Concentration Camp Photos :::WARNING! GRAPHIC IMAGES!:::

[missmanners]

When the topic comes up with other historians, I'm always surprised at reactions... more often than not, many others are willing to concede that the whole holocaust scenario has great room for further examination and declaring an historical event of this magnitude to be set in stone is silly.

Yes it is, but to question the slightest bit of this "history" means one is an anti-semite. Now that irks me... a lot. Why can't I ask questions? When someone tells me I can't question something, that makes me want to question it all the more.


mm

 

[jack]

I don't care if people question the veracity at all. That's not what's disturbing.

 

[Starship Coyote]

So do I get my answers?

 

[Donovan]

One of the aspects of the Holocaust question I find distressing is the willingness to quibble over numbers which were, at the very slightest, horrible acts of atrocity by the third Reich and its allies. Some say millions, some say only hundreds of thousands, some say extermination, some say only accidental death due to forced labor, death marches, dysentery, starvation, and disease outbreaks because the weak fools couldn't stand the deplorable living conditions.

We just spent six years and counting in a couple of wars started on the basis of three thousand deaths. Three thousand. A fraction of the numbers killed in captivity in WWII, regardless of the "causes".

To argue semantics and whether or not the Nazi Party had a hundred inhuman monsters on staff or a hundred thousand is simply moot. They had enough monsters to make the Holocaust real. And in case you were wondering, downplaying or denying a horrific loss of life, especially when deliberately and gleefully inflicted by other humans, does in fact make you a bit monstrous.

 

[Tyrant]

So do I get my answers?

Don't hold your breath.

 

[Tyrant]

One of the aspects of the Holocaust question I find distressing is the willingness to quibble over numbers which were, at the very slightest, horrible acts of atrocity by the third Reich and its allies. Some say millions, some say only hundreds of thousands, some say extermination, some say only accidental death due to forced labor, death marches, dysentery, starvation, and disease outbreaks because the weak fools couldn't stand the deplorable living conditions.

We just spent six years and counting in a couple of wars started on the basis of three thousand deaths. Three thousand. A fraction of the numbers killed in captivity in WWII, regardless of the "causes".

To argue semantics and whether or not the Nazi Party had a hundred inhuman monsters on staff or a hundred thousand is simply moot. They had enough monsters to make the Holocaust real. And in case you were wondering, downplaying or denying a horrific loss of life, especially when deliberately and gleefully inflicted by other humans, does in fact make you a bit monstrous.

Why are distressing him, missmanners?

 

[Lord Raffles]

Raffles, you've got to read this book. It's awesome. It's all about "Lord Horror" the notorious anonymous troll propagandist of the 40's that had a pirate radio broadcast all during WWII from somewhere within England. They were never able to find him, and he spewed fearsome Nazi propaganda all througout the campaign.

btw you guys these pictures couldn't be photoshopped, because this particular book was published in 1975.

I can't explain them, except to say that when I showed them to my uncle, he simply nodded and said, yes, he regularly took people out of the medical rooms that looked like that and worse. They often cremated the bodies to hide what they had done, more than any other reason.

This book is old. If these photos are faked, then my uncle, who was an Auschwitz mole is just an old Jew liar.

Except he never talks about it.

Lord Haw-Haw, aka William Joyce...

 

[Starship Coyote]

One of the aspects of the Holocaust question I find distressing is the willingness to quibble over numbers which were, at the very slightest, horrible acts of atrocity by the third Reich and its allies. Some say millions, some say only hundreds of thousands, some say extermination, some say only accidental death due to forced labor, death marches, dysentery, starvation, and disease outbreaks because the weak fools couldn't stand the deplorable living conditions.

We just spent six years and counting in a couple of wars started on the basis of three thousand deaths. Three thousand. A fraction of the numbers killed in captivity in WWII, regardless of the "causes".

To argue semantics and whether or not the Nazi Party had a hundred inhuman monsters on staff or a hundred thousand is simply moot. They had enough monsters to make the Holocaust real. And in case you were wondering, downplaying or denying a horrific loss of life, especially when deliberately and gleefully inflicted by other humans, does in fact make you a bit monstrous.

Donovan, you make extremely good points. Numbers shouldn't make a difference.

Now, here's another question to ponder... if numbers don't make a difference, if ideologies don't make a difference, and genocide is genocide, then here's what I'm wondering: why do we have an entire intellectual industry centered around the attempted genocide of a scenario? Why not the genocide of the Jews and others in the USSR? Or the Armenians? Or the Palestinians? Or the Kurds? Or the American Indians? Why don't we have an American Indian Slaughter Remembrance Day here in the US with a dedicated museum built in another country that had absolutely nothing to do with the scenario?

Well, there isn't one. Top that off with the fact that Jews made up one half of the alleged bodycount... the other half were assorted others: gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs and many other ethnic/cultural types. So my question is: why do only the Jews get a special day, a special museum (here in the US), and why is it forbidden to poke holes in the official account?

No one argues that we slaughtered the shit out of the American Indians. Hell, we've reveled in the history of that. Are the Indians pissed? Yeah. But if I went to Idaho or Wyoming or Texas and declared in a public speech that the genocide against the AI wasn't as bad as we've been lead to believe or even said that it didn't happen at all... would I go to jail over it? Would there be laws passed that retroactively jail me after I said it? That's preposterous.

Well, guess what.

Ernst Zundel was deported from the US, sent to Canada and then sent back to his native Germany to stand trial for breaking a law by denying the Holocaust, and his denials occured before any law against such speech was passed.

So what the hell is going on? What's going on is that Germany roughed up the Jews... however rough is the question... and the survivors and other Jews have used that as leverage to broker the creation of Israel. Not because they deserved it. Not because the native inhabitants there felt there was room for everyone. Because they wanted it. They cram it down the mouths of our children in public schools... to the point that many feel personally guilty... and then those kids go to church and get another helping from some jackass preacher who teaches them that we should bless the Jews. They have guilt tripped everyone, and the approximately one-half of world jewry living right here in the US makes damn sure we feel continue to feel sorry for them and continue to support what amounts to a terrorist state... armed with nukes.. with money, equipment, and the blood of our own kids. That ain't semantics, son... that's cold fact.

This is why I send my kids to a private school.

I've said it on this board before. I'm not sure how many Jews Hitler killed, but if he did kill only 5.5 million, then he should have finished the fucking job, and we should have helped him.

 

[Starship Coyote]

Lord Haw-Haw, aka William Joyce...

Actually, there were several announcers under the name of Lord Haw-Haw. Joyce was the last one.

 

[Donovan]

Donovan, you make extremely good points. Numbers shouldn't make a difference.

Now, here's another question to ponder... if numbers don't make a difference, if ideologies don't make a difference, and genocide is genocide, then here's what I'm wondering: why do we have an entire intellectual industry centered around the attempted genocide of a scenario? Why not the genocide of the Jews and others in the USSR? Or the Armenians? Or the Palestinians? Or the Kurds? Or the American Indians? Why don't we have an American Indian Slaughter Remembrance Day here in the US with a dedicated museum built in another country that had absolutely nothing to do with the scenario?

Resist the urge to muddy the waters with your rant, and I'll try to answer a couple of your questions:
Genocide is the systematic destruction of a specific group of people, not scenarios. You can't murder ideas. In the case of the latter-day examples you mention, those horrific events were not a part of a larger war in which our country painted itself as the Hero. We remember the Jewish Holocaust proudly for two reasons: first because many of the surviving jews either already had ties to this country or came here following the war, thereby creating an instant empathy. Second, USA played a key role in stopping that slaughter and our people STILL use WWII as a rallying cry for how awesome USA is. We even used its memory to justify this latest invasion in Iraq. The other examples we either ignored or exacerbated, so it would not be in our national interest to glorify those memories with a holiday or a museum.

That said, there has been a movement for many years to make good on our slaughter of the native Americans, in the form of various concessions and PC moves. But since it is a mark of our own national shame, there is no hurry to make it a big spectacle.

Well, there isn't one. Top that off with the fact that Jews made up one half of the alleged bodycount... the other half were assorted others: gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs and many other ethnic/cultural types. So my question is: why do only the Jews get a special day, a special museum (here in the US), and why is it forbidden to poke holes in the official account?

Because the other victims were "incidentals" in Hitler's quest to purify his empire. Yes, they died just as horribly, sometimes worse (the mental deficients were the first ones experimented on) but Hitler reserved his most public hatred for the Jews, spent most of his time talking about them, and cast them as his adversary. It is only a natural extension that they become the chief recipient of the notoriety of that war of attrition, since they were the stated target.

No one argues that we slaughtered the shit out of the American Indians. Hell, we've reveled in the history of that. Are the Indians pissed? Yeah. But if I went to Idaho or Wyoming or Texas and declared in a public speech that the genocide against the AI wasn't as bad as we've been lead to believe or even said that it didn't happen at all... would I go to jail over it? Would there be laws passed that retroactively jail me after I said it? That's preposterous.

See above. We slaughtered the Indians ourselves in an ongoing act of national shame. It is not in our country's interest to make it a huge deal or glorify it in any way. Mostly, we'd just like to pretend it never happened. OTOH, we credit ourselves with SAVING the jews, which gives us every reason to crow about it every chance we get.

Ernst Zundel was deported from the US, sent to Canada and then sent back to his native Germany to stand trial for breaking a law by denying the Holocaust, and his denials occured before any law against such speech was passed.

I believe Zundel violated German laws which have existed for many years. What happened to him amounted to extradition to a country which is currently an ally of ours. More likely, he was busted for political reasons which is nothing new. Rabble rousers run that risk whenever they speak out on controversial subjects, and Zundel probably got a stiffy when they arrested him.

So what the hell is going on? What's going on is that Germany roughed up the Jews... however rough is the question... and the survivors and other Jews have used that as leverage to broker the creation of Israel. Not because they deserved it. Not because the native inhabitants there felt there was room for everyone. Because they wanted it. They cram it down the mouths of our children in public schools... to the point that many feel personally guilty... and then those kids go to church and get another helping from some jackass preacher who teaches them that we should bless the Jews. They have guilt tripped everyone, and the approximately one-half of world jewry living right here in the US makes damn sure we feel continue to feel sorry for them and continue to support what amounts to a terrorist state... armed with nukes.. with money, equipment, and the blood of our own kids. That ain't semantics, son... that's cold fact.

This is why I send my kids to a private school.

Blatant baiting, complete disregard of historical accuracy and bigoted ranting aside, I can't really find any "cold facts" in this statement. The only comments I can make : our children are currently dying on behalf of the ARAB states (house of Saud), not the Israelis; and that you must see the irony of sending your children to private school where they will undoubtedly interact with many more rich powerful jews than they might otherwise see in public school. Our public schools currently can't manage to "cram" basic reading and arithmetic skills down our children's throats; you're saying one of the worst education systems in the civilized world has the ability to carry out complex indoctrination and brainwashing schemes?

I've said it on this board before. I'm not sure how many Jews Hitler killed, but if he did kill only 5.5 million, then he should have finished the fucking job, and we should have helped him.

Vilifying others will not help you feel better about your own perceived shortfalls in life, any more than it helped Hitler. Besides, nature abhors a vacuum, and any actual villains removed by your proposed cleansing would be quickly replaced by another group. How many were you planning to kill before you run out of enemies?

 

[Donovan]

Why are distressing him, missmanners?

Yeah, why? Is it because I'm a filthy Jew? Because I got people, Goyim, we'll fuck you good. Schmekel head.

 

[Starship Coyote]

Resist the urge to muddy the waters with your rant, and I'll try to answer a couple of your questions:
Genocide is the systematic destruction of a specific group of people, not scenarios. You can't murder ideas.

That was a typo on my part. I have no idea where that came from.

In the case of the latter-day examples you mention, those horrific events were not a part of a larger war in which our country painted itself as the Hero. We remember the Jewish Holocaust proudly for two reasons: first because many of the surviving jews either already had ties to this country or came here following the war, thereby creating an instant empathy. Second, USA played a key role in stopping that slaughter and our people STILL use WWII as a rallying cry for how awesome USA is. We even used its memory to justify this latest invasion in Iraq. The other examples we either ignored or exacerbated, so it would not be in our national interest to glorify those memories with a holiday or a museum.

So they're not important enough slaughters, or the victims don't have enough political clout? Thanks for proving my point.

That said, there has been a movement for many years to make good on our slaughter of the native Americans, in the form of various concessions and PC moves. But since it is a mark of our own national shame, there is no hurry to make it a big spectacle.

Actually, no one gives a shit anymore.

Because the other victims were "incidentals" in Hitler's quest to purify his empire. Yes, they died just as horribly, sometimes worse (the mental deficients were the first ones experimented on) but Hitler reserved his most public hatred for the Jews, spent most of his time talking about them, and cast them as his adversary. It is only a natural extension that they become the chief recipient of the notoriety of that war of attrition, since they were the stated target.

Again, the others weren't important enough, or didn't have enough press?

This is funny.

See above. We slaughtered the Indians ourselves in an ongoing act of national shame. It is not in our country's interest to make it a huge deal or glorify it in any way. Mostly, we'd just like to pretend it never happened. OTOH, we credit ourselves with SAVING the jews, which gives us every reason to crow about it every chance we get.

That's a really lame explanation.

I believe Zundel violated German laws which have existed for many years. What happened to him amounted to extradition to a country which is currently an ally of ours. More likely, he was busted for political reasons which is nothing new. Rabble rousers run that risk whenever they speak out on controversial subjects, and Zundel probably got a stiffy when they arrested him.

To my knowledge, there were no specific laws against holocaust denial in Germany except the one under which he was prosecuted (though I could be wrong), but even if there were he was prosecuted under one passed after the alledged crime took place. That's a democracy we helped put into place, btw.

Blatant baiting, complete disregard of historical accuracy and bigoted ranting aside, I can't really find any "cold facts" in this statement. The only comments I can make : our children are currently dying on behalf of the ARAB states (house of Saud), not the Israelis; and that you must see the irony of sending your children to private school where they will undoubtedly interact with many more rich powerful jews than they might otherwise see in public school. Our public schools currently can't manage to "cram" basic reading and arithmetic skills down our children's throats; you're saying one of the worst education systems in the civilized world has the ability to carry out complex indoctrination and brainwashing schemes?

You're kidding.

No, probably not. You're just talking out of your ass.

Vilifying others will not help you feel better about your own perceived shortfalls in life,

Nor is it meant to. I'm not sure exactly what "perceived shortfalls in life" you're talking about or how you'd be in any position to observe that I have any, so we'll just mark this down as you talking out your ass again, ok?

any more than it helped Hitler. Besides, nature abhors a vacuum, and any actual villains removed by your proposed cleansing would be quickly replaced by another group. How many were you planning to kill before you run out of enemies?

I'll never tell.

Keep talking horseshit... I need some for my garden.

 

[Tyrant]

One of the aspects of the Holocaust question I find distressing is the willingness to quibble over numbers which were, at the very slightest, horrible acts of atrocity by the third Reich and its allies. Some say millions, some say only hundreds of thousands, some say extermination, some say only accidental death due to forced labor, death marches, dysentery, starvation, and disease outbreaks because the weak fools couldn't stand the deplorable living conditions.

Not quite. People "quibble" over whether or not there was an active program aimed at exterminating Jews. I doubt reasonable people who examine the records and evidence would call the victims "weak fools."

To argue semantics and whether or not the Nazi Party had a hundred inhuman monsters on staff or a hundred thousand is simply moot. They had enough monsters to make the Holocaust real.

And the Holocaust proves they had enough monsters?

And in case you were wondering, downplaying or denying a horrific loss of life, especially when deliberately and gleefully inflicted by other humans, does in fact make you a bit monstrous.

Except that most revisionists don't. No one says "It's OK, because they only willfully killed 500,000." Some people don't like the fact that debating the numbers is illegal in some countries. They use this as an example to illustrate how taboo merely questioning it is, and not because they are horribly callous individuals. Others stumble upon instances of falsified "proof", which might cause them to question other evidence.

If it makes you feel better, you can call me a monster, and I'll admit my daddy dressed me up in an SS uniform and spanked me with a Menorah, which lead to my psyche being twisted to the point where I question the religion of 6 million dead. I am a horrible person.

Now that that's out of the way, can we get back to the fucking facts?

 

[The Question]

<- passes the torch to CU and Tyrant. Carry on, fellas.

 

[Cranky Bastard]

Know what I see way down here after all the byplay?

Not quibbling over evidence. Not quibbling over fact. Not quibbling over the placement of sequential events.

I see quibbling over whether something should be questioned. So the blinders remain. Dare not question. Ever.

 

[Sredni Vashtar]

"facts all come with points of view
facts don't do what I want them to do"

 

[Donovan]

Not quite. People "quibble" over whether or not there was an active program aimed at exterminating Jews. I doubt reasonable people who examine the records and evidence would call the victims "weak fools."

Actually, one of the primary arguments by revisionists concerns the "intent" of the Nazi party when they locked up all the jews, and they blame the majority of the deaths on "accidental" exposure to Typhus in the lice. They also use this excuse to explain the existence of Zyklon-B. So yeah, they're quibbling over what caused the deaths and attributing the bulk of it to disease, not pogrom.

And the Holocaust proves they had enough monsters?

No, WWII proves we had lots of monsters on both sides. But the Nazis had plenty, for sure.

Except that most revisionists don't. No one says "It's OK, because they only willfully killed 500,000." Some people don't like the fact that debating the numbers is illegal in some countries. They use this as an example to illustrate how taboo merely questioning it is, and not because they are horribly callous individuals. Others stumble upon instances of falsified "proof", which might cause them to question other evidence.

Actually, this is pretty much EXACTLY what they complain about. Chief arguments pro-revision say that there was no way six million died, and that the numbers were much closer to half a million based on population, statistics and probability. My hypothesis is that 500 thousand is no less monstrous a death toll than 6 million, regardless of the intent of the killers or the nationality of the victims.

If it makes you feel better, you can call me a monster, and I'll admit my daddy dressed me up in an SS uniform and spanked me with a Menorah, which lead to my psyche being twisted to the point where I question the religion of 6 million dead. I am a horrible person.

Frequently in debate, a person uses the term "you" as a generic term where others will not work well. You personally may well be a horrible person, I have no idea one way or the other. Certainly, if you feel like sharing this sort of information I can't stop you. It does make me feel better to argue you into the ground, but that's a personal failing I have to live with, not you. Perhaps you and Laker Girl could form a support group?

Now that that's out of the way, can we get back to the fucking facts?

The facts are what were under debate, and the opinions derived from variances in interpretation. Which facts were you missing from the previous encounter, and why did you leave those out to include the charming story of your father's disciplinary style?

 

[Tyrant]

Actually, one of the primary arguments by revisionists concerns the "intent" of the Nazi party when they locked up all the jews, and they blame the majority of the deaths on "accidental" exposure to Typhus in the lice. They also use this excuse to explain the existence of Zyklon-B. So yeah, they're quibbling over what caused the deaths and attributing the bulk of it to disease, not pogrom.

Great. Then maybe you'll lose the "weak fools" hyperbole.

No, WWII proves we had lots of monsters on both sides. But the Nazis had plenty, for sure.

But the other side had plenty, for sure.

Actually, this is pretty much EXACTLY what they complain about. Chief arguments pro-revision say that there was no way six million died, and that the numbers were much closer to half a million based on population, statistics and probability. My hypothesis is that 500 thousand is no less monstrous a death toll than 6 million, regardless of the intent of the killers or the nationality of the victims.

You stated that downplaying or denying a horrific loss of life, especially when deliberately and gleefully inflicted by other humans makes people a bit monstrous, then tried to tie that in with revisionism, as though if revisionists had acknowledged a deliberate and gleeful attempt at killing people and were downplaying it, saying it wasn't so bad because the death toll was lower in reality.

Your perception is not a hypothesis, as 'monstrous' is a subjective and relative term. I also agree with it, but it isn't applicable here, and it's only purpose here is as a red herring.

Frequently in debate, a person uses the term "you" as a generic term where others will not work well. You personally may well be a horrible person, I have no idea one way or the other. Certainly, if you feel like sharing this sort of information I can't stop you. It does make me feel better to argue you into the ground, but that's a personal failing I have to live with, not you. Perhaps you and Laker Girl could form a support group?

The facts are what were under debate, and the opinions derived from variances in interpretation. Which facts were you missing from the previous encounter, and why did you leave those out to include the charming story of your father's disciplinary style?

Sorry, but if you think you're winning, you aren't. Try an approach which isn't as condescending (Your "theory" in particular, not that TL;DR shite) and maybe it'll be acknowledged as contributory.


Tea?

 

[jack]

It's really simple to me...denial (not certainly "questioning") but outright denial is the same hate that the Nazi Party practiced, reformulated and redigested. Think "intelligent design" as the way the Creationists rethought their kooky way of thinking.

It's kooky to think that what happened was not horrific, period. There was no excuse for that kind of deliberate hate, and the punchcards say 6,000,000 people were killed.

There is proof. The killers themselves left a trail that persists to this day.

 

[jack]

The trains were never late. Every card was punched.