Why did the holocaust occur?

[Sunni Man]

In Europe, I wonder if doubting the official Anne Frank story is the like denying the holocaust and you could go to jail?

 

[dilloduck]

How about the exact DETAILS of what happened ? Do you get thrown in Der Schlammer in Germany if you say you think only 5,999,999 Jews were killed by the Nazis ? What the official poop that is so sacred that you cannot question it ?

No, you just get remedial maths.

But now you're nitpicking, reminds me of the old joke about the woman who thought she wasn't a prostitute.

admittedly my example was nitpicking but only to make a point----what are the official details that cannot be denied ? Numbers ? places ? Intent? What puts you over the line from a questioner to criminal denier ?

 

[DiveCon]

How about the exact DETAILS of what happened ? Do you get thrown in Der Schlammer in Germany if you say you think only 5,999,999 Jews were killed by the Nazis ? What the official poop that is so sacred that you cannot question it ?

No, you just get remedial maths.

But now you're nitpicking, reminds me of the old joke about the woman who thought she wasn't a prostitute.

admittedly my example was nitpicking but only to make a point----what are the official details that cannot be denied ? Numbers ? places ? Intent? What puts you over the line from a questioner to criminal denier ?

i dont think it should be criminal either

but it sure help to expose the morons faster when they are allowed to spout their crap

 

[dilloduck]

No, you just get remedial maths.

But now you're nitpicking, reminds me of the old joke about the woman who thought she wasn't a prostitute.

admittedly my example was nitpicking but only to make a point----what are the official details that cannot be denied ? Numbers ? places ? Intent? What puts you over the line from a questioner to criminal denier ?

i dont think it should be criminal either

but it sure help to expose the morons faster when they are allowed to spout their crap

So do YOU have any idea what the sacred facts are that one must not question ?

 

[Diuretic]

In Europe, I wonder if doubting the official Anne Frank story is the like denying the holocaust and you could go to jail?

I think it's on in Germany but maybe France, Austria, don't know. But the wording of the statutes would have to be examined.

 

[Sunni Man]

admittedly my example was nitpicking but only to make a point----what are the official details that cannot be denied ? Numbers ? places ? Intent? What puts you over the line from a questioner to criminal denier ?

i dont think it should be criminal either

but it sure help to expose the morons faster when they are allowed to spout their crap

So do YOU have any idea what the sacred facts are that one must not question ?

Diloduck, you are treading on very thin anti-semite ice

 

[dilloduck]

i dont think it should be criminal either

but it sure help to expose the morons faster when they are allowed to spout their crap

So do YOU have any idea what the sacred facts are that one must not question ?

Diloduck, you are treading on very thin anti-semite ice

I got jealous of you getting all the attention----didn't you read my post ?

 

[Diuretic]

admittedly my example was nitpicking but only to make a point----what are the official details that cannot be denied ? Numbers ? places ? Intent? What puts you over the line from a questioner to criminal denier ?

Facts I suppose. History is a complex thing isn't it? As a kid I was always taught that the Battle of Agincourt was won by brave Englsh knights and stout archers with their great Engish longbows. Then I find out as an adult that the French knights fucked up by riding downhill into a marsh where the English were hanging out. Damn facts, interfere with a perfectly good fairy story. But the facts will out.

The facts are in as far as the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" is concerned and they are littered everywhere. The fact is that it did happen and the evidence is there. If someone can accept that fact then they can go on and look at the evidence of numbers from meticulous records that the Nazis kept. I believe some of that evidence may have been produced at the trial of Eichmann, but I can't be sure of that, I remember the trial but I wasn't that old (sentient but not adult) at the time. So the evidence is there. This isn't some sort of fanciful fairytale for kids, it's based on facts. Those who were there testified and were cross-examined. That's good enough for me.

 

[DiveCon]

admittedly my example was nitpicking but only to make a point----what are the official details that cannot be denied ? Numbers ? places ? Intent? What puts you over the line from a questioner to criminal denier ?

i dont think it should be criminal either

but it sure help to expose the morons faster when they are allowed to spout their crap

So do YOU have any idea what the sacred facts are that one must not question ?

not really

i dont live there

 

[dilloduck]

admittedly my example was nitpicking but only to make a point----what are the official details that cannot be denied ? Numbers ? places ? Intent? What puts you over the line from a questioner to criminal denier ?

Facts I suppose. History is a complex thing isn't it? As a kid I was always taught that the Battle of Agincourt was won by brave Englsh knights and stout archers with their great Engish longbows. Then I find out as an adult that the French knights fucked up by riding downhill into a marsh where the English were hanging out. Damn facts, interfere with a perfectly good fairy story. But the facts will out.

The facts are in as far as the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" is concerned and they are littered everywhere. The fact is that it did happen and the evidence is there. If someone can accept that fact then they can go on and look at the evidence of numbers from meticulous records that the Nazis kept. I believe some of that evidence may have been produced at the trial of Eichmann, but I can't be sure of that, I remember the trial but I wasn't that old (sentient but not adult) at the time. So the evidence is there. This isn't some sort of fanciful fairytale for kids, it's based on facts. Those who were there testified and were cross-examined. That's good enough for me.

Well those pesky facts do have a way of changing over time and I think something terribly wrong occured. I 'd be hard pressed to state for certain that I knew exactly what it was tho. And I guess since I don't plan on going to Europe anytime soon, I don't need to know where the law draws the line.

 

[Sunni Man]

What disturbs me, is that professional historians and academics are terrified to research the holocaust in an objective manner.

Because if they publish anything that deviates from the official story.

They will be labeled as anti-semites and nazis.

Their careers will be ruined forever.

 

[Diuretic]

Well those pesky facts do have a way of changing over time and I think something terribly wrong occured. I 'd be hard pressed to state for certain that I knew exactly what it was tho. And I guess since I don't plan on going to Europe anytime soon, I don't need to know where the law draws the line.

The facts don't change, just how they're represented.

 

[reality bites]

Hi there.

I'm new, this forum seems to be quite busy and has plenty of interaction, so I thought it would be interesting to participate here.

As a number of other posters here have expressed themselves, I too have serious questions regarding the accuracy of the conventional historical consensus.

It is very noticeable that when posters within any message board, or political forum does actually have the fortitude to express doubts, or ask questions, they are usually overwhelmingly silenced.

They are often effectively silenced by a combination of accusations of antisemitism, or by a group(s) of other participating posters casting unfounded aspersions with reckless abandon;

I am hoping that is not the rule, or authoritative standard here; although it has been noticeable reading this thread that at least one poster feels that any person who does not accept without question, that conventional Holocaust history is unequivocally conclusive, can only be using flawed research.

The psychology of the Holocaust is an interesting subject. I posted a very similar post to this one in another forum recently, so it will be extremely interesting to see how posters respond to my thoughts here.

The demonstrated response by the US admin and many ordinary Americans to the recent events in Gaza demonstrate how the Holocaust has, since its conception, had a dramatic effect on how people (Americans in particular) irrevocably establish (or at least it strongly influences) habitual, and characteristic mental attitudes; which can be and often are, pivotal regarding the response to mechanisms and actions deployed by Israel against the people of Palestine.

It is also interesting how Americans view the responses of the people of other countries, particularly those of Europeans.

I personally think the psychology of the Holocaust prevents any form of separation between the Holocaust and the historical/recent actions against other middle eastern countries, in particular Gaza, by Israel.

For example, in another forum recently when I critisised Israels actions in Gaza, using and commenting on a mainstream news article the response was as follows;

"If you truly don't understand why the Israelis behave as they do, you might want to watch this"

Followed by a link to a video of holocaust narrative and photographs.

This is a very common response, regarding any actions carried out by Israel. For a lot of people there is and can be no separation.

I personally find this commonly encountered tenet highly dangerous, especially when one considers that Israel is currently the target of at least 65 UN resolutions, refuse to abide by the U.N. Charter and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

It also displays how such mechanisms have been incorporated and used to spread, normalize and induce acceptance of a particular doctrine and/or system of principles and justifications no matter how grievous and inhumane they are to others.

This has also has to some extent invariably influenced the often unfounded presence of and strength of anti-Arab Racism (particularly toward ordinary Gazans) in the US and a few other countries.

The problem we face today is that due to fear of being otracised by mainstream society, too many people are afraid to say anything to critisise Israel, or those Jews and non Jews alike who wish to stifle free speech.

This is regardless of what those people really think and feel; even if no preventative penal retribution is in force with which to threaten people.

What I find incredibly interesting is that the research of the Jewish Holocaust during WW2, is an area which is almost off-limits as far as many are concerned and so can be used without impunity to dismiss actions by Israel, regardless of the moral dilemma it poses.

The only time modern research is accepted is when the outcome of the research, is already known and supportive of conventional consensus.

There appears to be no other area of history where such constraints apply. Questioning of conventional consensus is met with vociferous attacks from Jews and non-Jews alike. Accusations of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, Nazi.. etc are terms which are thrown around with reckless abandon but why?

If all that happened is true then why resist investigation. What lies behind this? Even if the researcher has a specific bias, if the conventional historical data is accurate all he/she is going to find is evidence that supports conventional history.

This denial of openness that Jews and non Jews alike use to attack people with questions (deniers??), seems to share dangerous and shocking parallels with the most recent events in Gaza. For example, no external journalism allowed, you just have to believe us, don’t you dare not, remember the 'Holocaust’, even if it has no relation, or interconnection to the actions being borne upon innocent Gazan civilians.

Where people create these clouds of secrecy, there is always a given reason, but to the human conscience, it will always looks bad anyway.

The following link is to a very interesting video produced by a Jewish gentleman by the name of David Cole, who set out to investigate the many potential discrepancies surrounding the holocausts historical claims. Such was the reaction by fellow Jews, this gentleman I believe, has also been bullied into infinite silence.

(unfortunately I cannot post a link until I have posted 15 times, if anyone is interested in viewing this video, perhaps I am allowed to state where to find it? The documentary can be found at Google videoplay under the title David Cole - The Truth Behind the Gates of Auschwitz, parts 1 and 2. )

The video brings to the fore the concept that much of the data used to support the accuracy of events surrounding the Holocaust are based entirely on witness testimony.

Now, considering that several well known revisionists have been demonised as ‘Holocaust Deniers’ and also faced penal retribution, even though, crucially, it has since been proven that several of their claims disputing the accepted historical consensus have been established beyond doubt, the subject does, at least, deserve genuine and substantial debate .

The main question I have is why specific governments, organisations, and groups of people/individuals around the world absolutely demand that valid historical debate be stifled, prohibited and left open to litigation regarding the holocaust, whilst at the same time all other events within history are free from such penal, or moral retribution?

Especially when the validity of such historical events can and does impinge greatly on consensus regarding subsequent actions and their eventual outcomes?

Also why many Holocaust historians/governments/organisations/people are so afraid of investigation and debate; in that anyone who so much as questions the history of the Holocaust is demonised, labelled anti-Semite, degenerate, a prevaricator and are completely ostracised.

The most advantageous action the Jews could enact, is to welcome the people who question the holocaust... invite them to question history, after all .....there is no doubt is there?

 

[jillian]

The most advantageous action the Jews could enact, is to welcome the people who question the holocaust... invite them to question history, after all .....there is no doubt is there?

One has to wonder why someone would choose to introduce themselves to a group of strangers in a way they never would in real life.

in answer to your question.... no. there is no doubt because Germans were meticulous in their record keeping. And no... one should not question it any more than one should question whether or not William the Conquerer existed.

p.s. only raging anti-semites and idiots question the holocaust.

 

[roomy]

Even raging anti semites 'Know' that it 'really' happened.Idiots can be forgiven and or ignored, antisemites need to be shut up.

William the who?

 

[jillian]

Even raging anti semites 'Know' that it 'really' happened.Idiots can be forgiven and or ignored, antisemites need to be shut up.

William the who?

you know, French dude... took over England in 1066.

but i should have known better than to read your post while drinking coffee. heh...

 

[reality bites]

The most advantageous action the Jews could enact, is to welcome the people who question the holocaust... invite them to question history, after all .....there is no doubt is there?

One has to wonder why someone would choose to introduce themselves to a group of strangers in a way they never would in real life.

in answer to your question.... no. there is no doubt because Germans were meticulous in their record keeping. And no... one should not question it any more than one should question whether or not William the Conquerer existed.

p.s. only raging anti-semites and idiots question the holocaust.

Jillian.

Firstly, a forum is not 'real life' how I introduce myself has no bearing whatsoever on the content of my post.

Secondly, you are doing exactly the same thing I spoke of within my post; its endemic in some. Yes, meticulous record keeping was used by the Nazi's; but these records do not refer to gassings, that is interpretation; the records refer only the numbers admitted into camps and records of the death of inmates, along with an abundance of other information.

There are diaries of Nazi soldiers in existence that do refer to mass killing, but they have not been verified as authentic, except by Jewish Historians, you see my valid point regarding why you cannot just state p.s. only raging anti-semites and idiots question the holocaust . Your statement is not logical and does nothing to 'prove' the events that rely almost entirely on witness testimony. You see the problem I have here. What are you so afraid of?

You should also be made aware that when rigorous testing was carried out by independent, reputable scientists on the walls of the gas chambers at Auschwitz , there was absolutely no Zyclon B residue whatsoever within any of them. This is documented fact, fully available to the public.

Although when the disinfection building, which survivors themselves stated was used to disinfect mattresses, the clothing of inmates etc. was also tested at the same time, the residue of Zyclon B was marked. The official explanation of the results were at the time explained by the Jewish curator of Auschwitz (and this is also documented) as due to the fact that the gas chambers were only used for approx: twenty minutes a day, whereas the disinfection building was used 24 hours a day.

You see my confusion here, logically the gas chambers used must have been running more than twenty minutes a day to enable the Nazi's to murder the millions of people? This is the historical consensus and it somehow does not 'add up', which is one of the reasons why I feel that genuine investigation of the historical consensus of the Holocaust and especially Auschwitz is long overdue and deserved .

I beg pardon, the only existing gas chamber.

 

[editec]

I believe that the Nazi's were racists and hate mongers who tried to spread their insane ideology to all of Europe.

Thankfully, they were defeated and the Nazi's and their movement was discredited.


That being said,

I don't see how denying the official holocaust story from a historical perspective, make's a person a nazi sympathizer?

Then you are an idiot.

 

[editec]

What disturbs me, is that professional historians and academics are terrified to research the holocaust in an objective manner.

No, they're not. You're wrong.

Because if they publish anything that deviates from the official story.

They will be labeled as anti-semites and nazis.

Worse than that to them, they're be labeled (and correctly, too) incorrect revisionist historians. to a real historian, that's a fate nobody wants.

They'll look, much as you do now, like god damned fools!

Their careers will be ruined forever.

As well they should be.

They'll have had to overlook the overwhelming evidence that includes: tens of thousand of personal testmonies, millions of NAZI records, records from BEFORE THE WAR which document the populations which disappeared, the accounts of soldiers which liberated the camps, and the even the testamonies of the NAZIs who worked at the holocaust, too.

So their careers should be ruined since they will have failed to do their jobs AS HISTORIANS.

If you believe the blather you spew, you are choosing to believe a lie which is unsupportable by the records, Sunni.

One has to choose to believe the lie in that case.

 

[roomy]

I don't believe for one moment that he believes it and I don't believe he is an idiot. so he must be...