BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Mkk » 7 years 11 months ago (Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:28 am)

While looking through the BBC non-history site, I came across this article by our friend "Poor old Debbie", aka Deborah Lipstadt:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... s_01.shtml

Although the information is pretty easy to refute for any reformed revisionist, a brief response to this article will follow:

Holocaust deniers are people who contend that the Holocaust - the attempt by Nazi Germany to annihilate European Jewry during World War Two - never happened. According to the deniers, the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, the notion of homicidal gas chambers is a myth, and any deaths of Jews that did occur under the Nazis were the result of wartime privations, not of systematic persecution and state-organised mass murder

Aside from "deniers", a word I don't much like to see used, this is correct.

Deniers dismiss all assertions that the Holocaust took place as conscious fabrications, or as psychotic delusions.

WRONG. Many people, who are not actually deluded, genuinely believe the Holocaust took place- because it's what they've been told. Yes, many of the eyewitnesses are brazen liars and fabricators, and SOME believers seem to be a bit TOO attached to the Holocaust, but it doesn't change the fact that, IMO, this statement is incorrect.

ome even claim that Hitler was the best friend the Jews had in Germany, and that he actively worked to protect them.

In my time as a revisionist I have seen nobody claim this- although it is true in some cases, such as Kristallnacht, Hitler did try to protect the Jews from physical harm.

According to deniers, Jews have perpetrated this hoax about the Holocaust on the world in order to gain political and financial advantage, and it was in fact Germany that was the true victim in World War Two.

Well, sort of. I suppose not all "deniers" have looked into general WW2 revisionism, although it isn't hard to imagine that many have.

Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism, positing that Jews have concocted a giant myth for their own ends.

So it is Anti Semetic to say the Jews have ever done ANYTHING wrong? Yeah, right. Also, if this woman actually knew about revisionism, she'd know we actually claim the Holocaust propaganda was mainly circulated by the Allies, and then later picked up by the Jews for their own ends.

It persists despite the fact that the Holocaust is one of the best documented genocides in history,

I.e not a single document refers to it.

with a wide array of evidence documenting virtually every aspect of it.

I.e documenting every aspect aside from the mass murders.

For example, approximately a million Jews on the Eastern Front were shot during 1941-42, and buried in large pits. This is known partly because the Einsatzgruppen, the mobile killing units that coordinated these massacres, prepared detailed reports on the murders - reports that contained precise death tolls, broken down into men, women and children.

The reports that may or may not be authentic, and have no supporting evidence, and contradict logic as to what the Einzatgruppen where meant to be doing? See the chapter here: http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/08-t.pdf and search the forum. Also, if the Germans were so adamant about destroying the documents refering to killings in the camps, why weren't these alleged documents destroyed? It makes no sense.

These reports were sent to high ranking officials in Berlin, and to army, police and SS officers, as well as diplomats and even prominent industrialists. This wide distribution suggests that the perpetrators felt no shame at what they did. Had these killings not been part of Berlin's policy, the reports would never have been so widely distributed.

Any proof? No?

Deniers argue that evidence such as this was forged, after the end of World War Two, by people working for world Jewry.

A HANDFUL of documents have been proven/are suspected to have been forged, but others have merely been distorted in their meaning.

They claim that forgers created these and other documents - complete with complex internal reference markings, on typewriters that perfectly matched those used by the various German units said to have written the documents -

She does realise that the Allies, ofcourse, had ascess to German typewriters after the war. As Butz points out, with the Einzatgruppen documents, there are only signatures on the non-incriminating pages, aswell.

and then planted thousands of these perfect forgeries

"Thousands"? In my time as a revisionist, I haven't come across "thousands" of documents that revisionists claim to be forgeries- and even then we give good reasons as to why they might be forgeries.

She then goes on to avoid the arguments of the revisionists when it comes to these forgeries.

Many perpetrators confessed to what they had done during the war, after it was over.

The confessions never make any sense, and were nearly always commited under torture or legal pressure.

For example, Otto Ohlendorf, commander of one of the Einsatzgruppen units, testified quite openly that between June 1941 and 1942 his Einsatzgruppe murdered 90,000 people.

That's a lot less then the million Jews above. Were these partisans or what? Was this guy under any pressure?

Also, lol at that innocent picture of children allegedly on their way to the gas chambers.

Deniers dismiss confessions by German perpetrators that a 'Final Solution' to the 'Jewish question' was indeed a part of the Nazi programme - by saying the confessions were produced under torture.

We claim that the Final Solution was not what you claim it to be. Nobody denies there was some kind of "Final solution"- but we argue on whether it was murder or deportation.

This, however, ignores the fact that some of the more detailed confessions were written after the perpetrators had been sentenced to death.

I don't know much about individual cases here, but it doesn't change the fact if they were tortured while it was happening. Also, it doesn't change the ridiculous and contradictory nature of the "confessions".

It also ignores the fact that many of the perpetrators described - sometimes in great detail - what happened, but insisted that they either had nothing to do with it or were forced by their superiors to participate.

Again, all of these accounts make no sense, as said above some were under torture etc., and the "I had nothing to do with it" is an obvious way to worm out of a crime that has been pushed onto you.

Thus this argument fails to take into account the statements of Nazis such as the Commandant of Birkenau concentration camp, Rudolf Höss, who described the mass murders that took place in his camp in a document written after he had been sentenced to death.

He was tortured, his statements make no sense, and he possibly didn't even write them. Comeon, do better Debbie.

It also fails to account for Adolf Eichmann who, in the memoir he wrote during his trial, spoke of the gassing of the Jews.

During the legal trial? There goes the idea these confessions weren't under legal pressure, again. I believe Eichmann is dealt with in "one third of the Holocaust", and maybe elsewhere on this forum.

Some deniers explain away the confessions by positing that after the war these Germans were subjected to a barrage of propaganda, and themselves become victims of the hoax.

...Not really. Although do some say they only heard about the Holocaust "after the war".

forge thousands of documents in record time without being detected

What documents? As I said above, there are only a few documents revisionists claim to be forged.

and create physical evidence attesting to an annihilation programme

It has been proven that, among over things, the Poles or Soviets created those holes in the Auchwitz Crematoria. Otherwise, there is no physical evidence.

but they even convinced the very people said to be a part of the hoax that it had actually happened.

We don't claim this. The Allies pushed this propoganda, but that was only a few men; everyone else probably truly believed it.

Some deniers posit that the Jews said to have been killed under the Nazi regime actually survived the war, and succeeded in avoiding detection by going to places such as the Soviet Union or the United States. In these countries, the deniers claim, there were already so many Jews that no one noticed a couple of million more.

We have statistically proved this.

Then she talks about- wait for it- gas "buses". The first document she cites, the "Turner document", is dealt with in the new Gas Vans book ( http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/26-tgv.pdf) The "Just" document is also dealt with.

She then talks about the gas chambers at Auchwitz. The various documents she cites have been dealt with many times, see especially Auchwitz: The case for Sanity.

The deniers fail to explain why a door for a delousing chamber or morgue would need a peephole.

We have already explained this for a delousing chamber. Wasn't Morgue 2 planned to be turned into a hygiene center? I believe Mattogno wrote something about this somewhere.

And we don't ignore testimony- we have taken it apart piece by piece, and have proven it to be contradictory and nonsensical.

In February 1943 Auschwitz camp building authorities complained to Topf, the company that built the crematoria equipment, that they needed ventilation blowers 'most urgently'. Why the urgency, if this was an air-raid shelter, morgue, or delousing chamber?

Why if it was a gas chamber, either? Nothing was urgent there- but it was for a morgue, because hundreds were dieying each day and the crematoria needed to work.

Deniers hypothesise that the urgency was a result of official fears that the camp would be hit with a typhus epidemic, which would cause a tremendous spike in the death toll. Without the proper ventilation system, the crematoria would not be able to operate.

I thought the camp had already been hit by a typhus epidemic at this time?

Deniers try to bolster their argument about the typhus by pointing to documents which show that at this point in time the planned monthly incineration rate of Auschwitz had been boosted to 120,000 bodies.

What documents? There are several documents which talk about cremation capacity, but as Mattogno has proven, the crematoria could have cremated about 162,000 bodies- not much more that the monthly incineration rate mentioned here!

The rest of her non-argument falls flat on it's face because of it.

On 6 March 1943, one of the civilian employees working on the construction of Crematorium 2 referred to the air extraction system of 'Auskleidekeller [undressing cellar] 2'. No normal morgue could require an undressing room, particularly one that was 50 yards long. In that same month, there were at least four additional references to Auskleidekeller. It is telling that civilians who, according to the deniers, were in Birkenau to work on underground morgues, repeatedly referred not to morgues but to the ventilation of the 'undressing cellars'.

As Mattogno has shown in the above mentioned Case for Sanity these undressing rooms were undressing rooms for corpses.

In the same letter the employee asked about preheating the areas that would be used as the gas chamber. If these were morgues they should be cooled, not preheated. Heating a gas chamber, on the other hand, would speed the gassing process by more quickly vaporising the gas from the Zyklon B.

Once again, Deborah avoids counter arguments. Among others, Rudolf has shown expert literature says morgues do need some kind of heating.

On the "gas tight doors", as shown in "Dissecting the Holocaust", in the part on the central construction office of Auchwitz, that the alleged gas tight doors were not actually gas tight.

Deniers have said for years that physical evidence is lacking because they have seen no holes in the roof of the Birkenau gas chamber where the Zyklon was poured in. (In some of the gas chambers the Zyklon B was poured in through the roof, while in others it was thrown in through the windows.) The roof was dynamited at war's end, and today lies broken in pieces, but three of the four original holes were positively identified in a recent paper. Their location in the concrete matches with eyewitness testimony, aerial photos from 1944, and a ground photo from 1943. The physical evidence shows unmistakably that the Zyklon holes were cast into the concrete when the building was constructed.

And again... The photos have obviously been changed, and "what paper"? I believe the paper she is refering to has already been refuted by Mattogno.

There is much additional evidence affirming Auschwitz/Birkenau's role as a killing centre. There is no reputable evidence that affirms the deniers' claims.

Not much to say here.

I haven't read much about the Diary of Anne Frank. It it is genuine, it actually bolsters the "deniers" case, because Anne survives Auchwitz as a child.

David Irving, a man who has written many books on World War Two, a number of which deny the Holocaust.

Not that I can say much, but as far as I know Irving denied that Hitler had any knowledge of the Holocaust. That's it.

Then there is some stuff on the Irving trial, Remember, the trial tackled IRVING'S arguments, and not the other revisionists; the main weapon in the article of Lipstadt, Van Pelt, has been categorically refuted in the aforementioned Case for Sanity.

Holocaust denial is a form of virulent anti-Semitism. But it is not only that. It is also an attack on reasoned inquiry and inconvenient history. If this history can be denied any history can be denied.

That is, any history can be debated and challenged. And that's a good thing. And please, we are not Anti Semites, for the last time.

Holocaust deniers have, thus far, been decidedly unsuccessful in convincing the broader public of their claims

There is a thread in this forum that includes a poll on some Germans, showing some 30 percent of them didn't believe in the Holocaust. Revisionism is growing around the world. Most people just don't want to listen to the menacing "deniers".

although many people worry that after the last of the Holocaust survivors has died (most are now in their 80s) deniers will achieve greater success.

Well, I'm not worried. I am for truth in history, whether it is convenient for survivors or not.

. However, historians, carefully relying on a broad array of documentary and material evidence,

Again: There is no material or documentary evidence? The documents Deborah cites have either been proven to be forgeries, or have non criminal meanings. The material evidence refutes the genocide claims in every aspect.

a small sample of which is mentioned in this article, can and already have demonstrated that Holocaust denial is a tissue of lies.

...A small sample of which have been mentioned in this article, can and already have demonstrated the Holocaust is a tissue of lies.

Well, once again the lies, half truths, mis information and dodging of the believers has been demolished. If I can be bothered I may write a response to the other BBc articles some time.
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Hannover » 7 years 11 months ago (Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:54 pm)

Why not give links to threads here that confirm what you say, i.e.:

On so called 'confessions';
we have many threads on the fact that torture and threats were consistently used and there are no trial transcripts to confirm what the claims say. Point out the 'fact' that there are thousands of confessions taken courts of law which confirm witchcraft and sorcery, complete with 'eyewitnesses' ... which dwarf in number the coerced 'holocaust confessions'. Why not point out the fact that 'judicial notice' was given in these show trials which made it nearly impossible for the 'confessor's' to say anything but what the sham prosecutors demanded.

alleged Einsatzgruppen mass shootings;
why not point to threads which deal with the complete lack of mass graves that are alleged yet they supposedly know where they are, but alas, no human remains. Point to threads which blow apart all these 'documents' which make no sense, and the lack of provenance for them, etc.

Those kinds of rebuttals lead the reader to the actual research done by Revisionists which clearly shoot down the lies that are repeated by the 'media'. Go a bit deeper, back up what you post. It's all here, just tap into it.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

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

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Kingfisher » 7 years 11 months ago (Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:08 pm)

Mkk,

This is splendid news. For years Lipstadt and her ilk have refused to debate "deniers" for fear of giving them publicity. They have tried to hide us behind a wall of silence enforced by law in many countries, and taboo in all others. Now they have determined this no longer works and have given Revisionism the oxygen of publicity on a very public forum. It is probably the first time most of her readers had a clue as to what "deniers" really think. I had to go to VHO to get anything resembling as clear a picture as that. This is a victory we should be celebrating and making the most of. Open-minded people reading her refutations are going to want to hear our side of the story, and at least some of them are going to use the Web to find it.

Congratulations on your excellent refutations. BTW.

Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Mkk » 7 years 11 months ago (Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:07 am)

Kingfisher wrote:Mkk,

This is splendid news. For years Lipstadt and her ilk have refused to debate "deniers" for fear of giving them publicity. They have tried to hide us behind a wall of silence enforced by law in many countries, and taboo in all others. Now they have determined this no longer works and have given Revisionism the oxygen of publicity on a very public forum. It is probably the first time most of her readers had a clue as to what "deniers" really think. I had to go to VHO to get anything resembling as clear a picture as that. This is a victory we should be celebrating and making the most of. Open-minded people reading her refutations are going to want to hear our side of the story, and at least some of them are going to use the Web to find it.

Congratulations on your excellent refutations. BTW.

Thankyou, and you make a good point here. However, look at what comes up when you google "Holocaust denial":

http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid= ... =621&ion=1

A wikipedia article that, as usual, provides already refuted arguments, an anti-revisionist article from Jewish defense league- and only a few pages from actual revisionists. Atleast it leads to "One third of the Holocaust".
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

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

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Kingfisher » 7 years 11 months ago (Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:27 am)

Actually, I think three revisionist hits on the first page is not bad. better than I expected. Unfortunately, it changes if you replace "co.uk" with "de" or "fr".

As for the Wikipedia article, it's a bit of a curate's egg. Of course it's heavily biased, but despite that, a lot of statements of the Revisionist position get through. As the bias reflects the dominant view in the community, it is to be expected given Wikipedia's policy on sources. The "reliable sources" are biased. But an open-minded reader can see that bias while reading.

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby SevenUp » 7 years 11 months ago (Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:14 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:As for the Wikipedia article, it's a bit of a curate's egg. Of course it's heavily biased, but despite that, a lot of statements of the Revisionist position get through. As the bias reflects the dominant view in the community, it is to be expected given Wikipedia's policy on sources. The "reliable sources" are biased. But an open-minded reader can see that bias while reading.


Wiki is tightly controlled by Zionists. And the 'reliable sources' are not biased, they are tightly controlled by Zionists and part of the ongoing hoax. Case in point, check the BBC article linked in the OP in this thread, which shows a picture of Rudolf Hoess at his war crimes trial, but this is not a picture of Hoess at his war crimes trial. What is it?

SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby SevenUp » 7 years 11 months ago (Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:17 pm)

OK, I'll answer my own question - the picture in the BBC article is of Hoess at the Nuremberg trial. It was not his trial, he was testifying as a defense witness ! This of course is perfectly absurd and beyond Kafkaesque. His 'testimony' consisted mainly of a printed 'confession' he had given earlier which became part of the Nuremberg record without challenge. His Nuremberg 'testimony' is one of the pillars of the holohoax.

BBC did not mislabel the picture due to bias, or due to an error. Mislabeling the picture was in your face deceit. If you point out the deceit to the BBC no retraction will be offered or apologies made. This sort of deceit is the norm in all the major media. Here is an example from the PBS documentary on the Irving trial, which has a web site here ....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/

which contains the following idiotic whopper ....

Exposing Flawed Science
To back up his claim that the Nazis used Auschwitz's gas chambers only to fumigate corpses, reputed Holocaust denier David Irving relied on research that experts maintain was flawed.


This is not bias, or error, this is an in your face hoax.

Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Mkk » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:31 am)

SevenUp wrote:OK, I'll answer my own question - the picture in the BBC article is of Hoess at the Nuremberg trial. It was not his trial, he was testifying as a defense witness ! This of course is perfectly absurd and beyond Kafkaesque. His 'testimony' consisted mainly of a printed 'confession' he had given earlier which became part of the Nuremberg record without challenge. His Nuremberg 'testimony' is one of the pillars of the holohoax.

BBC did not mislabel the picture due to bias, or due to an error. Mislabeling the picture was in your face deceit. If you point out the deceit to the BBC no retraction will be offered or apologies made. This sort of deceit is the norm in all the major media. Here is an example from the PBS documentary on the Irving trial, which has a web site here ....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/

which contains the following idiotic whopper ....

Exposing Flawed Science
To back up his claim that the Nazis used Auschwitz's gas chambers only to fumigate corpses, reputed Holocaust denier David Irving relied on research that experts maintain was flawed.


This is not bias, or error, this is an in your face hoax.

Agreed! Not only has Irving, or anyone, ever claimed that, he is NOT a reputed Holocaust "denier"! He at best could be called a semi-revisionist.

Look at another mislabelled picture here, this one from the BBC Longerich article:
Image
Caption: "Such friendships debase Aryans"

But it clearly does not say (through Google translate) Solche Freundschaften erniedrigen Arier or anything like that! The text is hard to read from here, but it certainly doesn't say that.
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Hannover » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:54 am)

This article is such a yawner.
Lipstadt is a racist Jewish supremacist, as she herself has said in so many words. It's another case of 'projection'. The Jewish supremacists project their feelings on to others. A blind man can see what they're doing to the Palestinians and how they cajol Americans into shedding goyim blood for Jewish supremacist interests, see Walt / Mearsheimer, MacDonald, etc. on that fact.
I also notice that it is not mentioned that Israel's racial laws are based upon the NS Nuremberg race laws.

As for the 'holocaust' nonsense like 'documents' etc., that hatemonger Lipstadt rambles on about, well, I cannot help but laugh .... what documents? Any that have been claimed have been utterly demolished by Revisionists at this forum, and in various irrefutable books and publications by the likes of Graf, Rudolf, Mattogno, Faurisson, Porter, on & on, simple as that. I challenge anyone who thinks differently to post their 'documents' and learn.

grotesque Debbie says:
Holocaust deniers have, thus far, been decidedly unsuccessful in convincing the broader public of their claims

Oh really?
Is that why at every turn we see conferences-of-desperation where they try to rally so called 'academia' behind racist Jewish supremacist stands against 'deniers?
Where they send out the racist JDL-like 'Hillel' members to stop CODOH ads in university newspapers.
Where we see desperate sham publications like 'The Holocaust Did Really Happen'.
Where we see arch Zionist, Israel first Spielberg Shoah Foundation gather nonsensical 'survivors (where there should be no 'survivors if the tales were true) bizarre and scientifically impossible 'testimonies on film for "posterity", but yet they control who can access these laughable testimonies to senility, groupthink, and the profit motive.
Money is always involved. As is said, "Follow the money".
Where the Arolsen archives, where so much real documentation is held, is accessible to 'approved users only'.
Then there's the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ) desperately scrambling to get laws against 'holocaust' denial in the U.S. They very existence of such a racist organization is proof of desperation and disregard for others.
Of course, in the first place, 'holocaust' denial laws that we see in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. are clear proof that Revisionists are winning the long term battle.
As Thomas Jefferson said, '"Only lies need protection of government, truth can stand on it's own".
We have truth, the 'holocaust' Industry does not and we are not going away.
Revisionist do not need to worry about keeping their lies straight, the 'holocau$t' Industry does.

It must be miserable being the Lipstadts of this world.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Mkk » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:49 am)

Great post, Hannover.

and how they cajol Americans into sheeding goyim blood for Jewish supremacist interests, see Walt / Mearsheimer, MacDonald, etc. on that fact.

Indeed. Look at the Soviet Union, invented and run by Jews- killed millions and left the rest in hunger. Look at the capitalist Jewish run banks, which do much the same. Even Churchill (The man responsible for the continuation of the European war beyond the first few months) admitted the war against Germany was entirely for economics.

I also notice that it is not mentioned that Israel's racial laws are based upon the NS Nuremberg race laws.

At least the Jews had freedom of movement, aside from the gettoes, and healthcare etc. Is millions of (whatever the Israeli currency is) being spent on Palestinian healthcare, or individuals receiving the death penalty for mistreatment of Palestinians? But that happened in Germany. The Nuremberg laws were primarily there to force the Jews out of Germany peacefully- unlike the Palestinians, who aren't being asked to leave but are being forced into physical separation but won't leave their homelands.

And, were there any signs of park benches just for Aryans, or bus seats just for Aryans? No. But there were in America. Which one was the apartheid state at that time?
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9873
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Hannover » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:30 am)

Look at the capitalist Jewish run banks, ...

But that is not capitalism, it is statism. Where the government is directly involved in picking the winners & losers in the economy, i.e.: the bailouts and who got them, who did not. The mandated exceptions for the unions in 'Obamacare'.

But more importantly for this forum is the U.S. taxpayers' funding of the 'holocaust' Industry: the Washington, DC 'Holocaust Museum, funding of the sham Wiesenthal Center. U.S., taxpayers' funding of Jewish 'holocaust' centered focus groups / training / indoctrination which are mandated for police forces all over the country.

Let's not get too far way from the topic of this forum.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Capauncha
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 4:11 pm

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Capauncha » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 14, 2011 8:53 pm)

Mkk wrote:
SevenUp wrote:OK, I'll answer my own question - the picture in the BBC article is of Hoess at the Nuremberg trial. It was not his trial, he was testifying as a defense witness ! This of course is perfectly absurd and beyond Kafkaesque. His 'testimony' consisted mainly of a printed 'confession' he had given earlier which became part of the Nuremberg record without challenge. His Nuremberg 'testimony' is one of the pillars of the holohoax.

BBC did not mislabel the picture due to bias, or due to an error. Mislabeling the picture was in your face deceit. If you point out the deceit to the BBC no retraction will be offered or apologies made. This sort of deceit is the norm in all the major media. Here is an example from the PBS documentary on the Irving trial, which has a web site here ....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/

which contains the following idiotic whopper ....

Exposing Flawed Science
To back up his claim that the Nazis used Auschwitz's gas chambers only to fumigate corpses, reputed Holocaust denier David Irving relied on research that experts maintain was flawed.


This is not bias, or error, this is an in your face hoax.

Agreed! Not only has Irving, or anyone, ever claimed that, he is NOT a reputed Holocaust "denier"! He at best could be called a semi-revisionist.

Look at another mislabelled picture here, this one from the BBC Longerich article:
Image
Caption: "Such friendships debase Aryans"

But it clearly does not say (through Google translate) Solche Freundschaften erniedrigen Arier or anything like that! The text is hard to read from here, but it certainly doesn't say that.

The Result.jpg
The Result.jpg (18.46 KiB) Viewed 2863 times

There a clearer version of the poster and the first words were "The Result!"

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby The Warden » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:58 pm)

I like the way this thread incorporates some other "Greatest Hits": viewtopic.php?f=2&t=232

I refuse to debate Lipstadt. I don't want to give her or her claims any publicity or worth. :cheers:
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

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

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Kingfisher » 7 years 11 months ago (Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:56 pm)

mkk wrote:Look at another mislabelled picture here, this one from the BBC Longerich article:
Image
Caption: "Such friendships debase Aryans"

A perfect example of what is sometimes called "presentism". Dislike of inter-racial friendships would have been the norm in the Thirties and for quite some time after the War too, especially - but not only - in the British and French colonies or the Southern USA.

Raymond
Member
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:56 pm

Re: BBC article on 'denial' by Lipstadt

Postby Raymond » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 21, 2011 3:24 pm)

The text reads "The result! Racial pride deteriorates."

This has little to no relevance to the Holocaust. As Kingfisher has pointed out, this type of imagery was common in all nations during the time period, especially in the US. Need we be reminded that the civil rights act was not until nearly 20 years after the end of WWII? Interracial marriage was not legal in the us until 1967! So to hold Nazi Germany on some sort of pederast of racial bigotry is to pretend the US didn't exist until the late 60s. It was Jesse Owens who said he was treated better in Nazi Germany than he ever had been in the US. Black POWS attest to being treated better in Nazi POW camps than back in the states. So this images is of little importance to the Holocaust.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests