Merged: General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[kageki]

Split from here. Please use this thread for ALL general Holocaust denial discussion instead of starting new threads on the subject. Also, do not derail other threads on specific related topics into general Holocaust denial discussion.

Posted By:LashL

Originally Posted by ArmillarySphere

I think it's very simple: the Holocaust gave white supremacism a bad name, so explaining it away as a hoax gives the haters a nice white-wash, plus gives them an excuse for hating on the darkies. 'sides, Hitler is a hero to them, since he did away with all those jooos...

In other words: It didn't happen, but they deserved it.

Scuse me, I have to go wash my brain out with soap now.

It ultimately gives GERMANS a bad name.

I do believe that a "denier" like Germar Rudolf is interested strictly in the sense of defending his own people. It is understandable that to a German, a Nazi or maybe even a white supremacist, ultimately means a German to them and that to say a Nazi murdered millions is to say a German murdered millions. Off course not all white supremacists are Germans, but not all deniers are white supremacists either so I'm not sure why you specified that group. In any regards I wanted to express my sentiments about Germans.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by kageki

It ultimately gives GERMANS a bad name.

I do believe that a "denier" like Germar Rudolf is interested strictly in the sense of defending his own people. It is understandable that to a German, a Nazi or maybe even a white supremacist, ultimately means a German to them and that to say a Nazi murdered millions is to say a German murdered millions. Off course not all white supremacists are Germans, but not all deniers are white supremacists either so I'm not sure why you specified that group. In any regards I wanted to express my sentiments about Germans.

Can you please stuff this racist "All Germans are Nazis" BS up whoever´s ass you pulled it out of?

[kageki]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Can you please stuff this racist "All Germans are Nazis" BS up whoever´s ass you pulled it out of?

I didn't say "all Germans are Nazis", but as you know National Socialism started in Germany.

What's racist about calling someone a Nazi anyways?

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by kageki

I didn't say "all Germans are Nazis", but as you know National Socialism started in Germany.

What's racist about calling someone a Nazi anyways?

You said "say a Nazi murdered millions is to say a German murdered millions", i.e. Germans are Nazis. You blather on about Holocaust deniers, and then call that your "sentiments about Germans". So don´t pretend you didn´t call all Germans Nazis or Holocaust deniers. That crap doesn´t fly here.

If you don´t know why it´s racist to assign such labels to an entire nation, I can´t help you. Maybe you should look up "racism" in the dictionary?

[kageki]

Originally Posted by Chaos

You said "say a Nazi murdered millions is to say a German murdered millions", i.e. Germans are Nazis. You blather on about Holocaust deniers, and then call that your "sentiments about Germans". So don´t pretend you didn´t call all Germans Nazis or Holocaust deniers. That crap doesn´t fly here.

If you don´t know why it´s racist to assign such labels to an entire nation, I can´t help you. Maybe you should look up "racism" in the dictionary?

National Socialism isn't a race. Some Germans were Nazis. I never said all Germans are Nazis or Holocaust deniers. What exactly do you think you are accomplishing? That you fail at reading comprehension?

On the other hand, what I will say is that not all deniers are Nazis.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Thunder

i have yet to witness a Holocaust-denier who seems to simply be a contrarian...or a Devil's Advocate.

I have A LOT. In fact part of what has convinced me to examine it is the way that so many people dump you into the "Holocaust Denier" category if you even ask a QUESTION about the stories.

For example, "Did they actually make lampshades out of human skin or was this an urban legend?"

Seems like a fairly legitimate question. People have gone bonkers over it and then you see all this outrageous anger attached to asking a question and it just seems weird.
(Case in point, I'm tip toeing on eggshells writing this because I know someone is going to assume I'm a Holocaust Denier Sympathizer just for writing this.)

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by truethat

I have A LOT. In fact part of what has convinced me to examine it is the way that so many people dump you into the "Holocaust Denier" category if you even ask a QUESTION about the stories.

For example, "Did they actually make lampshades out of human skin or was this an urban legend?"

Seems like a fairly legitimate question. People have gone bonkers over it and then you see all this outrageous anger attached to asking a question and it just seems weird.
(Case in point, I'm tip toeing on eggshells writing this because I know someone is going to assume I'm a Holocaust Denier Sympathizer just for writing this.)

Bullflop. Strawman. Nonsense.

If you want to picture Holocaust deniers has persecuted victims, and non-Nazis as close-minded jerks, you´ll have to put a little more effort into it.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Bullflop. Strawman. Nonsense.

If you want to picture Holocaust deniers has persecuted victims, and non-Nazis as close-minded jerks, you´ll have to put a little more effort into it.

Right because that's exactly what I said. Once again someone reading a post and deciding to infer garbage that isn't there.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by truethat

I have A LOT. In fact part of what has convinced me to examine it is the way that so many people dump you into the "Holocaust Denier" category if you even ask a QUESTION about the stories.

For example, "Did they actually make lampshades out of human skin or was this an urban legend?"

Seems like a fairly legitimate question. People have gone bonkers over it and then you see all this outrageous anger attached to asking a question and it just seems weird.
(Case in point, I'm tip toeing on eggshells writing this because I know someone is going to assume I'm a Holocaust Denier Sympathizer just for writing this.)

In this day and age it takes approximately two clicks to be led to at least an introductory source which can answer just about any question one might wish to ask. You know, Google > Wikipedia. One of those clicks also directs you to a wealth of other sources, some of which will be dodgy, virtually irrespective of the topic one is interested in, and some not.

Frankly, given the propensity of a variety of axe-grinders to troll onto this or that forum 'asking questions', and the ease with which at least a preliminary answer is available to pretty much everything, the time has come and gone when it is really polite or politic to 'raise questions' without having done some homework beforehand. Especially on hot-button topics.

Unfortunately, many people are either lazy or lack good research skills or do not possess the tact to know what is a 'good' chitchat question and what is going to turn into a CT and nutter magnet. They also might lack the ability to discriminate between good and bad sources, and give too much credence to bad ones.

In turn, many who might respond to a question which could have been answered by Googling for a couple of minutes are also ill-informed, assuming they have the answers when they don't, and especially on hot-button topics, fly off the handle. The result can be a tragicomic conflagration of the blind arguing with the blind in an information vacuum, which is only ended when one or other person actually makes a few sensible clicks and brings better information to the table. This is pretty much how things go down on most internet forums and around many a table in a bar.

Poor choices of language can affect things immensely. Using the term 'urban legend' about lampshades is a good example. The evidence for lampshades easily crosses the threshold past which talking about it as an urban legend is even vaguely accurate.

There is a very well known film from 1945, Nazi Concentration Camps, which showed lampshades on a table of artefacts with the voiceover stating that the lampshades were made of human skin. Examples were submitted at war crimes trials and have exhibit numbers. Thereafter, as is unsurprising, the trail grows colder since not everything is perfectly preserved from 65 years ago, and souvenir hunters do exist. A freelance writer has just written a book tracking down the provenance of a lampshade which was purported to have been made of human skin, which he had tested and found to be compatible with it being made of human skin. A serious scholar, Joachim Neander, is currently at work on a monograph which will discuss the "lampshades" issue at length.

Another poor choice of words is the ubiquitous 'they'. In the real world 'they' never do anything and anyone who thinks in terms of 'they' or a whole category is at the very least expressing themselves sloppily, and likely also often thinking sloppily. 'Lampshades' were associated almost entirely with a single concentration camp and a single concentration camp commander, Karl Koch at Buchenwald. Asking whether 'they' meaning 'the Nazis' really made lampshades is about the same as asking whether 'they' meaning 'serial killers' take skin from their victims and turn them into garments. Sure, one or two serial killers have done but it isn't a general characteristic of serial killers. The slide from the particular to the general is immensely common, and is very liable to create myths.

One can say that the belief that 'the Nazis' made (lots and lots) of human skin lampshades is indeed an urban legend, as is the belief that 'the Nazis' made (lots and lots of) soap out of corpses. But in both cases these are false beliefs to begin with, since the evidence indicates at most one place for lampshades and one place where human corpses were macerated into a cleaning product used in a morgue of an anatomy institute.

Unfortunately, many CTs and nutters play on precisely this kind of urban legend - i.e. a popular misunderstanding - to get traction. That's also why many of them rely on JAQing off to start their trolls, as we've seen time and again in the 9/11 conspiracy theories forum.

I hesitate to say that there is really now a firm rule in the unwritten netiquette guidebook about JAQing off, but as we are now well into web 2.0 and have seen this time and again, one is slowly emerging, IMHO. One is also necessary for the sake of non-nutter posters who might have genuine, legitimate questions, since the risk of being mistaken for a nutter - as I notice has just happened on this very thread with the very poster I am replying to - is now incredibly high.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by truethat

Right because that's exactly what I said. Once again someone reading a post and deciding to infer garbage that isn't there.

Wrong because it´s nothing like you said.

Nobody gets dumped in any category just for "asking questions".

You get dumped a category for declaring yourself a martyr before anything ever happened to you.

For someone who complains about people "inferring garbage", you are awfully keen on posting stuff that invites inferring garbage.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Wrong because it´s nothing like you said.

Nobody gets dumped in any category just for "asking questions".

You get dumped a category for declaring yourself a martyr before anything ever happened to you.

For someone who complains about people "inferring garbage", you are awfully keen on posting stuff that invites inferring garbage.

How does the post I posted invite INFERRING? I made it as crystal clear as possible. Don't bother responding Chaos I think I'm just going to put you on ignore.

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

In this day and age it takes approximately two clicks to be led to at least an introductory source which can answer just about any question one might wish to ask. You know, Google > Wikipedia. One of those clicks also directs you to a wealth of other sources, some of which will be dodgy, virtually irrespective of the topic one is interested in, and some not.

How is a person to know what is a good source and what is a bad source when researching topics? Wiki is my fail safe but when I get tons of conflicting information then it is hard to distinguish on my own. It is much better IMO to simply ask people who know what they are talking about. ESPECIALLY in a debate thread where one person is likely to challenge a bit of information that is not accurate.

Unfortunately, many people are either lazy or lack good research skills or do not possess the tact to know what is a 'good' chitchat question and what is going to turn into a CT and nutter magnet. They also might lack the ability to discriminate between good and bad sources, and give too much credence to bad ones.

How in god's name can there ever be a "good chitchat question" when you are discussing the Holocaust?

Poor choices of language can affect things immensely. Using the term 'urban legend' about lampshades is a good example. The evidence for lampshades easily crosses the threshold past which talking about it as an urban legend is even vaguely accurate.

Would MYTH work better? Because that's what it is called by Cecil for the Straight Dope?

There is a very well known film from 1945, Nazi Concentration Camps, which showed lampshades on a table of artefacts with the voiceover stating that the lampshades were made of human skin. Examples were submitted at war crimes trials and have exhibit numbers. Thereafter, as is unsurprising, the trail grows colder since not everything is perfectly preserved from 65 years ago, and souvenir hunters do exist. A freelance writer has just written a book tracking down the provenance of a lampshade which was purported to have been made of human skin, which he had tested and found to be compatible with it being made of human skin. A serious scholar, Joachim Neander, is currently at work on a monograph which will discuss the "lampshades" issue at length.

Another poor choice of words is the ubiquitous 'they'. In the real world 'they' never do anything and anyone who thinks in terms of 'they' or a whole category is at the very least expressing themselves sloppily, and likely also often thinking sloppily. 'Lampshades' were associated almost entirely with a single concentration camp and a single concentration camp commander, Karl Koch at Buchenwald. Asking whether 'they' meaning 'the Nazis' really made lampshades is about the same as asking whether 'they' meaning 'serial killers' take skin from their victims and turn them into garments. Sure, one or two serial killers have done but it isn't a general characteristic of serial killers. The slide from the particular to the general is immensely common, and is very liable to create myths.

One can say that the belief that 'the Nazis' made (lots and lots) of human skin lampshades is indeed an urban legend, as is the belief that 'the Nazis' made (lots and lots of) soap out of corpses. But in both cases these are false beliefs to begin with, since the evidence indicates at most one place for lampshades and one place where human corpses were macerated into a cleaning product used in a morgue of an anatomy institute.

Unfortunately, many CTs and nutters play on precisely this kind of urban legend - i.e. a popular misunderstanding - to get traction. That's also why many of them rely on JAQing off to start their trolls, as we've seen time and again in the 9/11 conspiracy theories forum.

I hesitate to say that there is really now a firm rule in the unwritten netiquette guidebook about JAQing off, but as we are now well into web 2.0 and have seen this time and again, one is slowly emerging, IMHO. One is also necessary for the sake of non-nutter posters who might have genuine, legitimate questions, since the risk of being mistaken for a nutter - as I notice has just happened on this very thread with the very poster I am replying to - is now incredibly high.

Using vocabulary in the way the words are intended should never be "wrong" just because someone has a tricky switch. The information you posted uses the term urban legend, does it not?

what is JAQing off...........oh wait, got it Just Asking Question...........

I kinda understand the knee jerk reaction. It just seems really immature and lots of chest bumping and furious anger when people ask a question.

I would recommend that if you don't want to get into it with the poster IGNORE THEM. If you are unsure perhaps post a link to information you have that might be helpful.

I've had a handful of posters do a "Start HERE" type of response which is very helpful.

Here's one of the second links I found when I took your advice and googled "holocaust skin lampshades"



http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...-of-human-skin

Quote:

Dear Cecil:

Now, I'm no Holocaust denier. I firmly believe the Holocaust occurred and the Nazis committed great atrocities during WWII. What I have a hard time believing is the accusation that Nazis made lampshades from human skin. Genocide is repulsive, but making lampshades out of human skin is more in line with what crazy serial killers do. I can see Nazis experimenting on Jews for their research and stealing their gold teeth for money, but what would they do with a lampshade made from human skin? Bring it back home as a gift to the hausfrau? Is this just an urban legend born out of Allied propaganda, or is there any truth to this?

— Andres, via e-mail

Cecil replies:

At first I was skeptical about your skepticism, Andres. You're saying that methodically exterminating five to six million people, performing bizarre experiments on them, and plundering their bodies is, at some level, comprehensible, but making lampshades out of their skin — now that's crazy. Personally I wasn't seeing any great leap, depravitywise. However, on investigation, I think you may be right. While the Nazis kept many grisly mementos of their victims, including tattooed skin, the lampshade claim may be a myth.

Read the rest on the link above

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Can you please stuff this racist "All Germans are Nazis" BS up whoever´s ass you pulled it out of?

Actually "All Germans are Nazis" is not too far removed from Daniel Goldhagen's thesis in Hitler's Willing Executioners that the vast majority of "ordinary" Germans were, if not actual Jew killers, were more than happy see all the Jews killed and would have happily become Jew killers if given the chance.

Goldhagen:

Quote:

The German perpetrators of the Holocaust treated Jews in all the brutal and lethal ways that they did because, by and large, they believed that what they were doing was right and necessary. Second, that there was long existing, virulent antisemitism in German society that led to the desire on the part of the vast majority of Germans to eliminate Jews somehow from German society. Third, that any explanation of the Holocaust must address and specify the causal relationship between antisemitism in Germany and the persecution and extermination of the Jews which so many ordinary Germans contributed to and supported.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%...gen.27s_thesis

Goldhagen's methodology and conclusions were savaged by historians and critics but the book was a best seller in the U.S. and, surprisingly, in Germany. The German reaction was seemingly the result of a generational divide. The German post-war generations were apparently happy to believe their parents and grandparents were willing Nazis and potential Jew killers.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by truethat

Using vocabulary in the way the words are intended should never be "wrong" just because someone has a tricky switch. The information you posted uses the term urban legend, does it not?

But in that particular case, I defined what I meant, whereas someone blundering onto a forum and saying 'is is true or an urban legend' (which could be a false dilemma, especially for murkier topics), doesn't necessarily make clear what is meant.

Quote:

what is JAQing off...........oh wait, got it Just Asking Question...........

I kinda understand the knee jerk reaction. It just seems really immature and lots of chest bumping and furious anger when people ask a question.

Oh come on. Anyone who has spent any time on the internet knows there are a wide range of 'touchy' subjects, especially religion, politics and anything which has been associated with a CT. The Holocaust is not dinner-party-conversation fodder. Common sense would suggest that if you want to broach such a topic that you do at least some homework, unless you are in a saloon bar atmosphere and want to rip on Muslims/Republicans/Democrats/insert pet hate of choice and are in like-minded company.

Quote:

I would recommend that if you don't want to get into it with the poster IGNORE THEM. If you are unsure perhaps post a link to information you have that might be helpful.

This is all very well and good but it places the onus of research onto other people. If you are asking a question which has already been answered and is fairly easily accessible via a source like Wikipedia, then this far into web 2.0 it is sheer laziness not to have familiarised yourself with the details.

Quote:

I've had a handful of posters do a "Start HERE" type of response which is very helpful.

Sure. I've answered many such questions on the internet in my time, but naturally my willingness to do so, and the depth to which I might go, depends on a variety of factors. But expecting everyone else to do your homework for you can become quite rude.

As I said, I think we are at the stage where netiquette requires the absolute minimum effort on a topic, which I would define as reading something from a proper source and/or Wikipedia if someone was unclear as to what a proper source was. Almost invariably, Wikipedia highlights controversies and disputes anyhow.

Quote:

Here's one of the second links I found when I took your advice and googled "holocaust skin lampshades"

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2511/did-the-nazis-make-lampshades-out-of-human-skin

Read the rest on the link above

And that page provides a pretty good summary of the context and the evidentiary situation. Which is much more complicated than it might appear at first glance, and thus does not really permit the kind of simple-minded 'yes or no' answer that some people want.

The main problem with treating this as an entirely innocent question is it's a well known denier canard, as becomes IMMEDIATELY obvious from the various links on the first page of a google search. It's frankly as dumb a question as asking whether the twin towers fell at 'free fall speed', it simply sets off alarm bells in the minds of a very, very large number of people because they know it is a 'wedge' issue for CTs and nutters.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

But in that particular case, I defined what I meant, whereas someone blundering onto a forum and saying 'is is true or an urban legend' (which could be a false dilemma, especially for murkier topics), doesn't necessarily make clear what is meant.



Oh come on. Anyone who has spent any time on the internet knows there are a wide range of 'touchy' subjects, especially religion, politics and anything which has been associated with a CT. The Holocaust is not dinner-party-conversation fodder. Common sense would suggest that if you want to broach such a topic that you do at least some homework, unless you are in a saloon bar atmosphere and want to rip on Muslims/Republicans/Democrats/insert pet hate of choice and are in like-minded company.



This is all very well and good but it places the onus of research onto other people. If you are asking a question which has already been answered and is fairly easily accessible via a source like Wikipedia, then this far into web 2.0 it is sheer laziness not to have familiarised yourself with the details.



Sure. I've answered many such questions on the internet in my time, but naturally my willingness to do so, and the depth to which I might go, depends on a variety of factors. But expecting everyone else to do your homework for you can become quite rude.

As I said, I think we are at the stage where netiquette requires the absolute minimum effort on a topic, which I would define as reading something from a proper source and/or Wikipedia if someone was unclear as to what a proper source was. Almost invariably, Wikipedia highlights controversies and disputes anyhow.



And that page provides a pretty good summary of the context and the evidentiary situation. Which is much more complicated than it might appear at first glance, and thus does not really permit the kind of simple-minded 'yes or no' answer that some people want.

The main problem with treating this as an entirely innocent question is it's a well known denier canard, as becomes IMMEDIATELY obvious from the various links on the first page of a google search. It's frankly as dumb a question as asking whether the twin towers fell at 'free fall speed', it simply sets off alarm bells in the minds of a very, very large number of people because they know it is a 'wedge' issue for CTs and nutters.

Ok but you are still missing the point. The question "as worded" was answered "as worded" and it's not that big of a deal.

However, how am I to distinguish what is truth and what is propaganda? The easiest way to do this is to go to the people who know what they are talking about on a thread and interject a question. It's not a matter of 'doing your homework for you" but rather distinguishing between who is considered a "good source" and who is not.

Here's an example

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/triangle.asp

This guy purports to be an expert on Earthquake survival. As you can see on snopes, this is both true and false. They give us the answers and explain what they can. If I walk into a thread discussing the earthquake, I wouldn't necessarily know if this guy was some huge hot topic trigger for CTs or whatnot.

Although I CAN understand a knee jerk reaction, it doesn't justify it. It is immature as a reaction. Even if you justify it. it doesn't make it mature.


Edited to add

One more thing. For me I don't really care very much about all the details of the Holocaust. I'm sure it happened and millions of murdered people have a story to tell in their absence as much as millions of witnesses have a story to tell.

But when I hear the deniers using such "urban legends" I think it is important to clarify it if it IS an urban legend because it does serve as a sort of "evidence" to make people question what they heard coming out of the stories. It is only natural in such a circumstance that some urban legends and exaggerations and whatnot will come out. Take the recent attack on the female journalist in Egypt who was attacked by a gang of thugs. As bad as the story was, it didn't stop people from exaggerating the story to being "she was gang raped and sodomized and had her clothes ripped of and was spit on and called a jew!"

Why people need to exaggerate already horrific stories is strange, but it is real.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by truethat

Ok but you are still missing the point. The question "as worded" was answered "as worded" and it's not that big of a deal.

However, how am I to distinguish what is truth and what is propaganda? The easiest way to do this is to go to the people who know what they are talking about on a thread and interject a question. It's not a matter of 'doing your homework for you" but rather distinguishing between who is considered a "good source" and who is not.

Here's an example

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/triangle.asp

This guy purports to be an expert on Earthquake survival. As you can see on snopes, this is both true and false. They give us the answers and explain what they can. If I walk into a thread discussing the earthquake, I wouldn't necessarily know if this guy was some huge hot topic trigger for CTs or whatnot.

Although I CAN understand a knee jerk reaction, it doesn't justify it. It is immature as a reaction. Even if you justify it. it doesn't make it mature.


Edited to add

One more thing. For me I don't really care very much about all the details of the Holocaust. I'm sure it happened and millions of murdered people have a story to tell in their absence as much as millions of witnesses have a story to tell.

But when I hear the deniers using such "urban legends" I think it is important to clarify it if it IS an urban legend because it does serve as a sort of "evidence" to make people question what they heard coming out of the stories. It is only natural in such a circumstance that some urban legends and exaggerations and whatnot will come out. Take the recent attack on the female journalist in Egypt who was attacked by a gang of thugs. As bad as the story was, it didn't stop people from exaggerating the story to being "she was gang raped and sodomized and had her clothes ripped of and was spit on and called a jew!"

Why people need to exaggerate already horrific stories is strange, but it is real.

I'd like a link to where you supposedly previously asked about 'lampshades' so we can see what exactly is being discussed. I am solely interested in what went 'wrong' with this past discussion to the point where you were attacked or mistaken for being a denier.

Your starting post in this thread brought up an occasion when you said you had asked questions and gotten an angry response. That is what I have been addressing, and I very much stick by my observations so far.

You now say, 'how am I supposed to distinguish between truth and propaganda?'. Surely that is a matter of common sense, and also recognising that sources like Wikipedia are (a) more often than not correct and (b) will highlight the grey areas and controversies.

If you are that uncertain about a source, then the golden rule is - look for another one. But I appreciate that comparing and contrasting sources is not something that is drummed in often enough. Still: in this day and age, when you are confronted by at least 10 choices on the first page of that Google search, and wonder which one to click on, then it's something we all have to learn otherwise we will die of mental poisoning.

Then you say it's easier to ask people. But when you did ask people, you supposedly had your head torn off. That actually proves it's NOT always a good idea to simply approach random strangers on the internet and solicit their opinion, simply because it seems 'easier' than sorting the wheat from the chaff that is thrown up by a Google search. It's especially not a good idea on a hot-button topic or on a topic where there are nutters who resort to JAQing off as a major plank of their debating strategy.

You say it's immature for others to overreact - of course it is. I already criticised the overreactions. But it's just as immature to expect to be spoon-fed answers.

[kageki]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

It would be interesting to hear from the 'revisionists' what they THINK their goals and objectives are ON THIS FORUM.

I thought that the Wiki link was a good summary:

- that the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews

- Nazis did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews

- the actual number of Jews killed was an order of magnitude lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.

A simple answer to why is because there are reasons to doubt it (or lack thereof) such as that there is no order for an extermination.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by kageki

I thought that the Wiki link was a good summary:

- that the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews

- Nazis did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews

- the actual number of Jews killed was an order of magnitude lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.

A simple answer to why is because there are reasons to doubt it (or lack thereof) such as that there is no order for an extermination.

Wiki,lol. They had a policy,does the name Wannsee mean anything to you? If you believe Wiki,read this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wannsee_Conference.
How many Jews was the right number for the Nazis to kill?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

snip
You say it's immature for others to overreact - of course it is. I already criticised the overreactions. But it's just as immature to expect to be spoon-fed answers.

I used the "lampshades" as an example. But it's happened in this thread with just a basic statement. So I'm sure it would happen if I honestly asked about "lampshades." It's also happened for pretty much any topic on this site since I started here.

Also there IS supposed to be a happy medium between "JAQing off" and "Spoon fed" answers.

It's called a conversation.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by kageki

I thought that the Wiki link was a good summary:

- that the German Nazi government had no official policy or intention of exterminating Jews

- Nazis did not use extermination camps and gas chambers to mass murder Jews

- the actual number of Jews killed was an order of magnitude lower than the historically accepted figure of 5 to 6 million.

A simple answer to why is because there are reasons to doubt it (or lack thereof) such as that there is no order for an extermination.

What difference does this make to you?

[Saggy]

Originally Posted by truethat

What difference does this make to you?

Billions in reparations, two ongoing US wars right now with the distinct possibility of a 3rd. How's that for starters.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Saggy

Billions in reparations, two ongoing US wars right now with the distinct possibility of a 3rd. How's that for starters.

What two wars are going on because Jews were exterminated versus killed?

Also billions is a big number to throw around. But seriously it's not that big of a number considering that this happened over 50 years ago. You can certainly think billions is a huge number but it's a drop in the bucket.

Take a look at the Marshall Plan from the same era.

Quote:

the Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the large-scale economic program, 1947–1951[1], of the United States for rebuilding and creating a stronger economic foundation for the countries of Europe. The initiative was named after Secretary of State George Marshall[2] and was largely the creation of State Department officials, especially William L. Clayton and George F. Kennan. Marshall spoke of urgent need to help the European recovery in his address at Harvard University in June 1947.[3]

The reconstruction plan, developed at a meeting of the participating European states, was established on June 5, 1947. It offered the same aid to the Soviet Union and its allies, but they did not accept it.[4][5] The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1948. During that period some US $13 billion in economic and technical assistance were given to help the recovery of the European countries that had joined in the Organization for European Economic Co-operation. This $13 billion was in the context of a U.S. GDP of $258 billion in 1948, and was on top of $12 billion in American aid to Europe between the end of the war and the start of the Plan that is counted separately from the Marshall Plan.[6]

MORE HERE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Saggy

Billions in reparations, two ongoing US wars right now with the distinct possibility of a 3rd. How's that for starters.

How many Jews was the right number for the Nazis to kill? Your fellow denier said that the official figure was too high.

[Saggy]

Originally Posted by truethat

What two wars are going on because Jews were exterminated versus killed?

They were not exterminated or killed. For crying out loud the Nazi records for the deaths at Auschwitz are available. More Roman Catholics died there than Jews.

The state of Israel owes its existence to the holohoax. The wars in Iraq ("The US invaded Iraq to secure Israel, and everyone knows it", senator Fritz Hollings) and Afghanistan (and Pakistan) are being fought because of Israel. Israel is now trying to provoke another war with Iran. How many more people in the middle east have to die to satisfy the Zionists.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Saggy

They were not exterminated or killed. For crying out loud the Nazi records for the deaths at Auschwitz are available. More Roman Catholics died there than Jews.

The state of Israel owes its existence to the holohoax. The wars in Iraq ("The US invaded Iraq to secure Israel, and everyone knows it", senator Fritz Hollings) and Afghanistan (and Pakistan) are being fought because of Israel. Israel is now trying to provoke another war with Iran. How many more people in the middle east have to die to satisfy the Zionists.

You appear to be a genius at missing the point. Why was Auschwitz there ,why were there deaths there and what gave the Nazis the right to interfere in other people's lives? How many Jews was the right number for the Nazis to kill? Try and find the guts to answer these questions.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Kageki, I think you misunderstood Dr Terry's question. His question was what do you hope to achieve by posting in the Conspiracy Section of JREF. Obviously, no one is going to be convinced here, even if Primo Levi himself turned up and said it was all a big joke.

This just leaves education as the only goal. More on my very useful and informative bear metaphor.

Your definitions of useful and informative are very different to the ones found in a dictionary. Keep on being amusing.

[Saggy]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

Obviously, no one is going to be convinced here, even if Primo Levi himself turned up and said it was all a big joke.

You're right, you can't convince anyone. But, you might get someone to start thinking. Just the fact that apparently intelligent people are challenging the hoax is a start. And if you can make someone aware of just one of the absurdities of the hoax, or just something they didn't know, e.g., that there were rooms in the camps where the Nazis gasses clothes to kill lice, then they might start investigating on their own. That's what happened to me.

Also, the tactics the Zionists use, of endless insult and idiocy, might be a double edged sword, and that too might start someone to thinking.

In short, if you can spur an active interest, it's enough. No one can be convinced by any argument, the effect of the endless brainwashing cannot be so easily overcome. However, if someone takes an active interest, they will sooner or later discover the thing is a preposterous hoax.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Saggy

They were not exterminated or killed. For crying out loud the Nazi records for the deaths at Auschwitz are available.

.
... and are incomplete, and only record the deaths of *registered* inmates.

Got any of that pesky, you know, evidence what happened to all of those Hungarian Jews that are documented as having been shipped there, were never registered, nor were heard from again?
.

Originally Posted by Saggy

The state of Israel owes its existence to the holohoax. The wars in Iraq ("The US invaded Iraq to secure Israel, and everyone knows it", senator Fritz Hollings)

.
Got a *reliable* source for this quote?
.

Originally Posted by Saggy

and Afghanistan (and Pakistan) are being fought because of Israel.

.
Perhaps you could share a non-delusional rationale how these wars benefit Israel?
.

Originally Posted by Saggy

Israel is now trying to provoke another war with Iran. How many more people in the middle east have to die to satisfy the Zionists.

.
Ummmm. You keep using that term, but it doesn't mean what you viscerally need it to mean...
.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Saggy

You're right, you can't convince anyone. But, you might get someone to start thinking. Just the fact that apparently intelligent people are challenging the hoax is a start. And if you can make someone aware of just one of the absurdities of the hoax, or just something they didn't know, e.g., that there were rooms in the camps where the Nazis gasses clothes to kill lice, then they might start investigating on their own. That's what happened to me.

Also, the tactics the Zionists use, of endless insult and idiocy, might be a double edged sword, and that too might start someone to thinking.

In short, if you can spur an active interest, it's enough. No one can be convinced by any argument, the effect of the endless brainwashing cannot be so easily overcome. However, if someone takes an active interest, they will sooner or later discover the thing is a preposterous hoax.

So you won't answer my questions. A coward,just like your hero Adolf.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Saggy

And if you can make someone aware of just one of the absurdities of the hoax, or just something they didn't know, e.g., that there were rooms in the camps where the Nazis gasses clothes to kill lice, then they might start investigating on their own.

.
Of course, those *actually* interested in rational investigation will do more than read denier sites and then mindlessly parrot the lies they find there -- but then those kind of people would realize that no one *credible* has ever stated that the fumigation of clothes and such did not *also* occur.

Can you cite a single 'hoaxer' or 'Zionist' or actual hisstorian that has even given the the hint of a suggestion of an implication that fumigation didn't happen?
.

[kageki]

Originally Posted by truethat

What two wars are going on because Jews were exterminated versus killed?

Also billions is a big number to throw around. But seriously it's not that big of a number considering that this happened over 50 years ago. You can certainly think billions is a huge number but it's a drop in the bucket.

Take a look at the Marshall Plan from the same era.



MORE HERE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

But it is billions. Isn't it something like 100 billion or so that Germany has paid to Israel now? That's separate from the reparations to the survivors. The point is that the figure does matter directly to the amount of reparations. In general it matters just to even determine if reparations are necessary. Germany had originally declined reparations to Gypsies because they didn't believe it was justified.

It's also obviously a big difference if they had performed mass exterminations with gas chambers or not. It's not necessarily a judgment call, but just determining the facts.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Saggy

They were not exterminated or killed. For crying out loud the Nazi records for the deaths at Auschwitz are available. More Roman Catholics died there than Jews.

The state of Israel owes its existence to the holohoax. The wars in Iraq ("The US invaded Iraq to secure Israel, and everyone knows it", senator Fritz Hollings) and Afghanistan (and Pakistan) are being fought because of Israel. Israel is now trying to provoke another war with Iran. How many more people in the middle east have to die to satisfy the Zionists.

So it is your argument that NO Jews were killed or exterminated during WW2? Do I understand you correctly?

Because if you are saying that "more Catholics" died, what difference does it make?

Additionally if we forgo the entire "guilt" of the actual concentration camps and suggest that it was all just death from starvation, disease etc. Then we have to ask ourselves how the Jews wound up there in the first place.

The anti Jew campaigns in Nazi Germany are documented and well known. You can not deny these I hope? Therefor like the US internment of Japanese Americans during WW2, this was wrong and a violation of their rights. If the subsequent result of these issues led to death, then the Jews certainly have a right to receive reparations.

The issues in Israel have to do with it being considered an 'imago mundi' and holy land more so than anything to do with WW2. Any simple historical scholar knows that.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by truethat

So it is your argument that NO Jews were killed or exterminated during WW2? Do I understand you correctly?

Because if you are saying that "more Catholics" died, what difference does it make?

Additionally if we forgo the entire "guilt" of the actual concentration camps and suggest that it was all just death from starvation, disease etc. Then we have to ask ourselves how the Jews wound up there in the first place.

The anti Jew campaigns in Nazi Germany are documented and well known. You can not deny these I hope? Therefor like the US internment of Japanese Americans during WW2, this was wrong and a violation of their rights. If the subsequent result of these issues led to death, then the Jews certainly have a right to receive reparations.

The issues in Israel have to do with it being considered an 'imago mundi' and holy land more so than anything to do with WW2. Any simple historical scholar knows that.

Saggy is not an historical scholar,as should be obvious by now.

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by truethat

The anti Jew campaigns in Nazi Germany are documented and well known. You can not deny these I hope? Therefor like the US internment of Japanese Americans during WW2, this was wrong and a violation of their rights. If the subsequent result of these issues led to death, then the Jews certainly have a right to receive reparations.
.

The right to reparations is not a universal right as you appear to think but rather dependent on there being a powerful "victim" and a wealthy "perpetrator"

So an Arab who lost his house in Jaffa will never receive reparations ("perpetrator" is wealthy, "victim' is powerless)

A Finn who lost his home in the Soviet Union will not receive reparations ("victim" is not powerful enough, "perpetrator" not wealthy enough)

A Jewish person will not receive reparations for lost property in Eastern Europe ("victim" is powerful, but "benefactor" or "perpetrator" is not wealthy enough)

A German person will not receive reparations for lost property or internment in the Eastern Europe or USSR ("victim" is weak, "perpetrator" is not wealthy enough)

A Jewish person will however receive reparations from German companies - despite the fact that modern companies drew no financial gain from that labor - how does IG Farben have any benefit from construction in Oswiecim? Since most of Germany was sent back to year zero in 1945, the economic miracle is in large part created since then Here the amount of compensation will depend on the power of the "victim". So a Jewish person will get greater compensation than a non-Jewish person working in the same camp, because they wield greater power.

A Jewish person will also receive reparations from Swiss banks, for the simple reason the "victim" is powerful, and the "perpetrator" is wealthy.

Personally I have nothing against Jews seeking reparations, and obviously confiscated property should be restored, but it should be recognised it will be when hell freezes over before they pay any to those whose property that took in Palestine.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

The right to reparations is not a univerisal right as you appear to think but rather dependent on their being a powerful "victim" and a wealthy "perpetrator"

So an Arab who lost his house in Jaffa will never receive reparations ("perpetrator" is wealthy, "victim' is powerless)

A Finn who lost his home in the Soviet Union will not receive reparations ("victim" is not powerful enough, "perpetrator" not wealthy enough)

A Jewish person will not receive reparations for lost property in Eastern Europe ("victim" is powerful, but "benefactor" or "perpetrator" is not wealthy enough)

A German person will not receive reparations for lost property or internment in the Eastern Europe or USSR ("victim" is weak, "perpetrator" is not wealthy enough)

A Jewish person will however receive reparations from German companies - despite the fact that modern companies drew no financial gain from that labor - how does IG Farben have any benefit from construction in Oswiecim? Here the amount of compensation will depend on the power of the "victim". So a Jewish person will get greater compensation than a non-Jewish person working in the same camp, because they wield greater power.

A Jewish person will also receive reparations from Swiss banks, for the simple reason the "victim" is powerful, and the "perpetrator" is wealthy.

Personally I have nothing against Jews seeking reparations but it should be recognised it will be when hell freezes over before they pay any to those whose property that took in Palestine.

Avoiding the awkward questions yet again.

[little grey rabbit]

I am sorry, which one is that exactly?

[kageki]

Originally Posted by truethat

So it is your argument that NO Jews were killed or exterminated during WW2? Do I understand you correctly?

Because if you are saying that "more Catholics" died, what difference does it make?

Additionally if we forgo the entire "guilt" of the actual concentration camps and suggest that it was all just death from starvation, disease etc. Then we have to ask ourselves how the Jews wound up there in the first place.

The anti Jew campaigns in Nazi Germany are documented and well known. You can not deny these I hope? Therefor like the US internment of Japanese Americans during WW2, this was wrong and a violation of their rights. If the subsequent result of these issues led to death, then the Jews certainly have a right to receive reparations.

The issues in Israel have to do with it being considered an 'imago mundi' and holy land more so than anything to do with WW2. Any simple historical scholar knows that.

Then how did the Japanese end up in the US concentration camps? There was a reason for confiscating their property and sticking them in the middle of a desert right?

Sure I agree those Jews still deserve reparations, but for what reason are you suggesting?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

I am sorry, which one is that exactly?

Why was Auschwitz there ,why were there deaths there and what gave the Nazis the right to interfere in other people's lives? How many Jews was the right number for the Nazis to kill?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Saggy

They were not exterminated or killed. For crying out loud the Nazi records for the deaths at Auschwitz are available. More Roman Catholics died there than Jews.

these are simply lies folks. the great majority of the million or so deaths at Auschwitz were Jews.

millions of Jews sent to the death camps in Poland, never to be seen again. these are the facts.

[little grey rabbit]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Why was Auschwitz there ,why were there deaths there and what gave the Nazis the right to interfere in other people's lives? How many Jews was the right number for the Nazis to kill?

1. Auschwitz was a sort of gulag type system primarily to help develop industry in the newly acquired additions to the Reich. Also to act as a transit point in the deportation of Jews and as a holding place for criminals, polish resistance and elements seen as hostile to the regime during wartime with the added benefits obtained from their labor.

2. Why were there deaths there? That exact extent of deaths is to me unclear. Some people were definitely executed for resistance activities and I have seen some documentation regarding some levels of typhus deaths. Presumably others died from other causes as well. The evidence I have seen does not support the level of deaths of the Death Books rediscovered in the 1990s. I believe Hans Aumeier in his first interrogation said the number of deaths during his time was around 3000. Later his memory was refreshed and he recalled homicidal gas chambers.

3. What gave the Nazis the right to interfere in other people's lives? What gives people the right to interfere in my life, your life or anybody's life? Because they had the power and could. This could be asked about thousands of situations.

4. How many was the right number for the Nazis to kill? I think we will have to go with Zhou Enlai here and say its too early to know.

Is there anything else I can help you with?

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by little grey rabbit

1. Auschwitz was a sort of gulag type system primarily to help develop industry in the newly acquired additions to the Reich. Also to act as a transit point in the deportation of Jews and as a holding place for criminals, polish resistance and elements seen as hostile to the regime during wartime with the added benefits obtained from their labor.

no, Auschwitz was a death camp built to kill millions of Jews, gays, Gypsies, and other "untermenschen".