Question: What does the "truth" really change?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!

Question: What does the "truth" really change?

Postby twoguard » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:04 am)

Besides people being more aware and the luxuries the Jews get from the holocau$t, what real difference does the truth make? Makes Nazism acceptable?

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10120
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:23 pm)

twoguard wrote:... what real difference does the truth make? Makes Nazism acceptable?

Are you joking? The truth matters because knowing the facts matters.
Why should anyone accept having lies crammed down their throat and then have their taxes used for profit by the liars?
Why should someone's children be forced to hear absurd ghoulish lies?
Why should anyone accept that people were imprisoned and executed for acts that they did not commit?
Does it make NS more acceptable? I don't know, don't care. Of course there is the NS with the laughable '6m & gas chambers' and there's the NS without the laughable '6m & gas chambers'.
Let the chips fall where they may, ultimately truth is it's own reward.

Want to debate the '6m & gas chambers'? Bring it.

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


Postby twoguard » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:46 pm)

lol no I think only 300,000 were killed, 1 million tops (jews and other peoples).

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:50 pm

Postby theTRUTH » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:48 pm)

Since the early 1960’s, when holocaust media promotion began, young German people around the world have been vilified and abused, and since 1994 Germans can't even defend themselves against the lies. Exposing them will remove this burden from German's backs. The only ones who say the exposed lies will make National Socialism more acceptable are those who benefit from the lies and want them to continue.
"Israel must invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the methods of provocation..." Moshe Sharett, Israeli's Foreign Minister ('48-'54), & Prime Minister ('54-'56).

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:24 pm

Postby kk » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:57 pm)

and the luxuries the Jews get from the holocau$t

They don't just get "luxuries".
They get complete immunity for their crimes in Palestine.
They've got world's most powerfull nation to fight illegal wars of
aggression* for them.
And now they are trying to provoke WW3 by attacking Iran.
Do you think that all of this would have been possible without the
intellectual terror and the collective guilt they imposed on us through
the holocaust hoax?

And if someone is using revisionism to exhonerate the Nazis, I wouldn't
care less. Only the facts count.

* People got hung for this in Nuremberg.

User avatar
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:34 pm)

twoguard wrote:Besides people being more aware and the luxuries the Jews get from the holocau$t, what real difference does the truth make? Makes Nazism acceptable?

Absolutely: YES!
If you strip the lies from the Nazis, ... well - then they are the good guys.

Just compare them with democracies (e.g. USA killed 20 M natives and robbed their land; had 15 M slaves while some tens of million were murdered before they reached the ramp in Neuf Orleans)

Or with the monarchies (e.g. UK conquered the world and killed more than 600.000 civilians during strategic bombings)

Or with communism (e.g. USSR, killed about 66 M own people, 10 M Ukrainians 1930/31)

So right: without lies absolutely acceptable.
"Everything has already been said, but not yet by everyone." - Karl Valentin

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 11:02 am

Postby Inquisitive » 1 decade 2 years ago (Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:26 am)

What difference does it make!?! There are generations of Germans that hang there heads because of what they think happened. I have relatives that believe the story line completely and will not listen. On the other hand there was my aunt who said it most simplistically in her typical get to the point style. She stated when I was about 8. "AND it didn't happen.....TOO many survivors.." Simple and true. Gotta love the Germans. :D

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:29 am)

twoguard wrote:[...] Makes Nazism acceptable?

Of course not, unless you believe in totalitarian single party government, unscientific racism and censorship, rather than freedom of political organisation and individual liberty. You should not confuse political ideology with the quest for historical truth. And, by the way, the fact that Hitler and his bunch are innocent of the crazy «Holocaust» charges doesn't mean they're not entitled to a nice place of their own in the 20th century gallery of world-class war criminals, much like Stalin, Churchill, Truman or Roosevelt (among others).

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:53 am)

Let's have another go, Twoguard.

Do you want to know what the truth may well change, in a practical sense? It may change the perception of War from a virtuous endeavor to the pure evil it is, and it may help to bring the cardinal sin of totalitarian propaganda under the light of reason.

User avatar
Posts: 1732
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:34 pm)

Let's stay on topic. I've deleted some posts, sorry.
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Postby ASMarques » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:09 pm)

Moderator wrote:Posters:
Let's stay on topic. I've deleted some posts, sorry.

I believe any possible implications of "Holocaust" revisionism to our own times, including the perception of Hitler's politics and the German NSDAP role in the abysmal history of the past century, should not be irrelevant topics to this forum. I have no problem at all with the very simple fact that some revisionist posters are Hitler & NSDAP fans, while some others -- myself included -- are utterly opposed to political dictatorship, or rule-by-savior, or whatever one may prefer to call that sort of thing. Our only hope is to learn with the past. Certainly, having natural enemies at each other's figurative throats through the exchange of ideas and civil discourse should be much better than this embarrassing practice of silencing one side - or both -- of the obvious political rift...

The same tends to happen when the religious angles of the "Holocaust" get compared with the absurdities of instituted religions. I think the enlargement of the usual discussions on the nuts and bolts of revisionism to its implications on the political and religious spheres would not only enrich this forum, but might even contribute to build some bridges to reasonable people of independent or contrarian mind-frames, such as militant atheists, pacifists, antiwar libertarians, ethical reformers etc., many of them active in ways similarly skeptical vis-à-vis the received pseudo-wisdom, but ignorant of, or unconcerned with, the "Holocaust" mythology and its paradoxical influence on the current perception of war as a justifiable activity.

But, of course, you'll do as you wish. I saw two posts you deleted (none of them mine) and I think they were quite reasonable and entitled to replies (short ones, alas, because right now my time is limited). I sympathize with the moderator's burden and I know his role is an important one, but so is the trouble posters in good-will (not including the idiotic name-callers, of course) go to in order to contribute their views. Therefore, if you don't like my short answer to the deleted posts I quote below, feel free to delete it, as I will feel free to stop posting, because, to be frank, and until some major development happens, there is not much remaining to be said on the "nuts and bolts topics" without falling in a sort of tedious monologue.

No problem or hard feelings either way. Thanks.


Reply to the (quoted) post by Heydrich:

You are accusing Hitler as being a world-class war criminal. I know that is off topic, but you brought it up. Do you have any proof for your accusations ?

Sure. In my book, unleashing war through an armed attack on a foreign country is a war crime, maybe the worst of all from a responsible government viewpoint, since it functions as the real prime mover for the usual succession of man-made disasters. He did it repeatedly (as indeed his Allied world-class criminal counterparts did too), say on Poland and Yugoslavia, among others. No more is needed. If my expression "world-class" is what you object to, I'll readily change it to "continent-class." I hope you'll agree.

By the way, you may think this is not relevant at all, but I remind you that Hitler had no objection to war for national aggrandizement. Quite visible in his attitude to the mother of all European warlike catastrophes, the Great War of 1914-18, a true key to understand the moral misery of the 20th century.

I hope you do not call the Nuremberg kangaroo trial as proof for anything, as for instance the Germans were convicted there for the Katyn massacre, which in fact has been committed by the Russians.

The Nuremberg IMT was indeed a kangaroo court, but you're wrong on any "Katyn convictions." During the IMT trials, the Allies did hide the true responsibility for the massacres under the rug, but the only convictions (of innocent men, of course) were by Soviet courts, before the IMT had even been convened.

There are no war crimes Hitler or the Wehrmacht can be accused of,

If you really believe that sort of absolutist claim, I don't think anything I may say will ever convince you of the contrary, so I'll let my case rest on the self-evident absurdity of your making.


Reply to the (quoted) post by Matt:

I would imagine Winston Churchill was guilty of more war crimes than the Germans were.

I absolutely agree. Here are some more propositions I would also agree with:

"Adolf Hitler was guilty of more war crimes than the British were."

"Winston Churchill was guilty of more war crimes than Adolf Hitler was."

"As a matter of fact, 'the British' as a whole and 'the Germans' as a whole were not guilty of any war crimes; the individuals who committed them were; and so was, if you really dig abstractions, the Zeitgeist created in large measure by a few individuals of varied backgrounds and nationalities with enormous power on their hands."

Interesting pastime, this game of "More," but does it really lead anywhere?...

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:27 am

Postby KostasL » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:48 pm)

twoguard wrote:Besides people being more aware and the luxuries the Jews get from the holocau$t, what real difference does the truth make? Makes Nazism acceptable?

Truth and justice matters.

Freedom matters, too.

Just imagine yourself being denied the above. :(

This is your answer. :wink:

User avatar
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 11:54 pm
Location: New Zealand

Postby Kiwichap » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:16 am)

What does the "truth" really change?

The TRUTH changes everything. John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Nobody in Germany is free. Folk in the USA are under intimidation. The dark cloud floats overhead everywhere.

There are only two choices; freedom... or not', and TRUTH is the necessary part.
There was no holocaust.

Tit 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Postby neugierig » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:17 pm)

“[…]but I remind you that Hitler had no objection to war for national aggrandizement[…]”

Wrong. It is true that Hitler talked of Lebensraum, trying to avoid the consequences of another murderous British blockade, but one needs to start at the beginning.

At Versailles, the Allies agreed to disarm, Art. 19 of the “Peace Treaty of Versailles” states, in part:

“The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations[…]”

Germany's army consisted of 100 000 lightly armed troops, all other nations had retained their arms and added to the arsenal. I have most of the numbers, i.e., what all was aimed at Germany on troops and weaponry following WWI. Hitler offered, on May 17. 1933, to further disarm, in fact disarm totally if the others did likewise. This offer was repeated a number of times, but the Allies, having no intentions to disarm, quite the contrary, kept stalling. We have no way of knowing what would have happened if the Allies would have disarmed. Hitler finally did what any statesman, responsible for the security of his country and aware of the weapons aimed at his country, would have done and ordered on March 16. 1935 that Germany should re-arm. March 1935!!!

The Versailles Diktat was concocted to insure that what had been attempted in WWI, solving “The German Problem”, could eventually be achieved. George F. Kennan, in his “Russia and the West under Lenin and Stalin” mentions “The German Problem” several times in the first 10 pages. This “German Problem” arose, in the view of Albion but not only, when Bismarck succeeded in uniting Germany. During WWI Germans were bedeviled in an effort to shame them into place. That strategy worked, for a while, but the compliant Weimar Republik was not suited for solving once and for all “The German Problem”. Finally, Hitler emerged and he stepped into the carefully laid trap. Following WWII, all sorts of lies about German atrocities were spread, again, and this so-called Holocaust invented. All in an effort to make the Germans believe that Hitler was a criminal and thus, solve “The German Problem” by making German accept their "guilt". And so far it has worked to perfection, Germans get upset when someone suggest that their ancestors were not the worst criminals, ever. Poland?? Please, Mr. Marques!!!

Armes Deutschland.


Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:26 am

Postby Heydrich » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:14 pm)

@ ASMarques

You obviously do not know the preliminary events leading to Hitler's self defence actions towards Poland. I'll just name a few, because when my posts are deleted again, it's not worth my time and effort:

- In August of 1939 Poland battle ships attacked civilian Lufthansa passenger planes on their way from Danzig to the Reich at several occasions.

- The German minority living in Poland was harassed, brutaly oppressed and stripped of any civil right in the years up to 1939, culminating in bloody and deadly progroms against the Germans.

- Poland mobilized his army before the Germans did and talked about capturing Berlin within 3 days.

- Poland openly talked about war against Germany in the spring of 1939, way before Hitler even mentioned the word war.

If you know the German language, I suggest you read "1939 - Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte . Der lange Anlauf zum Zweiten Weltkrieg"
written by Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests