any historical Sacred Cows. Everything should be open to question and revision. The fact that anyone who questions anything about this particular event in history is ostracized or in some countries jailed is ridiculous.

That being said, I have not seen any reason to doubt that millions of Jews were deliberately exterminated.

What I do doubt is that that was the plan all along. I think more likely the Nazis wanted to kick them out, like a Trail-of-Tears-style forced migration somewhere outside of Germany proper. Things probably went south when the war started raging and they became strained economically, and Germany had a hard time feeding its own people let alone its prisoners. This is not the first time this has happened; look at pictures of Union POWs in Confederate camps (particularly Andersonville prison camp, one image linked below) toward the end of the Civil War; it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between them and a Nazi victim.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Eventually the Nazis took an "ends justify the means" approach and just figured they'd cut off the excess baggage. I don't deny that the extermination of the Jews was a deliberate decision, but simply saying "Hitler was crazy and hated the Jews so he decided to kill them" prevents us from analyzing the pressures that led to that decision. It doesn't mean the decision wasn't evil, but moral judgements are dead ends for the historian. The historian is interested in the sequence of events and how A led to B.

I also agree that the Allies had every reason in the world to harp on the war crimes of the Nazis, to distract attention from the millions of civilians they killed at Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. When you hear about World War II war crimes, you think Holocaust, and that's just fine and dandy for Allied leaders like "Bomber" Harris and Harry Truman who ordered some very controversial actions.

Every side in that conflict was drenched in innocent blood.



edit on 21-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



EXACTLY!!!!!!!

See, I am no Jew-hater (one of my best friends is Jewish, I even considered becoming a Jew at one point!), it's just the Holocaust has become this sacred cow, debating it is taboo. Whenever you question one of the aspects of the event, people jump on you as a "denier" and a Jew-hater, it's ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


Do you honestly equate the bombings of all of those cities with the Holocaust? Seriously?

That all were horrific is the only common ground they have.

The Holocaust was an effort by the Nazi regime, and its puppets, to eradicate entire groups of people in the name of racial purity, or words to that effect.

Those bombings were, however mistaken and horrific some may find them, done in an effort to end a grusomely cataclysmic war.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Do you honestly equate the bombings of all of those cities with the Holocaust? Seriously?

That all were horrific is the only common ground they have.

The Holocaust was an effort by the Nazi regime, and its puppets, to eradicate entire groups of people in the name of racial purity, or words to that effect.

Those bombings were, however mistaken and horrific some may find them, done in an effort to end a grusomely cataclysmic war.

What do you mean by "equate"? See it is shaming language like this that prevents all discussion on the matter. I am not trying to "equate" anything; I am arguing that nothing should be considered a settled matter, certainly nothing in history, and that there were large numbers of powerful people with a personal psychological interest in distracting attention away from their own bad behavior.

Like I said, I don't actually disagree with the official story. I just find it fishy that we're not allowed to talk about it. To me that's reason enough to re-open these pages of history. Maybe we won't find anything we don't already know, and the reason for all the hysteria was the sheer egregiousness of the crimes. But the pages should be open. I'm a freedom of speech guy. When speech is suppressed, my instincts tell me people have something to hide.

Do I have to list all my Jewish friends (and my Jewish girlfriend) as "cred" for you? I grew up in freaking South Florida.



edit on 21-9-2010 by NewlyAwakened because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 19872012
 


What's your reason for debating the Holocaust? Why are you debating the Holocaust? There is no taboo is discussing the Holocaust save the agenda behind it. Are you discussing it to learn of the event? No taboo. Are you discussing it in some misguided attempt to rehabilitate the opinions held about Nazi's in general, Hitler and his sycophants in particular? That's the taboo. Are you discussing it as a way to somehow prove the Jews had it coming... That's the taboo.

The Holocaust itself? Nothing taboo about it, other than the fact it happened at all.

So. Ask yourself why are you, or others, discussing it? There's where the "taboo" comes into play.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


I couldn't careless whether you have Jewish friend or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is the reason behind looking into the Holocaust. Why? Ask yourself that.

Historical research is meaningless without a reason. The reason one is doing that research is the heart of it. Ethics. Morality. All those mushy things people are usually uncomfortable talking about...

Ask a historian why he or she is researching an issue. That will tell you alot about that person.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
I couldn't careless whether you have Jewish friend or not. It doesn't matter. What matters is the reason behind looking into the Holocaust. Why? Ask yourself that.

Because maybe some of us who read and post on ATS of all places are naturally skeptical of all official stories of any kind and wish to actually discuss them in an open forum in an intellectual manner?

That's what you thought my reasons were, right? No? Well then what are you insinuating about me? Tell me; I'd like to know.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by 19872012
 


What's your reason for debating the Holocaust? Why are you debating the Holocaust? There is no taboo is discussing the Holocaust save the agenda behind it. Are you discussing it to learn of the event? No taboo. Are you discussing it in some misguided attempt to rehabilitate the opinions held about Nazi's in general, Hitler and his sycophants in particular? That's the taboo. Are you discussing it as a way to somehow prove the Jews had it coming... That's the taboo.

The Holocaust itself? Nothing taboo about it, other than the fact it happened at all.

So. Ask yourself why are you, or others, discussing it? There's where the "taboo" comes into play.


Just asking, but are you Jewish, you seem to take this rather personally. I hope I don't offend. All I'm saying is, I find it fishy that ANY debate about the motives, details, etc, anything less than the "obvious truth" that nothing else happened except Hitler was a monster and 6 million innocent Jews died and the heroic Allies came to save the rest is classed as "denial". if you mention the NWO, possible inflation or misattribution of the numbers, Hitler being planted by the bankers, you're AUTOMATICALLY an "anti-Semite". it's ridiculous and makes me think there IS something hidden about the Holocaust.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Agenda: whats behind the constant number revisons?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NewlyAwakened
 


Insinuating? Not a thing. Only you can answer the why of it. Searching for answers is what we all do, in one shape, or form.

What ever your reasons are will come out with your words, and/or actions.

Insinuations? Not making any. If I implied such, you have my apologies. Such was not my intent.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 19872012
 


No. I am not Jewish, nor am I a gypsy, or gay, nor mentally/physically handicapped, nor am I an enemy of the state (at least not at this time...). What I am is human. The question shouldn't be, why am I taking this personally, but why aren't we all? This could happen again, not to Jews, then again maybe it would be the Jews... Or Democrats. Or Republicans. Or homosexuals. Or Muslims. Or any number of groups of people who, by their differences, whatever those are, stand out. Or they stand out to people who consider them, in their entirety, to be an enemy.

I'm accusing no one of anything. All I'm asking, or saying, is to ask yourself why. If the reason you're looking at the history of the Holocaust is to learn of it, maybe even discover something new that adds to the knowledge than I'm on your side, and will celebrate your achievement.

If you have a darker motive to your research, than I am an opponent.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Insinuating? Not a thing. Only you can answer the why of it. Searching for answers is what we all do, in one shape, or form.

What ever your reasons are will come out with your words, and/or actions.

Well, I'm sure you can bring up my post history pretty easily. Dig away.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I seem to have, quite by accident, offended a couple of you. That was, most assuredly, not my intent.

I have very strong feeling on this issue, as I have in my lifetime had more than one encounter with the people I shall kindly call "deniers". None of them were pleasant. A couple of them were physical in nature. Maybe my fault, maybe not...

Strong feelings can do that.

So, if I have, in anyway offended. I most humbly apologize.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
actually, the number is a lot smaller than 6 million, and most estimates are around 250,000, caused mostly by typhus and allied bombing that cut off supply lines. Following world war 1, Germany's economy was destroyed, and the restrictions imposed upon them by the same globalists that pulled off 9/11 (Rothschild) led their society to elect a fanatical leader who would one day save them (hope and change anyone?). So basically Hitler is like a Bush or Obama, or any American president really, you should research FDR, who reigned for almost as long as Hitler, confiscated gold, destroyed food during the great depression, and gave Americans bread vouchers. But as for Hitler being the Supreme Architect of Evil, the diabolical genius who never stops enjoying the killing of Jews, well, that's obviously an out of proportion myth.




edit on 21-9-2010 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 19872012
IMO, it's ridiculous to think the Nazis didn't kill anyone in camps AT ALL (it's like thinking the planes were holograms on 9/11), but is it really wrong just to question the official history? Isn't calling all holocaust revisionists anti-Semitic the same as calling 9/11 truthers anti-American?

By official, I mean that: Hitler hated Jews, there was nobody behind the events other than Hitler and the Nazis, and 6 million or close to that many Jewish people were exterminated because of their ethnicity.

It's obvious Hitler did hate Jews, or at least he used the German people's hatred of Jews at the time to gain power. I do think there was an element of Zionist treason in the planning of the Holocaust to make an excuse to form Israel and keep Biblical prophecy. I find the numbers on the other hand, questionable. I'm pretty certain more than 1 million Jewish people died, but were they killed only by Nazis, or by the Russians as well? Why have the numbers been changed so many times?



Hello 19872012, what you have to realize is that if you personally were to walk into a Holocaust memorial museum and suggest that there "was an element of Zionist treason in planning of the Holocaust to make excuse to form Israel and keep Biblical prophecy" you would most likely be called an anti-semitic, even though you also believe Hitler killed 6 million Jews. You see, you have to be all or nothing in order to fit into the political propaganda. And not that I'm refuting you, in fact I think that is accurately phrased, there was an element of Zionist treason to use the Holocaust to create Israel. I would definitely agree with that, the only problem is, the "Jews" or rather the people that control public opinion and also what Jews think, do not want to admit Zionism had anything to do with world war 2 and the holocaust.


edit on 21-9-2010 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
The most obvious and glaring flaw of the Holocaust myth is that if Hitler was really an anti-semite, he would have killed International Jewish bankers, such as Rothschild and Rockefeller, but he didn't, in fact he was funded by those bankers. So...sort of a terrible anti-semite if you ask me. That would be like if I hated the taliban and killed every Afghan civilian but let Bin Laden go.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join