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

[Donovan]

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

Not my hyperbole. The argument of the Nazis is specifically that they killed all those millions unintentionally due to disease and bad living conditions. The implication and defense was that only those who were weak, elderly or of unfit state died of the Typhus. That they were subpar, stupid and less worthy was a NAZI construct, not mine.

But the other side had plenty, for sure.

Can't argue this, since the USA remains the only "civilized" country to ever have used atomic bombs on civilian targets. But since history is written by the victors, we are the Good Guys. Your point?

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.

The original argument calls into question the death tolls, the causes of death of jewish prisoners and the accuracy of accepted Holocaust information. The very term "Revisionist" is used to describe those persons who attempt to downplay the atrocities against the Jews in WWII.

My original point, which I'll repeat now, is that there is NO difference between deliberately eradicating half a million people or six million. It's monstrous, a term I used to reference an earlier post that asked "Am I a monster for questioning the facts?" (paraphrasing here). It wasn't meant as a red herring, although I'd have to question your later anecdote of the SS Daddy etc. as deliberately facetious and condescending, something you accuse me of below.

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.

The idea that I could be somehow ostracised for presenting my views does not make them wrong or less contributory. The fact that my knowledge of the subject and ability to use more complex phrasing confuses you is not the same thing as being condescending. Many of your responses, including the aforementioned quote of the week, were attempts at mockery and therefore useless to me.

Your summary swipe? My posts were too long and you did not read them. That's your defense? I don't have to "think" I'm winning, you just admitted that fact by resorting to such a weak reply. It's as lame as CoyoteUgly's "Oh yeah? Fuck you!" response.

I will do you the honor of saying I read all the posts you made to me, even the parts that were clearly bullshit or inflammatory. I picked them apart, naturally, but I READ them. Retire from the field if you're going to put in such weak effort, Tyrant.

 

[Donovan]

You are right, 500k is a monstrous death toll. So if it was 500k, why not let history teach is as 500k? Why the over reaction when someone questions whats being tossed around as historical fact?

I heard an old lady do a 3 hour radio program (morning talk show, someone filling in for Glenn Beck a few months ago) because she was a camp survivor, and her story came across like swiss cheese. Conflicting stories, half of her "memories" started out with the words "I was told that.....", she said that the survivors of the camp she was in were dying at the rate of 1000 a day in the hands of the British (is that true? I never heard that one before)... one minute her entire family was gassed, the next she lived with her father and Aunt until she got married.

Now, no one expects an old lady to remember every detail of a tramautic experience that happened 60 years ago, but her memories are what is being taught as HISTORY.... as fact. And what happens if someone questions her story? They would imediatly be shouted down as an anti-semite holocaust denier.

I think what happened to Jews in Europe was despicable. I think what happened to people in the camps was beyond despicable. And if you don't want it to ever happen again, then hang on to your guns.... in fact buy more guns.

Now tell me why every shred of evidence surrounding that time in history shouldn't be examined and why every fairy tale masquerading as historical fact shouldn't be questioned.


mm

If it were conclusively proven that the numbers were only 500k, then that would be taught in schools. Since the dead don't speak, our history is based very much on the records kept by the Nazis themselves in Jack's referenced punchcards, etc. and on the subjective memories of survivors. Meanwhile, MANY nations have reasons to downplay the death tolls since many were complicit in the roundups, removals and theft of property that came with it. To acknowledge the sheer numbers would also be to open themselves up to claims for reparations.

And guns in the hands of unorganized "free spirits" would help very little against a well-oiled military machine like the German army. In fact, there are many Jewish resistance stories from WWII that had various levels of success, and yet millions still died.

The best success story of the war was in Switzerland (I think), which hid their entire population of Jews from the Nazis without using guns at all.

The best weapon in any conflict is not violence but solidarity and numbers, diligence and empathy. You can't have any of that by saying, "Well it probably wasn't really that bad." That was pretty much the worldwide reaction to the initial reports coming out from the camps, and was the primary reason the Holocaust got as bad as it did. With our country leading the way, the world collectively denied what was going on and refused the attempts of Germany to expel all the Jews from his borders in the years directly prior to the war (1933 to 1939).

In point of fact, our failure to act caused many more deaths than might otherwise have happened, and is probably one of the reasons Jews today are so sensitive and strident when those numbers are questioned...

 

[Starship Coyote]

I have already done so. As Americans, our personal history's shining moment of glory was when we "won the war" and saved the captive Jews. Therefore, we crow about it every chance we get.

You don't know a damned thing about American History, foolish little man. America's "shining moment of glory" in WWII was the defeat of Imperial Japan.

Prove this or drop it. Because your personal experience makes you think no one cares about native affairs is not proof. Besides which, the concept of "no one caring" directly contradicts the idea that these same students can be successfully brainwashed by your imaginary Jew agenda in public schools. Hoisted by your own petard, as it were.

Not at all, except perhaps in your diseased imagination. If your head wasn't so far up the Jews' collective ass, you wouldn't be suffering from oxygen deprivation.

If I inadvertantly proved anything for you, it was because you were not capable of doing it. I proved only that in the language of mass murder, our country and others refuse to label new massacres with the term genocide because that TERM would require us to act. Purely a position of governmental convenience.

So if it's a matter of "govermental convenience" then who gets to determine what's important and what's not? Here's a clue: take a look at the new bill in the EU parliament right now and then decide.

Circular logic, since naturally we wouldn't assist a non-ally with extradition. That is irrelevant to the fact that they ARE allies, he broke THIER laws, and we sent him home. People are sacrificed to the political machine all the time, in our country and abroad. Your point?

My point was made in my last post. You're a moral coward for defending such behavior.

For someone who is not out to convince anything to anyone, you sure spend a lot of time trying to cloud the issues here.

And you're troll-bait.

I notice when logic begins to confound you you whip right into personal insults.

Don't earn them. Besides, I only have intelligent conversations with intelligent people.

If being accused of limp-wristed bitchery were at all pertinent to your ridiculous and ill-informed idea that "The jews control the schools" I'd probably answer it more fully. As it is, you're becoming a bore.

So you're going away?

I answered the legitimate points of debate you try to make, but the rest is a trifle. Whether or not I am your better is not for you or me to decide, but I expect to answer becomes clear to people capable of independent thought. Probably around the point you imply that you're correct because you want to fuck me with a meathook...

No, I want you to fuck you with a meathook.

 

[jack]

There are many more millions of DMV records in the United States; their mere existence doesn't indicate how many of the drivers were victims of homicide.

Silly, these do.

 

[Tyrant]

Not my hyperbole. The argument of the Nazis is specifically that they killed all those millions unintentionally due to disease and bad living conditions. The implication and defense was that only those who were weak, elderly or of unfit state died of the Typhus. That they were subpar, stupid and less worthy was a NAZI construct, not mine.


Can't argue this, since the USA remains the only "civilized" country to ever have used atomic bombs on civilian targets. But since history is written by the victors, we are the Good Guys. Your point?


The original argument calls into question the death tolls, the causes of death of jewish prisoners and the accuracy of accepted Holocaust information. The very term "Revisionist" is used to describe those persons who attempt to downplay the atrocities against the Jews in WWII.

My original point, which I'll repeat now, is that there is NO difference between deliberately eradicating half a million people or six million. It's monstrous, a term I used to reference an earlier post that asked "Am I a monster for questioning the facts?" (paraphrasing here). It wasn't meant as a red herring, although I'd have to question your later anecdote of the SS Daddy etc. as deliberately facetious and condescending, something you accuse me of below.





The idea that I could be somehow ostracised for presenting my views does not make them wrong or less contributory. The fact that my knowledge of the subject and ability to use more complex phrasing confuses you is not the same thing as being condescending. Many of your responses, including the aforementioned quote of the week, were attempts at mockery and therefore useless to me.

Your summary swipe? My posts were too long and you did not read them. That's your defense? I don't have to "think" I'm winning, you just admitted that fact by resorting to such a weak reply. It's as lame as CoyoteUgly's "Oh yeah? Fuck you!" response.

I will do you the honor of saying I read all the posts you made to me, even the parts that were clearly bullshit or inflammatory. I picked them apart, naturally, but I READ them. Retire from the field if you're going to put in such weak effort, Tyrant.

I'll reply to this when I feel like placating to your emo ass.

 

[Tyrant]

by the way, the tats match the punchcards.

Those magical punchcards.

 

[The Question]

Of course, the amusing thing about the contention that it's evil to.question what happened is that it arises from an utter inability to question what happened. "well, even if it was only 500,000, it was still a massive extermination campaign!" unless, of course, it wasn't part of any campaign, but jeez, let's not make more than the most cursory pretense at actual critical thought.

 

[jack]

Those magical punchcards.

Bergen Belsen was established in 39.

You're all liars.

 

[jack]

Of course, the amusing thing about the contention that it's evil to.question what happened is that it arises from an utter inability to question what happened. "well, even if it was only 500,000, it was still a massive extermination campaign!" unless, of course, it wasn't part of any campaign, but jeez, let's not make more than the most cursory pretense at actual critical thought.

As long as you believe Belsen was established in 42, you're a liar.

 

[jack]

Must be Photoshop.

 

[jack]

Those magical punchcards.

Paul, I can't help that they were that insane. Why would wanyone meticulously record each and every murder, right down to the style of execution, date and time?

Have you seen the cards?

Unfortunately for any argument concerning numbers or intent, they tell the tale better than any half lying kike that would take three bullets in the back for his students.

 

[jack]

Y'know, Dono's made some interesting points here. I don't go eloquent like that, but his rhetoric is based on real facts, so I agree with him.

It's all good, the more you goosestep around this issue, the stupider you appear

BTW I'm in agreement that you should NOT be being put in jail anywhere for "daring" to mention it might not have happened just the way they say it did. Or censured. It isn't illegal to suggest it didn't happen, just ignorant.

I'll argue with you over that any day, I just won't be told it didn't happen. You can twist words and lie about dates until you think you've swayed the argument, and you'll still be in the minority.

We won't forget.

 

[jack]

Besides I have great pics too

 

[jack]

Want to see the twins? They had a sweet tooth for jewish babies, go figure.

 

[The Question]

Have you seen the cards?

Have you?

 

[The Question]

This is funny:

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

In that you would think that if the punch cards are proof of extermination itself -- how it was carried out in each case, as Jack suggests -- that such a sensational claim would be made on that site. It isn't. As I've reminded Jack time and time again, the Hollerith cards were used for identification and classification, and nothing more.

 

[The Question]

Want to see the twins? They had a sweet tooth for jewish babies, go figure.

In WW1 it was Belgian babies. Of course, the Western Allies later apologized for that lie. The difference here is that Jews never apologize.

 

[Starship Coyote]

Listen up racist asshole. Defend the facts not your bullshit. 39.

Yes, I'm a racist and an asshole. What's your point?

Bergen-Belsen centered around an army base that existed there previously. By 1940, it became a POW camp for captured French and Belgian soldiers and was known as Stalag 311... not Bergen-Belsen. By 1941, Russian prisoners (those guys who surrendered en masse) were kept there. It's not until 1942 that the complex was designated as a concentration camp for political prisoners and comprised of new complexes at the villages of Bergen and Belsen.

Now, the Nazis did conduct medical experiments on prisoners, but those occured at Birkenau, Dachau and Auschwitz. That's not a pic of an experiment victim at Bergen-Belsen.

 

[jack]

Except the ones I've been showing.

btw, my points been proven, right here in this very thread.

 

[Starship Coyote]

Except the ones I've been showing.

They can't be from Bergen-Belsen in the time frame you stated. Either your provenence is wrong, or you're talking out your ass. Or both.

btw, my points been proven, right here in this very thread.

What points would that be? There are people who don't like you rat-faced cunts? Welcome to European history... that's been going on since the Roman Empire.