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

Seagull won't say it, but I will

The reason people choose to revise or deny the holocaust is because they have a problem with jews.

Its the only reason and its proven to be so because - frankly - such people are not obsessive over the figures of any other genocide in history.

Heres how it breaks down...

"Millions of Russians under Stalin? - No problem
Millions in the killing fields? - No problem
Several thousand, possibly more, ethnicly cleansed in Bosnia? - No problem.
Jews in the holocaust... hell we have to be precise, I mean way precise, because you know, its probably a lie made up in order to gain sympathy...."

Its ONLY because jewish people were involved that this gets questioned. Most do it out of some erstaz belief that modern day Israel deserves to be slapped down in some manner and therefore the killing of millions in camps that had worse conditions than animal slaughterhouses needs to be belittled.

Some are just plain ignorant.

Others are just bigots who despise the jewish faith.

Controversial opinion? You betcha.

But its true.

reply to post by filosophia


No it is not much smaller than six million. Much less a quarter of a million... where do people dig up this nonsense...?

I'd really like to see something resembling peer reviewed research that ever says a number even remotely resembling a quarter of a million. In fact I'll go so far as to call that a flat out lie, maybe not yours, but someone certainly is.

No one can say with anything even resembling certainty the total numbers of people, including Jews, slaughtered by the Nazis and their allies. Few if any, outside the Nazis themselves, kept accurate records. Mass graves are discovered in eastern Europe on a disturbingly regular basis.

Six million Jews, and at least that many others are probably a conservative estimate. I wish it were only a quarter of a million...not that that would, in any way, excuse it...but at least there would have been fewer people who never saw friends and loved ones again.

Originally posted by 19872012
I am not. I detest what Hitler and the Nazis were about. Still, I find it disturbing how discussing the motives, numbers, and possible side-stories to the Holocaust are considered taboo. It makes me think something about the original story is wrong. Yes, a lot of people died, the videos prove that, but do they prove 6 million Jews died, and do they prove the New World Order or Zionism was not behind putting the Nazis into power?

Oy vey.

Your premise is that the Holocaust was a premeditated conspiracy done on the behalf of Zionism that would lead to the creation of a Jewish state. What if Germany had won? What if they controlled all of Europe, Africa and the Middle East? Germany was a few strategic moves from pulling off a victory. Seems like a real long shot; organize the slaughter of millions on the possibility after a comeback victory and the assembly of an international body the was yet to exist, the United Nations, that a country would be formed out of thin air. Go to Vegas much? If you do, you're the one keeping the lights on.

Originally posted by 19872012
OF COURSE IT DOES!!!!!!

The fact that six million Jewish people are believed to have died creates immense sympathy for Israel and Zionism. If it's true that only say, 2 million Jewish people died, then the Jewish nation is just one of many nations that suffered during the second world war.

Only two million? The cavalier dismissal of of the possible number of victims is appalling. Have you noticed how irate everyone has been about the near 4,500 soldiers killed in Iraq? The Holocaust victims where civilians; men, women, children, babies the elderly. What strategic value did that have? None. Was it on the field of battle? No, they were herded into camps and slaughtered. It was murder on behalf of a hatred for a religious faith.

But then again, does it matter if you kill one Jew or a million?

I'd use the term schmuck, but I'm not in a particularly generous mood today. Must be all that Jewish-ness in me.

Shalom.

reply to post by 19872012


Wow, see what happens when ya ask a simple question.
I think it should be looked into on a deeper level, do I think the Allies most likely padded their bra a lil,, oh yeah.
Do I think that Jews died in camps in horrible ways,, yep I do.
Were the Nazis the only ones at that time commiting horrible crimes against humanity... nope.
The trouble is that (as you have seen in the replies) you scare people when you challenge things like this.
.. and just for the record I dont think people have anything to do with climate change,, if their really is a unnatural change happening at all... but thats for another post..
Why dont people get tore up about Pres. Jackson and what he did to the native Americans or any of the countless others in world history that have done the same or similar things to a group of people, mention Hitlers name and you have just opened a box of (feces) cause people will react with extreme prejudice.
I'm not a follower of Hitlers (cause I know thats coming) but i'm also not a whiney lil rabbit thats gonna hide my head and just say what i'm supposed to because its P.C.
Either way it goes if someone did find evidence that the number was lower the whiney people would come out swinging that its wrong and someone is a jew hater and a lover of Adolfs (yep I did call him by his first name). If the number was higher then the conspiracy people would go into forty fits that its all a plot to prop up isreal and make them look more abused. It's a no win situation.
How about we all believe what we want to believe and let it go at that, then maybe we can get away from the baby name calling and all that immature stuff that some people love to rush to.
Theres my shiny 2 cents,, enjoy and let the fun begin

In my opinion Holocaust Revisionism (HR) is a legitimate topic, whereas Holocaust Denial (HD) is not. Unfortunately, there are many people with anti-Jewish sentiment that disguise these feelings by hiding under the "Revisionist" label. On the other hand, it is rather annoying how many of those who believe the Official Story do not make the distinction between the two schools of thought when there is a clear difference.

In the most basic forms, HD is aimed at disputing the legitimacy of the whole event and claiming the whole thing was a hoax. HR is acknowledging that the event happened, but disputes the estimated number of victims killed and claims these numbers may have been exaggerated for Political or Social reasons.

reply to post by Primal Scream


In case you hadn't noticed, people do get torn up over Andy Jackson and his treatment of the native populations... Whole books, whole sections of library shelves are devoted to that very topic. Do not pretend otherwise.

Moral relativism is a very dangerous road to tread. If one isn't very careful, one can forgive almost anything with the trite little amoral phrase "So? Everyone else does it. What's the big deal?"

who knows what really happened

the only way for you to really know would be if you had the intelligence that US gathered, otherwise all you will get are different perspectives from people that couldnt see the big picture ... so, its hard for you say something for certain without reading what the US really found out

since we will never know ... I really dont care

there are other holocausts happening right now, and nobody gives a 35oa8120 about it

reply to post by Faiol

there are other holocausts happening right now, and nobody gives a 35oa8120 about it

Many people do indeed give a damn about other holocausts that have happened, and are happeing, as we speak. Lots of folks care, and are doing what they can.

The exposure that is required to really drive home the point you've just made is an ongoing process. It's one you can help with by writing about it. Call your govt. representative. To stop these sorts of atrocities from occurring requires intervention. Intervention will only come if the outrage grows to a sufficient strength.

Write about it. I'll be there with you.

Now I find this incredibly strange.

From Wikipedia, sourced:

Some Rothschilds were supporters of the State of Israel, although other members of the family opposed the creation of the state.[14] In 1917 Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild was the addressee of the Balfour Declaration to the Zionist Federation,[18] which committed the British government to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Lord Victor Rothschild was against granting asylum or even help to Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.[14]

After the death of James Jacob de Rothschild in 1868, Alphonse Rothschild, his oldest son, who took over the management of the family bank, was the most active in support for Eretz Israel.[19] The Rothschild family archives show that during the 1870s the family contributed nearly 500,000 francs per year on behalf of Eastern Jewry to the Alliance Israélite Universelle.[20] Baron Edmond James de Rothschild, James Jacob de Rothschild's's youngest son was a patron of the first settlement in Palestine at Rishon-LeZion, and bought from Ottoman landlords parts of the land which now makes up present-day Israel. In 1924, he established the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), which acquired more than 125,000 acres (22,36 km²) of land and set up business ventures.[21] In Tel Aviv, he has a road, Rothschild Boulevard, named after him as well as various localities throughout Israel which he assisted in founding including Metulla, Zikhron Ya'akov, Rishon Lezion, and Rosh Pina. A park in Boulogne-Billancourt, Paris, the Parc Edmond de Rothschild (Edmond de Rothschild Park) is also named after its founder.[22]

The Rothschilds also played a significant part in the funding of Israel's governmental infrastructure. James A. de Rothschild financed the Knesset building as a gift to the State of Israel.[23] and the Supreme Court of Israel building was donated to Israel by Dorothy de Rothschild.[24] Outside the President's Chamber is displayed the letter Mrs Rothschild wrote to, the then current, Prime Minister Shimon Peres expressing her intention to donate a new building for the Supreme Court.[25]

So, what is wrong with questioning what we have been taught about WWII? Does anyone seriously believe that they are going to get to the truth without digging for it? After all, history is written by the victors.
There seems to be this common tact used against people that question the numbers of Jews killed. That is, you must have a sneaky motive for doing so. Why can't I turn that around and say YOU have a sneaky motive for NOT wanting to consider that maybe some numbers were inaccurate or inflated.
Germany was destroyed and carved up. How many women and children committed suicide to avoid being raped or killed, anyone know? How many innocent girls as young as eight years old were raped by the Allied forces, do you know?
The bigger picture of why the war was fought requires that you study this subject in depth.
People that resort to the childish anti-semite accusations are really just frustrated that they don't really know their history, and are programmed to lash out in a way that society at large as been programmed to accept.

Originally posted by filosophia
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)

250,000?

I think You should take the debate to Adolf Eichmann. He was the one who reported to Heinrich Himmler the number of six millions. You do know those two chaps don't you, or you never had the decency to check their actions?

250,000?

33,771 Jews were murdered just in a one two-days operation in Babi-Yar Ukraine by gun fire. Jeeez. Two days.

I know your type. You will go into detail how there are no Zyklon B traces on the walls of the remaining gas chambers, how there is no way the crematoriums could handle the burning of so many bodies, how the gas was used to disinfect the clothes, and that Hitler et al were actually misunderstood nice sympathetic dudes that only wanted what's best for da Jews...

You are not here to debate. You are here to deny. I pity you.

Originally posted by neformore
Seagull won't say it, but I will

The reason people choose to revise or deny the holocaust is because they have a problem with jews.

Its the only reason and its proven to be so because - frankly - such people are not obsessive over the figures of any other genocide in history.

Heres how it breaks down...

"Millions of Russians under Stalin? - No problem
Millions in the killing fields? - No problem
Several thousand, possibly more, ethnicly cleansed in Bosnia? - No problem.
Jews in the holocaust... hell we have to be precise, I mean way precise, because you know, its probably a lie made up in order to gain sympathy...."

Its ONLY because jewish people were involved that this gets questioned. Most do it out of some erstaz belief that modern day Israel deserves to be slapped down in some manner and therefore the killing of millions in camps that had worse conditions than animal slaughterhouses needs to be belittled.

Some are just plain ignorant.

Others are just bigots who despise the jewish faith.

Controversial opinion? You betcha.

But its true.

i dont despise the Jewish faith. in fact, if they weren't so defined by their Holocaust victimhood, I would even be interested in joining the Jewish community.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Sorry, thats just ridiculous

There is masses and masses of arhcived footage, and documentation that proves that there were concentration camps. And, there are also a few ATS members, who had family members that actually experienced the disgraceful living conditions and treatment, that would like you to say that to their face.

You sound like another anti-semitic Hitler sympathiser....another one on the boards

Sorry Oz Weatherman but your response is ridiculous. I normally have great respect for you and your opinions but your emotional outburst here is about something that was NOT said. No one said there were NO concentration camps, neither were the disgraceful living conditions in the camps particularly towards the end of the war denied either.

Obviously you are yet another who does know that Arabs are Semites and therefore the purloining of the term anti Semitic by the politically correct is actually completely incorrect when applied just to the Jews.

The topic title is "Is Holocaust revisionism (as opposed to denial) a legit topic?" and the answer is yes it is a legitimate topic. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot discuss revision of the Holocaust figures. There are several questions of logistics that do require answering one way or another, and the result of several tests that leave unanswered questions. There is no justification in slandering those who would like answers to those questions as Hitler sympathisers. Frankly that is a very childish and emotional charge and I would have expected better from you.

Originally posted by neformore
Seagull won't say it, but I will

The reason people choose to revise or deny the holocaust is because they have a problem with jews.

Firstly the two things are not the same. Why should an interest in the truth indicate having a problem with the Jews (Note also that Jews should be capitalised). There is no logic in that statement, nor in the statement that follows.

Its the only reason and its proven to be so because - frankly - such people are not obsessive over the figures of any other genocide in history.

Not only are you attempting to put something forward as a 'fact' you are also making assumptions. You cannot make a blanket statement that people who have an interest in the figures of the Holocaust are not obsessive about the figures of other genocides when you have no proof of that and you are bringing in the word obsessive where it is not required. I have an historical interest in the figures of the Holocaust and indeed of all genocides that have taken place, but am I obsessive about them? No. I am not.

"Millions of Russians under Stalin? - No problem

Wrong - problem!

Millions in the killing fields? - No problem

Wrong - problem

etc etc.

Jews in the holocaust... hell we have to be precise, I mean way precise, because you know, its probably a lie made up in order to gain sympathy...."

A rather inane remark. If I said that only a few hundred were killed in Bosnia is that OK then? No, it is not and no doubt I would be taken to task about such a statement. It has nothing to do with sympathy.

Its ONLY because jewish people were involved that this gets questioned. Most do it out of some erstaz belief that modern day Israel deserves to be slapped down in some manner and therefore the killing of millions in camps that had worse conditions than animal slaughterhouses needs to be belittled.

I see no connection here. You are defending on emotion instead of reason and it would appear to be clouding your logic processes.

Some are just plain ignorant.

Others are just bigots who despise the jewish faith.

Controversial opinion? You betcha.

But its true.

Controversial? No just emotional. True? In your rather clouded opinion maybe but to those who seek knowledge, the historical facts are of interest. Ignorant I am not. I Have done a massive amount of research into the Jewish faith and into the demographics of the Jewish peoples and movements around the world, and into the Jewish Holocaust and many other genocides around the world. Neither am I a bigot, not to I despise the Jewish faith. Your emotional outburst is unreasoned, illogical and basically just plain wrong as well as being an insult to anyone with any degree of intelligence.

reply to post by seagull

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

No you are jumping on people who have an historical interest and accusing them of having an agenda with absolutely no knowledge of the person or what may be their interests. Ridiculous! Allow people to speak before jumping on them with this emotionally charged nonsense.

reply to post by 19872012


Well you have a new one there. I am accustomed to seeing “Historical revisionism” or “Holocaust denial” you are now presenting a complete hybrid – Holocaust revisionism.

Well I do not believe in literary and debating censorship so I would say it is a legitimate topic. However what sort of person seeks to revise the numbers of Jews downwards? A “Semite” might revise them upwards but an anti “Semite” may want to revise them downwards.

The fact is the entire holocaust shows the brutality of people fired up on racial, political and ethnic hatred who justified or actively participated in the murder of c15m people (men women and children).

What is the hidden agenda in quibbling over the numbers. If the jews made lemonade in stead of being crushed under the weight of lemons so what they paid a horrendous price I acknowledge but I do not justify their actions in Palestine.

I smell so much latent or covert anti Semitism in so many of these “sensible debates”.

reply to post by PuterMan


Way to take what I wrote out of context. I've never said, not once, that there isn't legit research into the Holocaust. I am critical of so called historians, and lay researchers, who research the Holocaust only to push an agenda of hatred.

I've seen it. I've read it. ...and to my last breathe I'll condemn it.

All too many of these "historians" are researching the Holocaust, if research you can call it, for the simple reason they wish to find errors in other peoples work so they may, they fervently hope, cast shadows of doubt on everything to do with the Holocaust.

Read some works by Deborah Lipstadht (hope I got her name right), they cast a bright light on the phenomena called historical revisionism as it pertains to the Holocaust. It makes for disturbing reading.

Concerning "Jewish Persecution", an excerpt from the forward of the article by the same name written by Jackie Patru. Forward by Steven Jacobson.:

Found at:
www.sweetliberty.org...

"Having been born a Jew, I became acutely aware of the enigma of being a Jew and the hostile conditioned response of many non-Jews towards the Jew, perpetuating a vicious cycle of pitting one group against another as a mechanism of people control.
This is a classic example of the Hegelian dialectic in practice where a problem is created and crisis-managed to a pre-determined resolution. All this is brought into sharp focus in this examination of the increasing influence of Talmudic Judaism in America and the world to the detriment of Jew and non-Jew alike."

The "increasing influence of Talmudic Judaism in America and the world"? How does that "increasing influence" manifest itself? Is there indeed evidence of this?

This, from the Preface,

"This preface must be prefaced with my promise to you, our reader, whatever religion you embrace: You will not be reading an anti-Semitic diatribe. You will be reading about the Jews, the Zionists, the Judeo-Christians, and the machinations of an Ancient Priesthood that have brought about the entire oxymorinic controversy, along with the resultant divisiveness and chaos necessary to clear the pathway for their plan of destruction and slavery for us all. With that said let us begin, together."

So, the "Ancient Priesthood" has wrought the controversy? Hmm. Might want to check into that...

If there exists a group that is determined to achieve these ends, wouldn't it be wise to learn about them?

The Protocols of Zion can be found here:

aztlan.net...

reply to post by seagull


No I don't think it was out of context at all. In a nutshell what you said is that people can discuss the holocaust if they are not doing so to denigrate it, but the tone and wording of your comments left the distinct impression that there was no way you would be discussing the holocaust unless this was ones intention. What one writes is not always at face value the same as the perception it engenders.

Deborah Lipstadt actually.

IN 1992 Prof. Deborah Lipstadt (Professor at Emory University, Atlanta, and like the majority of her students there a Jew) published a book, Denying the Holocaust. The book had been commissioned by the Vidal Sassoon Center of Anti-Semitism, at the Yad Vashem Institution, in Israel. It contained a number of falsehoods, exaggerations, and distortions, about which many writers have commented. David LipstadtIrving sued her for libel in 1996; the case was tried in London for three months from Jan 11 to Apr 12 2000 (see separate index). The case brought her into great prominence, although she wisely did not speak a word or go into the witness box on oath, which would have exposed to her to the risk of an English prison if she were found guilty of perjury. Her neutral expert witnesses were found to have been paid sums of up to $250,000 from a fund set up by among others Steven Spielberg and the American Jewish Committee. Her heavily subsidised book was a publishing flop until then, enjoying what publisher Penguin Ltd (her co-defendant in the case, with her at Court, left) referred to tartly as "negative sales" (i.e. more unsold returns from bookstores than sales). By mid-2000 the minus sign was back on her royalty statements, and big booksellers like Barnes & Noble were finding it difficult to shift copies even after knocking 78% off the sales price.

Source

No comment on the Lady really other than to say that perhaps some questions need answering before accepting everything that she says carte blanche? I also accept that the site I found this on may have a bias in the opposite direction. It is very difficult to find unbiased commentary (on anything) these days. Everyone has an agenda.

I have also read many items on her blog and I have to say I am not much impressed.