http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2009/12/gu ... holocaust/
Reading it kind of gives you a picture of the whole, how do I put it... Dimension of the Holocaust that revisionists like us on Codoh find hard to remember; we just laugh at this survivor stories, the alleged victims, while everyone takes it deadly serious. This is a good example of how the Holocaust is used in schools as nothing more than anti-racist, pro multicultural propaganda. Read this passage:
Study of the Holocaust assists students
in developing an understanding of the
ramifications of prejudice, racism,
antisemitism, and stereotyping in any
society. It helps students develop an
awareness of the value of diversity in a
pluralistic society and encourages sensitivity
to the positions of minorities.
Just saying, but for every person supposedly killed by the Nazis, there's another killed by the egalitarianistic Soviets. Instead of allowing children to develop their own opinion on race, and the problem of multiculturalism and minorities, the Holocaust is shoved down their throats, implying that being racist (that is, acknowledging race exists and the fact the white race will be wiped out within our lifetimes if we do not stop or reverse immigration) and anti-multiculturalist will somehow lead to another Holocaust, which is ofcourse a ridiculous statement for obvious reasons.
And another gem of a reason for teaching the "Holocaust":
The Holocaust demonstrated how a
modern nation could utilize its technological
expertise and bureaucratic infrastructure to
implement destructive policies ranging from
social engineering to genocide
Lol, I suppose that's why the Germans supposedly used diesel engines and Zyklon B, both of which are certainly not to adept at killing, especially the former. It's also why, as related by Hoess, originally the Germans tried to despose of the corpses by explosive! I could go on.
There's a few other reasons aswell, again verging somewhat on propaganda usage. We then move on to "what to teach about the Holocaust". We are given a few definitions of the Holocaust. Nothing much to comment on, but as the article points out, there's a strange implication that WW2 was because of the "Holocaust". The passage is somewhat vague, but anyway. There is another definition aswell, taking onboard the "millions" also killed.
The Nazis enslaved and murdered millions of
others as well. Gypsies, people with physical
and mental disabilities, Poles, Soviet
prisoners of war, trade unionists, political
opponents, prisoners of conscience,
homosexuals, and others were killed in vast
Yawn... Okay, let's tackle these one by one.
-Gypsies: No evidence for the claimed 500,00-1 million victims, although some gypsies were interned. Many gypsies were also exempt from internment.
-"people with physical and mental disabilities" Euthanasia? In my opinion, calling Euthanasia murder is emotional language, just like calling abortion murder instead of termination. Personally, I don't think of it as murder, but rather mercy killing. Well, take that whatever way you want. The victims of Euthanasia number about 100,000.
-Poles: Polish Jews, yes. As for other Poles, yes there were some in the camp system but were they forcibly interned? I don't know.
-Soviet POW: Is is true many, many Soviet prisoners of war died, from what I've read about a million and a half never returned home, which is certainly a tragedy... BUT, not one caused purposely by the Germans. As is known, the Soviets employed a "scorched earth" strategy, which left huge areas of land and the civilian populations with pretty much nothing. The Germans spent quite a bit of money trying to reverse this problem, partly to help themselves but also to help the civilian population. What I'm saying is, the Soviet POW starved to death, but were not murdered.
Political opponents etc.: This is certainly true, but, ofcourse, no evidence they were murdered. They were interned in the camps in Germany, where until the war years conditions weren't too bad and the death rate was low. It can't be said ALL political opponents were interned; there were only a few thousand people in all the camps in the pre war years.
Homosexuals: Homosexuality was illegal as in many other countries, and in 1933-1945 about 50,000 homosexuals were convicted, of which about 10,000 ended up in the camps. Again, no evidence of murder.
After going through the basic facts about this "other victims", it is clear they were not "killed" in vast number, but rather, in some cases, died in vast numbers, in conditions the Germans did not want. Moving on, there is a simmiliar definition from Yad Vashem, with one clear judeo-centric passage:
The Jews were not the only
victims of Hitler's regime, but they were the
only group that the Nazis sought to destroy
Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, I
Then why didn't they deport, for example, all the French Jews? They easily could have. There were atleast 2.5 million Jews left in Europe in 1945- obviously the Nazis hadn't tried much in the way of extermination. There are then some guidelines on what exactely should be teached:
n Dictatorship in National Socialist Germany
n Jewry in the Third Reich
n Early stages of persecution
n The first concentration camps
n World response
n World War II in Europe
n Nazi racist ideologies and policies
n "Euthanasia" program
n Persecution and murder of Jews
n Persecution and murder of non-Jewish
n Jewish reactions to Nazi policies
n Mobile killing squads
n Expansion of the camp system
n Killing centers
n World response
n Death marches
n Postwar trials
Displaced persons camps and emigration
"Dictatorship in National Socialist Germany"... For the last time, it wasn't a dictatorship, it was fairly elected. I wonder if teacher's will mention the facts a) Persecution of Jews was quite light until 1941 b) The Jews of the world declared war on Germany in early 1933, this making the Jews enemy aliens and c) The Nazis worked closely with Zionists to get the Jews to leave Germany, because the later wanted the Jews to go to Palestine. I won't comment on the rest, but for whatever reason Euthanasia is placed in quotation marks, implying it wasn't real euthanasia.
We then get a few points on teaching the "Holocaust". Check out this passage:
Students should be aware that for many people the term 'Holocaust' is problematic. A holocaust
is a biblical sacrifice and, from a Christian theological standpoint, it turns the mass murder of the
Jews into a form of martyrdom. But there was nothing 'holy' about the Holocaust.
Tell that to the Jews.
should also be used with care. Speaking of the 'Final Solution' means taking up the killers'
But, it's still used in Holohoax media and literature, even if the meaning given to is wrong.
the word 'genocide' refers to the racial world conception of the Nazis.
Many prefer the
use of the Hebrew word 'Shoah' - meaning catastrophe - which is not loaded with religious
Create a positi
Ofcourse, it is, it's a Jewish word... The Jews and the media tend to use the word Shoah in a religious sense to me.
An exploration of the Holocaust which fails to challenge stereotypical views that all perpetrators
were mad or sadistic; that all rescuers were heroic, brave, good and kind;
But this is what happens. Hitler and co. are treated as pure evil, while the Jewish victims as saints and martyrs.
There are many myths about the Holocaust
You don't know the half of it...
It is in the letters, diaries, newspapers, and speeches, the works of art, orders and official
documents of the time that the perpetrators, victims, rescuers and bystanders reveal themselves
Letters; I've never seen any quoted to prove the Holocaust.
Diaries: Some of these go against the Holohoax, for example diaries relating to Western Jews in the East. (See the Graf/Mattogno Sobibor and Treblinka books)
Newspapers: Newspapers are always a good source of old Holocaust propaganda that has been thrown away over time.
Works of art: Like David Olere or whatever his name is? As has been shown by revisionists, those paintings are very exaggerated.
Orders and official documents: Need I say anything?
The guidelines then state much of the evidence for the Holocaust was created by the Nazis themselves... None that I can think of, weren't those pictures of piles of corpses taken by the allies? In any case, those deaths were from typhus etc. and so do not prove the "Holocaust".
Ofcourse, there is a passage on "Holocaust denial". I'm looking forward to confronting my history teacher on this. (We're at the end of WW1, so we've got the peace treaty, inter-war events, National Socialism, build up to war, WW2, and then the Holocaust will fit in somewhere. I'm predicting April or May. Stay tuned!) Anyway, the "Holocaust" is shown as what it is here: something not open to historical scrutiny.
or seek to disprove the deniers' position through normal
historical debate and rational argument.
There's also a section on trips to Holocaust Museums etc.