Holocaust Denial.

[EGarrett]

How does this work? What mechanism do they use to explain the videos of the dead bodies and what reason do they give for Jewish people wanting to fake the Holocaust?

[Anti-sophist]

Mostly as a pretext to the creation of Israel, which is the next step in the plan of the NWO and banking overlords to control the world.

Most think it was "overstated" and only a few thousand died, which explains all the videos and pictoral evidence.

[Oliver]

How does this work? What mechanism do they use to explain the videos of the dead bodies and what reason do they give for Jewish people wanting to fake the Holocaust?

They just ignore the facts. Even some germans do so because they can not accept that their Gov did so. And others just hate Jews or want to push their political agendas.

[Bell]

Holocaust deniers make me ***** sick! :mad:
These people must be the lowest of the lowest of lifeforms.
Oliver, are the neo-nazi's in (Eastern mostly?) Germany also deniers? Or just 'plain' ignorant facists?

[Dazed]

I've done some research on this. While I don't support holocaust denial, here are a few of the arguments from those who do.

1) The smokestacks at auschwitz, which were apparently part of the ovens where they burned jews to death, were added after the war ended.

2) The Zyklon B gas which was used to kill jews in the 'gas showers' was actually used to delouse their clothing to keep the population of the camps healthy

3) Several propoganda images showing dead jews have been obviously doctored.

4) Census of the world jew population from before and after the war shows a definite increase in Jews worldwide, which one might not expect if 6 million of them were killed in between the census.

5) The concentration camps did not have adequate supply of fuel to burn as many bodies as is claimed.

6) They weren't all jews. I've heard the claim that the occupants of the camps consisted of more or less equal parts of criminals, hobos, jews, gays, blacks, etc.

As for why they would want to fake the holocaust, the prevailing theory among deniers is that it creates an atmosphere of victimization, eg, sympathy and pity, that the jews could exploit to get their way.

Please don't call me a denier just because I've read this stuff. I'm just trying to answer the question.

[Oliver]

Holocaust deniers make me ***** sick! :mad:
These people must be the lowest of the lowest of lifeforms.
Oliver, are the neo-nazi's in (Eastern mostly?) Germany also deniers? Or just 'plain' ignorant facists?

Some are extremists - but most of them are stupid kids like the ones in the "9/11-denial-movement". Thanks god we fight them very hard so they don´t have a big voice here.

[EGarrett]

Dazed, I don't think you should worry about that. I read a lot about famous historical mistakes...simply to see what led people to go so wrong.

Amongst the sea of evil that fascism created, there was originally a droplet of a good idea...which leads to things like the office of the President and the electoral college.

[DoubtingStephen]

My father was in the US Army in Europe during WWII, and was the official photographer for his platoon or regiment or some such group.

When I was a young child I discovered a shoebox in my parent's closet. In that box there were literally hundreds of photographs that would make your skin crawl. I saw human bodies stacked 8 or 10 high in which every single rib was clearly visible. The skin on their faces was drawn tight across the cheekbones. You could clearly see that each arm and leg had two bones in the lower half. It was evident that the femur is a very large bone.

As I say, there were hundreds of these photos. My sister says that our father took these photos at Dachau. I know for damn sure that none of them was faked. I certainly do not know the ethnicity or the sexual orientation of these brutally murdered people, but I do have a clear image of the kinds of things human beings will do for the glory of Church and State.

I do not believe that what happened in Nazi Germany was a vast departure from the misdeeds of other campaigns of organized violence conducted in the name of Holy Causes. But I did learn at a very young age that it is very important to be careful about which ideas you let get inside your head.

I wish I was in possession of these photos so that I could pass them along to an appropriate organization that would preserve them for historical reference.

[Pardalis]

but I do have a clear image of the kinds of things human beings will do for the glory of Church and State.

I do not believe that what happened in Nazi Germany was a vast departure from the misdeeds of other campaigns of organized violence conducted in the name of Holy Causes. But I did learn at a very young age that it is very important to be careful about which ideas you let get inside your head.


The Nazis were not driven by religious beliefs.

[Dazed]

Let me just clarify something.
I was referring to a specific doctored photo.

You may have seen it. It showed a group of prisoners, and in the background, smoke billowing from a chimney. In the original photo, there was no smoke coming from the chimney, so it was edited. Here's the 'reason' for it.

"IN ORDER to reconcile the wartime 1944 photograph with the postwar "eye-witness testimony" of smoke billowing from Crematorium building chimneys, the historians and scholars of the Simon Wiesenthal Center have helpfully inserted smoke into the photograph, thereby avoiding injurious puzzlement among school children and other innocent visitors to its Website who might otherwise fall foul of the lies of the Revisionists."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html

While I don't deny the holocaust, I think its inappropriate to edit the historical documents to make it seem like it was 'more-holocausty' then it really was.

Essentially, this organization said, "We know the holocaust happened, but it doesn't really look like it in this picture, so lets add some burning jews so the children wont get confused."

[Bell]

Let me just clarify something.
I was referring to a specific doctored photo.

You may have seen it. It showed a group of prisoners, and in the background, smoke billowing from a chimney. In the original photo, there was no smoke coming from the chimney, so it was edited. Here's the 'reason' for it.

"IN ORDER to reconcile the wartime 1944 photograph with the postwar "eye-witness testimony" of smoke billowing from Crematorium building chimneys, the historians and scholars of the Simon Wiesenthal Center have helpfully inserted smoke into the photograph, thereby avoiding injurious puzzlement among school children and other innocent visitors to its Website who might otherwise fall foul of the lies of the Revisionists."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html

While I don't deny the holocaust, I think its inappropriate to edit the historical documents to make it seem like it was 'more-holocausty' then it really was.

Essentially, this organization said, "We know the holocaust happened, but it doesn't really look like it in this picture, so lets add some burning jews so the children wont get confused."

It could very well be that the smoke was in the picture on the negative, but due to the big contrast of the dark forground and light background, it doesn't show up under normal printing conditions. You could get these details to show when you 'burn' parts of the picture that are overexposed.

[Pardalis]

I don't think anyone would need to alter any photos to prove the Holocaust happened, there are plenty of evidence.

I think this is a case of Deniers cherry-picking details to validate their lies.

[Dazed]

Me too.

Garret, however, asked by what mechanism people are enabled to deny the holocaust, and it's examples like these that help to demonstrate that, I think.

[StoneWT]

4) Census of the world jew population from before and after the war shows a definite increase in Jews worldwide, which one might not expect if 6 million of them were killed in between the census.

The assumption with this 'fact' is that the census jews were adults. If millions of your people were slaughtered, would there be an incentive to have lots of babies? A former revisionist changed his mind when he reexamined a passage concerning the number of people able to fit inside a particular gas chamber. Using so many square feet per person, revisionists crowed that the numbers given were ludicrous. The reformed revisionist reread the passage and noticed that children were included. Instead 'X'-feet per person, part of the equation would have consisted of .5'X'-feet.

5) The concentration camps did not have adequate supply of fuel to burn as many bodies as is claimed.

Shermer and/or Deborah Lipstadt mentioned that this would be true IF you were constantly starting/stopping the fire for each body. However, continuously running the ovens would actually require far less.

As for why they would want to fake the holocaust, the prevailing theory among deniers is that it creates an atmosphere of victimization, eg, sympathy and pity, that the jews could exploit to get their way.

The revisionists confuse arguable exploitation (see Professor Finkelstein (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/14/1518230)) of the Holocaust with the Holocaust having been 'faked'. Mike Rivero of WRH (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/) commits this fallacy on an almost weekly basis.

While there is an ideological basis for many Deniers, there is also a substantial body of people that are simply misinformed CTers.

[bjb]

There's a pretty good analysis of Holocaust denial in Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Wierd Things". If you're going to play with the 9/11 deniers, it would be a good idea to read this book. Unsurprisingly enough, the mechanisms used by Holocause deniers are the same as those used by the 9/11 deniers.

[Oliver]

There's a pretty good analysis of Holocaust denial in Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Wierd Things". If you're going to play with the 9/11 deniers, it would be a good idea to read this book. Unsurprisingly enough, the mechanisms used by Holocause deniers are the same as those used by the 9/11 deniers.

What mechanism is that? (I see more then one mechanism...)

[Dave1001]

How does this work? What mechanism do they use to explain the videos of the dead bodies and what reason do they give for Jewish people wanting to fake the Holocaust?

Well, I think few people can deny a reasonable motivation in faking the Holocaust: it does provide a sense of moral highground and give moral cover and purported justification for the state of Israel. Also, it conveniently paints the victors of World War II and later the Cold War (the anglosphere) as liberating good guys. So the Holocaust narrative has a victors-write-the-history flavor to it.

But that doesn't mean the Holocaust didn't happen. I started a thread here shortly after I joined questioning elements of the Holocaust narrative. I was convinced by the replies that the Holocaust overall is as proven a historical event as any other. If it has been falsfied, the conspiracy of even non-jewish, non-anglo historians is massive, and they manage to create a supporting narrative to dense and internally consistent for an amateur historian like myself to crack

In short, I don't see less of reason to believe the mainstream historian's holocaust narrative than the historian's narrative of any other purported historical event.

[Oliver]

In a message dated 08/31/06 1:51:23 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Oliver writes:

i spend a lot of my free time to study the aspects you have
reffered to, but i still find no evidence that all of this or just
the gasing chambers even could be a hoax, when even the
ss-guards tell this. Don´t tell me they are paid. No one would
take the blame about millions of dead on his own shoulder
for bucks - maybe in america, but not in germany. This
is like selling your soul and burning in hell until you die.

Did you credit me - having a look into my links, too?

I really try to understand why everything in your thoughts
is ending up into the zionism. The one of both of us, who´s
really involved into the holocaust - because of germans and
so my history, is me - so why do you care more about it
then i do? Why can i accept this - but you not?

And why am i the one who tries to understand your
point but don´t get it, because i´ve found nothing about
the holocaust that looks like it´s a hoax? Because i try
to be openminded and because i think you should bring
yourself back to the game - with another great book
wich gives you new success.

But let me say this - it does not matter wich side i choose -
spinning the coin (the issue) - it makes no difference at all.
And it has nothing proofable to do with 9/11. Correct me
if i´m wrong.

Let me ask you:

If the Zionists or Jews rule this world - would´nt they
already have bombed the palistinians out of "their"
country a long time ago? With their power over
the us-military?

Maybe they own or controll the US-Media, but they
still don´t rule the german-media - or the government.
Should´nt we have proofs before bringing everybody
against us? I think this is what you´re doing - and even
if you know and said that your making yourself an
"outsider" because of the holocaust - why are you still
doing it? Where do you want to end up with this?

I don´t want to see you falling across the border and
i still listen to you - so i hope you respect this and
give me some of your thougths.

Can i talk straight to you? You seem to me like some-
one, who´s turning very fast into a defensive position
after getting some critics.

Why is the holocaust important for you - why is
it important for 9/11. Why are actual incidents
so unimportant to you while something 65 years
ago rules your todays world?

Why is this, Eric?

I never claimed to have done a lot of research into World War II.

I only have a few remarks about it on my web site. I don't really see the point in arguing with it, either.




??? :mad:

[SwissSkeptic]

:jaw-dropp Good catch, Oliver!

ETA: Just for the sake of completeness, that's the same guy who "guesses" that

• The Jews are lying about the gas chambers and ovens.

• The Jews helped Hitler and the Nazi party get control of Germany.

• The Jews instigated both world wars.

• The Jews created anti-Semitism in Germany to drive Jews out of Europe and into Palestine, and to unify Jews, and to bring pity to Jews.


Source (http://www.erichufschmid.net/StopNaziCoverup.html) (Warning: Graphic pictures)

[Oliver]

:jaw-dropp Good catch, Oliver!

ETA: Just for the sake of completeness, that's the same guy who "guesses" that

Source (http://www.erichufschmid.net/StopNaziCoverup.html) (Warning: Graphic pictures)

He´s one of these Conspiracy-Theorists who are not able to explain themselves. It might have to do with the things they´ve learned during growing up within an anti-semitic environment - i still don´t know much about these type of people...

Cheers,
Oliver :)

[Dave1001]

He´s one of these Conspiracy-Theorists who are not able to explain themselves. It might have to do with the things they´ve learned during growing up within an anti-semitic environment - i still don´t know much about these type of people...

Cheers,
Oliver :)

It's this type use of "anti-semites" to manufacture majoritarian sensibilities that raises my eyebrows (I'm not addressing this to you personally Oliver, as much as something I notice generally in discourse). It's so Orwellian and indicates to me that future totalitarianism is likely to creep from that direction, rather from neo-nazis or such fringe elements.

[Oliver]

It's this type use of "anti-semites" to manufacture majoritarian sensibilities that make me want to hurl. It's so Orwellian and indicates to me that future totalitarianism is likely to creep from that direction, rather from neo-nazis or such fringe elements.

You may want to find out more about these people by writing him a letter - since my english is not that good to get him to the point to explain me his thoughts about his "Holo-Hoax-thinking"...

Mailto:

Eric Hufschmid
PainfulQuestions@aol.com

Regards,
Oliver

[CurtC]

Here's the 'reason' for it.

"IN ORDER to reconcile the wartime 1944 photograph with the postwar "eye-witness testimony" of smoke billowing from Crematorium building chimneys, the historians and scholars of the Simon Wiesenthal Center have helpfully inserted smoke into the photograph, thereby avoiding injurious puzzlement among school children and other innocent visitors to its Website who might otherwise fall foul of the lies of the Revisionists."
The wording on that statement makes it sound like it came from the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Can you show me where they said that?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've done some research on this. While I don't support holocaust denial, here are a few of the arguments from those who do.

1) The smokestacks at auschwitz, which were apparently part of the ovens where they burned jews to death, were added after the war ended.

2) The Zyklon B gas which was used to kill jews in the 'gas showers' was actually used to delouse their clothing to keep the population of the camps healthy

3) Several propoganda images showing dead jews have been obviously doctored.

4) Census of the world jew population from before and after the war shows a definite increase in Jews worldwide, which one might not expect if 6 million of them were killed in between the census.

5) The concentration camps did not have adequate supply of fuel to burn as many bodies as is claimed.

6) They weren't all jews. I've heard the claim that the occupants of the camps consisted of more or less equal parts of criminals, hobos, jews, gays, blacks, etc.

As for why they would want to fake the holocaust, the prevailing theory among deniers is that it creates an atmosphere of victimization, eg, sympathy and pity, that the jews could exploit to get their way.

Please don't call me a denier just because I've read this stuff. I'm just trying to answer the question.

Additional claims I have seen:
* no proof of orders of the "final solution"
* the fact that the death tolls have been revised over the years brings in to question any values put forth

[G-K-4]

Eric Hufschmid is so far out there that other conspiracists don't like him. I had the recent opportunity to hear some of the infighting from a "Patriot" radio show hosted by a guy named John Stadtmiller.

Hufschmid came across as a whiner who wants his pet theory to be at the center of the 9/11 "truth movement". He wrote an essay calling for investigations of folks like Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. http://www.erichufschmid.net/Avery-Rowe-Bermas-Hufschmid-phonecall.html Stadtmiller was also criticised, so he put Hufschmid on his show with Avery and Bermas.

It was hilarious to hear Dylan Avery questioning a conspiracy theory, demanding evidence, and trying to be a little rational!

MP3's:
First Hour: http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt/0607/20060714_Fri_Stadtmiller1.mp3
Second Hour:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt/0607/20060714_Fri_Stadtmiller2.mp3

I also liked the fact that Stadtmiller stated at least twice that 9/11 "truth" is important to the Christian Patriot Movement.

Readers here at JREF might also be interested to know that Stadtmiller has interviewed Jason Bermas, Dylan Avery, and "Killtown" as recently as September 6, 2006; Avery, Bermas, and Korey Rowe on August 30; and Christopher Bollyn on July 10.

And for your information, Oliver (since you are from out of town), the "Patriot Movement" is an ultra-reactionary, nativist political tendency in the United States. They are known for hatred of the Federal government, desire to establish county-level authoritarian regimes under their personal control, and belief in a long series of obscure conspiracy theories, among many other things.
http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic/Dances_with_Devils_2.html#P204_52991

[Oliver]

Eric Hufschmid is so far out there that other conspiracists don't like him. I had the recent opportunity to hear some of the infighting from a "Patriot" radio show hosted by a guy named John Stadtmiller.

Hufschmid came across as a whiner who wants his pet theory to be at the center of the 9/11 "truth movement". He wrote an essay calling for investigations of folks like Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas. http://www.erichufschmid.net/Avery-Rowe-Bermas-Hufschmid-phonecall.html Stadtmiller was also criticised, so he put Hufschmid on his show with Avery and Bermas.

It was hilarious to hear Dylan Avery questioning a conspiracy theory, demanding evidence, and trying to be a little rational!

MP3's:
First Hour: http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt/0607/20060714_Fri_Stadtmiller1.mp3
Second Hour:
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt/0607/20060714_Fri_Stadtmiller2.mp3

I also liked the fact that Stadtmiller stated at least twice that 9/11 "truth" is important to the Christian Patriot Movement.

Readers here at JREF might also be interested to know that Stadtmiller has interviewed Jason Bermas, Dylan Avery, and "Killtown" as recently as September 6, 2006; Avery, Bermas, and Korey Rowe on August 30; and Christopher Bollyn on July 10.

And for your information, Oliver (since you are from out of town), the "Patriot Movement" is an ultra-reactionary, nativist political tendency in the United States. They are known for hatred of the Federal government, desire to establish county-level authoritarian regimes under their personal control, and belief in a long series of obscure conspiracy theories, among many other things.
http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic/Dances_with_Devils_2.html#P204_52991

Thank you, G-K-4 - the "patriot-movement" was an unknown organization to me - do they have a website, too?

I still love this radio-show because it shows so clearly how stupid they are... :D

Cheers,
Oliver :")

[bjb]

What mechanism is that? (I see more then one mechanism...)

Yes, there are several mechanisms at work with Holocaust deniers. I'm glad you want to know how these people think because it is important for all of us to know how these people think because they are not alone in their method of deceptions. Shermer uses two chapters in his book to describe the Holocaust deniers but I am too lazy to summarize them here. You all should already have his book "Why People Believe Strange Things" but if you're interested mainly in Holocaust deniers, he's written another book called "Denying History" (http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8295.html). Also, here's a slideshow (http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/present/teachholo/denial/index.htm) I found from my alma mater, UCSB, on the techniques of Holocaust denial. Slide #6 entitled "Strategies of Denial" has a good summary of Holocaust denial techniques, and they are very similar to the techniques used by other conspiracy theorists.

[drkitten]

Let me just clarify something.
I was referring to a specific doctored photo.

You may have seen it. It showed a group of prisoners, and in the background, smoke billowing from a chimney. In the original photo, there was no smoke coming from the chimney, so it was edited. Here's the 'reason' for it.

"IN ORDER to reconcile the wartime 1944 photograph with the postwar "eye-witness testimony" of smoke billowing from Crematorium building chimneys, the historians and scholars of the Simon Wiesenthal Center have helpfully inserted smoke into the photograph, thereby avoiding injurious puzzlement among school children and other innocent visitors to its Website who might otherwise fall foul of the lies of the Revisionists."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html


Er, fpp.co.uk? Focal Point Press? David Irving's imprint and web site?

You may not be familiar with Mr. Irving and his history. But he has a long and legally-established history of falsifying documents in support of his Holocaust denial.

In short -- he lies.

And so the claim that "the historians and scholars of the Simon Wiesenthal Center have helpfully inserted smoke into the photograph" carries no credibility with me or with anyone else who's familiar with his body of work.


Essentially, this organization said, "We know the holocaust happened, but it doesn't really look like it in this picture, so lets add some burning jews so the children wont get confused."

Er, no. Someone with a long history of telling lies about Jewish organizations said that this organization said (and did) that. But I'd want independent confirmation before I believed anything he said.

[Oliver]

Yes, there are several mechanisms at work with Holocaust deniers. I'm glad you want to know how these people think because it is important for all of us to know how these people think because they are not alone in their method of deceptions. Shermer uses two chapters in his book to describe the Holocaust deniers but I am too lazy to summarize them here. You all should already have his book "Why People Believe Strange Things" but if you're interested mainly in Holocaust deniers, he's written another book called "Denying History" (http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8295.html). Also, here's a slideshow (http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/present/teachholo/denial/index.htm) I found from my alma mater, UCSB, on the techniques of Holocaust denial. Slide #6 entitled "Strategies of Denial" has a good summary of Holocaust denial techniques, and they are very similar to the techniques used by other conspiracy theorists.

Mhmmm - what are these techniques described in these books?

I personally know these types of deniers:

The ones who just cant believe it: "Our Gov wouldn´t do such a thing!" (Harmless)
The ones who do not know the facts: "This is so stupid to believe in this crap!" (Harmless and naive)
and the ones who know the truth and spread their hate anyway:
"The holohoax was faked, no matter what you believe in!". (Dangerous because not naively)

I personnally hate the last ones at most - they know the truth but they don´t care..... :mad:

Cheers,
Oliver, Germany

[bjb]

Er, no. Someone with a long history of telling lies about Jewish organizations said that this organization said (and did) that. But I'd want independent confirmation before I believed anything he said.

Well, he says the doctored photo came from the Wiesenthal website but the links are dead. The smoke is very poorly faked. I've done a better job faking clouds with Paint. It is easier for me to believe a Holocaust denier created a fake picture himself than to believe the Wiesenthal people came up with such a poorly altered picture. Besides, those smokestacks were added after the war, weren't they?

[Oliver]

Well, he says the doctored photo came from the Wiesenthal website but the links are dead. The smoke is very poorly faked. I've done a better job faking clouds with Paint. It is easier for me to believe a Holocaust denier created a fake picture himself than to believe the Wiesenthal people came up with such a poorly altered picture. Besides, those smokestacks were added after the war, weren't they?

It´s part of my job to edit photos - i don´t believe in this crap at all.... Proof me wrong... ;)

[grunion]

Like all conspiracy theories, Holocaust Denial starts with the gut-level belief of a conspiracy and then through a combination of cherry-picking and concocting evidence and ignoring evidence to the contrary paints what can seem to a naive observer to be a complete picture.

In this case the "gut-level belief" is the centuries-old scam that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. It has been perpetuated through the generations with various hoaxes, like blame for the crucifixion of Jesus, the "Blood Libel" hoax, the Protocols, and now Holocaust Denial. Facts are concocted to align with and bolster the specious arguments created by irrelevant factoids taken out of historical context.

It all comes from the warped agenda to single out a minority as a sinister social force.

Seeing as there is no "truth" agenda in the first place it is futile to argue logic with these people. In fact I believe it is harmful to do so in a public forum because that just gives them a stage to spout more lies and possibly indoctrinate other naive people.

[Oliver]

*snip*
In this case the "gut-level belief" is the centuries-old scam that there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the world.
*snip*

As a german i didn´t know much about zionism - even if i have studied my german history - this has nothing to do with the holocaust. So where did it come from?.... :boggled:

[grunion]

As a german i didn´t know much about zionism - even if i have studied my german history - this has nothing to do with the holocaust. So where did it come from?.... :boggled:If I recall my history correctly, Zionism officially started in the 1890's by Theodor Herzl as a political movement in response to the Palestinian Mandate which was England's way of absolving itself of the flummox it had made of the Middle East when it no longer had the might or political will to reign over the dominion it had created there. Sounds kinda familiar.

Essentially, Jews were not factored into the equation.

There were quite a few Jewish communities in Palestine before that, who generally coexisted with local Moslems (with some exceptions) but Zionism was an organized movement to bring European Jews to Palestine that started building momentum in the 1920's much to the dismay of the local Muftis, who consequentially aligned with the Nazis in the 30's.

I think one minor link can be made between Zionism and the Holocaust, that is the Dreyfus case. Here was a French Jew who was exiled for treason, the primary evidence brought before the court being that on account of his Jewishness he could not be loyal to France. This confirmed for many Jews that a Jewish homeland in Palestine was essential. For European anti-Semites it confirmed that Jews were secretly plotting their overthrow.

[EGarrett]

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Hufschmid-Dylan-Korey-Jason.mp3

Eric's voice is the one that's clear and live, the other three guys are on the phone. About 13 minutes in, they start getting their conspiracy theories tangled. Hilarious.

[Peephole]

Some are extremists - but most of them are stupid kids like the ones in the "9/11-denial-movement". Thanks god we fight them very hard so they don´t have a big voice here.
Isn't the NPD to get a couple seats in parliament?

[Oliver]

Isn't the NPD to get a couple seats in parliament?

They tried to get seats within the parlament but they don´t have enough support to do so and on the other hand there are attempts to forbid the NPD-Party... Muhawawaw :D

[Peephole]

My father was in the US Army in Europe during WWII, and was the official photographer for his platoon or regiment or some such group.

When I was a young child I discovered a shoebox in my parent's closet. In that box there were literally hundreds of photographs that would make your skin crawl. I saw human bodies stacked 8 or 10 high in which every single rib was clearly visible. The skin on their faces was drawn tight across the cheekbones. You could clearly see that each arm and leg had two bones in the lower half. It was evident that the femur is a very large bone.

As I say, there were hundreds of these photos. My sister says that our father took these photos at Dachau. I know for damn sure that none of them was faked. I certainly do not know the ethnicity or the sexual orientation of these brutally murdered people, but I do have a clear image of the kinds of things human beings will do for the glory of Church and State.

I do not believe that what happened in Nazi Germany was a vast departure from the misdeeds of other campaigns of organized violence conducted in the name of Holy Causes. But I did learn at a very young age that it is very important to be careful about which ideas you let get inside your head.

I wish I was in possession of these photos so that I could pass them along to an appropriate organization that would preserve them for historical reference.
It was an unique event though. No other genocide was ever so systematic. And it happened in a Western democracy.

Did your father ever publish or release those pictures? You should donate it to a holocaust museum or something if he didn't.

[Peephole]

They tried to get seats within the parlament but they don´t have enough support to do so and on the other hand there are attempts to forbid the NPD-Party... Muhawawaw :D
But they did get representatives in a regional state, right?

Here in Belgium the neo-nazi party just suffered a small defeat.

[Peephole]

How does this work? What mechanism do they use to explain the videos of the dead bodies and what reason do they give for Jewish people wanting to fake the Holocaust?
One tactic they often use is that they refer to earlier deniers to justify their own "research", even if they have been proven wrong.

Can anyone think of an other movement which does exactly the same?

While there is an ideological basis for many Deniers, there is also a substantial body of people that are simply misinformed CTers.
Actually, in Belgium at least, most deniers are all concentrated in the far right.

[einsteen]

But they did get representatives in a regional state, right?

Here in Belgium the neo-nazi party just suffered a small defeat.

Are you serious? Vlaams Belang is a collection of several groups of people but the average voter is certainly no nazi, just like Pim Fortuyn. And what about Geert Wilders ? He wants to restrict immigration and is often called Nazi, but he is Jewish. We have to vote soon, I still have no idea, but it will be somewhere in the right.

[senorpogo]

I'm sure someone (many ones?) have already mentioned this book.

Denying history : who says the Holocaust never happened and why do they say it? by Michael Shermer & Alex Grobman ; foreword by Arthur Hertzberg

A very nice introduction into the holocaust deniers and general CT thought. Many of the tactics they use mirror those of 9/11 deniers and other CTs.

[Skeptic]

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html

While I don't deny the holocaust, I think its inappropriate to edit the historical documents to make it seem like it was 'more-holocausty' then it really was.

Your conclusion's certainly correct, of course, but the web site you quote is that of David Irving, who was proven, in court, to be an holocaust-denying racist antisemite. To take seriously what he says about the holocaust is about as credible as taking seriously what the KKK says about Martin Luther King Jr.

Going out a bit on a limb here: I presume you had a vague recollection of Auschwitz photos being 'doctored' in textbooks for didactic purposes (which is not impossible, of course), so, in order to find examples, googled something like "fake Auschwitz photographs" and Irving's site came up?

[Parsman]

Grunion

You are right on a lot of the history there but in the 1890s Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire. However the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine did come to the fore in the time of British control between 1917 and 1948. A lot of the problems in the area were caused by the way the UK governement flipped and flopped between Jewish and Arab interests depending on their own geo-political requirements throughout that period.

[Skeptic]

Well, he says the doctored photo came from the Wiesenthal website but the links are dead.

While it's not impossible the Wisenthal center doctored photos, if Irving is lying or distorting what the Wiesenthal center did it would hardly be the first time he made false accusations about a "conspiracy" against a jewish organization.

[firecoins]

I don't think this thread exists.

[Hellbound]

I don't think this thread exists.

*waves hands vaguely in front of firecoins face*

This is not the thread you're looking for...

[senorpogo]

There's a pretty good analysis of Holocaust denial in Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Wierd Things". If you're going to play with the 9/11 deniers, it would be a good idea to read this book. Unsurprisingly enough, the mechanisms used by Holocause deniers are the same as those used by the 9/11 deniers.

And someone beat me too it.
And I practically restated their entire post.
Nice.

Its also worth adding that there a quite a few myths about the Holocaust that many people pass off as facts which aren't proven, such as mass production of soap made from the fat of murdered jews. Since there's no proof of such mass production and since many people don't know this yet continue to repeat it, deniers cite this as an example of an insideous plot of disinformation and lies. If one thing people about the Holocaust is wrong then it all must be wrong!

Also - they don't usually deny that Jews died or were killed by the Third Reich. Rather, they say that some died under the natural stresses of capitivity or at the hand of Nazis not acting under orders. Thus they question the official number of deathes and deny that the Third Reich held an official policy of extermination towards the Jews.

[grunion]

Grunion

You are right on a lot of the history there but in the 1890s Palestine was still part of the Ottoman Empire. However the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine did come to the fore in the time of British control between 1917 and 1948. A lot of the problems in the area were caused by the way the UK governement flipped and flopped between Jewish and Arab interests depending on their own geo-political requirements throughout that period.I seem to remember 1897 as the date of the First Zionist Congress, which meant that they had gained some momentum by then. And you're right, I do recall now that it was essentially the huge losses and treaties of World War I that led to the collapse of the Ottomans and leaving a weakened British Empire in control of the region. They had promised a Jewish Homeland in Palestine in 1917 (Balfour Declaration) but never did anything to make it happen until 1948 when they became the first government to recognize the State of Israel (politically expedient at the time since the world was reeling from the discoveries of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism was in abeyance.) Between India, Palestine and China, "the sun never sets on the British Empire" became just a distant memory in the time right after WW II.

So all this is to challenge the statement that Zionism had "nothing to do with the Holocaust." The fact is that it was the aftermath of the Holocaust that drove Western sympathies to support and recognize Israel (aside from the obvious geo-political advantages of a "client state" in the region) has become the basis for alot of the Denier conspiracy theorizing that Jews concocted the Holocaust to bolster the goals of Zionism.

[bjb]

Here's a wiki article about the Nazi euthanasia program called Action T4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4). Reading about the euthanasia program, I can see that it was very similar to the Holocaust in its stated goal of "racial hygiene". The euthanasia project exterminated tens of thousands of people, but these were German citizens, many of them children. How hard is it to believe the Holocaust could not happen when the Nazis were willing to commit mass murder against their own people?

[G-K-4]

If I recall my history correctly, Zionism officially started in the 1890's by Theodor Herzl as a political movement in response to the Palestinian Mandate...
Not quite right. Your timing is off.

Herzl was promoting the idea of Zionism in the 1890's. Part of the reason was the Dreyfus Affair. They didn't necessarily decide on Palestine at first. They even thought of a couple of places in Africa. (!)

But after World War One, the Ottoman Empire broke up. Britain took Palestine only then.

Edited to add:

Argh, I see someone has beaten me to it. Sorry.

[Peephole]

laams Belang is a collection of several groups of people but the average voter is certainly no nazi,
The party pretty much is.

[Foolmewunz]

It was an unique event though. No other genocide was ever so systematic. And it happened in a Western democracy.

Did your father ever publish or release those pictures? You should donate it to a holocaust museum or something if he didn't.

Surely this is one of those "fingers are quicker than the brain" errors? I realize there had been an election at one point, but I've rarely seen Nazi Germany referred to as a democracy.

[Brainache]

It's been a long time since I did High School history, but I seem to recall that Hitler was elected. A massive majority IIRC.

[Dave1001]

It's been a long time since I did High School history, but I seem to recall that Hitler was elected. A massive majority IIRC.

That hardly makes the nazi government that perpetuated the holocaust a western democracy.

Although democracies have certainly committed genocides. For example, the United States and indigenous Americans.

[SwissSkeptic]

It's been a long time since I did High School history, but I seem to recall that Hitler was elected. A massive majority IIRC.

Hitler wasn't elected, he was appointed as Chancellor by President Hindenburg.

ETA: IIRC the NSDAP got somewhere around 35% of the votes in 1932, I wouldn't call that a massive majority.

[Brainache]

OK. Like I said it's been a long time since my history lessons. But I think Australia claims the dishonour of the most successful attempt at genocide. Tasmania doesn't have a lot of Aboriginal people these days.

[Foolmewunz]

OK. Like I said it's been a long time since my history lessons. But I think Australia claims the dishonour of the most successful attempt at genocide. Tasmania doesn't have a lot of Aboriginal people these days.

Nor are there a lot of Algonquin Indians on the New York City Council, nor Mohawks in the Quebec Parliament. The North Americans (nee French and British) did a pretty thorough job on their own. As did the Chileans, and quite a few others.

Heck, we're coming up to American Thanksgiving. Those lovely school plays the kids put on about that first Thanksgiving feast, with the friendly Indians helping to save the settlers? They neglect to mention that within a single generation, about 25 years, they'd wiped out the tribe in question!

[yodaluver28]

While it's true that the Zionist movement had existed since the end of the 19th century and had gained some measure of political support, there's no denying that the Holocaust provided the US and Britain with a sense of immediacy that the Jewish people were in desperate need of a homeland where they could attempt to recover their population and culture after all the trauma that they'd just suffered. Even back in the 1880's, Palestine was the obvious choice for religous Zionists who couldn't imagine a Jewish homeland anywhere but Palestine/Israel-Judea/Canaan. These Zionists received some sizable support, even then, from American Protestants. The bulk of the movement however were secularlists who felt that a homeland was needed in light of growing anti-semitism in Europe and Russia. They weren't as married to the idea that the new nation had to be Palestine, although they appreciated the historical significance of the area to their people. Among the other places considered were Argentina and Uganda. Uganda was even considered as a possible temporary safe haven for Jews eager to leave an increasingly hostile Russia until a permanent homeland could be chosen.

As annoying, offensive, and generally childish as most CTs are, Holocaust denial is just a whole league of it's own. Only a demented mind can ignore so much evidence, so coldly, and then turn around and callously blame the victims as the masterminds.

[Peephole]

Surely this is one of those "fingers are quicker than the brain" errors? I realize there had been an election at one point, but I've rarely seen Nazi Germany referred to as a democracy.
Well, I meant Germany was a democracy when they elected the nazis.

[Dave1001]

As annoying, offensive, and generally childish as most CTs are, Holocaust denial is just a whole league of it's own. Only a demented mind can ignore so much evidence, so coldly, and then turn around and callously blame the victims as the masterminds.

No. I disagree. It's actually rather brave to question elements of a victors-write-the-history narrative. And I don't think it can be denied that the Holocaust narrative is quite flattering to the victors of World War II and stigmatizing to the conquored. It doesn't mean that the Holocaust narrative doesn't also happen to be true. But in my opinion it's asinine power-aligning to engage in over-the-top name calling of holocaust skeptics by calling them "annoying" "offensive" "childish" and "demented". At worst, I think by being eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists ot the majority's narrative, holocaust deniers help prove the existence of free thought in our society and give space to it. If the holocaust narrative is true, it's facts should speak for themselves. One shouldn't need to intimidate or shame people into claiming they believe it.

[Big Les]

Free speech works both ways Dave. Just as they have the right to "question" the facts, we have the right to point out just how dumb they are.

You need an opposing voice, because people who don't care to invest the time in researching the subject (and why should they), but care enough to have an opinion, may start to believe the falsehoods spread by the conspiracy buffs, over the established (or widely held) facts and theories.

PS It's "its" in that context, not "it's".
PPS Get back to work.
PPPS Please.

[Dave1001]

Free speech works both ways Dave. Just as they have the right to "question" the facts, we have the right to point out just how dumb they are.

You need an opposing voice, because people who don't care to invest the time in researching the subject (and why should they), but care enough to have an opinion, may start to believe the falsehoods spread by the conspiracy buffs, over the established (or widely held) facts and theories.


I don't think society needs a name-calling opposing voice to its narrative dissidents. Just point out where holocaust deniers are wrong on the facts. Holocaust deniers are more like the folks Nazi Germany imprisoned and killed for subversion than they are like the Nazi regime itself. They are questioning the official historical narrative promoted by (and serving) the most powerful elements in our society and in the world. Perhaps they are doing so incorrectly, but they are still in my opinion part of the canaries in the coalmine, proving the limits of free speech and free thought in our society. As such, at the least they should have a welcome place among our eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists.



PS It's "its" in that context, not "it's".

*yawn*

[Big Les]

Questioning in itself is meaningless and achieves nothing. It's the difference between what you call "bravery" and I call "stupidity". You seem to think that we should condescend to these people, pat them on the head and say "aw, bless. At least they're questioning."

Knackers to that, frankly. And knackers to your wilful ignorance of the English language too.

[Foolmewunz]

No. I disagree. It's actually rather brave to question elements of a victors-write-the-history narrative. And I don't think it can be denied that the Holocaust narrative is quite flattering to the victors of World War II and stigmatizing to the conquored. It doesn't mean that the Holocaust narrative doesn't also happen to be true. But in my opinion it's asinine power-aligning to engage in over-the-top name calling of holocaust skeptics by calling them "annoying" "offensive" "childish" and "demented". At worst, I think by being eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists ot the majority's narrative, holocaust deniers help prove the existence of free thought in our society and give space to it. If the holocaust narrative is true, it's facts should speak for themselves. One shouldn't need to intimidate or shame people into claiming they believe it.

I'm with Big Les (well, except for the suit...).....

What a crock! Really! This is like arguing with the NAMBLA folks on whether to wear dark socks or light socks to their first date, and eliding the minor issue that they are a bunch of paedophiles. You absolutely raise the holocaust deniers about ten levels on the food chain and flatter them by merely accusing them of being "eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists".

Yeah, the old saw applies.... "yada yada yada, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". But I'll also defend to the death my right to call a spade a spade. Holocaust deniers are, nearly to a man/woman, anti-semitic to an extreme. They have no desire to ease the burden on the poor German citizen who are getting the bad slant in the history books. They merely want to prove that Jews are evil and vile and control the world.

[SwissSkeptic]

I don't think society needs a name-calling opposing voice to its narrative dissidents. Just point out where holocaust deniers are wrong on the facts. Holocaust deniers are more like the folks Nazi Germany imprisoned and killed for subversion than they are like the Nazi regime itself. They are questioning the official historical narrative promoted by (and serving) the most powerful elements in our society and in the world. Perhaps they are doing so incorrectly, but they are still in my opinion part of the canaries in the coalmine, proving the limits of free speech and free thought in our society. As such, at the least they should have a welcome place among our eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists.


You certainly have some "interesting" opinions, Dave.

[Dave1001]

I'm with Big Les (well, except for the suit...).....

What a crock! Really! This is like arguing with the NAMBLA folks on whether to wear dark socks or light socks to their first date, and eliding the minor issue that they are a bunch of paedophiles. You absolutely raise the holocaust deniers about ten levels on the food chain and flatter them by merely accusing them of being "eccentrics, cranks, and nonconformists".

Yeah, the old saw applies.... "yada yada yada, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". But I'll also defend to the death my right to call a spade a spade. Holocaust deniers are, nearly to a man/woman, anti-semitic to an extreme. They have no desire to ease the burden on the poor German citizen who are getting the bad slant in the history books. They merely want to prove that Jews are evil and vile and control the world.

I distrust folks who reserve their ire for proponents of the most marginal social beliefs far more than I distrust the folks that espouse them. For example, a future totalitarian regime in the United States is much more likely to begin by targeting NAMBLA members and Holocaust deniers than by targeting proponents of statutory rape laws and mainstream Holocaust historians.

We agree that thoughts and the expression of them shouldn't be a crime. But further, I think thoughts should be marginalized not by name calling, but by solid reasoning and empiricism. Rather than marginalize Holocaust skepticism by saying all holocaust skeptics "merely want to prove that jews are evil", I think it's more valuable to use solid reasoning and empiricism to marginalize these views. Otherwise it seems to me that the promotion of critical thought and enlightenment (rather than persuasian by ad hominems against non-power-aligned ideas) is one's greater enemy.

[Big Les]

You certainly have some "interesting" opinions, Dave.

Indeed. I've commented on just how "Interesting" Dave is several times, with little response from either him or other posters. I was beginning to think I was imagining it. Aren't dual accounts somewhat frowned upon? Or am I coming over all "Orwellian"?

Anyhow, in principle I agree that we should engage the ignorant and misinformed re holocaust "questioning" with nothing but the hard facts and logical, reasonable argument. In practice, I say rip the piss without mercy; they deserve it.

There's a common "break point" that I think most sceptics reach when dealing with any BS, which is where every reasonable approach has been tried, every piece of evidence brought has been debunked (if not by oneself then by others/existing literature etc), and the deniers/CTs/psychics/whoever are simply blowing hot air. At that point, I call ridicule-free-for-all, and follow DeBunk's approach somewhat. It's fun for all the family. Well, more so than NAMBLA is, anyway.

[Dave1001]

Indeed. I've commented on just how "Interesting" Dave is several times, with little response from either him or other posters. I was beginning to think I was imagining it. Aren't dual accounts somewhat frowned upon? Or am I coming over all "Orwellian"?


Right. Ad hominems. Because someone has a different opinion than you. Bad form.


Anyhow, in principle I agree that we should engage the ignorant and misinformed re holocaust "questioning" with nothing but the hard facts and logical, reasonable argument. In practice, I say rip the piss without mercy; they deserve it.

There's a common "break point" that I think most sceptics reach when dealing with any BS, which is where every reasonable approach has been tried, every piece of evidence brought has been debunked (if not by oneself then by others/existing literature etc), and the deniers/CTs/psychics/whoever are simply blowing hot air. At that point, I call ridicule-free-for-all, and follow DeBunk's approach somewhat. It's fun for all the family. Well, more so than NAMBLA is, anyway.

I'm with you on the "in principle I agree that we should engage the ignorant and misinformed re holocaust "questioning" with nothing but the hard facts and logical, reasonable argument".

I'm not with you on the "rip the piss without mercy" and the "ridicule-free for-all". In my opinion, when directed at folks just for claiming belief in very unpopular ideas, that would be bullying targets just because they're unpopular enough that the general community will allow it.

[grunion]

Right. Ad hominems. Because someone has a different opinion than you. Bad form.

I'm with you on the "in principle I agree that we should engage the ignorant and misinformed re holocaust "questioning" with nothing but the hard facts and logical, reasonable argument".

I'm not with you on the "rip the piss without mercy" and the "ridicule-free for-all". In my opinion, when directed at folks just for claiming belief in very unpopular ideas, that would be bullying targets just because they're unpopular enough that the general community will allow it.
The ad hominems are decidedly not because "someone has a different opinion." The ad hominems are because they are lying hateful anti-semites who have no regard for truth, facts, or rules of logic when posing and countering arguments. So refuting their "arguments" with logic is entirely useless and a waste of energy (which is exactly their goal, to wear us out.) The most efficient way to refute hate is with derision, not with "logic."

Sure, let them have the right to march, distribute propaganda and troll Internet boards. But there's no need to raise their stature by engaging in reasoned discourse.

[Brainache]

Who was it that said "One horselaugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"? I agree with him.

[Dave1001]

The ad hominems are decidedly not because "someone has a different opinion." The ad hominems are because they are lying hateful anti-semites who have no regard for truth, facts, or rules of logic when posing and countering arguments. So refuting their "arguments" with logic is entirely useless and a waste of energy (which is exactly their goal, to wear us out.) The most efficient way to refute hate is with derision, not with "logic."

Sure, let them have the right to march, distribute propaganda and troll Internet boards. But there's no need to raise their stature by engaging in reasoned discourse.

I'm a bit skeptical. It doesn't seem to me that folks decide "Wow, NAMBLA is in danger of persuading most Americans to legalize Man-Boy sex. After careful research, we've come to the only way to prevent this from becoming national policy is to deride it." Instead the reasoning seems to me to be more like "I want to pick a target and deride it. Who will it be- cancer researchers, widows and children of Iraq War veterans, or member of NAMBLA? Hmm, I'll probably get the most positive reaction if I pick members of NAMBLA to deride."

[grunion]

Who was it that said "One horselaugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"? I agree with him.
I'm reminded of the scene in that Woody Allen movie (Annie Hall, I think) that went something like:

"The Nazis are marching in Skokie again, we oughta do something about that."

"Yes, let's go up there with guns, sticks and rocks."

"No, a biting satirical Op-Ed piece in the New York Times would be far more effective."

"No, with the Nazis I'd say guns, sticks and rocks are more effective."

[Dave1001]

I'm reminded of the scene in that Woody Allen movie (Annie Hall, I think) that went something like:

"The Nazis are marching in Skokie again, we oughta do something about that."

"Yes, let's go up there with guns, sticks and rocks."

"No, a biting satirical Op-Ed piece in the New York Times would be far more effective."

"No, with the Nazis I'd say guns, sticks and rocks are more effective."

That stuff used to amuse me, but now it comes off as cloying power-licking.

[Big Les]

I'm a bit skeptical. It doesn't seem to me that folks decide "Wow, NAMBLA is in danger of persuading most Americans to legalize Man-Boy sex. After careful research, we've come to the only way to prevent this from becoming national policy is to deride it." Instead the reasoning seems to me to be more like "I want to pick a target and deride it. Who will it be- cancer researchers, widows and children of Iraq War veterans, or member of NAMBLA? Hmm, I'll probably get the most positive reaction if I pick members of NAMBLA to deride."

You're not sceptical, you're off your trolley. So what if some people that work against (or even just deride) NAMBLA (for example) have ulterior motives to do with ego and generally being bitter/resentful (or whatever their psychological problem may be). So what? It doesn't detract from the work that they do. It doesn't make their choice of target or approach less "right".

Your logic hasn't improved with your new username I see.

[grunion]

Dave, I feel like it will be a waste of time to engage you on this but I really think it would behoove you to learn a bit more about the Holocaust and who the deniers are before getting holier-than-thou on the topic.

Mountains of evidence, photographs, eyewitness testimony of survivors, Nazis, and third party observers, physical evidence from the camps, forensic and soil analysis, and films, are available on the public record to anyone with an honest desire to investigate whether or not the Nazi Holocaust existed.

Deniers refute all this with claims of "skepticism," made-up evidence, and mutterings of a Jewish Conspiracy that has concocted it all. If you want to know their true motivation follow the money.

As the last of the Holocaust survivors enter their 80s and 90s, it is the hope of the deniers to plant enough seeds of doubt that when there are no more living witnesses to the atrocities their memories can be more easily discredited. They expect to generate the impression that any particular fact, or the fact of the Holocaust in general, is "controversial." A generation later, and the public will be undecided on whether such a thing ever really happened.

Calling it the fact of the Holocaust controversial, despite all of the proof, is a sham. It is a victory for the deniers.

The Holocaust is not "controversial." It is a fact.

[Foolmewunz]

You do not dignify a holocaust denier with a reasoned discourse. That's their goal, to make it appear to onlookers (these are traditionally Union Square or Hyde Park streetcorner debates) that here we are, two nice intelligent folks discussing our differences on a truly mundane topic, the interpretation of some of the minor facts about that unfortunate happenstance back in the last century.
I will not have that civil conversation with Stalinists, Maoists, Pol Pot supporters, nor Holocaust Deniers. There is no justification for genocide, and there is no justification for anyone trying to say it didn't happen or that it wasn't so bad as it's portrayed.

I will ridicule them, belittle them, and call them whatever names pop into my head. Flat-Earthers are eccentrics. Some Tin-Foilers and Lizard People are idiosyncratic. Pyramid Power is silly and might be quaint. But Holocaust Deniers are toenail cheese!

[Dave1001]

Do folks here deny that separate from the veracity of the Holocaust, it's used to manufacture heirarchy in today's society. The sense I get is that the primary purpose for promotion of the Holocaust narrative is to paint the anglosphere heroically.

[Big Les]

Do folks here deny that separate from the veracity of the Holocaust, it's used to manufacture heirarchy in today's society. The sense I get is that the primary purpose for promotion of the Holocaust narrative is to paint the anglosphere heroically.

I don't disagree that it's used politically, and even as an argument killer. I'm very wary of people being stifled on grounds of "anti-semitism", and think that parts of the Jewish lobby are deliberately over-sensitive so as to dodge issues unconnected to the holocaust itself. So what? Yours and my opinions on how others use the fact of the holocaust are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not we should criticise and/or ridicule those who question the veracity of the event.

You're throwing in a red herring; no-one here is suggesting that one cannot question those who use the fact of the holocaust for political advantage. It's the FACT ITSELF that should not be questioned, or rather, if it is, lays the "questioner" open to ridicule.

Get it?

[Brainache]

Do folks here deny that separate from the veracity of the Holocaust, it's used to manufacture heirarchy in today's society. The sense I get is that the primary purpose for promotion of the Holocaust narrative is to paint the anglosphere heroically.

You don't think it has something to do with umm, maybe representing actual events over lies?

Trying to teach subsequent generations about the horrors perpetrated by normal people "just following orders" when those orders are given by maniacs?

Are you saying historical revisionism is OK as long as it doesn't paint the "anglosphere" heroically?

I know history can be a matter of contention, but when you start to give credence to every hateful re-write of recent events you really are just being silly. I mean what next? Are we going to have to listen to people telling us that Argentina won in the Falklands, or that Slobodan Milosevic just wanted to sort out some immigration issues?

[Foolmewunz]

Do folks here deny that separate from the veracity of the Holocaust, it's used to manufacture heirarchy in today's society. The sense I get is that the primary purpose for promotion of the Holocaust narrative is to paint the anglosphere heroically.

The secondary or tertiary purpose might be to give greater weight to the righteous struggle of the victors, but the primary rationale for remembering the Holocaust is to warn ourselves if we see it happening again in any form.
Whether it's anti-Jewish or anti-semitic matters not. Pol Pot's political exterminations or Milosovic's ethnic cleansing are equally evil.

And as Brainache asked, where do we draw the line in the sand? Are we going to start giving credence to the Ku Klux Klan next because some blacks have co-opted the issue of slavery towards their own ends?

As I said, if it's Holocaust deniers, NAMBLA, The American Nazi Party, The Klan, or let's throw in Islamic extremists and abortion-clinic bombers..... Fight them with whatever tools you have. If that includes ridiculing them and demonizing them to make it clear that they're representative of the lunatic fringe, then so be it. As I said, you're being far too generous in terming Holocaust deniers as merely kooks or eccentrics.

[skepticism]

As Norman Finklestein, author of the Holocaust Industry, quotes his Jewish "holocaust survivor" mother as saying, "If there are all these survivors who did Hitler kill?"

We have more Holocaust survivors collecting money from Germany, than Jews who existed in Europe during world war two.

Professor of History at Princeton, Aron Mayer, a Jew himself, argues that most of the Jews who died in Europe during world war two, died of Typhus.

The major spokesperson for the holocaust is "survivor" Elie Weisel, who wrote Night. In Night, Weisel never mentions gas chambers. This is odd, since Weisel claims to have been at Auschwitz. Elie's method of genocide was burning in open ditches. This is actually where the term "Holocaust" arose, which means burnt offerings. Elie apparently spread one of the earlier war propagandas going around about burning Jews. He didn't get to correct his novel, when the gas chamber stories were fabricated.

One of the main reasons for doubting the Holocaust is the zealous nature of the holocaust promoters, they enact laws making it a prison term for denying the Holocaust, in Europe, Austria, France, Germany, and in Canada. You have to wonder about the religious zeal that drives those who promote the Holocaust, are they mentally ill? deranged psychos? what is the mental disease that causes people to imprison those who disagree with them? We're now in an age of thought control and thought police.

But it only applies to the Jewish Holocaust. Elie Weisel wouldn't share a stage with Armenians who wanted to remember the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Only the Jewish Holocaust is worth remembering, to Elie.

Elie's Night book had another strange passage. In the last chapter, Elie says the German doctors treated his leg, but he was still recovering. Elie and his father had a choice, either wait in Auschwitz as the Russians approached and took over, or go with the Germans westward to another camp. Elie and his father chose to go with the Germans, rather than allow the Russians to take control of them. They preferred the Germans (the Germans who supposedly were executing and burning Jews every day). How was it Elie and his father escaped the executions and burnings? Elie tells us. You see, by accident, as the Germans marched thousands of Jews to their death, they would run out of time, and Elie and his father would be last in line, and be saved, each day. Some put Elie's novel in the fiction section.

Some holocaust "survivors" such as the authors of Painted Bird and Fragments, used in schools and colleges in America, were written by pretenders, who were never in any Germany concentration camp or even Jewish. Yet American schools made them required reading.

Is it anyone wonder people today in America continue to believe in the "Holocaust"? We indoctrinate well in America.

There was a real holocaust in Europe at the end of world war two. An Eye For Eye by Sacks, shows Jews exterminating Germans in Poland, after the war ended. General Eisenhower hated Germans. He deported Germans to Russia to certain death. Another 2 million Germans died in Eisenhower's POW camps, where Eisenhower had orders to shoot any German woman or child who tried to provide food to German POWs. See Other Losses by James Baque.

The fake Jewish holocaust is used not only to justify Israeli terrorism against Palestinians and to justify the Israel nation and taking of land from Arabs, but it diverts attention from the real Holocaust, the murder of millions of Germans, by Russia, America, Eisenhower and Jews. The post war Jewish refugee camps were terrorist training centers for Begin's Irgun and Jewish terrorist groups, who blew up, bombed and murdered civilians at the King David Hotel.

Franklin Roosevelt hated Germans. Truman implemented the Morgenthau Plan. They claim they didn't, but they just gave it a new name. The Morgenthau Plan was to starve Germany. Roosevelt and Churchill had firebombed Dresden and Germany civilians. It was terrorism, beyond the scope of civilized warfare. When Germany was ready to surrender, Roosevelt did his best to make the war last as long as possible, by publicizing the Morgenthau Plan, so Germany would keep fighting, so the Allies could kill more Germans.

What was the pretext for this war? Poland? We gave Poland away to Russia at the end of the war. America didn't care about Jews. Roosevelt turned the St. Louis away with a thousand Jews back to Europe.

The Holocaust was just war propaganda. We did the same thing in World War One, making up stories about German soldiers knifing Belgian babies.

Rudolf Hess risked his life for peace, flying to Britain. We charged Hess as a war criminal. The real war criminals are Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, Menachem Begin. Instead of German leaders, they should have executed Allied leaders.

Even Begin didn't consider the Nazis to be a threat. Adolf Hitler wanted a Jewish homeland. The British didn't. Begin offered to have his Irgun join with the Nazis to fight Britain. The Nazis turned Begin down.

History is written by the victors. It's court history, filled with myths of war propaganda. Real Skeptics are revisionists. Robots who follow their countries fake history are incapbable of thinking.

[skepticism]

Sacks wrote Eye for An Eye. Professor Deborah L. of the Holocaust Studies Department, calls Sacks worse than a Holocaust Denier. Sacks asked her why she said that. Professor Deborah L. said she didn't have time to answer, she was late for a faculty meeting.

Professor Deborah L. helped send Historian David Irving to prison in Austria, after a judgment against him in Britain.

Sacks wrote of the Jews killing Germans in Poland, as the war ended. Sacks is Jewish. Sacks wonders why no Jew ever mentions this truth.

The real holocaust was against the Germans. More Germans died in World War II, about 5 million in the war, and another 5 million after the war. The Allies and Jews wanted to exterminate Germans, that was the purpose of the Morgenthau Plan. Franklin Roosevelt's son in the military, asked Franklin Roosevelt, "Do you plan to starve Germany?" Roosevelt answered, "Why not." Roosevelt even adopted Hemmingway's line, that we should castrate German males, so Germany can't reproduce.

Franklin Roosevelt met with Stalin and told Stalin that the Allies should adopt Stalin's plan to execute summarily 50,000 German leaders. Stalin told Roosevelt that Stalin had just been joking. Roosevelt, however, was serious.

Fortunately, Roosevelt died. Truman however, was as blood thirsty, dropping A-bombs on Japan, acts of terror never before seen in history, with as many civilians murdered as the Allied bombing of Dresden.

Hitler had offered to remove civilians as targets during the war. Churchill and Roosevelt wouldn't agree. The American, British, Russian and Jewish stategy included terrorism and extermination of Germans. That's the real purpose of fake stories of a Jewish holocaust, to make people forget and ignore the real genocide against Germans.

Even Jewish author Sacks, knows and recognizes that Jews murdered Germans.

[Dave1001]

We have more Holocaust survivors collecting money from Germany, than Jews who existed in Europe during world war two.

Is that mathematically possible? I think you may diminish the arguments of folks like Finkelstein by mixing lines like this in with their points.

[skepticism]

Nobel Laureate, Jewish Eli Weisel, has written that every Jew should reserve a hatred for Germans.

The real genocide, the real hatred is the Jewish treatment of Germans. Americans are like lap dogs eating up whatever fake Jewish stories are told, feeding the Jewish hatred. As Allan Dershowitz says, Jews don't forgive. Christian Germans do. Jews committed genocide against Germans. Germans didn't commit genocide against Jews. That's revisionist history. Americans prefer myths.

[Jeff Wagg]

So what?

[skepticism]

Most of the money goes, as Finkelstein points out, to Jewish organizations promoting the Holocaust for money, for profit. The Jewish organizations don't even care about the "survivors" except as a way to make money

[Jeff Wagg]

Who cares?

[Redtail]

What's the deniers explaination for the serial numbers on survivors?

[skepticism]

America had concentration camps for Japanese and Germans. Germans were interned in North Dakota and Texas. Governor Earl Warren interned Japanese. America bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. America helped Britain fire bomb every German cities' civilian population.

And America erects monuments and holocaust studies, as if it cared. The Jewish holocaust is a diversion.

If Roosevelt tricked an isolationist America into a world war, by not telling Kimmel and Short about the Japanese, think what George Bush gets away with in the Mideast. The lesson is the same. Roosevelt had to claim the military was negligent, that Kimmel and Short were derelict. Bush can't even explain why our military never responded when it was clear planes were off route and headed to the Twin Towers.

Roosevelt used the Japanese to go to war with Germany. Bush used the Twin Towers to go to war with Saddam. Leaders arrange an attack, so they can go to war. It seems to work, so they keep doing it.

[Jeff Wagg]

About the tattoos...

Oooh! Oooh! I know!!!

They were each paid $100 by some jewish organization as part of the conspiracy.

Yeah, that's it!!

[Dave1001]

America had concentration camps for Japanese and Germans. Germans were interned in North Dakota and Texas. Governor Earl Warren interned Japanese. America bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. America helped Britain fire bomb every German cities' civilian population.

And America erects monuments and holocaust studies, as if it cared. The Jewish holocaust is a diversion.

If Roosevelt tricked an isolationist America into a world war, by not telling Kimmel and Short about the Japanese, think what George Bush gets away with in the Mideast. The lesson is the same. Roosevelt had to claim the military was negligent, that Kimmel and Short were derelict. Bush can't even explain why our military never responded when it was clear planes were off route and headed to the Twin Towers.

Roosevelt used the Japanese to go to war with Germany. Bush used the Twin Towers to go to war with Saddam. Leaders arrange an attack, so they can go to war. It seems to work, so they keep doing it.

If this is true "Germans were interned in North Dakota and Texas" it amounts to secret history. I'll google it.

[Oliver]

Okay, Eric. What is your problem with history and your agenda to awake this thread?

[maccy]

As Norman Finklestein, author of the Holocaust Industry, quotes his Jewish "holocaust survivor" mother as saying, "If there are all these survivors who did Hitler kill?"

Source?

We have more Holocaust survivors collecting money from Germany, than Jews who existed in Europe during world war two.

Source?

Professor of History at Princeton, Aron Mayer, a Jew himself, argues that most of the Jews who died in Europe during world war two, died of Typhus.

Source?

The major spokesperson for the holocaust is "survivor" Elie Weisel, who wrote Night. In Night, Weisel never mentions gas chambers. This is odd, since Weisel claims to have been at Auschwitz. Elie's method of genocide was burning in open ditches. This is actually where the term "Holocaust" arose, which means burnt offerings. Elie apparently spread one of the earlier war propagandas going around about burning Jews. He didn't get to correct his novel, when the gas chamber stories were fabricated.

Source?

One of the main reasons for doubting the Holocaust is the zealous nature of the holocaust promoters, they enact laws making it a prison term for denying the Holocaust, in Europe, Austria, France, Germany, and in Canada. You have to wonder about the religious zeal that drives those who promote the Holocaust, are they mentally ill? deranged psychos? what is the mental disease that causes people to imprison those who disagree with them? We're now in an age of thought control and thought police.

No, the holocaust happened and denial is a method of promoting the far right so they can carry out similar genocidal acts. Holocaust denial is a lie against history and the victims this is why it is banned the countries where the history is particularly important. It seems quite reasonable to me and even if it wasn't reasonable it wouldn't indicate that the holocaust didn't happen. Speculation about motive is not evidence.

Can you source the laws for Europe, France and Canada please? I am not familiar with those. Certainly holocaust denial is not an offence in the UK, which is in Europe.

But it only applies to the Jewish Holocaust. Elie Weisel wouldn't share a stage with Armenians who wanted to remember the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Only the Jewish Holocaust is worth remembering, to Elie.

Source? And how is this relevant to whether the holocaust happened or not?

Elie's Night book had another strange passage. In the last chapter, Elie says the German doctors treated his leg, but he was still recovering. Elie and his father had a choice, either wait in Auschwitz as the Russians approached and took over, or go with the Germans westward to another camp. Elie and his father chose to go with the Germans, rather than allow the Russians to take control of them. They preferred the Germans (the Germans who supposedly were executing and burning Jews every day). How was it Elie and his father escaped the executions and burnings? Elie tells us. You see, by accident, as the Germans marched thousands of Jews to their death, they would run out of time, and Elie and his father would be last in line, and be saved, each day. Some put Elie's novel in the fiction section.

Can you link to the passage itself rather than your version of it?

If this really disproves the Holocaust why did he include it?

I think there is probably another explanation.

Some holocaust "survivors" such as the authors of Painted Bird and Fragments, used in schools and colleges in America, were written by pretenders, who were never in any Germany concentration camp or even Jewish. Yet American schools made them required reading.

Source?

Is it anyone wonder people today in America continue to believe in the "Holocaust"? We indoctrinate well in America.

I disagree. Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

There was a real holocaust in Europe at the end of world war two. An Eye For Eye by Sacks, shows Jews exterminating Germans in Poland, after the war ended.

Please source this book correctly. How reliable are its sources? What are the numbers involved?

General Eisenhower hated Germans. He deported Germans to Russia to certain death. Another 2 million Germans died in Eisenhower's POW camps, where Eisenhower had orders to shoot any German woman or child who tried to provide food to German POWs. See Other Losses by James Baque.

More details of this book please, what concrete evidence does it produce? What relevance does Eisenhower's attitude and actions have to the actuality of the holocaust?

Let me guessm you think Eisenhower killed Patton as well?

The fake Jewish holocaust is used not only to justify Israeli terrorism against Palestinians and to justify the Israel nation and taking of land from Arabs, but it diverts attention from the real Holocaust, the murder of millions of Germans, by Russia, America, Eisenhower and Jews. The post war Jewish refugee camps were terrorist training centers for Begin's Irgun and Jewish terrorist groups, who blew up, bombed and murdered civilians at the King David Hotel.

Jewish terrorist groups acted against Britain, once the state of Israel had been recognised there was no more terror. Much of the land that became Israel was purchased during the initial period of settlement. My understanding is that further land was abandoned by Arabs (there are still Arabs living in Israel who didn't flee - so they weren't forced out). The only land that was taken by force was the occupied territories - and that was in a war that Israel didn't start.

Evidence of German deaths that result from the war? Otherwise, you can't call it murder or genocide.

Subsequent actions of Israel or any other country do not disprove the holocaust.

Franklin Roosevelt hated Germans. Truman implemented the Morgenthau Plan. They claim they didn't, but they just gave it a new name. The Morgenthau Plan was to starve Germany. Roosevelt and Churchill had firebombed Dresden and Germany civilians. It was terrorism, beyond the scope of civilized warfare. When Germany was ready to surrender, Roosevelt did his best to make the war last as long as possible, by publicizing the Morgenthau Plan, so Germany would keep fighting, so the Allies could kill more Germans.

Any evidence for this nonsense?

What was the pretext for this war? Poland? We gave Poland away to Russia at the end of the war. America didn't care about Jews. Roosevelt turned the St. Louis away with a thousand Jews back to Europe.

The Holocaust was just war propaganda. We did the same thing in World War One, making up stories about German soldiers knifing Belgian babies.

Britain declared war because of the invasion of Poland. Russia because it was invaded by German. The USA because of Pearl Harbor. The holocaust had no bearing on these decisions and was not widely known about until after the war was over.

Rudolf Hess risked his life for peace, flying to Britain. We charged Hess as a war criminal. The real war criminals are Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, Menachem Begin. Instead of German leaders, they should have executed Allied leaders.

Evidence? Sources?

Even Begin didn't consider the Nazis to be a threat. Adolf Hitler wanted a Jewish homeland. The British didn't. Begin offered to have his Irgun join with the Nazis to fight Britain. The Nazis turned Begin down.

Evidence? Sources?

History is written by the victors. It's court history, filled with myths of war propaganda. Real Skeptics are revisionists. Robots who follow their countries fake history are incapbable of thinking.

Whereas what you have is unmitigated unsourced garbage from beginning to end. You are the robot, unthinkingly following neo-nazi anti-semetic nonsense.

[maccy]

Source?

Source?

Source?

Source?

No, the holocaust happened and denial is a method of promoting the far right so they can carry out similar genocidal acts. Holocaust denial is a lie against history and the victims this is why it is banned the countries where the history is particularly important. It seems quite reasonable to me and even if it wasn't reasonable it wouldn't indicate that the holocaust didn't happen. Speculation about motive is not evidence.

Can you source the laws for Europe, France and Canada please? I am not familiar with those. Certainly holocaust denial is not an offence in the UK, which is in Europe.

Source? And how is this relevant to whether the holocaust happened or not?

Can you link to the passage itself rather than your version of it?

If this really disproves the Holocaust why did he include it?

I think there is probably another explanation.

Source?

I disagree. Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

Please source this book correctly. How reliable are its sources? What are the numbers involved?

More details of this book please, what concrete evidence does it produce? What relevance does Eisenhower's attitude and actions have to the actuality of the holocaust?

Let me guessm you think Eisenhower killed Patton as well?

Jewish terrorist groups acted against Britain, once the state of Israel had been recognised there was no more terror. Much of the land that became Israel was purchased during the initial period of settlement. My understanding is that further land was abandoned by Arabs (there are still Arabs living in Israel who didn't flee - so they weren't forced out). The only land that was taken by force was the occupied territories - and that was in a war that Israel didn't start.

Evidence of German deaths that result from the war? Otherwise, you can't call it murder or genocide.

Subsequent actions of Israel or any other country do not disprove the holocaust.

Any evidence for this nonsense?

Britain declared war because of the invasion of Poland. Russia because it was invaded by German. The USA because of Pearl Harbor. The holocaust had no bearing on these decisions and was not widely known about until after the war was over.

Evidence? Sources?

Evidence? Sources?

Whereas what you have is unmitigated unsourced garbage from beginning to end. You are the robot, unthinkingly following neo-nazi anti-semetic nonsense.


Actually, on second thoughts, I'm not especially interested in your reply to all this. The world gets on fine without seeing your lies as truth. Your small band of fellow believers has no influence on anything.

I'm happy to continue to support the rememberance of the Holocaust and history as it is generally taught at the moment.

[jhunter1163]

Japanese were interned because they could be identified, because they LOOKED different. It was horribly, utterly wrong, and I'm ashamed of my government for it. When the Japanese were permitted to fight, in a segregated unit, that unit won more medals than any other in WWII. Almost 18,000 if I recall, with a strength of 8,000. Two-plus combat decorations PER MAN, on average.

America, as a nation, owes the Japanese internees and their families compensation for this crime, if it hasn't been paid already. I know an apology was given.

I don't know if Germans were interned in the US, but if so an apology and compensation would be due them, as well.

But to compare these actions, despicable as they were, to the Holocaust... to borrow a phrase from the physics world, that isn't even wrong. It doesn't even rise to the level of wrong.

[Alt+F4]

Some holocaust "survivors" such as the authors of Painted Bird and Fragments, used in schools and colleges in America, were written by pretenders, who were never in any Germany concentration camp or even Jewish. Yet American schools made them required reading.

Is it anyone wonder people today in America continue to believe in the "Holocaust"? We indoctrinate well in America.

I teach high school history in NYC, where we have lots and lots of Jews (no, before you ask, I'm not Jewish). So you're saying myself, my colleagues, my professors and every other history educator I've encountered is envolved in a conserted "pro-Jew" brainwashing program?

Well I've got news for you Skepticism, unlike you, I think for myself.

I hope it really, really bothers you that I have educated thousands and thousands of kids regarding the FACT that the Holocaust indeed did happen and all you have is your little, sad, hateful Internet life.

[Chaos]

Okay, Eric. What is your problem with history and your agenda to awake this thread?

The same problem that all serious Holocaust Deniers have: that the weight of mountains of historical facts crush any chance for a revival of their favorite ideology: national socialism. Without the Holocaust to tarnish the image for Hitler et al, all that remains is stuff they can "spin" or downplay or whatever, to the point where the Nazis will look like guys who have just had bad press from the guys who defeated them.


FWIW, I empathically disagree with anybody who considers Holocaust Denial a free speech issue. Allowing Holocaust Denial (or not) has nothing to do with free speech.

The reason for this is that, in order for the Holocaust to have been faked, countless people (the survivors of the supposedly-not-death-camps, for one) would have had to be "in on it". They, to be precise, have had to willingly and knowingly participate in a massive conspiracy aimed at falsely accusing a large number of people of the most horrible crimes.
In any judicial systems I have heard of, falsely accusing people of crimes in a context where this leads to the prosecution of said crime is, in itself, a crime; I am not sure but I assume that "libel" is the correct term for it.
It is obvious, therefore, that Holocaust Deniers willingly and knowingly (because nobody can be *that* dumb not to see they´re pulling that stuff out of their asses like that) accuse Europe´s surviving jews, among others, of libel on a truly massive scale despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Which, of course, is itself a massive case of libel.

And libel, as a crime, is not subject to the protection of free speech. Therefore I can see no ethical or legal problem with sueing the *********** pants off Holocaust Deniers and/or letting them rot in prison for as long as it takes to make them ******** on the death and suffering of so many people.

[Bell]

Nobel Laureate, Jewish Eli Weisel, has written that every Jew should reserve a hatred for Germans.

The real genocide, the real hatred is the Jewish treatment of Germans. Americans are like lap dogs eating up whatever fake Jewish stories are told, feeding the Jewish hatred. As Allan Dershowitz says, Jews don't forgive. Christian Germans do. Jews committed genocide against Germans. Germans didn't commit genocide against Jews. That's revisionist history. Americans prefer myths.

Are you, by any change, anti-semitic? Also, just because this forum uses red, white and black, doesn't mean it favors neo-nazi's and other a-hole groups.

[Alt+F4]

I empathically disagree with anybody who considers Holocaust Denial a free speech issue. Allowing Holocaust Denial (or not) has nothing to do with free speech.

I agree. It's kind of like debating if 2+2 really does equal 4.

[maccy]

I agree. It's kind of like debating if 2+2 really does equal 4.

I should point out that skepticsim is also a flat-earther:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123795#post2123795

and, of course, a moon-hoax believer:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123833#post2123833

[a_unique_person]

Nobel Laureate, Jewish Eli Weisel, has written that every Jew should reserve a hatred for Germans.

The real genocide, the real hatred is the Jewish treatment of Germans. Americans are like lap dogs eating up whatever fake Jewish stories are told, feeding the Jewish hatred. As Allan Dershowitz says, Jews don't forgive. Christian Germans do. Jews committed genocide against Germans. Germans didn't commit genocide against Jews. That's revisionist history. Americans prefer myths.

Finklestein never doubted the fact of the attempted genocide, nor it's scale, his only argument is the legacy of the genocide. As he said, his own mother was a survivor, he knew only too well what happened to the Jews rounded up by the Nazi regime. If there are Jews who survived the genocide, who never forgive the Germans, you can't really blame them for doing so. As it is, I have read of Jews who surivived the camps who have forgiven the Germans, because they know that any group can suffer the mass insanity of WWII Germany. There are Australian survivors of Japanese POW camps who will never forgive the Japanese, either.

[Dave1001]

If this is true "Germans were interned in North Dakota and Texas" it amounts to secret history. I'll google it.

It's apparently true. Thanks for bringing this underpublicized (to put it mildly) information to our attention.

[maccy]

By the way, septicjism, I hope you realise that this board is full of NWO agents, shills and nasty jooos. I hope you aren't scared that somebody might come around and shut you up?

Oh yeah, that's not going to happen because:

1. we're the human beings in this situation; and

2. your ideas realy aren't important enough.

[Gravy]

And America erects monuments and holocaust studies, as if it cared. The Jewish holocaust is a diversion.You make a serious mistake in equating the US internment camps with the deliberate murder of millions of people. I care about the Holocaust (which involved more than Jews, as I hope you know), as I care about all acts of genocide. So, from what is the Holocaust a "diversion?"

If Roosevelt tricked an isolationist America into a world war, by not telling Kimmel and Short about the Japanese, think what George Bush gets away with in the Mideast. In addition to getting your facts wrong, (see these posts for starters: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1512674&postcount=225
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1512750&postcount=229
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1523672&postcount=385
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507557&postcount=112 ),
you do not seem to understand the logical fallacies you make here. Ths site may help. http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

The lesson is the same. Roosevelt had to claim the military was negligent, that Kimmel and Short were derelict. Bush can't even explain why our military never responded when it was clear planes were off route and headed to the Twin Towers. You are wrong. NORAD responded immediately when alerted by the FAA of the possible hijackings. The most notice NORAD had was 9 minutes, not long enough for an interception. The FAA only informed NORAD about two of the hijacked planes after they crashed.

Leaders arrange an attack, so they can go to war. It seems to work, so they keep doing it.You haven't produced evidence to back your claims, and you have your facts completely wrong. Do your homework. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Bell]

btw, what the hell is wrong with all these nutters using screennames that include "truth" and "skeptic" etc.

[maccy]

btw, what the hell is wrong with all these nutters using screennames that include "truth" and "skeptic" etc.

Real truthseekers and skeptics never assume that they know the truth and are strong enough to question even their own skepticism. They also know that it is by your actions that you are judged, not by what you call yourself.

Isn't that right Binglybert?

[Gravy]

Nobel Laureate, Jewish Eli Weisel, has written that every Jew should reserve a hatred for Germans.

The real genocide, the real hatred is the Jewish treatment of Germans. Americans are like lap dogs eating up whatever fake Jewish stories are told, feeding the Jewish hatred. As Allan Dershowitz says, Jews don't forgive. Christian Germans do. Jews committed genocide against Germans. Germans didn't commit genocide against Jews. That's revisionist history. Americans prefer myths.Oh, I missed this before.

Please seek professional mental health care, skepticism. Your hatred of Jews has blinded you to reality. You have a serious problem. Help is available. Please avail yourself of it.

[Gravy]

Isn't that right Binglybert?Bingo!

I'll be giving this creep's posts a pass from now on.

[Chaos]

I agree. It's kind of like debating if 2+2 really does equal 4.

Really?

Can you point to any ethnical or religious group that potentially faces genocide (in the long run), should any other result for 2+2 ever become generally accepted?

You´re being far too kind to these people by considering them THAT harmless.

[Alt+F4]

Really?

Can you point to any ethnical or religious group that potentially faces genocide (in the long run), should any other result for 2+2 ever become generally accepted?

You´re being far too kind to these people by considering them THAT harmless.

The point I'm trying to make is that the Holocaust is a FACT the same way that 2+2=4 is a FACT. Everyone would consider it ridiculous to debate if 2+2=4, I consider Holocaust denial just as ridiculous.

[Chaos]

The point I'm trying to make is that the Holocaust is a FACT the same way that 2+2=4 is a FACT. Everyone would consider it ridiculous to debate if 2+2=4, I consider Holocaust denial just as ridiculous.

Sure. I got that. But my point is that they would be ridiculous only if they weren´t so dangerous.

[Bell]

Real truthseekers and skeptics never assume that they know the truth and are strong enough to question even their own skepticism. They also know that it is by your actions that you are judged, not by what you call yourself.

Isn't that right Binglybert?

Anybody calling himself Binglybert has a serious problem with self critism IMHO... uhm, what we talking about again? :boxedin:

[Horatius]

btw, what the hell is wrong with all these nutters using screennames that include "truth" and "skeptic" etc.

My hypothesis is that they're trying to be clever. They think if they call themselves "Skeptic2TehMax4321", we just won't notice that they're spewing bile.

And yes, it is just as patheticly sad as it sounds.

At least when a kitten thinks it can take on the big cat, he's being cute.......


u7jQaPxBNKc

[Alt+F4]

Sure. I got that. But my point is that they would be ridiculous only if they weren´t so dangerous.

And they become more dangerous because people allow the Holocaust to be debated under their misconception of the 1st Amendment.

[Donal]

Just like to point out, Weisel was in Buchenwald and only passed through Auschwitz. Please actually read Night like I have done before making more mistakes about its content.

Also, his father was unable to to follow the Germans out of the camp (I doubt he would have since the Jews had actually managed to over take the last of the guards as the evacuation ended) because he had died weeks before the americans, not Russians, arrived

[milesalpha]

Nobel Laureate, Jewish Eli Weisel, has written that every Jew should reserve a hatred for Germans.

The real genocide, the real hatred is the Jewish treatment of Germans. Americans are like lap dogs eating up whatever fake Jewish stories are told, feeding the Jewish hatred. As Allan Dershowitz says, Jews don't forgive. Christian Germans do. Jews committed genocide against Germans. Germans didn't commit genocide against Jews. That's revisionist history. Americans prefer myths.


Quite possibly the stupidest post I have ever seen on this forum and that includes the nutty CTs. I have avoided this thread because I am a touch tired of pointing out the shortcomings of the denier's case, but your post was one of those rare bits that is too foolish to ignore.

I wish I could nominate him, shouldn't we have a version of the Razzies here? This guy really deserves to sweep the awards.

[JanH]

I have discussed endlessly with various nutcases over the years, as have many others on this board, and I have noticed the clear similarities in the argumentation of for example creationists or 9-11 deniers and holocaust revisionists.

The reason I still restrain from comparing creationists and 9-11 deniers to holocaust revisionists is that from my experience practically everybody who denies the holocaust is a nazi. It is an ideologically driven conspiracy theory.

Other cranks, for example 9-11 denialists, have other motivations, typically a very strong distrust in government. Creationists, of course, have strong religious motivations. So the mechanisms have some similarities, but the other nuts are simply being mislead by strong convictions that are also shared by quite reasonable people (ie. government distrust and religiousity). Nazism has no such redeeming qualities.

In the case of 9-11 denialism, there is a strong core of holocaust deniers in the movement, but I still believe most 'troofers' are as disgusted by them as any other decent person. The quackery is similar. The motivation is different.

'Normal' conspiracy theories are nutty and a violation of rational thought, but not necessarily morally repugnant. Holocaust revisionism is.

[Elizabeth I]

If this is true "Germans were interned in North Dakota and Texas" it amounts to secret history. I'll google it.
There were German POW camps in south Texas. Why they shipped Germans from Europe to Texas to hold them is beyond me, but there it is.

Source: http://ameddregiment.amedd.army.mil/fshmuse/pow.htm

[Thunder]

if the holocaust is a hoax...where are all the missing jews? every elderly jew from europe can name their family members that were shipped off and never returned. many were in the camps themseles. are they all liars? are the jews a nation of liars?

too many jews, poles, and others witnessed the crimes first hand for it to be a hoax. did the jews and poles get together one night in 1938 and say "ok folks..were gonna tell the world that imaginary relatives were killed by the nazis." give me a break.

holocaust denial is in itself, an anti-semitic belief. it accuses the jewish people of lieing to the world about a non-existant genocide, inorder to garner support for israel.

[twinstead]

Well, skepticism, are you going to post further, and answer the questions and comments directed at you, or are you going to run off like the coward, both intellectual and physical, that we think you are?

Hmmm?

[Squishua]

Where did you get this crap from? The Storm Front website?

Cursory investigation reveals that holocaust deniers either:
A. Have a racist axe to grind.
B. Haven't done much homework.
C. Are morons.

(more than one may apply)

-Squish

[Foolmewunz]

There were German POW camps in south Texas. Why they shipped Germans from Europe to Texas to hold them is beyond me, but there it is.

Source: http://ameddregiment.amedd.army.mil/fshmuse/pow.htm

There were numerous POW camps in the USA. What Skeptischism is alluding to was the internment of German-Americans, which might be the only true thing in his repulsive posts. But as Binglybert pointed out, the internment of six to ten thousand aliens (they didn't intern German-American citizens) is hardly comparable to the attempted genocide of the undesirable populations of western and central Europe.

[gumboot]

How does this work? What mechanism do they use to explain the videos of the dead bodies and what reason do they give for Jewish people wanting to fake the Holocaust?


As with Dazed, in an effort to explain the mechanism by which they deny it, here are some other factors:

There is always atrocity propaganda in war. Some of the holocaust claims are indeed false, and deniers will cherry pick these to deny or deflate the entire event.

Example:

Prior to liberation, Allied forces dropped pamphlets across Europe telling civilians that the Germans were gassing Jews in concentration camps. This was of course before they knew if this was true or not - it was an invented piece of propaganda.

When the Holocaust was uncovered, it was discovered that the Nazis HAD gassed Jews, however they hadn't systematically used them in German concentration camps (as we know, the worst camps weren't in Germany anyway).

From this comes the myth that noone was ever gassed, which is false.

Another "urban myth" of the holocaust is lampshades made from human skin. "Evidence" was presented at the trials and found to not be human skin.

In any horrific event of this scale, occuring over many years, such stories will be born. some will be entirely fiction, some will be exaggerated. They do not deny the event, they just affect the details.

Another is eye witness reports. Some victims reported enormous gas chambers the size of many football fields, crammed with hundreds of people at a time.

No such buildings existed. Does that mean the gassings didn't take place? Of course not. Estimated the size of buildings and crowds is phenomenally difficult. Even more so given the situation these survivors were in.

Deniers will point to any and all discrepencies in various accounts and use them to disprove the ENTIRE event. It's the precise reverse of what we see in the Mineta testimony arguments - they cannot fathom that people recall details incorrectly to events that are real. Either the details must also be real, or the event itself must not be real.

That, and, IMHO, some groups and individuals who are Jews have grossly misused the Holocaust emotional card to further their own interests, which doesn't help things.

-Gumboot

[skeptifem]

How does this work? What mechanism do they use to explain the videos of the dead bodies and what reason do they give for Jewish people wanting to fake the Holocaust?


whenever ive witnessed an argument of this sort it goes like this:

poster1: it didnt happen

everyone posts proof

poster1: not THAT many people died, *long explanation with no facts*

everyone posts proof again and logical arguments against the numbers being inflated to an extreme degree.

poster1: well all that stuff about people being gassed in showers is BS!

and so on. None of the deniers answers for anything, they just keep on coming up with whacky stuff to be debunked. I can see how it would be easier to believe things that bad didnt happen/were exaggerated. The didnt happen/was exaggerated transition happens a lot, most of the time people dont know what the hell they are talking about and just repeat what they have heard on stormfront.

[uk_dave]

It's also interesting that holocaust deniers also seem to be 911 woowoos (though not all 911 woowoos are holocaust deniers).

We are constantly reminded by woowoos that governments can be evil and are not to be trusted, and yet the holocaust denier would have us believe that the nazi government is improperly maligned over the holocaust.

Which just leaves us with a common theme of anti-semitism.

[Polaris]

That hardly makes the nazi government that perpetuated the holocaust a western democracy.

Although democracies have certainly committed genocides. For example, the United States and indigenous Americans.

And even that wasn't a deliberate extermination such as the Nazis wanted to do to the Jews and the Gypsies. Most indians who died were killed by infectious diseases to which they had no immunities, not by American brute force. Adding up all the official massacres such as Wounded Knee and the Washita River, the numbers are well below genocide levels even if quadrupled. What happened to the Californian indians during the Gold Rush was a bit more of a genocidal slaughter (100,000 or so), however this wasn't official - mainly it was settlers who committed the murders.

Since genocide means to eradicate a culture, what happened to the American indians counts because there was a systematic effort to Christianize them and destroy their way of life (complete with anti-supply campaigns: the killing of the buffalo).

[defaultdotxbe]

There were German POW camps in south Texas. Why they shipped Germans from Europe to Texas to hold them is beyond me, but there it is.

Source: http://ameddregiment.amedd.army.mil/fshmuse/pow.htm
there were also camps in colorado, michegan and illinois, my great grandfather spent time in all three of those

they were in no way comparable to german POW or concentration camps

[Polaris]

Is that mathematically possible? I think you may diminish the arguments of folks like Finkelstein by mixing lines like this in with their points.

This is one of your idiosyncratic eccentrics, Dave.

[Dave1001]

This is one of your idiosyncratic eccentrics, Dave.

Without a doubt. Do they harm anyone by being allowed to exist freely in society and express their contrarian point of view? If anything, he/she proves freedom of speech and thought by being able to express such a wide range of contrarian views. We're all free to believe or disbelieve each of his/her ideas.

[Dave1001]

there were also camps in colorado, michegan and illinois, my great grandfather spent time in all three of those

they were in no way comparable to german POW or concentration camps

But were they comparable to the internment camps japanese americans were in? I think it's hard to argue that this aspect of the american WWII history is undertaught relative to similar aspects, such as japanese american internment.

[bjb]

What happened to the Californian indians during the Gold Rush was a bit more of a genocidal slaughter (100,000 or so), however this wasn't official - mainly it was settlers who committed the murders.

There were a lot of Indians killed in California during the gold rush, but once California became a state, a law was passed that paid a bounty on Indian scalps:

http://www.tachi-yokut.com/history2.html

There were also laws allowing 'vagrant' Indians to be captured and used for slave labor.

Official or not, genocide is genocide. At the time, the law did not protect Indians in California from crime so in this respect, there was government approval. I don't know what this has to do with Holocaust denial but it does show that we humans have a bad habit of wiping out people who are different from us. It's not a German or even a Nazi thing because it happens everywhere, even in America.

[Comsat Angel]

It's interesting to see how a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier works, and how they think (sic).

"We did the same thing in World War One, making up stories about German soldiers knifing Belgian babies"

You might care to repeat this when next in Belgium, esp. in Louvain. Hint: wear a gum shield and plenty of body armour. Also, have your medical insurance paid up.

"America helped Britain fire bomb every German cities' civilian population."

Excuse me! We here in the UK were doing very well at incendiary terror bombing for years before the US ever joined in the attack on <quote> democratic misunderstood bulwark-against-Communism> Germany <unquote>.

Dresden vs. Hiroshima/Nagasaki? I know the actual figures compiled by the <democratic misunderstood bulwark - oh you get the idea> Germans immediately post-Dresden were a total of @ 25,000. Yes, I know, sad isn't it, a mere fraction of the hundreds of thousands touted by Irving et al.

Skepticism's post is such a touchstone for neo-Nazi denial I wonder if it isn't someone playing a joke.

[LibraryLady]

I'm never really sure how to react to a holocaust denier.

Do I try gentle ridicule: "Hey, Skepticism, what color is the sky on your planet?"

Do I cite numerous sources and witnesses: 1 (http://www.holocaust-trc.org/TFA.htm. http://www.ushmm.org/), 2 (http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/start/index.php), 3 (http://www.amazon.com/We-Are-Witnesses-Teenagers-Holocaust/dp/059084475X/sr=8-1/qid=1164505119/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4150656-6119834?ie=UTF8&s=books), 4 (http://www.amazon.com/Anne-Frank-Diary-Young-Definitive/dp/0385473788/sr=1-2/qid=1164505145/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-4150656-6119834?ie=UTF8&s=books), 5 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.holocaust-history.org/hungarian-photos/jpg/12-1142.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.holocaust-history.org/hungarian-photos/&h=236&w=398&sz=30&hl=en&sig2=VNdv5Ap173iluu_qhh-8MQ&start=1&tbnid=uyqg4J0N7lBrlM:&tbnh=74&tbnw=124&ei=W_BoRYT9NZ7KaJnggfcB&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dholocaust%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr %3D%26rls%3DGGLR,GGLR:2006-21,GGLR:en)

Do I angrily denounce him: "Skepticism, you are a stupid (*&%(#)&( ignoramus."

Do I appeal to his humanity: "Skepticism, twelve million people were slaughtered. Had you been there, you very probably could have been one of them. Think about it."

Do I appeal to his logic: "Why would so much effort be put into such detailed fakery just to single out the Germans? Surely, the Spanish would have been better targets, what with the Inquisition and all."

Do I ignore him:













Yes, I think I've hit on it.

[maccy]

Do I appeal to his logic: "Why would so much effort be put into such detailed fakery just to single out the Germans? Surely, the Spanish would have been better targets, what with the Inquisition and all."

Well the problem with the Spanish is:

zO68fUMWx3g

Ha! That's two, no three threads that this video is in!

[LibraryLady]

Well the problem with the Spanish is:

zO68fUMWx3g

Ha! That's two, no three threads that this video is in!

Yes, but my own personal favorite is:

2H6DSoqZz_s

I don't know how to make the "youtube disclaimer thingy," so I'm hoping it's automatic.

[Polaris]

There were a lot of Indians killed in California during the gold rush, but once California became a state, a law was passed that paid a bounty on Indian scalps:

http://www.tachi-yokut.com/history2.html

There were also laws allowing 'vagrant' Indians to be captured and used for slave labor.

Official or not, genocide is genocide. At the time, the law did not protect Indians in California from crime so in this respect, there was government approval. I don't know what this has to do with Holocaust denial but it does show that we humans have a bad habit of wiping out people who are different from us. It's not a German or even a Nazi thing because it happens everywhere, even in America.

I'm not denying it was genocide. I'm saying it wasn't the brand of systematic extermination the Nazis (and the Turks for that matter) practiced in the 20th century.

[maccy]

Yes, but my own personal favorite is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s

I don't know how to make the "youtube disclaimer thingy," so I'm hoping it's automatic.

To do that one it would be <yt>2H6DSoqZz_s</yt> but with square brackets rather than angle brackets.

In other words, like this:

2H6DSoqZz_s

ETA:

I know this is blowing my own trumpet but you might enjoy this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2099987#post2099987

Edited again to add:

You can see all the tags and how to use them by clicking here http://forums.randi.org/misc.php?do=bbcode

Doing that has just taught me about the noparse tag, so I can write the youtube stuff properly now:

2H6DSoqZz_s

[LibraryLady]

To do that one it would be <yt>2H6DSoqZz_s</yt> but with square brackets rather than angle brackets.

In other words, like this:

2H6DSoqZz_s

ETA:

I know this is blowing my own trumpet but you might enjoy this post:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2099987#post2099987

Edited again to add:

You can see all the tags and how to use them by clicking here http://forums.randi.org/misc.php?do=bbcode

Doing that has just taught me about the noparse tag, so I can write the youtube stuff properly now:

2H6DSoqZz_s


Thank you! Darat has corrected the post above and I have bookmarked the list.

I saw your dead parrot post before; unfortunately it was at work, and I had to stifle my laughter down to muffled shrieks. :lol2:

[Kiwiwriter]

Let me just clarify something.
I was referring to a specific doctored photo.

You may have seen it. It showed a group of prisoners, and in the background, smoke billowing from a chimney. In the original photo, there was no smoke coming from the chimney, so it was edited. Here's the 'reason' for it.

"IN ORDER to reconcile the wartime 1944 photograph with the postwar "eye-witness testimony" of smoke billowing from Crematorium building chimneys, the historians and scholars of the Simon Wiesenthal Center have helpfully inserted smoke into the photograph, thereby avoiding injurious puzzlement among school children and other innocent visitors to its Website who might otherwise fall foul of the lies of the Revisionists."

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html

While I don't deny the holocaust, I think its inappropriate to edit the historical documents to make it seem like it was 'more-holocausty' then it really was.

Essentially, this organization said, "We know the holocaust happened, but it doesn't really look like it in this picture, so lets add some burning jews so the children wont get confused."

This came from "Focal Point Press," which is the website and publishing arm of David Irving, who sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel when she said in her book on Holocaust deniers that he was a big one. Irving, representing himself out of egotism, lost....hugely. The judgment called him a liar, a bigot, a perverter of history, and a lot of other extremely unpleasant names.

Since then, he defied an Austrian ban on going to that country, and did so to address some right-wing college students, and surprise, surprise, got arrested! At his trial, hoping to avoid jail, he reversed his statements of the past 20 years and said the Holocaust was "the tragedy of the Jewish people," but got three years anyway. Once behind bars, he reversed himself again, and said the Holocaust didn't happen.

He has a grim record of twisting facts and history to suit his lifelong thesis that Hitler was a wonderful fellow, and this photo is probably more of the same.

[Kiwiwriter]

As Norman Finklestein, author of the Holocaust Industry, quotes his Jewish "holocaust survivor" mother as saying, "If there are all these survivors who did Hitler kill?"

We have more Holocaust survivors collecting money from Germany, than Jews who existed in Europe during world war two.

Professor of History at Princeton, Aron Mayer, a Jew himself, argues that most of the Jews who died in Europe during world war two, died of Typhus.

The major spokesperson for the holocaust is "survivor" Elie Weisel, who wrote Night. In Night, Weisel never mentions gas chambers. This is odd, since Weisel claims to have been at Auschwitz. Elie's method of genocide was burning in open ditches. This is actually where the term "Holocaust" arose, which means burnt offerings. Elie apparently spread one of the earlier war propagandas going around about burning Jews. He didn't get to correct his novel, when the gas chamber stories were fabricated.

One of the main reasons for doubting the Holocaust is the zealous nature of the holocaust promoters, they enact laws making it a prison term for denying the Holocaust, in Europe, Austria, France, Germany, and in Canada. You have to wonder about the religious zeal that drives those who promote the Holocaust, are they mentally ill? deranged psychos? what is the mental disease that causes people to imprison those who disagree with them? We're now in an age of thought control and thought police.

But it only applies to the Jewish Holocaust. Elie Weisel wouldn't share a stage with Armenians who wanted to remember the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Only the Jewish Holocaust is worth remembering, to Elie.

Elie's Night book had another strange passage. In the last chapter, Elie says the German doctors treated his leg, but he was still recovering. Elie and his father had a choice, either wait in Auschwitz as the Russians approached and took over, or go with the Germans westward to another camp. Elie and his father chose to go with the Germans, rather than allow the Russians to take control of them. They preferred the Germans (the Germans who supposedly were executing and burning Jews every day). How was it Elie and his father escaped the executions and burnings? Elie tells us. You see, by accident, as the Germans marched thousands of Jews to their death, they would run out of time, and Elie and his father would be last in line, and be saved, each day. Some put Elie's novel in the fiction section.

Some holocaust "survivors" such as the authors of Painted Bird and Fragments, used in schools and colleges in America, were written by pretenders, who were never in any Germany concentration camp or even Jewish. Yet American schools made them required reading.

Is it anyone wonder people today in America continue to believe in the "Holocaust"? We indoctrinate well in America.

There was a real holocaust in Europe at the end of world war two. An Eye For Eye by Sacks, shows Jews exterminating Germans in Poland, after the war ended. General Eisenhower hated Germans. He deported Germans to Russia to certain death. Another 2 million Germans died in Eisenhower's POW camps, where Eisenhower had orders to shoot any German woman or child who tried to provide food to German POWs. See Other Losses by James Baque.

The fake Jewish holocaust is used not only to justify Israeli terrorism against Palestinians and to justify the Israel nation and taking of land from Arabs, but it diverts attention from the real Holocaust, the murder of millions of Germans, by Russia, America, Eisenhower and Jews. The post war Jewish refugee camps were terrorist training centers for Begin's Irgun and Jewish terrorist groups, who blew up, bombed and murdered civilians at the King David Hotel.

Franklin Roosevelt hated Germans. Truman implemented the Morgenthau Plan. They claim they didn't, but they just gave it a new name. The Morgenthau Plan was to starve Germany. Roosevelt and Churchill had firebombed Dresden and Germany civilians. It was terrorism, beyond the scope of civilized warfare. When Germany was ready to surrender, Roosevelt did his best to make the war last as long as possible, by publicizing the Morgenthau Plan, so Germany would keep fighting, so the Allies could kill more Germans.

What was the pretext for this war? Poland? We gave Poland away to Russia at the end of the war. America didn't care about Jews. Roosevelt turned the St. Louis away with a thousand Jews back to Europe.

The Holocaust was just war propaganda. We did the same thing in World War One, making up stories about German soldiers knifing Belgian babies.

Rudolf Hess risked his life for peace, flying to Britain. We charged Hess as a war criminal. The real war criminals are Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin, Menachem Begin. Instead of German leaders, they should have executed Allied leaders.

Even Begin didn't consider the Nazis to be a threat. Adolf Hitler wanted a Jewish homeland. The British didn't. Begin offered to have his Irgun join with the Nazis to fight Britain. The Nazis turned Begin down.

History is written by the victors. It's court history, filled with myths of war propaganda. Real Skeptics are revisionists. Robots who follow their countries fake history are incapbable of thinking.

There are so many things wrong with this extrusion, that it would take me about three hours to delineate them all. However, while typing is time-consuming, ripping this open is not hard.

Here are some fine web resources to rip this Holocaust denial, which is nothing but recycled material:

http://www.nizkor.org/

Nizkor, which means "remembrance." Great for slicing and dicing Holocaust denier myths.

http://www.remember.org/History.root.rev.html

Holocaust Denial and the Big Lie. Addresses many common denier myths.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/

The Holocaust History Project Homepage...lots of good hard and factual answers to denier crockola, including Richard Green's technical reports on Fred Leuchter and Gerhard Scheerer/Rudolf's idiocies.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/

Holocaust Controversies, a weblog devoted to exposing deniers and their fallacies.

Read and learn.

[Kiwiwriter]

Sacks wrote Eye for An Eye. Professor Deborah L. of the Holocaust Studies Department, calls Sacks worse than a Holocaust Denier. Sacks asked her why she said that. Professor Deborah L. said she didn't have time to answer, she was late for a faculty meeting.

Professor Deborah L. helped send Historian David Irving to prison in Austria, after a judgment against him in Britain.

Sacks wrote of the Jews killing Germans in Poland, as the war ended. Sacks is Jewish. Sacks wonders why no Jew ever mentions this truth.

The real holocaust was against the Germans. More Germans died in World War II, about 5 million in the war, and another 5 million after the war. The Allies and Jews wanted to exterminate Germans, that was the purpose of the Morgenthau Plan. Franklin Roosevelt's son in the military, asked Franklin Roosevelt, "Do you plan to starve Germany?" Roosevelt answered, "Why not." Roosevelt even adopted Hemmingway's line, that we should castrate German males, so Germany can't reproduce.

Franklin Roosevelt met with Stalin and told Stalin that the Allies should adopt Stalin's plan to execute summarily 50,000 German leaders. Stalin told Roosevelt that Stalin had just been joking. Roosevelt, however, was serious.

Fortunately, Roosevelt died. Truman however, was as blood thirsty, dropping A-bombs on Japan, acts of terror never before seen in history, with as many civilians murdered as the Allied bombing of Dresden.

Hitler had offered to remove civilians as targets during the war. Churchill and Roosevelt wouldn't agree. The American, British, Russian and Jewish stategy included terrorism and extermination of Germans. That's the real purpose of fake stories of a Jewish holocaust, to make people forget and ignore the real genocide against Germans.

Even Jewish author Sacks, knows and recognizes that Jews murdered Germans.

Sorry, but Deborah didn't put anybody in jail...Irving did that to himself. And Deborah publicly called for Irving to be released.

Here's her web page:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/

And for the complete testimony and reports of the libel lawsuit that David Irving launched against her:

http://www.hdot.org/ieindex.html

Again, read and learn.

I don't think "Skepticism" will, because he's a Flat-Earther, if that's possible, as well as a Holocaust denier, so I wonder how he thinks the Allies moved military forces around the world from 1939 to 1945. But I invite interested folks to review this material for their own edification.

[skepticism]

The main evidence for the "holocaust" is eyewitnesses, survivors. The main real survivor is French History Professor Paul Rassinier. the Gestapo arrested him for helping Jews cross the border. Rassinier was a communist, a second reason the Gestapo sent him to Buchenwald. He contracted Typhus in a German concentration camp.

after release from the camp, he returned to France, awarded their nation's highest honors for being in the French Resistance against Germany.

But then Prof. Paul Rassinier noticed false propaganda about Germany, false accusations of gas chambers. Rassinier had never seen any gas chambers. He spent decades talking to other camp surivivors, none had seen gas chambers. Rassinier knew Russia had fabricated accusations of gas chambers and a "holocaust." The father of historical revisionism and "holocaust denial" is Prof. Rassinier. The communist party expelled him, when he wrote The Lie, about fake accusations of a Holocaust.

The "survivors" are cited as the main evidence of a Holocaust. In American school, highschools and colleges, it's been mandatory reading for "Fragments" and "Painted Bird" by supposed holocaust "survivors." Fragments was used by Prof. Deborah L. in Georgia in her Holocaust Studies Program, required reading for college students. Supporting "survivor" Benjimin, author of Fragments was another "survivor" Laura Grabowski. She said she was in a camp with Benji. Benji was discovered to be a fake, not even Jewish, never in a war camp. Laura was worse, a fiction writer. but American universities would use their fiction as "evidence" of a holocaust. Even after Jews discovered they were fakes, they promoted the books, Painted Bird and Fragments, with awards and honors.

That's the choice: a real hero, who helped Jews, History Professor Paul Rassinier, who knows the holocaust is a fake, or believe fake fiction writers who wrote fictional novels such as "Painted Bird" and "Fragments."

Meanwhile, "skeptics" are skeptical about anything except the holocaust.

[skepticism]

What open minded skeptic would ever ask for imprisonment for someone who disagreed with them factually? Maybe the Catholic Church in the dark ages. maybe the witch burners in salem. And maybe the people who promote the holocaust legend?

You have good company. The best evidence for any proposition is the fanaticism of the opponent of the proposition.

If you have torch bearing lynch mob members against you, you probably have a good opinion.

If you have prosecutors seeking prison for denying an historical "fact" in world war two, you probably have the correct opinion.

If you have pig f___ing Southernors trying to tar & feather you, I'd take your side, without even knowing what the argument was about.

When you have totally closed minded idiots prosecuting people for denying the "holocaust," even prosecuting the attorneys who try to defend the defendants, you know you've stepped into the Intolerance Zone, with bizarre creeps from dogma hell. That's what "holocaust" promoters are.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The main evidence for the "holocaust" is eyewitnesses, survivors. The main real survivor is French History Professor Paul Rassinier. the Gestapo arrested him for helping Jews cross the border. Rassinier was a communist, a second reason the Gestapo sent him to Buchenwald. He contracted Typhus in a German concentration camp.

after release from the camp, he returned to France, awarded their nation's highest honors for being in the French Resistance against Germany.

But then Prof. Paul Rassinier noticed false propaganda about Germany, false accusations of gas chambers. Rassinier had never seen any gas chambers. He spent decades talking to other camp surivivors, none had seen gas chambers. Rassinier knew Russia had fabricated accusations of gas chambers and a "holocaust." The father of historical revisionism and "holocaust denial" is Prof. Rassinier. The communist party expelled him, when he wrote The Lie, about fake accusations of a Holocaust.

The "survivors" are cited as the main evidence of a Holocaust. In American school, highschools and colleges, it's been mandatory reading for "Fragments" and "Painted Bird" by supposed holocaust "survivors." Fragments was used by Prof. Deborah L. in Georgia in her Holocaust Studies Program, required reading for college students. Supporting "survivor" Benjimin, author of Fragments was another "survivor" Laura Grabowski. She said she was in a camp with Benji. Benji was discovered to be a fake, not even Jewish, never in a war camp. Laura was worse, a fiction writer. but American universities would use their fiction as "evidence" of a holocaust. Even after Jews discovered they were fakes, they promoted the books, Painted Bird and Fragments, with awards and honors.

That's the choice: a real hero, who helped Jews, History Professor Paul Rassinier, who knows the holocaust is a fake, or believe fake fiction writers who wrote fictional novels such as "Painted Bird" and "Fragments."

Meanwhile, "skeptics" are skeptical about anything except the holocaust.

I suggest you start by addressing the criticisms raised in the following:
Holocaust Denial

Holocaust Denier Tactics (article) (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-11-07.html#holocaust_denier)Michael Shermer examines Holocaust denier tactics.
(from eSkeptic: Novermber 7th, 2004)
Enigma (article) (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-05-03.html#Enigma) Michael Shermer examines the Faustian Bargain of David Irving.
(from eSkeptic: May 3rd, 2005)
Giving the Devil His Due (commentary) (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-03-02.html#feature) Michael Shermer comments on David Irving’s three-year prison sentence for denying the Holocaust.
(from eSkeptic: March 2nd, 2006)

[Bell]

The main evidence for the "holocaust" is eyewitnesses, survivors. The main real survivor is French History Professor Paul Rassinier. the Gestapo arrested him for helping Jews cross the border. Rassinier was a communist, a second reason the Gestapo sent him to Buchenwald. He contracted Typhus in a German concentration camp.

after release from the camp, he returned to France, awarded their nation's highest honors for being in the French Resistance against Germany.

But then Prof. Paul Rassinier noticed false propaganda about Germany, false accusations of gas chambers. Rassinier had never seen any gas chambers. He spent decades talking to other camp surivivors, none had seen gas chambers. Rassinier knew Russia had fabricated accusations of gas chambers and a "holocaust." The father of historical revisionism and "holocaust denial" is Prof. Rassinier. The communist party expelled him, when he wrote The Lie, about fake accusations of a Holocaust.

The "survivors" are cited as the main evidence of a Holocaust. In American school, highschools and colleges, it's been mandatory reading for "Fragments" and "Painted Bird" by supposed holocaust "survivors." Fragments was used by Prof. Deborah L. in Georgia in her Holocaust Studies Program, required reading for college students. Supporting "survivor" Benjimin, author of Fragments was another "survivor" Laura Grabowski. She said she was in a camp with Benji. Benji was discovered to be a fake, not even Jewish, never in a war camp. Laura was worse, a fiction writer. but American universities would use their fiction as "evidence" of a holocaust. Even after Jews discovered they were fakes, they promoted the books, Painted Bird and Fragments, with awards and honors.

That's the choice: a real hero, who helped Jews, History Professor Paul Rassinier, who knows the holocaust is a fake, or believe fake fiction writers who wrote fictional novels such as "Painted Bird" and "Fragments."

Meanwhile, "skeptics" are skeptical about anything except the holocaust.

If that's your conclusion mr. Facism, then bugger off to Stormfront or any of your other Neo-Nazi scum.

[Bandersnatch]

Canada doesn't arrest you for denying the holocaust. It does if you advocate violence against an identifiable group as listed in the Charter.

IE:
The holocaust never happened! : Legal
The holocaust never happened! We should make it! : Illegal

EDIT: it != if

[Kiwiwriter]

What open minded skeptic would ever ask for imprisonment for someone who disagreed with them factually? Maybe the Catholic Church in the dark ages. maybe the witch burners in salem. And maybe the people who promote the holocaust legend?

You have good company. The best evidence for any proposition is the fanaticism of the opponent of the proposition.

If you have torch bearing lynch mob members against you, you probably have a good opinion.

If you have prosecutors seeking prison for denying an historical "fact" in world war two, you probably have the correct opinion.

If you have pig f___ing Southernors trying to tar & feather you, I'd take your side, without even knowing what the argument was about.

When you have totally closed minded idiots prosecuting people for denying the "holocaust," even prosecuting the attorneys who try to defend the defendants, you know you've stepped into the Intolerance Zone, with bizarre creeps from dogma hell. That's what "holocaust" promoters are.

...Deborah Lipstadt and many other defenders of the truth have openly opposed the jailing of David Irving and other Holocaust deniers.

[Nick Terry]

The amount of baloney in this post is truly remarkable

The main evidence for the "holocaust" is eyewitnesses, survivors.

Actually, no, it isn't. There are millions of pages of documents, there were literally thousands of forensic exhumations undertaken across the length and breadth of Europe, and there were thousands of statements made by Germans who had witnessed what went on. E.g. a German Army officer who was disgusted by what the SS were doing and wrote it down in his diary. Just to give one example of many.

The main real survivor is French History Professor Paul Rassinier.

Muahaha. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for a mistranslation. Rassinier was a professeur, which is the title all French high school teachers have. He never taught university.

the Gestapo arrested him for helping Jews cross the border. Rassinier was a communist, a second reason the Gestapo sent him to Buchenwald. He contracted Typhus in a German concentration camp.
after release from the camp, he returned to France, awarded their nation's highest honors for being in the French Resistance against Germany.

Nope, he was never awarded the 'highest honours'. So that's two blatant exaggerations you've claimed about Rassinier before you've even got to your point.

But then Prof. Paul Rassinier noticed false propaganda about Germany, false accusations of gas chambers. Rassinier had never seen any gas chambers.

That's because neither Buchenwald nor Dora-Mittelbau, the ONLY two camps that Rassinier was imprisoned in, didn't have any gas chambers. Talk about myopic.


He spent decades talking to other camp surivivors, none had seen gas chambers.


Funny how he managed to avoid all the camp survivors who had seen gas chambers.

Rassinier knew Russia had fabricated accusations of gas chambers and a "holocaust."

That's funny, last week it was the Americans. Or was it the British? Or the Jews? Or the Poles? Gosh darn you just can't keep the hoaxers straight these days.

The father of historical revisionism and "holocaust denial" is Prof. Rassinier.

This is the only true statement made in this entire post.

The communist party expelled him, when he wrote The Lie, about fake accusations of a Holocaust.

Rassinier was never in the PCF. He was in the SFIO. He wasn't expelled either, he left. That was after he'd been sued for libel. He got sued for libel twice by living survivors and lost.

The "survivors" are cited as the main evidence of a Holocaust.

No they aren't.

In American school, highschools and colleges, it's been mandatory reading for "Fragments" and "Painted Bird" by supposed holocaust "survivors." Fragments was used by Prof. Deborah L. in Georgia in her Holocaust Studies Program, required reading for college students. Supporting "survivor" Benjimin, author of Fragments was another "survivor" Laura Grabowski. She said she was in a camp with Benji. Benji was discovered to be a fake, not even Jewish, never in a war camp. Laura was worse, a fiction writer. but American universities would use their fiction as "evidence" of a holocaust. Even after Jews discovered they were fakes, they promoted the books, Painted Bird and Fragments, with awards and honors.

Please show us a single curriculum which today includes these two books.

That's the choice: a real hero, who helped Jews, History Professor Paul Rassinier, who knows the holocaust is a fake, or believe fake fiction writers who wrote fictional novels such as "Painted Bird" and "Fragments."

Strawman.

Meanwhile, "skeptics" are skeptical about anything except the holocaust.

'skeptics' aren't skeptical that the American Civil War happened either.

:nopity

[Nick Terry]

Hi, I should have introduced myself first but couldn't resist pointing up the glaring mistakes in the resident denier's post above...

Kiwiwriter knows me from various other venues where I've been observing, debating with, debunking and dissecting Holocaust deniers for a book I'm working on.

But as this place largely focuses on debunking 9/11 woo, I'd like to move the conversation on and ask about people's experiences with the crossover between HD and 9/11 Truther arguments.

From what I can see, Jeff Rense, Eric Hufschmid, Daryl Bradford Smith, Christopher Bollyn and a few others on the far-shores of nutsville seem to espouse both 9/11 conspiracy theories as well as 'promoting' Holocaust Denial. And there seems to be some crossover with the internet footsoldiers, too.

The thing that may be of interest to the 9/11 debunkers is that Holocaust denial succeeded for a while in getting itself institutionalised, but has now run out of steam at least in the US. The Institute for Historical Review would be the equivalent of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and was set up in 1979 but hasn't actually *done* anything since circa 2002. It still has a website, and still offers antisemitic commentary to news stories, but they haven't hosted a conference or published an issue of their journal since then. All the same, IHR spokesmen like Mark Weber are invited onto the lunatic fringe's internet radio shows to propagate their stale ideas. And you can of course come across a dozen websites reprinting the old archived material.

But they don't really come up with too many new ideas anymore. The latest wheeze was a YouTube Holocaust Denial version of 'Loose Change' called 'One Third of the Holocaust'. It's curious that while one branch of woo tries to grasp at any 'respectability' it can, another one has almost given up trying to be 'academic' and seems happier to exist as internet fodder.

The encouraging thing also is that the last opinion polls in the US taken about Holocaust Denial indicated that fewer believed it than thought Elvis was still alive. So while the Truthers might be able to point to slightly higher opinion polls at the moment, I doubt they'll last.

[Dave1001]

Hi, I should have introduced myself first but couldn't resist pointing up the glaring mistakes in the resident denier's post above...

Kiwiwriter knows me from various other venues where I've been observing, debating with, debunking and dissecting Holocaust deniers for a book I'm working on.

But as this place largely focuses on debunking 9/11 woo, I'd like to move the conversation on and ask about people's experiences with the crossover between HD and 9/11 Truther arguments.

From what I can see, Jeff Rense, Eric Hufschmid, Daryl Bradford Smith, Christopher Bollyn and a few others on the far-shores of nutsville seem to espouse both 9/11 conspiracy theories as well as 'promoting' Holocaust Denial. And there seems to be some crossover with the internet footsoldiers, too.

The thing that may be of interest to the 9/11 debunkers is that Holocaust denial succeeded for a while in getting itself institutionalised, but has now run out of steam at least in the US. The Institute for Historical Review would be the equivalent of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and was set up in 1979 but hasn't actually *done* anything since circa 2002. It still has a website, and still offers antisemitic commentary to news stories, but they haven't hosted a conference or published an issue of their journal since then. All the same, IHR spokesmen like Mark Weber are invited onto the lunatic fringe's internet radio shows to propagate their stale ideas. And you can of course come across a dozen websites reprinting the old archived material.

But they don't really come up with too many new ideas anymore. The latest wheeze was a YouTube Holocaust Denial version of 'Loose Change' called 'One Third of the Holocaust'. It's curious that while one branch of woo tries to grasp at any 'respectability' it can, another one has almost given up trying to be 'academic' and seems happier to exist as internet fodder.

The encouraging thing also is that the last opinion polls in the US taken about Holocaust Denial indicated that fewer believed it than thought Elvis was still alive. So while the Truthers might be able to point to slightly higher opinion polls at the moment, I doubt they'll last.

What do you think about Finkelstein?

[Thunder]

anyone who doubts the holocaust is true....should come to nyc or london or los angeles and interview survivors.

only a true schmuck would call all the survivors "liars". but what should we expect from people who believe all the phone calls on flight 77 were faked, no planes hit the wtc, and larry silverstein "pulled" wtc 7?

[Kiwiwriter]

Hi, I should have introduced myself first but couldn't resist pointing up the glaring mistakes in the resident denier's post above...

Kiwiwriter knows me from various other venues where I've been observing, debating with, debunking and dissecting Holocaust deniers for a book I'm working on.

But as this place largely focuses on debunking 9/11 woo, I'd like to move the conversation on and ask about people's experiences with the crossover between HD and 9/11 Truther arguments.

From what I can see, Jeff Rense, Eric Hufschmid, Daryl Bradford Smith, Christopher Bollyn and a few others on the far-shores of nutsville seem to espouse both 9/11 conspiracy theories as well as 'promoting' Holocaust Denial. And there seems to be some crossover with the internet footsoldiers, too.

The thing that may be of interest to the 9/11 debunkers is that Holocaust denial succeeded for a while in getting itself institutionalised, but has now run out of steam at least in the US. The Institute for Historical Review would be the equivalent of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and was set up in 1979 but hasn't actually *done* anything since circa 2002. It still has a website, and still offers antisemitic commentary to news stories, but they haven't hosted a conference or published an issue of their journal since then. All the same, IHR spokesmen like Mark Weber are invited onto the lunatic fringe's internet radio shows to propagate their stale ideas. And you can of course come across a dozen websites reprinting the old archived material.

But they don't really come up with too many new ideas anymore. The latest wheeze was a YouTube Holocaust Denial version of 'Loose Change' called 'One Third of the Holocaust'. It's curious that while one branch of woo tries to grasp at any 'respectability' it can, another one has almost given up trying to be 'academic' and seems happier to exist as internet fodder.

The encouraging thing also is that the last opinion polls in the US taken about Holocaust Denial indicated that fewer believed it than thought Elvis was still alive. So while the Truthers might be able to point to slightly higher opinion polls at the moment, I doubt they'll last.

And he is one of the most formidable minds and honorable people in the fight against Holocaust denial around today. It's been a pleasure to help support his work in a small way and read and study it in a large way.

Folks who hang out at this site should check out Nick's two sites...one is a discussion group on Holocaust denial nutters, and his blog, Holocaust Controversies. holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com, if memory serves. I have it bookmarked, so I forget the exact address.

And he's quite right...there are a lot of connections and similarities between Holocaust denial and 9/11 nutters. A big one: both blame the Jews as evil geniuses behind the horror.

[Kiwiwriter]

What do you think about Finkelstein?

A man with a penknife to grind.

There are folks who have tried to make money off of the Holocaust, like all human deeds and misdeeds. Museums and educational institutions by their nature spend vast amounts of energy and funds raising more funds. However, the "Holocaust industry" idea is overstated.

And it's worth noting that neo-Nazis have their own "anti-Holocaust industry," selling all kinds of kitsch, including Hitler and Himmler dolls. And William Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries, sold the rights to that ugly book to Lyle Stuart, a Jewish publisher. So much for Aryan unity and honor, I guess...

[~enigma~]

The main real survivor is French History Professor Paul Rassinier. Does this mean that my grandmother isn't real? Nor are my girlfriends grandparents (3 of 4). Neither are a few of the people I work with? Then again, I can understand how a few of my friends can be considered fake...

[uk_dave]

DR. KAUFFMANN: Is it true that in 1941 you were ordered to Berlin to see Himmler? Please state briefly what was discussed.
HOESS: Yes. In the summer of 1941 1 was summoned to Berlin to Reichsfáhrer SS Himmler to receive personal orders. He told me something to the effect--I do not remember the exact words--that the Fáffrer had given the order for a final solution of the Jewish question. We, the SS, must carry out that order. If it is not carried out now then the Jews will later on destroy the German people. He had chosen Auschwitz on account of its easy access by rail and also because the extensive site offered space for measures ensuring isolation.
DR. KAUFFMANN: During that conference did Himmler tell you that this planned action had to be treated as a secret Reich matter?
HOESS: Yes. He stressed that point. He told me that I was not even allowed to say anything about it to my immediate superior Gruppenfáhrer Glácks. This conference concerned the two of us only and I was to observe the strictest secrecy.
DR. KAUFFMANN: What was the position held by Glácks whom you have just mentioned?
HOESS: Gruppenfáhrer Glácks was, so to speak, the inspector of concentration camps at that time and he was immediately subordinate to the Reichsfáhrer.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Does the expression "secret Reich matter" mean that no one was permitted to make even the slightest allusion to outsiders without endangering his own life?
HOESS: Yes, "secret Reich matter" means that no one was allowed to speak about these matters with any person and that everyone promised upon his life to keep the utmost secrecy.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you happen to break that promise?
HOESS: No, not until the end of 1942.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Why do you mention that date? Did you talk to outsiders after that date?
HOESS: At the end of 1942 my wife's curiosity was aroused by remarks made by the then Gauleiter of Upper Silesia, regarding happenings in my camp. She asked me whether this was the truth and I admitted that it was. That was my only breach of the promise I had given to the Reichsfáhrer. Otherwise I have never talked about it to anyone else.
DR. KAUFFMANN: When did you meet Eichmann?
HOESS: I met Eichmann about 4 weeks after having received that order from the Reichsfáhrer. He came to Auschwitz to discuss the details with me on the carrying out of the given order. As the Reichsfáhrer had told me during our discussion, he had instructed Eichmann to discuss the carrying out of the order with me and I was to receive all further instructions from him.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Will you briefly tell whether it is correct that the camp of Auschwitz was completely isolated, describing the measures taken to insure as far as possible the secrecy of carrying out of the task given to you.
HOESS: The Auschwitz camp as such was about 3 kilometers away from the town. About 20,000 acres of the surrounding country had been cleared of all former inhabitants, and the entire area could be entered only by SS men or civilian employees who had special passes. The actual compound called "Birkenau," where later on the extermination camp was constructed, was situated 2 kilometers from the Auschwitz camp. The camp installations themselves, that is to say, the provisional installations used at first were deep in the woods and could from nowhere be detected by the eye. In addition to that, this area had been declared a prohibited area and even members of the SS who did not have a special pass could not enter it. Thus, as far as one could judge, it was impossible for anyone except authorized persons to enter that area.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then the railway transports arrived. During what period did these transports arrive and about how many people, roughly, were in such a transport?
HOESS: During the whole period up until 1944 certain operations were carried out at irregular intervals in the different countries, so that one cannot speak of a continuous flow of incoming transports. It was always a matter of 4 to 6 weeks. During those 4 to 6 weeks two to three trains, containing about 2,000 persons each, arrived daily. These trains were first of all shunted to a siding in the Birkenau region and the locomotives then went back. The guards who had accompanied the transport had to leave the area at once and the persons who had been brought in were taken over by guards belonging to the camp.
They were there examined by two SS medical officers as to their fitness for work. The internees capable of work at once marched to Auschwitz or to the camp at Birkenau and those incapable of work were at first taken to the provisional installations, then later to the newly constructed crematoria.
DR. KAUFFMANN: During an interrogation I had with you the other day you told me that about 60 men were designated to receive these transports, and that these 60 persons, too, had been bound to the same secrecy described before. Do you still maintain that today?
HOESS: Yes, these 60 men were always on hand to take the internees not capable of work to these provisional installations and later on to the other ones. This group, consisting of about ten leaders and subleaders, as well as doctors and medical personnel, had repeatedly been told, both in writing and verbally, that they were bound to the strictest secrecy as to all that went on in the camps.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Were there any signs that might show an outsider who saw these transports arrive, that they would be destroyed or was that possibility so small because there was in Auschwitz an unusually large number of incoming transports, shipments of goods and so forth?
HOESS: Yes, an observer who did not make special notes for that purpose could obtain no idea about that because to begin with not only transports arrived which were destined to be destroyed but also other transports. arrived continuously, containing new internees who were needed in the camp. Furthermore, transports likewise left the camp in sufficiently large numbers with internees fit for work or exchanged prisoners.
The trains themselves were closed, that is to say, the doors of the freight cars were closed so that it was not possible, from the outside, to get a glimpse of the people inside. In addition to that, up to 100 cars of materials, rations, et cetera, were daily rolled into the camp or continuously left the workshops of the camp in which war material was being made.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And after the arrival of the transports were the victims stripped of everything they had? Did they have to undress completely; did they have to surrender their valuables? Is that true?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then they immediately went to their death?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I ask you, according to your knowledge, did these people know what was in store for them?
HOESS: The majority of them did not, for steps were taken to keep them in doubt about it and suspicion would not arise that they were to go to their death. For instance, all doors and all walls bore inscriptions to the effect that they were going to undergo a delousing operation or take a shower. This was made known in several languages to the internees by other internees who had come in with earlier transports and who were being used as auxiliary crews during the whole action.
DR. KAUFFMANN: And then, you told me the other day, that death by gassing set in within a period of 3 to 15 minutes. Is that correct?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: You also told me that even before death finally set in, the victims fell into a state of unconsciousness?
HOESS: Yes. From what I was able to find out myself or from what was told me by medical officers, the time necessary for reaching unconsciousness or death varied according to the temperature and the number of people present in the chambers. Loss of consciousness took place within a few seconds or a few minutes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Did you yourself ever feel pity with the victims, thinking of your own family and children?
HOESS: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: How was it possible for you to carry out these actions in spite of this?
HOESS: In view of all these doubts which I had, the only one and decisive argument was the strict order and the reason given for it by the Reichsfáhrer Himmler.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I ask you whether Himmler inspected the camp and convinced himself, too, of the process of annihilation?
HOESS: Yes. Himmler visited the camp in 1942 and he watched in detail one processing from beginning to end.
DR. KAUFMANN: Does the same apply to Eichmann?
HOESS: Eichmann came repeatedly to Auschwitz and was intimately acquainted with the proceedings.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/hoesstest.html

[Nick Terry]

What do you think about Finkelstein?

Finkelstein's book grew out of a review of Daniel Goldhagen's dreadful 'Hitler's Willing Executioners' for the New Left Review. The review article was fairly good, but the subsequent book was hyperbolic.

The idea that the Holocaust has been exploited for political purposes was made more effectively and with greater inside knowledge by Israeli journalist Tom Segev in 1991, in a book called The Seventh Million, which studies Israeli society's relationship to the Holocaust. For example, Menachem Begin had the Holocaust on the brain and this was a national embarrassment while he was Prime Minister. The idea that all Israelis or all Jews think the same way about this is bullship.

The point that the Swiss banks were raided for money... well, was this class-action suit lawyers being lawyers or was it because they were Jewish lawyers? Personally I think it's because they were lawyers.

Much of the rest was strained-carrots verbiage.

Peter Novick's The Holocaust and American Life is a much more informed critique of why the Holocaust became a contemporary US cultural touchstone over the entire postwar era.

[Kiwiwriter]

Does this mean that my grandmother isn't real? Nor are my girlfriends grandparents (3 of 4). Neither are a few of the people I work with? Then again, I can understand how a few of my friends can be considered fake...


Well, in the immortal words of George Orwell, from 1984:

Winston Smith: "Does Big Brother exist in the same way I exist?"
O'Brien: "You do not exist."

And in the equally immortal words of Frank McCourt, from my Creative Writing class 30 years ago:

"I pay taxes, therefore I am."

[bjb]

Nick, maybe you can help me out. I'm not a Holocaust denier at all, but some years ago I recieved a flyer asking for donations from the Tolerance Museum that really bugged me. It described the Holocaust victims as being 6 million Jews with no mention of the 'other' 6 million non-Jewish victims. I was pretty upset that they forgot about the non-Jewish victims and it seemed they were engaging in some historical revision of their own.

Maybe you can address this topic in your book. There seems to be a tendency for some to present the Holocaust in a Jewish-only context and this gives the Holocaust deniers a valid reason to claim that the Holocaust is being exploited for political purposes. Even someone who believes the Holocaust happened can make this accusation when the Holocaust story is told with half of the victims missing. The fact is the Nazis were killing their own people even before the Holocaust. The Nazi idea of Lebensunwertes Leben, 'life unworthy of life', was the basis for the T-4 program and later, the Holocaust itself. But it seems organizations like the Tolerance Museum were focusing only on anti-semetism as the basis for the Holocaust. I think you need the 'life unworthy of life' concept, add anti-Semetism, and then you can have a Holocaust. I'm not sure how everyone is telling the Holocaust story but at least they should include all of the victims, not just the Jewish ones.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Also, let's not forget the large numbers of Chinese that were killed by the Japanese in WWII as well. It was atrocious all around, though, admittedly, the Holocaust does seem to be both a figurehead and lightning-rod for all that occurred.

[Nick Terry]

Nick, maybe you can help me out. I'm not a Holocaust denier at all, but some years ago I recieved a flyer asking for donations from the Tolerance Museum that really bugged me. It described the Holocaust victims as being 6 million Jews with no mention of the 'other' 6 million non-Jewish victims. I was pretty upset that they forgot about the non-Jewish victims and it seemed they were engaging in some historical revision of their own.

Maybe you can address this topic in your book. There seems to be a tendency for some to present the Holocaust in a Jewish-only context and this gives the Holocaust deniers a valid reason to claim that the Holocaust is being exploited for political purposes. Even someone who believes the Holocaust happened can make this accusation when the Holocaust story is told with half of the victims missing. The fact is the Nazis were killing their own people even before the Holocaust. The Nazi idea of Lebensunwertes Leben, 'life unworthy of life', was the basis for the T-4 program and later, the Holocaust itself. But it seems organizations like the Tolerance Museum were focusing only on anti-semetism as the basis for the Holocaust. I think you need the 'life unworthy of life' concept, add anti-Semetism, and then you can have a Holocaust. I'm not sure how everyone is telling the Holocaust story but at least they should include all of the victims, not just the Jewish ones.

The irony with this is it's the Tolerance Museum (Simon Wiesenthal Museum) that evolved the 'six million Jews and five million others' meme that does the rounds.

I personally reserve the title 'Holocaust' to the mass murder of Jews in Europe between 1939 and 1945. There was indeed something distinctive about this genocide, compared to the manifold other crimes of the Third Reich.

I think it's because of the Cold War that the majority of Nazism's other crimes have been so suppressed in the popular consciousness. Poland and the Soviet Union suffered worst in all regards; and they also lost the largest number of Holocaust victims. Probably 30 million Poles and Soviet citizens were killed in the war, of whom less than 1/3 were killed in action, and of whom more than 4 million were Jews. That means something like 12-16 million Slavic Polish, Russian, Belorussian and Ukrainian civilians and POWs died of starvation, or were sent to camps, or were executed in reprisals, or were killed by some other means.

But as a proportion of the local population, this was only a fraction. 90% of Polish Jews were wiped out. Whatever one says, there's somethign distinctive about the intensity of that. And it's now accepted that the often-heard 'six million Polish citizens' figure is a political fudge to 'equalise' the number of Polish and Polish Jewish victims. More Polish Jews than Poles lost their lives in WWII.

It's different in the Ukraine and in Russia; 5-6 million Ukrainian civilians lost their lives of whom 1.5 million were Jews, and these figures overlap with the Polish ones because of border changes after the war. But you can see that there, the majority of victims were Slavs. And most of them died not by being deliberately killed, but because of famine.

What I think people should remember most of all today is that deliberate starvation was and is a crime against humanity. There are no gas chambers in Darfur, yet about a quarter of a million people have died there in the past few years largely from hunger. People can quibble as to whether it's 'genocide' or not, but I think the focus on terms and labels is not always helpful. People shouldn't have to wait for something to be deemed genocide before making their views known.

[Kiwiwriter]

Finkelstein's book grew out of a review of Daniel Goldhagen's dreadful 'Hitler's Willing Executioners' for the New Left Review. The review article was fairly good, but the subsequent book was hyperbolic.

The idea that the Holocaust has been exploited for political purposes was made more effectively and with greater inside knowledge by Israeli journalist Tom Segev in 1991, in a book called The Seventh Million, which studies Israeli society's relationship to the Holocaust. For example, Menachem Begin had the Holocaust on the brain and this was a national embarrassment while he was Prime Minister. The idea that all Israelis or all Jews think the same way about this is bullship.

The point that the Swiss banks were raided for money... well, was this class-action suit lawyers being lawyers or was it because they were Jewish lawyers? Personally I think it's because they were lawyers.

Much of the rest was strained-carrots verbiage.

Peter Novick's The Holocaust and American Life is a much more informed critique of why the Holocaust became a contemporary US cultural touchstone over the entire postwar era.

It is also important to remember that German reparations on the Holocaust, which deniers and others use as "proof" that the Jews are merely extorting guilt money from goyim, are actually paid to SURVIVORS of the Holocaust.

Which means that if some organized Jewish cabal wanted to maximize this "shakedown," it would be in the cabal's interests to minimize the number of dead, so as to force more payments.

In addition, the court cases against Swiss banks holding Jewish property are aimed at those who have profited from theft, which is a serious criminal offense. The cases agains insurance companies are smaller in number -- most of the Jews killed by the Nazis didn't have life insurance -- and have important contractual implications as well as their moral dimensions.

The Holocaust is not a single narrative, like an Aesopian Fable...it is a complex and multi-national story of a series of events, extermination programs and campaigns, involving many of the Reich's overlapping and conflicting organizations, government, Nazi Party, and private sector. There is no "single story."

There is, however, a vast array of evidence...anecdotal, documented, photographic, physical, ranging from cyanide traces on wrecked gas chambers to SS memos to eyewitness accounts to prewar plans to postwar trials, and it all converges in one direction...that the Nazis put their energy, bureaucracy, and manpower to work to achieve the cold-blooded, sadistic, and grisly extermination of about six million Jews and a like number of other folks (Roma, Jehovah's Witness, Poles, gays), and succeed in killing these people, keeping the blame from touching Hitler, and leaving behind an appalling record of misery and pain.

Because of its massive nature and huge span, there are contradictions and differences in events and accounts. The methods of extermination in Babi Yar were different from those at Treblinka. But the overall impact and results are the same...massive piles of dead.

Deniers try to pursue the Holocaust as a criminal case, arguing that the Holocaust story is a Jewish conspiracy and a fraud, and that by pulling out these trivialities -- like the "human soap" story -- they will demolish the entire latticework. They believe that all they need to do is put "reasonable doubt" on the Holocaust, and the Nazis will be found not guilty of this heinous crime.

However, the Holocaust is a civil case. It is not based on "reasonable doubt," but on the "preponderance of the evidence." And the preponderance of the evidence is that it happened, pretty much as is taught in our schools.

And it's worth noting several other points:

1. Holocaust deniers say there is no "proof" of the Holocaust. That's because they dismiss the vast array of documented proof as being Jewish forgeries. How the Jews were able to forge documents in wildly different countries, in different languages, and maintain this forgery as fact for 65 years, they have difficulty explaining, and usually simply mumbly angrily about the "Jewish conspiracy." One wonders what they would accept as proof.

2. The myth of Holocaust denial is to present the Holocaust as a fraud perpetrated by a grand Jewish cabal to extract money from Gentiles, gain Jewish world power, create the State of Israel, and butcher Palestinians/complete the Satanic take-over of the world. In many ways, the core of Holocaust denial is an updating and rewriting of pre-existing anti-Semitic myths made most popular in recent times by the forgery "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and Henry Ford's "The International Jew," which spouted the same nonsense...a secret Jewish cabal controls the world and is seeking to destroy Christianity and humanity at the behest of Satan and the Communists/bankers, in that order. It's a re-hash of old myths.

3. Further, Holocaust denial, in presenting the Jews as the villains of the piece, the deniers are displaying the blatant anti-Semitism and use of the "Grossenluge." In effect, the deniers are saying that the Jews may not have been exterminated on a horrific scale, but had they been, they deserved such treatment: the Jews, by their thinking, are by nature liars, cheats, thieves, extorters, murderers, and destroyers of society.

4. Remove the Holocaust from the history of World War II, and the moral compass is removed. Nazism goes from being an appalling blight on civilization, a murdering band of kleptomaniacs, sadists, amoral intellectuals, and thugs, to being a rough, tough, occasionally brutal, but viable nationalist movement, opposed to the villainies of Communism and the failures of democracy. Adolf Hitler goes from being a sociopathic killer to being the figure of his own propaganda...the aloof and all-knowing leader of the Aryan people in their struggle for a free racial life. The Holocaust prevents neo-Nazis from gaining adherents, media exposure, money, election victories, and power. The Holocaust keeps Nazism the domain of cranks, fanatics, ideologues, criminals, poorly-educated teenagers, permanent adolescents, Skinheads, paranoids, and most of all, cynical opportunists looking for undeserved fame and quick bucks.

5. So the real goal of Holocaust denial -- and one of their bigshots, Harold Covington, admitted as much -- is simply to rehabilitate Hitler and Nazism, to make it a viable political force again, and gain power. Once that's done, they will pick up where Hitler left off.

Then the Holocaust will again be a reality, but for completely different reasons. In that world, the heroes will be the SS who killed the Jews, and the process will be taught as a sterilization process -- the removal of a dangerous bacillus from the body of the Aryan race. The camps will become memorials to the kilers. The triumph of George Orwell.

[Kiwiwriter]

Nick, maybe you can help me out. I'm not a Holocaust denier at all, but some years ago I recieved a flyer asking for donations from the Tolerance Museum that really bugged me. It described the Holocaust victims as being 6 million Jews with no mention of the 'other' 6 million non-Jewish victims. I was pretty upset that they forgot about the non-Jewish victims and it seemed they were engaging in some historical revision of their own.

Maybe you can address this topic in your book. There seems to be a tendency for some to present the Holocaust in a Jewish-only context and this gives the Holocaust deniers a valid reason to claim that the Holocaust is being exploited for political purposes. Even someone who believes the Holocaust happened can make this accusation when the Holocaust story is told with half of the victims missing. The fact is the Nazis were killing their own people even before the Holocaust. The Nazi idea of Lebensunwertes Leben, 'life unworthy of life', was the basis for the T-4 program and later, the Holocaust itself. But it seems organizations like the Tolerance Museum were focusing only on anti-semetism as the basis for the Holocaust. I think you need the 'life unworthy of life' concept, add anti-Semetism, and then you can have a Holocaust. I'm not sure how everyone is telling the Holocaust story but at least they should include all of the victims, not just the Jewish ones.

I would like to agree with Nick's response to this, particularly his comments about Darfur.

I would also like to add that the world's non-response to the horrors in Rwanda in 1994 are a replication of the world's non-response to the early days of Nazi anti-Semitism in Germany. Jews were barred from imigrating to safe havens in the 1930s...the major powers and the United Nations failed to intervene in Rwanda in 1994, where a million people were killed in six months. The Hutu militias didn't do anything as bureaucratic and grandiose as set up extermination camps and factories...they just chopped people up with machetes in the streets, leaving corpses strewn everywhere. Humanity fails to learn its lessons.

Another point...I actually regard the Nazi medical "experiments" as being worse than the Holocaust. These ghastly exercises in sadism and torture were undertaken by doctors who had stood up and sworn the Hippocratic Oath, and promised not to let harm befall their patients, regardless of their ethnicity or status as freeman or slave. Yet these doctors went ahead with this horrible stuff, and wrote up studies that were used by German universities and bodies of learning at the time. After the origin of these papers was discovered, their use was ended, of course. And Dr. Mengele, as we all know, headed off to Paraguay to avoid accountability. The sheer cruelty of these experiments, often inflicted on children, nauseates me.

I notice that the Holocaust deniers don't discuss that topic very much.

[grunion]

...Holocaust denial succeeded for a while in getting itself institutionalised, but has now run out of steam at least in the US. The Institute for Historical Review would be the equivalent of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and was set up in 1979 but hasn't actually *done* anything since circa 2002. It still has a website, and still offers antisemitic commentary to news stories, but they haven't hosted a conference or published an issue of their journal since then. All the same, IHR spokesmen like Mark Weber are invited onto the lunatic fringe's internet radio shows to propagate their stale ideas. And you can of course come across a dozen websites reprinting the old archived material.

But they don't really come up with too many new ideas anymore... It appears that Mahmoud Amadinejad is doing what he can to answer the dearth of new revisionist research with a conference (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Holocaust-Conference.html) presently underway in Teheran. The promoters shroud the conference in buzzwords to make it acceptable to the Skeptic community, conflating it with any other scientific conference, but describing this topic as one which could never take place in the Zionist-dominated west because apparently we are blinded by our fealty to the International Jewish Agenda.

Meanwhile the names of attendees reads like a roll call of anti-semites and their fellow travelers, people like David Duke (who, predictably, has stated that the Mossad and Ariel Sharon were behind the 9-11 attacks), Faurisson, and Toben.

As I understand it, the logic behind the conference goes something like: Since the Holocaust was the pretext for the creation of the state of Israel, once we effectively deny the Holocaust, we have denied the right of Israel to exist. One expects that will be the summary of "scientific findings" made by the confrence panel.

Through that line of argument they have even been able to attract those ultra-orthodox Jews who deny the existence of Israel as not being in line with Biblical teachngs.

There is no doubt in my mind that these people know perfectly well what happened. Iran's state-sponsorship of revisionism may give the revisionists the resources to gain increasing legitimacy, especially in the Muslim world.

[Yahzi]

The main evidence for the "holocaust" is eyewitnesses, survivors.
And the American soldiers who liberated the camps.

You cite two sources; as if the entire Holocaust had been fabricated by two lone authors. Apparently unaware of the many thousands of American soldiers who saw the camps with their own eyes.

There is only one word than can adequately express my reaction to you:

/ignore

[skepticism]

Read James Baque's book, Other Losses. He had access to the Russian archives, after the Soviet Union fell. It shows the "Other Losses" are Germans murdered by Eisenhower and the Allies, in 1945 to 1950. The real genocide is what the Allies did to the Germans.

American soldiers did see the camps. Some were honest enough to report what they saw. Eisenhower had given an order to shoot to kill any German woman or child who tried to give food to German POWs. the real genocide was put in writing, by the Allies, by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, in the Morgenthau Plan. It was a written document of genocide against the Germans. When it became too obvious, they redefined it as JCJ Directive 1067. People would say they hoped no one would notice that 1067 was the same as the Morgenthau Plan. 1067 & Morgenthau was a a plan to exterminate every German, starve Germany, with lack of food. Eisenhower did it to the POWs in the millions. FDR and the Allies planned to do it to every German. That's the real "holocaust," not the fake legend of 6 million.

The allies bombed every German city. In Dresden, they bombed every hospital, church and home. They murdered every civilian they could. They firebombed every German city, civilian targets, terrorist war crimes. They then distracted attention from their own terrorism with fake "holocaust" crimes, tortured confessions, and preyed on war hysteria and propaganda.

America bombed civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. America pursued a war of "unconditional surrender" while telling the Germans that they would be exterminated if they unconditionally surrendered. The Allied war strategy was to prolong the war as long as possible to murder every German and starve any surviving German.

The real "holocaust" is what America, Britain and Russia did to Germany.

The holocaust legend promoters are nonskeptics who never question anything, who accept whatever garbage their government feeds them. It's like watching pigs eat trash.

[skepticism]

The only Jews who died were from military acts were from allied bombing of labor camps in Germany. Other Jews died from disease, Typhus.

The Allies carpet and fire bombed every German city, and transporation line. When the Allies prevented food from getting to camps & Jews, the camp residents and Jews began dying. As the Allies approached the camp scenes where they saw piles of corpses, they needed an alternative fake story to explain what the Allies had done.

[Thunder]

Skeptic- most census data for europe says there were between 10-12 million jews in eurpe before ww2. you quote one professor...who says there were 4 million. based on the fact that he is one guy against several well respected sources...he is most likely wrong.

by the way, are you accusing all the holocaust survivors who can name their dead relatives who went to the concentration camps and never came home, all liars? are you really accusing millions of people of being liars?

[Thunder]

Skeptic: please explain this image. it was made by the nazis in 1942 to show their progress of murdering jews in the baltics.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Coffinmap.jpg

[Redtail]

Read James Baque's book, Other Losses. He had access to the Russian archives, after the Soviet Union fell. It shows the "Other Losses" are Germans murdered by Eisenhower and the Allies, in 1945 to 1950. The real genocide is what the Allies did to the Germans.

American soldiers did see the camps. Some were honest enough to report what they saw. Eisenhower had given an order to shoot to kill any German woman or child who tried to give food to German POWs. the real genocide was put in writing, by the Allies, by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, in the Morgenthau Plan. It was a written document of genocide against the Germans. When it became too obvious, they redefined it as JCJ Directive 1067. People would say they hoped no one would notice that 1067 was the same as the Morgenthau Plan. 1067 & Morgenthau was a a plan to exterminate every German, starve Germany, with lack of food. Eisenhower did it to the POWs in the millions. FDR and the Allies planned to do it to every German. That's the real "holocaust," not the fake legend of 6 million.

The allies bombed every German city. In Dresden, they bombed every hospital, church and home. They murdered every civilian they could. They firebombed every German city, civilian targets, terrorist war crimes. They then distracted attention from their own terrorism with fake "holocaust" crimes, tortured confessions, and preyed on war hysteria and propaganda.

America bombed civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. America pursued a war of "unconditional surrender" while telling the Germans that they would be exterminated if they unconditionally surrendered. The Allied war strategy was to prolong the war as long as possible to murder every German and starve any surviving German.

The real "holocaust" is what America, Britain and Russia did to Germany.

The holocaust legend promoters are nonskeptics who never question anything, who accept whatever garbage their government feeds them. It's like watching pigs eat trash.

The proof of this is where?

[Kiwiwriter]

Read James Baque's book, Other Losses. He had access to the Russian archives, after the Soviet Union fell. It shows the "Other Losses" are Germans murdered by Eisenhower and the Allies, in 1945 to 1950. The real genocide is what the Allies did to the Germans.

American soldiers did see the camps. Some were honest enough to report what they saw. Eisenhower had given an order to shoot to kill any German woman or child who tried to give food to German POWs. the real genocide was put in writing, by the Allies, by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, in the Morgenthau Plan. It was a written document of genocide against the Germans. When it became too obvious, they redefined it as JCJ Directive 1067. People would say they hoped no one would notice that 1067 was the same as the Morgenthau Plan. 1067 & Morgenthau was a a plan to exterminate every German, starve Germany, with lack of food. Eisenhower did it to the POWs in the millions. FDR and the Allies planned to do it to every German. That's the real "holocaust," not the fake legend of 6 million.

The allies bombed every German city. In Dresden, they bombed every hospital, church and home. They murdered every civilian they could. They firebombed every German city, civilian targets, terrorist war crimes. They then distracted attention from their own terrorism with fake "holocaust" crimes, tortured confessions, and preyed on war hysteria and propaganda.

America bombed civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. America pursued a war of "unconditional surrender" while telling the Germans that they would be exterminated if they unconditionally surrendered. The Allied war strategy was to prolong the war as long as possible to murder every German and starve any surviving German.

The real "holocaust" is what America, Britain and Russia did to Germany.

The holocaust legend promoters are nonskeptics who never question anything, who accept whatever garbage their government feeds them. It's like watching pigs eat trash.

Everything in the above is horse manure...Bacque's book has been discredited by historians for its sloppy and incompetent research. John Keegan's comment , "Since the report on the book, Bacque has wisely kept silent," stands for that.

The statistics on Dresden were inflated by Goebbels, as shown as recently as the Irving-Lipstadt trial, by the simple expedient of adding a "zero" to the total. 24,000 dead is the actual figure, and the city was a hot target, as Frederick Taylor's book shows.

And the Holocaust deniers have yet to present an alternative narrative as to how the "Holohoax" was created and maintained for 65 years.

[carlvs]

The holocaust legend promoters are nonskeptics who never question anything, who accept whatever garbage their government feeds them. It's like watching pigs eat trash.

Congrats, "skepticism..."

You're the first non-9/11 loon to earn a place on my ignore list - I would go further, but I would have to violate rules 1, 2, 5, & 8 to do so...:mad:

[Kiwiwriter]

The only Jews who died were from military acts were from allied bombing of labor camps in Germany. Other Jews died from disease, Typhus.

The Allies carpet and fire bombed every German city, and transporation line. When the Allies prevented food from getting to camps & Jews, the camp residents and Jews began dying. As the Allies approached the camp scenes where they saw piles of corpses, they needed an alternative fake story to explain what the Allies had done.

So explain to me that if the Allied bombing blew out communications and made it impossible for the Germans to move food and medicine around the Reich...

...how come the typhus was only in the concentration camps, and not in the cities and towns around them?

Answer: the typhus in the camps was caused by the brutality and neglect of the camp guards and administration, following the policies set by Berlin.

Typical Holocaust denial...blame the victims. Holocaust denial is the recycled and modern form of old anti-Semitic canards about Jewish conspiracies. Which one do you like better...the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or the stories that Jews sacrifice Gentile babies at Passover?

[Bell]

The only Jews who died were from military acts were from allied bombing of labor camps in Germany. Other Jews died from disease, Typhus.

The Allies carpet and fire bombed every German city, and transporation line. When the Allies prevented food from getting to camps & Jews, the camp residents and Jews began dying. As the Allies approached the camp scenes where they saw piles of corpses, they needed an alternative fake story to explain what the Allies had done.

[breach of rule 8] :mad:

[grunion]

I don't think it's worth the effort to respond to Denier posts with any real facts or agrguments as they are not intended to engage in debate, and the posters do not hold themselves accountable for what they write. I think derision and disgust are the only appropriate reactions.

[twinstead]

Wow. Reading Holocaust revisionism is not very pleasant. And I thought 911 deniers were thoughtless, arrogant idiots.

Spittle spewing, irrational, rabid ideologues are interesting to observe, as long as one has his blood pressure under control.

[rikzilla]

Read James Baque's book, Other Losses. He had access to the Russian archives, after the Soviet Union fell. It shows the "Other Losses" are Germans murdered by Eisenhower and the Allies, in 1945 to 1950. The real genocide is what the Allies did to the Germans.

James Baque is just another darling of the IHR. There is no proof that his contentions are true. I did read excerpts of this book and basically "other losses" was a catchall category of non-specific German casualties. To say that other losses = murdered by Eisenhower is a lie.

American soldiers did see the camps. Some were honest enough to report what they saw. Eisenhower had given an order to shoot to kill any German woman or child who tried to give food to German POWs.
This is another lie.
the real genocide was put in writing, by the Allies, by Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin, in the Morgenthau Plan. It was a written document of genocide against the Germans. When it became too obvious, they redefined it as JCJ Directive 1067. People would say they hoped no one would notice that 1067 was the same as the Morgenthau Plan. 1067 & Morgenthau was a a plan to exterminate every German, starve Germany, with lack of food. Eisenhower did it to the POWs in the millions. FDR and the Allies planned to do it to every German. That's the real "holocaust," not the fake legend of 6 million.

You are not very smart are you? German prisoners were indeed mistreated and in some cases fed very little...this is true. But there was no plan to starve Germans. In wartime supplies are scarce and these scarcities explain much. But really, if the allies were into starving Germans they'd have hardly mounted the Berlin Airlift, or worked to rebuild West Germany. BTW; thanks for your admission of Holocaust Denial...an overt HDer is so much more honest than the sneakier kind...wouldn't you agree Russell?

The allies bombed every German city. In Dresden, they bombed every hospital, church and home. They murdered every civilian they could. They firebombed every German city, civilian targets, terrorist war crimes. They then distracted attention from their own terrorism with fake "holocaust" crimes, tortured confessions, and preyed on war hysteria and propaganda.

War sucks. It would have sucked even more had the Nazis been successful in their nuclear program.

America bombed civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. America pursued a war of "unconditional surrender" while telling the Germans that they would be exterminated if they unconditionally surrendered. The Allied war strategy was to prolong the war as long as possible to murder every German and starve any surviving German.

What have you been smoking?

The real "holocaust" is what America, Britain and Russia did to Germany.

The holocaust legend promoters are nonskeptics who never question anything, who accept whatever garbage their government feeds them. It's like watching pigs eat trash.

Scurry back to Stormfront Herr Idiot...

-z

[twinstead]

The holocaust legend revisionist promoters are nonskeptics who never question anything, who accept whatever garbage their government ideologically-biased websites feed them. It's like watching pigs eat trash

There. Fixed.

[Kiwiwriter]

Wow. Reading Holocaust revisionism is not very pleasant. And I thought 911 deniers were thoughtless, arrogant idiots.

Spittle spewing, irrational, rabid ideologues are interesting to observe, as long as one has his blood pressure under control.

You have really keep your emotions in check when coping with Holocaust revisionists. Part of their strategy is to infuriate their interlocutors, tom ake them explode with rage. That way the denier can look like a reasonable person, asking a few reasonable questions, while the defenders of the truth look like insane, screaming lunatics.

Holocaust deniers are an uglier crew than 9/11 nutters in a number of ways. David Irving himself said that one had to deliberately be tasteless about denying the Holocaust. At the Ernst Zundel trial, the Canadian ADL brought on Holocaust survivors to testify on their experiences, and Zundel and his lawyer turned it into a humiliating ordeal, berating and insulting them when their memories did not precisely match the historical record. And of course, Sara Salzman, who worked against Holocaust deniers on the web, suffered personal harassment, death threats, and abuse, which included the deniers forging letters in her name to politicians, threatening their lives, and making false and frivolous complaints to her bosses at work and her state's child welfare agencies. She finally nailed them on the federal anti-harassment statutes.

As for the pathology of these clowns, I'm often interested in their core beliefs. Clearly their education is selective and limited, and it's interesting how they deliberately exclude inconvenient facts that do not agree with their theories. They believe this stuff because they want to believe it, and never mind the facts. They've decided in their own minds that the Jews are evil, the Holocaust never happened, but they got what they deserved, and all the evidence otherwise is a Jewish conspiracy.

It's irrelevant to them what evidence you produce, survivors you bring in, or testimony you show, because to them, it's all a forgery, directed by that shadowy cabal of rabbis, bankers, and Bolsheviks they believe has secretly run and ruined the world ever since Christ was hung up on the Cross.

It's also interesting how they react when confronted with facts. Sometimes they just denounce it as a forgery, as said above. Sometimes they just fall back on their previous statements. Sometimes they just hurl ad hominem or straw man abuse (occasionally loaded with homo-erotic insults, which says more about them than anything). Sometimes they just run away, and come back six weeks later under a new internet handle, and spout the same arguments.

Mostly they slap the burden of proof on their opponents. They make statements about the Holocaust and demand you prove them right or wrong. They're actually expecting you to do the work for them. That's because they have no proof of their own, and more importantly, these guys lack the brains to do their own reading (they have to rely on neo-Nazi propaganda). Bear in mind that these are often not bright guys in the first place.

They blame the mythical Jewish conspiracy for their failures in life, not realizing that if they had stayed in school, stayed off of drugs, got a job, got out of their momma's basement, and bathed once in a while, they would not be living on welfare, and their lives would not revolve around the next neo-Nazi barbecue and rally...and might even have a girlfriend

They're hoping that one of the guys they argue with on the web will say, "My goodness, Adolf, you're right, the Holocaust is a hoax. Here, I've got the paper trail on how it was done right here in my files, straight from Bernard Baruch's typewriter!"

That, of course, reveals their essential laziness, evasiveness, and dishonesty. If they really had a case, they'd present it themselves.

I often wonder whether these guys are just economically frustrated and dispossessed angry white men, psychotic paranoid anti-Semites who see caftan-clad Chassidim behind every tree, addicted personalities whose life of organizing rallies, making videotapes, and running web pages is their "jones," or just cynical opportunists who have found cheap bucks and ego gratification in neo-Nazism.

[twinstead]

I often wonder whether these guys are just economically frustrated and dispossessed angry white men, psychotic paranoid anti-Semites who see caftan-clad Chassidim behind every tree, addicted personalities whose life of organizing rallies, making videotapes, and running web pages is their "jones," or just cynical opportunists who have found cheap bucks and ego gratification in neo-Nazism.

This is one of my first expierences with them, and my initial conclusion would be "all of the above".

It sounds like the best way to deal with these 'gentlemen' is to ignore them. Nothing good can come from debating them.

Now I know why some Holocaust groups are clamoring to make sure their story is remembered; as time goes on and the memory gets dimmer the door will be left even more open for these morons to ply their disgusting trade.

[Kiwiwriter]

This is one of my first expierences with them, and my initial conclusion would be "all of the above".

It sounds like the best way to deal with these 'gentlemen' is to ignore them. Nothing good can come from debating them.

Now I know why some Holocaust groups are clamoring to make sure their story is remembered; as time goes on and the memory gets dimmer the door will be left even more open for these morons to ply their disgusting trade.


You get 10 out of 10 for that. They are often all of the above, but some of them display one of the features more prominently than the others.

Yes, you cannot "debate" them. They want a debate on their own terms, which must end with one of these results:

1. The defender of the truth explodes in a towering rage, which makes the denier look like a reasonable person with a reasonable cause.
2. The defender of the truth realizes his terrible mistakes, and converts to Holocaust denial, and produces from his files the secret memo from Rabbi Stephen Wise to Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin on "How to create a Holocaust."
3. The defender of the truth gets suckered into playing the denier's games on his turf and terms, and winds up looking stupid (which sets off No. 1)

Holocaust deniers will accept none of the evidence and play by none of the rules that ordinary historians and scholars must live by. All documentary, eyewitness, and forensic evidence on the Holocaust is discarded by the denier as being merely the product of the Jewish conspiracy. They say they demand "proof" of the Holocaust, but when presented with it, they toss it out.

They will quibble for days, weeks, and months on side issues and irrelevancies, like the "soap myth" and the exact meaning of an Elie Wiesel sentence, or the crisis in the modern Middle East, but ignore vaster issues like the reports that destroyed David Irving in court, the Wannsee Protocol, or Rudolf Hoess's testimony.

The only way they will accept "debate" is if it's on their terms, their "issues," and they win.

[grunion]

They are playing the waiting game. In another 10 years or so there will be no more people alive with an actual memory of WWII or the Holocaust, and they believe it will be easier to discredit the statements of people that are no longer alive to respond. Thus the strategy now is to assault the survivors, conflate the treatment of German POWs with Holocaust victims, and annoint certain researchers/books as representative of all Holocaust writing so by discrediting (or rather claiming to discredit) a single statement in a single article they are able to discredit the Holocaust as a whole.

A generation from now, when we are all further removed and all that is left is the documents, study of the Holocaust becomes a more intellectual pursuit than an emotional one. In settings like the "conference" presently occuring in Teheran. they think it will be easier to position "alternate interpretations" of the evidence as equal in stature, and fewer of us will be as passionate to defend the historical truth.

[Kiwiwriter]

They are playing the waiting game. In another 10 years or so there will be no more people alive with an actual memory of WWII or the Holocaust, and they believe it will be easier to discredit the statements of people that are no longer alive to respond. Thus the strategy now is to assault the survivors, conflate the treatment of German POWs with Holocaust victims, and annoint certain researchers/books as representative of all Holocaust writing so by discrediting (or rather claiming to discredit) a single statement in a single article they are able to discredit the Holocaust as a whole.

A generation from now, when we are all further removed and all that is left is the documents, study of the Holocaust becomes a more intellectual pursuit than an emotional one. In settings like the "conference" presently occuring in Teheran. they think it will be easier to position "alternate interpretations" of the evidence as equal in stature, and fewer of us will be as passionate to defend the historical truth.

Exactly said. It's important to note that the deniers treat the Holocaust as a "criminal investigation." They seek to find that one magic weakness in the narratives of the Holocaust that will cast "reasonable doubt" on the entire story, and thus bring the structure crashing to the ground.

What they don't realize is that the Holocaust is not a "criminal case," but a "civil case," which means the proof is based on "preponderance of evidence," not "reasonable doubt."

Now, the other reason they pursue it as a "criminal case" is that they regard the Holocaust as a Jewish forgery, fraud, and conspiracy, and therefore there have to be defendants, blame, and punishment. They intend to put the entire Jewish people on trial for this "offense," find them guilty, and then execute the lot.

[Foolmewunz]

You have really keep your emotions in check when coping with Holocaust revisionists. Part of their strategy is to infuriate their interlocutors, tom ake them explode with rage. That way the denier can look like a reasonable person, asking a few reasonable questions, while the defenders of the truth look like insane, screaming lunatics.

Holocaust deniers are an uglier crew than 9/11 nutters in a number of ways. David Irving himself said that one had to deliberately be tasteless about denying the Holocaust. At the Ernst Zundel trial, the Canadian ADL brought on Holocaust survivors to testify on their experiences, and Zundel and his lawyer turned it into a humiliating ordeal, berating and insulting them when their memories did not precisely match the historical record. And of course, Sara Salzman, who worked against Holocaust deniers on the web, suffered personal harassment, death threats, and abuse, which included the deniers forging letters in her name to politicians, threatening their lives, and making false and frivolous complaints to her bosses at work and her state's child welfare agencies. She finally nailed them on the federal anti-harassment statutes.

As for the pathology of these clowns, I'm often interested in their core beliefs. Clearly their education is selective and limited, and it's interesting how they deliberately exclude inconvenient facts that do not agree with their theories. They believe this stuff because they want to believe it, and never mind the facts. They've decided in their own minds that the Jews are evil, the Holocaust never happened, but they got what they deserved, and all the evidence otherwise is a Jewish conspiracy.

It's irrelevant to them what evidence you produce, survivors you bring in, or testimony you show, because to them, it's all a forgery, directed by that shadowy cabal of rabbis, bankers, and Bolsheviks they believe has secretly run and ruined the world ever since Christ was hung up on the Cross.

It's also interesting how they react when confronted with facts. Sometimes they just denounce it as a forgery, as said above. Sometimes they just fall back on their previous statements. Sometimes they just hurl ad hominem or straw man abuse (occasionally loaded with homo-erotic insults, which says more about them than anything). Sometimes they just run away, and come back six weeks later under a new internet handle, and spout the same arguments.

Mostly they slap the burden of proof on their opponents. They make statements about the Holocaust and demand you prove them right or wrong. They're actually expecting you to do the work for them. That's because they have no proof of their own, and more importantly, these guys lack the brains to do their own reading (they have to rely on neo-Nazi propaganda). Bear in mind that these are often not bright guys in the first place.

They blame the mythical Jewish conspiracy for their failures in life, not realizing that if they had stayed in school, stayed off of drugs, got a job, got out of their momma's basement, and bathed once in a while, they would not be living on welfare, and their lives would not revolve around the next neo-Nazi barbecue and rally...and might even have a girlfriend

They're hoping that one of the guys they argue with on the web will say, "My goodness, Adolf, you're right, the Holocaust is a hoax. Here, I've got the paper trail on how it was done right here in my files, straight from Bernard Baruch's typewriter!"

That, of course, reveals their essential laziness, evasiveness, and dishonesty. If they really had a case, they'd present it themselves.

I often wonder whether these guys are just economically frustrated and dispossessed angry white men, psychotic paranoid anti-Semites who see caftan-clad Chassidim behind every tree, addicted personalities whose life of organizing rallies, making videotapes, and running web pages is their "jones," or just cynical opportunists who have found cheap bucks and ego gratification in neo-Nazism.

NOMINATED.

:spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:

[skepticism]

Some of America's best historians included Harry Elmer Barnes, a liberal historian who opposed wars as engineered by false propaganda.

It's pathetic to see people pretending to be skeptics eat up whatever garbage government propagandists feed them.

If the kind of people who pretend to be skeptics were around a centuries ago, you'd be supporting the Inquisition and every government official truth, against every heretic.

Iran is about the only country giving freedom of speech to historicans who honestly examine the Holocaust legend. France has removed professors who deny the holocaust, using as the excuse that the government can't protect them, from assaults by the Holocaust legend promoters.

There's new evidence. The American government admitted it broke the German military codes. We had, during World War Two, the confidential German communications. If Germans had a real extermination program, it would have at least showed up in their own coded messages. But it didn't.

Many people blame Catholics, because the Pope and his clergy surely would have known about a holocaust. The Pope would have, if there really was a holocaust. But the Pope knew nothing about any attempted extermination of Jews. Poland was Catholic. Poland is where the supposed Holocaust happened. The chief rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism because of how well the Pope treated Jews.

The Red Cross had access to Jews. The Red Cross never saw a Holocaust.

The Americans had surveillance flights over Auschwitz during the war. We wanted to know about the German synthetic rubber manufacturing. that's what Auschwitz was, a labor camp to manufacture rubber. The WW2 photos of Auschwitz were concealed until recently. They show no gas chambers, no Jews being exterminated, no clue no sign of any Holocaust. That's why the photos were withheld for so long. No, after Americans are totally brainwashed into a Holocaust belief, they release the photos.

Skeptics need to be the tiniest lit bit skeptical about the "truths" so widely accepted in society. Just believing what's popular is not science, history or skepticism. It requires a little thinking. Unfortunately, only Holocaust deniers have done any thinking the past 60 years.

Not one "survivor" ever saw a gas chamber. Not one autopsy showed gas as the cause of death.

It's such a huge surprise to Holocaust legend believers to discover that a war causes death. That you don't need a "holocaust" to explain why millions die. When there's the largest war in history, world wide, millions die. That's a big surprise to the gullible who believe in a Holocaust.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Way to not address any of the criticisms of your previous posts.
Some of America's best historians included Harry Elmer Barnes, a liberal historian who opposed wars as engineered by false propaganda.
Relevance?

It's pathetic to see people pretending to be skeptics eat up whatever garbage government propagandists feed them.
Unsubstantiated opinion noted.

If the kind of people who pretend to be skeptics were around a centuries ago, you'd be supporting the Inquisition and every government official truth, against every heretic.
No true Scotsman fallacy and poisoning the well.

Iran is about the only country giving freedom of speech to historicans who honestly examine the Holocaust legend. France has removed professors who deny the holocaust, using as the excuse that the government can't protect them, from assaults by the Holocaust legend promoters.
Opinion noted.

There's new evidence. The American government admitted it broke the German military codes. We had, during World War Two, the confidential German communications. If Germans had a real extermination program, it would have at least showed up in their own coded messages. But it didn't.
Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Argumentum ad ignoratium.

Many people blame Catholics, because the Pope and his clergy surely would have known about a holocaust. The Pope would have, if there really was a holocaust. But the Pope knew nothing about any attempted extermination of Jews. Poland was Catholic. Poland is where the supposed Holocaust happened. The chief rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism because of how well the Pope treated Jews.
Unsubstantiated conjecture noted.

The Red Cross had access to Jews. The Red Cross never saw a Holocaust.
Unsubstantiated claim noted.

The Americans had surveillance flights over Auschwitz during the war. We wanted to know about the German synthetic rubber manufacturing. that's what Auschwitz was, a labor camp to manufacture rubber. The WW2 photos of Auschwitz were concealed until recently. They show no gas chambers, no Jews being exterminated, no clue no sign of any Holocaust. That's why the photos were withheld for so long. No, after Americans are totally brainwashed into a Holocaust belief, they release the photos.
Evidence?

Skeptics need to be the tiniest lit bit skeptical about the "truths" so widely accepted in society. Just believing what's popular is not science, history or skepticism. It requires a little thinking. Unfortunately, only Holocaust deniers have done any thinking the past 60 years.
No true Scotsman fallacy.

Not one "survivor" ever saw a gas chamber. Not one autopsy showed gas as the cause of death.
Unsubstantiated claim noted.

It's such a huge surprise to Holocaust legend believers to discover that a war causes death. That you don't need a "holocaust" to explain why millions die. When there's the largest war in history, world wide, millions die. That's a big surprise to the gullible who believe in a Holocaust.
Sweeping generalization. Also, relevance?

[skepticism]

Harry Elmer Barnes, one of America's greatest historians, denied the holocaust. Mediocre "historians" like Stephen Ambrose, found it a road to career enhancement to pretend to believe in the holocaust.

James Baque had access to the Russian archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ambrose didn't, he was too busy doing plagiarism. The archives showed the Allies and Eisenhower starved millions of Germans.

The extermination plan of the Allies to murder Germans is public record. The Morgentha Plan, Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067, the Quebec confence with FDR. FDR's son in law asked FDR, "Do you plan to starve Germany?" FDR answered "Why not?"

Germany didn't drop atomic bombs, America did. Stalin had the gulags, Stalin starved 10 million in the Ukraine. America and Britain starved 5 million Germans after the war, after firebombing civilians in German cities.

If it hadn't been for Herbert Hoover getting food aid from other countries, Germany would have starved, and we would have seen the Morgenthau Plan succeed. That was the real Holocaust, not the fake Jewish one.

History requires looking at facts, not accepting the government authorized official version. Whoever wins a war writes history.

Japan wasn't carved up and emasculated like Germany. In Japan, history shows the Japanese were defending against American aggression. American government officials today find that alarming. Whether true or not, it shows the country that wins a war writes the history.

Germany, if it had won, would have had war crimes trials for Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin. They would have hung on gallows. They would have deserved it, far more than most of the Germans who were executed. Eisenhower was a true war criminal, far more than Lt. Calley. Eisenhower won political promotions because he was as bloodthirsty as Roosevelt, for the Germans.



It's fortuitous that we're believing in a Jewish holocaust, solely due to who won the war.

Historians in Iran risk imprisonment to speak the truth. The Holocaust legend historians often just pretend to believe in the holocaust to get their careers advanced.

[firecoins]

I deny the existance of a the Holocause Denial Conference. I think there is no evidence to support that it happaned. There is no way so many stupid people exist.

[skepticism]

Just read Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel's Night. Here's the Holocaust survivor telling his first hand eyewitness account of Auchwitz, and he never mentions a gas chamber.

Elie was still into the original war propaganda about babies tossed into burning ditches, but no one ever substantiated that propaganda, so later Elie picked up the gas chamber legend.

Elie wrote about how German doctors treated his leg. A German hospital treating Jews, curing them, in a death camp? Suddenly the absurdity of the "holocaust" becomes clear, even from the holocaust promoters own accounts.

Elie had more absurd things to say in Night. The last chapter has Russians coming to liberate Auschwitz. What does Elie do? He's still recovering from his leg medical treatment. Instead of wait to be liberated by Russians, he leaves to go with the Germans. Because he trusts the Germans.

Elie had a funny explanation on how he was spared being exterminated in Auschwitz. Elie would always, every day, be last in line to be executed, so he was spared. Amazing.

[firecoins]

Harry Elmer Barnes, one of America's greatest historians, denied the holocaust. Mediocre "historians" like Stephen Ambrose, found it a road to career enhancement to pretend to believe in the holocaust.

James Baque had access to the Russian archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ambrose didn't, he was too busy doing plagiarism. The archives showed the Allies and Eisenhower starved millions of Germans.

The extermination plan of the Allies to murder Germans is public record. The Morgentha Plan, Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067, the Quebec confence with FDR. FDR's son in law asked FDR, "Do you plan to starve Germany?" FDR answered "Why not?"

Germany didn't drop atomic bombs, America did. Stalin had the gulags, Stalin starved 10 million in the Ukraine. America and Britain starved 5 million Germans after the war, after firebombing civilians in German cities.

If it hadn't been for Herbert Hoover getting food aid from other countries, Germany would have starved, and we would have seen the Morgenthau Plan succeed. That was the real Holocaust, not the fake Jewish one.

History requires looking at facts, not accepting the government authorized official version. Whoever wins a war writes history.

Japan wasn't carved up and emasculated like Germany. In Japan, history shows the Japanese were defending against American aggression. American government officials today find that alarming. Whether true or not, it shows the country that wins a war writes the history.

Germany, if it had won, would have had war crimes trials for Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin. They would have hung on gallows. They would have deserved it, far more than most of the Germans who were executed. Eisenhower was a true war criminal, far more than Lt. Calley. Eisenhower won political promotions because he was as bloodthirsty as Roosevelt, for the Germans.



It's fortuitous that we're believing in a Jewish holocaust, solely due to who won the war.

Historians in Iran risk imprisonment to speak the truth. The Holocaust legend historians often just pretend to believe in the holocaust to get their careers advanced.
wait I was wrong.

[firecoins]

Just read Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel's Night. Here's the Holocaust survivor telling his first hand eyewitness account of Auchwitz, and he never mentions a gas chamber. All the people who had first hand accounts were dead. Since Ellie lived to tell his story, I bet he was never put in it.

[Nick Terry]

Harry Elmer Barnes, one of America's greatest historians, denied the holocaust.

Barnes was a conspiraloon.

Mediocre "historians" like Stephen Ambrose, found it a road to career enhancement to pretend to believe in the holocaust.

Ambrose never wrote about the Holocaust to my knowledge. He simply edited a collection of other historians who debunked Bacque's first book comprehensively.

James Baque had access to the Russian archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ambrose didn't, he was too busy doing plagiarism. The archives showed the Allies and Eisenhower starved millions of Germans.

ROFL. That must have been interesting, getting documents in Russian archives about what the Western Allies did.

The extermination plan of the Allies to murder Germans is public record. The Morgentha Plan, Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067, the Quebec confence with FDR. FDR's son in law asked FDR, "Do you plan to starve Germany?" FDR answered "Why not?"

Morgenthau Plan was never enacted.

Germany didn't drop atomic bombs, America did. Stalin had the gulags, Stalin starved 10 million in the Ukraine.

Really? Your proof? Better make it a good one.

America and Britain starved 5 million Germans after the war, after firebombing civilians in German cities.

Nope.

If it hadn't been for Herbert Hoover getting food aid from other countries, Germany would have starved, and we would have seen the Morgenthau Plan succeed. That was the real Holocaust, not the fake Jewish one.

The Morgenthau Plan was never enacted.

History requires looking at facts, not accepting the government authorized official version. Whoever wins a war writes history.

That must be why German historians are so influential on their British and American colleagues!

Japan wasn't carved up and emasculated like Germany. In Japan, history shows the Japanese were defending against American aggression. American government officials today find that alarming. Whether true or not, it shows the country that wins a war writes the history.

Actually, it shows that Japan, which demonstrably lost WWII, writes its own history. Just the same that Germany and Italy do.

Germany, if it had won, would have had war crimes trials for Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin. They would have hung on gallows. They would have deserved it, far more than most of the Germans who were executed. Eisenhower was a true war criminal, far more than Lt. Calley. Eisenhower won political promotions because he was as bloodthirsty as Roosevelt, for the Germans.

Why don't you take your anti-American spew and go hang out with the Nazis at Stormfront?

It's fortuitous that we're believing in a Jewish holocaust, solely due to who won the war.

And if the Germans had won, they'd be celebrating it.

Historians in Iran risk imprisonment to speak the truth.

This is correct. An Iranian intellectual was jailed for disagreeing with President Ahmadinejad over the Holocaust.

The Holocaust legend historians often just pretend to believe in the holocaust to get their careers advanced.

This is baloney. You have absolutely no idea how the historical profession is organised, or what the career chances are. If the Holocaust is 'popular' to research, then that means more candidates chasing the same number of jobs. In fact it isn't as 'popular' as you think. In the UK there have been just 12 PhDs on the Holocaust from 1995-2005, out of 600 on all aspects of post-1500 European History. Another 30 PhDs were on aspects of Nazi Germany. About the same number got written on the Soviet Union.

[Nick Terry]

All the people who had first hand accounts were dead. Since Ellie lived to tell his story, I bet he was never put in it.

Untrue that all those who had first-hand accounts of witnessing the gas chambers directly died. Over 200 people both inmates and SS staff testified to the Auschwitz gas chambers after the war.

[firecoins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

[Architect]

But as a proportion of the local population, this was only a fraction. 90% of Polish Jews were wiped out. Whatever one says, there's somethign distinctive about the intensity of that. And it's now accepted that the often-heard 'six million Polish citizens' figure is a political fudge to 'equalise' the number of Polish and Polish Jewish victims. More Polish Jews than Poles lost their lives in WWII.




A teacher at my secondary school put it in this very meaningful (for us) perspective.

It was the equivalent of wiping out every man, woman, and child in the whole of Scotland. Our entire country, gone. Not a soul left.

[Dave1001]

by the way, are you accusing all the holocaust survivors who can name their dead relatives who went to the concentration camps and never came home, all liars? are you really accusing millions of people of being liars?

Has someone tabulated the dead relatives claimed by each holocaust survivor and reported how much they add up to? Because that a finite, achievable task. I haven't read a report of that. If it hasn't been done then skepticism is hardly accusing them of lying: their number might match his/hers.

[Oliver]

Just read Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel's Night. Here's the Holocaust survivor telling his first hand eyewitness account of Auchwitz, and he never mentions a gas chamber.

Elie was still into the original war propaganda about babies tossed into burning ditches, but no one ever substantiated that propaganda, so later Elie picked up the gas chamber legend.

Elie wrote about how German doctors treated his leg. A German hospital treating Jews, curing them, in a death camp? Suddenly the absurdity of the "holocaust" becomes clear, even from the holocaust promoters own accounts.

Elie had more absurd things to say in Night. The last chapter has Russians coming to liberate Auschwitz. What does Elie do? He's still recovering from his leg medical treatment. Instead of wait to be liberated by Russians, he leaves to go with the Germans. Because he trusts the Germans.

Elie had a funny explanation on how he was spared being exterminated in Auschwitz. Elie would always, every day, be last in line to be executed, so he was spared. Amazing.

Elie, Elie, Elie, Elie, Elie, Elie, Elie, Elie.

So you´re telling me that my Grandparents were lying
to me when they talked about how Jews got shot and
burned in big pits? :mad:

Do you really think that there were signs within the
Konzentrationslager saying: "Remember: We have Gas
Chambers"???

Or that they told people who died there that they
were about to be murdered?

I really would like to see this thread discussed with
the jewish people in JREF/politics.

WHATS YOUR PROBLEM?

[firecoins]

I am Jewish. I have met dozens of holocaust survivors. They were all lying? Of course not.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Harry Elmer Barnes, one of America's greatest historians, denied the holocaust. Mediocre "historians" like Stephen Ambrose, found it a road to career enhancement to pretend to believe in the holocaust.

James Baque had access to the Russian archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ambrose didn't, he was too busy doing plagiarism. The archives showed the Allies and Eisenhower starved millions of Germans.

The extermination plan of the Allies to murder Germans is public record. The Morgentha Plan, Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067, the Quebec confence with FDR. FDR's son in law asked FDR, "Do you plan to starve Germany?" FDR answered "Why not?"

Germany didn't drop atomic bombs, America did. Stalin had the gulags, Stalin starved 10 million in the Ukraine. America and Britain starved 5 million Germans after the war, after firebombing civilians in German cities.

If it hadn't been for Herbert Hoover getting food aid from other countries, Germany would have starved, and we would have seen the Morgenthau Plan succeed. That was the real Holocaust, not the fake Jewish one.

History requires looking at facts, not accepting the government authorized official version. Whoever wins a war writes history.

Japan wasn't carved up and emasculated like Germany. In Japan, history shows the Japanese were defending against American aggression. American government officials today find that alarming. Whether true or not, it shows the country that wins a war writes the history.

Germany, if it had won, would have had war crimes trials for Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin. They would have hung on gallows. They would have deserved it, far more than most of the Germans who were executed. Eisenhower was a true war criminal, far more than Lt. Calley. Eisenhower won political promotions because he was as bloodthirsty as Roosevelt, for the Germans.



It's fortuitous that we're believing in a Jewish holocaust, solely due to who won the war.

Historians in Iran risk imprisonment to speak the truth. The Holocaust legend historians often just pretend to believe in the holocaust to get their careers advanced.

IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE, THEN SHUT THE HELL UP AND STOP SPAMMING!

[Kiwiwriter]

Quote:
Harry Elmer Barnes, one of America's greatest historians, denied the holocaust.
Barnes was a conspiraloon.

Kiwiwriter: Nor was he a "liberal." He supported Germany's causes before World War II.

Quote:
Mediocre "historians" like Stephen Ambrose, found it a road to career enhancement to pretend to believe in the holocaust.
Ambrose never wrote about the Holocaust to my knowledge. He simply edited a collection of other historians who debunked Bacque's first book comprehensively.

Kiwiwriter: Sir John Keegan, Sir Martin Gilbert, Richard Evans, William Shirer, William Manchester, Clay Blair, Cornelius Ryan, Joachim Fest, Joseph Persico, Martin Middlebrook, Charles MacDonald, Martin Blumenson, Robin Neillands, and Gerhard Weinberg hold the opposite view. As for Bacque, he was pretty well torn apart by the book Ambrose edited.

Quote:
James Baque had access to the Russian archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Ambrose didn't, he was too busy doing plagiarism. The archives showed the Allies and Eisenhower starved millions of Germans.
ROFL. That must have been interesting, getting documents in Russian archives about what the Western Allies did.

Kiwiwriter: And Ambrose didn't write much on the Holocaust, so whether or not he committed plagiarism is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he pretty well slam-dunked Bacque's story, and that itself is merely a weak attempt to create a "tu quoque" situation and also to set up a straw man argument. I notice you don't say much about Martin Gilbert.

Quote:
The extermination plan of the Allies to murder Germans is public record. The Morgenthau Plan, Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067, the Quebec confence with FDR. FDR's son in law asked FDR, "Do you plan to starve Germany?" FDR answered "Why not?"
Morgenthau Plan was never enacted.

Kiwiriter: Indeed, Germany got a gigantic share of the Marshall Plan.

Quote:
Germany didn't drop atomic bombs, America did. Stalin had the gulags, Stalin starved 10 million in the Ukraine.
Really? Your proof? Better make it a good one.

Kiwiwriter: Another irrelevancy. The fact that the Americans used the atomic bomb and Stalin had the gulags doesn't change the facts of the horrors of Hitler's extermination camps. By that kind of logic, no murderer would ever be prosecuted, because murderers elsewhere can and do get away with it.

Quote:
America and Britain starved 5 million Germans after the war, after firebombing civilians in German cities.
Nope.

Kiwiwriter: And the Germans went out of their way to firebomb cities first, and out of their way to starve the residents of Leningrad for 900 days...first. And Germany may have been hungry in 1945, but it wasn't starving. Nor were postwar Germans rounded up by the Allies, shoved into cattle cars, and taken by train across Europe to extermination camps.

Quote:
If it hadn't been for Herbert Hoover getting food aid from other countries, Germany would have starved, and we would have seen the Morgenthau Plan succeed. That was the real Holocaust, not the fake Jewish one.
The Morgenthau Plan was never enacted.

Kiwiwriter: Hoover was the important name on the United Nations Relief and Recovery Administration's name, which not only provided food for Germany, but all the battered nations of the world, and helped find new homes for the millions of freed Holocaust victims and slave laborers, whose homes had been destroyed...by the Nazis!

Quote:
History requires looking at facts, not accepting the government authorized official version. Whoever wins a war writes history.
That must be why German historians are so influential on their British and American colleagues!

Kiwiwriter: Really? You should see how the American Civil War is taught and studied in America. Ever hear of "the lost cause?" And who writes all the histories of the Vietnam War?

Quote:
Japan wasn't carved up and emasculated like Germany. In Japan, history shows the Japanese were defending against American aggression. American government officials today find that alarming. Whether true or not, it shows the country that wins a war writes the history.
Actually, it shows that Japan, which demonstrably lost WWII, writes its own history. Just the same that Germany and Italy do.

Kiwiwriter: And the Japanese, who lost the war, prefer to find rationalizations and not even talk about their massacres. Or are you going to deny the Rape of Nanking?

Quote:
Germany, if it had won, would have had war crimes trials for Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower, Churchill and Stalin. They would have hung on gallows. They would have deserved it, far more than most of the Germans who were executed. Eisenhower was a true war criminal, far more than Lt. Calley. Eisenhower won political promotions because he was as bloodthirsty as Roosevelt, for the Germans.
Why don't you take your anti-American spew and go hang out with the Nazis at Stormfront?

Kiwiwriter: Really, Ike deserved the rope more than the Nazi T4 doctors? Or the Nazi medical experiment doctors? Or Amon Goeth and Josef Kramer?

And let's look at the Nuremberg trials...let's see, none of the defendants were tortured, all of them had defense lawyers, all of them strenuously argued their innocence, some of them were acquitted, and some of them out-argued their prosecutors. Let's compare that with Roland Freisler's conduct of the trial of the men who tried to assassinate Hitler. They were tortured by the Gestapo, denied counsel, denied even belts in the courtroom, so they had to hold up their pants with their hands, and Freisler's examination of the defendants consisted of him screaming insults and abuse at the defendants. They were all found guilty, and all of them were hanged with piano wire, the films brought to Hitler for him to watch over and over again. Boy, there's a model of jurisprudence!

Quote:
It's fortuitous that we're believing in a Jewish holocaust, solely due to who won the war.
And if the Germans had won, they'd be celebrating it.

Kiwiwriter: Actually, according to the neo-Nazis, their tone is simple: "The Holocaust never happened, but the Jews deserved everything the Nazis did to them." In endlessly denying it, neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers do indeed celebrate it. As far as they're concerned, the Jews as a species deserve and deserved it, and what really angers neo-Nazis is not the Holocaust narrative, but how it's told. They don't want it told as a horrific act of genocidal extermination of innocent human beings, but as a heroic act of brave Aryan warriors cleansing the Earth of a subhuman pestilence. Furthermore, neo-Nazis also need it. If Hitler and his henchmen were not capable of conquering nations and butchering millions of people, Nazism would be boring to its modern practitioners.

But with the Holocaust attached, neo-Nazis, even in denying it, can find themselves linked to a movement capable of such horrific deeds, and therefore themselves no longer society's losers and cretins, but instead powerful forces to be reckoned with.

Quote:
Historians in Iran risk imprisonment to speak the truth.
This is correct. An Iranian intellectual was jailed for disagreeing with President Ahmadinejad over the Holocaust.

Kiwiwriter: The only thing they risk in Iran is ridicule outside of Iran.

Quote:
The Holocaust legend historians often just pretend to believe in the holocaust to get their careers advanced.
This is baloney. You have absolutely no idea how the historical profession is organised, or what the career chances are. If the Holocaust is 'popular' to research, then that means more candidates chasing the same number of jobs. In fact it isn't as 'popular' as you think. In the UK there have been just 12 PhDs on the Holocaust from 1995-2005, out of 600 on all aspects of post-1500 European History. Another 30 PhDs were on aspects of Nazi Germany. About the same number got written on the Soviet Union.

Kiwiwriter: Obviously you got into an argument with your history professor over your views, and got a lousy grade.

Oh, and "Skepticism?" Are you going to share with us your alternative narrative on how the "Holohoax" was organized, prepared, planned, carried out, and perpetuated for 70 years? All that effort to ensure that documents in so many nations' archives were identical. So much effort to keep thousands of historians, and millions of survivors and liberators in line. So much forgery to create spurious legal claims that passed scrutiny in so many courts and nations. So much censorship to keep thousands of historians, scholars, authors, and journalists on the same page, despite a highly competitive academic and literary world. And not one slip-up...except the big one, I guess: the Jews somehow failed to remember to forge that memo from Hitler to Himmler ordering him to kill all the Jews. How did that go wrong?

And how come Holocaust deniers don't spring to the defense of Nazi concentration camp guards when they face deportation back to Germany? They should just volunteer their services to the Nazis' defense lawyers, and say the American case against them is perjury. But they don't.

Where is your narrative of what happened in Europe from 1919 to 1945, and the rest of the world thereafter? You don't have one, of course. What you do have is the idea that the Holocaust is a criminal conspiracy by those nefarious Jews you loathe so much, and you believe that if you put "reasonable doubt" on the Holocaust, the structure will collapse.

Wrong answer, dummy. History is not a criminal case. It's a civil case, which is based on the preponderance of evidence. And as David Irving found out the hard way, the preponderance of evidence said it happened.

But look at the bright side, "Skepticism." At least you can say that by standing up for neo-Nazism anonymously on a forum dedicated to James Randi, you're doing a tremendous job of continuing Hitler's legacy. It's almost as good as standing around on street corners in an Army surplus uniform with Swastikas stapled on, yelling "Sieg Heil!" at passersby. :D

[firecoins]

only Nazis and Islamic fascists deny the holocaust.

[Axiom_Blade]

only Nazis and Islamic fascists deny the holocaust.

You don't think any of them have simply been fooled?

[Kiwiwriter]

You don't think any of them have simply been fooled?


If they were fooled, they were fools in the first place.

[uk_dave]

Holocaust denier to be released

An Austrian court has ruled that UK historian David Irving - jailed for denying the Holocaust - should be released on probation.

The court had heard calls for both a reduction and increase in the three-year sentence.

Irving was convicted in February in a case that sparked international debate about the limits of freedom of speech.

In 1989 he spoke in Austria denying the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, though he later said he was "mistaken".

Irving on Wednesday welcomed his release and said he was "fit and well".

Intense debate

The BBC's Kerry Skyring in Vienna says the sentence has been converted to one year in jail and two years suspended.

The conditions of the probation are not yet known, including whether Irving will be able to leave Austria.

But his lawyer, Herbert Schaller, said: "He is free, and he can leave, and he will leave."

Both the prosecution and defence had challenged the length of the sentence. The crime carries a prison term of up to 10 years.

The 1992 law targets "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide".

Irving, 68, was arrested in November last year on a motorway in southern Austria. He was visiting to give a lecture to a far-right student fraternity.

The conviction had sparked intense debate with supporters saying it was fully justified but opponents arguing it undermined the right of freedom of speech.

At the initial trial, Irving had said it was "ridiculous" he was being tried for expressing an opinion and that he had changed his views on the Holocaust.

(emphasis added)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6196073.stm

I wonder if he'll now start lecturing on the truth of the holocaust?

[gumboot]

There's only one thing I really find curious about the Holocaust, and that's the name.

"holocaust" means "burnt offering" in Greek, but more specifically, it was the part of sacrificed bull or similar animal that the priests burnt as an offering to their gods.

While I can see the direct connection from "burnt" and the Jews being incinerated, the overall original meaning of the term "holocaust" in its original context, makes for a rather disturbing comparison.

I am curious if Nick or anyone else has some specific information on the origins of the application of "Holocaust" to the Nazi extermination of the Jews? Also, is there an argument that while the Nazi extermination collectively is a genocide, the term "holocaust" applies specifically to the Jewish element?

-Gumboot

ETA. As an aside, if we're talking numbers for civilian victims of WW2 it is worth noting that a good chunk of those Russian civilians often listed in totals were actually victims of their own Soviet regime, not the war.

ETA 2. I forgot to add something.

Nick thank you immensely for your insight and knowledge sharing here, and welcome. And more importantly, thank you for your efforts in battling Holocaust Denial.

[a_unique_person]

It sounds like the best way to deal with these 'gentlemen' is to ignore them. Nothing good can come from debating them.


There's problem of that in this thread. He isn't debating anyone.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There's only one thing I really find curious about the Holocaust, and that's the name.

"holocaust" means "burnt offering" in Greek, but more specifically, it was the part of sacrificed bull or similar animal that the priests burnt as an offering to their gods.

While I can see the direct connection from "burnt" and the Jews being incinerated, the overall original meaning of the term "holocaust" in its original context, makes for a rather disturbing comparison.

I am curious if Nick or anyone else has some specific information on the origins of the application of "Holocaust" to the Nazi extermination of the Jews? Also, is there an argument that while the Nazi extermination collectively is a genocide, the term "holocaust" applies specifically to the Jewish element?

-Gumboot

ETA. As an aside, if we're talking numbers for civilian victims of WW2 it is worth noting that a good chunk of those Russian civilians often listed in totals were actually victims of their own Soviet regime, not the war.

ETA 2. I forgot to add something.

Nick thank you immensely for your insight and knowledge sharing here, and welcome. And more importantly, thank you for your efforts in battling Holocaust Denial.

fwiw
Etymology and usage of the term

Main article: Names of the Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Holocaust)
The term holocaust originally derived from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Language) word holokauston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_%28sacrifice%29), meaning a "completely (holos) burnt (kaustos)" sacrificial offering to a god. Since the late 19th century, "holocaust" has primarily been used to refer to disasters or catastrophes. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary), the word was first used to describe Hitler's treatment of the Jews from as early as 1942, though it did not become a standard reference until the 1950s. By the late 1970s, however, the conventional meaning of the word became the Nazi genocide. The term is also used by many in a narrower sense, to refer specifically to the unprecedented destruction of European Jews in particular. Some historians credited Elie Wiesel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elie_Wiesel) with giving the term 'Holocaust' its present meaning. The biblical word Shoa (שואה), also spelled Shoah and Sho'ah, meaning "calamity" in Hebrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language), became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the early 1940s.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#_note-2) Shoa is preferred by many Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) and a growing number of others for a number of reasons, including the potentially theologically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) offensive nature of the original meaning of the word holocaust.
The word "genocide" was coined during the Holocaust. In 1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944), the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Endowment_for_International_Peace) published Raphael Lemkin's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin) most important work, entitled Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, in the United States. This book included an extensive legal analysis of German rule in countries occupied by Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) during the course of World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), along with the definition of the term genocide.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#_note-3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Etymology_and_usage_of_the_term