Can't We Have an Even-handed Discussion About the Holocaust?

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


The number of Jews murdered or died of disease in the Nazi death camps did NOT number to 6 million.

Ask any Holocaust museum how many of the "6 million" were proven to be halachically Jewish and no one will answer you. Ask, and they will politely demand you leave the premises.

Fact is, among the Jews who perished included those who were halachically Jewish, offspring of mixed marriages, and Gentiles who had one Jewish grandparent not necessarily on the mother's side.

I believe the number was alot closer to 3.5 to 4 million. By saying that, just the life of one was one too many.

Thousands of young Jewish children were handed over to the Vatican for "protection". We don't know who they are or where they are today however we do know many were illegally adopted in to Catholic families.

I vividly recall how surprised I was to realize that the majority (but certainly not all) of Jewish people I know sincerely believe that their suffering is infinitely more significant than that of gentiles killed in WWII. They casually brush aside mention of 5,000,000 gentiles killed in camps as not only unimportant, but as antisemitic as it detracts from the "unique" Jewish experience of the Holocaust.
This was an important aspect of their seemingly irrational hatred of the nuns who had a convent near Auschwitz and who were simply quietly praying for all the victims. Typically they also protest vehemently against Holocaust museums which plan to mention that gypsies and others were also killed. The Jews believe that that is a hate crime directed at them, as it de-emphasizes their unique suffering.
This is another reason why rational discussion of the Holocaust is so difficult.

reply to post by FuManchu2


The number of Gentiles that perished in the Nazi death camps were 12 million plus.

Considering the push for genocide of the Jews and being a minority group in Europe during the fall of the banking system and severe economic downfall in Germany just before Hitler rises to power......every Jew was a target yet only 1% of the German Jewish people were involved. I think before Hitler rose to power, 20% of the German Govt were Jewish.

Lets go to present day in Iceland......

The Icelandic Govt are still hunting bankers and those connected to the banking scam in Iceland. There are approx 100 Icelandic Jews and none will openly admit they are Jewish for fear of a blacklash as seen in WW2. Understandably so.

OP! Your post is brilliant and informative!

Thank you soo much for posting this, and also in the calm collected manner that you have.

All research I've conducted into this subject has lead me to believe the same as you stated.

There was no way near 6 million Jews killed, and especially not the way the west would have us believe.

Its also *crucial* for everybody to know that Hitler didn't want half the wars he was dragged into! He even sent agents over to Britain to talk of peace and they Brits killed them!

Most people on here are blind and brain washed and do not *want* to accept truth.

As for everybody moaning saying you *cant* dicuss the holocaust without emotion - boohoo grow the heck up!

Like all evidence suggests, as little as 1 million could have been killed (I know that's still awfull but in the grand scheme of things....)

I personally think Hiroshoma was more shocking

Deny ignorance! And do your own darn research instead of relying on what your spoon fed.

You read any of Peter Levanders stuff OP??

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
I saw the videos of the walking skeletons that were the survivors, of the mass graves being covered over by allied bulldozers, etc. and I was deeply ashamed of my ethnic heritage.

Shame often drives people to rationalize their (or in this case their elders) behaviours. Or try and pass off the blame on others.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
Hitler's nazis found kindred spirits in every country they sent their armies into. What's disturbing about this is that the Holocaust is not blamed on just the Nazis. Oh no. It's blamed exclusively on the German nazis and the German people as a whole even though by the end of the war, Hitler's SS were arresting Christian Germans by the thousands and sending them to the concentration camps too but that doesn't count apparently.

Because if it was not for the Germans, the ovens would not have been fired up, and the holocaust would not have happened. While others may have shared the sentiment, the German Nazis enabled the slaughter.

Keep in mind, many of these people most likely towed the nazi line in occupied countries were simply trying to protect their lives and families. Do you not realize to speak out against them meant certain death? Im sure a lot of people who despised the Nazis claimed to be Nazis. Dont judge until you have young children to protect.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
I was also surprised to learn that after Hitler's armies had defeated the Polish military and occupied the western part of Poland, which included the the area that was German territory prior to WW1 and was occupied almost entirely by ethnic Germans, Hitler offered to withdraw from all Polish territory except for the part occupied by ethnic Germans in exchange for peace. The British and French said no deal. Those two countries declared war on Germany because of treaty obligations to protect Poland. Who also attacked Poland and ended the war in complete control of Poland? The Soviet Union. Did the British and French declare war on the Soviet Union. Heck no! So much for guaranteeing Polish sovereignty.

Um no. Poland was divided between Nazi Germany and the SU. Reguardless of what you think, i firmly believe the Allies believed (and rightfully so at the time) the Russians were the lesser of two evils. And without Stalin opposing the Germans on the Eastern Front, im convinced the Nazis would have won the war.

Ps. As an edit, its quite obvious that Stalin was no better in the end, but before the end of WW2, he would certainly have appeared as an ally once the Nazis invaded during operation Barbarossa.

Quite a few posts overnight and rather than respond to each one individually, I'll try to do so with one post.

Let's start with David Irving. From the 50's to the 70's he was not only considered a historian but also an exceptionally good one at that. Unlike other historians, he refuses to read anyone else's books because other historians tend to quote each other and false information gets reproduced again and again. Irving bases his books only on personal research. He not only got access to public archives but also classified archives including all of the intercepted and decoded messages using the Ultra code that was broken. This code was used among others, by the SS to communicate between Himmler's Headquarters and the concentration camps. The camp commanders sent in daily reports and included information about new arrivals and deaths in each 24 hour period. Since the Nazis believed their code to be unbreakable, there was no reason for them to send false messages. Irving says the daily reports on deaths are far smaller than they would have to be in order for the 6 million figure to be correct.

I haven't read all of his books but I have read six of them including the one (Hitler's War) that started all the controversy and essentially ruined his writing career as a popular historian. I have yet to come across any sentence in his books that could be considered derogatory to jews. When he makes a controversial claim in his books, he almost always includes a copy of the document that he found which backs up his claim.

He has never denied that jews were killed by the SS. He cites personal eye witness testimony, related to him verbally, that jews on at least one occasion but almost certainly more often, were taken by the SS deep into wooded areas and shot in front of large open ditches. Does that sound like someone who is pro-nazi? If the SS were already using gas chambers on an assembly line basis to kill jews, why would they bother to ship bunches of them far away from the camps in order to shoot them?

His contention that there were no gas chambers is based on a lack of credible evidence that there were. It's hard to prove a negative. He does not claim that there was any kind of directive signed by Hitler or Himmler that says. "Thou shalt NOT use gas chambers to kill jews". He's saying, show me the directives or any document that specifically orders the use of gas chambers or involves the logistics necessary for that kind of massive operation and the fact is that no one has ever produced that kind of documentary evidence.

Now let's talk about the Blitz. I never said that Churchill should have surrendered. I said that Churchill could have avoided all of the civilian bombing deaths on both sides if he had only agreed to stop bombing German cities in exchange for similar restraint on Hitler's side and that is not a trivial thing.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


A claim has been made in an earlier post that states Irving has now admitted to Gas chambers.....Can you confirm this in your findings, sorry, other than contacting Irving directly I'd hope we could officially accept/deny this claim as truth.

reply to post by Studenofhistory


Having actually read many of David Irving's books, I agree totally. The casual way he's called a "Holocaust denier" comes from those who have never read his voluminous histories of WWII, and who instead rely on the bare allegations coming from the usual sources. Anyone who actually reads Hitle'rs War, for example, knows that he speaks clearly and unambiguously about the German atrocities committed against Jews. What he does not do is devote chapters to gas chamber stories, but neither does Eisenhower, Churchill, or de Gaulle. They are usually spared the "Holocaust-denier" label however.

reply to post by Kantzveldt


Thank you for your informative post. I have often wondered where the 6 million figure came from. It did not come from the Nuremburg trials. In fact a few years ago, in another ATS thread, someone posted a long list of quotes and supporting information about extreme claims made by pre-war jewish organizations, that were reported in mainstream western newspapers, that 4 million, 6 million, 8 million or more jews had already been killed even before the war started. So it appears that the 6 million figure was already in the public domain when the camps were liberated and the world learned about them and no one challenged that number so it became the politically correct number.

The Red Cross number is hard to dismiss. The Germans were meticulous about keeping records. Clearly we can say that at least 357,000 jews were killed in concentration camps and just as clearly more jews were killed elsewhere. So the total is somewhere between 357K and 6,000K but the relatively low figure from the Red Cross is inconsistent with gas chamber mega deaths.

Here's the crux of the issue for me. If the total number of jews killed by the SS was 357,000 out of a total death toll for the war of at least 30 million, would the world have responded the same way to jewish condemnation of those deaths? I think not. It would have been a footnote in the larger tragedy of the whole war and jewish condemnation of the German people including all future generations who are expected to continue to carry that guilt, would sound less than fair. BUT if the number is huge then the reaction is quite different.
357,000? That's a shame but no big deal.
6 million? MY GOD! ALL those Germans MUST be monsters!
And THAT is why it's important to get the number right.

Hitler said it best. (I'm paraphrasing here). If you're going to lie, tell a big lie and tell it as often as you can. People will believe a big lie when they wouldn't believe a small lie.

reply to post by ken10


I'm going to email Irving (I have his email address) and ask him. I was shocked to see that post as well. It contradicts all of the logical and well-reasoned arguments against gas chambers. If I get a reply, I'll post it on this thread regardless of what he says.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by ken10

 

I'm going to email Irving (I have his email address) and ask him. I was shocked to see that post as well. It contradicts all of the logical and well-reasoned arguments against gas chambers. If I get a reply, I'll post it on this thread regardless of what he says.

In the meantime, here you go...

On Monday, before the trial began, he told reporters: "I'm not a Holocaust denier. Obviously, I've changed my views.

"History is a constantly growing tree - the more you know, the more documents become available, the more you learn, and I have learned a lot since 1989."

Asked if he admitted the existence of the Holocaust, he replied: "I would call it the Jewish tragedy in World War II."

"Yes, there were gas chambers," he said. "Millions of Jews died, there is no question. I don't know the figures. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust."

news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by ken10


Here is Irving's response to the gas chamber question. It's on his website and was written in response to a letter from a young girl named Brittni.
------------
May, 2012

Wow, that is a major task, Brittni.

First, you are right to ask around to get different viewpoints. But it will win you few friends, and a lot of enemies.

Second, I am not a Holocaust denier, whatever that is. I am a partial Holocaust sceptic, and definitely a non-conformist.

You will find that other historians like to conform: they swim with the tide. (Nobody ever got imprisoned for swimming with the tide.) But I have always said you have only the one life, and it behoves you to use it properly. As an historian, you find out perhaps too late in your career, that you have already passed a vital crossroads in your life: one signpost points to "Big Money," and the other to "The Whole Truth."

They are different roads, and they don't intersect. In short: you don't make big money by writing the whole truth. You can (and many do) avoid poverty by conforming with the liars.

What are the lies? Well, it is true that the Nazis killed lots of enemies in and before World War II. So did we, the Allies, and the Soviet Russians.

Round about 1970 the international Jewish community began to make their voice heard with a very cleverly constructed propaganda-campaign about what they called The Holocaust.

Why "1970"? Because you won't find that word in any newspaper index (The Times, The New York Times, etc) before about 1970. Somebody told them how to make money out of it - the basic rules of marketing: give it a catchy title, holocaust; no, it needs a CAPITAL letter, like a brand-name - like Kleenex or Tylenol - if you're going to sell it. So, Holocaust.

Important: Put a "The" in front of it, to suggest there was only ONE Holocaust. Thou shalt have no other holocaust than ours. If somebody suggests that burning 100,000 innocent civilians alive in Dresden, or fifty thousand in Hamburg, or 150,000 in Hiroshima was a holocaust, then smear him, attack him, vilify him, imprison him, financially ruin him, silence him, frighten him. Big bucks are at stake. Now you're getting the picture, Brittni.

I have many times suggested that the real atrocity in World War II was what I call "innocenticide" - the mass killing of innocents. What undoubtedly happened to the Jews in Nazi hands was not a crime because they were Jews, but because they were (mostly) innocent Jews. It was their innocence that made it a crime, not their Jewishness. But once you accept my word, "innocenticide", instead, that reduces the total pot of Gold available to the Jews, because then the victims of Dresden, Coventry and Hiroshima, might qualify for cash handouts, so they object to it: they can't have that.

What did happen was ugly enough: From 1940 inward, and particularly from 1941, the Germans began the systematic killing of Jews as part of their police and mopping-up operations. The killings, mostly done by shooting, gradually took on a more pragmatic, political nature, and became less of a straightforward security operation.

From 1942 onward the Nazis began sweeping the Jews in their occupied areas into various camps where they were applied to hard labour, maltreated, and in many instances put to death by various means - those that had not succumbed to the appalling and lethal typhus plagues that swept the eastern territories and the prison camps.

How were they killed, and where? On a small scale, unwanted Jews were put to death by gassing in two small units at Auschwitz, the White House and the Red House, which is now in Poland. It was a death camp as well as a slave-labour camp. A Polish court in 1947 found that its German officers, who were mostly hanged, were guilty of running a camp in which "up to 300,000 people" of all nationalities had died from all causes [ see video of the court and Judgment].

That Judgment is hard to reconcile with the propaganda language used later about "4 million victims" of Auschwitz.

In fact the most intensive killing (i.e. extermination) operations were done at four other sites in eastern Poland, Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka and Majdanek (Lublin). One top-secret Nazi radio message which we British decoded in January 1943 reveals that these camps had dealt with 1,250,000 in 1942 alone; they probably killed about the same number by October 1943. Any argument about numbers seems immaterial, even obscene, given a death roll on such a scale.

Notice by the way that although I have repeatedly stated the above, and have published the documents on my website (e.g. at www.fpp.co.uk... ) you and school pupils around the world are told that I am a Holocaust Denier. The big money is on their side, and it is useless, and hopeless, to argue against them. But the truth remains on my side, and stays here.

Re - Gas Chambers

There are 3 or more possibilities...

1) There were no gas chambers.

2) There were gas chambers and they were used for delousing.

3) There were gas chambers and they were used for killing.

4) There were gas chambers and they were used for... ?


If Irving changed his mind about their existence it does not mean that they were used for killing.

He simply may have found info that 1 or more buildings were used to delouse prisoners.

I've just posted Irving's response to the question of gas chambers. It's quite explicit on its own. Even though I'm a fan of his work, I wish that he hadn't added the 'mostly' qualifier to the description of jews as being innocent. Whatever some of the jews may or may not have done, none of them deserved what happened to them. They and everyone else sent to those camps are 'innocent' as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
But my criticism still stands: All through this period, Hitler was pushing his generals for a Western offensive. This kind of contradicts his peace stance in my book.

From the start he was concerned that an Allied offensive would target the Ruhr, and the Ruhr was essential to his war effort, as well as the economy in general, at war or peace.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin

I'd have to disagree with that though. I'm most familiar with the german side of the story, some of the british details you provided I didn't quite remember.

But what I do remember is that the Generals were totally opposed to Operation Seelöwe, going so far as openly telling Hitler that it wasn't possible.

And I would still wager that Seelöwe was impossible. I do not see how it could have been achieved, US ressources or not.

Apologies, I wasn't referring to Sea Lion, I should have been clearer. I was referring to the telephone call that Hitler made to von Runstedt ordering the Abwehr to halt as the Dunkirk evacuation was taking place, and the subsequent failure of the Wehrmacht to take advantage of Britain's weakness in the period immediately following the retreat.

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
What I am unsure of, and quite unconvinced of, is that Hitler ever sincerely considered not occupying Poland for good. A pull-out from Poland would have been strategically catastrophic in light of the Soviet presence there, considering that the Attack on the Soviet Union was the ground pillar of Hitler's strategic plans.

Also, in light of the plans made for the east by his underlings, I do not see any possibility of Germany pulling out of Poland.

Polish territories had a strategic role to play in the eastern offensive that was irreplacable. That is the strategic argument.

The long-term argument would consist in the observation that Poland, or at least major parts of it, were an integral part of all long-term plans for the east made by the Nazis.

In the Weissauer offer, Hitler stipulated that a 'Polish State' should be created. There is little doubt in my mind that that would not have included a corridor such as had been used to partition the formerly Prussian states, and I also think that it is highly likely that that state would have been used as a bulwark to the threat 'Bolshevism' and would have been totalitarian in nature. By this time remember, the Einsatzgruppen had already completed the ethnic cleansing of Poland, it was broken, and therefore ripe to serve such a purpose, strategically. That Hitler insisted on retaining Czechoslovakia, not just the Sudetenland is more telling about his long term strategic goals for Drang nach Osten.

reply to post by Biliverdin


If I was facing ten years in prison for expressing my opinion, I'd admit to there being gas chambers too. Wouldn't you?

reply to post by Biliverdin


Thank you, I have also found this....

David Irving sets out his views to an Eighth-Grader
May, 2012

Wow, that is a major task, Brittni.

First, you are right to ask around to get different viewpoints. But it will win you few friends, and a lot of enemies.
Second, I am not a Holocaust denier, whatever that is. I am a partial Holocaust sceptic, and definitely a non-conformist.
You will find that other historians like to conform: they swim with the tide. (Nobody ever got imprisoned for swimming with the tide.) But I have always said you have only the one life, and it behoves you to use it properly. As an historian, you find out perhaps too late in your career, that you have already passed a vital crossroads in your life: one signpost points to "Big Money," and the other to "The Whole Truth."

They are different roads, and they don't intersect. In short: you don't make big money by writing the whole truth. You can (and many do) avoid poverty by conforming with the liars.

What are the lies? Well, it is true that the Nazis killed lots of enemies in and before World War II. So did we, the Allies, and the Soviet Russians.

Round about 1970 the international Jewish community began to make their voice heard with a very cleverly constructed propaganda-campaign about what they called The Holocaust.

Why "1970"? Because you won't find that word in any newspaper index (The Times, The New York Times, etc) before about 1970. Somebody told them how to make money out of it - the basic rules of marketing: give it a catchy title, holocaust; no, it needs a CAPITAL letter, like a brand-name - like Kleenex or Tylenol - if you're going to sell it. So, Holocaust.

Important: Put a "The" in front of it, to suggest there was only ONE Holocaust. Thou shalt have no other holocaust than ours. If somebody suggests that burning 100,000 innocent civilians alive in Dresden, or fifty thousand in Hamburg, or 150,000 in Hiroshima was a holocaust, then smear him, attack him, vilify him, imprison him, financially ruin him, silence him, frighten him. Big bucks are at stake. Now you're getting the picture, Brittni.

I have many times suggested that the real atrocity in World War II was what I call "innocenticide" - the mass killing of innocents. What undoubtedly happened to the Jews in Nazi hands was not a crime because they were Jews, but because they were (mostly) innocent Jews. It was their innocence that made it a crime, not their Jewishness. But once you accept my word, "innocenticide", instead, that reduces the total pot of Gold available to the Jews, because then the victims of Dresden, Coventry and Hiroshima, might qualify for cash handouts, so they object to it: they can't have that.

What did happen was ugly enough: From 1940 inward, and particularly from 1941, the Germans began the systematic killing of Jews as part of their police and mopping-up operations. The killings, mostly done by shooting, gradually took on a more pragmatic, political nature, and became less of a straightforward security operation.

From 1942 onward the Nazis began sweeping the Jews in their occupied areas into various camps where they were applied to hard labour, maltreated, and in many instances put to death by various means - those that had not succumbed to the appalling and lethal typhus plagues that swept the eastern territories and the prison camps.

How were they killed, and where? On a small scale, unwanted Jews were put to death by gassing in two small units at Auschwitz, the White House and the Red House, which is now in Poland. It was a death camp as well as a slave-labour camp. A Polish court in 1947 found that its German officers, who were mostly hanged, were guilty of running a camp in which "up to 300,000 people" of all nationalities had died from all causes [ see video of the court and Judgment].

That Judgment is hard to reconcile with the propaganda language used later about "4 million victims" of Auschwitz.

In fact the most intensive killing (i.e. extermination) operations were done at four other sites in eastern Poland, Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka and Majdanek (Lublin). One top-secret Nazi radio message which we British decoded in January 1943 reveals that these camps had dealt with 1,250,000 in 1942 alone; they probably killed about the same number by October 1943. Any argument about numbers seems immaterial, even obscene, given a death roll on such a scale.

Notice by the way that although I have repeatedly stated the above, and have published the documents on my website (e.g. at www.fpp.co.uk... ) you and school pupils around the world are told that I am a Holocaust Denier. The big money is on their side, and it is useless, and hopeless, to argue against them. But the truth remains on my side, and stays here.

I have written the above especially for you Brittni, and and it is dedicated to you, as you were fair enough to contact me, and ask. I wish you well in your life. When you reach that crossroads, the one I mention above, decide for yourself, and make sure you take the right turning.

David Irving

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

If I was facing ten years in prison for expressing my opinion, I'd admit to there being gas chambers too. Wouldn't you?

Pretending that Irving admits to gas chambers because of some alleged coercion is disingenuous.What court, what trial, what judge orered him to make that statement?. So far, this thread has offered me nothing to make me believe that Irving's admission of gas chambers is anything else than the honest conclusion that he has come to.

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
reply to post by Biliverdin

 

If I was facing ten years in prison for expressing my opinion, I'd admit to there being gas chambers too. Wouldn't you?

So, your claiming he is lieing in the statement Biliverdin posted?

reply to post by Studenofhistory


I've read Irving's books. The librarian had to go down into the basement to retrieve them and I had to put a formal written request in order to get them. No joke. Anyway, on the whole, I thought they were very good and highly informative.

Where I believe that Irving stumbled, or was tripped perhaps, is that he was the first to write about the Nazi hierarchy in three dimensional terms. Many of the official historians of World War two were also members of SIS. Irving was not only an outsider but he was independent of the restraints that those historians were under.

Particularly, when he wrote about Hess, he began to stick his nose in places that they didn't want outsiders looking, and he was not only black balled, but there was a rather clear attempt to smear his reputation. To compound this, and perhaps because of this, he did fall in with the wrong crowd, and was perhaps a little too easily led to the Right. I sort of suspect that it is possible that this was all part of the plan to discredit him.