A couple of questions about the II World War

[hobgoblin2012]

I recently became interested in the debate between the supporters of the holocaust theory and the revisionists. I am still unsure whom to believe, but I would like to ask a couple of questions to the revisionists here, since your theory is new to me and I would like to understand better your point of view.

The first question is: even if there were no gas chambers and the killings were not motivated by racial hatred but by other reasons, do you believe that no massacres of civilians have ever taken place and no innocent people have been executed at all or do you believe executions have taken place, but on a far lesser scale and the executed people were all partisans? I mean, do you believe that innocent people were killed even though they were much fewer than the official numbers state or do you think that no innocents were harmed by the Germans at all? It doesn’t matter to me if they were Jews or not, I am asking about “innocent people of any nationality”.

The second question is: why do some people here despise the partisans and refer to them as “terrorists”? After all, they were just defending their countries. Independently from the fact if there was a holocaust or not, the Germans attacked first, they started the war, there is no excuse for that. Everybody who lost relatives or friends in a war would agree that starting wars is wrong, no matter what the reason is.

I would ask everybody here not to regard me with hostility and not to insult me. After all, I am trying not to take sides in the debate between the “believers” and the “non-believers”. I am just asking questions to inform myself better about the opinions on both sides of the debate.

[Mkk]

Hello.

You are asking us to speak in absolutes. Nobody is omnipotent, we don't know everything about WW2. The questions are barely answerable.

do you believe that no massacres of civilians have ever taken place and no innocent people have been executed at all

Certainly there was some. However, some, like Oradour are either fabricated or mis-read. (In that example, the deaths were probably from a bomb explosion.) How many victims there were is impossible to tell.

or do you believe executions have taken place, but on a far lesser scale and the executed people were all partisans?

The executions were usually for a reason, often to do with partisans, so mostly yes.

I mean, do you believe that innocent people were killed even though they were much fewer than the official numbers state or do you think that no innocents were harmed by the Germans at all?

Much fewer than official numbers state.

The second question is: why do some people here despise the partisans and refer to them as “terrorists”?

That's basically what international law sees them as. They are illegal fighters.

Independently from the fact if there was a holocaust or not, the Germans attacked first, they started the war,

Simply laying war guilt on Germany if rather ignorant of the circumstances leading up the war. It is complex to explain, but it is so simplistic to simply blame the ones who declared war first. It'd take me a while to explain this in more detail.

[hobgoblin2012]

Hello.
Certainly there was some. However, some, like Oradour are either fabricated or mis-read. (In that example, the deaths were probably from a bomb explosion.) How many victims there were is impossible to tell.

But even if it was a bomb, what's the difference? Whatever the weapon used was, I don't think it did matter to the relatives and friends of the people killed. In my opinion, there is no excuse for killing of innocents. That doesn't apply only to those who started the war, but to those who defend themselves and "overreact" as well. In my opinion, the Allies who committed atrocities (for example, the ones who bombed Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those who ordered the bombings and those who raped and pillaged in Germany on the way to Berlin) deserved to suffer the same fate as the Nazi leaders. They should have been hanged on the same gallows. But unfortunately, the winners are never prosecuted

[Random]

The "winners" get to write the "agreed upon fable" that is the official history that is used to justify their actions. That this official history with regard to "the holocaust" cannot even be questioned without fear of the consequences is a travesty. That the Palestinian people were ethnically cleansed from their own homeland by East European invaders as a result of this propaganda travesty, from a war they had no part of is an absolute outrage.

[Kingfisher]

I recently became interested in the debate between the supporters of the holocaust theory and the revisionists. I am still unsure whom to believe, but I would like to ask a couple of questions to the revisionists here, since your theory is new to me and I would like to understand better your point of view.

Welcome to the forum, Hobgoblin. You are precisely the type of open-minded person we should be encouraging.

The first question is: even if there were no gas chambers and the killings were not motivated by racial hatred but by other reasons, do you believe that no massacres of civilians have ever taken place and no innocent people have been executed at all or do you believe executions have taken place, but on a far lesser scale and the executed people were all partisans? I mean, do you believe that innocent people were killed even though they were much fewer than the official numbers state or do you think that no innocents were harmed by the Germans at all? It doesn’t matter to me if they were Jews or not, I am asking about “innocent people of any nationality”.

Mkk is right to say there is no easy answer. Many posters here (Mkk included ) do tend to take the lowest figure suggested by a Revisionist and accept it, but the simple fact is that in general Revisionist scholars do not pretend to have access to indisputable truth, but challenge the mainstream who do, and whose "truth" the Revisionists consider to be inflated and based on manipulation of already unreliable evidence.

In the case of executions/murders of civilians on the Eastern front, some Revisionists do attempt to minimise the figures, whereas others feel that to do so is both wrong and counter-productive. The latter say that the part of the Eastern war we are concerned with here was a war of a regular army against non-uniformed irregulars who blended in with the civilian population: what Mao described as the fish swimming in the sea of the people. Other armies in recent times, the French in Algeria and Vietnam, the Americans in Vietnam, the British in Malaya and Kenya, have faced the same problem, and like the Germans resorted to mass reprisals to terrify the population into not helping the guerrillas. It must be said that the partisans in their turn also used terror to discourage the same populations from collaborating with the Germans, as of course did the Viet Cong, the Algerian FLN, etc. Most, though not all, Revisionists are prepared to concede that in the atmosphere prevailing at the time Jews would have been disproportionately singled out. Bear in mind though that they were also disproportionately represented in the ranks of the partisans. However, Revisionists in general consider the figure of 1.5 million murdered Jews in the East to be a gross exaggeration, based on a small number of dubious documents produced by the Soviet Secret Service and unsupported by material evidence.

The second question is: why do some people here despise the partisans and refer to them as “terrorists”? After all, they were just defending their countries

Who said "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?" "Terrorists" is the term used by the Germans, just as it is/was the term used by the French, British, Americans and Israelis. people using the term are probably showing pro-German or pro-Nazi sympathies. Personally I prefer the more neutral "partisans" or "irregulars". That said, it is quite true that such activities were and are illegal under international law, and that under the international law of the time the Germans were entitled to execute irregular non-uniformed fighters.

Independently from the fact if there was a holocaust or not, the Germans attacked first, they started the war, there is no excuse for that. Everybody who lost relatives or friends in a war would agree that starting wars is wrong, no matter what the reason is.

Who started the war is a separate question. Personally I am increasingly questioning the orthodox view that blames it all on the Nazis. I won't say more here as it is OT and if you would like to raise it you should open a new thread.

I would ask everybody here not to regard me with hostility and not to insult me. After all, I am trying not to take sides in the debate between the “believers” and the “non-believers”. I am just asking questions to inform myself better about the opinions on both sides of the debate.

If anyone here does "despise or insult you" they will have me to deal with and I will ask the Moderator to censor their posts. You are absolutely right to remain open-minded and to form provisional judgements based on the evidence. That is the true spirit of Revisionism, though not always observed by all who lay claim to the title.

{Minor edits to correct typo errors and omissions]

[Mkk]

But even if it was a bomb, what's the difference?

Clarification: It was some explosives believed to have been left by partisans. It wasn't German.

http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrvrwafss.html

[Kingfisher]

Hobgoblin

A Revisionist, Vincent Reynouard, wrote a criticism of the conventional view of Oradour-sur-Glane, in which he argued that the village was a Resistance centre and this was a legitimate anti-partisan operation that went wrong. He also situates it in the context of the killing of a group of SS by partisans who mutilated their bodies, in a nearby town. I can't evaluate Reynouard's work -- my impression is that he has valid points to make but sees only one side of the issue -- but I do know that he has every moral right to argue his case. However, in France, he does not have the legal right and he was extradited from Belgium and imprisoned for a year.

(BTW my editing of the earlier post only concerned line breaks. I didn't realise that another post had been made.)

[ClaudiaRothenbach]

For the Arabs Bin Laden is a freedom fighter and partisan.
The US government names the same person a terrorist.

[Hannover]

I recently became interested in the debate between the supporters of the holocaust theory and the revisionists. I am still unsure whom to believe, but I would like to ask a couple of questions to the revisionists here, since your theory is new to me and I would like to understand better your point of view.

The first question is: even if there were no gas chambers and the killings were not motivated by racial hatred but by other reasons, do you believe that no massacres of civilians have ever taken place and no innocent people have been executed at all or do you believe executions have taken place, but on a far lesser scale and the executed people were all partisans? I mean, do you believe that innocent people were killed even though they were much fewer than the official numbers state or do you think that no innocents were harmed by the Germans at all? It doesn’t matter to me if they were Jews or not, I am asking about “innocent people of any nationality”.

The second question is: why do some people here despise the partisans and refer to them as “terrorists”? After all, they were just defending their countries. Independently from the fact if there was a holocaust or not, the Germans attacked first, they started the war, there is no excuse for that. Everybody who lost relatives or friends in a war would agree that starting wars is wrong, no matter what the reason is.

I would ask everybody here not to regard me with hostility and not to insult me. After all, I am trying not to take sides in the debate between the “believers” and the “non-believers”. I am just asking questions to inform myself better about the opinions on both sides of the debate.

This is much too vague a thread title and initial post. It opens the thread up to multiple and unfocussed debate.

- No the Germans did not start WWII, the French & British declared war on Germany for invading Poland while doing no such thing against the communist Soviets who also invaded Poland. The Germans had good reason to invade Poland. Poland had and was at the time brutalizing Germans in the areas that were stolen from Germany.

There was international law which the so called 'partisans', aka: terrorists, were in severe violation of.

There were no homicidal 'gas chambers' and this forum and a multitude of real scientific studies have shown the alleged 'gas chambers as to have been utterly impossible. The gas chambers claims are simply laughable.

If the Germans had murdered the alleged enormous numbers of Jews and the alleged 5M 'others' there would be endless mass grave sites available to review. There is not a single, verifiable mass grave as alleged that can be shown. Zero. All the claims of 'finding' mass graves have been demolished at this forum and in Revisionist publications repeatedly and with no rational rebuttal attempts. At many 'holocaust' sites, the alleged mass grave areas have been covered over to prevent excavation. There is a reason for that.

Were there atrocities? Well, considering atrocities have occurred in every war by all participants, then I would say that it is fair to say that atrocities were committed by both sides during WWII. But any German atrocities are minute when compared to the ones committed by the 'Allies'. Not even close. That's an important reason for promoting the 'holocaust' lies. To distract and / or excuse the enormous mass murder of civilians by the 'Allies', all in violation of international law.

If the 'holocaust' storyline was true as alleged there would be no need for laws against free speech and scrutiny of the absurd narrative & claims.

"It is error which needs protection, truth can stand alone."

source: Thomas Jefferson, when discussing whether there should be laws against unpopular opinions.

So here we have a thread that is going into endless directions. I believe the guidelines are quite specific about such wide ranging posts & threads.

Welcome to The CODOH Revisionist Forum, Hobgoblin. Please read the guidelines.

Regards, Hannover

[Moderator]

From our guidelines:

- Keep your posts limited to one point.
- Posts which lack focus or specifics are not welcomed.

Forum guidelines are here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=358

I've locked this thread in the hopes that Hobgloblin will re-post specific points he / she would like to discuss. We welcome all views at this forum that are related to the so named 'Holocaust' story. There is a need for specifics in order to keep the threads more readable, more easily understood, and easier to follow.
Thanks.
M1