What exactly are we arguing about?

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
Älghuvud
Member
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:58 am

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Älghuvud » 7 years 11 months ago (Sun Nov 27, 2011 1:53 pm)

EtienneSC wrote:(...) Spielberg's 1978 Holocaust TV movie that moved his career on from 'ET call home'.


What 1978 movie? "E.T." is from 1982 and "Schindler's List" was released in 1993.
"They can't prove I wrote it." said the Knave, "There's no name at the end."
"That only makes the matter worse." said the King, "You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed like an honest man."

EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 509
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby EtienneSC » 7 years 11 months ago (Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:43 pm)

Älghuvud wrote:
EtienneSC wrote:(...) Spielberg's 1978 Holocaust TV movie that moved his career on from 'ET call home'.


What 1978 movie? "E.T." is from 1982 and "Schindler's List" was released in 1993.


I meant the Spielberg tv miniseries from 1978:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Px2Y12062g
and was getting confused with Spielberg's Close Enounters of the Third Kind movie from 1977:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMAob02R ... re=related
Apologies for my senior moment. I should have known I'd be pulled up for inaccuracy on this site of all sites.

User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Balsamo » 7 years 11 months ago (Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:53 pm)

Borjastick,

Actually your friend makes very good points, mostly the ones i intend to express when posting.

He said
Today he said that basically he doesn't understand what we are trying to achieve.


Well yes...good question, actually.
If it is only to prove that this very genocide has been subject to propaganda, you don't need to negate anything. There is a Holocaust industry indeed and no one i know denies it. But as your friend pointed out, as i did many times :

He also feels that us deniers, whilst we have an absolute right to question and dig around, are actually arguing in reality about the consquences of the holocaust, post war, post nuremburg, post Israel, post US support etc etc.


That is very true...there were no "anti-revisionism" laws right after the war. Israel in 1948 had no political support from the USA, and anti-Nurenberg opinions were published...No Holocaust memorials were on the agenda...face it, there were no Holocaust industry for decades after the war and free speech was still in place in most countries. Ex-Nazi leaders were all liberated in the 50's and 60's and could freely published their "Memoires"...No fuss...
Most attacks from Revisionist today are indeed targeting what did come out of the Holocaust industry...the so called "stoyline" which in fact is only what remains in the "General public's opinion"...
And as a matter of fact, general public's opinion about History is always inaccurate.

That when the decision was made by the nazis to press the button to kill jews, it matters not how many, or when the finger was released from the button. That whether they were shot, hanged, gassed is completely irrelevant. That the number be it 100,000 or 6,000,000 is of no consequence. A holocaust happened and we cannot deny it.


I could not agree more. It was stated, not only by Nazi leaders, but also in the media toward the very general public at that time.
Has anyone of you watched the " Ewige Jude" ? In which Jews as a people, no matter how they looked like, were just RATS that have to be exterminated.
It was shown in theater in Antwerp Belgium in 1942, a month or so before the start of the deportations, as propaganda...The result was a spontanious progrom on the Jews that killed 200 of them (by Flemish, not Gestapo)...denunciations reached record high...In France, it was even worse...Just have a look on the french papers between 1941 and 1943!

So yes, the revisionists can debate on the meaning of AUSROTTEN, but they should also provide what happened to the ROOTS that had been rooted out from all over occupied Europe!

So Yes, HE IS RIGHT when he says "no matter if it's 1.000.000 or 6.000.000, or whatever"...It all depends on what you are targeting when contesting the Holocaust : The post war industry or the historical event !
The first target is quite easy...The second is what Historians, revisionist or not, should focus on.

In this regard, his question "What are you arguing about" is very pertinent.

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

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Mkk » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:38 am)

Balsamo said:
and anti-Nurenberg opinions were published...

I don't know whether criticism about the conduct of the trials were published, which they may have been, but the first semi-revisionist book by some guy who called himself a fascist. He didn't deny the Holocaust as such though.

As for the rest of that part of the post, I agree. A few propaganda films showing dead bodies and vaguely mentioning millions dead and gas chambers were the order of the day, but the foundations for the Holocaust story as we know it today took shape with Hilberg's book. The fact that the Holocaust propoaganda hadn't taken shape is illustrated by the four million Auschwitz figure, testimonies by the like of Primo Levi and Ellie Wiesel which don't mention gas chambers, statements on the Reinhardt camps about a variety of different killing methods that are no longer believed etc.

Most attacks from Revisionist today are indeed targeting what did come out of the Holocaust industry...the so called "stoyline" which in fact is only what remains in the "General public's opinion"...

And the Historians opinion. Really, the parameters of the Holocaust are so vague... Revisionists just try to set the record straight.

And as a matter of fact, general public's opinion about History is always inaccurate.

Agreed again. I mean, your average person will believe there really was a Fuhrer order, that the Nazis had some ominous plan to take over the world etc...

I could not agree more. It was stated, not only by Nazi leaders, but also in the media toward the very general public at that time.

But you just said the media and general public opinion isn't reliable. :roll: As for the Nazi leaders, we have shown their testimony to be unreliable, and a few said they knew nothing about an extermination programme.

Has anyone of you watched the " Ewige Jude" ? In which Jews as a people, no matter how they looked like, were just RATS that have to be exterminated.
It was shown in theater in Antwerp Belgium in 1942, a month or so before the start of the deportations, as propaganda...The result was a spontanious progrom on the Jews that killed 200 of them (by Flemish, not Gestapo)...denunciations reached record high...In France, it was even worse...Just have a look on the french papers between 1941 and 1943!

"The eternal Jew"? No. I don't exactly see what point you're making here. Because propaganda says something that means it happened? I know you might argue they were trying to soften the population up to the murders, but let's be honest here, very, very few people would support the slaughter of millions, even if they didn't like them.

So yes, the revisionists can debate on the meaning of AUSROTTEN, but they should also provide what happened to the ROOTS that had been rooted out from all over occupied Europe!

We already have. See Mattogno/Graf's Treblinka and Sobibor books and also see "Evidence for the Presence of “Gassed” Jews in the Occupied Eastern Territories" here: http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/arch ... d_jews.php

Really Balsamo, are you familiar with revisionist arguments or books? Additionally, in his book Walter Sanning showed there was about a million missing Jews in Europe, of which a percentage are probably just unaccounted for, perhaps from Jews denouncing their religion, some died in Soviet hands and a number quite in line with the revisionist thesis died/were killed in German hands.

So Yes, HE IS RIGHT when he says "no matter if it's 1.000.000 or 6.000.000, or whatever"...It all depends on what you are targeting when contesting the Holocaust : The post war industry or the historical event !

The historical event, obviously? You will notice there isn't that many revisionist books about the propogation of the Holocaust propoaganda- but there are a ton of books dealing with first hand evidence, such as forensic studies, eyewitness testimony, archaeological diggings, documents etc.
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Hannover » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:22 pm)

Balsamo said:
Has anyone of you watched the " Ewige Jude" ? In which Jews as a people, no matter how they looked like, were just RATS that have to be exterminated.
It was shown in theater in Antwerp Belgium in 1942, a month or so before the start of the deportations, as propaganda...The result was a spontanious progrom on the Jews that killed 200 of them (by Flemish, not Gestapo)...denunciations reached record high...In France, it was even worse...Just have a look on the french papers between 1941 and 1943!

So yes, the revisionists can debate on the meaning of AUSROTTEN, but they should also provide what happened to the ROOTS that had been rooted out from all over occupied Europe!

So Yes, HE IS RIGHT when he says "no matter if it's 1.000.000 or 6.000.000, or whatever"...It all depends on what you are targeting when contesting the Holocaust : The post war industry or the historical event !
The first target is quite easy...The second is what Historians, revisionist or not, should focus on.

In this regard, his question "What are you arguing about" is very pertinent.

- And one can easiliy see movies from the period in the US where the 'Japs' are demonized, they were not gasssed, nor were the Jews.

- Please provide proof for your "spontanious progrom on the Jews that killed 200 of them".

- There is no credible 'debate' about the German word ausrotten, Revisionists have showed endlessly that it's use byGermans did not mean 'extermination'. If it did then there would be excavations of mass graves galore, the alleged 'gas chambers' would not defy laws of science, there would not be the multitudes of 'survivors' and so called 'eyewitnesses'. Recall this thread: Inconvenient History, Goebbels on the Jews - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6732

- And sorry, but the numbers do matter as I have stated, just ask a 'holocaust scholar'. I've noticed you haven't responded to my points in that regard. I realize that for good reasons many are eager to avoide debate on specifics, hence they waffle and say the numbers don't matter, or in religious like fashion they simply proclaimed 'it happened' without ever proving what they wish did happen. Definitely a case for psychological investigation.

- While there are huge profits made by the shysters within 'holcaust' Industry after the alleged 'fact'; and yes it's always important to follow the money when realizing why the impossible storyline is perpetuated and who benefits, Revisionist have and will contunue to expose the fraudulent claims of "the historical event". To claim that Revisionist have not concentrated on that aspect is to ignore the many, many scholarly works that Revisionists have published and the overall content of CODOH, this forum, and the many other Revisionist websites which continuously debunk the specifics within the absurdly claimed "historical event".

- Balsamo, you seem to want to discuss vague generalities rather than specifics of "the historical event" which you have faith in, much like the man who is the center of attention in this thread. It seems to me this indicates an inability on his and your part to prove what you want to be true.

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

User avatar
rerevisionist
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:01 am
Contact:

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby rerevisionist » 7 years 11 months ago (Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:32 pm)

Jeffersonian-
Holocaust denial is ultimately about understanding the full role of the Jew in Western history.

Absolutely spot on.

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

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Mkk » 7 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:05 am)

Excellent points, Hannover.

And one can easiliy see movies from the period in the US where the 'Japs' are demonized, they were not gasssed, nor were the Jews.

Demonizing the enemy is a common tactic in warfare, just look at all that anti-German propaganda in WW1 (which, ofcourse, even teachers will point out was fabricated)... Propaganda, no matter how hateful, proves nothing about actual history.

Please provide proof for your "spontanious progrom on the Jews that killed 200 of them".

Oh, this. Surely we would have heard of this event, considering the death toll here is higher than the "Kristallnacht".
- And sorry, but the numbers do matter as I have stated, just ask a 'holocaust scholar'. I've noticed you haven't responded to my points in that regard. I realize that for good reasons many are eager to avoide debate on specifics, hence they waffle and say the numbers don't matter, or in religious like fashion they simply proclaimed 'it happened' without ever proving what they wish did happen. Definitely a case for psychological investigation.

This is more hypocrisy from the believers. They will defend the 6 million Holocaust- but then, when they realise they can't anymore, will turn around and say the number doesn't matter. It has to be one or the other. Anyway, saying specifics don't matter is the opposite of a scientific approach.

Imagine if someone turned up and said the number of victims of, say, the war in Iraq or the attacks of 9/11 or the situation in Palestine/Israel don't matter. They'd be laughed out of the room. But with the Holocaust, anything goes...
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

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

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Mkk » 7 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:40 am)

rerevisionist wrote:
Jeffersonian-
Holocaust denial is ultimately about understanding the full role of the Jew in Western history.

Absolutely spot on.

I have to disagree. It is perfectly possible to see the Jewish control over many parts of the west, whether it is "anti-semetic" to see it or not. Ofcourse, the Holocaust is sometimes used to delegitimize ANY criticism of anything organized Jewry has ever done, including the noticeable Jewish support for Communism, the questionable policies of Israel, control of the media etc. But whether the Holocaust happened or not has no objective impact on the facts about the things I mentioned earlier. I'd like to see revisionism away from political-ideological considerations.
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Hannover » 7 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:44 pm)

This from CODOH's AnswerMan. He replies to someone who raises similar issues as the man whose vague views are the center of debate in this thread.

- Hannover

http://www.codoh.com/answer/ansplan.html

Is it meaningful to question a state-sponsored extermination plan?

Dear AnswerMan,

I am trying to understand the Revisionist stand. In my opinion, the point is Nazis kill millions of people. That really happened! So, how they killed those people and what ways they used to kill them, seem not important.(That is just my opinion.) 60,0000 to 1 million is also a huge number, isn't it? As a result, is it really meaningful to identify whether it is a state sponsored extermination plan or not?

Karen

AnswerMan Replies:

To understand the revisionist position with regard to the Holocaust, one needs to understand historical revisionism more generally.

The first revisionists were aptly named, as they sought to revise the harshest elements of the Treaty of Versailles (following World War One) and specifically the German sole war-guilt clause. Although it was understood that the principle objective of the earliest generation of revisionists was to establish historical facts about the origins and methods of World War One, it was also believed that with such understanding future wars could be prevented. The revisionists believed that the popular acceptance of the true causes of the horrible conflict that came to be known as ‘The Great War’ would generate a public reluctance to be lied into a subsequent conflict. The revisionist movement was, and is a peace movement.

By the 1930's the revisionists believed that they had won the intellectual war for historical accuracy. Such a judgment, proved to be premature however. Although many revisionists were drawn to and otherwise supported anti-interventionist groups in the years leading up to Pearl Harbor, the events of that day virtually eliminated any popular acceptance of revisionism.

Before the 1940’s would come to an end, revisionists began to challenge various aspects of the origins and conduct of the Allies in the second great conflict of a generation. Many authors wrote scholarly volumes that shattered popular myths of wartime developed propaganda.

By the 1950’s Harry Elmer Barnes, a revisionist of World War One came to be the epicenter of a new generation of revisionists who sought to get a proper understanding of the British role in the events of September 1939 and to establish whether Franklin Roosevelt lied in order to get the United States into the Second World War through the “back door” at Pearl Harbor. The revisionists were fearful of the treatment of enemy combatants in war crimes trials for the moral of the day appeared to be no greater than “might makes right” and that the great crime of any modern conflict was now to be on the losing side. The revisionists were also fearful of the new terrible weapons that were part of the world’s arsenals including the nuclear bomb. It was thought that a third world conflict would result in mutual annihilation of both sides.

Despite the depth of historical research and the number of volumes which were written in the 1950s, the revisionists of the Second World War found that popular acceptance of their theories was going to be far more difficult than in the years following World War One. In what Barnes would call the ‘historical blackout’ publishers would simply reject revisionist writings. The liberal and left-wing magazines which led the charge in the 1920’s wanted nothing to do with an accurate portrayal of the Fascist, Communist or National Socialist regimes.

Barnes developed the term “historical smotherout” to explain the technique and strategy to prevent revisionist writing from gaining mass acceptance. Identifying its origins at the Eichmann trial of 1961, Barnes described the smotherout strategy “the fundamental aim has now become to emphasize the allegation that Hitler and the national socialist leaders were such vile, debased, brutal, and bloodthirsty gangsters that Great Britain had an overwhelming moral obligation to plan a war to exterminate them, and the United States was compelled to enter this conflict to aid and abet this British crusade because of a moral imperative that could not be evaded to engage in a campaign of political, social, and cultural sanitation.”

Barnes argued that revisionist theories were smothered by a campaign of unceasing inflammatory exaggerations of Nazi savagery. In light of the incessant tales of the murder of six million Jews and the use of terrible weapons of mass destruction including gas chambers that killed by the thousands in a matter of minutes, some might even say seconds, the details of backroom politics and diplomatic failures were hardly the things that would fire the public’s imagination.

Barnes recognized that revisionism faced its greatest challenge from the overwhelming smotherout of atrocity tales and what would eventually come to be known as the Holocaust story. The Holocaust story over the past 50 years has developed into mythical proportions and is defended by an entire industry that has developed around it as well as a legal system which persecutes those who question any aspect of what has come to be the “official” account.

Barnes properly identified the Holocaust story as the true barrier to the acceptance of revisionist arguments and thereby the true barrier to peace, security and prosperity among nations. The specter of the Holocaust is marched out to justify every modern military intervention. The media and the government depict our ‘enemies’ as modern day Hitlers intent on committing genocide and planning to use their secretive arsenals of weapons of mass destruction.

Cutting through the exaggerations, lies and propaganda of the Holocaust story has to be the starting ground for any contemporary revisionist. Despite persecution and insults, revisionists understand that the myths of the Holocaust have smothered out a proper and accurate understanding of the Second World War.

Far from attempting to rehabilitate any totalitarian regime, revisionists seek to emerge in a society that is freer than the one we live in today. Revisionists seek to reveal the facts in an effort to avoid foreign wars and interventionist crusades that leave tens of thousands or more dead.

With regard to the specific question, although the Nazis killed millions of people, the Allies too killed millions of people. Revisionists believe that the death toll of Jews largely resulted from conditions within the camps and mostly from the disease Typhus which the Nazis attempted to fight.

Had the Pacific War come to US soil, the American infrastructure been bombed, supply lines in the US broken, how would the Japanese housed in "relocation" camps have fared?

I believe that it is hateful and prejudiced to charge a people with a crime that they did not commit. The Germans did not attempt to kill all of the Jews of Europe. They did intend to deport them and did not believe that they could peacefully co-exist. The false charges including making Jews into bars of soap and killing them in large gas chambers are a false indictment of the German people.

Take one example -- the concentration camp at Majdanek. It was alleged that the Germans killed two million Jews with gas chambers at this camp. Today, the director of the camp says that no more than 58,000 Jews died there mostly from disease.

That is a matter of setting the historical record correct. The German scientist and author Germar Rudolf published a book in which he determined that 40,000 Jews died at that camp. For this statement he served a 5 year prison sentence in Germany.

The Holocaust mythology renders it unnecessary for the Allies to consider their own atrocities. It is used to blur a proper understanding of the firebombings of Dresden and other German cities as well as the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even the most horrific war crimes become justified in light of the Holocaust mythology.

Consider the treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israelis. This too is justified because of the stories of the Holocaust.

The Holocaust has become a barrier to peace and understanding as well as a justification for military interventionism around the world.

Only the freedom to explore this subject objectively can change the system of perpetual wars which have been established by the West's democracies.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
rerevisionist
Member
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:01 am
Contact:

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby rerevisionist » 7 years 11 months ago (Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:33 pm)

Mkk wrote:
rerevisionist wrote:
Jeffersonian-
Holocaust denial is ultimately about understanding the full role of the Jew in Western history.

Absolutely spot on.

I have to disagree. It is perfectly possible to see the Jewish control over many parts of the west, whether it is "anti-semetic" to see it or not. Ofcourse, the Holocaust is sometimes used to delegitimize ANY criticism of anything organized Jewry has ever done, including the noticeable Jewish support for Communism, the questionable policies of Israel, control of the media etc. But whether the Holocaust happened or not has no objective impact on the facts about the things I mentioned earlier. I'd like to see revisionism away from political-ideological considerations.

Mkk, the word is 'anti-semitic'. It's derived very simply from the word 'Semite'. If you don't even understand that, I have to wonder about everything else you say.

It's true there are issues, such as mass extermination of Russians under Jewish control, and control of paper money, and encouragement of immigration into white countries, that are not mass media concerns - or not yet. This may change, and personally I hope it does, and soon. But I take it 'Jeffersonian' intended to imply that, for the present, the 'Holocaust' is the focal point of intellectual activity in this revisionist field. I agree with that, and presumably most of the serious posters here do, too. The other issues remain in the wings, but very definitely awaiting their turns. So in that sense 'Holocaust denial' is indeed ultimately about understanding the full role of the Jew in Western history.

User avatar
jeffersonian
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2011 2:19 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby jeffersonian » 7 years 11 months ago (Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:42 am)

Mkk: ...whether the Holocaust happened or not has no objective impact on the facts about the things I mentioned earlier. I'd like to see revisionism away from political-ideological considerations.


Two sides of the same coin go against what you've said here. If the Holocaust didn't happen, then widespread belief in it illustrates the very problem of Jewish influence, and our need to curtail it. Meanwhile, Holocaust belief furthers Jewish influence.

The science of evaluating the historical claims of the Holocaust is separate from political and social topics. Whether it's gas residue not being found on walls, or water tables not being mentioned in pit-digging testimony, or what-have-you, matters of fact are at issue.

Other areas of history, not to mention current events, are similarly distorted where the Jews are concerned. Toppling the Holocaust will be extremely valuable for our self-understanding and for our future.

The lead post related to convincing someone to consider revisionism important. Is it just a matter of degrees? The answer is that not only are the facts against the specific claims of the Holocaust, but Germany was trying to be free of pernicious Jewish influence, and, was justified in the attempt. Each people should be able to chart its own course, and the Jews interfere with that, by manipulating everything about a society. Revisionism is a pathway to clarify our vision of ourselves and of those who try to interfere with us. And that's why they fear it.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2514
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby borjastick » 7 years 11 months ago (Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:37 am)

There is no doubt about it we are all able to present some intelligent and entertaining debate on CODOH. I had no idea my thread/question would give light to such quality. I have learned alot and I thank all those who have posted replies. To my mind historical accuracy matters, if we are now able to review say, the 9/11 attacks and question elements of them, then so should we be able to do the same for the holocaust.

It is clear that if we said that the twin towers attack yielded 25,000 dead we would be villified. As such then we are not only obligated (in my opinion) to question what happened and how many died in the holocaust, but look at the social unrest and social movement in the thirties that led to the German anti semitic position. Don't forget that the German jewish community 'declared war' on Germany in the pre war period. Also the much overlooked skirmishes and slaughter of jewish/communist fighters and German soldiers in the first few days of the war. This was when the germans wanted to reunite and connect the german population in what was formerly germany, but taken off them in the Versailles Treaty. These deaths hardened attitudes towards jews, which ultimately did them no good.

I also believe that as the 'winners' we definitely wrote history to cover our own sins. If it was wrong for germans to kill jews in their own country it was equally wrong of us to deliberately bomg civilian populations in Dresden, for example. Just because we won doesn't legitimise the crime, except that it does! It does simply because we won and are in charge of the legal and PR state afterwards. The biggest action of all in this regard was of course the US atom bombing Japan. A hideous crime by any measure but no one really talks about it or seems to want legal restitution against the US.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

leemadison11
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 8:15 am

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby leemadison11 » 7 years 11 months ago (Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:34 am)

It really doesn't concern me about the number of Jews that were killed, but what concerns me is the amount of barbaric treatment through which many had to go through.

User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Balsamo » 7 years 11 months ago (Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:09 am)

Balsamo wrote

The result was a spontanious progrom on the Jews that killed 200 of them (by Flemish, not Gestapo)


I should have wrote a possessed Balsamo, and obviously out of his mind :drunken: ( and certainly tired), wrote :

Of course, this riot did not kill 200 Jews ! there were 200 victims for sure...

Actually, after the projection of the "Ewige Jude" in Antwerp, the 14th of April 1941 some flamishs rushed to the Jew's quarter, break into jewish shops, appartment, destroying everything, beating up people and put 2 synagogues on fire...One should note that the Germans had nothing to do with it...It is famous in Belgium as it is/was without precedent in that country...My point was to show the influence of such a direct propaganda on some public's mind...

User avatar
Älghuvud
Member
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:58 am

Re: What exactly are we arguing about?

Postby Älghuvud » 7 years 11 months ago (Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:33 am)

EtienneSC wrote:I meant the Spielberg tv miniseries from 1978


Spielberg had nothing to do with this one.
"They can't prove I wrote it." said the Knave, "There's no name at the end."
"That only makes the matter worse." said the King, "You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed like an honest man."


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests