Holocaust is Nothing But A HoloHoax

[coolfighter]

Bravo to Mike Delaney ( http://www.prothink.org/ ) for finding and publishing this excellent article written/ put together by Willie Martin-- the beginning PORTION of which follows Mike's brief but pointed commentary:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.prothink.org/

THE OFFICIAL HOLOCAUST STORY IS A FRAUD!!!

I get so disgusted of the constant brainwashing of Zionist trying to propagate the fairytale holocaust story in everything they do. You see it in movies and tv shows all the time even if it is only a short mention to remind you that 6 million Jews were slaughtered. This story is such crap and we as people of this planet need to stop being scared of saying it is a fraud. The whole story plays on people's emotion instead of facts. There are many other groups that rightfully deserve to call their history a real holocaust and one being the Native Americans. I urge you to read this article: HOLOHOAX. Once you research this article and see that this official story of a Jewish holocaust is a fraud then please inform others of this. This holocaust card has been used to manipulate so many people in the world to let these Zionists get away with anything and it has to STOP! With everything going on in this world right now we need to be intolerant with fraudulent history and start speaking truth to power.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/HOLOHOAX.htm

Holocaust is Nothing But A HoloHoax

Every day, in every aspect of the media, you will be reminded of the holocaust of World War II and the damage it did to one group of people. You are supposed to feel guilty and excuse away anything these people, who are portrayed as the only victims, now do to society. You are not to mention others, such as the Poles, Russians and Gypsies who suffered equally if not more, for that would detract from the lie with which the rest of humanity is being burdened. Sure, terribly evil things happen in war, but it is even more terrible to allow lies to be embellished and used to promote guilt, misunderstanding, blackmail and more evil. Sooner or later, there will be a worldwide confrontation arising from this deceit, and the liars will come off second best. It is for this reason I have reproduced a section of one of our books here:

Alan Dershowitz believes that all American Jews should think of themselves as victims of the Holocaust; his rationale is that they were ultimately targets of the Holocaust. But, the Holocaust is even bigger than that to the Zionists; they want everyone to believe that all wrong is done to the Jews, and no wrong is done by the Jews. And, there is a reason for this.

Robert Faurisson observes,

"Elie Wiesel won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He is generally accepted as a witness to the Jewish ‘Holocaust,’ and, more specifically, as a witness to the legendary Nazi extermination gas chambers...."

But in what respect is Elie Wiesel a witness to the alleged gas chambers? By what right does he ask us to believe in that means of extermination? In an autobiographical book that supposedly describes his experiences at Auschwitz and Buchenwald, he nowhere mentions the gas chambers. He does indeed say that the Germans executed Jews, but...by fire; by throwing them alive into flaming ditches, before the very eyes of the deportees! No less than that! Here Wiesel the false witness had some bad luck.

Forced to choose from among several Allied war propaganda lies, he chose to defend the fire lie instead of the boiling water, gassing, or electrocution lies. In 1956, when he published his testimony in Yiddish, the fire lie was still alive in certain circles. This lie is the origin of the term Holocaust. Today there is no longer a single historian who believes that Jews were burned alive. The myths of the boiling water and of electrocution have also disappeared. Only the gas remains.

* The gassing lie was spread by the Americans.

* The lie that Jews were killed by boiling water or steam (specifically at Treblinka) was spread by the Poles.

* The electrocution lie was spread by the Soviets."

Yes, these are all Holocaust lies.

"The fire lie is of undetermined origin. It is in a sense as old as war propaganda or hate propaganda, just like the false assertion of human (Jewish) skin being used to make lamp shades. In his memoir, Night, which is a version of his earlier Yiddish testimony, Wiesel reports that at Auschwitz there was one flaming ditch for the adults and another one for babies. He writes: ‘Not far from us, flames were leaping from a ditch, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drew up at the pit and delivered its load ? little children. Babies! Yes, I saw it ? saw it with my own eyes...those children in the flames.'"

None of this ever happened. And, yet, such lies have earned Wiesel the Nobel Peace Prize, and made it "anti?Semitic" and even illegal to simply tell the truth about the Holocaust.

Why have lies superseded truth? And, more specifically, who benefits from the lie? As we have observed, every lie in the evil Zionist?controlled system is designed to exploit; every lie keeps Yahweh's system of evil securely in place. In this world, everything of value is offered up to Yahweh by the Zionists, as a "burnt offering."

"Holocaust" means burnt offering; it is the perpetuation of the illusion and the elevation of the lie to the level of supreme truth, religiously.

The fact is, the Holocaust is about money, legitimacy for Israel, and the total denial of any moral failings (or evilness) in the Jewish people. Jews are outraged when it is mentioned that many gypsies and Russians suffered the same fate as Jews, because to compare a sub?human to a Jew is unspeakable. The Jewish scripture declares that the life of a Jew is the most priceless thing to "god" and the life of a non?Jew or "goy" is worthless. The Jews have a history of crying "holocaust."

The Talmud cites examples of many billions of Jews being killed (including children being burned). Needless to say, there have never been that many Jews on the face of the earth. The same falsification and embellishment is true with regard to the "holocaust" of World War II. Many Jews died, but not the six million that is claimed. Perhaps a million died, none from gas chambers. Red Cross documentation which Jewish controllers refuse to release, is suspected of suggesting that some 100,000 were lost.

As historian David Irving and many others have rightly observed, there never were gas chambers at the concentration camps. And, it would have been impossible for the Germans to have gassed and then burned 12,000 Jews every day. Reports by concentration camp survivors that tell of the guards going into "gas chambers" as soon as one batch of Jews had been killed, clearing out the bodies, and then filling the room again are patently false ? the guards (none of whom was reported to have worn a mask) would have instantly died, since cyanide does not dissipate or disappear in a few minutes.

Also, there would have been bones and ashes to show, with cyanide residue. None of this is found. Even the Auschwitz Memorial which once stated that six million Jews had died now states that perhaps a million died. The plaque has been altered from six to one million. That being said, even a million dead people is a lot.

The degree of suffering they experienced, and the treatment they received from hateful, evil Nazis was a fact. Yet, that does not excuse all of the evils and wrongs committed by the victors, who fire?bombed civilian populations in Germany and Japan, and dropped atomic bombs on cities in Japan, before ending the war. The intentional massacring of millions of civilians by the Allied victors was certainly a war crime, and perhaps of larger impact than what happened to the Jews.

War is a terrible thing, and though it is an unwritten and unspoken policy, civilian populations are targeted and slaughtered in the worst way, to weaken the morale of the opposition. War is not just fought by soldier against soldier, with some kind of boundary against civilians.

Yet, it is always the victors who write the history; they are always in the right, and the losers are always in the wrong. War is not black and white, truth is its first casualty, and what is written in history and in the news has little correlation with the truth.

Jewish bankers funded the Nazis, and the Zionists fiercely pressured Western nations to keep, etc.

http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/HOLOHOAX.htm

http://www.prothink.org/

[adimon]

And nevermind that many of the perpetrators are still alive, and remorseless, and speak about all the above things you claim are historiographical lies, then eh?

I think we need a new forum section for Holocaust denial. Yech. :rolleyes:

[majicdragon]

Those in power always stretch the truth to help their agendas.

If it helped their cause, they would forcibly teach that the hlocst was a hoax.

[phantom]

"I think we need a new forum section for Holocaust denial" - adimon

You may say that in jest but I think it would be a good idea to have a holocaust debate/research board on this forum.

Maybe a mod can open a holocaust debate/research board? :)

[adimon]

"I think we need a new forum section for Holocaust denial" - adimon

You may say that in jest but I think it would be a good idea to have a holocaust debate/research board on this forum.

Maybe a mod can open a holocaust debate/research board? :)

No it wasn't in jest. There are clearly people here with elements of right-wing ideology foremost in their minds - whether just as study, or as dogma.

I believe in free speech, and don't think Irving deserved imprisonment, but I'm sick of seeing holocaust denial in 'general' - which it isn't. General, I mean. :)

[phantom]

Ok, if it wasn't in jest, I still agree it is a good idea.

"There are clearly people here with elements of right-wing ideology foremost in their minds" - adimon

That maybe so but I am not one of those people.

You must know yourself, that many aspects of the holocaust have been exposed as lies. The Soap made from human corpses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for instance, no serious holocaust scholar believes that story any more.

It is also a fact that more than four million deaths (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitzscrapbook/Tour/Birkenau/Birkenau02.html) have been officially removed (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Majdanek/DeathStatistics.html) from the total six million, yet the six million is still the figure spouted by the holocaust scholars.

I have read several books (http://vho.org/search/d/search.php?db=default&uid=default&ID=&Language=ENG&Type=Book&mh=20&sb=1&so=ascend&view_records=View+Records) and many articles (http://forum.codoh.info/viewforum.php?f=2) by revisionists and I have to say, they put up a good arguement.

I cannot understand why there is a law in many European countries that allows a judge to throw people in jail, for up to 5 years (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/15/zundel-germany.html) or fine people thousands of Euros (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/01/18/french_far_rightist_fined_for_holocaust_remarks/) for questioning an historical event.

This draconian law should be abolished by all nations, just as Spain did recently (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/07/11/Spanish_law.html).

There is only one reason I can think of, why a law would be made to quell people from asking questions and that would be to keep something covered up.

Could the revisionsist right? Have we been hoodwinked again by zionists?

By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War.

[ssyx]

Adimon readily admits here that he doesn't care about continuing a myth.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=201061#post201061

[phantom]

"Adimon readily admits here that he doesn't care about continuing a myth" - ssyx

What did Adimon mean by that?

[adimon]

Ok, if it wasn't in jest, I still agree it is a good idea.

Agreed.

"There are clearly people here with elements of right-wing ideology foremost in their minds" - adimon

That maybe so but I am not one of those people.

Good.

You must know yourself, that many aspects of the holocaust have been exposed as lies.

The jury is still out, is, I think, a better description. I've not myself seen any incontravertible evidence that the 6m figure is wrong. I've seen evidence on both sides. The argument that the Nazis could not mathematically killed X number of people doesn't wash. Military efficiency should not be underestimated. I've heard a lot of people tell awful revisionist lies about Birkenau and Treblinka too.

If it's 2m, then it's still the most appalling shit ever conducted in Europe. Stalin and Mao killed more, but culturally, for Europeans, the Holocaust is just unfathomably evil.

Mugabe may well have starved a similar number of people to death.

It's all fucked up.

I really don't see anything to be gained from extrapolating that because the statistic is incorrect and has been revised, that there is anything sinister about the revision. If you talk to people of my grandparent's generation (octagenarians), many of who fought in WW2, their general belief is that more people died in WW1, not realising that many times more died in WW2, even though they may have served in it. That generation has a collective memory of stories about 'the trenches' and the horrible grim futility of Ypres and The Somme etc.. that's just the way collective memory works. Lets not allow our children's collective memory to forget the LESSONS, that's what's important. If the historians in the decade that followed the war slipped up, then so be it. But this shit DID happen, at least 2m Jews were killed, and many more black people, homosexuals, gypsies etc.. When I hear the hardcore deniers claim that it was a total hoax, that no-one was murdered, that the pictures of 100s of bodies lying in pits are fake, that the videos contain English soldiers in SS uniforms etc.. it makes me sick and livid to the point where I start to lose it.

It's a slippery slope with death at the bottom.

I have read several books (http://vho.org/search/d/search.php?db=default&uid=default&ID=&Language=ENG&Type=Book&mh=20&sb=1&so=ascend&view_records=View+Records) and many articles (http://forum.codoh.info/viewforum.php?f=2) by revisionists and I have to say, they put up a good arguement.

Mostly they lie.

I cannot understand why there is a law in many European countries that allows a judge to throw people in jail, for up to 5 years (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/15/zundel-germany.html) or fine people thousands of Euros (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/01/18/french_far_rightist_fined_for_holocaust_remarks/) for questioning an historical event.

I agree it should not be illegal. But it is appalling.

There is only one reason I can think of, why a law would be made to quell people from asking questions and that would be to keep something covered up.

You've twisted the whole thing right there before even getting into it. There's no logic in the above sentence. If you start with a question, you can't answer it with a lemma.

Why was it illegal for ages to have anal sex with your wife? Was there a sinister reason? Or was it just a stupid law because it was made by stupid people who at the moment the bill became an act, outnumbered the sensible ones that saw nothing wrong with giving your missus a backdoor delivery?

Anyway, you can tell me blood is up. So I'll shut up. Sex and death eh?! :eek:

End of rant. Almost.

Could the revisionsist right? Have we been hoodwinked again by zionists?

No.

[adimon]

"Adimon readily admits here that he doesn't care about continuing a myth" - ssyx

What did Adimon mean by that?

Basically, I was born in Gravesend. I posted the explanation for the name of the town which I had been taught. Ssyx thinks it's wrong. I said I didn't care. So now I'm a 'peddler of myths' according to ssyx. Well, sue me, cuz I don't care about that either...the insult, I mean. I'm not a peddler of any kind, thank you :)

What difference does it make whether I repeat my explanation of the name of a town or not? None.

Ssyx is here to try and attack me personally, by linking up to that thread, and all he/she is doing is derailing this one, about the Holocaust...not about Gravesend.

Anyone who reads the thread (s)he's linked to will see that it is totally inconsequential and irrelevant.

[horseonwheels]

no doubt that there are many lies connected to the holocaust story but to flat out deny it seems stretched.

[john white]

"I think we need a new forum section for Holocaust denial" - adimon

You may say that in jest but I think it would be a good idea to have a holocaust debate/research board on this forum.

Maybe a mod can open a holocaust debate/research board? :)

Probably not

This site needs a Holocaust revisionism section like a hole in the head

Here's how I see it:

WWII happened

Atrocities and War Crimes happened on BOTH sides: hardly suprising, since War itself is an atrocity and a crime, against God if nothing else

After the war, the "winner" got to punish the "losers", and got to pick what to focus upon and what to ignore

This is called "writing history"

In the process of writing history some things got exaggerated, even invented

Some things that never happened were said to have happened, some things that did happen were said to not have happened

Some numbers got over reported, some under reported

As part of all that, we end up with the "official" history of the holocaust

A lot of that can be questioned: a lot of witness testomony used at Neurenberg, for example, shows heavy signs of being fabrications. But a fabrication in itself is not definative proof of falsehood: only of distortion/exageration/selling a "sound bite" picture to the watching world

But that does not mean the Holocaust did not happen: only that it may of happened differently

The theme of the Holocaust is certainly correct: people were worked to death in camps in appaling conditions and many many people died. Many deaths happened in the final year of the War, when food supplies to the camps were massively disrupted and disease ran rampant

As far as the deliberate extermination of people based on their DNA is concerned, that cannot be said not to have happened: numbers can be questioned, but not the fact that it took place on some scale: After that, its abstraction of quantity: the crime is that it took place at all

For what its worth, the real "hidden history" of the holocaust is that it was NOT exclusive to Jews: Eastern Europeans, Gipsies, Gays, Political undesirables, they died in the camps in untold numbers. I'd oppose the Official story to do justice to those people: but not to claim that no Jews were exterminated: that opinion is unsound, and leads stright into the hands of those looking to manipulate already manipulated history even further

That includes the hardcore Zionists, who need a dread and certain enemy to sound off of. That might be a bit advanced, but its well worth thinking about

Anyway, the above is my view

Heres what Icke said about this topic in The Truth Will Set You Free (The only time he has talked about it as far as I know)

The same attitude that suppressed the challenge to the manipulation of World War Two, today sees people vilified and jailed for questioning some of the official versions of The Holocaust in Nazi Germany. If you do that, no-one listens to the evidence because this is lost in the tidal wave of vilification and condemnation. If people want to believe that all those who question the official line are Nazis and apologists for the Hitler regime, or anti-Jewish, then they must go ahead and do so. But I'll tell them this. They are kidding themselves, because that isn't true. It simply isn't.

As the old vibration of life begins to crumble and the new one emerges, we are in the period now when the muck of the past which has remained hidden is coming to the surface to be dealt with and dispersed. The content of this book is part of that. It is not only individuals who have suppressed emotions which eat them away and eventually have to be dealt with, it is the Earth and the collective mind of humanity also. The process of cleansing the Earth takes many forms, and one of them is for all that has been secret and suppressed to come into the public spotlight.

Whether people like it or whether they don't, the official version of The Holocaust cannot avoid this exposure to proper debate for very much longer. The process of cleansing and transformation will ensure that this will happen. The way the Nazis treated many Jewish people is unspeakable. There are no words adequate to describe it. The pain, as we see in the commemorations, appears undiminished for those who lived through it. What an insult it would be to those people who suffered so, if it were established that their pain and unimaginable horror is also being used without their knowledge, to promote and protect a longerterm plan. It would qualify, perhaps, as one of the ultimate inhumanities. Are people who did not suffer under the Nazis using the emotions of those who did to manipulate events for their own diabolical ends? We can only establish if that is true by allowing all information about that period to be made public without vilification or condemnation.

As Professor Yehuda Bauer, the chairman of the Vidal Sassoon Centre for the Study of Anti-Semitism, said, "Someone is misusing people's fears and obsessions and presenting things we know today did not happen".1 He was reacting to stories about 'human soap' which holocaust 'experts' have said the Nazis made out of the bodies of Jewish victims in the concentration camps. This has become an accepted 'fact', but Professor Bauer said there was no documentary evidence that any such thing took place. In the researching of this book, for the first time in my life I stumbled across information which questions the official holocaust line. I was
shocked, to be honest. I looked at it and I wrote it down, a process that always helps me to get things clearer in my mind. I pondered on it endlessly for weeks. My conclusion was that there were the most terrible atrocities against Jewish people, as there were against others in Germany, the Soviet Union, and in Japanese occupied countries. The whole war was a holocaust. What the European settlers did to the Native American tribes was a holocaust. The atrocities that Jewish people did suffer under the Nazis, makes the pain that we see thoroughly understandable. But I also concluded from the evidence I came across that the official line has a vast number of questions to answer and enormous tracts of documented information to explain before we can really know what happened. Like I say, nothing is ever what it seems, no matter what we may be told. When, for instance, a Jewish American like David Cole produces evidence and video documentaries demolishing the official claims about the events at Auschwitz, you cannot, if you are interested in truth, just dismiss his findings and condemn him as a Nazi apologist. That is not to say that everything people say is correct, but why are we so frightened to allow the public to decide for themselves? Why is such information suppressed?

People might not like me making these points, but I ask them this: what is a true love for humanity? Is it saying what you believe people need to know and taking the flak? Or is it saying what you think they want to know and taking the plaudits?



On that basis, careful discussion here should be OK, but any links that go straight back to far-right type websties will very probably be removed, and if persistant, treated accordingly as spam

[coolfighter]

I wonder why no one made a comment about this?

Rabbi Weiss, Outside Annapolis Peace Confab, Rips Zionism

Rabbi Weiss, Outside Annapolis Peace Confab, Rips Zionism - YouTube

[john white]

I wonder why no one made a comment about this?

Rabbi Weiss, Outside Annapolis Peace Confab, Rips Zionism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9OIqy6md9w

Cool fighter:

This post is fine: Jewish people questioning Jewish History/policy of Israeli government is indeed good material that should be considered

The following post was not, and was deleted. It was mocking, and designed to antagonise, and FWIW actually a barrier to encouraguing people to examine the questions around the issue

[phantom]

Hi john white.

I didn't think a mod would add a holocaust board but I thought I'd ask anyway just on the off chance.

I understand what you are saying and I am not disagreeing with you that many people lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis and the allies because of their large scale bombings of train lines that stopped food and medicine from reaching the camps.

You are right when you say a lot of witness testimony used at Nuremberg was fabrications. Many of the witnesses were not allowed to speak or give evidence at Nuremberg because even the prosecutors didn’t believe their tales. Yet many of those who did testify were indeed telling lies.

And when it comes to the gas chambers being used to kill jews, there is no evidence for it other than witness testimonies. That being said, some who did testify did not even mention gas chambers.

What I am saying is, if many people lied at Nuremberg about the many things the Nazis were supposed to have done, how do we know that the gas chamber reports were not lies also. Without the gas chambers the whole holocaust story falls apart.

I am not denying that Hitler wanted to get rid of the jews, I am not denying that many jews were brutally treated at the hands of some Nazis but to say that Hitler wanted to exterminate all the jews rather than extradite them to Madagascar is based on propaganda. There is no evidence to suggest that Hitler wanted to or ordered the extermination of the jews.

I'll leave it there but just want to add that I believe that people should have the right to examine the holocaust, just as we can any other historical event, without being ridiculed, labeled an anti-Semite or fined and thrown in jail.

[phantom]

“I've not myself seen any incontravertible evidence that the 6m figure is wrong” - adimon

I just gave you two links from a holocaust site that has eliminated 4 million from the official 6 million figure would you say that is incontrovertible?

Even the 2 million figure can be reduced by further research.

“When I hear the hardcore deniers claim that it was a total hoax, that no-one was murdered, that the pictures of 100s of bodies lying in pits are fake, that the videos contain English soldiers in SS uniforms etc.. it makes me sick and livid to the point where I start to lose it.” - adimon

I understand how you feel, I feel the same way. I believe those who deny any jews were murdered by Nazis, or that say all the pictures of the dead are fabricated, (although some were) or that the videos of the SS soldiers were in fact English soldiers dressed up (I have not heard that before) have either not read revisionist work properly or they simply hate jews. People who suggest such things are easily defeated in debate and I have no time for such people.

Can I ask how much revisionist work you have read for you to say that “Mostly they lie”? It is easy to say that so and so lied without actually pointing out the lies. Please list a few of the lies you believe revisionists have said so that I may refute them if possible.

I agree that my last comment about the holocaust denial law was maybe a little off, I guess it boils down to me having a conspiratorial mind, especially after the events of 9/11 and the illegal wars we are in now. But I still can’t understand why such a law was invented to stop people from researching the events surrounding the holocaust.

Maybe you are right and it’s “just a stupid law made by stupid people”.

Finally, why do you believe revisionists are wrong and that we have not been hoodwinked again by the zionists?

[phantom]

Thanks for clearing up the ssyx post adimon.

I did read a through a little of the thread and could not see what it had to do with this topic.

[coolfighter]

One question i always asked, why nobody mention these numbers and these people. whether a soldier or a civilian, isn't a human casualties??? If these soldiers serve in army by something called military service, can't you count them??? and how do you know the real casualties of the people who died in WW2. here is some info of what being released to the public!

Casualties in WW2
Soviet Union 25,568,000
China 11,324,000
Germany 7,060,000
Poland 6,850,000
Japan 1,806,000
Yugoslavia 1,700,000
Romania 985,000
France 810,000
Greece 520,000
USA 495,000
Austria 480,000
Italy 410,000
Great Britain 388,000
Holland 250,000
Belgium 85,000
Finland 79,000
Canada 42,000
India 36,000
Australia 29,000
Albania 28,000
Spain 22,000
Bulgaria 21,000
New Zealand 12,000
Norway 10,000
South Africa 9,000
Luxembourg 5,000
Denmark 4,000
TOTAL 59,028,000


Countries Involved in WW2



Albania, Algeria

Australia

Austria, Belgium, Borneo

Bulgaria

Burma, Canada, Ceylon

Chile, China

Congo, Cuba

Czechoslovakia

Denmark, Egypt

Eritrea, Ethiopia

Finland, France

Germany, Gibraltar

Great Britain

Greece, Grenada

Gilbert Islands

Hong Kong, Hungary, India

Iraq,

Italy

Japan, Korea, Malaya

Malta, Marshall Islands

Morocco, Netherlands

New Guinea, New Zealand

Nicaragua, Norway

Pakistan, Palestine

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Sicily, Singapore

Solomon Islands

Somalia, South Africa

Soviet Union, Spain

Sweden, Switzerland

Syria, Thailand, Tunisia

Turkey

United States

Vietnam, Yugoslavia

They can be more civilian casualties but this is the only report they release! It's only Number's!!!

[sean]

We won't be adding a specialist holocaust forum here. There are many areas on the forum in which subjects like this can be discussed. And there is room for legitimate discussion on the holocuast.

There is no room, however, for blind hatred or personalised attacks as a result. These kinds of posts from both sides will be dealt with in the usual manner.

So as ever, please try to stay on topic and be civil to eachother.

[chris]

I wonder why no one made a comment about this?

Rabbi Weiss, Outside Annapolis Peace Confab, Rips Zionism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9OIqy6md9w

That's a great video...So touching to hear such peace coming from people that could really turn a blind eye.

[adimon]

I just gave you two links from a holocaust site that has eliminated 4 million from the official 6 million figure would you say that is incontrovertible?

Even the 2 million figure can be reduced by further research.

Yes, will it comes down to which historians you believe, and why, doesn't it?

Just think of all the differences in opinion over the minute details of the 9/11 atacks, and that's only 6 years after.

I understand how you feel, I feel the same way. I believe those who deny any jews were murdered by Nazis, or that say all the pictures of the dead are fabricated, (although some were) or that the videos of the SS soldiers were in fact English soldiers dressed up (I have not heard that before) have either not read revisionist work properly or they simply hate jews. People who suggest such things are easily defeated in debate and I have no time for such people.

Irving has said all of the above. I'm glad you don't believe him.

I agree that my last comment about the holocaust denial law was maybe a little off, I guess it boils down to me having a conspiratorial mind, especially after the events of 9/11 and the illegal wars we are in now. But I still can’t understand why such a law was invented to stop people from researching the events surrounding the holocaust.

Fair enough. I'd say your self-analysis was accurate, just as mine is of myself as a relative skeptic. It's good to see yourself in perspective to the big picture, so I salute you.

Maybe you are right and it’s “just a stupid law made by stupid people”.

I really do think so. There are many other examples with no link to a conspiracy agenda.

Finally, why do you believe revisionists are wrong and that we have not been hoodwinked again by the zionists?

I'm happy to answer your question, but perhaps you can clarify which revisionists you're referring to, state exactly who the Zionists are, and define the hoodwinking you think has occurred. This will enable me to answer your question a lot better.

One question i always asked, why nobody mention these numbers and these people. whether a soldier or a civilian, isn't a human casualties??? If these soldiers serve in army by something called military service, can't you count them??? and how do you know the real casualties of the people who died in WW2. They can be more civilian casualties but this is the only report they release! It's only Number's!!!

I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on the Shoah, and not enough on the casualities in general. 21m Russian civilians died in WW2, mostly due to non-combatative reasons, but they were still forced into the situations that led to their deaths.

On the subject of accuracy, the Commonweath War Graves Commission does an incredible job to be as accurate as possible. In many instances, they found nothing more than 'a pile of mixed remains' (sorry to be so vulgar) and didn't know which body parts belonged to which soldiers, so buried them altogether, but knew which people would have been involved. In other cases, the grave is marked as 'Unknown Soldier' because they really didnt know. But a lot of very hard, unpaid work has gone into this process of identification an burial. Having visited a large proportion of their cemeteries I think they are an amazing organisation.

[seer74]

The holocaust happened. But it didn't ONLY happen to jews. It happened to christians as well, and ANYONE who didn't follow Hitler.

The number of Jews who were killed seems to have been exagerated. The very important fact that Zionist Rothschilds supported Hitler is dekiberatley omitted.

The Holocaust was the work of Zionists AND Nazis in close collaberation, and it really did happen. Not EXACTLY the way it tends to be portrayed but it happened.

It happened as part of a coordinated effort the part of the Illuminati to:

A) bring about the formation of the United Nations
B) create fuel for U.S. and British support of a Zionist state, and
C) create an image of the U.S. as "world heroes" while immediatley afterward infiltrating U.S. infrastructure with Nazi mind control experts.

very important details were left out or exaggerated to make the story suit the agenda for world domination that was its motive. the motive is misrepresented for example the goal was certainly not to "wipe out the Jews".
But the holocaust was as real of an event as anything that occurs in the matrix.

[king]

facts are that holocaust did happen, only many other people were slaughtered in large numbers too, it was not only Jews.

It is estimated that about 55 million people died in the European theater during World War II. Globally a total of over 60 million people died in WWII and of those 60 million, more were civilian than soldiers.

The Soviet Union lost the most with 25 million deaths, but only about a third were combat related.

China's death toll is incomplete but estimates are between 15 and 22 million,

Poland had 6 million deaths including 3 million Jews, roughly 20% of its prewar population,

Germany lost 4 million soldiers and 2 million civilians, many of them women,

Japan had 1.2 million battle deaths and another 1.4 million soldiers listed as missing, almost 1 million civilians were killed in the bombing raids between 1944 and 1945,

over 1.7 million Yugoslavs and

500,000 Greeks died in the war,

France lost 200,000 soldiers and 400,000 civilians,

Italy lost 330,000 people,

Hungary lost 147,000 men in combat,

Bulgaria lost 19,000 in combat, Romania lost 73,000 in combat,

Great Britain lost 264,000 soldiers and 60,000 civilians in bombing raids,

the United States lost 292,000 soldiers,

the Dutch lost 10,000 soldiers and 190,000 civilians,

Australia lost 23,000 men in combat,

Canada 37,000 soldiers,

India lost 24,000 men in battle, New Zealand 10,000 and South Africa 6,000.

These totals do not include the 6 million Jews who perished in the Final Solution of Nazi Germany or the 17 million dead as a result of Japan's policies in Asia from 1931 to 1945.



I think that number of 6 million dead Jews is way overblown, but it is impossible to deny that many of them died, probably in hundreds of thousands, maybe even million or two due to the simple facts that Jews were in every European country, so by a probability they had to die as other people in those countries died.
And, by talking to some of the older Europeans, even my grandparents said the same -- Jews, Gypsies and other "undesirables" and "unclean" by standards of Hitler's eugenic were slaughtered. But, those same European people saved lots of Jews and Gypsies from slaughter, yet Jews seem to have forgotten that.

anyways, to claim that holocaust did not happen is to fall prey to dirty tricks of controllers. we should not be fighting each other about such ridiculous statements that can only create division amongst us.

I for fact know that about 1.7 million of people died in Yugoslavia, as if on average one family lost one son or father in second world war, sometimes both -- it does not require high math to figure out that number of 1,7 million dead is more than likely, maybe even underreported due to the fact that Yougoslavian front was second largest front (after Russia) that has drained Hitler's resources, slowing down and spoiling Hitler's plans. So, because Hitler has overstreched his resources allies got an upperhand, effectively stoppinng, then crushing Hitler's war machine.

Effectively, if it was not for Russian and Yugoslavian sacrifices -- we would be most likely speaking German now and doing that funny salute with our hand....
;-)

. So, holocaust did happen, but many other people have died in large numbers, not only Jews.



http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_World_War_2

[adimon]

The very important fact that Zionist Rothschilds supported Hitler is dekiberatley omitted.

The Holocaust was the work of Zionists AND Nazis in close collaberation, and it really did happen. Not EXACTLY the way it tends to be portrayed but it happened.

It happened as part of a coordinated effort the part of the Illuminati to:

A) bring about the formation of the United Nations
B) create fuel for U.S. and British support of a Zionist state, and
C) create an image of the U.S. as "world heroes" while immediatley afterward infiltrating U.S. infrastructure with Nazi mind control experts.

very important details were left out or exaggerated to make the story suit the agenda for world domination that was its motive. the motive is misrepresented for example the goal was certainly not to "wipe out the Jews".
But the holocaust was as real of an event as anything that occurs in the matrix.

I'm more than aware of this theory, but I would like to pose a couple of questions to those that subscribe to it.

A) Why was the League of Nations allowed to fail? World War One had just as much, if not larger impact on international politics. If the PTB had wanted a war to justify the creation of an international organisation used to further their agenda, why did they not do this with the League of Nations, and ride the tide of liberal internationalist idealism, which would have been a lot easier?

B) Your theory as to the creation of Israel:

i) First of all, please explain what you mean by Zionist. It means different thigns to different people.
ii) Are you suggesting that this group engineered the Holocaust in order to justify taking land from Palestine and garnering public support for this act? That seems illogical to me. Why would you want Israel to live in as opposed to Poland or Czechoslovakia? What are you suggesting was the ultimate motive for securing Israel?

C) This is even more strange theory, but I'll run with it for now. You must know that the US had been the predominant superpower for a long time before 1945. If mind control existed in 1945, why wouldn't the PTB have silently and secretly infiltrated the US before this, without WW2?

Sorry, I'm not a proponent of the theory that the two World Wars were engineered. I've not really had anyone willing to debate it with me though. Thanks for your concise points, perhaps you could now answer my questions?

Cheers

[tintin]

What kind of people died
in the HOLOCAUST?
Are GERMANS LESS THAN KHAZARS?

What kind of of people are that?

To me there is NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE
as to WHO DIED.

I am SICK hearing about JEWS BEING WORTH MORE
than other people.

AND THEY ARE KHAZARS and NOT JEWS AT ALL....

Can those KHAZAR DISINFORMORMERS FUCK OFFF??
People are people.

[megafish33]

I am SICK hearing about JEWS BEING WORTH MORE
than other people.



:rolleyes: My we're an educated bunch...

No intelligent, rational thinking Jew seriously thinks (s)he's "worth" more than another human being, except for maybe Sarah Silverman, but fuck her. Why are you so "SICK?" Where are you hearing that statement from? Not on here that's for sure. ;) That's about as rich as saying Western and Israeli Jews blame the German people for Hitler's insanity. People can put words in the mouth of others but the truth is that no one is seriously suggesting that. I know plenty of Jews that have good relations with Germans, and Arabs for that matter. Equally, I know plenty of Jews that don't seriously believe that they're "worth more" than anyone else. In fact, many seriously look down on other Jews... particularly 'rothschild jews' e.g. rich power brokers that give conspiracy theorists a little extra material. Even those I know who are religious actually believe the Jewish people, due to their covenant with the creator, have more responsibilities of leadership in worship and whatnot, thus giving them an "inferior," or servant/guide position to Gentiles.


People are people.


Even Jewy lookin' people? ;)


-

I agree with those that have stated that both World Wars (really one just drawn out) were crimes in themselves. What happened to the Jews was truly one of the failures of humanity, but so is what happened to those other poor souls that were being killed right along with the Jews. In fact, Jews were also on the offense. There are graves and many brave Jewish American soldiers that fought in WW2. Despite a few 'off' posts, lol, glad to see a decent discussion taking place.

[dondaz]

Hi Adimon, I know your questions weren't directed to me but I feel like having a say here. Hope you don't mind me throwing a few pennies worth in the pot.

A) Why was the League of Nations allowed to fail?

It was the first time they had come out in the open about a one world government and they were not too sure how it would be taken if they started the free trade rubbish etc. to expand it. So they come up with better agendas, such as the UN, EEC and finaly the big one, the European Union and the North American Union. I wonder what they want to call the one world government?


B) Your theory as to the creation of Israel:

i) First of all, please explain what you mean by Zionist. It means different thigns to different people.

Personally I believe zionists to be just like the neocons. They are the high ranking button pushers for the elite. The barons of the kings, as it were. Just like Bush, Blair and Brown, and Cameron if he gets in power. They are just tools the elite use to push the New World Order Agenda against us.

ii) Are you suggesting that this group engineered the Holocaust in order to justify taking land from Palestine and garnering public support for this act?

Amongst other reasons yes. The occupation of Israel serves many purposes. Israel is the financial capital of the middle east and much of the middle east trade goes through there. So the elite make sure they get their slice of the cake. It also fuels the fire between the Jews and Muslims, devide and rule. Jews are being led like lambs to the slaughter house and are being used by the elite to create order out of chaos against musims. The elite use anyone to further their cause.

Israel is an ideal location as a ground base to watch and infiltrate the muslim countries for future invasion. As a former soldier you may already know this.

I do believe there was indeed a holocaust, brought about by the elite financing all sides in the war, in a deliberate plan to crush the free people of this world and force us into this sad sorry world we now have. Governed by beurocratic governments for their world domination and system of control. The elite do not see us as jews, muslims, christians, leftwing, rightwing & all the rest of the devisions. These are all labels they have given to us or turned to their advantage, to get us at each other. Devide and rule. Simple really. Their whole system of control, in their different guises, is very simple to understand when you know how it works.

It's really all about whether we choose to believe this bit or that bit of information. We believe what we want to believe and disregard the rest.

[megafish33]

Get a hold of David Cole - The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz video


Are there any clips of that on YouTube or GoogVid?

[seer74]

I'm more than aware of this theory, but I would like to pose a couple of questions to those that subscribe to it.

A) Why was the League of Nations allowed to fail? World War One had just as much, if not larger impact on international politics. If the PTB had wanted a war to justify the creation of an international organisation used to further their agenda, why did they not do this with the League of Nations, and ride the tide of liberal internationalist idealism, which would have been a lot easier?

B) Your theory as to the creation of Israel:

i) First of all, please explain what you mean by Zionist. It means different thigns to different people.
ii) Are you suggesting that this group engineered the Holocaust in order to justify taking land from Palestine and garnering public support for this act? That seems illogical to me. Why would you want Israel to live in as opposed to Poland or Czechoslovakia? What are you suggesting was the ultimate motive for securing Israel?

C) This is even more strange theory, but I'll run with it for now. You must know that the US had been the predominant superpower for a long time before 1945. If mind control existed in 1945, why wouldn't the PTB have silently and secretly infiltrated the US before this, without WW2?

Sorry, I'm not a proponent of the theory that the two World Wars were engineered. I've not really had anyone willing to debate it with me though. Thanks for your concise points, perhaps you could now answer my questions?

Cheers

A) the League of Nations was not allowed to fail, it failed because at the time there were still too many opponents of Masonic ideas and the term League of Nations was recognized as a Masonic idea.
B) Zionist as in,yes, those who wanted to give Palestine to the Jews. The purpose being to establish Rothschild/U.S./British stronghold in the Middle East, and to create the conflicts in the Middle East that the Fascist NWO are manipulateing to this day.
C) yes, the U.S. was already a Superpower. And it is declassified info. that the newly formed CIA was conducting mind control research right from the start, under the guidance of officials that had been imported to the U.S. from Nazi Germany (the rationale being who better to know how to combat a threat of Nazi nature) the U.S. Gov. was already under NWO influence (it was the creation of high degree Masons from the start), of course, but the stage needed set to justify the introduction of mind control research.

[seer74]

U.S. governments were under NWO Rockefeller influence. British and German governments were BOTH under NWO Rothschild influence in the years leading up to the war. NO, it couldn't have been orchestrated could it?

[phantom]

I agree that it does come down to “which historians you believe, and why”. The links I provided were from holocaust sites who confirm that holocaust scholars revised the death down by four million +. And that was just two camps I used as an example. I am sure I could find other revised numbers from a few other camps that would lower the number even more.

As for David Irving, I do not class him as a holocaust revisionist he is simply a WWII historian as far as I am concerned. I can’t recall Irving ever saying that no jews were persecuted by the Nazis, I don’t think he is that stupid to claim such rubbish. Maybe you can send me a link to where he makes such a claim. I do recall him saying jews were killed by the Nazis but he denies that Jews were killed in gas chambers. As for your claim that he says all the photos of the dead are fabricated and that British troops dressed as Nazis, please provide links to these claims.

The revisionists I refer to are, well, there are many but I will link just a few. Germar Rudolf (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/rudolf.html), Jürgen Graf (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/graf.html), Robert Faurisson (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/faurisson.html), Paul Rassinier (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/rassinier.html) Carlos Whitlock Porter (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/porter.html) and David Cole (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/cole.html). There are many others at this link (http://www.revisionists.com/) I could have named but I‘ll just refer you to those few above.

The zionists I am referring to, are the likes of Rabbi Israel Goldstein who was making his wild holocaust claims back in 1942 via the New York Times. He was claiming that 2 million jews had already been slain by all manner of satanic barbarism. And in 1943 Chaim Weizmann was saying 2 million Jews had already been exterminated. And the World Jewish Congress were spreading the same story and putting pressure on the Allied governments, in particular the U.S. Government to do something about the slaughter of the jews.

At first, the US Government just scoffed at the information but because of the various political pressures, they also ran with it, even though there was no military intelligence on the claims.

If the above paragraph is true, then it would explain why Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle did not write single word, in their extensive war memoirs, of the holocaust and Nazi gas chambers (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF981020.html).

Even the famous Elie Wiesel makes no mention of gas chambers in his famous book, Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Night@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51BK1byaALL.@@AMEPARAM@@51BK1byaALL but rather talks about people being forced in to pits of fire.

The zionists tried to push another 6 million 'threatened' holocaust (http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/american.hebrew/glynn.1919) back in 1919 but it never became popular with the American or European public after the war. And it is just strange that after the Second World War, the 6 million figure was used again. The six million figure is also used in the Talmud (http://yearsofawe.blogspot.com/2005/03/six-million-for-machzit-hashekel-and.html). Just a coincidence?

As for the zionist hoowinking/deception well, this says it all.

Mossad Motto - "By way of deception, thou shalt do war"

[adimon]

There are graves and many brave Jewish American soldiers that fought in WW2. Despite a few 'off' posts, lol, glad to see a decent discussion taking place.

Well said.

Hi Adimon, I know your questions weren't directed to me but I feel like having a say here. Hope you don't mind me throwing a few pennies worth in the pot.

Not at all. Thanks for answering my questions.

Just like Bush, Blair and Brown, and Cameron if he gets in power.

Off-topic, but Cameron has no chance.

Amongst other reasons yes. The occupation of Israel serves many purposes. Israel is the financial capital of the middle east and much of the middle east trade goes through there. So the elite make sure they get their slice of the cake. It also fuels the fire between the Jews and Muslims, devide and rule. Jews are being led like lambs to the slaughter house and are being used by the elite to create order out of chaos against musims. The elite use anyone to further their cause.

Interesting.

Israel is an ideal location as a ground base to watch and infiltrate the muslim countries for future invasion. As a former soldier you may already know this.

Interesting. What purposes do you suggest are behind such infiltrations?

Their whole system of control, in their different guises, is very simple to understand when you know how it works.

Although I have a partially-differing view of the system works, I agree with you it's well thought out.

[carlg1212]

Bravo to Mike Delaney ( http://www.prothink.org/ ) for finding and publishing this excellent article written/ put together by Willie Martin-- the beginning PORTION of which follows Mike's brief but pointed commentary:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.prothink.org/

THE OFFICIAL HOLOCAUST STORY IS A FRAUD!!!

I get so disgusted of the constant brainwashing of Zionist trying to propagate the fairytale holocaust story in everything they do. You see it in movies and tv shows all the time even if it is only a short mention to remind you that 6 million Jews were slaughtered. This story is such crap and we as people of this planet need to stop being scared of saying it is a fraud.

What a bunch of bullshit. There's no question it happened. The elitist illuminati wants you think it didn't happen, so that you are manipulated for believing it, then manipulated for not believing it. It has nothing to do with Jews funding the Holocaust...of course they did! It's the same thing as saying "The Catholics funded the Inquisition". Of course they did!

Can't you see that either way, you are being manipulated?


Just like illuminati puppet Mitt Romney's assertion that "we ought to double Guantanamo" (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/romney-guantanamo/) and refusing to comment as to whether waterboarding (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Waterboard3-small.jpg) is a form of torture.

Soon, people will say, "of course waterboarding isn't a form of torture", and we'll have another thread, probably years from now, saying waterboarding is good for you!

For fucks sake.

[adimon]

You either believe in free speech, warts and all, or you don't apple-polisher

LOL :D I've never been called an apple-polisher before!

I suggest you write to your MP. :D

[seer74]

What a bunch of bullshit. There's no question it happened. The elitist illuminati wants you think it didn't happen, so that you are manipulated for believing it, then manipulated for not believing it. It has nothing to do with Jews funding the Holocaust...of course they did! It's the same thing as saying "The Catholics funded the Inquisition". Of course they did!

Can't you see that either way, you are being manipulated?


Just like illuminati puppet Mitt Romney's assertion that "we ought to double Guantanamo" (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/romney-guantanamo/) and refusing to comment as to whether waterboarding (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Waterboard3-small.jpg) is a form of torture.

Soon, people will say, "of course waterboarding isn't a form of torture", and we'll have another thread, probably years from now, saying waterboarding is good for you!

For fucks sake.

I agree, denying that the holocaust even happened at all can make you as usefull to the NWO as the Holocaust was, and those who perpetuate the OFFICIAL VERSION of the Holocaust. Both claims are lies, and those who have claimed that it didn't even happen, have provided a huge basis for discrediting those who want to get to the HIDDEN agenda behind WHY it happened.

[seer74]

Its like the president of Iran coming out saying the Holocaust never happened, and that 9/11 was an inside job. YES, 9/11 was an inside job, thanks for getting my point of view mis-associated with Holocaust denial. And thanks all the rest of you Holocaust deniers for giving the ADL (NWO Rothschilds) mental weapons against Davic Icke, me, and all of us in their War Against Truth.

awesome, just fuckin' great:cool:

[phantom]

Hi carlg1212

"What a bunch of bullshit"

What is a bunch of bullshit? :confused:

Oh, now I see it.......:eek:

Binjamin Wilkomirski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, who's memoir was hailed as a classic of Holocaust literature was revealed to be a holocaust liar (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,259546,00.html) by a Swiss journalist. I wonder how many schools and libraries threw away all his work. I bet none.

Moshe Peer claimed that as an 11 year old boy he survived 6 gassings at Bergen Belsen. (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/BergenBelsen04.html) When asked, how did you survive, he replied "Maybe children resist better, I don't know". He was obviously telling lies because it is a fact that there were no gas chambers at Bergen Belsen (http://www.thestar.com/Corrections/article/258594).

Franz Blaha, a Czech doctor imprisoned at Dachau, who's testimony at the Nuremberg trials claimed there were many executions by gas (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=3), but it is yet another fact that there were "no gas chamber at Dachau" (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/codoh/ads/daily-northwestern). (Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies)

"There's no question it happened"

Oh really! :cool:

As I just pointed out to you above, you have to question events surrounding the holocaust otherwise how are we to expose more liars?

I am curious to know if you have read any revisionist books and articles carlg1212?

I am sure if you spent a few weeks reading through the books and article links that I posted earlier on this thread, with an open mind, you would come back here with a different opinion.

[phantom]

sean
Webmaster & Producer

"We won't be adding a specialist holocaust forum here. There are many areas on the forum in which subjects like this can be discussed. And there is room for legitimate discussion on the holocuast"

Ok, fair enough!

"There is no room, however, for blind hatred or personalised attacks as a result. These kinds of posts from both sides will be dealt with in the usual manner"

Ok, fair enough!

"So as ever, please try to stay on topic and be civil to eachother"

Good idea!

Can I ask john white (Forum Advisor) and crowd control to stop their bickering on this thread and try to stay on topic please.

You guys can start a new thread somewhere else and bicker amongst yourselves there.

Thank you very much! :)

[woghd]

I have a question, and I hope it's met with the spirit to which it is asked.

As a person who was brought up to believe that six million Jews were shoved into Gas Chambers and then cremated, it comes as a terrible shock to hear somebody say it never happened.

I first heard this sort of thing from white-supremists, but it is ever so slowly going mainstream, to the point where I now find myself wanting to know what actually happened. Since my eyes have been opened to other lies, I am now in a position to entertain the idea that the holocaust is a lie, or at the very least a manipulated story.

Here is my question, to anybody:
What actually happened? Clearly people were mistreated, tortured, and killed. Was it an attempt at genocide? When I watch Schindler's List, and think about showing it to my children, I wan't to know how accurate that movie is. 100% ? 80% ? 50% ? Total BS? What?

I would like it if somebody could answer this in a way that a layman such as myself can understand, I do not have time to research the entire holocaust. I suspect many people feel the same way I do.
Thanx

Archangel

[i_am]

sean
Webmaster & Producer

"We won't be adding a specialist holocaust forum here. There are many areas on the forum in which subjects like this can be discussed. And there is room for legitimate discussion on the holocuast"

Ok, fair enough!

"There is no room, however, for blind hatred or personalised attacks as a result. These kinds of posts from both sides will be dealt with in the usual manner"

Ok, fair enough!

"So as ever, please try to stay on topic and be civil to eachother"

Good idea!

Can I ask john white (Forum Advisor) and crowd control to stop their bickering on this thread and try to stay on topic please.

You guys can start a new thread somewhere else and bicker amongst yourselves there.
Thank you very much! :)

Cute, really cute :rolleyes:

No, folks, sean did NOT say that last bit but it was well done phantom :)

[phantom]

Hi i am

I did not insinuate that Sean made the last comment. Notice there are no speech marks.

I thought it was appropriate to add my remark below Sean’s last comment.

I am glad you liked it anyway. :)

Now, please stay on topic i am. :p ;)

[adimon]

Here is my question, to anybody:
What actually happened? Clearly people were mistreated, tortured, and killed. Was it an attempt at genocide? When I watch Schindler's List, and think about showing it to my children, I wan't to know how accurate that movie is.

Another interesting point raised by your post Caesar, is that it's important to read up on Nazi racial policy, in Mein Kampf, in Hitler's Secret Book, and in the huge archive of Nazi foreign policy documents.

The idea of THE FINAL SOLUTION did not start until around 1941, but before that they still had plans to 'eradicate', 'exterminate' and 'destroy' the Jews, Slavs, Romanis etc, rather than merely conquer or assimilate them.

On the point of Schindler's List, it is a very well researched film, made from an extremely well researched book, and consequently is very accurate.

Phantom, I think you would do well to historiographically analyse the sources which lead you to believe there were no gas chambers at Dachau and Belsen. Have a look over the entirety of evidence on these camps. Better still, go visit the camps and decide for yourself if what you're looking at is just a harmless shower block. A shower block 500m from the accommodation block. 50m from a furnace.

[phantom]

Hi woghd

"As a person who was brought up to believe that six million Jews were shoved into Gas Chambers and then cremated, it comes as a terrible shock to hear somebody say it never happened"

I agree woghd. Imagine my shock when reading stories by people who claimed to have been gassed or saw people being gassed only to find out those people were indeed telling lies, as those three articles I linked to shows. There are many more similar articles I could link to that expose more holocaust liars.

"I first heard this sort of thing from white-supremists, but it is ever so slowly going mainstream, to the point where I now find myself wanting to know what actually happened. Since my eyes have been opened to other lies, I am now in a position to entertain the idea that the holocaust is a lie, or at the very least a manipulated story."

Believe it or not, that is exactly how I felt when first reading revisionist work. I have to say that it was not white supremacists telling me this information it was people with no connection to such parties. The MSM have tried to link the teachings of revisionists to white supremacists to make it look bad so that no one really cares to take a look to see what it is they are saying.

It is good that you are curious and want to know more. Please take the time to visit the links I provided earlier in this thread regarding the many online revisionist books and articles, it will open your eyes even wider.

"Here is my question, to anybody:
What actually happened? Clearly people were mistreated, tortured, and killed. Was it an attempt at genocide?"

Good questions. To answer your first two, no one really knows what actually happened. It is a fact that jews were treated badly by the Nazis, that goes without saying but I do not think it was an attempt at genocide.

No serious revisionist will deny the above, jews were treated in a bad way just as other prisoners were during the war, as happens in all wars. (Just look at how the US military treat innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan for example)

I am sure that if the Nazis wanted to kill all the jews they could have just slaughtered them in the ghettos and elsewhere with a bullet to the head but the fact is, the Nazis needed the man power to work for the military industrial complex.

"When I watch Schindler's List, and think about showing it to my children, I wan't to know how accurate that movie is. 100% ? 80% ? 50% ? Total BS? What?"

As for Schindlers List, read Michael A. Hoffmans take on it here (http://www.revisionisthistory.org/shindler.html). "Schindler's List," is based upon a novel, that is to say, a work of fiction, titled in its first edition, "Schindler's Ark," by the Australian writer Thomas Keneally.

"I would like it if somebody could answer this in a way that a layman such as myself can understand, I do not have time to research the entire holocaust. I suspect many people feel the same way I do"

I hope the above was useful to you. I understand that most people do not have the time to research the "entire" holocaust but may I suggest that you take the time to read at least some of the controversy surrounding the holocaust, like the gas chamber arguments for instance. That is always a good place to start.

It is hard to step into this territory, especially after growing up watching all those black and white films showing all the dead bodies of the jews, and learning about the holocaust in school but to understand what happened and to get to the truth, one has to put all that they learnt at school and through the TV to one side and start a fresh. Once you have read both sides of the argument, you will be able to debate the subject with a more informed opinion without sounding or being labelled a far right neo Nazi white supremacist anti-Semite. (I am surprised that I have not been accused of being either yet)

"Thanx"

You're welcome. :)

[adimon]

jews were treated badly by the Nazis, that goes without saying but I do not think it was an attempt at genocide.

The Nazis spoke of their plans for genocide a long time before they perpetrated it. Read the texts, phantom.

(Just look at how the US military treat innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan for example)

They don't put them in pits and set fire to them, phantom.

I am sure that if the Nazis wanted to kill all the jews they could have just slaughtered them in the ghettos and elsewhere with a bullet to the head but the fact is, the Nazis needed the man power to work for the military industrial complex.

Precisely. And then when they were no longer needed, they killed them.

"When I watch Schindler's List, and think about showing it to my children, I wan't to know how accurate that movie is. 100% ? 80% ? 50% ? Total BS? What?"

"Schindler's List," is based upon a novel, that is to say, a work of fiction, titled in its first edition, "Schindler's Ark," by the Australian writer Thomas Keneally.

You should read about the extensive research Keneally did before writing the novel. Its a true story, no doubt.

It is hard to step into this territory, especially after growing up watching all those black and white films showing all the dead bodies of the jews, and learning about the holocaust in school but to understand what happened and to get to the truth, one has to put all that they learnt at school and through the TV to one side and start a fresh. Once you have read both sides of the argument, you will be able to debate the subject with a more informed opinion without sounding or being labelled a far right neo Nazi white supremacist anti-Semite.[/B] (I am surprised that I have not been accused of being either yet)

You make a good point about doing your own research, but I'm surprised by anyone who comes to the conclusion that there were no gas chambers, having stood in one myself.

I'm not into name-calling phantom, but be careful who you associate with, that's all I'd say. :)

[phantom]

Hi adimon

If Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies says there were no gas chambers at Dachau, I will take his word for it. After all, he should know, just look at who he is.

The Gas Chamber at Dachau, which appeared in April of 1945, disappeared from Dachau by November of that year, only to reappear at Nuremberg in December, after which it disappeared from Nuremberg and only entered the scene again as “proven fact” in the trial of Oswald Pohl in 1947 (along with the steam chambers of Treblinka and we know the steam chambers did not exist because no holocaust scholar believes it)

The following (http://www.cwporter.com/dachgas.htm) is, I believe, a complete list of pretrial exhibits mentioning this “gas chamber”, which was to be “proven” in the First Dachau Trial (trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss). The gas chamber accusation was dropped before trial. It is apparent that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers knew before November 15, 1945, that no gas chamber could function in the manner described, and that other stories of gas chambers functioning in a similar manner were not true. Yet a decision was made to continue this accusation in other trials for political reasons.

As for the gas chambers of Bergen Belsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen-Belsen_concentration_camp). There were no gas chambers in Bergen-Belsen, since the mass executions took place in the camps further east. Nevertheless, an estimated 50,000 Jews, Czechs, Poles, anti-Nazi Christians, homosexuals, and Roma and Sinti (Gypsies) died in the camp.

I think you need to read more.

"Better still, go visit the camps and decide for yourself if what you're looking at is just a harmless shower block. A shower block 500m from the accommodation block. 50m from a furnace. "

I do not have to go and visit the camps for them to tell me there was a gas chamber. David Cole went to Auschwitz to put an end to the revisionist "lies" only to find out the truth about the gas chamber there.

Click here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=976870941610001004&q=David+Cole+-+The+Truth+Behind+The+Gates&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) to watch part 1

Click here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-441640420550012012&q=David+Cole+-+The+Truth+Behind+The+Gates&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1) to watch part 2

Now, if you don't mind, can you answer the questions I posed earlier (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14943&page=4).

Thanks!

[adimon]

If Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies says there were no gas chambers at Dachau, I will take his word for it. After all, he should know, just look at who he is.

Up to mate. You could always go look for yourself.

I think you need to read more.

I'd say the same to you, but with the added advice that you go look around the camps.

I do not have to go and visit the camps for them to tell me there was a gas chamber. David Cole went to Auschwitz to put an end to the revisionist "lies" only to find out the truth about the gas chamber there.

I went to them with an open mind, and what I saw makes denial impossible.

Now, if you don't mind, can you answer the questions I posed earlier (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14943&page=4).

Sorry, I missed the 'question'. I read some articles by Irving a great many years ago, that was the source of his claim about the 'dressing-up' etc.

A quick search found me this article, (http://www.ejpress.org/article/12395) which mentions it, as well as highlighting some other key points.

When his trial was going on there was a lot of decent editorials - with factual analysis - in The Telegraph.

Basically phantom, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You don't see the historiographical weaknesses with Irving's 'work' and I do. Oh well.

[adimon]

By the way, if you want to quote someone, you put [q uo te] at the start and [/quote] at the end, or use the quote button rather than 'post reply'. (without the spaces in the first tag, obviously)

[seer74]

lets please not mix our efforts to uncover the way in which the Holocaust has been misrepresented up with nonsense to the effect it never even happened, K?

[phantom]

"The Nazis spoke of their plans for genocide a long time before they perpetrated it"

Yeah, I know, I heard the same things growing up. Anyway, seeing as though you focused on Irving, here is what Judge Justice Gray said at his trial (http://www.vho.org/tr/2002/1/tr09denyhist.html).

"In regard to the evidence for mass genocide in the Nazi concentration camps, Justice Gray admitted: “What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence"

So, the Nazis spoke of their plans for genocide a long time before they perpetrated it yet Justice Gray doesn't seem to believe in the plan otherwise I am sure he would not have made such a comment.

"They don't put them in pits and set fire to them, phantom"

No, they torture them, some to death, to get false confessions just as the allies did to the Nazis they captured. Lets not forget the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Germans who were starved to death in the camps by the allies after the war.

Eisenhower's death camps - YouTube

I believe the pits of fire came from Elie Wiesel. He claimed to have seen the Nazis dumping babies into the pit of fire :rolleyes: Funny how he forgot to mention the gas chambers in his book, Night. Eli Wiesel is considered as a fraud (http://www.rense.com/general70/elie.htm).

"Precisely. And then when they were no longer needed, they killed them"

That is rubbish. I am sure that you are aware, because we have all been told that upon arrival at Auschwitz and other camps, the young, the old and the infirm were gassed straight away (http://www.ushmm.org/newsfeed/Auschwitz/viewstory.php?storyid=1991) right. Well it turns out to be a load of cobswollop because there are pictures of young and old being rescued by the allies.

http://www.fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/gifs/p538.gif
Soviet troops liberate the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp on January 27, 1945 (notice the old infirm woman)

http://www.fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/gifs/r106b.gif
Inmates and liberators met (notice the old man on the left)

http://www.fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/gifs2/45075.gif
Young and old survivors in Dachau cheer approaching U.S. troops (no need for me to comment here)

http://www.fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/gifs2/74456.gif
Women and children survivors in Mauthausen (no need for me to comment here)

http://www.ushmm.org/lcmedia/photo/lc/image/70/70262.jpg
Soon after liberation, surviving children of the Auschwitz camp walk out of the children's barracks. Poland, after January 27, 1945. (no need for me to comment here)

I could throw up a load more pictures to show you that the young, old and infirm were not gassed upon arrival as we have all been told, but I'll leave it at those few pictures.

It is also a fact that the father of ann Frank, Otto Frank (http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/holocaust/anne_frank_life_and_times.htm) and Eli Wiesel (http://www.bookrags.com/notes/nit/SUM.htm) spent time in the hospital because they were unfit for work. (Otto had Typhus and Eli injured his foot) If the Nazis were killing the sick, why did they not kill these two?

There are many stories from witnesses who claim they were treated in camp hospitals for illnesses and injury. Why would the Nazis have bothered to treat them if they were unfit to work?

"You should read about the extensive research Keneally did before writing the novel. Its a true story, no doubt"

I know all about his travels to different countries to interview jews who were saved by Schindler so that he could write his book but I still doubt it is a "true" story. After all, doesn't it say on the inside cover (for those who have a 1994 first edition of the book please check) "This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are either products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental"

Even on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler's_Ark) it says "Although Schindler's Ark is based on "actual people and events", it is classified as fiction" How can a book that is classified as fiction be based on actual people and events, especially if the above quote is on the inside cover?

Apparently, the Library of Congress Catalogged it as fiction too.

I have already exposed a few story tellers as being caught (there are more I can list) in a lie and you can bet that this work is no different.

"You make a good point about doing your own research, but I'm surprised by anyone who comes to the conclusion that there were no gas chambers, having stood in one myself"

Don't be surprised, I already pointed out two gas chambers that never were, yet people claimed to have seen gassings at those two camps. Even the holocaust scholars don't use Dachau and Bergen Belson gas chambers any more.

What gas chamber did you stand in?

"I'm not into name-calling phantom"

That's good to know, because I'm not either. Only those who cannot hold a decent debate start name calling and frankly, I have no time for such people.

"but be careful who you associate with, that's all I'd say"

Elaborate a little bit more on that please.

[phantom]

"Up to mate. You could always go look for yourself"

Why would I want to go and look at Dachau when a holocaust scholar such as Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, says there were no gas chambers at Dachau.

"I'd say the same to you, but with the added advice that you go look around the camps"

Stop going on about me taking a visit to the camps. What is it going to prove to me? Will I be able to see an actual gas chamber in action? NO! Will I be given a guided tour and told fables about the gas chambers, probably, just as they do to those who visit Auschwitz. Again I refer you to David Coles video, The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz.

"I went to them with an open mind, and what I saw makes denial impossible"

Where did you go? what did you see with an open mind that made you come to the conclusion that holocaust denial is impossible to believe?

"Basically phantom, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. You don't see the historiographical weaknesses with Irving's 'work' and I do. Oh well"

I have already told you, I am not a fan of Irving, I do not consider him to be a holocaust revisionist, he is simply an WWII Historian. It is the MSM that has given David Irving the title of a holocaust revisionist and I can tell you that Irving is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to true holocaust revisionists.

You still haven't replied to my earlier post here (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14943&page=4)

You said - "I'm happy to answer your question, but perhaps you can clarify which revisionists you're referring to" I did and you have not replied about the revisionists I listed, showing me where they are lying.

You also said - "state exactly who the Zionists are" I did that and you have not made a comment about those zionists I listed.

And you said - "and define the hoodwinking you think has occurred. This will enable me to answer your question a lot better" Of which I gave you a link to Victor Ostrovsky's work, By Way of Deception, thou shalt do War (http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ostrovsky.html), where he tells us a few things about zionist deception and you did not make comment on that.

[coolfighter]

One question to all members in here!

Are you an atheism? Do you believe in religion? do you believe that there was prophet's came to help humans?

If you tell me this is all lies, propagandas for more control! then why not asking your self if Holocaust could be a one big lie! or as what David icke says: A Dreamworld we believe to be real!

So next time when you reply with an answer about if it happened or not, think a little bit before!

[phantom]

Hi coolfighter

"Do you believe in religion? do you believe that there was prophet's came to help humans?"

In a word, NO!

"If you tell me this is all lies, propagandas for more control! then why not ask your self if Holocaust could be a one big lie!"

Many lies have been uncovered, I have only pointed out a few in this thread.

So next time when you reply with an answer about if it happened or not, think a little bit before!

Good advice!

[adimon]

"The Nazis spoke of their plans for genocide a long time before they perpetrated it"

Yeah, I know, I heard the same things growing up. So, the Nazis spoke of their plans for genocide a long time before they perpetrated it yet Justice Gray doesn't seem to believe in the plan otherwise I am sure he would not have made such a comment.


You ignored the fact entirely that the texts I mentioned contain evidence of their plan for genocide. Your argument is not logical. In the court case, the issue was not that genocide took place, but how, since Irving disputes the details by twisting them and telling lies. I totally disagree he should have been tried, but the Judge was not there to prove the Holocaust, as mass genocide, occurred. Of course it did. You agree with me on this. So your point is?

I believe the pits of fire came from Elie Wiesel. He claimed to have seen the Nazis dumping babies into the pit of fire :rolleyes: Funny how he forgot to mention the gas chambers in his book, Night. Eli Wiesel is considered as a fraud.

Just because you've found one account and decided it to be false, doesn't mean the Nazis didn't use gas chambers. I don't understand your logic one bit. :confused: You still won't address the fact that the gas chambers exist to this day, you can see them with your own eyes, along with literally thousands of photographs, records, notes and accounts which corroborate this. I strongly suggest you visit as opposed to choosing to believe 'historians' who are idiotic or perverse enough to skip over these 'details' which don't fit with their story. Are you like them? Do you WANT the Shoah to be a hoax? Can your mind not comprehend the level of atrocity or the banality of evil that occurred?

BTW, Have you seen 'The Triumph of The Will' ? If not, you'd do well to, since lives were lost smuggling that out into the free world.

That is rubbish. I am sure that you are aware, because we have all been told that upon arrival at Auschwitz and other camps, the young, the old and the infirm were gassed straight away (http://www.ushmm.org/newsfeed/Auschwitz/viewstory.php?storyid=1991) right. Well it turns out to be a load of cobswollop because there are pictures of young and old being rescued by the allies.

I don't think anyone suggested that this 'vetting' was a hard and fast rule from the minute the camp opened. The choices they made were, sick as it sounds, based on production, and other such statistics-based, immoral reasons. The Nazis abandoned the camps in most cases before the Allied or Soviet forces liberated them.

If the Nazis were killing the sick, why did they not kill these two?

Why don't you check out how many sick were killed? Or killed because they were not sick, but disabled -e.g. mute or dead? Or killed because some evil Nazi officer, insane and living out his sick dreams in a serial-killers paradise, decided that a person was ugly, or just, 'ought to die'.

You're taking apart schindlers ark below, and i'll come on to that, but did you not realise that there is lots of evidence to support the scene where Ralph Fiennes shoots people from the balcony of his quarters. The sick fuckers enjoyed their work so much they often wrote about in journals, which have survived. Just like the lists of people marked for 'special processing'. And the letters from one officer to another saying 'oh shit we've lost and we're gonna be discovered for doing all this terrible shit - what do we do!'

What's next phantom, you're gonna tell me that Mengele's experiments were a hoax?

There are many stories from witnesses who claim they were treated in camp hospitals for illnesses and injury. Why would the Nazis have bothered to treat them if they were unfit to work?

Use your head.

"Although Schindler's Ark is based on "actual people and events", it is classified as fiction" How can a book that is classified as fiction be based on actual people and events, especially if the above quote is on the inside cover?

Because it's not a LITERAL account of what happened, but an ESSENTIAL account of what happened. You know that The Great Escape is a true story in the sense that every detail of the escape plan happens in the film as it did in real life? The only liberties they've taken is with the identities of the people, changing nationalities etc..

The same is true of Schindler.

I really don't know what to say at this point phantom. We're going round in circles, I think. I really think you should visit the camps and see for yourself.

I already pointed out two gas chambers that never were, yet people claimed to have seen gassings at those two camps. Even the holocaust scholars don't use Dachau and Bergen Belson gas chambers any more.

What gas chamber did you stand in?

This is just utter bullshit. Whichever revisionist spun you this shit has you hook, line and sinker.

I've visited the gas chambers at Dachau, Birkenau and Treblinka.

Stop going on about me taking a visit to the camps. What is it going to prove to me? Will I be able to see an actual gas chamber in action? NO! Will I be given a guided tour and told fables about the gas chambers, probably, just as they do to those who visit Auschwitz. Again I refer you to David Coles video, The Truth Behind The Gates Of Auschwitz.

Yes you will be able to see the gas chambers. Again I make the point that because David Coles went there and made a video, it doesn't mean you have to believe it. Visiting the camps to inform yourself is a good idea, so no I won't stop making it as a point to anyone whom I believe to have been sold a pack of lies by revisionist scum.

I have already told you, I am not a fan of Irving, I do not consider him to be a holocaust revisionist, he is simply an WWII Historian.

He wants to revise the account of the holocaust which is supported by literally tonnes of evidence, based on supposition and bogus ideas. If you think WW2 historian is a more apt title, then so be it. You've been sold my friend.

It is the MSM that has given David Irving the title of a holocaust revisionist and I can tell you that Irving is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to true holocaust revisionists.

Pile as in pile of corpses? I'm giving him the title of evil lying prick, ok. I have the right to do that.

You also said - "state exactly who the Zionists are" I did that and you have not made a comment about those zionists I listed.

I'm pretty sure I said more than once that I don't believe the wars were engineered, and that I don't agree with your account of how all these events transpired.

If you want to ask me specific questions I'm happy to answer but presenting me with a view of history I've already read through and dismissed as incorrect, and expecting me to go over it again detail by detail for your benefit is a bit much. If you like it, then fine.

Bear in mind that this period you're talking about still has many living survivors who can confirm or deny various interpretations of history.

This is getting exhausting. :)

[adimon]

One question to all members in here!

Are you an atheism? Do you believe in religion? do you believe that there was prophet's came to help humans?

If you tell me this is all lies, propagandas for more control! then why not asking your self if Holocaust could be a one big lie! or as what David icke says: A Dreamworld we believe to be real!

So next time when you reply with an answer about if it happened or not, think a little bit before!

That's a bit off topic to be honest, but no, I consider religion to be organised delusion. What is a prophet? A man with a big imagination.

God is not real. Religion is a sham. The Holocaust happened. There is literally tonnes of evidence that prove this. There isn't a pencil shaving of evidence that God or any of the prophets existed.

So next time when you reply with a patronising, vague and off-topic question, think a little bit before yourself. :)

[tintin]

For the Occultist wars and death camps are great FUN.
Auschwitz is the symbol of the holocaust.

It ends on WITZ.
WITZ is a yiddish term and means JOKE.
It's all a sick Joke to them.

They have all kind of jokes.
A concentration Camp in Germany was
a KONZENTRATIONS LAGER.

In Auschwitch you had various camps.
They shortened it like this.

KL AUSCHWITZ 1.

Put that together and you have KLAUSCHWITZ.

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/BUYLINKS/EssenCWZ.jpg

Von Clausewitz and KLAUSWITZ.

The masterplan is now unfolding and that will culminate
in world war and the coming of the ANTI-CHRIST, Willem Alexander
of Orange.

The Father of Alexander was PRINCE CLAUS.
(Again , CLAUSE-Witz.)

Anne Frank was hiding in AMSTERDAM. The city with XXX
in it's weapon (666).

On a percentage basis by far the most killed were the DUTCH jews.
Almost 80% died.
They mosly lived in AMSTERDAM.

Before they went on transport they first were brought
to DE HOLLANDSCHE SCHOUWBURG.
(That's a THEATRE).

http://www.lindalee.nl/weblog/schouwburgah-thumb.jpg

Again,symbolic because it's just all THEATRE for them.

http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/blogs/fillips/images/Life%20Is%20Beautiful%201997.bmp

La VITA E BELLA

Oscar winning movie about the holocaust.
Roberto Begnini won an Oscar for BEST ACTOR.

After La Vita e Bella he made
one of the most expensive Italian movies ever.

http://www.filmposters.it/imgposter/grandi/pinocchio.jpg

This is the way they to show us RIGHT IN OUR FACE
that they are all liars.

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/021230/182732__pinocchio_l.jpg

All lies about the holocaust.
The whole thing is a set up. Israel is a worthless piece
of Desert and Australia is the biblical promised land.

That movie Pinocchio was in 2002.
the same year he appered in a documentary movie about Fellini.

http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/online/jpegs/fellinibook.jpg

I am a born LIAR.

2002 was the year Willem Alexander and MAXIMA married
Was on 2 FEBRUARY. 2-2-2002.

On 2 february this year Benigni got an honorary Doctorate
from the K.U.L. (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven).
that documentary about Fellini was by
DAMIEN PETTIGREW. (Damien, the Anti-Christ.)

KUL in dutch means bullshit, nonsense.

Anne Frank was hiding in AMSTERDAM.
Her mother was coincidently Edith HOLLANDER.

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000002OR4.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Schindler's list.
It was OSKAR schindler.
Again, you get OSCARS for ACTING.

The movie got a few OSCARS. Just as La Vita e bella.

All kind of subtle jokes.
Same with HITLER. (Or Adolf Rothschild)
He died on DUTCH Queensday. 30 april.

Charlie Chaplin. Born 4 days before Hitler was born.
96 hours.
Chaplin played Hitler in the GREAT DICTATOR.

http://www.cinemacom.com/chaplin/great-dictator.jpg

He was the dictator in TOMANIA.
This is the flag of tomania.

http://eh.lenin.ru/flags/8lc/tomn-flc.gif

Compare that to the flag of Amsterdam.

http://www.newamsterdamtours.com/nat/images/amsterdamflag.png

The Anti-Chist from Amsterdam.
We are in the final stages of the plan.
First the World war, starting with IRAN.

After that chaos. Then the rule of The anti-Christ.

[coolfighter]

That's a bit off topic to be honest, but no, I consider religion to be organised delusion. What is a prophet? A man with a big imagination.

God is not real. Religion is a sham. The Holocaust happened. There is literally tonnes of evidence that prove this. There isn't a pencil shaving of evidence that God or any of the prophets existed.

So next time when you reply with a patronising, vague and off-topic question, think a little bit before yourself. :)

adimon, what is more Taboo to all humans. THE WORD (GOD) or (HOLOCAUST) ? If you believe that you've been tricked by something called religion, why not tell that all our history is fake?

It's within the topic!

[phantom]

I have to go and collect my wife from the airport and will be back either tonight to answer the rest of your post, if not, I will do so tomorrow. For now I will answer your genocide quote.

"the texts I mentioned contain evidence of their plan for genocide"

Give me a link to such texts, from what I am aware, and this comes from holocaust websites, there are no wrtten text given by Hitler or anyone else to prove the Nazis had a plan to genocide the jews.

"There does not exist then, anything like a written order signed by [Hitler] for the extermination of the Jews in Europe."
Colin Cross, Adolf Hitler, (Milan, 1977), p.313.

"To the present day a written order by Hitler regarding the destruction of the European Jewish community has not been found, and, in all probability, this order was never given."
Walter Laqueur, Was niemand wissen wollte: Die Unterdruckung der Nachrichten uber Hitlers Endlösung (What Nobody Wanted to Know: The Suppression of News About Hitler's "Final Solution"), (Berlin-Vienna, 1981), p.190.

"No written document containing or reporting an explicit command to exterminate the Jews has come to light thus far. This does not of course mean that such direct evidence will not appear in the future. In the meantime, the presumption must be that the order or informal injunction to mass-murder Jews was transmitted orally."
Arno J. Mayer, Why did the Heavens not Darken?: The 'Final Solution' in History (New York: Pantheon Books, 1990), pp.235-36.

"The process by which total extermination replaced resettlement in Madagascar or 'the East' as the so-called final solution of the Jewish question remains unclear. No written order by Hitler for the extermination of the Jews has been discovered and the evidence of an oral order is only indirect. The chronology of the development of the extermination programme is also confused."
J. Noakes and G. Pridham, eds., Nazism: A History in Documents and Eyewitness accounts 1919-1945 - Vol. 2, (New York: Schocken Books, 1988), p.1136.

I could go on but I think you get the point. THERE ARE NO WRITTEN TEXTS FROM HITLER OR ANYONE ELSE CALLING FOR THE GENOCIDE OF THE JEWS.

[adimon]

adimon, what is more Taboo to all humans. THE WORD (GOD) or (HOLOCAUST) ? If you believe that you've been tricked by something called religion, why not tell that all our history is fake?

It's within the topic!

I'm not sure I understand the point you make. Perhaps you could clarify?

[phantom]

Ok adimon

I answered you to the fact that there are no written texts where Hitler had given instruction to exterminate the jews but there is texts to prove that Hitler was dealing with the zionists prior to the war and no doubt during the war on the issue resettling (extraditing/transferring) the jews in Palestine. The Transfer Agreement (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Black.html) permitted Jews to leave Germany and take some of their assets in the form of new German goods, which the Zionist movement would then sell in Palestine and eventually throughout much of the world.

"the issue was not that genocide took place, but how"

Ok, I am sure, if there was strong evidence to prove how the genocide took place, other than witness statements and statements given by captured SS men, who were no doubt tortured to confess, the prosecutor would have produced it. The fact is there is no solid evidence as Justice Gray said himself. “What is the evidence for mass extermination of jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence"

As I have said before, at the Nuremberg trials, many of the witness’s tales were so over exaggerated that the prosecutors didn't use them. They knew no one would believe them and they no doubt contradicted the official gas chamber genocide. Not to mention, many of those who did give evidence have been proven liars.

What lies do you believe Irving told?

"I totally disagree he should have been tried, but the Judge was not there to prove the Holocaust, as mass genocide, occurred. Of course it did. You agree with me on this. So your point is?"

No, the judge was there to hear the evidence against Irving and all the judge had to rely on from the prosecution team was witness statements and circumstantial evidence. No solid evidence.

And no, I do not agree that genocide occured. There is no solid evidence for it.

"Just because you've found one account and decided it to be false, doesn't mean the Nazis didn't use gas chambers"

One account? ;) don't make me laugh. There are many accounts. Holocaust scholars tell us there were NO gas chambers used in camps on German soil right. I am sure you have heard that being a believer in the holocaust. If you haven't then here it is: In a letter published in a January issue of The Stars and Stripes, a newspaper for US military service personnel, Simon Wiesenthal re-confirmed, in passing, that "there were no extermination camps on German soil". No extermination camps means no gas chambers, agreed?

Well, these camps were on German soil.

Fact 1) Bergen-Belsen had no gas chamber as I mentioned earlier but you seemed to know better that the holocaust scholars and believed there was one. Well, you were wrong.

Fact 2) Dachau also had no gas chamber as I again stated earlier but you again seemed to know better than Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies. You may as well admit that you were wrong again.

Fact 3) Buchenwald also had no gas chamber and guess what, witnesses were saying there was one. I guess the holocaust scholars got that one wrong too. ;) Here it is from a holocaust site (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/BergenBelsen04.html): "Immediately after the war, in the Spring of 1945, the majority of Americans believed that there had been homicidal gas chambers in most of the Nazi concentration camps, certainly in Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen. After seeing the horrible newsreels of thousands of dead bodies in the camps, there was no doubt in most people's minds that the Nazis had carried out mass gassings in Germany, as well as in the death camps in what is now Poland. Today, few people believe that anyone was gassed at Bergen-Belsen, or at Dachau and Buchenwald. But the stories still persist."

Fact 4) Ravensbruck also had no gas chamber but you guessed it, witnesses claimed there was (http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_ravensbrueck.html). How can this be if there were no extermination camps on German soil?

Fact 5) Sachsenhausen also had no gas chambers and yet there were witness claims of such a thing. (http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_sachsenhausen.html) How can this be if there were no extermination camps on German soil?

Fact 6) Even though Mauthausen was in Austria, it was claimed that there were gas chambers there. As regards Mauthausen, some people, including Claude Lanzmann and Yehuda Bauer, went so far as to retract the story. In 1982, Bauer clearly wrote that "no gassings took place at Mauthausen." Lanzmann was just as clear. In 1986, during a bitter debate about the Roques affair on Europe 1 (a French radio network), he corrected cabinet member Michel Noir, who had mentioned the Mauthausen gas chamber. Lanzmann firmly contradicted the Minister on this score: never had there been a gas chamber in that camp. But all of that did not prevent our two fellows from stating a few years later that there had indeed been a gas chamber at Mauthausen. (For Bauer's retraction, see pages 33-34 of the absurd book published in Vienna in 1989, by the Dokumentations-archiv des österreichischen Widerstandes under the title Das Lachout- "Dokument", Anatomie einer Falschung. As regards Lanzmann's retraction, read his letter published in Le Monde Juif, July-September 1986, p. 97). All those retractions and sudden changes of direction and constantly changing explanations add up to one further proof that the "gas chamber" and the "genocide" are nothing more than a myth. A myth constantly mutates under the influence of the dominant opinions and the necessities of the moment.

Phew! I'll leave it there for now regarding camps and gas chambers.

"I don't understand your logic one bit"

Likewise!

"You still won't address the fact that the gas chambers exist to this day, you can see them with your own eyes, along with literally thousands of photographs, records, notes and accounts which corroborate this"

What gas chambers are you referring to?

What do photographs prove other than people died. The photos do not show anyone being gassed do they? No they don't.

What records, notes and accounts do you mean? I am sure there are no official German documents that claim jews were gassed.

"I strongly suggest you visit as opposed to choosing to believe 'historians' who are idiotic or perverse enough to skip over these 'details' which don't fit with their story."

Why don't you list a few of these idiotic and perverse historians that you refer to. And tell me what details they have skipped over that don't fit with their story instead of just making the claim. (Do not name Irving because I have already told you several times, I do not read Irving and his holocaust claims. He is not a holocaust revisionist.) If Irving is all you got to quote, then you lose, BIG TIME.

"Are you like them? Do you WANT the Shoah to be a hoax? Can your mind not comprehend the level of atrocity or the banality of evil that occurred?"

Whether I want the holocaust to be a hoax or not is not the issue here. I am dealing with the facts. You do not have to tell me how bad it was in the camps during the war, I have read plenty on the subject. It doesn't matter what words we use to describe the appalling treatment and conditions the prisoners had to endure, the fact is, there is not one shred of solid evidence to prove the gas chambers and planned genocide of the jews.

If you believe there is plenty of evidence, post it here so that I may rebut it if possible.

"BTW, Have you seen 'The Triumph of The Will' ? If not, you'd do well to, since lives were lost smuggling that out into the free world"

I have not watched The Triumph of the Will but I have found it on google and will try and watch it over the weekend.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1624809629731313480

"I don't think anyone suggested that this 'vetting' was a hard and fast rule from the minute the camp opened. The choices they made were, sick as it sounds, based on production, and other such statistics-based, immoral reasons"

It doesn't matter how you try and dress it, we are told by the holocaust sites (http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/exterm.htm): After deportation trains arrived at the killing centers, guards ordered the deportees to get out and form a line. The victims then went through a selection process. Men were separated from women and children. A Nazi, usually an SS physician, looked quickly at each person to decide if he or she was healthy and strong enough for forced labor. This SS officer then pointed to the left or the right; victims did not know that individuals were being selected to live or die. Babies and young children, pregnant women, the elderly, the handicapped, and the sick had little chance of surviving this first selection.

"The Nazis abandoned the camps in most cases before the Allied or Soviet forces liberated them"

Yeah I know.

"Why don't you check out how many sick were killed? Or killed because they were not sick, but disabled -e.g. mute or dead? Or killed because some evil Nazi officer, insane and living out his sick dreams in a serial-killers paradise, decided that a person was ugly, or just, 'ought to die'."

I am not denying that sick, disabled or healthy jews may have been killed, that is not what we are talking about. The issue was about the selection process as I covered above. If we are to believe that the sick were sent to the gas chamber, why were there so many treated in the camp hospitals? Why were many children, elderly women and sick prisoners liberated by the allies? If the Nazis were intent on killing the sick, what was the point of even having a camp hospital? Please don't say the hospitals were for Nazi experiments.

There are so many contradicitons surrounding the holocaust, it would be nice if the holocaust scholars could agree and get their stories straight.

"You're taking apart schindlers ark below, and i'll come on to that, but did you not realise that there is lots of evidence to support the scene where Ralph Fiennes shoots people from the balcony of his quarters. The sick fuckers enjoyed their work so much they often wrote about in journals, which have survived. Just like the lists of people marked for 'special processing'. And the letters from one officer to another saying 'oh shit we've lost and we're gonna be discovered for doing all this terrible shit - what do we do!'"

Look, we are talking about genocide and gas chambers, not what individual soldiers did to jews. How many of those journals talk about gassing the jews? I am guessing none. If they do, please provide me with a link so that I may have a gander.

"What's next phantom, you're gonna tell me that Mengele's experiments were a hoax?"

What gave you that idea? Did I mention anything about Mengele? No I didn't.

"Use your head"

I suggest you use yours.

"I really don't know what to say at this point phantom. We're going round in circles, I think. I really think you should visit the camps and see for yourself."

I do not feel that we are going round in circles, I have plenty to say on the matter, we are just touching the tip of the iceberg.

What good will it do for me to visit the camps? It will not change my mind unless of course, they could provide me with solid proof of the gas chambers and some film or photos showing jews being gassed, not of dead jews.

"This is just utter bullshit. Whichever revisionist spun you this shit has you hook, line and sinker"

It is not utter bullshit. No revisionist spun me the no gas chambers at Dachau and Bergen Belsen, it was holocaust scholars who state the fact. Just so you know, when I say holocaust scholar I am talking about those who preach the holocaust, not a holocaust revisionist.

"I've visited the gas chambers at Dachau, Birkenau and Treblinka"

Ok, well, now you know that the gas chamber you stood in at Dachau was not real. As for Treblinka, according to the official historiography, the Jews who arrived in Treblinka were told that they were in a transfer camp, where they had to shower and their clothes had to be disinfested before they continued their journey. The story goes, the Jews were enticed to enter the gas chambers. We assume that the first part of the story is correct: The Jews took showers, and their belongings were placed in disinfestation chambers. As is known, German disinfestation chambers during the war were often operated with steam. If this was the case in Treblinka, it is the key to the original version of the extermination myth, according to which the Jews were allegedly killed in Treblinka with steam. On November 15, 1942, less than four months after the opening of the camp, the resistance organization of the Warsaw ghetto published a long report entitled Treblinka: Eternal Disgrace for the German Nation, in which it was claimed that to that date two million Jews (almost 20,000 per day!) had been murdered in steam chambers. The report went on to allege that the corpses had been buried in ever larger mass graves, and that after the extermination of all Jews "the ghost of death in the steam chambers would stand before the eyes of the whole Polish people." Treblinka: Eternal Disgrace was taken quite seriously in the Warsaw ghetto. The journalist Eugenia Szaijn-Lewin entered the following in her diary:

"The worst is the death in Treblinka. In the meantime we all have become aware of Treblinka. Over there, people are boiled alive."

After the Red Army conquered the region around Treblinka in August 1944, Soviet investigative commissions set immediately to work, reporting that three million people were killed in the camp. However, the specified killing method was no longer steam, but rather suffocation achieved by sucking the air from the death chambers by means of a vacuum pump driven by a diesel engine. Gradually the diesel engine, which had at first only driven the pump, was transformed into the killing weapon itself. The author of the latest counterfeit of Treblinka reality was the Jewish carpenter Yankiel Wiernik, who, in May 1944, plagiarized the report of the resistance organization of November 1942, replacing the "steam chambers" with "gas chambers".

I will get into Birkenau as this thread continues

"Yes you will be able to see the gas chambers. Again I make the point that because David Coles went there and made a video, it doesn't mean you have to believe it"

No, I will see what they claim is a gas chamber. I know I do not have to believe David Cole's video but he did such a good job interviewing Dr. Franciszek Piper it left me gobsmacked.

"Visiting the camps to inform yourself is a good idea, so no I won't stop making it as a point to anyone whom I believe to have been sold a pack of lies by revisionist scum."

Ok, keep telling me and others to visit the camps but you are wasting your time. Who are the revisionist scum you are referring to? Names please and don't come back with Irving again please.

"He wants to revise the account of the holocaust which is supported by literally tonnes of evidence, based on supposition and bogus ideas. If you think WW2 historian is a more apt title, then so be it. You've been sold my friend"

You don't know what you are talking about. David Irving is a British historian and was highly regarded for his knowledge of World War II from the German perspective. He is the author of numerous books on military history and World War II, including several international bestsellers.

He has contributed articles to some 60 British and foreign periodicals including the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Express in Britain, and Stern and Der Spiegel in Germany.

“Most of Irving's books,” the Washington Post once noted, “are big, solid works... All are well written, exciting, fun to read, and all contain new information based on sensational discoveries.”

This fiercely independent and iconoclastic historian is widely acknowledged – even by adversaries – as an eminent authority on World War II, Hitler and Third Reich Germany.

British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, writing in the Sunday Times of London, once declared: “No praise can be too high for Irving’s indefatigable scholarly industry.” He also called Irving one of the “few guides I would entirely trust … indefatigable in pursuit of the evidence, fearless in face of it, sound in judgment ...”

Another prominent British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, wrote: “David Irving is a patient researcher of unrivalled industry and success."

Professor Gordon Craig of Stanford University, writing in 1996 in The New York Review of Books, remarked: “The fact is that he [Irving] knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933–1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications ... Such people as David Irving, then, have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.”

He was the man who also concluded that the hitler diaries were faked.

You know nothing about Irving if you say crap like: "If you think WW2 historian is a more apt title, then so be it"

It is a fact that Irving is a well known WWII historian. You can read more about this famous WWII historian David Irving here (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/irving.html)

"Pile as in pile of corpses? I'm giving him the title of evil lying prick, ok. I have the right to do that"

You can call Irving whatever name you like, at the end of the day, he is an authority on WWII.

"I'm pretty sure I said more than once that I don't believe the wars were engineered, and that I don't agree with your account of how all these events transpired"

Did I make comment about the wars being engineered? I don't recall saying anything like that. You have clearly shown me that you do not agree with my account on how things transpired during the war.

It would be nice though if you could list a few of the revisionist who you believe are telling lies and possibly point out some of their lies.

"If you want to ask me specific questions I'm happy to answer"

Ok, that's good to know. Maybe you can start by giving me a list of revisionists who you believe are telling lies and maybe point out some of their lies.

"but presenting me with a view of history I've already read through and dismissed as incorrect, and expecting me to go over it again detail by detail for your benefit is a bit much. If you like it, then fine"

We do not have to go through every bit of the holocaust detail by detail, we will grow old here if we did that. We can just deal with the alledged gas chambers for now. We can get into all the witness statements from both jews and Nazis SS prisoners that were given at Nuremberg as the thread grows. We can even discuss the Wannsee Conference if you like. But I suggest that we take it slowly so that those following this thread will not get too confused.

"Bear in mind that this period you're talking about still has many living survivors who can confirm or deny various interpretations of history"

Yeah I know. There is a lot I can write about survivors stories. I have already pointed out a few survivors who have been caught out telling lies about their experience in the camps.

"This is getting exhausting"

Not for me it isn't. I am fighting fit and ready to go another round.

Anyway, we will leave it there until later.

Good night and take care adimon.

[crowd control]

I see that you have deleted all of my posts John, is it perhaps because you would have been made to look foolish in light of this latest offering from Icke ?



YOU ARE FREE... TO SAY WHAT WE TELL YOU

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' - attributed to Voltaire

The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out This Weekend

Had those same protesting Oxford students been banned from a debate at the Oxford Union they would have been screaming 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech'. Ahh, but that's different because that's them and they are the good guys. You can tell by the hearts emblazoned on their sleeves. 'We must be allowed freedom of expression because what we say is right and good - it's the baddies that must be stopped.'

Contradiction and irony are indivisible and thus you have both in abundance with the doublethinking free speech deniers who also believe in the right to free speech. For instance, one of their heroes, the American academic, Noam Chomsky, said: 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all'.

But the Robot Radical computer software is so firewalled from reality that it can cheer at that sentiment while doing the opposite. Even then, we need to go further than Chomsky. It is not only that if we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in freedom at all.

It is that if we don't have freedom for those we despise there can be no freedom for anyone. This is the point that most people miss. Put simply, freedom is only freedom when everyone is equally free. You can't be a little bit pregnant and, by the same principle, you can't be a little bit free. You either are, or you aren't.

If people we don't like are not free to say what we don't like, how can we be free to say what we like? We can't, because if others are denied the right to free expression then whatever we say is not free speech, but speech that is within the bounds of official acceptability. That is NOT freedom of expression; it is conformity to what others have decided it is okay to say.


I challange you to answer me instead of just acting the bully with the big stick again, I'm not holding my breath right enough.

John White forum "advisor" and moderator deleted posts from someone who's tone was not to his approval, I challanged him on it, and was given "points" against me, ultimatly ending in a "warning" This recap is for those who come to this thread and cannot see the true history of it's narrative. Free speech for all or none at all. In threatening private messages he has accused me among other things, of acting like a child, suggesting I go elsewhere and resorted to calling me "an arse" if this isn't bullying and ergo breaking his own rules on decorum I don't know what is. No doubt this will be deleted also.

It is apparently unacceptable to challange the actions and motivations of moderators on this forum, doing so will result in punishment, be warned.

Pathetic.

p.s The Truth Behind the Gates of Auschwitz - David Cole

get a hold of it on a torrent site, it's been pulled by youtube and google

Repression seems to be the order of the day.

[coolfighter]

[B]
[B]Ok, I am sure, if there was strong evidence to prove how the genocide took place, other than witness statements and statements given by captured SS men, who were no doubt tortured to confess, the prosecutor would have produced it. The fact is there is no solid evidence as Justice Gray said himself. “What is the evidence for mass extermination of jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence"

As I have said before, at the Nuremberg trials, many of the witness’s tales were so over exaggerated that the prosecutors didn't use them. They knew no one would believe them and they no doubt contradicted the official gas chamber genocide. Not to mention, many of those who did give evidence have been proven liars.

Thank You!

My friend all our history is lies, fake! Genocide whether happened here or there, its human sacrifice. We need to work together in finding a way to crack the PYRAMID SYSTEM from within inside (finding a way to stop funding them).

And not let them control us as sheep's in creating their problems for giving us their solutions!

[optimus pigpot]

I see that you have deleted all of my posts John, is it perhaps because you would have been made to look foolish in light of this latest offering from Icke ?



YOU ARE FREE... TO SAY WHAT WE TELL YOU

'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' - attributed to Voltaire

The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out This Weekend

Had those same protesting Oxford students been banned from a debate at the Oxford Union they would have been screaming 'human rights' and 'freedom of speech'. Ahh, but that's different because that's them and they are the good guys. You can tell by the hearts emblazoned on their sleeves. 'We must be allowed freedom of expression because what we say is right and good - it's the baddies that must be stopped.'

Contradiction and irony are indivisible and thus you have both in abundance with the doublethinking free speech deniers who also believe in the right to free speech. For instance, one of their heroes, the American academic, Noam Chomsky, said: 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all'.

But the Robot Radical computer software is so firewalled from reality that it can cheer at that sentiment while doing the opposite. Even then, we need to go further than Chomsky. It is not only that if we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in freedom at all.

It is that if we don't have freedom for those we despise there can be no freedom for anyone. This is the point that most people miss. Put simply, freedom is only freedom when everyone is equally free. You can't be a little bit pregnant and, by the same principle, you can't be a little bit free. You either are, or you aren't.

If people we don't like are not free to say what we don't like, how can we be free to say what we like? We can't, because if others are denied the right to free expression then whatever we say is not free speech, but speech that is within the bounds of official acceptability. That is NOT freedom of expression; it is conformity to what others have decided it is okay to say.


I challange you to answer me instead of just acting the bully with the big stick again, I'm not holding my breath right enough.

John White forum "advisor" and moderator deleted posts from someone who's tone was not to his approval, I challanged him on it, and was given "points" against me, ultimatly ending in a "warning" This recap is for those who come to this thread and cannot see the true history of it's narrative. Free speech for all or none at all. In threatening private messages he has accused me among other things, of acting like a child, suggesting I go elsewhere and resorted to calling me "an arse" if this isn't bullying and ergo breaking his own rules on decorum I don't know what is. No doubt this will be deleted also.

It is apparently unacceptable to challange the actions and motivations of moderators on this forum, doing so will result in punishment, be warned.

Pathetic.

p.s The Truth Behind the Gates of Auschwitz - David Cole

get a hold of it on a torrent site, it's been pulled by youtube and google

Repression seems to be the order of the day.

I don't give a fuck right or wrong but this website is full of Christian lovers, David Icke suck ups and people who know fuck all about fuck all.

There is one moderator who stands out. Thirdwave all the rest are generally shit so there you have it to much people who want to do the work of possibly the man in charge..........

Fuck this crap

[phantom]

Come on crowd control and optimus pigpot, try and stay on topic please.

Thanks!

coolfighter, it was my pleasure. More people need to open their mind to the events surrounding the holocaust and stop being afraid to look further into it.

[phantom]

I have added this video in a new thread on the main page and below, I have listed three other examinations of the gas chamber claims that have been demolished by Germar Rudolf, Walter Lüftl and the Krakow Forensic Institute. They all came to the same conclusion as Leuchter did.

There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Mr Death The Rise and Fall of Fred A Leuchter Jr (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15116)

[adimon]

I'm giving up talking to you phantom because you're not listening to anything I say, so why should I bother, even if you're fighting fit?

You're telling me that the gas chambers I saw a Dachau, Treblinka and Birkenau were not gas chambers, merely what they told me were gas chambers...like I wouldn't have the intelligence to work out for myself what they were.

And you yourself haven't been, and completely refuse to go.

You're twisting what I say without reading it properly. I've got better things to do.

My strong advice to all forum members, when conducting research which might benefit from a visit in person to the places where certain historical events took place, is to visit those places for yourself. It's a lot better than taking someone else's word for it.

[phantom]

Hi adimon

"I'm giving up talking to you phantom because you're not listening to anything I say, so why should I bother, even if you're fighting fit?"

:D Funny, after I had finished writing last night, I thought to myself, "I bet adimon gives up the debate". Oh well, fair enough adimon, If you don't want to debate me on this issue, that's not a problem. I'd rather you did though.

To say I have not been listening to you is a cop-out. I answered all your questions and posts yet you failed to answer a few questions I posed. You spoke about revisionist lies yet failed to point out any of the revisionists and their lies. You kept picking on Irving, who you know sod all about. :rolleyes:

"You're telling me that the gas chambers I saw a Dachau, Treblinka and Birkenau were not gas chambers, merely what they told me were gas chambers...like I wouldn't have the intelligence to work out for myself what they were."

Just to be clear, when referring to the gas chamber, we are talking about a room used to kill jews and not a delousing chamber, which is referred to by holocaust sites as a gas chambers also. Kind of misleading but there you go.

Anyway.....

Yes, I am telling you that the gas chambers that you stood in at Dachau (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/w/wiesenthal.simon/bb-letter-197504) were not used to kill jews. There were no death camps on German soil. The shower room in the crematorium that you stood in was probably just a shower room or possibly used for delousing.

This is where you were.
Tour Through Dachau - YouTube

I should imagine that every German camp had delousing and disinfestation facilities to clean the clothing and persons of incoming arrivals. (The people would shower and their belongings were fumigated/deloused/disinfected with Zyklon B in what is referred to as a gas chamber when it should be called delousing chamber) These were also usually isolated from the rest of the camp, to defeat the spread of disease.

Let me agree with you for one second and say, "ok there was a gas chamber at Dachau that was used to kill jews".

What am I supposed to believe after visiting a holocaust site that basically said: The administrative authorities at Dachau, some famous prisoners and many historians say that the large gas chamber at the camp was never used for homicidal purposes. (http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/)

If I believed in the gas chamber at Dachau, as you do, after reading the above, I would reconsider what I thought was true and simply accept that I was possibly wrong and that the gas chamber at Dachau was not used to kill jews and was probably a shower room or delousing chamber.

I know how hard to is to admit when you're are wrong but you are with Dachau. The Dachau authority are telling you the same thing yet you won't accept it. I am hoping you will though. It takes a big person to stand up and say "yes you were right and I was wrong" and I am hoping you can do that.

I have read elsewhere, where they claim it was intended to be a gas chamber to kill jews but was never used yet there is no evidence for this, just allegations. There is a lot more I could say to you about Dachau but I will leave it here with this piece of documented information.

Col. Chavez testified at the first Dachau trial on November 15, 1945, and made no mention of any gas chamber. There is no mention of any gas chamber in the testimony of Col. Lawrence Ball, another government expert witness. There is no mention of any gas chamber in the prosecution opening statement, summation, or judgement. No mention in the defence summations. No mention in the testimony, except for a few sentences in the testimony of Dr. Blaha. Not one of the forty defendants was asked a single question concerning any gas chamber. Dr. Blaha testified twice. In his second appearance as witness during prosecution “rebuttal”, he also makes no mention of any gas chamber. The Chavez report was rewritten and introduced into evidence at Nuremberg as “proven fact”, even though it was known to be untrue. (Documents 159L, 2430PS).

The existence of a gas chamber at Dachau was not upheld in the judgement at Nuremberg. Page 56 of this same report, the “Chavez Report” (000120 of microfilm pages, reel 1, M1174, Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss et al., National Archives.

I am curious to know if your tour guide told you that jews were gassed in that room, or did you not have a guided tour?

Before I answer the rest of your question about Treblinka and Birkenau and the rest of your post, can you just tell me how the jews were killed/died in Treblinka and Birkenau?

Can you also answer my question above and the one about, who the revisionists are that are telling lies and maybe point out a few of their lies? (No Irving please!)

Or are you not talking to me now? ;)

If not, I will take it that you are not that well clued up on the holocaust from either side and leave it at that.

[adimon]

Hi adimon

"I'm giving up talking to you phantom because you're not listening to anything I say, so why should I bother, even if you're fighting fit?"

:D Funny, after I had finished writing last night, I thought to myself, "I bet adimon gives up the debate". Oh well, fair enough adimon, If you don't want to debate me on this issue, that's not a problem. I'd rather you did though.

To say I have not been listening to you is a cop-out. I answered all your questions and posts yet you failed to answer a few questions I posed. You spoke about revisionist lies yet failed to point out any of the revisionists and their lies. You kept picking on Irving, who you know sod all about. :rolleyes:

"You're telling me that the gas chambers I saw a Dachau, Treblinka and Birkenau were not gas chambers, merely what they told me were gas chambers...like I wouldn't have the intelligence to work out for myself what they were."

Just to be clear, when referring to the gas chamber, we are talking about a room used to kill jews and not a delousing chamber, which is referred to by holocaust sites as a gas chambers also. Kind of misleading but there you go.

Anyway.....

Yes, I am telling you that the gas chambers that you stood in at Dachau[/media] were not used to kill jews. There were no death camps on German soil. The shower room in the crematorium that you stood in was probably just a shower room or possibly used for delousing.

This is where you were.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rneIcHK-yo (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/w/wiesenthal.simon/bb-letter-197504)

I should imagine that every German camp had delousing and disinfestation facilities to clean the clothing and persons of incoming arrivals. (The people would shower and their belongings were fumigated/deloused/disinfected with Zyklon B in what is referred to as a gas chamber when it should be called delousing chamber) These were also usually isolated from the rest of the camp, to defeat the spread of disease.

Let me agree with you for one second and say, "ok there was a gas chamber at Dachau that was used to kill jews".

What am I supposed to believe after visiting a holocaust site that basically said: [url=http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/]The administrative authorities at Dachau, some famous prisoners and many historians say that the large gas chamber at the camp was never used for homicidal purposes.[/media]

If I believed in the gas chamber at Dachau, as you do, after reading the above, I would reconsider what I thought was true and simply accept that I was possibly wrong and that the gas chamber at Dachau was not used to kill jews and was probably a shower room or delousing chamber.

I know how hard to is to admit when you're are wrong but you are with Dachau. The Dachau authority are telling you the same thing yet you won't accept it. I am hoping you will though. It takes a big person to stand up and say "yes you were right and I was wrong" and I am hoping you can do that.

I have read elsewhere, where they claim it was intended to be a gas chamber to kill jews but was never used yet there is no evidence for this, just allegations. There is a lot more I could say to you about Dachau but I will leave it here with this piece of documented information.

Col. Chavez testified at the first Dachau trial on November 15, 1945, and made no mention of any gas chamber. There is no mention of any gas chamber in the testimony of Col. Lawrence Ball, another government expert witness. There is no mention of any gas chamber in the prosecution opening statement, summation, or judgement. No mention in the defence summations. No mention in the testimony, except for a few sentences in the testimony of Dr. Blaha. Not one of the forty defendants was asked a single question concerning any gas chamber. Dr. Blaha testified twice. In his second appearance as witness during prosecution “rebuttal”, he also makes no mention of any gas chamber. The Chavez report was rewritten and introduced into evidence at Nuremberg as “proven fact”, even though it was known to be untrue. (Documents 159L, 2430PS).

The existence of a gas chamber at Dachau was not upheld in the judgement at Nuremberg. Page 56 of this same report, the “Chavez Report” (000120 of microfilm pages, reel 1, M1174, Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss et al., National Archives.

I am curious to know if your tour guide told you that jews were gassed in that room, or did you not have a guided tour?

Before I answer the rest of your question about Treblinka and Birkenau and the rest of your post, can you just tell me how the jews were killed/died in Treblinka and Birkenau?

Can you also answer my question above and the one about, who the revisionists are that are telling lies and maybe point out a few of their lies? (No Irving please!)

Or are you not talking to me now? ;)

If not, I will take it that you are not that well clued up on the holocaust from either side and leave it at that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about phantom. Would you talk to a person in the flesh as you've been posting to me? You've posted a huge long list of points nearly every time, and you're jumping around from one thing to another. You try and second guess my first hand experience. You tell me that if you manage to sufficiently piss me off and I leave the debate because I feel disrespected, then you can claim a victory based on the fact I have no knowledge. It's insulting phantom.

Or is it 'not insulting' because you don't feel you've been insulting?

If you want to continue the debate, then I suggest you tell me what you think the truth of Nazi Jewish policy between 1925 and 1945 was, and I will address each point one by one.

That's a huge task isn't it? But it's what you're asking me to do?!

If we stick to one point at a time it's a debate. If you keep moving the goalposts and introducing 5 new points before we've addressed the first one, people are bound to get frustrated.

So what's our start/continuation point?

EDIT: can you please use the quote button rather than embed my points in yours. Its confusing. :)

[adimon]

One idea I had for sorting this mess out is to define our terms and points of discussion.

You keep mentioning 'holocaust sites' or 'holocaust history sites'. I also for my sins keep mentioning revisionists, often following that with the word scum.

We should avoid using this non-operational language because we are confusing each other. What you and I would define as holocaust site, holocaust history site, or holocaust revisionism might be different things.

You don't accept my point that too much of your research is internet based, but maybe by me making this post and this point, you might begin to understand that a site you class as a holocaust history site, might not correlate with the 'official' history of the museums of each camp.

Also, please stop using single points to debunk all three of the camps I have been to.

In fact, we might be better to leave gas chambers for a while until we have a calmer, more respectful debate up and running again.

You making suppositions about what a tour guide said or if there even was one is simply silly. I hope you see that now at least.

[zero1]

The Holocaust Industry, used by negtive forces for political ends as it is, is a disgusting and repugnant betrayal of every Jew who died for no other reason than who they are during Hitler's tyranny.

[phantom]

adimon - This is exactly what I'm talking about phantom. Would you talk to a person in the flesh as you've been posting to me?

I do talk to people in the flesh about the holocaust and I am never insulting or use derogatory language. I didn't think I was talking to you in any insulting or derogatory way either.

adimon - You've posted a huge long list of points nearly every time, and you're jumping around from one thing to another.

I'm sorry if you are getting confused by my list of points. I will slow down for you and stick to one point at a time if that will be easier for you.

adimon - You try and second guess my first hand experience.

I was not second guessing your first hand experience, I was simply asking questions about your experience at Dachau and the other camps you visited. Then I quoted a few holocaust scholars, those who peddle the holocaust stories about what they have told us about the gas chambers at Dachau.

adimon - You tell me that if you manage to sufficiently piss me off and I leave the debate because I feel disrespected, then you can claim a victory based on the fact I have no knowledge. It's insulting phantom.

Why are you feeling disrespected? Have I insulted you verbally? I don't recall that. It isn't my fault if you feel disrespected because I am putting up a good argument for denying the gas chamber stories.

After all, it was you who said "I'm giving up talking to you phantom because you're not listening to anything I say, so why should I bother" which wasn't true. As I mentioned earlier, I read and answered all the questions you posted and some. Yet you failed to answer the couple of questions I asked.

adimon - Or is it 'not insulting' because you don't feel you've been insulting?

I already made that clear. I don't feel that I have insulted you. If you are insulted because I have the nerve to debate the holocaust from a revisionist's point of view, then that is your problem, not mine.

adimon - If you want to continue the debate, then I suggest you tell me what you think the truth of Nazi Jewish policy between 1925 and 1945 was, and I will address each point one by one. That's a huge task isn't it? But it's what you're asking me to do?!

It may be a huge task but it is one that I would be glad to debate you on but for now, lets stick to the topic at hand and no doubt, we will get into the Nazi Jewish policy between 1925 and 1945 as the debate goes on.

adimon - If we stick to one point at a time it's a debate. If you keep moving the goalposts and introducing 5 new points before we've addressed the first one, people are bound to get frustrated.

Fair enough! Let's stick to the point that has made you feel insulted. Your first hand experiences at Dachau, Treblinka and Birkenau then we can move on. But before we do, I just want to recap how we started, to see who moved any goal posts.

You made the first response to this thread by saying something that I thought was .......... well, silly. "And nevermind that many of the perpetrators are still alive, and remorseless, and speak about all the above things you claim are historiographical lies, then eh?" I doubt that any surviving Nazi alive today talks about the holocaust and gassing the jews. That is an absurd thing to say. They all know what happens to those who are accused of being a Nazi, especially now that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has intensified their hunt for living Nazis. Can you not see how silly that sounds or is it just me? Feel free to point out any Nazis who is openly talking about what they did during the holocaust.

You also stated that "I believe in free speech, and don't think Irving deserved imprisonment, but I'm sick of seeing holocaust denial in 'general' - which it isn't. General, I mean." So, you are sick of seeing people defend themselves with their take on the holocaust because it happens to be the opposite of your belief. Fair enough! But that doesn't mean that your beliefs are the gospel. As I shall point out, there are many, many things to expose about the holocaust, that just do not stand up when scrutinised, as you will see as the debate unfolds.

In response to your above comment, I replied: You must know yourself, that many aspects of the holocaust have been exposed as lies. The jewish soap stories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_made_from_human_corpses) for instance, no serious holocaust scholar believes that story any more.

It is also a fact that more than four million deaths (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitzscrapbook/Tour/Birkenau/Birkenau02.html) have been officially removed (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Majdanek/DeathStatistics.html) from the total six million, yet the six million is still the figure spouted by the holocaust scholars.

I have read several books (http://vho.org/search/d/search.php?db=default&uid=default&ID=&Language=ENG&Type=Book&mh=20&sb=1&so=ascend&view_records=View+Records) and many articles (http://forum.codoh.info/viewforum.php?f=2) by revisionists and I have to say, they put up a good argument.

I cannot understand why there is a law in many European countries that allows a judge to throw people in jail, for up to 5 years (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/15/zundel-germany.html) or fine people thousands of Euros (http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/01/18/french_far_rightist_fined_for_holocaust_remarks/) for questioning an historical event.

This draconian law should be abolished by all nations, just as Spain did recently (http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/07/11/Spanish_law.html).


Now this is where the debate started. I made two comments, one about the soap stories that are no longer believed and the fact that 4 million + have been deducted from the official death list and you came back with:

The jury is still out, is, I think, a better description. I've not myself seen any incontravertible evidence that the 6m figure is wrong.

But I just showed you where the numbers have been reduced. My source comes directly from a holocaust historical site - scrapbookpages.com. If you cared to look then you will see that officially the numbers have been reduced. 2.9 million deaths have been reduced from Auschwitz and at least 1.5 million from Majdanek to which you replied:

Yes, will it comes down to which historians you believe, and why, doesn't it?

Well, if you are not taking what is published on the many holocaust sites as truth, who are you listening too for you to stick to the six million deaths?

Then you said:

I'm happy to answer your question, but perhaps you can clarify which revisionists you're referring to, state exactly who the Zionists are, and define the hoodwinking you think has occurred. This will enable me to answer your question a lot better.

To which I answered:

The revisionists I refer to are, well, there are many but I will link just a few. Germar Rudolf (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/rudolf.html), Jürgen Graf (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/graf.html), Robert Faurisson (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/faurisson.html), Paul Rassinier (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/rassinier.html), Carlos Whitlock Porter (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/porter.html) and David Cole (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/cole.html). There are many others at this link (http://www.revisionists.com/) I could have named but I‘ll just refer you to those few above.

The zionists I am referring to, are the likes of Rabbi Israel Goldstein who was making his wild holocaust claims back in 1942 via the New York Times. He was claiming that 2 million jews had already been slain by all manner of satanic barbarism. And in 1943 Chaim Weizmann was saying 2 million Jews had already been exterminated. And the World Jewish Congress were spreading the same story and putting pressure on the Allied governments, in particular the U.S. Government to do something about the slaughter of the jews.

At first, the US Government just scoffed at the information but because of the various political pressures, they also ran with it, even though there was no military intelligence on the claims.

If the above paragraph is true, then it would explain why Eisenhower, Churchill, and de Gaulle did not write single word, in their extensive war memoirs, of the holocaust and Nazi gas chambers (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF981020.html).

Even the famous Elie Wiesel makes no mention of gas chambers in his famous book, night (http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0553272535?filterBy=addThreeStar) but rather talks about people being forced in to pits of fire.

The zionists tried to push another 6 million 'threatened' holocaust back in 1919 (http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/american.hebrew/glynn.1919) but it never became popular with the American or European public after the war. And it is just strange that after the Second World War, the 6 million figure was used again. The six million figure is also used in the Talmud (http://yearsofawe.blogspot.com/2005/03/six-million-for-machzit-hashekel-and.html). Just a coincidence?

As for the zionist hoowinking/deception well, this says it all.

Mossad Motto - "By way of deception, thou shalt do war (http://"by%20way%20of%20deception,%20thou%20shalt%20do%20w ar"/)"

I did as you asked. I clarified which revisionists I was referring to. I stated exactly who the Zionists were, and I added a link that explained the zionist hoodwinking I was referring to, yet you failed to address my questions as you said you would.

You then started on something that I had said in reply to woghd.

Phantom - jews were treated badly by the Nazis, that goes without saying but I do not think it was an attempt at genocide.

You replied:

The Nazis spoke of their plans for genocide a long time before they perpetrated it. Read the texts, phantom.

That is debatable. As I already pointed out by using what Justice Gray said at Irving's trial to make my point:

"In regard to the evidence for mass genocide in the Nazi concentration camps, Justice Gray admitted: “What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence"

Where are these texts you speak of? I have asked for them several times on this thread and you have not given me a link so that I may read through it and offer my rebuttal at the appropriate time as the debate continues.

You then said at the end of your post:

You make a good point about doing your own research, but I'm surprised by anyone who comes to the conclusion that there were no gas chambers, having stood in one myself.

To which I replied, using another holocaust scholars own words:

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies says there were no gas chambers at Dachau.

Just because you stood in what you thought or was told was a gas chamber at Dachau does not mean that's what it was, especially after I pointed out that the administrative authorities at Dachau, some famous prisoners and many historians say that the large gas chamber at the camp was never used for homicidal purposes (http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers). I also pointed out several other facts to show you that the gas chamber at Dachau was not even mentioned by many witnesses (one or two only made such comments out of the many witnesses) or allied soldiers during the Nuremberg trials. How much more do you need to read before coming to the conclusion that there was no gas chamber used at Dachau to kill jews or anyone else?

After writing a lot more info for you to digest, you came back with:

I'm giving up talking to you phantom because you're not listening to anything I say, so why should I bother, even if you're fighting fit?

You're telling me that the gas chambers I saw a Dachau, Treblinka and Birkenau were not gas chambers, merely what they told me were gas chambers...like I wouldn't have the intelligence to work out for myself what they were.

And you yourself haven't been, and completely refuse to go.

You're twisting what I say without reading it properly. I've got better things to do.

My strong advice to all forum members, when conducting research which might benefit from a visit in person to the places where certain historical events took place, is to visit those places for yourself. It's a lot better than taking someone else's word for it.

Again, you said that I wasn't listening to you when in fact, I replied to all your posts with answers to your questions and I responded to other things you said but you failed to answer the few questions I posed you. You cannot have it all your own way. Once I have finished writing this piece we can start with Dachau and move on to the other camps you visited.

I was explaining to you that holocaust scholars, not revisionists, were saying that Dachau had no gas chamber that was used to gas jews. Therefore, it doesn't matter how intelligent you may be, the fact is, these people no longer support the Dachau gas chamber yet you still believe there was.

You have accused me of twisting what you have said but I cannot find what you accuse me of. Maybe you can point out what I have twisted so that I may address it.

I can't understand your logic by telling people to visit the camps instead of taking some(one) else's word for it. If one cannot take the words of holocaust scholars such as the administrative authorities at Dachau, some of whom are famous prisoners and many historians who are telling us that Dachau had no genocidal gas chamber, why would one believe what a tour guide at Dachau said if it contradicted what the authority of Dachau says.

Let's say that people took your advice and did visit Dachau, armed with the knowledge of what holocaust scholars and witnesses have said about there not being a genocidal gas chamber, are they to believe the tour guide if they say it was a genocidal gas chamber?

One idea I had for sorting this mess out is to define our terms and points of discussion.

You keep mentioning 'holocaust sites' or 'holocaust history sites'. I also for my sins keep mentioning revisionists, often following that with the word scum.

We should avoid using this non-operational language because we are confusing each other. What you and I would define as holocaust site, holocaust history site, or holocaust revisionism might be different things.

Ok, fair enough! Here are a few links to what I refer to as holocaust sites or holocaust historical sites. If you think they are useless to use, feel free to pass me links to what you believe I should be using.

http://www.ushmm.org/
http://remember.org/
http://www.nizkor.org/
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=242023
http://www.mjhnyc.org/index.htm
http://www.deathcamps.org/
http://www.auschwitz-birkenau.org/
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/
and any link from here: http://www.holocaust-history.org/links/

You don't accept my point that too much of your research is internet based, but maybe by me making this post and this point, you might begin to understand that a site you class as a holocaust history site, might not correlate with the 'official' history of the museums of each camp.

I do accept your point that all, not "much" of my research is internet based. I use both revisionist sites and holocaust sites to form my opinion. After all, isn't it best to be armed with both sides of a story so that one can make in informed decision?

Also, please stop using single points to debunk all three of the camps I have been to.

Clarify what you mean by "using a single point" to debunk all three camps that you have been to. I have not started on Treblinka and Birkenau yet. So far, all I have done to show you and others reading this thread, that there was no gas chamber at Dachau used to kill anyone was quote people in the know and some Nuremberg statements.

In fact, we might be better to leave gas chambers for a while until we have a calmer, more respectful debate up and running again.

But the holocaust is based around the gas chambers. Without them, there is no genocide because it is claimed that 6 million were put to death via the gas chambers, so leaving them out would be silly and get us nowhere.

As far as I am concerned, This debate is calm. I have been respectful to you and not thrown any insults your way.

You making suppositions about what a tour guide said or if there even was one is simply silly. I hope you see that now at least.

How is it silly? It was a genuine question to which you failed to answer. Instead, you took it as an insult.

So what's our start/continuation point?

Well, I would prefer that you answered the few questions I asked earlier, like these two below:

Did your tour guide tell you that people were gassed at Dachau?

Are those holocaust sites I added any good for holocaust research?

And then clarify which revisionists you believe were telling lies and maybe point out a few of their lies without referring to Irving.

Then provide me with a link where you say the Nazis spoke of their plans for genocide a long time before they perpetrated it so that I can bookmark it and rebutt it later if need be.

Also, point out where I have been twisting what you have said.

And finally, clarify what you mean by "using a single point" to debunk all three camps that you have been to.

Once you have answered the above, we can start a fresh with Dachau and get to the bottom of whether or not there was a gas chamber there, that was used to kill jews.

How's that sound to you?

[adimon]

I'm sorry if you are getting confused by my list of points. I will slow down for you and stick to one point at a time if that will be easier for you.

Taken on its own, I might be forgiven for thinking I am only imagining the patronising tone, but when I look at the entirety of your posts, it seems to me that you want to argue rather than debate. We shall see.

Why are you feeling disrespected? It isn't my fault if you feel disrespected because I am putting up a good argument for denying the gas chamber stories.

Disrespected because you have not been reading my posts as I intended them. You think I've done the same to you. So lets forget what has been said so far, and not go back over it trying to work out who has or has not responded well. I don't see the point of your last post. What are you trying to do now? Did you read my suggestion? What do you think of it?

Don't further patronise me by suggesting that I'm perturbed because of the quality of your argument.

As I mentioned earlier, I read and answered all the questions you posted and some. Yet you failed to answer the couple of questions I asked.

Maybe, but you used blanket arguments rather than addressing my points individually. As I said, maybe I have been guilty of the same thing. So lets try to avoid it, ok?

If you are insulted because I have the nerve to debate the holocaust from a revisionist's point of view, then that is your problem, not mine.

No, I'm insulted because you have the arrogance to suggest such things to me?

but for now, lets stick to the topic at hand and no doubt, we will get into the Nazi Jewish policy between 1925 and 1945 as the debate goes on.

Ok, my point is that many documents published between those dates shows that the Nazis intended to commit genocide on Jews, Slavs and other groups. This is undeniable evidence. Its in the first editions of Hitlers' two books, the records of the Berghof and Nuremberg conferences, and many, many personal accounts. What do you think their aim was if not world domination phantom?

Fair enough! Let's stick to the point that has made you feel insulted. Your first hand experiences at Dachau, Treblinka and Birkenau then we can move on. But before we do, I just want to recap how we started, to see who moved any goal posts.


I've already said I don't want to go over this. Cant we just accept we've not adequately addressed each others arguments and start debate again, rather than rehashing all this other shit from a different angle?

I doubt that any surviving Nazi alive today talks about the holocaust and gassing the jews. That is an absurd thing to say. Feel free to point out any Nazis who is openly talking about what they did during the holocaust.

Watch the films Shoah, and Heimat. Plenty of Nazi soldiers and officers describing what they did, with no remorse. Having watched these several times, I believe that they aren't able to deal with the evil of what they've done. By continuing to treating the Jews as less than human, they are protecting themselves from mental breakdown.

As I shall point out, there are many, many things to expose about the holocaust, that just do not stand up when scrutinised, as you will see as the debate unfolds.

Patronising again.

Now this is where the debate started. I made two comments, one about the soap stories that are no longer believed and the fact that 4 million + have been deducted from the official death list and you came back with:

Soap and statistics depends on whose account you are referring to. Please tell me how many Jews you think were killed by the Nazis, phantom.

But I just showed you where the numbers have been reduced. My source comes directly from a holocaust historical site - scrapbookpages.com.

Well, if you are not taking what is published on the many holocaust sites as truth, who are you listening too for you to stick to the six million deaths?

I have already highlighted the differences between a site such as the above, and a film like Shoah, or the Holocaust museums themselves.

"In regard to the evidence for mass genocide in the Nazi concentration camps, Justice Gray admitted: “What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence"

The gas chambers are there, in brick, still standing. I have no idea what this judge is on about. There are photos and records of the killing.

Just because you stood in what you thought or was told was a gas chamber at Dachau does not mean that's what it was, especially after I pointed out that the administrative authorities at Dachau, some famous prisoners and many historians say that the large gas chamber at the camp was never used for homicidal purposes (http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers). I also pointed out several other facts to show you that the gas chamber at Dachau was not even mentioned by many witnesses (one or two only made such comments out of the many witnesses) or allied soldiers during the Nuremberg trials. How much more do you need to read before coming to the conclusion that there was no gas chamber used at Dachau to kill jews or anyone else?

I believe the gas chambers were used to kill people because:-

a) why else were they built?
b) there are still people alive that witnessed their use
c) there are still people alive that actioned their use
d) there are photographs of naked dead bodies both inside and just outside the chambers.

I admit there is ambiguity over figures of Jews killed but there is no doubt that the gas chambers in Dachau, Treblinka and Birkenau were used. I think you are being very selective in your sources to say that you cant find any evidence of their use.

I was explaining to you that holocaust scholars, not revisionists, were saying that Dachau had no gas chamber that was used to gas jews. Therefore, it doesn't matter how intelligent you may be, the fact is, these people no longer support the Dachau gas chamber yet you still believe there was.

Ok, ignoring the intelligence slur, which you have previously claimed you don;t make, the point is that the historians I have read, and spoken to have shown evidence that the chambers were used. I have also visited the museums and the camps themselves and that confirmed. You are essentially denying that the history books, museums and camps I have visited are illusory, or that I wasnt paying attention and coming away with my own conclusions.

You have accused me of twisting what you have said but I cannot find what you accuse me of. Maybe you can point out what I have twisted so that I may address it.


Right above. "These people no longer support the Dachau gas chamber yet you still believe there was"

I can't understand your logic by telling people to visit the camps instead of taking some(one) else's word for it. If one cannot take the words of holocaust scholars such as the administrative authorities at Dachau, some of whom are famous prisoners and many historians who are telling us that Dachau had no genocidal gas chamber, why would one believe what a tour guide at Dachau said if it contradicted what the authority of Dachau says.

Another twist. Who do you mean by the admin autthorities at Dachau, Holocaust scholars? I found my evidence by reading books by scholars that provided evidence for the chambers, and even more evidence at Dachau itself. I dont understand why you repeatedly deny this. Its my life, it HAS happened.

Let's say that people took your advice and did visit Dachau, armed with the knowledge of what holocaust scholars and witnesses have said about there not being a genocidal gas chamber, are they to believe the tour guide if they say it was a genocidal gas chamber?

Another loaded question. What if they read the books I have read, and talked to the people I have talked to, and watched the films I have seen, and then went to the camps with an open mind, and the idea was reinforced by UNDENIABLE evidence BEFORE THEIR VERY EYES!

There was not always a tour guide at the camps. I cant remember which ones had one or which ones not. Stop making silly twists that are nothing to do with what I AM POSTING. ANSWER my points if you want a debate.

Tell me: have I imagined my research? I'm not tellingg you you've imagined yours, I'm suggesting you look at mine!

Ok, fair enough! Here are a few links to what I refer to as holocaust sites or holocaust historical sites. If you think they are useless to use, feel free to pass me links to what you believe I should be using.

http://www.ushmm.org/
http://remember.org/
http://www.nizkor.org/
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=242023
http://www.mjhnyc.org/index.htm
http://www.deathcamps.org/
http://www.auschwitz-birkenau.org/
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/
and any link from here: http://www.holocaust-history.org/links/

I tell you what, I will look through your list of websites, and you have a look at the films I suggested, and some BOOKS, as opposed to sites. I cant recommend any of the top of my head, I've read too many, but I'll see if I can get you a list.

I do accept your point that all, not "much" of my research is internet based. I use both revisionist sites and holocaust sites to form my opinion.

How are you able to say which is revisionist. The problem with websites is that they offer no historiographical analysis.

Clarify what you mean by "using a single point" to debunk all three camps that you have been to. I have not started on Treblinka and Birkenau yet.


Well this is one example of what I meant by responding to what I said. You have said that the idea of Nazis using gas to kill jews is untrue. The issue is twofold. First, I have seen evidence they did, and secondly, because they did, it supports the evidence for 6m because its a more efficient way of killing.

But the holocaust is based around the gas chambers. Without them, there is no genocide because it is claimed that 6 million were put to death via the gas chambers, so leaving them out would be silly and get us nowhere.

No, thats another twist. The holocaust is the capture, enslaving, and systematic murder (genocide) of Jews, slavs, communists, intellectuals, blacks and gypsies in numerous death camps. Many of the murders were simply digging huge pits, shooting people and pushing them in, then burning them.

Well, I would prefer that you answered the few questions I asked earlier, like these two below:

Did your tour guide tell you that people were gassed at Dachau?

I cant remember whether there was a tour guide or not. What I did see was the chambers themselves, and photographs of dead bodies in and around the chambers, plus nazi records and accounts of using gas in the final solution.

Are those holocaust sites I added any good for holocaust research?

Everything is useful for research. But we have to be careful not to ignore important sources. A website can be put together by anybody, but law controls what is in the museums and books.

And then clarify which revisionists you believe were telling lies and maybe point out a few of their lies without referring to Irving.

Since I've seen sufficient evidence to build a clear picture of what I believed happened, anyone who denies that it happened is a revisionist. Anyone who questions numbers is conducting historiographical analysis. There is a difference. You've said several times that genocide and gas chambers are mutually dependent. That's untrue.

Then provide me with a link where you say the Nazis spoke of their plans for genocide a long time before they perpetrated it so that I can bookmark it and rebutt it later if need be.

Mein Kampf, first edition and Hitler's Second Book (usually just called Hitlers Secret Book) - both are illegal in some countries (daft) but I guess its their way of trying to prevent the same thing happening. Hitler repeatedly says that Germany must purify Europe by eradicating racial weakness by genocide, and the Aryan race must rule the world, starting with France and Russia, where they will find lebensraum (living room) which they deserve.#

Plus, historiographically, Hauner's "Hitler - Life and Time", Weinbergs "Nazi Foreign Policy" and numerous others. Your library will probably have some good stuff.

Originally, their plan was to conquer Russia and set up the death camps there, but that failed, so they did it closer to home. "The Triumph of the Will" has many references. "Nazis: A Warning From History" is another good docu.

[phantom]

I tell you what, lets forget what has already been said and start again. This time we will stick to one point at a time as you suggested.

Let us focus on the gas chambers at Dachau because you have been there and then we can move on to other parts of the holocaust.

What do you say?

[adimon]

I say ok.

I believe Dachau's gas chambers were used to kill people:-

the Nazis intended to commit genocide on Jews, Slavs and other groups. This is undeniable evidence. Its in the first editions of Hitlers' two books, the records of the Berghof and Nuremberg conferences, and many, many personal accounts.

the films Shoah, and Heimat. Plenty of Nazi soldiers and officers describing what they did, with no remorse. Having watched these several times, I believe that they aren't able to deal with the evil of what they've done. By continuing to treating the Jews as less than human, they are protecting themselves from mental breakdown.


The gas chambers are there, in brick, still standing. I have no idea what this judge is on about. There are photos and records of the killing.

I believe the gas chambers were used to kill people because:-

a) why else were they built?
b) there are still people alive that witnessed their use
c) there are still people alive that actioned their use
d) there are photographs of naked dead bodies both inside and just outside the chambers.

I admit there is ambiguity over figures of Jews killed but there is no doubt that the gas chambers in Dachau were used. I think you are being very selective in your sources to say that you cant find any evidence of their use.

the historians I have read, and spoken to have shown evidence that the chambers were used. I have also visited the museums and the camps themselves and had that confirmed. You are essentially denying that the history books, museums and camps I have visited are illusory, or that I wasnt paying attention and coming away with my own conclusions.

I cant remember whether there was a tour guide or not. What I did see was the chambers themselves, and photographs of dead bodies in and around the chambers, plus nazi records and accounts of using gas in the final solution.

Everything is useful for research. But we have to be careful not to ignore important sources. A website can be put together by anybody, but law controls what is in the museums and books.

Mein Kampf, first edition and Hitler's Second Book (usually just called Hitlers Secret Book) - both are illegal in some countries (daft) but I guess its their way of trying to prevent the same thing happening. Hitler repeatedly says that Germany must purify Europe by eradicating racial weakness by genocide, and the Aryan race must rule the world, starting with France and Russia, where they will find lebensraum (living room) which they deserve.#

Plus, historiographically, Hauner's "Hitler - Life and Time", Weinbergs "Nazi Foreign Policy" and numerous others. Your library will probably have some good stuff.

Originally, their plan was to conquer Russia and set up the death camps there, but that failed, so they did it closer to home. "The Triumph of the Will" has many references. "Nazis: A Warning From History" is another good docu.

[phantom]

Ok, good.

I will not answer what you have put in quotes above because it does not relate to Dachau only but to several different things ok. Like the film shoah for instance, it is concerned mainly with four topics: Chełmno, Treblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau; and the Warsaw Ghetto, with testimonies from survivors, witnesses, and perpetrators.

If you will allow me to start, I will put together a few things regarding the gas chamber at Dachau and then you can refute it and we will take it from there.

How's that sound to you?

[adimon]

Why do I have to refute YOU?

Why can't you respond to my points on Dachau?

I've built a case for the use of the chambers there piece by piece.


he Nazis intended to commit genocide on Jews, Slavs and other groups. This is undeniable evidence. Its in the first editions of Hitlers' two books, the records of the Berghof and Nuremberg conferences, and many, many personal accounts.

Mein Kampf, first edition and Hitler's Second Book (usually just called Hitlers Secret Book) - both are illegal in some countries (daft) but I guess its their way of trying to prevent the same thing happening. Hitler repeatedly says that Germany must purify Europe by eradicating racial weakness by genocide, and the Aryan race must rule the world, starting with France and Russia, where they will find lebensraum (living room) which they deserve.#

Plus, historiographically, Hauner's "Hitler - Life and Time", Weinbergs "Nazi Foreign Policy" and numerous others. Your library will probably have some good stuff.

Originally, their plan was to conquer Russia and set up the death camps there, but that failed, so they did it closer to home. "The Triumph of the Will" has many references. "Nazis: A Warning From History" is another good docu.

So, first of all, we know that genocide was part of their plan for world domination.

the films Shoah, and Heimat. Plenty of Nazi soldiers and officers describing what they did, with no remorse. Having watched these several times, I believe that they aren't able to deal with the evil of what they've done. By continuing to treating the Jews as less than human, they are protecting themselves from mental breakdown.

Secondly, I discovered that there are people who are still alive who carried out the atrocities.

Thirdly,

The gas chambers are there, in brick, still standing.

Fourth,

There are photos and records of the killing.

I cant remember whether there was a tour guide or not. What I did see was the chambers themselves, and photographs of dead bodies in and around the chambers, plus nazi records and accounts of using gas in the final solution.

Fifth

the historians I have read, and spoken to have shown evidence that the chambers were used. I have also visited the museums and the camps themselves and had that confirmed. You are essentially denying that the history books, museums and camps I have visited are illusory, or that I wasnt paying attention and coming away with my own conclusions.

Yes, I have re-ordered my post into a more logical format.

I believe the gas chambers were used to kill people because of the progressive research outlined above.

If you disagree with me, then please tell me

a) why else were they built?
b) how there are still people alive that witnessed their use
c) how there are still people alive that actioned their use
d) how there are photographs of naked dead bodies both inside and just outside the chambers.

Yes there are people who say otherwise whom you could choose to believe, but they are ignoring or twisting the undeniable physical evidence.

Have you read either of Hitler's books?

[phantom]

Ok, I will respond to your points on Dachau and the other things in your post, then you can show me the same courtesy by replying to my questions later.

adimon - The Nazis intended to commit genocide on Jews, Slavs and other groups. This is undeniable evidence. Its in the first editions of Hitlers' two books, the records of the Berghof and Nuremberg conferences, and many, many personal accounts.

No good you just telling me that the Nazis intended to commit genocide on the Jews, Slavs and other groups and that it is undeniable. It is easily deniable because there exists no written order given by Hitler to suggest that he intended to genocide any group.

In Mein Kampf, there is a quote that many people use to state that he did have a plan to genocide jews but the quote alone is not proof of anything. I am guessing that you are referring to that one passage throughout the 694 pages as proof? If I am wrong, please paste what else you believe is in that book that clearly states Hitler had a plan to exterminate the jews.

Here is the quote in it's entirety and bare in mind, Hitler is talking about the First World War: Mein Kampf, Volume Two - A Reckoning, Chapter XV: The Right of Emergency Defense "If in 1914 the German working class in their innermost convictions had still consisted of Marxists, the War would have been over in three weeks. Germany would have collapsed even before the first soldier set foot across the border. No, the fact that the German people was then still fighting proved that the Marxist delusion had not yet been able to gnaw its way into the bottommost depths. But in exact proportion as, in the course of the War, the German worker and the German soldier fell back into the hands of the Marxist leaders, in exactly that proportion he was lost to the fatherland. If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, th sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain. On the contrary: twelve thousand scoundrels eliminated in time might have saved the lives of a million real Germans, valuable for the future. But it just happened to be in the line of bourgeois 'statesmanship' to subject millions to a bloody end on the battlefield without batting an eyelash, but to regard ten or twelve thousand traitors, profiteers, usurers, and swindlers as a sacred national treasure and openly proclaim their inviolability. We never know which is greater in this bourgeois world, the imbecility, weakness, and cowardice, or their deep-dyed corruption. It is truly a class doomed by Fate, but unfortunately, however, it is dragging a whole nation with it into the abyss (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch15.html).”

"If only 12,000 – 15,000 Jews were gassed" does not mean 12,000 - 15,000 jews were gassed and does not imply that Hitler had a plan to annihilate them in the Second World War.

As for the second book you refer to, Hitler's Sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitlers Secret Book, (Zweites Buch) I can find nothing that suggests that Hitler openly talks about exterminating the jews. You will have to provide me with more information on that.

A search for your quote where you say Hitler repeatedly says - "Germany must purify Europe by eradicating racial weakness by genocide, and the Aryan race must rule the world, starting with France and Russia, where they will find lebensraum (living room) which they deserve." found nothing on google. Are you sure you have the right quote?

If there was a plan to exterminate the jews as you believe, why didn't Heinrich Himmler mention it in the memorandum he wrote to Hitler on May 25, 1940, regarding the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” (whose proposals Hitler accepted)

In the memorandum, Himmler rejects genocide under the grounds that one must reject “...the Bolshevik method of physical extermination of a people out of inner conviction as un-German and impossible”. He goes on to argue that something similar to the “Madagascar Plan” be the preferred “territorial solution” to the “Jewish Question”.

You and I both know it. There is NO evidence to prove Hitler planned to exterminate the jews. Not one shred of evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

So, first of all, we know that genocide was part of their plan for world domination.

We do NOT know that genocide was part of their plan just because you say it was. I just told you there is NOT one shread of evidence for a plan of genocide and you have not proven otherwise.

the films Shoah, and Heimat. Plenty of Nazi soldiers and officers describing what they did, with no remorse. Having watched these several times, I believe that they aren't able to deal with the evil of what they've done. By continuing to treating the Jews as less than human, they are protecting themselves from mental breakdown.

As I said earlier, the film shoah is concerned mainly with four topics: Chełmno, Treblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau; and the Warsaw Ghetto, with testimonies from survivors, witnesses, and perpetrators. It does not deal with Dachau only, which is what I thought we agreed to debate. Besides that, I have not watched it all so therefore will not comment on it. I am sure all or most of those witnesses statements in the film can be obtained online somewhere.

The gas chambers are there, in brick, still standing.

Agreed, the gas chambers, AKA delousing chambers are still there at Dachau. I have pictures to post to you later.

There are photos and records of the killing

By photos and records of killing, I am sure you are referring to other methods of killing that has nothing to do with the gas chambers. If not, please show me a picture of people being gassed and any Nazi documents that confirm people were being gassed at Dachau. I know you will not be able to do that because no such pictures or records exist.

I cant remember whether there was a tour guide or not. What I did see was the chambers themselves, and photographs of dead bodies in and around the chambers, plus nazi records and accounts of using gas in the final solution.

Ok, it doesn't matter about the tour guide. When you say you saw the gas chamber(s) and no doubt entered them, are saying that you saw and stood in more than one homicidal gas chamber at Dachau? Please clarify.

Also, you are saying that at Dachau, they showed you pictures of dead people IN and around the gas chamber(s)? If that is so then I am sure these pictures are available online. Please search for them and post them here because my search has failed to find any.

Can you also post any links to records and accounts that you say you saw at Dachau that can verify the claim that the Nazis kept records and accounts of using gas in the final solution. Again, I cannot find anything online to back up what you said.

the historians I have read, and spoken to have shown evidence that the chambers were used. I have also visited the museums and the camps themselves and had that confirmed. You are essentially denying that the history books, museums and camps I have visited are illusory, or that I wasnt paying attention and coming away with my own conclusions.

Can you give me a few names of the historians you have read, that show evidence that the chamber(s) at Dachau were used for homicidal purposes so that I may read for myself what they have to say?

When you say that you have visited the museums and the camps themselves, can you be more specific and tell me what camps and museums you have been to please. I know you have mentioned being at Dachau, Treblinks and Birkenau, did you go to any other?

I am not saying that what you have learnt via the history books, museums and camps was an illusion or that you weren’t paying attention while you were learning about what happened at these places. That would be silly of me.

Yes, I have re-ordered my post into a more logical format.

I believe the gas chambers were used to kill people because of the progressive research outlined above.

If you disagree with me, then please tell me

a) why else were they built?
b) how there are still people alive that witnessed their use
c) how there are still people alive that actioned their use
d) how there are photographs of naked dead bodies both inside and just outside the chambers.

Q) why else were they built?
A) To delouse the clothes of new arrivials to help stop the spread of disease through the camps.

Q) how there are still people alive that witnessed their use
A) There isn't.

Q) how there are still people alive that actioned their use
A) By actioned, do you mean took part in? If so, my answer is - If you are talking about German Nazis then there can't be. If there were any alive today claiming they took part in gassing the jews, they would have been kidnapped or extradited from their country and sent to Israel where they would have been tried and found guilty, then executed.

If you are talking about the Sonderkommando - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, then there can't be. Sonderkommando members did not participate directly in the killing; killing was reserved for the guards.

Q) how there are photographs of naked dead bodies both inside and just outside the chambers.
A) I have not seen one photo of a dead body inside a gas chamber. However, I have seen many pictures of dead bodies, that I can only guess, died from starvation and disease. I could be wrong though, because it is hard to tell by just looking at a picture, how those people died.

Yes there are people who say otherwise whom you could choose to believe, but they are ignoring or twisting the undeniable physical evidence.

It would be nice if you could name a few of these people who you think are ignoring or twisting the undeniable physical evidence, without naming David Irving. And possibly tell me a few of things they have twisted or ignored.

Have you read either of Hitler's books?

I started to read Mein Kampf a few years ago but gave up before finishing the first chapter. It wasn't for me.

[phantom]

This is why I don't believe anybody was gassed in Dachau.

We are told that Dachau had four gas chambers that were used for delousing and one that was built for genocide, yet when searching the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005214) it clearly states this:

"In 1942, the crematorium area was constructed next to the main camp. It included the old crematorium and the new crematorium (Barrack X) with a gas chamber. There is no credible evidence that the gas chamber in Barrack X was used to murder human beings. Instead, prisoners underwent "selection"; those who were judged too sick or weak to continue working were sent to the Hartheim "euthanasia" killing center near Linz, Austria. Several thousand Dachau prisoners were murdered at Hartheim. Further, the SS used the firing range and the gallows in the crematoria area as killing sites for prisoners."

"No credible evidence". Does that mean the USHMM (http://www.ushmm.org) is saying, anyone who claims to have witnessed people going into the gas chambers or who claim to have helped drag the bodies out of the gas chamber and put them in the crematoria at Dachau are, possibly, telling lies?

When searching through the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site (http://www.kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de/englisch/frame/vr.htm) I found this:

"Still preserved today are the first crematorium built in 1940 and the so-called barrack X, built in 1942/43. The gas chamber installed in barrack X was never put into operation for the planned mass extermination."

"Never put into operation". In other words, it was never used to kill anyone. So anyone claiming to have witnessed people going into the gas chambers or who claim to have helped drag the bodies out of the gas chamber and put them in the crematoria at Dachau must be telling lies.

Here is the text from the Dachau Guidebook (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachau/DachauGuidebookText.html)

In 1942 a gas chamber was also built in the Dachau concentration camp, but inexplicably, it was never used. It was located within the new crematorium, a larger building whose construction with four ovens became necessary when the first crematorium, which had only one oven, proved inadequate.

"It was never used". In other words, Nobody was killed by gas. So anyone claiming to have witnessed people going into the gas chambers or who claim to have helped drag the bodies out of the gas chamber and put them in the crematoria at Dachau are indeed telling lies.

Now, below is a picture taken from inside the homicidal gas chamber at Dachau. Notice the sign on the right hand side of the room. The sign was written in five languages and used to say Designed as a shower-room, never used as a Gas chamber. but it was removed in 2003.

Dachau gas chamber, May 2001 (ttp://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/GasChamber/interior00.html)
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauPhotos/Camp/GasChambers/Interior/CS051.jpg

You can see the sign in this youtube video at 7-minutes 49-seconds and it clearly states in English: Designed as a shower-room, never used as a Gas chamber.

Dachau Concentration Camp - Tribute - YouTube

And here is a picture of the sign taken in 1998
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/Image26.jpg

Just to recap:

We had the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site both telling us the gas chamber was never used to kill anybody. The Dachau Guidebook also pointed out that the gas chamber was never used to kill anyone as well as the sign that used to stand inside the gas chamber.

Is there anything else I can find that will lead me to believe no one was gassed at Dachau? Just as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site have claimed?

Let’s see!

Dachau is on German soil.

In a letter published in a January issue of The Stars and Stripes, a newspaper for US military service personnel, Simon Wiesenthal re-confirmed, in passing, that "there were no extermination camps on German soil" during the Second World War. He made the identical statement in a letter published in the April 1975 issue of the British periodical Books and Bookmen.

Dachau is on German soil and if we are to believe Simon Wiesenthal then if is fair to say that even he would agree that no one was gassed at Dachau.

Here is another statement backing up Wiesenthal.

Stephen F. Pinter, who served as a lawyer for the War Department of the United States in the occupation forces in Germany and Austria for six years after the war. He made the following statement in the most widely read American Catholic magazine, Our Sunday Visitor, for June 14, 1959:

"I was in Dachau for 17 months after the war, as a U.S. War Department Attorney, and can state that there was no gas chamber at Dachau. What was shown to visitors and sightseers there and erroneously described as a gas chamber was a crematory. Nor was there a gas chamber in any of the other concentration camps in Germany. We were told that there was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, but since that was in the Russian zone of occupation, we were not permitted to investigate since the Russians would not permit it. From what I was able to determine during six postwar years in Germany and Austria, there were a number of Jews killed, but the figure of a million was certainly never reached. I interviewed thousands of Jews, former inmates of concentration camps in Germany and Austria, and consider myself as well qualified as any man on this subject."

Reading through scrapbookpages.com (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauTrials/MartinGottfriedWeiss06.html) there is a piece at the bottom of the page that says:

One of the most famous inmates at Dachau, Dr. Johannes Neuhäusler who was a Catholic Bishop, wrote the following on page 17 of his book "What was it like in the Concentration Camp at Dachau?":

"Also behind the wire fence was the camp crematorium. At first it was housed in a wooden barrack, later in a stone building built by Polish Catholic priests, to whom the building trade had been taught. This crematorium was located in a small forest on the west side quite close to the camp. The prevailing wind was from the west and consequently the smell of burning corpses filled the camp, reminding the prisoners of their approaching end and adding immeasurably to their despair.

With the new crematorium a gas chamber was also connected. The whole construction of the crematorium with its gas chamber was completed in 1943. It contained an "undressing room", a "shower bath", and a "mortuary". The "showers" were metal traps which had no pipelines for a supply of poisonous gas. This gas chamber was never set in action in Dachau. Only the dead were brought to the crematorium for "burning", no living for "gassing".

Stay tuned, there is more to come on Dachau and it's alledged genocidal gas chamber.

[adimon]

No good you just telling me that the Nazis intended to commit genocide on the Jews, Slavs and other groups and that it is undeniable. It is easily deniable because there exists no written order given by Hitler to suggest that he intended to genocide any group.

All of the texts that I referenced contain the plans for genocide. You're literally ignoring my side of the debate now.

In Mein Kampf, there is a quote that many people use to state that he did have a plan to genocide jews but the quote alone is not proof of anything. I am guessing that you are referring to that one passage throughout the 694 pages as proof? If I am wrong, please paste what else you believe is in that book that clearly states Hitler had a plan to exterminate the jews.

Hitler's plans for racial purification are not limited to one passage in MK. There are a great many references. Perhaps you should read it for yourself.

"If only 12,000 – 15,000 Jews were gassed" does not mean 12,000 - 15,000 jews were gassed and does not imply that Hitler had a plan to annihilate them in the Second World War.

True, but as I said, you've got your facts wrong on the book itself, and the content of the other Nazi foreign policy documents. The fact that Hitler's whole propaganda campaign in Germany was so open, and there are so many references to his plan is very strong evidence indeed of his desires.

As for the second book you refer to, Hitler's Sequel to Mein Kampf, Hitlers Secret Book, (Zweites Buch) I can find nothing that suggests that Hitler openly talks about exterminating the jews. You will have to provide me with more information on that.

I have paper copies of the books so can't cut and paste. When I get time I'll type some sections up.

A search for your quote where you say Hitler repeatedly says - "Germany must purify Europe by eradicating racial weakness by genocide, and the Aryan race must rule the world, starting with France and Russia, where they will find lebensraum (living room) which they deserve." found nothing on google. Are you sure you have the right quote?

It's not a quote, phantom. I would have used a citation if it was a quote. Do individual searches on lebensraum; Nazi foreign policy towards Russia and France; purification etc.. A list of sources appears on my essay which I posted a couple of days ago.

If there was a plan to exterminate the jews as you believe, why didn't Heinrich Himmler mention it in the memorandum he wrote to Hitler on May 25, 1940, regarding the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” (whose proposals Hitler accepted)

In the memorandum, Himmler rejects genocide under the grounds that one must reject “...the Bolshevik method of physical extermination of a people out of inner conviction as un-German and impossible”. He goes on to argue that something similar to the “Madagascar Plan” be the preferred “territorial solution” to the “Jewish Question”.

The Nazis were incredibly hypocritical and many of their published documents contradict one another. Look at the build up to the 2nd World War. Germany were saying one thing and doing another a lot of the time. As for the memo you mention, it is outweighed a thousand fold with the numerous documents which contradict it.

By photos and records of killing, I am sure you are referring to other methods of killing that has nothing to do with the gas chambers. If not, please show me a picture of people being gassed and any Nazi documents that confirm people were being gassed at Dachau. I know you will not be able to do that because no such pictures or records exist.

If you get yourself down the library you will find them.

Also, you are saying that at Dachau, they showed you pictures of dead people IN and around the gas chambers? If that is so then I am sure these pictures are available online. Please search for them and post them here because my search has failed to find any.

These pictures are in books in your library and at the Camp Museums.

Can you also post any links to records and accounts that you say you saw at Dachau that can verify the claim that the Nazis kept records and accounts of using gas in the final solution. Again, I cannot find anything online to back up what you said.

History books and Camp museums.

Can you give me a few names of the historians you have read, that show evidence that the chambers at Dachau were used for homicidal purposes so that I may read for myself what they have to say?

I'll try and get you a list when I have time.


Q) how there are still people alive that witnessed their use
A) There isn't.

Q) how there are still people alive that actioned their use
A) By actioned, do you mean took part in? If so, my answer is - If you are talking about German Nazis then there can't be. If there were any alive today claiming they took part in gassing the jews, they would have been kidnapped or extradited from their country and sent to Israel where they would have been tried and found guilty, then executed.

There are German soldiers and civilians who are still alive, who witnessed and took part in the atrocities, and have talked about them in numerous documentaries, not just Heimat and Shoah. They didn't kill the whole population of Germany at Nuremberg, you know.

Q) [COLOR="Blue"]how there are photographs of naked dead bodies both inside and just outside the chambers.
A) I have not seen one photo of a dead body inside a gas chamber. However, I have seen many pictures of dead bodies, that I can only guess, died from starvation and disease. I could be wrong though, because it is hard to tell by just looking at a picture, how those people died.[/B]

Two points. First of all, I'm gonna sound boring by saying get to the library and eave the net alone for a while. Secondly, if these people had died of disease, why were they naked, spilling out the door of gas chambers?

You will find such pictures if you look in the books. I will try and get a reading list together. Some of the books I reference in my essay, may have stuff in I can't remember. I have a database here I will query soon for you.


I started to read Mein Kampf a few years ago but gave up before finishing the first chapter. It wasn't for me.

It's not my idea of a good read either, but reading it has given me the evidence I need to know for sure that Hitler planned things WAY in advance.

[shellygurrrl]

This is one theory I am not ready to believe.

[adimon]

This is one theory I am not ready to believe.

Which theory do you refer to? That the Nazis used gas chambers to kill people? Or that they didn't?

[phantom]

Hi shellygurrrl

This is one theory I am not ready to believe

I guess most people feel the same way.

Unless you read the arguments made by the revisionists, you will never believe anything other than the 'official' version, blindly. I have spoken to many people who only know what they have seen on TV about the holocaust and when I try to show them that many of the stories that they believe are no longer believed in by the holocaust scholars, (jewish soap for instance) they get all defensive and lose their rag.

I too was a believer in the official version of events. I was taught about the holocaust at school. I had seen many films/documentaries growing up and never thought for one moment, that what I was being told was anything but the truth, until I stumbled across the revisionist side of things about 8 years ago. At first I couldn't believe what they were saying but after reading the many available online books and articles, I have decided to lean more to the revisionist side of things when it comes to the gas chambers and the amount of people killed in them.

Many people still believe that gassings took place at Dachau but as I have already tried to show, that claim is no longer accepted.

I don't know how much revisionist work you have read shellygurrrl but If you have not read any, I suggest you give it a go.

I am taking it that by you being here at this site, you are someone who does not believe what your government tells you and that you possibly believe in a lot of the conspiracy that Ickes talks about. (I have four signed books) If that is the case, then take a look at what revisionists say before dismissing their work.

[adimon]

Hi shellygurrrl

Many people still believe that gassings took place at Dachau but as I have already tried to show, that claim is no longer accepted.

Not by everyone, no, but the evidence still remains.

I don't know how much revisionist work you have read shellygurrrl but If you have not read any, I suggest you give it a go.

I'd advise everyone to look not only at the revisionist sources, but also have a thorough look over the other historians who have provided evidence which contradicts it.

[kblood]

Okay... just answer me one question:

If the jews and other racial groups were not captured and killed by nazi in WW2, then why would they be fleeing in massive numbers? Why would they be fleeing to neutral or opposing countries like Sweden and the US? There are much historical information here in Denmark telling about how jews fled from Germany, through Denmark and got smuggled to Sweden to avoid being captured by nazi. There are biographies written about how it was not well known in Germany that jews were killed in great numbers. It was known that jews were not liked though.

How do you expect to see gas on a picture of people that had died in the camps or is being killed by gas? You expect the nazi to have taken photographs of the actuall gassing? Is it not enough that the bodies did not have any wounds that proved to be the killing wound?

What exactly ever made you believe was the reason that the "rumour" of Jewish genocide then got spread in the first place? It was only to make sure they got Israel? And all those who believe in the nazi way today are then wrong that it was about promoting the Aryan race, and against other races?

I can see how it does fit a perfect scheme that the hidden agenda behind the Nazi regime, could be to promote bloodlines and help Jews into a seat of power. I just do not believe that it was simply made up most of it.

[adimon]

How do you expect to see gas on a picture of people that had died in the camps or is being killed by gas? You expect the nazi to have taken photographs of the actuall gassing? Is it not enough that the bodies did not have any wounds that proved to be the killing wound?

We dont have photos or videos of the gassing, but there are photos in various history books and at the Camp museums of dead naked bodies literally spilling out of the gas chambers.

Also, look at the design of the camps. Gas chambers close to crematoriums, but a long way from entrance. If you were gonna build 'delousing chambers' wouldn't you want to use them as soon as the prisoners dismounted the vehicles/trains?

[kblood]

We dont have photos or videos of the gassing, but there are photos in various history books and at the Camp museums of dead naked bodies literally spilling out of the gas chambers.

Also, look at the design of the camps. Gas chambers close to crematoriums, but a long way from entrance. If you were gonna build 'delousing chambers' wouldn't you want to use them as soon as the prisoners dismounted the vehicles/trains?

Yea... several rooms for "delousing" alone seems a bit far fetched. I have seen too many documentaries and movies about it to believe jews did not get gassed during WW2. At most the numbers of how many jews might have gotten murdered in WW2 is wrong, but I am quite certain at least 50.000 Jews got murdered, and probably alot more.

[adimon]

Yea... several rooms for "delousing" alone seems a bit far fetched. I have seen too many documentaries and movies about it to believe jews did not get gassed during WW2. At most the numbers of how many jews might have gotten murdered in WW2 is wrong, but I am quite certain at least 50.000 Jews got murdered, and probably alot more.

Definitely a lot more. I personally believe the reality is closer to the 6m figure than any other conclusive figure reached by various historians.

Taking a few inconsistencies into account, the least I would ever sink to was 3.5m, but the leeway I'm giving there would be huge - e.g. Pits with only one or two sources being ignored.

[phantom]

adimon - All of the texts that I referenced contain the plans for genocide. You're literally ignoring my side of the debate now.

I am not ignoring your side of the debate that would be silly. Surely, there must be some online links or book references you could give me to the texts that you refer too.

Hitler's plans for racial purification are not limited to one passage in MK. There are a great many references. Perhaps you should read it for yourself.

When you claim that Hitler talks about racial purification, does he also use the words genocide, exterminate, murder or any other word that means the same thing, in the same sentence?

Just because someone talks about racial purification, it doesn't mean they want to kill every other person in their country that doesn't share the same heritage or bloodline does it. It can also mean, Hitler wanted to kick the people out by forced migration.

True, but as I said, you've got your facts wrong on the book itself, and the content of the other Nazi foreign policy documents. The fact that Hitler's whole propaganda campaign in Germany was so open, and there are so many references to his plan is very strong evidence indeed of his desires.

Hitler does not talk about his desire to exterminate the jews in Mein Kampf. (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/) I dare anyone to go through this online version of Mein Kampf (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/) and point out where Hitler talks about his plan for liquidating the jewish people.

Please provide a link or book reference to which Nazi foreign policy documents you are talking about, so that I may check.

I have paper copies of the books so can't cut and paste. When I get time I'll type some sections up.

Unless Hitler is clearly stating his intentions of committing genocide on the jewish people, don't waste your time.

It's not a quote, phantom. I would have used a citation if it was a quote. Do individual searches on lebensraum; Nazi foreign policy towards Russia and France; purification etc.. A list of sources appears on my essay which I posted a couple of days ago.

What you are asking me to read is not going to prove Hitler had intentions to commit genocide. If you believe they do, please provide the links or book references.

The Nazis were incredibly hypocritical and many of their published documents contradict one another. Look at the build up to the 2nd World War. Germany were saying one thing and doing another a lot of the time. As for the memo you mention, it is outweighed a thousand fold with the numerous documents which contradict it.

Tell me which government isn't hypocritical and doesn't tell lies? There isn't one. I was going to list a few governments but it would be a waste of time and take to long. (Just take to Bush cabal as an example)

Again, please provide a link or book reference to contradicting documents that clearly state Hitler had a plan to exterminate the jewish people. This I know you cannot do because no such documents or recordings exist.

If you get yourself down the library you will find them.

I am sure, if any such pictures of people being gassed or official Nazi documents confessing to such crimes were real, they would be displayed on at least one online holocaust site, such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum but there isn't one. Not a single one!

Perhaps you can post a link or book reference so that I may check it out. It's no good you telling me such things exist if you cannot provide me the information needed to check for myself.

These pictures are in books in your library and at the Camp Museums.

Same answer as above.

History books and Camp museums.

Which history books and museums do you suggest I read or go to, to see the Nazi records and accounts you say survive and reveal the Nazis were using gas to kill the jewish people?

I am sure if such information did exist, it would be available online somewhere.

I'll try and get you a list when I have time.

Ok! I am interested to know who these historians are and what material they used to come to the conclusion that the Nazis gassed jewish people at Dachau.

There are German soldiers and civilians who are still alive, who witnessed and took part in the atrocities, and have talked about them in numerous documentaries, not just Heimat and Shoah. They didn't kill the whole population of Germany at Nuremberg, you know.

I hope the above statement was about Dachau only. If it was, then you have to provide me with some references, either from a book/document or an online link. I have read a lot of info on this subject (from both sides) and I can say, I have not come across anything like what you are referring to.

If you are not talking about Dachau, may I suggest you take your own advice and "stick to one point at a time it's a debate. If you keep moving the goalposts and introducing 5 new points before we've addressed the first one, people are bound to get frustrated". :p

Two points. First of all, I'm gonna sound boring by saying get to the library and eave the net alone for a while. Secondly, if these people had died of disease, why were they naked, spilling out the door of gas chambers?

You will find such pictures if you look in the books. I will try and get a reading list together. Some of the books I reference in my essay, may have stuff in I can't remember. I have a database here I will query soon for you.

There is no need for me to leave the net alone and go to a library. If you reference a Nuremberg court document that was used against the Nazis as proof of gassings at Dachau, I should be able to find a link online. (Nuremberg trial transcripts (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/imt.htm)) Also, there are many websites selling holocaust books, so any you reference, I am sure will be available for order online.

It's not my idea of a good read either, but reading it has given me the evidence I need to know for sure that Hitler planned things WAY in advance.

I think you mean, it has given you reason to believe that Hitler planned things WAY in advance.

Hitler did not make a confession in that book, to wanting to genocide the jewish people, so there can be no proof in reading it. You came to the conclusion that Hitler had a plan and carried out genocide that's all.

Now lets stick to the debate about Dachau. What do you have to show me and anyone following this thread, to prove the gassings at Dachau.

[phantom]

adimon - Not by everyone, no, but the evidence still remains.

No I know "not by everyone". I am sure if there was credible evidence to believe such claims, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Dachau Concentration Camp Memorial Site would be agreeing with the credible evidence and state the gassing claims but they obviously don't.

Tell me, how many people gave evidence at Nuremberg to the gassings at Dachau. There must have been quite a few witnesses to the gassings, especially those who would have had to empty the gas chamber.

I'd advise everyone to look not only at the revisionist sources, but also have a thorough look over the other historians who have provided evidence which contradicts it.

I totally agree. Remember, it was the revisionists who started to expose the many contradictions surrounding events of the holocaust, including early reports and witness statements.

[kblood]

In Darwins, "Survival of the Fittest" book, or whatever it was called, he did not make it too obvious that he was a racist, just like Hitler did not explain it in details either. Hitler did not seem like a person who would just "evict" the jews... then why would they need to run?

Did you even think about Hitlers intend with the war? He wanted to conquer the world. So he would eventually have to "evict" the jews into space, so why waste his time showing them along if they could just get killed right away?

It do not see why there would have to be evidence of the orders to kill jews. As I tried to explain earlier, it was kept a bit secret what was being done against the jews, which is why it was mostly rumours. If there ever was evidence and confessions of it (and I do believe some have confessed), then the evidence was probably destroyed. Especially after or during project Paperclip.

[phantom]

Hi kblood

In Darwins, "Survival of the Fittest" book, or whatever it was called, he did not make it too obvious that he was a racist, just like Hitler did not explain it in details either. Hitler did not seem like a person who would just "evict" the jews... then why would they need to run?

There is no doubt that Hitler didn't like the jews who controlled Germany. That is well documented. Just because someone dislikes a people in their country doesn't mean they want to murder them all does it. Hitler was not a psychopath. When war breaks out, many people try their best to leave that country. Just look at how many Iraqis for instance have left Iraq since the illegal invasion of their country.

Did you even think about Hitlers intend with the war? He wanted to conquer the world. So he would eventually have to "evict" the jews into space, so why waste his time showing them along if they could just get killed right away?

What makes you think (believe) that Hitler wanted to conquer the world? Do you even know how WWII was started?

It do not see why there would have to be evidence of the orders to kill jews. As I tried to explain earlier, it was kept a bit secret what was being done against the jews, which is why it was mostly rumours.

I do not believe there was a policy to exterminate the jews and that there were secret oral orders given to do so. If that was the case, why did Heinrich Himmler give an order, dated December 28, 1942, to administrators of these camps, to reduce the death rate of people dying from disease at all costs? (http://christianparty.net/holocaustfire.htm) (Source, Reitilinger's book, The Final Solution)

On January 20, 1943, chief inspector of the camps, Richard Glucks, answered Himmler, "Every means will be used to lower the death rates." (Source, Nuremberg Trial Document No. 1523) The death rate had indeed been reduced from 8.5% in July 1942 to 2.8% in June 1943.

Does that sound like a plan to exterminate the jewish people? No!

As I already pointed out, the Jews were vital to the German war industry. It would have been counter productive to exterminate them. In fact, the SS arrested Karl Koch, commandant of Buchenwald, for mistreating and unjustly executing some prisoners. After being found guilty by a military court, Koch was sentenced to death and shot.

If there ever was evidence and confessions of it (and I do believe some have confessed), then the evidence was probably destroyed. Especially after or during project Paperclip.

Why would evidence or confessions be destroyed if it would prove, without doubt, the Nazis had a plane and carried it out to exterminate he jewish people? That doesn't make sense. There were Nazi confessions, most, if not all, were encouraged to confess under torture.

I am sure that if you, I and anyone else was being tortured, we would all confess to stuff that we had nothing to do with.

[phantom]

kblood - Okay... just answer me one question:

I will!

If the jews and other racial groups were not captured and killed by nazi in WW2, then why would they be fleeing in massive numbers? Why would they be fleeing to neutral or opposing countries like Sweden and the US?

That's an easy one to answer and I am sure you will agree. In war, many people from the population leave through fear. There are many examples of this when you look at any war. As an example, just look at how many Iraqis left Iraq once the US started their illegal war.

There are much historical information here in Denmark telling about how jews fled from Germany, through Denmark and got smuggled to Sweden to avoid being captured by nazi. There are biographies written about how it was not well known in Germany that jews were killed in great numbers. It was known that jews were not liked though.

Historical information regarding a people fleeing a war torn country does not prove a genocide was in the pipeline and aimed towards them.

Of course the German people had no idea that jewish people were being killed in "large numbers". And I agree, many German people did not particually like the jewish people. If we look at history, we will see that the jewish people have not been liked by many a nation and were evicted from such countries over the past 2,000 years or so.

How do you expect to see gas on a picture of people that had died in the camps or is being killed by gas? You expect the nazi to have taken photographs of the actuall gassing? Is it not enough that the bodies did not have any wounds that proved to be the killing wound?

Good point. I am sure, if any one was being gassed at the camps, at least one picture or film would have been taken by the Nazis through the peephole, or once the door was opened after gassing, to show the effect Zyklon B was having as a killing instrument for genocide. But the truth is, no such images exist. Not One!

That being said, there is one picture that was used to claim that the men in the image were being prepared to be gassed. Here it is, found at history1900s.about.com (http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blchelmno1.htm)

http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/0/a/8/chelmno1.jpg
A group of Jewish men awaiting death in a gas van at the Chelmno death camp. (1942)

Here is the same picture again, this one being the original appeared opposite page 105 in the book Les Crimes Allemands in Pologne issued by The General Committee for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland in Warsaw in 1948. The caption reads: Photographie d'un groupe de victimes prise immediatement avant leur entree dans l'auto - chambre a gaz. (Prise fait par les Allemands) [Google translation: Photograph of a group of victims taken immediately prior to their entry into the auto-gas chamber. (Taking done by the Germans)]
http://www.leninimports.com/the_final_solution_1.jpg
The caption reads: Jewish men await death in a gas van (http://www.leninimports.com/the_final_solution.html).
[Photo credits: Main Commission for the Investigation of Nazi War Crimes]

As you can see, the top picture has been touched up and this image is not proof of anything.

What exactly ever made you believe was the reason that the "rumour" of Jewish genocide then got spread in the first place? It was only to make sure they got Israel? And all those who believe in the nazi way today are then wrong that it was about promoting the Aryan race, and against other races?

It is known that the British dropped leaflets, written in Polish and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story, which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort, was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations.

There are former inmates who have confirmed that they saw no evidence of extermination at Auschwitz.

Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations with a Polish forced laborer. On the train trip to the camp, a Gypsy woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at Auschwitz.

Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then, instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads.

Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of "gas chambers" during the time she was interned there. She heard the gassing stories only later.

Even inmates were released from Auschwitz when they had served their time. If Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have released inmates who "knew" what was happening in the camp.

I can see how it does fit a perfect scheme that the hidden agenda behind the Nazi regime, could be to promote bloodlines and help Jews into a seat of power. I just do not believe that it was simply made up most of it.

I am not familiar with that belief so I will not comment on it.

[kblood]

Thanks for answering Phantom.


Why would evidence or confessions be destroyed if it would prove, without doubt, the Nazis had a plane and carried it out to exterminate he jewish people? That doesn't make sense. There were Nazi confessions, most, if not all, were encouraged to confess under torture.

I am sure that if you, I and anyone else was being tortured, we would all confess to stuff that we had nothing to do with.

Project Paperclip was about smuggling German war criminals from Germany to the US to help research f.ex. nuclear weapons, rockets and space travel. Some got jobs at NASA, and they got total immunity and a new identity. So quite vital for this operation that evidence against was destroyed if possible, even though there already were known warcrimes done by them.

Even though it seems they did try to make prisoners survive in some camps, then too much still points to Jews being killed in mass numbers. The fact that some got released could very well be because they did not know the "truth" about the camps. All this mostly makes it seem alot of effort was put into hiding the fact that jews got gassed.

Are you trying to say that Jews were no more hunted and imprisoned than other "races"?

[phantom]

kblood - Thanks for answering Phantom.

My pleasure kblood

Project Paperclip was about smuggling German war criminals from Germany to the US to help research f.ex. nuclear weapons, rockets and space travel. Some got jobs at NASA, and they got total immunity and a new identity. So quite vital for this operation that evidence against was destroyed if possible, even though there already were known warcrimes done by them.

I know about project paperclip. It is possible that any references to the Germans that the U.S. government took back to America, implicating them with war crimes, could have been destroyed. I guess no one will ever know.

Even though it seems they did try to make prisoners survive in some camps, then too much still points to Jews being killed in mass numbers.

I am sure that all the camps had some kind of medical block where sick and injured prisoners were treated throughout the war. Many couldn't function for months before the wars end because the allies had bombed all the train lines. By doing that, they stopped the needed medicine for typhus and other diseases as well as other medical supplies for injuries and operations from getting through. Not to mention the lack of food in the camps, thanks to the allied bombings, that lead to the starvation of many inmates. That explains the mass of bodies found in most of the camps at wars end. So many people were dying of disease and starvation that they couldn't get cremated fast enough.

As for anything pointing to proof that jewish inmates were being systematically slaughtered, it just doesn't exist.

The fact that some got released could very well be because they did not know the "truth" about the camps.

Rumours of the gas chambers were already floating around from 1940 I think and it was used more widely by 1942 onwards. According to Dr. Franciszek Piper (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Birkenau/Birkenau01.html), senior curator and director of archives of the Auschwitz State Museum, camp records show that around 1,500 prisoners were actually released from Auschwitz and at least 500 escaped from 1940 to 45. I am sure these released inmates would have told the world what was happening, if what was being rumoured was really happening. The fact is, none of them did.

Dr. Piper was also involved in revising the death toll and in 1990 declared that the death toll at Auschwitz was 1.1 million, 90% of whom were Jewish. (less than one million jewish deaths at Auschwitz. (Even that death toll is debatable) Three million deducted from the official six million)

All this mostly makes it seem alot of effort was put into hiding the fact that jews got gassed.

I don't believe that, because too many witnesses to the gas chambers have been caught telling fibs.

Here are a few witness statements.

Deli Strummer ( http://isurvived.org/4Debates/SollyGanor/DeliStrummer-discredited.html) claims she was at five concentration camps during World War II over the course of 4 1/2 years. While she was in Auschwitz, she entered a gas chamber five times but came out alive, she claims, because guards turned on the water instead of the gas. Holocaust historians say this scenario is logistically impossible: In concentration camps the gas chambers had no water hookups.

Oooooooops! The gas chambers (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE3D61F3BF936A15751C0A9629582 60) had no plumbing for showers (though they had dummy shower heads) and no pipes that could deliver gas or water. Deli is obviously telling fibs.

Moshe Peer (http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/BergenBelsen04.html) claims, as an 11 year-old boy held captive at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II, he was sent to the gas chamber at least six times. Each time he survived, watching with horror as many of the women and children gassed with him collapsed and died. To this day, Peer doesn't know how he was able to survive. "Maybe children resist better, I don't know," he said in an interview last week. Moshe is obviously telling fibs.

Oooooooops! Bergen Belsen (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/37/a3953937.shtml) had NO gas chambers to kill the prisoners as it was originally used as a prisoner-of-war camp for French and Belgian captives. This was changed in 1943 when Jews with foreign passports were kept there to be exchanged for German nationals imprisoned abroad, although very few exchanges were made. About 200 Jews were allowed to emigrate to Palestine and about 1,500 Hungarian Jews were allowed to emigrate to Switzerland, both took place under the rubric of exchanges for German nationals.

Regina Bialek (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history/msg/2bd0d991c088fde4) claims I was made to undress and taken by lorry to a gas chamber. There were seven gas chambers at Auschwitz. This particular one was underground and the lorry was able to run down the slope and straight into the chamber. Here we were tipped unceremoniously on the floor. The room was about 12 yards square and small lights on the wall dimly illuminated it. When the room was full a hissing sound was heard coming from the centre point on the floor and gas came into the room. After what seemed about ten minutes some of the victims began to bite their hands and foam at the mouth, and blood issued from their ears, eyes and mouth, and their faces went blue. I suffered from all these symptoms, together with a tight feeling at the throat. I was half conscious when my number was called out by Dr. Mengele and I was led from the chamber. I attribute my escape to the fact that the daughter of a friend of mine who was an Aryan and a doctor at Auschwitz had seen me being transported to the chamber and had told her mother, who immediately appealed to Dr. Mengele.

We already know that Zyklon B was supposedly introduced through holes in the ceiling so it is fair to say that Regina is also telling fibs.

Pepi Schreier ( http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/11345/edition_id/217/format/html/displaystory.html) claims soon after, the two little girls and their mother were moved to Auschwitz and within 24 hours sent to the gas chamber. Pepi told her daughters to stand next to her and to say the Sh'ma. "We will get out of this alive," she said. They were released when the mechanism of the gas chamber failed. "She seemed to have an almost personal relationship with God," says Goldsmith. "Her faith that they would survive never wavered. But she didn't just sit back and let things happen. She worked and planned and had many perilous escapades to save lives."

What mechanism? We already know how the gas was supposedly introduced.

Here are two witness statements about the gas chamber at Auschwitz.

Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations with a Polish forced laborer. On the train trip to the camp, a Gypsy woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at Auschwitz.

Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then, instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads.

Auschwitz was no vacation center, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the death of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus, and quite a few committed suicide. But she saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings, or of any extermination program.

A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of "gas chambers" during the time she was interned there. She heard the gassing stories only later. (Sylvia Rothchild, ed., Voices from the Holocaust (New York: 1981), pp. 188-191)


Are you trying to say that Jews were no more hunted and imprisoned than other "races"?

Of course I’m not. That would be silly of me to make such a claim.

[adimon]

Phantom

Any further debate with you will be fruitless IMO. I've been absent from the thread for a couple of days, so that I could see what you would do. I've also been back over the thread, and examined how you slowly amped up the 'facts' and the outrageousness of your claims. The OP was itself outrageous, but the author did not stay long to defend it.

You have dismissed any source that doesn't support your story, without any historiographical analysis. The vast majority of your sources are internet based - giving you the ability to split them into categories such as holocaust history or holocaust revisionism as you see fit. I would argue that most of the sites you claim are 'history sites' are in fact revisionist sites. I would stress the importance of going to the books, but...

You refuse to look at library books or visit the camps themselves - convinced that it will be a waste of time, since you are convinced you're right and why should you have to make effort or pay money to confirm you're infallible, eh? :p

I've looked over most of the sources you've suggested and nearly all are outrageous examples of scandalous historiography. I'm currently studying a history module, and am well practised in historiography. The majority of your sources have less citations and corroboration than Icke's weakest material, and far, far less backing than the traditional accounts which you describe as lies. The process of documentation and building a case displayed is laughably amateur. It felt like reading The Star.

I really hope that you will one day discover the true meaning of historiography and then read some books on the subject of the Shoah which aren't written by idiots or liars. I also hope you visit the camps to see for yourself that the genocide you so furvently deny, was real.

I've picked out some of your comments below, and reiterated some of my own. Yes, I am having the last word. No, I have not answered all your questions. But I'm sure you will not feel you have wasted your time going to all that effort to produce such long detailed posts, since you are so convinced you have found THE TRUTH.


First of all, some reminders to bear in mind:

1. If a source is found to be fraudulent or lying about a particular claim, it does not mean that all the sources making the same claim are also fraudulent. So the fact that you found reference to some people who have fabricated or exaggerated their stories CANNOT dismiss the vast body of testimony that still remains among the living population of survivors, and of those now passed on.

2. The fact that elderly, sick and infant prisoners were found at the camps upon liberation DOES NOT mean that previously to that point, the Nazis did not kill thousands of these kind of people. Sparing a minority does not indicate that the majority were so lucky. The Nazis were eventually killing so many they couldn't dispose of them all by cremation.

3. The fact that Schindler's Ark is a work of fiction does not alter the fact that is it a great example of an extremely-well researched work, so that the facts of what happened are preserved. The film is just as wel, if not better researched and at the end of the film Schindler's List, you see real life survivors of the camp walking along with their actor counterparts. Or didn't you get that bit?


there are no wrtten text given by Hitler or anyone else to prove the Nazis had a plan to genocide the jews.

4. Just because there has not been found any written order from Hitler, once WW2 was underway, that the Jews were to be killed, does not been that the killing did not occur. First of the plan had been in existence for a long time, and it would have been well known by all German commanders. Secondly, though he was Fuhrer, Hitler had delegated responsibility of the Final Solution, as you yourself noted. Thirdly, in terms of documentation, the plan exists in both Hitler's books, in the film "The Triumph of the Will" and in witness testimony, much of which can be seen in Shoah. To ignore all this is a historiographical disaster of unrivalled proportions.


When you claim that Hitler talks about racial purification, does he also use the words genocide, exterminate, murder or any other word that means the same thing, in the same sentence?

When you bother to read Hitler's books and foreign policy documents you will see that he indeed uses both of the words ERADICATE and EXTERMINATE.

5. You can't say that you don't respect Irving's claims and then post several paragraphs of praise for him, and not expect someone to see what the truth of the matter is.

I am sure all or most of those witnesses statements in the film can be obtained online somewhere.
I am sure these pictures are available online.

6. Just because you can't find sections of a book or photographs on Google, DOES NOT mean they don't exist. It means you should go to the library or to a museum. Ditto with the witness statements in Shoah and Heimat (which you totally ignored when I repeatedly mentioned it). Maybe you should WATCH THE FILMS?

7. Just because evidence exists that hypocritically states the Nazis did not have a plan for genocide, DOES NOT mean you can ignore the relatively stronger and much larger body of evidence to the contrary. Do you think a regime that decimated Europe are incapable of lies and diversionary tactics?

8. The whole population of Germany WERE NOT killed at Nuremberg. Still living today are former soldiers who served in the camps, and many civilians who lived nearby and there are a great many places where their testimony has been recorded.

9. Admitting that the gas chambers were built but believing those that say they were never used? WTF?!

We already know that Zyklon B was supposedly introduced through holes in the ceiling so it is fair to say that Regina is also telling fibs.

10. You CANNOT have it both ways. You cannot say that it is a lie that the gas chambers were used, and then use one testimony of their use as evidence against another.

Most of all, phantom, I ask you to consider why you are so reluctant to follow your own advice.

I am sure if you spent a few weeks reading through the books and article links that I posted earlier on this thread, with an open mind, you would come back here with a different opinion.

I urge you to look at the things you have written below, and think hard.




many people lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis
when it comes to the gas chambers being used to kill jews, there is no evidence for it other than witness testimonies.
What do photographs prove other than people died?
without the gas chambers the whole holocaust story falls apart

*

I am not denying that Hitler wanted to get rid of the jews
There is no evidence to suggest that Hitler wanted to or ordered the extermination of the jews.

*

no one really knows what actually happened.
It is a fact that jews were treated badly by the Nazis, that goes without saying but I do not think it was an attempt at genocide.
the mass executions took place in the camps further east.
I do not agree that genocide occured. There is no solid evidence for it.

*

I am sure that if the Nazis wanted to kill all the jews they could have just slaughtered them in the ghettos

*

I do not have to go and visit the camps for them to tell me there was a gas chamber.
Whether I want the holocaust to be a hoax or not is not the issue here. I am dealing with the facts.
You do not have to tell me how bad it was in the camps during the war

It doesn't matter what words we use to describe the appalling treatment and conditions the prisoners had to endure

*

there is not one shred of solid evidence to prove the gas chambers and planned genocide of the jews.
Look, we are talking about genocide and gas chambers, not what individual soldiers did to jews

What good will it do for me to visit the camps? It will not change my mind unless of course, they could provide me with solid proof of the gas chambers and some film or photos showing jews being gassed, not of dead jews.
Ok, well, now you know that the gas chamber you stood in at Dachau was not real.
Ok, keep telling me and others to visit the camps but you are wasting your time.

*


There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.

*


Just to be clear, when referring to the gas chamber, we are talking about a room used to kill jews
Just because you stood in what you thought was a gas chamber at Dachau does not mean that's what it was
the holocaust is based around the gas chambers. Without them, there is no genocide



*

I started to read Mein Kampf a few years ago but gave up before finishing the first chapter. It wasn't for me.

*

Hitler was not a psychopath.

*

What makes you think (believe) that Hitler wanted to conquer the world?

*

the German people had no idea that jewish people were being killed in "large numbers".


*

inmates were released from Auschwitz when they had served their time.

[phantom]

Hi Adimon

Any further debate with you will be fruitless IMO. I've been absent from the thread for a couple of days, so that I could see what you would do. I've also been back over the thread, and examined how you slowly amped up the 'facts' and the outrageousness of your claims. The OP was itself outrageous, but the author did not stay long to defend it.

Oh, I see, in one breath you say you will debate me but now you have changed your mind. You told me I was "moving the goalposts and introducing 5 new points before we've addressed the first one" and I agreed to stick to one camp, Dachau. It didn't take long before you started moving the goalposts and introducing several points that had nothing to do with Dachau but I answered them anyway.

You claim the OP is outrageous yet you fail to point out where the OP is wrong. If you are so cock-sure you know what happened, why didn't you list any books and documents for us to read through, that will show us you are right and the OP was wrong? It is no good you just telling us the revisionists are wrong and that the official version of the holocaust is true, when there is plenty of information available to prove otherwise.

I have only pointed out a few, of the many, outrageous claims by survivors.

You have dismissed any source that doesn't support your story, without any historiographical analysis

What source? I have asked you for sources to back up what you are saying and you keep fobbing me off. I have asked you to provide me with the names of historians, book titles and official Nazi documents references, and you gave me nothing.

Revisionism is based on a critical analysis, evaluation, and selection of authentic source materials. They apply the same principles, theories, or methodology for their research and presentation as any good historian does.

I doubt that any well published historian has the balls to take on an honest, open minded, investigation of the holocaust. I guess David Irving is a good example to use, to understand why no well known WWII historian would report anything other than the official holocaust version.

The vast majority of your sources are internet based - giving you the ability to split them into categories such as holocaust history or holocaust revisionism as you see fit. I would argue that most of the sites you claim are 'history sites' are in fact revisionist sites.

What I refer to as holocaust (history) sites, are a mixture of official holocaust sites such as The United States Holocaust Memorium Museum and any sites that reports the official storyline, such as the odd one or two below, that I used in some of my posts.

What I call holocaust (history) sites.

ushmm.org
kz-gedenkstaette-dachau.de
holocaust-history.org
jewishvirtuallibrary.org
deathcamps.org
scrapbookpages.com
isurvived.org
2.ca.nizkor.org
I also used these links that are neither holocaust or revisionist sites. Yet they follow the official storyline.
normanfinkelstein.com
bbc.co.uk
guardian.co.uk
wikipedia.org
thestar.com
jewishsf.com

What I call a Revisionist sites and used in some of my posts.

vho.org
forum.codoh.info
revisionists.com
cwporter.com
fpp.co.uk Yes, a link from David Irvings site.

I don't think you looked through my posts good enough.

I would stress the importance of going to the books, but... You refuse to look at library books or visit the camps themselves - convinced that it will be a waste of time, since you are convinced you're right and why should you have to make effort or pay money to confirm you're infallible, eh?

There is no need for me to go to the library. I am sure I can purchase any books you recommend I read, from the likes of Amazon. I have asked for a few references to books and as of yet, you have failed to tell me what I should be reading.

I have no need or intention to ever pay to walk around a concentration camp. What would going there prove to me other than the place exists and that many people lost their lives there? I already know the camps exist and that many lost their lives in those places so there is no need for me to go.

I've looked over most of the sources you've suggested and nearly all are outrageous examples of scandalous historiography. I'm currently studying a history module, and am well practised in historiography.

I have already explained that revisionists and historians use the same principles. Maybe you need to use your history module and study the holocaust a little more. I believe, your belief in it actually happening is blinding you from having an honest, open minded look.

I have already told you and shown you in some cases, many witness statements are worthless and have been proven so. Any confession taken through torture is usless because anyone will admit to anything just to stop the torture, so it is safe to say, those Nazis confessions are usless to rely on as evidence. I could list many other things that just do not add up in the official version yet you will not look at it with an open mind.

The majority of your sources have less citations and corroboration than Icke's weakest material, and far, far less backing than the traditional accounts which you describe as lies. The process of documentation and building a case displayed is laughably amateur. It felt like reading The Star.

Now you really are being silly. And we can prove it if you like. Let us stick to one subject as you asked, to which I oblidged, to which you failed to stick to. Let us examine Dachau only.

I really hope that you will one day discover the true meaning of historiography and then read some books on the subject of the Shoah which aren't written by idiots or liars. I also hope you visit the camps to see for yourself that the genocide you so furvently deny, was real.

I know the "true" meaning of historiography. You have not been paying attention. I have seen many films and documentaries as well as reading books on the shoah (three years in school) and at the time, I didn't think any were idiots or liars. It was only later in life that I discovered many witnesses were telling lies. I will ask again, give me a list of a few book references and I will purchase them, then go through them.

I have already explained why there is no need for me to visit the camps so I won't bother repeat it.

I've picked out some of your comments below, and reiterated some of my own. Yes, I am having the last word. No, I have not answered all your questions. But I'm sure you will not feel you have wasted your time going to all that effort to produce such long detailed posts, since you are so convinced you have found THE TRUTH.

Pick away all you like. Taking my comments out of context will not get you anywhere.

By having the last word, does that mean you will not reply to my post? :p

I know you haven't answered all my questions. It may have been because you found some a little difficult. I don't know.

And no, I don't feel like I have wasted my time. I have enjoyed it to be honest. I have uncovered several other things in my search, that I would not not have found if it wasn't for this thread, which just added to my belief.

First of all, some reminders to bear in mind:

1. If a source is found to be fraudulent or lying about a particular claim, it does not mean that all the sources making the same claim are also fraudulent. So the fact that you found reference to some people who have fabricated or exaggerated their stories CANNOT dismiss the vast body of testimony that still remains among the living population of survivors, and of those now passed on.

Here are a few reminders for the reader to bear in mind.

If many sources have been found out to be fraudulent or lying about a particular claim, then it is fair enough to question the "vast" body of testimony that still remains among the living population of survivors and those who have passed away.

I cannot believe that people still believe the "vast" body of testimony from witnesses who claim to have seen the gas chambers in action, when so many have been exposed as telling lies. What many camp inmates remember and repeat are the propaganda lies they heard whilst in the camps and what they learnt over the years, that is probably why they are so easy to expose.

2. The fact that elderly, sick and infant prisoners were found at the camps upon liberation DOES NOT mean that previously to that point, the Nazis did not kill thousands of these kind of people. Sparing a minority does not indicate that the majority were so lucky. The Nazis were eventually killing so many they couldn't dispose of them all by cremation.

The fact that no evidence exists to prove the Nazis were systematically killing the old, infim, sick, young and pregnant women upon arrival should not be overlooked. Just because a few witnesses make such claims does not mean they are telling the truth. And one has to remember, because this is important. Months before the wars end, the allies bombed the trainlines leading to many camps which stopped the flow of urgently need medicine, food and fuel. This explains the amount of dead found in many camps.

3. The fact that Schindler's Ark is a work of fiction does not alter the fact that is it a great example of an extremely-well researched work, so that the facts of what happened are preserved. The film is just as wel, if not better researched and at the end of the film Schindler's List, you see real life survivors of the camp walking along with their actor counterparts. Or didn't you get that bit?

The film better researched. :eek: I advise people to watch Schindler's List then do a little online research about the man and the film. Did the film mention that Schindler worked for the powerful Hungarian Jew Rudolf Kastner? In 1944 Kastner helped Eichmann deport hundreds of thousands of Jews to Auschwitz, in return for favorable treatment for Kastner's Zionist buddies. The fact of high level cooperation between Nazis and Zionists was too embarrassing to be included in Spielberg's pro-Zionist film.

I also urge anyone following this thread to re-examine the survivor accounts for themselves, both critically and systematically. Use Google to find the many witness statements available online, especially those in Schindler's List. Don't be afraid to ask questions. You will be surprised and shocked with what you find out.

4. Just because there has not been found any written order from Hitler, once WW2 was underway, that the Jews were to be killed, does not been that the killing did not occur. First of the plan had been in existence for a long time, and it would have been well known by all German commanders. Secondly, though he was Fuhrer, Hitler had delegated responsibility of the Final Solution, as you yourself noted. Thirdly, in terms of documentation, the plan exists in both Hitler's books, in the film "The Triumph of the Will" and in witness testimony, much of which can be seen in Shoah. To ignore all this is a historiographical disaster of unrivalled proportions.

If Hitler did have a plan, a "final solution" if you want to call it that, for the jewish problem in Germany it had nothing to do with exterminating them. Especially, in a time of war, where their (forced) labour could be put to good use in helping the Nazi war machine among other things.

Hitler was talking about moving the jews to Palestine back in the 20's, he never had a plan to exterminate them as claimed by the mainstream. To anyone following this thread, do your own research online and look at things like the 1933 Ha'avara agreement and 1940 Madagascar Plan. Two plans by the Nazis to force the jews from Germany existed. No plan for genocide existed or can be proven. Do not fall for the "Hitler planned to kill the jews" rubbish without looking into the claim for yourself.

Here are two things believers cling to as proof of the "final solution" of a Nazis plan to exterminate the jews.

Something Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary in 1942.

"It is therefore understandable that many of them must pay with their lives for this. Anyway, in my view the more Jews who are liquidated the more consolidated the situation in Europe will be after the war. Let there be no phony sentimentalism about it. The Jews are Europe's misfortune. They must somehow be eliminated otherwise we are in danger of being eliminated by them."

And the Wannsee Conference (http://www.ghwk.de/deut/proto.htm), which took place on January 20, 1942, at a villa in suburban Berlin. In it, there is no mention about a plan to exterminate the jews. Here is an interesting read (http://forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?t=1647) about the Wannsee Conference records for anyone following this thread. Read that then do a Google search for more information.

When you bother to read Hitler's books and foreign policy documents you will see that he indeed uses both of the words ERADICATE and EXTERMINATE.

I am going to read an online version of Mein Kampf and check your claims. I know Hitler did not like the zionists, who claimed to represent the jews. But if he was hell bent on killing the jews, why did he deal with the zionists to help move jews from Europe to Palestine?

Also, give me references to these foreign policy documents so that I can check them as well.

5. You can't say that you don't respect Irving's claims and then post several paragraphs of praise for him, and not expect someone to see what the truth of the matter is.

I never said I had no respect for Irving. I said I do not consider him to be a holocaust revisionist even though he has done some good work exposing the holocaust lies.

What I said was, David Irving is a British historian and was highly regarded for his knowledge of World War II from the German perspective. He is the author of numerous books on military history and World War II, including several international bestsellers.

He has contributed articles to some 60 British and foreign periodicals including the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Express in Britain, and Stern and Der Spiegel in Germany.

“Most of Irving's books,” the Washington Post once noted, “are big, solid works... All are well written, exciting, fun to read, and all contain new information based on sensational discoveries.”

This fiercely independent and iconoclastic historian is widely acknowledged – even by adversaries – as an eminent authority on World War II, Hitler and Third Reich Germany.

British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, writing in the Sunday Times of London, once declared: “No praise can be too high for Irving’s indefatigable scholarly industry.” He also called Irving one of the “few guides I would entirely trust … indefatigable in pursuit of the evidence, fearless in face of it, sound in judgment ...”

Another prominent British historian, A.J.P. Taylor, wrote: “David Irving is a patient researcher of unrivalled industry and success."

Professor Gordon Craig of Stanford University, writing in 1996 in The New York Review of Books, remarked: “The fact is that he [Irving] knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933–1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications ... Such people as David Irving, then, have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views.”

He was the man who also concluded that the Hitler diaries were faked.

It is a fact that Irving is a well known WWII historian. You can read more about this famous WWII historian David Irving here. (http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/irving.html)

6. Just because you can't find sections of a book or photographs on Google, DOES NOT mean they don't exist. It means you should go to the library or to a museum. Ditto with the witness statements in Shoah and Heimat (which you totally ignored when I repeatedly mentioned it). Maybe you should WATCH THE FILMS?

I am sure if any such pictures existed they would be online on a holocaust site to back-up their claims of the gas chambers. I have asked you several times to give me references to books you claim to show such pictures and as of yet, you have failed to give me any.

I am going through the witnesses claims in the shoah and will post my rebuttal to their claims in due time. I have already found contradictions with the opening of the film where Simon Srebnik is interviewed about his time at Chelmno and the claims to the amount of people gassed there in the vans.

7. Just because evidence exists that hypocritically states the Nazis did not have a plan for genocide, DOES NOT mean you can ignore the relatively stronger and much larger body of evidence to the contrary. Do you think a regime that decimated Europe are incapable of lies and diversionary tactics?

Where is this “larger body of evidence to the contrary” that you talk about that proves the Nazis had a plan to exterminate the jews? You cannot just tell me it exists without pointing me to this larger body of evidence to the contrary. I guess you are going to tell me to visit the camps again to see it? Surely this larger body of evidence to the contrary has to be printed in books that are available for purchase online? References please!

All sides in war use propaganda. Even to this day we see it with the Bush cabal.

8. The whole population of Germany WERE NOT killed at Nuremberg. Still living today are former soldiers who served in the camps, and many civilians who lived nearby and there are a great many places where their testimony has been recorded.

No, you don’t say, the whole population of Germany wasn’t killed at Nuremberg. There are people who served in these camps that say they knew nothing and saw nothing regarding people being put to death in gas chambers.

How would people living nearby such camps know about gassings? Did they witness such things? I doubt that very much.

9. Admitting that the gas chambers were built but believing those that say they were never used? WTF?!

Gas chambers were built, that is a FACT. No denying that from me. The FACT of the matter is these gas chambers were used for disinfecting clothes and other materials like bed linen and mattresses. You talk of Dachau and mention gas chambers not a gas chamber. Here is what you said: I believe Dachau's gas chambers were used to kill people:- (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=204043&postcount=73) The way you put it is as though more than one chamber was used to gas people by using the word chambers and not chamber. At least get that straight. You either believe that people were gassed at Dachau in A gas chamber or they were gassed in SEVERAL chambers. Which is it adimon?

10. You CANNOT have it both ways. You cannot say that it is a lie that the gas chambers were used, and then use one testimony of their use as evidence against another.

Most of all, phantom, I ask you to consider why you are so reluctant to follow your own advice.

The gas chamber stories are based on witness testimony. If however, many witnesses claim different things in their statements that just don’t make sense and contradict others, I can use them as I see fit. Just as the prosecutors did at Nuremberg, much of which didn’t go through the court because they too didn’t believe the claims.

I am sure if you spent a few weeks reading through the books and article links that I posted earlier on this thread, with an open mind, you would come back here with a different opinion.

I urge you to look at the things you have written below, and think hard.

What links are you talking about? I am still waiting for your references. I suggest you go through what revisionists have written, not just David Irving’s work, with an open mind. I am sure you will come back with a different opinion. I urge you to look at the things you have written throughout this thread and think hard about what you have said.

Taking my quotes out of context is silly.

Quote:
many people lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis.

1) Was I wrong? By saying many, I am not saying the majority or most, I simply said, many. Here is what I said: I understand what you are saying and I am not disagreeing with you that many people lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis and the allies because of their large scale bombings of train lines that stopped food and medicine from reaching the camps.

Quote:
when it comes to the gas chambers being used to kill jews, there is no evidence for it other than witness testimonies.

2) Was I wrong? Here is what I said: And when it comes to the gas chambers being used to kill jews, there is no evidence for it other than witness testimonies. That being said, some who did testify did not even mention gas chambers.

What I am saying is, if many people lied at Nuremberg about the many things the Nazis were supposed to have done, how do we know that the gas chamber reports were not lies also. Without the gas chambers the whole holocaust story falls apart.

Quote:
What do photographs prove other than people died?

3) Was I wrong? Here is what I said: What do photographs prove other than people died. The photos do not show anyone being gassed do they? No they don't.

Quote:
without the gas chambers the whole holocaust story falls apart

4) Am I wrong? Here is what I said: The holocaust is based around the systematic slaughter of jews being gassed. Without that the gas chambers, there is no holocaust.

Quote:
I am not denying that Hitler wanted to get rid of the jews

5) Was I wrong? Here is what I said: I am not denying that Hitler wanted to get rid of the jews, I am not denying that many jews were brutally treated at the hands of some Nazis but to say that Hitler wanted to exterminate all the jews rather than extradite them to Madagascar or Palestine is based on propaganda. There is no evidence to suggest that Hitler ordered the extermination of the jews.

Quote:
There is no evidence to suggest that Hitler wanted to or ordered the extermination of the jews.

6) Was I wrong? I refer you to number 5 for the full quote.

Quote:
no one really knows what actually happened.

7) Was I wrong? That is why the holocaust needs to be examined properly, by forensic investigators. The above quote was in answer to woghd who said: “I first heard this sort of thing from white-supremists, but it is ever so slowly going mainstream, to the point where I now find myself wanting to know what actually happened.”

Here is what I said: Good questions. To answer your first two, no one really knows what actually happened. It is a fact that jews were treated badly by the Nazis, that goes without saying but I do not think it was an attempt at genocide.

No serious revisionist will deny the above, jews were treated in a bad way just as other prisoners were during the war, as happens in all wars.

Quote:
It is a fact that jews were treated badly by the Nazis, that goes without saying but I do not think it was an attempt at genocide.

8) Was I wrong? I refer you to number 7 for the full quote.

Quote:
the mass executions took place in the camps further east.

9) I did not say that if you cared to look properly. I was referring to Bergen Belsen not having a gas chamber as has been claimed by witnesses and used a link to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen-Belsen_concentration_camp) as a point of reference to my claim that there was no gas chamber there. I used their quote and if you bothered to look you would have seen where it says: There were no gas chambers in Bergen-Belsen, since the mass executions took place in the camps further east. Nevertheless, an estimated 50,000 Jews, Czechs, Poles, anti-Nazi Christians, homosexuals, and Roma and Sinti (Gypsies) died in the camp.

I did not agree that mass executions took place in the camps further east I simply used the link to tell you there were no gas chambers at Bergen Belsen.

Quote:
I do not agree that genocide occured. There is no solid evidence for it.

10) Was I wrong? We were talking about Irving and here is what I said: No, the judge was there to hear the evidence against Irving and all the judge had to rely on from the prosecution team was witness statements and circumstantial evidence. No solid evidence.

And no, I do not agree that genocide occured. There is no solid evidence for it.

Quote:
I am sure that if the Nazis wanted to kill all the jews they could have just slaughtered them in the ghettos

11) Was I wrong? Surely, if there was a plan to genocide the jews, why bother putting them on trains and transferring them all over the place at a huge cost. Surely it would have been easier to round them up and put a bullet in their heads. Here is what I said: I am sure that if the Nazis wanted to kill all the jews they could have just slaughtered them in the ghettos and elsewhere with a bullet to the head but the fact is, the Nazis needed the man power to work for the military industrial complex.

Quote:
I do not have to go and visit the camps for them to tell me there was a gas chamber.

12) Was I wrong? There are gas chambers as I already explained. These were disinfecting chambers where Zyklon B was used to kill any lice that would spread disease. So there is no point in me visiting the camps.

Quote:
Whether I want the holocaust to be a hoax or not is not the issue here. I am dealing with the facts.

13) Was I wrong? Here is what I said: Whether I want the holocaust to be a hoax or not is not the issue here. I am dealing with the facts. You do not have to tell me how bad it was in the camps during the war, I have read plenty on the subject. It doesn't matter what words we use to describe the appalling treatment and conditions the prisoners had to endure, the fact is, there is not one shred of solid evidence to prove the gas chambers and planned genocide of the jews.

Quote:
You do not have to tell me how bad it was in the camps during the war

14) Was I wrong? I refer you to number 13 for the full quote.

Quote:
It doesn't matter what words we use to describe the appalling treatment and conditions the prisoners had to endure

15) Was I wrong? I refer you to number 13 for the full quote.

Quote:
there is not one shred of solid evidence to prove the gas chambers and planned genocide of the jews.

16) Was I wrong? I refer you to number 13 for the full quote.

Quote:
Look, we are talking about genocide and gas chambers, not what individual soldiers did to jews

17) Was I wrong? Here is what I said: Look, we are talking about genocide and gas chambers, not what individual soldiers did to jews. How many of those journals talk about gassing the jews? I am guessing none. If they do, please provide me with a link so that I may have a gander.

To which you failed to do so yet again.

Quote:
What good will it do for me to visit the camps? It will not change my mind unless of course, they could provide me with solid proof of the gas chambers and some film or photos showing jews being gassed, not of dead jews.

18) Was I wrong? You said: "I really don't know what to say at this point phantom. We're going round in circles, I think. I really think you should visit the camps and see for yourself."

Here is what I said: I do not feel that we are going round in circles, I have plenty to say on the matter, we are just touching the tip of the iceberg.

What good will it do for me to visit the camps? It will not change my mind unless of course, they could provide me with solid proof of the gas chambers and some film or photos showing jews being gassed, not of dead jews.

Quote:
Ok, well, now you know that the gas chamber you stood in at Dachau was not real.

19) Was I wrong? Here is what I said: Ok, well, now you know that the gas chamber you stood in at Dachau was not real. As for Treblinka, according to the official historiography, the Jews who arrived in Treblinka were told that they were in a transfer camp, where they had to shower and their clothes had to be disinfested before they continued their journey. The story goes, the Jews were enticed to enter the gas chambers. We assume that the first part of the story is correct: The Jews took showers, and their belongings were placed in disinfestation chambers. As is known, German disinfestation chambers during the war were often operated with steam. If this was the case in Treblinka, it is the key to the original version of the extermination myth, according to which the Jews were allegedly killed in Treblinka with steam. On November 15, 1942, less than four months after the opening of the camp, the resistance organization of the Warsaw ghetto published a long report entitled Treblinka: Eternal Disgrace for the German Nation, in which it was claimed that to that date two million Jews (almost 20,000 per day!) had been murdered in steam chambers. The report went on to allege that the corpses had been buried in ever larger mass graves, and that after the extermination of all Jews "the ghost of death in the steam chambers would stand before the eyes of the whole Polish people." Treblinka: Eternal Disgrace was taken quite seriously in the Warsaw ghetto. The journalist Eugenia Szaijn-Lewin entered the following in her diary:

"The worst is the death in Treblinka. In the meantime we all have become aware of Treblinka. Over there, people are boiled alive."

After the Red Army conquered the region around Treblinka in August 1944, Soviet investigative commissions set immediately to work, reporting that three million people were killed in the camp. However, the specified killing method was no longer steam, but rather suffocation achieved by sucking the air from the death chambers by means of a vacuum pump driven by a diesel engine. Gradually the diesel engine, which had at first only driven the pump, was transformed into the killing weapon itself. The author of the latest counterfeit of Treblinka reality was the Jewish carpenter Yankiel Wiernik, who, in May 1944, plagiarized the report of the resistance organization of November 1942, replacing the "steam chambers" with "gas chambers".

I will get into Birkenau as this thread continues

Quote:
Ok, keep telling me and others to visit the camps but you are wasting your time.

20) Was I wrong? You said: "Visiting the camps to inform yourself is a good idea, so no I won't stop making it as a point to anyone whom I believe to have been sold a pack of lies by revisionist scum."

Here is what I said: Ok, keep telling me and others to visit the camps but you are wasting your time. Who are the revisionist scum you are referring to? Names please and don't come back with Irving again please.

To which you failed to do so yet again. You kept mentioning David Irving. :rolleyes:

Quote:
There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.

21) Was I wrong? Read through the link I provided with that quote. Here is what I said: I have added this video in a new thread on the main page and below, I have listed three other examinations of the gas chamber claims that have been demolished by Germar Rudolf, Walter Lüftl and the Krakow Forensic Institute. They all came to the same conclusion as Leuchter did. There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Mr Death The Rise and Fall of Fred A Leuchter Jr (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15116&highlight=death+rise+fall+fred)

Quote:
Just to be clear, when referring to the gas chamber, we are talking about a room used to kill jews

22) Was I wrong? You said: "You're telling me that the gas chambers I saw a Dachau, Treblinka and Birkenau were not gas chambers, merely what they told me were gas chambers...like I wouldn't have the intelligence to work out for myself what they were."

Here is what I said: Just to be clear, when referring to the gas chamber, we are talking about a room used to kill jews and not a delousing chamber, which is referred to by holocaust sites as a gas chambers also. Kind of misleading but there you go.

Quote:
Just because you stood in what you thought was a gas chamber at Dachau does not mean that's what it was

23) Was I wrong? You believe that the chamber you stood in at Dachau was used for genocide. Here is what I said: Just because you stood in what you thought or was told was a gas chamber at Dachau does not mean that's what it was, especially after I pointed out that the administrative authorities at Dachau, some famous prisoners and many historians say that the large gas chamber at the camp was never used for homicidal purposes (http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers). I also pointed out several other facts to show you that the gas chamber at Dachau was not even mentioned by many witnesses (one or two only made such comments out of the many witnesses) or allied soldiers during the Nuremberg trials. How much more do you need to read before coming to the conclusion that there was no gas chamber used at Dachau to kill jews or anyone else?

Quote:
the holocaust is based around the gas chambers. Without them, there is no genocide

24) Was I wrong? You said: In fact, we might be better to leave gas chambers for a while until we have a calmer, more respectful debate up and running again.

Here is what I said: But the holocaust is based around the gas chambers. Without them, there is no genocide because it is claimed that 6 million were put to death via the gas chambers, so leaving them out would be silly and get us nowhere.

As far as I am concerned, This debate is calm. I have been respectful to you and not thrown any insults your way.

Quote:
I started to read Mein Kampf a few years ago but gave up before finishing the first chapter. It wasn't for me.

25) Was I wrong? I did try to read it but at the time, it wasn’t for me. But now, I shall get around to reading it.

Quote:
Hitler was not a psychopath.

26) Was I wrong? Here is what I said: There is no doubt that Hitler didn't like the jews who controlled Germany. That is well documented. Just because someone dislikes a people in their country doesn't mean they want to murder them all does it. Hitler was not a psychopath. When war breaks out, many people try their best to leave that country. Just look at how many Iraqis for instance have left Iraq since the illegal invasion of their country.

Quote:
What makes you think (believe) that Hitler wanted to conquer the world?

27) Was I wrong in asking such a question to which you failed yet again to answer? Here is what I said: What makes you think (believe) that Hitler wanted to conquer the world? Do you even know how WWII was started?

Quote:
the German people had no idea that jewish people were being killed in "large numbers".

28) Was I wrong? Here is what I said: Historical information regarding a people fleeing a war torn country does not prove a genocide was in the pipeline and aimed towards them.

Of course the German people had no idea that jewish people were being killed in "large numbers". And I agree, many German people did not particually like the jewish people. If we look at history, we will see that the jewish people have not been liked by many a nation and were evicted from such countries over the past 2,000 years or so.

Quote:
inmates were released from Auschwitz when they had served their time.

29) Was I wrong? Here is what I said: Even inmates were released from Auschwitz when they had served their time. If Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have released inmates who "knew" what was happening in the camp.

:)

[nickatnoon61]

Hi Adimon




:) Phantom, opening a thread on this topic, 2 mos. ago showed me who the"fluoridated brains" are!!! Adimon stated that he thinks LHOswald was the assassin who killed Kennedy. That in itself is enough evidence to have him commited to the Laughing Academy!!!

[phantom]

Hi nickatnoon61

I had no idea that adimon believed Oswald killed Kennedy, that explains a lot really.

It would have been nice if adimon would have debated with me instead of bottling it. After-all, is he not some kind of historian or something?

Maybe he will come back to this thread and take me on but I will not be holding my breath.