Holocaust survivers mock AOC

[Ambivalent1]

absolute garbage my friend.

But all I did was state verifiable facts.
The Red Cross report, the World Jewish Almanac entries, and news articles about the reduction in the Auschwitz museum's estimates can all be found online.

Again I will now apply Holocaust Denialism to you

Yeah, we already covered that. I deny the veracity of the accepted Holocaust narrative; no argument.
The only issue I have with the term is that "denial" implies that one is insisting that something they know to be true is false, and that's not what I'm doing.

I can't read your post because you are from Africa and are typing in Zulu

I'm from the USA and am typing in English. If you can't read it, that's you're comprehension problem.

When you say Soviet, American, British governments and rich Jews that is pretty general, I am asking specifically who is behind it? It seems with all the information you claim to have this should really be easy. Name names.

You're request is unreasonable. One suspects you know that. The Rothschilds would be one name. Stalin would be one name. Churchill another. We're talking about governments, though; there's no identifying all the individuals involved.

because WW2 is a WORLD WAR. it would be hard for the US to lie when so many nations were in synch. or are you saying all the other countries did our evil bidding?

All it took was the US, Britain, and the USSR cooperating, as they'd been doing for years. The world financial oligarchy had the first two in it's pocket -- thus, rich jews. It just takes a disinformation campaign, something they all did and still do, and a public that wants to believe.

What you meant to say is that there is no "truth" you'll accept other than your own.

Not at all. I'm open to new information and to revising my position. I'd have to say that you're accusing me of being like you. Are you willing to accept that what you believe could be incorrect?

Hitlers goal was what again?

To free his people from the yoke of the Treaty of Versailles, restore their prosperity, and end the debilitating impact of the world banking system on Germany and ultimately all Europe.

and if someone was attacking all my friends and family, yes; i will declare war on them.

After lengthy and refused negotiation offers with the Polish government, Hitler invaded and occupied those parts of Poland that had been German territory before WWI and which were populated by ethnic Germans, who were being oppressed and slaughtered. England then declared war on Germany, despite Hitler's repeated attempts at peaceful negotiation. After the war, England agreed to give Poland to the USSR. Hitler was defending his extended family; Churchill made war.

The Germans had Jews dig you moron, they dug until they died, they also had Jews welding bombs.
Simpleton

Yes, I knew that and knew you were referring to that. You're intent in the context of the post to which you replied is what I didn't understand fully. I was merely requesting clarification.

All you offer is falsehoods and insults. That you believe the falsehoods is understandable; you were taught them and never questioned them. The insults, on the other hand, betray only the weakness of your position and of your character.

How long have you been with the Mosad

How long have you been off your meds?

(See, anyone can play the insult game. What does it accomplish?

Nah he is with the Mosad, he thinks that he will find Adolph here

She.
And what she hoped to find here was stimulating and civil conversation with thoughtful people. There's been some but they don't seem to be in the majority.

Poles, and Soviets both had non-Aggression pacts with Nazi Germany, and in both cases Nazi Germans attacked them first.

True.
Germany attempted a negotiated settlement with Poland over the German territory and people under Poland's control after WWI. All negotiations were refused by Poland and the oppression of ethnic Germans continued. Hitler felt he had no other choice but to invade in order to protect his people.
Attacking Russia was probably a fatal mistake. The rationale was a desperate need for resources and, some evidence suggests, maybe intelligence that Russia was going to attack Germany.

The numbers of Jews killed might be up for debate, but not the Holocaust which has far too much information.

No one argues that nothing happened. Only the numbers, the causes, and the intent are questioned by Holocaust revisionists.

Holocaust denial being criminalized is ridiculous.

Absolutely!

That it's a crime pretty much throughout the EU raises a significant question:
If everything about the accepted Holocaust narrative is definitely true, why criminalize even questioning it? Wouldn't a truth hold up under scrutiny?

More: Wouldn't someone questioning it publicly be an opportunity to present the facts and remind everyone about the history? Why even risk the bad image that imprisoning an octogenarian grandmother (Ursula Haverbeck) merely for asking questions could produce? If it's all undeniably true, what sense is there in criminalizing questioning it?

They arent secure in this one area for some reason.

Exactly! And what could that reason be? You'd want to suppress questions only if you're hiding something (Julian Assange, anyone?). If evidence is available that could reveal what you're hiding.

Anything is Possible but that reduces us to doing sources

 

[Frannie]

absolute garbage my friend.

But all I did was state verifiable facts.
The Red Cross report, the World Jewish Almanac entries, and news articles about the reduction in the Auschwitz museum's estimates can all be found online.

Again I will now apply Holocaust Denialism to you

Yeah, we already covered that. I deny the veracity of the accepted Holocaust narrative; no argument.
The only issue I have with the term is that "denial" implies that one is insisting that something they know to be true is false, and that's not what I'm doing.

I can't read your post because you are from Africa and are typing in Zulu

I'm from the USA and am typing in English. If you can't read it, that's you're comprehension problem.

When you say Soviet, American, British governments and rich Jews that is pretty general, I am asking specifically who is behind it? It seems with all the information you claim to have this should really be easy. Name names.

You're request is unreasonable. One suspects you know that. The Rothschilds would be one name. Stalin would be one name. Churchill another. We're talking about governments, though; there's no identifying all the individuals involved.

because WW2 is a WORLD WAR. it would be hard for the US to lie when so many nations were in synch. or are you saying all the other countries did our evil bidding?

All it took was the US, Britain, and the USSR cooperating, as they'd been doing for years. The world financial oligarchy had the first two in it's pocket -- thus, rich jews. It just takes a disinformation campaign, something they all did and still do, and a public that wants to believe.

What you meant to say is that there is no "truth" you'll accept other than your own.

Not at all. I'm open to new information and to revising my position. I'd have to say that you're accusing me of being like you. Are you willing to accept that what you believe could be incorrect?

Hitlers goal was what again?

To free his people from the yoke of the Treaty of Versailles, restore their prosperity, and end the debilitating impact of the world banking system on Germany and ultimately all Europe.

and if someone was attacking all my friends and family, yes; i will declare war on them.

After lengthy and refused negotiation offers with the Polish government, Hitler invaded and occupied those parts of Poland that had been German territory before WWI and which were populated by ethnic Germans, who were being oppressed and slaughtered. England then declared war on Germany, despite Hitler's repeated attempts at peaceful negotiation. After the war, England agreed to give Poland to the USSR. Hitler was defending his extended family; Churchill made war.

The Germans had Jews dig you moron, they dug until they died, they also had Jews welding bombs.
Simpleton

Yes, I knew that and knew you were referring to that. You're intent in the context of the post to which you replied is what I didn't understand fully. I was merely requesting clarification.

All you offer is falsehoods and insults. That you believe the falsehoods is understandable; you were taught them and never questioned them. The insults, on the other hand, betray only the weakness of your position and of your character.

How long have you been with the Mosad

How long have you been off your meds?

(See, anyone can play the insult game. What does it accomplish?

Nah he is with the Mosad, he thinks that he will find Adolph here

She.
And what she hoped to find here was stimulating and civil conversation with thoughtful people. There's been some but they don't seem to be in the majority.

Poles, and Soviets both had non-Aggression pacts with Nazi Germany, and in both cases Nazi Germans attacked them first.

True.
Germany attempted a negotiated settlement with Poland over the German territory and people under Poland's control after WWI. All negotiations were refused by Poland and the oppression of ethnic Germans continued. Hitler felt he had no other choice but to invade in order to protect his people.
Attacking Russia was probably a fatal mistake. The rationale was a desperate need for resources and, some evidence suggests, maybe intelligence that Russia was going to attack Germany.

The numbers of Jews killed might be up for debate, but not the Holocaust which has far too much information.

No one argues that nothing happened. Only the numbers, the causes, and the intent are questioned by Holocaust revisionists.

Holocaust denial being criminalized is ridiculous.

Absolutely!

That it's a crime pretty much throughout the EU raises a significant question:
If everything about the accepted Holocaust narrative is definitely true, why criminalize even questioning it? Wouldn't a truth hold up under scrutiny?

More: Wouldn't someone questioning it publicly be an opportunity to present the facts and remind everyone about the history? Why even risk the bad image that imprisoning an octogenarian grandmother (Ursula Haverbeck) merely for asking questions could produce? If it's all undeniably true, what sense is there in criminalizing questioning it?

They arent secure in this one area for some reason.

Exactly! And what could that reason be? You'd want to suppress questions only if you're hiding something (Julian Assange, anyone?). If evidence is available that could reveal what you're hiding.

Anything is Possible but that reduces us to doing sources

So you believe that 6 million people just mysteriously dissapeared....

Lie down on zi couch anz tell us about your mudder

 

[Capri]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

 

[Capri]

So you believe that 6 million people just mysteriously dissapeared....

I already referenced the World Jewish Almanac that shows Jewish population figures before and after the war. 6 million people DIDN'T disappear. The proof is in the numbers; there were more jews in Europe after the war than before.

 

[Capri]

No, those regions of Poland were majority Polish, and weren't inhabited by a German majority.

For example Poznan was majority Polish in the 20th century, and was so also when Germans had stole it from them in 1793.

Much of the German minority there, were none other than Germans brought in, or Poles even Germanized during the Germanization of Western Poland by German leaders like Von Bismark.

This contradicts information I've seen. Could you direct me to any sources, please?

 

[Ambivalent1]

absolute garbage my friend.

But all I did was state verifiable facts.
The Red Cross report, the World Jewish Almanac entries, and news articles about the reduction in the Auschwitz museum's estimates can all be found online.

Again I will now apply Holocaust Denialism to you

Yeah, we already covered that. I deny the veracity of the accepted Holocaust narrative; no argument.
The only issue I have with the term is that "denial" implies that one is insisting that something they know to be true is false, and that's not what I'm doing.

I can't read your post because you are from Africa and are typing in Zulu

I'm from the USA and am typing in English. If you can't read it, that's you're comprehension problem.

When you say Soviet, American, British governments and rich Jews that is pretty general, I am asking specifically who is behind it? It seems with all the information you claim to have this should really be easy. Name names.

You're request is unreasonable. One suspects you know that. The Rothschilds would be one name. Stalin would be one name. Churchill another. We're talking about governments, though; there's no identifying all the individuals involved.

because WW2 is a WORLD WAR. it would be hard for the US to lie when so many nations were in synch. or are you saying all the other countries did our evil bidding?

All it took was the US, Britain, and the USSR cooperating, as they'd been doing for years. The world financial oligarchy had the first two in it's pocket -- thus, rich jews. It just takes a disinformation campaign, something they all did and still do, and a public that wants to believe.

What you meant to say is that there is no "truth" you'll accept other than your own.

Not at all. I'm open to new information and to revising my position. I'd have to say that you're accusing me of being like you. Are you willing to accept that what you believe could be incorrect?

Hitlers goal was what again?

To free his people from the yoke of the Treaty of Versailles, restore their prosperity, and end the debilitating impact of the world banking system on Germany and ultimately all Europe.

and if someone was attacking all my friends and family, yes; i will declare war on them.

After lengthy and refused negotiation offers with the Polish government, Hitler invaded and occupied those parts of Poland that had been German territory before WWI and which were populated by ethnic Germans, who were being oppressed and slaughtered. England then declared war on Germany, despite Hitler's repeated attempts at peaceful negotiation. After the war, England agreed to give Poland to the USSR. Hitler was defending his extended family; Churchill made war.

The Germans had Jews dig you moron, they dug until they died, they also had Jews welding bombs.
Simpleton

Yes, I knew that and knew you were referring to that. You're intent in the context of the post to which you replied is what I didn't understand fully. I was merely requesting clarification.

All you offer is falsehoods and insults. That you believe the falsehoods is understandable; you were taught them and never questioned them. The insults, on the other hand, betray only the weakness of your position and of your character.

How long have you been with the Mosad

How long have you been off your meds?

(See, anyone can play the insult game. What does it accomplish?

Nah he is with the Mosad, he thinks that he will find Adolph here

She.
And what she hoped to find here was stimulating and civil conversation with thoughtful people. There's been some but they don't seem to be in the majority.

Poles, and Soviets both had non-Aggression pacts with Nazi Germany, and in both cases Nazi Germans attacked them first.

True.
Germany attempted a negotiated settlement with Poland over the German territory and people under Poland's control after WWI. All negotiations were refused by Poland and the oppression of ethnic Germans continued. Hitler felt he had no other choice but to invade in order to protect his people.
Attacking Russia was probably a fatal mistake. The rationale was a desperate need for resources and, some evidence suggests, maybe intelligence that Russia was going to attack Germany.

The numbers of Jews killed might be up for debate, but not the Holocaust which has far too much information.

No one argues that nothing happened. Only the numbers, the causes, and the intent are questioned by Holocaust revisionists.

Holocaust denial being criminalized is ridiculous.

Absolutely!

That it's a crime pretty much throughout the EU raises a significant question:
If everything about the accepted Holocaust narrative is definitely true, why criminalize even questioning it? Wouldn't a truth hold up under scrutiny?

More: Wouldn't someone questioning it publicly be an opportunity to present the facts and remind everyone about the history? Why even risk the bad image that imprisoning an octogenarian grandmother (Ursula Haverbeck) merely for asking questions could produce? If it's all undeniably true, what sense is there in criminalizing questioning it?

They arent secure in this one area for some reason.

Exactly! And what could that reason be? You'd want to suppress questions only if you're hiding something (Julian Assange, anyone?). If evidence is available that could reveal what you're hiding.

Anything is Possible but that reduces us to doing sources

So you believe that 6 million people just mysteriously dissapeared....

Lie down on zi couch anz tell us about your mudder

I suggest you catch up on the conversation.

 

[Papageorgio]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

 

[iceberg]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

and when you get to that point, mocking is the best you'll get from me.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

That's EXACTLY what she wants you to believe. It all boils down to what "sources" she (or anyone on either side that is a hyper partisan) approves of.

 

[Papageorgio]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

and when you get to that point, mocking is the best you'll get from me.

If you take their evidence and view it separately and not in it's entirety, it sounds real good. It is when you look for the whole picture it doesn't fit. You would have to have thousands of people to be involved to cover it up, lots of holes and lots of supposition upon the conspiracy theorists to be taken seriously.

 

[Indeependent]

So you believe that 6 million people just mysteriously dissapeared....

I already referenced the World Jewish Almanac that shows Jewish population figures before and after the war. 6 million people DIDN'T disappear. The proof is in the numbers; there were more jews in Europe after the war than before.

Eat shit...
Holocaust Denial | My Jewish Learning

 

[Papageorgio]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

That's EXACTLY what she wants you to believe. It all boils down to what "sources" she (or anyone on either side that is a hyper partisan) approves of.

The Nuremberg Trials had literally tons both verbal and physical evidence and put weight into testimony. I also reason as to why a person would testify one way or the other.

 

[Capri]

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

We've both reached conclusions. I don't want you to believe only what supports my conclusion or to disregard what supports yours. I don't want that of anybody, not at all. All I want here -- and I've said this already -- is for people to look at all the evidence and then come to an informed conclusion. What I don't want is for people to accept without question what was inculcated into them. There are people in this thread -- you aren't one of them -- who have nothing to offer but to call me a moron or a simpleton and such, claim I'm nuts, or tell me to "eat shit" and the like. These are the people with closed minds, refusing to consider anything other than what they already believe and hating anyone who suggests they do.

 

[Frannie]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Yes Adolph, I offer you nothing, but if we can get together privately I have a special present 4 u

 

[Frannie]

So you believe that 6 million people just mysteriously dissapeared....

I already referenced the World Jewish Almanac that shows Jewish population figures before and after the war. 6 million people DIDN'T disappear. The proof is in the numbers; there were more jews in Europe after the war than before.

Yes Adolph, let's get together at the gun range

 

[Frannie]

absolute garbage my friend.

But all I did was state verifiable facts.
The Red Cross report, the World Jewish Almanac entries, and news articles about the reduction in the Auschwitz museum's estimates can all be found online.

Again I will now apply Holocaust Denialism to you

Yeah, we already covered that. I deny the veracity of the accepted Holocaust narrative; no argument.
The only issue I have with the term is that "denial" implies that one is insisting that something they know to be true is false, and that's not what I'm doing.

I can't read your post because you are from Africa and are typing in Zulu

I'm from the USA and am typing in English. If you can't read it, that's you're comprehension problem.

When you say Soviet, American, British governments and rich Jews that is pretty general, I am asking specifically who is behind it? It seems with all the information you claim to have this should really be easy. Name names.

You're request is unreasonable. One suspects you know that. The Rothschilds would be one name. Stalin would be one name. Churchill another. We're talking about governments, though; there's no identifying all the individuals involved.

because WW2 is a WORLD WAR. it would be hard for the US to lie when so many nations were in synch. or are you saying all the other countries did our evil bidding?

All it took was the US, Britain, and the USSR cooperating, as they'd been doing for years. The world financial oligarchy had the first two in it's pocket -- thus, rich jews. It just takes a disinformation campaign, something they all did and still do, and a public that wants to believe.

What you meant to say is that there is no "truth" you'll accept other than your own.

Not at all. I'm open to new information and to revising my position. I'd have to say that you're accusing me of being like you. Are you willing to accept that what you believe could be incorrect?

Hitlers goal was what again?

To free his people from the yoke of the Treaty of Versailles, restore their prosperity, and end the debilitating impact of the world banking system on Germany and ultimately all Europe.

and if someone was attacking all my friends and family, yes; i will declare war on them.

After lengthy and refused negotiation offers with the Polish government, Hitler invaded and occupied those parts of Poland that had been German territory before WWI and which were populated by ethnic Germans, who were being oppressed and slaughtered. England then declared war on Germany, despite Hitler's repeated attempts at peaceful negotiation. After the war, England agreed to give Poland to the USSR. Hitler was defending his extended family; Churchill made war.

The Germans had Jews dig you moron, they dug until they died, they also had Jews welding bombs.
Simpleton

Yes, I knew that and knew you were referring to that. You're intent in the context of the post to which you replied is what I didn't understand fully. I was merely requesting clarification.

All you offer is falsehoods and insults. That you believe the falsehoods is understandable; you were taught them and never questioned them. The insults, on the other hand, betray only the weakness of your position and of your character.

How long have you been with the Mosad

How long have you been off your meds?

(See, anyone can play the insult game. What does it accomplish?

Nah he is with the Mosad, he thinks that he will find Adolph here

She.
And what she hoped to find here was stimulating and civil conversation with thoughtful people. There's been some but they don't seem to be in the majority.

Poles, and Soviets both had non-Aggression pacts with Nazi Germany, and in both cases Nazi Germans attacked them first.

True.
Germany attempted a negotiated settlement with Poland over the German territory and people under Poland's control after WWI. All negotiations were refused by Poland and the oppression of ethnic Germans continued. Hitler felt he had no other choice but to invade in order to protect his people.
Attacking Russia was probably a fatal mistake. The rationale was a desperate need for resources and, some evidence suggests, maybe intelligence that Russia was going to attack Germany.

The numbers of Jews killed might be up for debate, but not the Holocaust which has far too much information.

No one argues that nothing happened. Only the numbers, the causes, and the intent are questioned by Holocaust revisionists.

Holocaust denial being criminalized is ridiculous.

Absolutely!

That it's a crime pretty much throughout the EU raises a significant question:
If everything about the accepted Holocaust narrative is definitely true, why criminalize even questioning it? Wouldn't a truth hold up under scrutiny?

More: Wouldn't someone questioning it publicly be an opportunity to present the facts and remind everyone about the history? Why even risk the bad image that imprisoning an octogenarian grandmother (Ursula Haverbeck) merely for asking questions could produce? If it's all undeniably true, what sense is there in criminalizing questioning it?

They arent secure in this one area for some reason.

Exactly! And what could that reason be? You'd want to suppress questions only if you're hiding something (Julian Assange, anyone?). If evidence is available that could reveal what you're hiding.

Anything is Possible but that reduces us to doing sources

So you believe that 6 million people just mysteriously dissapeared....

Lie down on zi couch anz tell us about your mudder

I suggest you catch up on the conversation.

Let's go shooting, you can get me up to speed

 

[Frannie]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

That's EXACTLY what she wants you to believe. It all boils down to what "sources" she (or anyone on either side that is a hyper partisan) approves of.

The Nuremberg Trials had literally tons both verbal and physical evidence and put weight into testimony. I also reason as to why a person would testify one way or the other.

There was no need for evidence that the holocaust happened, the evidence was as to who did what....

 

[Indeependent]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

That's EXACTLY what she wants you to believe. It all boils down to what "sources" she (or anyone on either side that is a hyper partisan) approves of.

The Nuremberg Trials had literally tons both verbal and physical evidence and put weight into testimony. I also reason as to why a person would testify one way or the other.

There was no need for evidence that the holocaust happened, the evidence was as to who did what....

But Capri saw an anonymous video on the World Wide Web!

 

[Papageorgio]

Here is testimony during the Nuremberg Trials, Hoess was the Commandant of Auschwitz during the later part of WWII.

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

I can produce names and documents, you provide supposition and just parts of account not taken in context.

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

You have everything else figured out but you can't name the individuals involved?

This is my issue with the conspiracy theories, you can't name names. If the conspiracy is that far and wide then we should know exactly who was involved.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

Adolph is triggered

Lol

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

That's EXACTLY what she wants you to believe. It all boils down to what "sources" she (or anyone on either side that is a hyper partisan) approves of.

The Nuremberg Trials had literally tons both verbal and physical evidence and put weight into testimony. I also reason as to why a person would testify one way or the other.

There was no need for evidence that the holocaust happened, the evidence was as to who did what....

I'm not sure how anyone can come to a different conclusion. They talked about literal tons of evidence from the Germans themselves documenting what happened. Then to claim three governments then collaborated and made tons and tons of paper to prove it? That isn't a stretch that is a Grand Canyon gap that can't be closed.

 

[Indeependent]

The rules of evidence were suspended for the Nuremberg trials. Specifically, articles 19 & 21 of the London Charter stated that the Nuremberg Tribunal would not be bound by the standard rules of evidence and that proof of "facts" of "common knowledge" would not be required.
enDOTwikisourceDOTo r gSLASHwikiSLASHLondon_Charter_of_the_International_Militry_Trinunal

Hoess was tortured to get him to testify as he did and sign a written confession that was in English, which he couldn't read.
rudolfhoess DOT wordpress DOT c o m/
ihr DOT o r g SLASH jhr SLASH v07 SLASH v07p389_Faurisson DOT h t m l
uncensoredhistory DOT blogspot DOT c o m SLASH 2012 SLASH 10 SLASH the-british-torture-of-rudolph-hoess DOT h t m l

Not supposition; my conclusions based on the evidence I've seen.
I've also produced documents. Many others are available online; you can see the ones I've mentioned for yourself.

Forgive me but you seem to not quite get the nature of a conspiracy or of a hoax.
As I don't believe you're unintelligent, I still suspect you're being intentionally obtuse. But if your criterion for belief is that specific names be known beyond the heads of the complicit states and the heads of the conspiring financial oligarchs, that's your choice. No one can give what perforce doesn't exist.

You continue to offer nothing. Those who demean others tend generally to have a low opinion of themselves. There may be help for you available; you should consider looking into it.

Your references speak of testimony of the Nuremberg Trial. So, you want me to believe only the testimony given that supports your theory and disregard the evidence and testimony that conflicts with your testimony. Sounds like a closed and not an open mind that you have reached your conclusion.

That's EXACTLY what she wants you to believe. It all boils down to what "sources" she (or anyone on either side that is a hyper partisan) approves of.

The Nuremberg Trials had literally tons both verbal and physical evidence and put weight into testimony. I also reason as to why a person would testify one way or the other.

There was no need for evidence that the holocaust happened, the evidence was as to who did what....

I'm not sure how anyone can come to a different conclusion. They talked about literal tons of evidence from the Germans themselves documenting what happened. Then to claim three governments then collaborated and made tons and tons of paper to prove it? That isn't a stretch that is a Grand Canyon gap that can't be closed.

Well, it’s obvious that the Rothchilds have spent 1,000 years making sure Jews were persecuted; including themselves.