Callling All 'Holocaust Deniers'!

[Saigon]

Swagger -

Put it this way - if you set out tomorrow to prove that smoking does not cause cancer, you're going to find it difficult. It may not be impossible, and you may even find something, but its going to be hard work - because you are trying to disprove something that has already been proven by 1,000 other studies.

There is simply no dispute, no contoversy and no argument about how many people died, or how they died, or where.

As for the laws, it's a tough issue and I can see both sides of it. But I do understand that Germany wants to protect its reputation, and wants to reassure the world that history will not repeat itself.

 

[namvet]

Not one single body from the prison camps has ever been the subject of a forensic autopsy to determine if a gas or chemical agent was the cause of death.

We now have the technology to determine if the holocaust gas chamber story is fact or fiction........

no shit sherlock

^^^ Ovens for baking bread to feed the soldiers and camp inmates........

climb in ill close the door

 

[Swagger]

Swagger -

Put it this way - if you set out tomorrow to prove that smoking does not cause cancer, you're going to find it difficult. It may not be impossible, and you may even find something, but its going to be hard work - because you are trying to disprove something that has already been proven by 1,000 other studies.

There is simply no dispute, no contoversy and no argument about how many people died, or how they died, or where.

As for the laws, it's a tough issue and I can see both sides of it. But I do understand that Germany wants to protect its reputation, and wants to reassure the world that history will not repeat itself.

We're not discussing medical facts where there's an action and a reaction, Saigon. We're talking about widely distributed accounts from history drawn from witness testimony during a period of enormous upheaval and chaos. There's ample room for dispute.

I have consistently maintained throughout this thread that I believe that European Jewry were indeed herded into cattle trucks and gassed in concentration camps under explicit edicts from Nazi High Command. But I've also stated that I don't buy into the whole story and that there are some causes for doubt, and some exaggarations of events and data. Many others hold similar doubts. But it remains a fact that there is a widely known (not to mention ugly) exception to the rule concerning historical research and re-examination, with countless column inches bearing testimony to the consequences of drawing the Holocaust into doubt.

 

[Saigon]

Swagger -

I don't know what cause for doubt there could be about any of the substantive facts; I really don't.

I would also dispute that "many others hold similar doubts". Putting to one side the Neo-Nazis and right wing groups who have no actual interest in the history, I think the numbers of people who have genuine doubts about the historical facts of the Holocaust would be negligable.

I'm in no way blaming or criticising you here - I just can't imagine what you might doubt.

 

[Foxfyre]

Swagger -

Put it this way - if you set out tomorrow to prove that smoking does not cause cancer, you're going to find it difficult. It may not be impossible, and you may even find something, but its going to be hard work - because you are trying to disprove something that has already been proven by 1,000 other studies.

There is simply no dispute, no contoversy and no argument about how many people died, or how they died, or where.

As for the laws, it's a tough issue and I can see both sides of it. But I do understand that Germany wants to protect its reputation, and wants to reassure the world that history will not repeat itself.

We're not discussing medical facts where there's an action and a reaction, Saigon. We're talking about widely distributed accounts from history drawn from witness testimony during a period of enormous upheaval and chaos. There's ample room for dispute.

I have consistently maintained throughout this thread that I believe that European Jewry were indeed herded into cattle trucks and gassed in concentration camps under explicit edicts from Nazi High Command. But I've also stated that I don't buy into the whole story and that there are some causes for doubt, and some exaggarations of events and data. Many others hold similar doubts. But it remains a fact that there is a widely known (not to mention ugly) exception to the rule concerning historical research and re-examination, with countless column inches bearing testimony to the consequences of drawing the Holocaust into doubt.

I was just commenting to another member here that I have no problem with skepticism. None of us should accept without question what the authorities want us to believe.

But in the case of the Holocaust, after helping do the research myself and looking into the eyes of a credible and honorable person who was there, I no longer have any doubts about the Holocaust, the methods, or the numbers. We have the census records of the numbers of Jews who lived in Germany and Poland prior to and at the beginning of the war, and we know pretty close how many were left after the war.

When the German government does not dispute the worst of the evidence available, or attempt to explain it away, I see that as further evidence that the official accounts are at least very close to accurate. I disaprove of Germany or anybody else making skepticism a crime, but then I am blessed with living in a country where free speech and thought is an unalienable right.

 

[Sunni Man]

What one has to understand is that most "revisionists" are doing research entirely for poltical reasons. That doesn't make genuine historical research very easy to do!

You're are extremely naive if you don't realize that the official holocaust story is deeply rooted in a political agenda........

 

[Swagger]

Swagger -

I don't know what cause for doubt there could be about any of the substantive facts; I really don't.

I would also dispute that "many others hold similar doubts". Putting to one side the Neo-Nazis and right wing groups who have no actual interest in the history, I think the numbers of people who have genuine doubts about the historical facts of the Holocaust would be negligable.

I'm in no way blaming or criticising you here - I just can't imagine what you might doubt.

There are many documented inconsistencies. It has been proven, thanks to historical "revision" that Simon Wiesenthal (Nazi Hunter-in-chief, no less) lied about how many camps he was held in. He claimed that he was held in eleven. Yet those "meticulous" records the Nazis were infamous for revealed that he'd only been held in five. It has also been claimed in numerous written accounts - some of which were best sellers - by the author that they were paired with other children and taken for examination by the Angel of Death. However, those meticulous records we keep reading about in this thread revealed that Mengele and his staff were only interested in examining identical twins, not a pair of children who'd never met, let alone didn't share identical features.

And although I agree with you that a lot of these "deniers" do indeed harbour Nazi or anti-Semitic sympathies, a lot of those that don't are soon labelled as such by the media as soon as their contentious research arises.

 

[Sunni Man]

When the German government does not dispute the worst of the evidence available, or attempt to explain it away, I see that as further evidence that the official accounts are at least very close to accurate.

LOL, the German government is scared to death of saying anything that could be misconstrued as being anti-semitic or controversial on any issue concerning the so called holocaust.........

 

[Swagger]

Swagger -

Put it this way - if you set out tomorrow to prove that smoking does not cause cancer, you're going to find it difficult. It may not be impossible, and you may even find something, but its going to be hard work - because you are trying to disprove something that has already been proven by 1,000 other studies.

There is simply no dispute, no contoversy and no argument about how many people died, or how they died, or where.

As for the laws, it's a tough issue and I can see both sides of it. But I do understand that Germany wants to protect its reputation, and wants to reassure the world that history will not repeat itself.

We're not discussing medical facts where there's an action and a reaction, Saigon. We're talking about widely distributed accounts from history drawn from witness testimony during a period of enormous upheaval and chaos. There's ample room for dispute.

I have consistently maintained throughout this thread that I believe that European Jewry were indeed herded into cattle trucks and gassed in concentration camps under explicit edicts from Nazi High Command. But I've also stated that I don't buy into the whole story and that there are some causes for doubt, and some exaggarations of events and data. Many others hold similar doubts. But it remains a fact that there is a widely known (not to mention ugly) exception to the rule concerning historical research and re-examination, with countless column inches bearing testimony to the consequences of drawing the Holocaust into doubt.

I was just commenting to another member here that I have no problem with skepticism. None of us should accept without question what the authorities want us to believe.

But in the case of the Holocaust, after helping do the research myself and looking into the eyes of a credible and honorable person who was there, I no longer have any doubts about the Holocaust, the methods, or the numbers. We have the census records of the numbers of Jews who lived in Germany and Poland prior to and at the beginning of the war, and we know pretty close how many were left after the war.

When the German government does not dispute the worst of the evidence available, or attempt to explain it away, I see that as further evidence that the official accounts are at least very close to accurate. I disaprove of Germany or anybody else making skepticism a crime, but then I am blessed with living in a country where free speech and thought is an unalienable right.

Indeed you do.

But there's a vast difference between successive German governments and the Nazi Party that ruled over Germany during the period, and events, under discussion. The Nazi Party was a brutal dictatorship that had nothing to fear from a free press. They controlled the press and any dissenting journalists or leading figures joined the Jews in the camps.

The German government of today is elected by people who don't live under threat of disappearing during the night. And the German press is free to sharply criticise and ruin the reputations of ministers freely elected by the German people. Anyone wishing to remain in the mainstream (politics or otherwise) won't risk incurring the wrath of the international media and being labelled a Nazi (that particular accusation carries extra weight if you happen to be German, which both accusers and recipients are well aware of in advance). To cut a long story short, until the threat of being accused of holding Nazi beliefs or sympathies is removed or defused, the German government and people will remain emotionally enslaved by the Holocaust's legacy. They will do literally anything to avoid the big N-word. Each and every member of the German government stands to lose everything if they even so much as raised an eyebrow at events we're told are set in stone concerning the Holocaust.

 

[SAYIT]

Swagger -

Put it this way - if you set out tomorrow to prove that smoking does not cause cancer, you're going to find it difficult. It may not be impossible, and you may even find something, but its going to be hard work - because you are trying to disprove something that has already been proven by 1,000 other studies.

There is simply no dispute, no contoversy and no argument about how many people died, or how they died, or where.

As for the laws, it's a tough issue and I can see both sides of it. But I do understand that Germany wants to protect its reputation, and wants to reassure the world that history will not repeat itself.

We're not discussing medical facts where there's an action and a reaction, Saigon. We're talking about widely distributed accounts from history drawn from witness testimony during a period of enormous upheaval and chaos. There's ample room for dispute.

I have consistently maintained throughout this thread that I believe that European Jewry were indeed herded into cattle trucks and gassed in concentration camps under explicit edicts from Nazi High Command. But I've also stated that I don't buy into the whole story and that there are some causes for doubt, and some exaggarations of events and data. Many others hold similar doubts. But it remains a fact that there is a widely known (not to mention ugly) exception to the rule concerning historical research and re-examination, with countless column inches bearing testimony to the consequences of drawing the Holocaust into doubt.

I was just commenting to another member here that I have no problem with skepticism. None of us should accept without question what the authorities want us to believe.

But in the case of the Holocaust, after helping do the research myself and looking into the eyes of a credible and honorable person who was there, I no longer have any doubts about the Holocaust, the methods, or the numbers. We have the census records of the numbers of Jews who lived in Germany and Poland prior to and at the beginning of the war, and we know pretty close how many were left after the war.

When the German government does not dispute the worst of the evidence available, or attempt to explain it away, I see that as further evidence that the official accounts are at least very close to accurate. I disaprove of Germany or anybody else making skepticism a crime, but then I am blessed with living in a country where free speech and thought is an unalienable right.

One can only wonder why the Nazis, fully engaged in a debilitating two-front war, would waste time and resources to seek out and transfer Europe's Jews to those "vacation" camps. Perhaps it was to protect them, eh?

 

[SAYIT]

What one has to understand is that most "revisionists" are doing research entirely for poltical reasons. That doesn't make genuine historical research very easy to do!

You're are extremely naive if you don't realize that the official holocaust story is deeply rooted in a political agenda........

In fact, the "official holocaust story" is deeply rooted in facts, something the Denier Movement just can't seem to get around.

 

[Saigon]

What one has to understand is that most "revisionists" are doing research entirely for poltical reasons. That doesn't make genuine historical research very easy to do!

You're are extremely naive if you don't realize that the official holocaust story is deeply rooted in a political agenda........

And yet I am the one of us who has been to Auschwitz, to Birkenau, to Plasow, to Babi Yar - while you have stayed home.

I call that näive.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

What one has to understand is that most "revisionists" are doing research entirely for poltical reasons. That doesn't make genuine historical research very easy to do!

You're are extremely naive if you don't realize that the official holocaust story is deeply rooted in a political agenda........

You are a liar.

 

[Saigon]

There are many documented inconsistencies. It has been proven, thanks to historical "revision" that Simon Wiesenthal (Nazi Hunter-in-chief, no less) lied about how many camps he was held in. He claimed that he was held in eleven. Yet those "meticulous" records the Nazis were infamous for revealed that he'd only been held in five. It has also been claimed in numerous written accounts - some of which were best sellers - by the author that they were paired with other children and taken for examination by the Angel of Death. However, those meticulous records we keep reading about in this thread revealed that Mengele and his staff were only interested in examining identical twins, not a pair of children who'd never met, let alone didn't share identical features.
.

Yes, those kind of things can happen, of course.

I just don't see them as being terribly important really.

 

[namvet]

im glad Spielberg took the time to make Schindler's List which IMO is best ever Holocaust movie ever made. based on a true story and backed by witness's which deniers still hate. if you haven't seen it do !!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAM5q837enk]Steven Spielberg on Schindler's List - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sunni Man]

To the German people the jews were both traitors and the enemy.

The jewish bankers had stabbed Germany in the back during WWl leading to it's defeat.

And the Russian bolsheviks were almost all jews.

So totally eliminating them made perfect sense..........

 

[Unkotare]

What one has to understand is that most "revisionists" are doing research entirely for poltical reasons. That doesn't make genuine historical research very easy to do!

You're are extremely naive if you don't realize that the official holocaust story is deeply rooted in a political agenda........

And yet I am the one of us who has been to Auschwitz, to Birkenau, to Plasow, to Bsbi Yar - while you have stayed home.

I call that näieve.

Which is more distasteful, the anti-Semitic clown or the insufferably pretentious douchebag?


You two deserve each other.

 

[Foxfyre]

We're not discussing medical facts where there's an action and a reaction, Saigon. We're talking about widely distributed accounts from history drawn from witness testimony during a period of enormous upheaval and chaos. There's ample room for dispute.

I have consistently maintained throughout this thread that I believe that European Jewry were indeed herded into cattle trucks and gassed in concentration camps under explicit edicts from Nazi High Command. But I've also stated that I don't buy into the whole story and that there are some causes for doubt, and some exaggarations of events and data. Many others hold similar doubts. But it remains a fact that there is a widely known (not to mention ugly) exception to the rule concerning historical research and re-examination, with countless column inches bearing testimony to the consequences of drawing the Holocaust into doubt.

I was just commenting to another member here that I have no problem with skepticism. None of us should accept without question what the authorities want us to believe.

But in the case of the Holocaust, after helping do the research myself and looking into the eyes of a credible and honorable person who was there, I no longer have any doubts about the Holocaust, the methods, or the numbers. We have the census records of the numbers of Jews who lived in Germany and Poland prior to and at the beginning of the war, and we know pretty close how many were left after the war.

When the German government does not dispute the worst of the evidence available, or attempt to explain it away, I see that as further evidence that the official accounts are at least very close to accurate. I disaprove of Germany or anybody else making skepticism a crime, but then I am blessed with living in a country where free speech and thought is an unalienable right.

One can only wonder why the Nazis, fully engaged in a debilitating two-front war, would waste time and resources to seek out and transfer Europe's Jews to those "vacation" camps. Perhaps it was to protect them, eh?

Most of the skeptics, not even Sunni, are questioning that the Jews were rounded up and imprisoned in camps. The main components of skepticism are a) how many were actually killed and b) whether they were deliberately exterminated. And Swagger raises a legitimate point that the modern German people are so determined to shake the Nazi label and image that they have utilized extreme measures to do that and disallow anything that could be interpreted as Nazi sympathizing.

And that is a credible rebuttal to my own question of why the Germans would protect the status quo re the Holocaust.

The Nazis themselves had no reasonable reason to rig the numbers though, and during the trials, no anti-Nazi doctrine had yet developed.

And the research done by those who have no ax to grind in the matter does support the official version of the facts.

 

[Sunni Man]

And yet I am the one of us who has been to Auschwitz, to Birkenau, to Plasow, to Bsbi Yar - while you have stayed home.

I call that näieve.

Big deal.

I have been to Disneyland

Which is based on a fantasy story; just like the places you claim to have visited.

But the only difference is that I got a T-shirt to prove it..........

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

I was just commenting to another member here that I have no problem with skepticism. None of us should accept without question what the authorities want us to believe.

I totally agree.

But someone with a genuine curiosity can go to Birkenau, or to Yad Vashem or Dachau and learn the facts and reality.

Strangely enough, "Revisionists" don't seem to want to do that. They want to read blogs from people who have never been there either.