Bad News...

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Veritas
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:21 am

Re: Bad News...

Postby Veritas » 8 years 10 months ago (Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:11 pm)

Ray Barren wrote:
Veritas wrote:
Kingfisher wrote:After the war all the camps in Germany were alleged to be "Death Camps", but no reputable historian suggests that today.

And there were plenty of "eye-witnesses" for those camps as well. It seems there is nothing for which one wouldn't find "eye-witnesses", be it UFOs, angels, the devil or whatever.


This is interesting to me. Could you provide me with the names of some of those witnesses who saw gas chambers at camps where historians say there were none now?

Well, there would be for example Dr. Blaha, who testified under oath in front of the IMT:
Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place right in the camp [Dachau]. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later killed in this way. Afterwards they were removed to the crematorium where I had to examine their teeth for gold. Teeth containing gold were extracted.

He also had the following to report:
It was common practice to remove the skin from dead prisoners. I was commanded to do this on many occasions. Dr. Rascher and Dr. Wolter in particular asked for 'this human skin from human backs and chests. It was chemically treated and placed in the sun to dry. After that it was cut into various sizes for use as saddles, riding breeches, gloves, house slippers, and ladies' handbags. Tattooed skin was especially valued by SS men. Russians, Poles, and other inmates were used in this way, but it was forbidden to cut out the skin of a German. This skin had to be from healthy prisoners and free from defects. Sometimes we did not have enough bodies with good skin and Rascher would say, 'All right, you will get the bodies.' The next day we would receive 20 or 30 bodies of young people. They would have been shot in the neck or struck on the head so that the skin would be uninjured.

Needless to say that no "saddles, riding breeches, gloves, house slippers, and ladies' handbags" made out of human skin were ever found.

And here is ϟϟ-warder Alois Hollriegl who testified by affidavit in regard to Mauthausen:
I, Alois Hollriegl, being first duly sworn, declare:
"I was a member of the Totenkopf SS and stationed at the Mauthausen Concentration Camp from January 1940 until the end of the war. On one occasion, I believe it was in the fall of 1942, Ernst Kaltenbrunner visited Mauthausen. I was on guard duty at the time and saw him twice. He went down into the gas chamber with Ziereis, commandant of the camp, at a time when prisoners were being gassed. The sound accompanying the gassing operation was well known to me. I heard the gassing taking place while Kaltenbrunner was present. I saw Kaltenbrunner come up from the gas cellar after the gassing operation had been completed.
-signed- Hollriegl."

And according to former prisoner Hans Marsalek, Franz Ziereis is supposed to have said in his "dying confession":
A gas chamber camouflaged as a bathroom was built in Mauthausen Concentration Camp by order of the former garrison doctor, Dr. Krebsbach. Prisoners were gassed in this camouflaged bathroom.

Ziereis allegedly also "confessed" about items made of human material...

Interesting in this context is also the testimony of ϟϟ-judge Konrad Morgen, who testified about gas-chambers in Auschwitz-Monowitz(!):
By "Extermination Camp Auschwitz" I did not mean the concentration camp. It did not exist there. I meant a separate extermination camp near Auschwitz, called "Monowitz."
[...]
These trucks drove off, but they did not drive to the Concentration Camp Auschwitz, but in another direction to the Extermination Camp Monowitz, which was a few kilometers away. This extermination camp consisted of a number of crematories which were not recognizable as such from the outside. They could have been taken for large bathing establishments, and that is what they told the prisoners. These crematories were surrounded by a barbed wire fence and were guarded from the inside by the Jewish labor details which I have already mentioned. The new arrivals were led into a large dressing room and told to take their clothing off. When this was done ...
[...]
The Extermination Camp Monowitz lay far away from the concentration camp. It was situated on an extensive industrial site and was not recognizable as such and everywhere on the horizon there were smoking chimneys.

Morgen had also something to say about Blaha:
I have read the testimony of Dr. Blaha in the press, and here I have had the opportunity to look through the record of the Trial. I must say I am amazed at this testimony. I am of the opinion that Blaha, from his own knowledge, cannot make such statements.


There are many more such "testimonies", these are just the ones I could think of and which can be easily verified since the IMT protocols are publicly available.

Ray Barren
Member
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:26 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby Ray Barren » 8 years 10 months ago (Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:33 pm)

Malle + Veritas

Thank you for responses and information. I thought you both were talking about witnesses who say gassings happened at camps were historians now say nothing such did. You both refer to Mauthausen witnesses as examples. Malle your link shows Raul Hilberg as saying that there was gassing at that camp. Other historians one or two Hilberg cites have studied the issue heavily and concluded gassings did take place. Dachau also had a gas chamber that probably operated several times according to historians who deeply study the issue.

Veritas you have Morgen for Birkenau , he gets confused there with Monowitz which was close by Birkenau. In other trials he said Birkenau.

Dachau witness Blaha on material from human skin is interesting and a subject for more study
I am new to the Holocaust debate because I never knew anyone who questioned the event in history. Here for good and free exchange of ideas on Holocaust.

User avatar
Veritas
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:21 am

Re: Bad News...

Postby Veritas » 8 years 10 months ago (Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:23 pm)

Ray Barren wrote:I thought you both were talking about witnesses who say gassings happened at camps were historians now say nothing such did.

Yes, and this is the case with Dachau and Mauthausen.

Ray Barren wrote:Other historians one or two Hilberg cites have studied the issue heavily and concluded gassings did take place.

Based on what evidence? I hope it's more than the testimony I've just cited...

Ray Barren wrote:Dachau also had a gas chamber that probably operated several times according to historians who deeply study the issue.

Right. And if I present you witnesses that said Bergen-Belsen had a gas-chamber you will come up with an historian that has "deeply studied the issue" and concludes that Bergen-Belsen had gas-chambers as well.
You know, I don't like to play such games. Maybe you should first decide if you believe that all concentration camps had gas-chambers or not. And in case you choose to believe that not all had a gas-chamber you should decide which one had. Then let me know what exactly you believe in, so I can pick the appropiate witnesses.

Ray Barren wrote:Veritas you have Morgen for Birkenau , he gets confused there with Monowitz which was close by Birkenau. In other trials he said Birkenau.

You can't brush this off that easily. Morgen clearly describes the "industrial complex" and makes it a point to distinguish the "extermination camp" from the concentration camp. So it is more than a slip of tongue.
It's like with Hoess, whenever the witnesses or defendants tell nonsense, the believers claim that they must have meant something else, something that fits the believers needs. What else could they do? After all the "testimonies" are all they have...

Ray Barren wrote:Dachau witness Blaha on material from human skin is interesting and a subject for more study

And don't forget to study the others who claimed similar things, like for example Hans Marsalek. And when you've studied the subject deeply enough you might come up with an explaination as to how it was possible for the lampshades to be used both by the IMT and Hollywood as "evidence" of the bestiality of the Germans. Makes the whole thing a bit shady, don't you think?

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby Kingfisher » 8 years 10 months ago (Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:14 am)

athenarena wrote:I for one have always called them concentration camps. Never death camps. Besides why allege them in Gemany when most that still survive are outside of Germany? Makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm not an expert: this is just from general reading. The original allegations during the war did concern the Polish camps, but these were inconveniently inaccessible after the Iron Curtain came down. The evidence Western audiences had seen came from the German camps. Dachau was promoted as an extermination camp, and it is alleged that the Americans doctored the installations there to make a shower room into a "gas chamber". But it was acknowledged as early as 1960 by Martin Broszat of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich that there had been no gas chambers in the Old Reich (pre 1938).

Motivations?
- Justify the war.
- Pacify Germany. All sympathy for the Nazi regime must be destroyed and any possibility of resistance or resurgence eliminated.

athenarena wrote:It is can also be undisputated that they were moved due to political and/or religious reasons resulting in an isolated spot of deaths of these victims making what we know as the Holocaust. Correct?

I think "isolated spot of deaths" is under-stating it somewhat. Revisionists do not dispute the massive scale of deaths from disease, in particular an outbreak of typhus in Auschwitz. This was the reason for the crematoria.

athenarena wrote:I know, eyewitness statements are the least liked form of evidence to me. True, true. However, places such as former Czechslovakia only became Communist in 1948 due to a coup d'etat. The other satellite states 1945ish.

Czechoslovakia doesn't really figure in this though.

I recommend the book "The Invisible Gorilla" http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/ on the "illusion of memory". It was published last year by two Harvard psychologists.

athenarena wrote:I must look at that thread because I actually watched the primary footage of the Nuremburg Trials. I do not like mass trials to begin with. One at a time people, one at a time.

Have a look at Carlos Porter. http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm He is a bit polemic and the visual presentation could be better, but his information is properly sourced and referenced, and other works I've read on Nuremberg all confirm the abysmally poor quality of the evidence and the improper procedures. The International Military Tribunal dealt only peripherally with the treatment of Jews. The main charges concerned waging a war of aggression and the methods of warfare. Very selective in that Allied methods were acceptable even if they involved fire-bombing entire cities.

(On the "aggressive war", the Germans were trying to negotiate on Danzig - a historically German city, under international administration, with 95% German population and a pro-German municipal government - with some quite reasonable offers of port facilities and a military alliance. The Poles would certainly have negotiated if they had not been encouraged by the British to be intransigent. They believed Britain and France would support them and that they'd "be in Berlin by Christmas".
Poland had actually considered attacking Germany only 8 years earlier, when Germany was militarily weak, and had participated with Germany in taking Czechoslovakian territory in 1938.)

athenarena
Member
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:32 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby athenarena » 8 years 10 months ago (Tue Nov 16, 2010 3:04 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:
I'm not an expert: this is just from general reading. The original allegations during the war did concern the Polish camps, but these were inconveniently inaccessible after the Iron Curtain came down. The evidence Western audiences had seen came from the German camps. Dachau was promoted as an extermination camp, and it is alleged that the Americans doctored the installations there to make a shower room into a "gas chamber". But it was acknowledged as early as 1960 by Martin Broszat of the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich that there had been no gas chambers in the Old Reich (pre 1938).

Motivations?
- Justify the war.
- Pacify Germany. All sympathy for the Nazi regime must be destroyed and any possibility of resistance or resurgence eliminated.


But they already had the justification that Germany declared war on them and since public opinion in other countries was anti-Nazism and in USA, sympathetic to Britain which to these governments was more than enough justification it still does not make sense whatsoever.

Pacify Germany? They had a lovely way of doing that by splitting it for over forty years.

Kingfisher wrote:
Have a look at Carlos Porter. http://www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm He is a bit polemic and the visual presentation could be better, but his information is properly sourced and referenced, and other works I've read on Nuremberg all confirm the abysmally poor quality of the evidence and the improper procedures. The International Military Tribunal dealt only peripherally with the treatment of Jews. The main charges concerned waging a war of aggression and the methods of warfare. Very selective in that Allied methods were acceptable even if they involved fire-bombing entire cities.


The Allies were guilty of War Crimes as well such as the bombing of Dresden in 1945. No need, no need whatsoever so Germany was practically defeated and did not have the necessary raw materials like oil -they had coal from the Rhineland- to make the industrially needed items.

Remember why the Versailles Treaty was so heavy on the Germans? Public opinion. Public opinion demanded these trials which should have been conducted a lot more fairly and a lot more justly. Now to be fair, we do take advantage of such things as polograph tests, DNA, fingerprints (and similar methods like looking at the teeth) and the high forensic standard of fibres. Many of these did not start coming sophisticated especially DNA until the 1980s (DNA was not used in a criminal case until 1988 (or 1986 although I am sure of 1988) in England). So what they were left with was by modern standards today expecionally poor and interpetive.

As for the agressive war bracket. It was really interesting Kingfisher but as I have not studied that part of it, I cannot properly discuss it with you so I will not be answering it.

I am really enjoying these talks,
NSNO (Surprised no-one has asked me for what that means)
Athenarena.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby Kingfisher » 8 years 10 months ago (Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:15 pm)

athenarena wrote:But they already had the justification that Germany declared war on them

Britain and France declared war on Germany. After giving a guarantee to Poland that they were in no position to honour. There were people in Britain, Churchill for example, who were itching for a fight with Germany. Traditionally Britain always opposed any one country dominating the Continent, be it Spain, France or Germany. It is clear now and should have been clear then that Hitler had no ambitions to the West. He admired the British Empire, and had accepted the cession of Alsace and Lorraine to France. He built a defensive line - the Siegfied Line - on the French frontier. He wanted the restoration of German lands lost at Versailles and a line of friendly buffer states between Germany and the Soviet Union, whether for defence against a Soviet attack or as a springboard for a German attack is a matter of speculation.

athenarena wrote:[and since public opinion in other countries was anti-Nazism and in USA, sympathetic to Britain which to these governments was more than enough justification it still does not make sense whatsoever.

There had been a strong isolationist movement in the States which had opposed getting involved in another European war. There was even a feeling among some that the Jews had helped Roosevelt drag America into a European conflict. And the British needed to be reassured that it had all been worthwhile. The idea that the WW1 was an awful accident but that WW2 was "the war that had to be fought" persists today. Your lot sensibly kept out of it.

athenarena wrote:Pacify Germany? They had a lovely way of doing that by splitting it for over forty years.

The split only came after the Western Allies and the Soviets fell out. It was not planned.

You have no concept of what hatred for Germany was like at the time. The only good German was a dead one. They'd fought two wars against them in thirty years and were determined Germany would not rise again. The initial plan, the Morgenthau Plan, was to de-industrialise Germany into a purely agricultural state. It would have led to millions of deaths from starvation. Total de-nazification involved not only removing the leaders but also eliminating any favourable sentiment German people might still have towards them. Belsen, Dachau and Buchenwald were a godsend for this purpose. Add to that the Russian accusations of camps for mass murder in Poland and you have the makings of a Holocaust, though, as I'm sure you know, the term was never used at the time. Not until the 70s.

athenarena wrote:The Allies were guilty of War Crimes as well such as the bombing of Dresden in 1945. No need, no need whatsoever so Germany was practically defeated and did not have the necessary raw materials like oil -they had coal from the Rhineland- to make the industrially needed items.

Many Revisionists will say the bombing was a war crime. I tend to think rather that this was total war, where morality was not an issue and all parties did whatever helped their chances of victory, whether it be bombing cities, shooting innocent civilians as reprisal for partisan attacks or using civilians as slave labour in appalling conditions. The bombing had as at least one aim the subduing of the population. Rather like Shock and Awe in Iraq.

athenarena wrote:Remember why the Versailles Treaty was so heavy on the Germans? Public opinion. Public opinion demanded these trials which should have been conducted a lot more fairly and a lot more justly.

Maybe. But public opinion can be manipulated, and if it wasn't it coincided with political interest.

athenarena wrote:Now to be fair, we do take advantage of such things as polograph tests, DNA, fingerprints (and similar methods like looking at the teeth) and the high forensic standard of fibres. Many of these did not start coming sophisticated especially DNA until the 1980s (DNA was not used in a criminal case until 1988 (or 1986 although I am sure of 1988) in England). So what they were left with was by modern standards today expecionally poor and interpetive.

Revisionists ask for forensic testing. It's the mainstream and the powers-that-be which refuse it. Revisionists have clandestinely carried out chemical analyses and Ground-Penetrating-Radar tests.

athenarena wrote:NSNO (Surprised no-one has asked me for what that means)

All right. Go on then :)

athenarena
Member
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:32 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby athenarena » 8 years 10 months ago (Tue Nov 16, 2010 6:49 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:
Britain and France declared war on Germany. After giving a guarantee to Poland that they were in no position to honour. There were people in Britain, Churchill for example, who were itching for a fight with Germany. Traditionally Britain always opposed any one country dominating the Continent, be it Spain, France or Germany. It is clear now and should have been clear then that Hitler had no ambitions to the West. He admired the British Empire, and had accepted the cession of Alsace and Lorraine to France. He built a defensive line - the Siegfied Line - on the French frontier. He wanted the restoration of German lands lost at Versailles and a line of friendly buffer states between Germany and the Soviet Union, whether for defence against a Soviet attack or as a springboard for a German attack is a matter of speculation.


Yes. I know Britain and France declared war on France after Germany refused to take troops out of Poland. All Germans hated the Versailles Treaty, one of the reasons Hitler got into power and was so popular.

Kingfisher wrote:
There had been a strong isolationist movement in the States which had opposed getting involved in another European war. There was even a feeling among some that the Jews had helped Roosevelt drag America into a European conflict. And the British needed to be reassured that it had all been worthwhile. The idea that the WW1 was an awful accident but that WW2 was "the war that had to be fought" persists today. Your lot sensibly kept out of it.


Isolaterionism? Yes, it was a hugely popular trend in the States. Although the expansion I did not know about. Ireland? Yeah, De Valera did it to show Irish independence from England and because we had been absolutely destroyed by his policy of Economic War with England. I am not a De Valera fan.


Kingfisher wrote:
You have no concept of what hatred for Germany was like at the time. The only good German was a dead one. They'd fought two wars against them in thirty years and were determined Germany would not rise again. The initial plan, the Morgenthau Plan, was to de-industrialise Germany into a purely agricultural state. It would have led to millions of deaths from starvation. Total de-nazification involved not only removing the leaders but also eliminating any favourable sentiment German people might still have towards them. Belsen, Dachau and Buchenwald were a godsend for this purpose. Add to that the Russian accusations of camps for mass murder in Poland and you have the makings of a Holocaust, though, as I'm sure you know, the term was never used at the time. Not until the 70s.


You are correct, I have no concept of the hatred. The history module is more on Governmental policy.

Revisionists ask for forensic testing. It's the mainstream and the powers-that-be which refuse it. Revisionists have clandestinely carried out chemical analyses and Ground-Penetrating-Radar tests.


That seems fair. I am a believer and believed the Holocaust did happen but have doubts about the gas chambers and believe our forensic standards should be used to clear the air so the Holocaust could be remembered for what it truly was. We should get rid of doubts. I know more and more of murders, oppression, torture and genocide from my own Irish history.

All right. Go on then :)


NSNO stands for Nil Satis Nisi Optimum. It is the Latin motto for my favourite English team Everton but I think it is a wonderful way to live life.
Everton use the translation as Nothing but the Best. However, the full translation is the Nothing but the Best is Good Enough. Nice huh? Live life to the very best of your abilites and no regrets. Do not do something for the sake of it but because you enjoy it. Only allow the best things to dictate you. Your head, your heart, your gut.

NSNO,
Athenarena.

User avatar
Cloud
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:27 pm
Location: The Land of Political Correctness

Re: Bad News...

Postby Cloud » 8 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 19, 2010 9:15 am)

athenarena wrote:That seems fair. I am a believer and believed the Holocaust did happen but have doubts about the gas chambers and believe our forensic standards should be used to clear the air so the Holocaust could be remembered for what it truly was. We should get rid of doubts. I know more and more of murders, oppression, torture and genocide from my own Irish history.


But if there were no homicidal gas chambers and no mass murder program, what is the Holocaust?

athenarena
Member
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:32 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby athenarena » 8 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:04 pm)

Cloud wrote:
athenarena wrote:That seems fair. I am a believer and believed the Holocaust did happen but have doubts about the gas chambers and believe our forensic standards should be used to clear the air so the Holocaust could be remembered for what it truly was. We should get rid of doubts. I know more and more of murders, oppression, torture and genocide from my own Irish history.


But if there were no homicidal gas chambers and no mass murder program, what is the Holocaust?


Working people to death in those camps who were anti-Aryan. I see that as part of the Holocaust. To many the gas chambers and the Holocaust are too interwoven when the gas chambers were one part of it. There was working to death, shootings, forcing people to flee, taking away their rights, forced to live in ghettos, suicides. Appalling treatment all based around one idea which makes it genocide. You are different and we are going to be methodically, henceforth genocide, henceforth the Holocaust.

NSNO,
Athenarena

Ilikerealhistory
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby Ilikerealhistory » 8 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:16 pm)

athenarena wrote:
Remember why the Versailles Treaty was so heavy on the Germans? Public opinion. Public opinion demanded these trials which should have been conducted a lot more fairly and a lot more justly. Now to be fair, we do take advantage of such things as polograph tests, DNA, fingerprints (and similar methods like looking at the teeth) and the high forensic standard of fibres. ...


Athenarena.



I do not agree that it was (French) public opinion that caused the Treaty to be hard on the Germans. The majority public opinion in the US in 2001 was not to go to war. The war mongers here claimed the people wanted war because they only listened to people who agreed with them, and even those who agreed may have changed their mind if they were told the truth (i.e. WMD). Most of the French citizenry probably knew nothing about what the Treaty of Versailles was about, so their opinion meant nothing. Most of what was written the the Treaty had to do with France and England being sore losers. Germany and Austria fought off 3 major powers in WW1. It was only because the U.S., with fresh soldiers and almost unlimited resources, joined the war that Germany was defeated. Germany was fined 100,000 tonnes of Gold. The U.S. has less than 10 tonnes in their inventory today.


I think you mean polygraph test. Polygraph tests are not worth much. It is far easier to bully an innocent person into failing the test, then it is to get a guilty compulsive liar like a sociopath to fail.

Ilikerealhistory
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:50 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby Ilikerealhistory » 8 years 10 months ago (Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:24 pm)

athenarena wrote:
Cloud wrote:
But if there were no homicidal gas chambers and no mass murder program, what is the Holocaust?


Working people to death in those camps who were anti-Aryan. I see that as part of the Holocaust. To many the gas chambers and the Holocaust are too interwoven when the gas chambers were one part of it. There was working to death, shootings, forcing people to flee, taking away their rights, forced to live in ghettos, suicides. Appalling treatment all based around one idea which makes it genocide. You are different and we are going to be methodically, henceforth genocide, henceforth the Holocaust.

NSNO,
Athenarena



So you admit that the people in the camps were "anti-Aryan." Why would Germans want a bunch of people, who didn't like them, in their country?

The second part reminds me of what the jews did to the Germans. And nobody forced jews to live in Ghettos. They naturally formed dirt pits all on their own.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 10:48 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby Jerzy Ulicki-Rek » 8 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:30 am)

athenarena wrote:I personally and stand by it that the Holocaust happened. I believe it did happen and it is the truth. But this is going too far! If you do not believe it, as long as you say it in a respectful manner and do not force your belief on other people and make it sound as unbiased and ojective as possible, I do not see the reason for such a law. "


Thanks a lot.Tell this to police in Poland who is chasing after me with "WANTED" letter for my writings about the holo-miracles and holo-religion despite the fact that I'm an Australian citizen for more then half of my 56 springs.
Here is one of my crimes:I do not believe that this concoction of doll's head and few rags is a Jewish child gassed.

dzieckozmaski.jpg
dzieckozmaski.jpg (51.33 KiB) Viewed 2646 times


Jerzy Ulicki-Rek

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby Kingfisher » 8 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 20, 2010 10:06 am)

athenarena wrote:
Cloud wrote:But if there were no homicidal gas chambers and no mass murder program, what is the Holocaust?


Working people to death in those camps who were anti-Aryan. I see that as part of the Holocaust... There was working to death, shootings, forcing people to flee, taking away their rights, forced to live in ghettos, suicides. Appalling treatment all based around one idea which makes it genocide. You are different and we are going to be methodically, henceforth genocide, henceforth the Holocaust.


I presume you meant to write "non-Aryan". On "working to death", I'm not convinced it was widespread or deliberate policy. It would have been self-defeating with a shortage of labour, and there is ample evidence of camp hospitals where prisoners were nursed back to working health. They included Elie Wiesel, Anne Frank's father and (I think) Simon Wiesenthal. At the very end of the war when the infrastructure collapsed and defeat was imminent things did get very bad as we know.

So where is the Holocaust®? What do we have that is a degree of magnitude worse than what is, sadly, repeated many times around the world: the (largely manufactured) Ukraine famine, selective murder of middle classes and intelligentsia by the Soviets, Stalin's labour camps, the Bengal famine (attributed to British scorched earth policy), the deportations of Soviet minority populations -- Chechens, Crimean Tartars, Volga Germans -- the expulsion of the Germans from East Prussia and Czechoslovakia, the Partition of India, French actions in Algeria, the Chinese Cultural revolution, Chinese treatment of Tibetans or American treatment of Vietnamese civilians? Before that the Armenian massacres, the Congo corvée and the genocide of the Native Americans, the Ibos in Biafra in the sixties or Darfur and the Congo today? Not to mention (but I will) Palestine. Yet there is only one Holocaust®, that is dependent on an undocumented central policy of extermination, the think-of-a-number-and-double-it six million and the hypothetical gas chambers.

athenarena
Member
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:32 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby athenarena » 8 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:39 am)

Kingfisher is right. I meant non-Aryan.

Kingfisher wrote:
athenarena wrote:
Cloud wrote:But if there were no homicidal gas chambers and no mass murder program, what is the Holocaust?


Working people to death in those camps who were anti-Aryan. I see that as part of the Holocaust... There was working to death, shootings, forcing people to flee, taking away their rights, forced to live in ghettos, suicides. Appalling treatment all based around one idea which makes it genocide. You are different and we are going to be methodically, henceforth genocide, henceforth the Holocaust.


I presume you meant to write "non-Aryan". On "working to death", I'm not convinced it was widespread or deliberate policy. It would have been self-defeating with a shortage of labour, and there is ample evidence of camp hospitals where prisoners were nursed back to working health. They included Elie Wiesel, Anne Frank's father and (I think) Simon Wiesenthal. At the very end of the war when the infrastructure collapsed and defeat was imminent things did get very bad as we know.

So where is the Holocaust®? What do we have that is a degree of magnitude worse than what is, sadly, repeated many times around the world: the (largely manufactured) Ukraine famine, selective murder of middle classes and intelligentsia by the Soviets, Stalin's labour camps, the Bengal famine (attributed to British scorched earth policy), the deportations of Soviet minority populations -- Chechens, Crimean Tartars, Volga Germans -- the expulsion of the Germans from East Prussia and Czechoslovakia, the Partition of India, French actions in Algeria, the Chinese Cultural revolution, Chinese treatment of Tibetans or American treatment of Vietnamese civilians? Before that the Armenian massacres, the Congo corvée and the genocide of the Native Americans, the Ibos in Biafra in the sixties or Darfur and the Congo today? Not to mention (but I will) Palestine. Yet there is only one Holocaust®, that is dependent on an undocumented central policy of extermination, the think-of-a-number-and-double-it six million and the hypothetical gas chambers.


Are you not convinced? Well of that, I am certainly convinced. But there were always contradictions in everything. Look at Wolfe Tone, he was a Protestant who helped lead the 1798 rebellion. Where can I find this evidence?

You are right, a lot of what the Holocaust was is a repitition of former atrocities and atrocities that have yet to come.

Mention Palestine, mention them all because it is all the same. It always happens, history repeats itself over and over again without anybody learning. Nice list by the way. Some of those I did not know.

Jerzy Ulicki-Rek wrote:
athenarena wrote:I personally and stand by it that the Holocaust happened. I believe it did happen and it is the truth. But this is going too far! If you do not believe it, as long as you say it in a respectful manner and do not force your belief on other people and make it sound as unbiased and ojective as possible, I do not see the reason for such a law. "


Thanks a lot.Tell this to police in Poland who is chasing after me with "WANTED" letter for my writings about the holo-miracles and holo-religion despite the fact that I'm an Australian citizen for more then half of my 56 springs.
Here is one of my crimes:I do not believe that this concoction of doll's head and few rags is a Jewish child gassed.

dzieckozmaski.jpg


Jerzy Ulicki-Rek


Are you being sarcastic? Personally, that is the stupidest thing to arrest somebody on. Spend time catching murderers and rapists and arsonists and people who do actually commit proper hate crimes.

Ilikerealhistory wrote:
athenarena wrote:
Cloud wrote:
But if there were no homicidal gas chambers and no mass murder program, what is the Holocaust?


Working people to death in those camps who were anti-Aryan. I see that as part of the Holocaust. To many the gas chambers and the Holocaust are too interwoven when the gas chambers were one part of it. There was working to death, shootings, forcing people to flee, taking away their rights, forced to live in ghettos, suicides. Appalling treatment all based around one idea which makes it genocide. You are different and we are going to be methodically, henceforth genocide, henceforth the Holocaust.

NSNO,
Athenarena



So you admit that the people in the camps were "anti-Aryan." Why would Germans want a bunch of people, who didn't like them, in their country?

The second part reminds me of what the jews did to the Germans. And nobody forced jews to live in Ghettos. They naturally formed dirt pits all on their own.


A misunderstanding. I mean to say non-Aryan. Those who did not fulfill the ridiculous (Look at the irony. Hitler wanted something he was the complete opposite of) ideals od the "Third Reich" German.

Ilikerealhistory wrote:
athenarena wrote:
Remember why the Versailles Treaty was so heavy on the Germans? Public opinion. Public opinion demanded these trials which should have been conducted a lot more fairly and a lot more justly. Now to be fair, we do take advantage of such things as polograph tests, DNA, fingerprints (and similar methods like looking at the teeth) and the high forensic standard of fibres. ...


Athenarena.



I do not agree that it was (French) public opinion that caused the Treaty to be hard on the Germans. The majority public opinion in the US in 2001 was not to go to war. The war mongers here claimed the people wanted war because they only listened to people who agreed with them, and even those who agreed may have changed their mind if they were told the truth (i.e. WMD). Most of the French citizenry probably knew nothing about what the Treaty of Versailles was about, so their opinion meant nothing. Most of what was written the the Treaty had to do with France and England being sore losers. Germany and Austria fought off 3 major powers in WW1. It was only because the U.S., with fresh soldiers and almost unlimited resources, joined the war that Germany was defeated. Germany was fined 100,000 tonnes of Gold. The U.S. has less than 10 tonnes in their inventory today.


I think you mean polygraph test. Polygraph tests are not worth much. It is far easier to bully an innocent person into failing the test, then it is to get a guilty compulsive liar like a sociopath to fail.


Britain and France wanted reparation and some payback for the war so we are essentially agreeing but saying it different ways. At least that is what I have been taught. As for the whole U.S. joining= Germany losing, I do know that.

Yes but need I mention Vietnam? Before the Tet Offensive 58% of Americans supported the war.

Polygraph -thanks for the correction- tests measure heart rate and sweat rate at the very least. They are also 90% accurate most of the time. However, it is just a tool in the arsenal. I was just listing what we have now in comparsion to the 1940s which should be used to wipe out all doubts on the Holocaust.

NSNO,
Athenarena

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Bad News...

Postby Kingfisher » 8 years 10 months ago (Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:26 pm)

athenarena wrote:Are you not convinced? Well of that, I am certainly convinced.

Why? You have not answered the points I raised.

athenarena wrote:You are right, a lot of what the Holocaust was is a repitition of former atrocities and atrocities that have yet to come.

So,again, where is the Holocaust®, which we are assured is qualitatively and quantitatively different, and which we must all bow down and worship? I know that was a bit over the top, but it is a religion. Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish-American university professor was the first to bring this into the public arena. His book The Holocaust Industry is worth reading, but if you don't have the time just google some info about it.
athenarena wrote:Polygraph -thanks for the correction- tests measure heart rate and sweat rate at the very least. They are also 90% accurate most of the time.

This is a side issue but Ilikerealhistory is correct on this. Polygraphs are pretty well discredited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#Validity
Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists. Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates, and 95-100% by businesses providing polygraph services, critics maintain that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.
Last edited by Kingfisher on Sat Nov 20, 2010 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests