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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should Holocaust revision (NOT denial) be taken more seriously?

page: 8
43
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 





So lets see... can you name a "non american" general in your american army? Didnt you have "negro regiments" and "buffalo soldiers"? Just backtracking in history so you know where you come from...

Oh, i do not know - in our "American" army that it by definition NOT a multinational there are/were Major Generals who are not Jewish.
Your Arthur Phleps was a German born in Austro-Hungaria. Multinational, indeed.
You seriously consider Nazi Wermacht multinational because it used few Africans as a cannon folder?




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by m1991
 


I think you are correct. I am a practicing Jew and believe the way the official story is defended hurts everyone. It is becoming more clear that much of what we knew about the Holocaust is inaccurate. The whole thing has gotten out of hand. Jewish people especially need to be more open minded, especially toward the Germans. They cannot be held responsible for things we know now not to be true. If 1.5 million and not 4 million died at Auschwitz as the Auschwitz authorities now themselves say was the case, this needs to be emphasized and the history books need to be corrected to so reflect this.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
I watched a special on YouTube as to where the Red Cross through the Geneva Convention puts the number of people that died during World War 2 behind the fences of concentration camps or so-called concentration camps @ 300,000. . 6 million is an impossible number at a thousand people a day it would take 6000 days to kill that many people that's about 18 years. . Coupled with the fact that the Germans are very efficient people and could certainly have benefited by just letting them starve or perhaps machine gunning every single one of them ..but no ..they decided to take the most long-winded difficult labor intensive process to do it... that coupled with the fact that all you care about is survivors but never really any creedence given to any specific names and by the way Ann Frank never died in a concentration camp she died in the hospital of Cholera or something to that effect.. I only bring her name up because basically that's the only victim I've ever heard about or seen on television other than many nameless. ..



posted on Nov, 26 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Surfcrab
I watched a special on YouTube as to where the Red Cross through the Geneva Convention puts the number of people that died during World War 2 behind the fences of concentration camps or so-called concentration camps @ 300,000. . 6 million is an impossible number at a thousand people a day it would take 6000 days to kill that many people that's about 18 years. . Coupled with the fact that the Germans are very efficient people and could certainly have benefited by just letting them starve or perhaps machine gunning every single one of them ..but no ..they decided to take the most long-winded difficult labor intensive process to do it... that coupled with the fact that all you care about is survivors but never really any creedence given to any specific names and by the way Ann Frank never died in a concentration camp she died in the hospital of Cholera or something to that effect.. I only bring her name up because basically that's the only victim I've ever heard about or seen on television other than many nameless. ..


They did try just starving them to death, but people complained. It wasn't even intentional, not really, they simply didn't think the Nuremberg Laws through. Hess threw them together on a whim as a hole filler when another speaker didn't turn up. They thought the laws would encourage all the Jews just to up sticks and go, and they went about facilitating that as much as possible. In the end it just took too long, and no countries were willing to take them en masse. The British Naval blockade prevented them from being sent to Palestine and Madagascar. By 1941, what with the Nuremberg Laws having stripped Jews of their ability to own property or a business, and since they were not allowed to do business with non-Jews, or use non-Jewish shops, they had no means to support themselves, or indeed to obtain food. Additionally, those that had answered the call of the Auslander organisation were returning to Germany from the Americas to help rebuild the new Germany, but firs they wanted the house and land that they had been promised should they return. The Jews were ghettoised, first within the reich but as starvation led to disease, the complaints started to roll in. Efficent Germans that they were, and diversion of funds away from the war effort, in order to feed and treat the Jews, out of the question, they sought the most humane and efficient means by which to dispose of the Jewish problem. They had by this time of course summarily executed thousands and thousands of ethnic Slavs and Poles, including Jews, but they were untermensche, and besides, it had had a devastating effect on the Einsatzgruppen tasked with those mass killings. Himmler had had to set up a series of hospitals and psychiatric units tasked with caring for those that had broken down or developed dependecy issues as a consequence of that method of disposal. For white european Jews who could have been neighbours, friends or class mates or at least no different to them, other than by religion, a new method was needed that would not traumatise the men who had to undertake that most difficult work. That whole process is documented, supported, testified and admitted to.

Despite the sharp uinforms, these guys were not as bright as any of them thought they were, you seen the odd glimmer of awareness of the true chaos, but after 1942, it's pure panic in the power structure. If you get into the history you start to get a picture of what a # up the whole thing was behind the facade. Put in power by gangsters and thugs funded by Wall Street, and not an ounce of common sense or back bone amongst the lot of 'em. You also find that in context, again depressingly, six million is not only a drop in the ocean, but also probably a bit on the low side (and it'd still be a drop in the ocean of over all carnage of that war).

That's perhaps not going to come across in a You Tube video.

History is always in a state of revision, the holocaust is not special in requiring the odd adjustment, new information comes to light every year. I don't see why it should be singled out, other than because it is the holocaust.

I'd recommend the Diary of Anne Frank. It's a unique perspective of the war, how she died doesn't affect that, she is just another who didn't survive the war, just one in 60 million.


(post by Gideon70 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gideon70
*POST REMOVED BY STAFF*


Really? Well, sadly for you the 'myth' happened. The evidence is vast, horrifying and has never been debunked.
edit on 4/24/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Surfcrab

Anne Frank died of typhus (go look that up, why don't you?) as the result of a lice infestation (look that up too, you'll be very interested in it) in a concentration camp called Bergen-Belsen. Go look that up too. Then look at the YouTube videos of the British liberation of that camp. See all those horrified Tommies wandering about amidst the walking skeletons? One of those is my Grandfather.
Now go away and get an education.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

It is a legal offence (and against ATS T&Cs) to deny the holocaust.
Daring to question the official version is also nowadays likely to put someone into legal troubles even if the question raised are perfectly sensible and legitimate.
One of the best examples is imo the Frenchman Robert Faurisson.
Often presented as a holocaust denier, he actually does not deny the camps, the deportation of people on an ethnical basis nor the cremation ovens, but he dares to question the existence of the gas chambers.

Anyone can obfuscate about the content of his historical analysis but it is unfortunately much more difficult to find statement of his that are inaccurate or fabricated as he points out the inconsistencies of the official version.




posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

It is a legal offence (and against ATS T&Cs) to deny the holocaust.
Daring to question the official version is also nowadays likely to put someone into legal troubles even if the question raised are perfectly sensible and legitimate.
One of the best examples is imo the Frenchman Robert Faurisson.
Often presented as a holocaust denier, he actually does not deny the camps, the deportation of people on an ethnical basis nor the cremation ovens, but he dares to question the existence of the gas chambers.

Anyone can obfuscate about the content of his historical analysis but it is unfortunately much more difficult to find statement of his that are inaccurate or fabricated as he points out the inconsistencies of the official version.




Faurisson is a convicted Holocaust denier who has deep and abiding links to other Holocaust deniers. Frankly he has no plausibility whatsoever.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

But still, you can't point out any single statement of his out of this 80 minutes video that is refutable ... very plausible.

If you didn't watch the video, here is a written article mentioning the same points :

The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical and Scientific Level - By Robert Faurisson

Interestingly, about your statement to label him as a negationist while he is a - totally assumed - revisionist :



Aficionados of court rulings by imbeciles are invited to refer to pages 152-155 of the first volume, where there are some titbits from a decision handed down in 1979 by Dame Baluze-Frachet, judge of a Lyon police court. The good lady decreed back then that simply asking the question of the existence of the gas chambers was an affront not only to “good morals” but also to “the moral order”. The amusing bit of it is that by invoking “the moral order” she was advocating – although probably unawares – a value dear to count MacMahon, Marshal of France, President of the French Republic and perennial model of reactionary conservatism. “The moral order” was to return seventy years later on with… Marshal Pétain. As for the aficionados of behavioural curiosities, there is fare for them in the following two videos featuring the current head of the French government: “The left hand of Manuel Valls” and “Rally of March 19, 2014 – speech by Manuel Valls, Minister of the Interior”.






Videos in french



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
There should be a bit of revisionism on including evryone else in the Holocaust in eastern Europe, like Belorussians, they suffered unbelievably badly. Also the Germans of eastern Europe, pretty much decimated and eliminated in all of their ancient homeland slike Silesia, Bessarabia etc.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

But still, you can't point out any single statement of his out of this 80 minutes video that is refutable ... very plausible.

If you didn't watch the video, here is a written article mentioning the same points :

The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical and Scientific Level - By Robert Faurisson

Interestingly, about your statement to label him as a negationist while he is a - totally assumed - revisionist :



Aficionados of court rulings by imbeciles are invited to refer to pages 152-155 of the first volume, where there are some titbits from a decision handed down in 1979 by Dame Baluze-Frachet, judge of a Lyon police court. The good lady decreed back then that simply asking the question of the existence of the gas chambers was an affront not only to “good morals” but also to “the moral order”. The amusing bit of it is that by invoking “the moral order” she was advocating – although probably unawares – a value dear to count MacMahon, Marshal of France, President of the French Republic and perennial model of reactionary conservatism. “The moral order” was to return seventy years later on with… Marshal Pétain. As for the aficionados of behavioural curiosities, there is fare for them in the following two videos featuring the current head of the French government: “The left hand of Manuel Valls” and “Rally of March 19, 2014 – speech by Manuel Valls, Minister of the Interior”.






Videos in french


Let me stop you right there. Your link is to a particularly familiar rant by Faurisson that hits the usual notes of the Holocaust denier. There's the wail that he's being persecuted by powerful Jewish enemies. There's the litany of quotes taken out of context. And there is (of course) the old trope about the six million figure from 1919. Oh and then he blames the British for making stuff up in the middle of the war and then again to hide the fact that it's the Soviets who were actually responsible for a lot of killings! Here's a direct quote from it by the way -


The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen is Holocaust denialism. It's naked, it's vile and it's the standard boilerplate piffle spouted by the Far Right.
Oh and as for the rest of the twisted facts that Faurisson spouts I would advise that you read the Appendix to 'Denying the Holocaust' by Deborah Lipstadt. It's subtitled 'Twisting the truth' and it addresses Faurisson's nonsense and lies head on. I found it very informative in the list of things that Faurisson twists, manipulates, ignores and just plain lies about.
edit on 25-4-2016 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Also there should be some revisionism on the victims. All we hear about is European Ashkenazi Jewish victims in the books, while many north Africans Sephardic Jews were also abused and murdered



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter
Also there should be some revisionism on the victims. All we hear about is European Ashkenazi Jewish victims in the books, while many north Africans Sephardic Jews were also abused and murdered


A good point. There were Sephardic Jewish communities in Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Tragic.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I forgot about those communities. To be honest I was thinking about the north Africans Jews like Tunis and Libyans who were deported.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

My old boss in the green grocers was called Masha and she was pretty cranky and a fire raiser at times but actually lovely and nice, but was a holocaust survivor though not that old really. She was only one when Auschwitz was liberated and even at that young age, when I worked under her in the late 90's she certainly had the tattoo on her arm



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
the two camps faurisson was in, mittelbau and buchenwald where both labour camps, not extermination camps, to claim the holocaust didnt happen because he didnt see mass exterminations is, moronic.

also, for those not fluent in english.
to revise: Reconsider and alter (something) in the light of further evidence:
'he had cause to revise his opinion a moment after expressing it'.
when you revise for an exam you want actual facts, not guesswork.
without actual facts, yet claiming said numbers are wrong, those guilty maybe not be guilty is, actually denial.




top topics



 
43
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join