Youtube videos aren't evidence. Links to books isn't evidence. Provide some info or stay out of the thread.
Mottogno and Rudolph - Both virulent jew haters, both amateurs, the majority of their spurious "claims" have been completely debunked REPEATEDLY by historians, forensic scientists, archeologists etc. Any reasonable person who can grasp human nature would realize that out of the literally millions of stories of WW2 a small % would turn out to be lies, misrepresentations, misrememberances and myths. this fact is the main grist for the denialist mill and of course this is a prominent tactic from the denialist playbook. 11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well.
There are probably far more Youtube videos supporting the generally agreed upon Holocaust narrative. However, they ought not be regarded as evidence because they're designed to appeal to a general audience. The material they contain may indeed be correct, but they provide no reference points, nor are the publications or the historians responsible for compiling the evidence generally identified. Deniers often post Youtube videos as part of a shotgun approach, hoping to dazzle their viewers with more information than is practical to debate in a simple forum. This, they believe, allows them to claim victory over their opponents.This 'Scott' fellow has boasted to people on another forum that he's won this debate, for example. The content of books often include evidence that can be discussed on forums like this, but simply posting a link to a book, expecting one's debate opponent to agree or disagree with everything it contains is, again, part and parcel of their shotgun approach, one designed to short-circuit discussion of detail. As with the Youtube approach, when that happens, they believe themselves to be the 'winners' of the debate. I'm a details man. Deniers avoid details like Superman avoids kryptonite. When you corner them on a particular detail, they immediately post another barrage of unrelated material to divert from it, in the hopes that no one following the discussion will notice. My preferred approach to the matter would be for both sides of the Holocaust issue to state their case in their own words and provide specific evidence when it's requested of them. Deniers can't do this for a number of reasons, but the central one is because the bulk of what they know of the period comes from professional propagandists, Jew-haters, Nazi apologists and the like, most of them online, who have lied to them, rightly concluding that their target audience (their fellow anti-Semites) are too stupid or too lazy to investigate the truth of the matter. These propagandists know full well that their Jew-hating minions will be trounced in any fair debate, but they cynically content themselves with the reality that nearly every 'revisionist' debater who's publicly made to look like a hate-filled idiot on an internet forum will continue to harbour an irrational animus towards Jews for precisely that reason.
No, I'm pretty sure you didn't post evidence of gassing. I went through all of your posts and didn't see anything. Maybe I missed it. Help me out and link to the post, it should be easier for you to find.
I might as well post these videos for the viewers to see. They make a pretty good case. If the links don't work, do YouTube searches on the titles. Former Religious Jew On Holocaust Myths Former Religious Jew On Holocaust Myths - YouTube "Robert Faurisson: The Problem Of Gas Chambers - (Le Probleme Des Chambres a Gaz)." "Robert Faurisson: The Problem Of Gas Chambers - (Le Probleme Des Chambres a Gaz)." - YouTube Auschwitz - Why The Gas Chambers Are A Myth Auschwitz - Why The Gas Chambers Are A Myth - YouTube ONE THIRD of the HOLOCAUST ONE THIRD of the BUCHENWALD A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil BUCHENWALD A Dumb Dumb Portrayal Of Evil - YouTube "Judea Declares War on Germany" "Judea Declares War on Germany" - YouTube The Complete David Cole and Mark Weber on the Montel Williams Show The Complete David Cole and Mark Weber on the Montel Williams Show - YouTube A Holocaust Debate: Mark Weber vs Michael Shermer A Holocaust Debate: Mark Weber vs Michael Shermer - YouTube "Holohoax Completely Exposed by David Cole" "Holohoax Completely Exposed by David Cole" - YouTube "Holocaust Liars. Were the Germans Stupid?" "Holocaust Liars. Were the Germans Stupid?" - YouTube I hope the viewers know the revisionists' real position as it's usually misrepresented by pro-official version posters. Here's some info on their real position. "Debating the Holocaust" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pACALhtqkAw http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=10315.0 Ok. Let's talk about the Dachau gas chamber issue. The Dachau Gas Chamber The Dachau Gas Chamber - YouTube Black Holocaust Lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bTzvOmIcDc&list=PL2281319AA67405E6 It seems that the original story that was told about Dachau was a deliberate lie so they had to change the story later when the truth started to surface.
posting Youtube videos isn't posting evidence. either have the integrity to make an argument, or leave the discussion.
Is that your response to this? Ok. I'll give you a short summary. It seems that, just after the war, the world was told that Jews were being gassed at the Dachau camp during the war and later, it was shown that this wasn't the case at all. I figured you'd just watch the videos and comment on them. I don't see how integrity comes in here.
I would have preferred to complete our investigation of gassing claims at Treblinka and the other Aktion Reinhard camps, but as I've pointed out several times, the denier tack, when the historical details presented become uncomfortable for them, is to avoid the discussion (as Mikemikev has apparently done) or to divert the conversation to subjects they feel more confident in (as Scott seems to be doing in this instance). A lot of crimes the Nazis were thought to have committed at some camps, based on the information garnered from other camps, were incorrect-- and they were corrected, when appropriate, as a deeper understanding of the intended scope of concentration camp system emerged. Homicidal gassing at Dachau is one of those crimes that wasn't conclusively proven. A couple of simple questions, Scott: Who made specific claims of homicidal gassing at Dachau? Was it Allied prosecutors or the mainstream press? Is anyone still claiming gassing occurred at Dachau? If so, who, exactly? Was the mistaken claim of murder by gassing at Dachau corrected by Holocaust 'revisionists'? If so, which ones? Was any perpetrator of Nazi crimes successfully convicted solely on mistaken claims of gassing at Dachau? If so, who? Most importantly, how do mistaken claims about gassing at Dachau contradict the evidence presented for homicidal gassing at other camps, like Auschwitz-Birkenau, the Aktion Reinhard camps or the T-4 euthanasia installations? Something I'm noticing in this thread, like others of this type I've been involved in, is the popular misconception that the Auschwitz HCN gas chambers, easily the best known, formed a kind of template for all existing homicidal gas chambers the Nazis employed. This is a huge error. The Nazis had mobile and stationary gas chambers; they had large and small gas chambers; they had CO gas chambers and HCN gas chambers; they had CO gas chambers using compressed CO from tanks and they had CO gas chambers using exhaust gas from vehicular engines; they had massive industrial-scale gas chambers and,early on, they had tiny experimental gas chambers; they had gas chambers to kill concentration camp inmates and gas chambers to kill hospital patients; they had gas chambers to kill people and gas chambers to kill lice; they had gas chambers cleverly designed to look like shower rooms, and they had gas chambers improvised on the spot in detention cells. Still, it should be stressed: gas chambers are just one of Nazis' many modalities of killing and are, while important, simply a single structural element in the whole Holocaust edifice.
Yep dem darkies surely do lie. from the playbook http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Exhib/HowtoEngl.html 11. The Great Leap -- This tactic goes like this: If one piece of testimony about the Holocaust seems unreliable, then ALL testimony about the Holocaust is unreliable. If one Holocaust witness may have recanted something on the stand, then all other Holocaust witnesses are liars. If some camp prisoners did not starve to death, then NONE of them starved to death. etc. But be careful. This is a double-edged sword -- someone may use the well-documented lies of other revisionists to conclude that YOU are a liar as well. What invalidates these videos is the sources used. In this case its the usual suspects from Rudolph and Mottogno to Cole to Leuchter. The psuedo science, the laughable attempts to dismiss all nazi confessions, the idiotic unsubstantiated accusations, etc etc. Not a single one of these jew hating ********s has been able to make an actual academic case for their outrageously stupid denialist position. apparently the only people who actually lick up this excrement are virulent jew haters, microencephilacs, and (neo)nazi pond scum. You mean david Irving who is personna non grata in Germany, Austria, Italy and Canada? the guy who lost his famous libel suit against .Lipstadt? A legal decision that ultimately led him into bankruptcy because he couldn't pay the legal freight? [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving[/URL] Irving's reputation as a historian was discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books.[4] The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist, who "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism",[5] and that he had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".[5][6] Fay is the only legit historian of this sorry lot and he did change the way the causes of ww1 were percieved. OTOH, Butz is a rabid denialist, Hoggan is an idiot conspiricist that thought ww2 was the result of a British/Polish plot to destroy germany, and Ramsay was a real piece of work. He was the only british MP to be incarcerated for the duration of the war because he was suspected of disloyalty for his involvement with a nazi spy. Here's one of his ditties: Land of dope and Jewry Land that once was free All the Jew boys praise thee Whilst they plunder thee Poorer still and poorer Grow thy true-born sons Faster still and faster They're sent to feed the guns. Land of Jewish finance Fooled by Jewish lies In press and books and movies While our birthright dies Longer still and longer Is the rope they get Butby the God of battles 'Twill serve to hang them yet. [/quote] Pretend - you mean like the litany of denialists who pretend to have evidence that the holocaust never happened? Yes there is somebody that looks like a loser. Find a mirror and his identity will be revealed to you.
Of course. I should have known that there are no biased courts. Whatever any court rules reflects reality. I'd better post this other alternative stuff so the viewers will know what the theories you're referring to are. Hitler's War - What the Historians Neglect to Mention http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+What+the+Historians+Neglect+to+Mention&sm=12 Hitler Saved Europe From Stalin http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hitler+Saved+Europe+From+Stalin&sm=12 Who Started World War II? by Viktor Suvorov http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Who+Started+World+War+II?+by+Viktor+Suvorov&sm=12 Churchill's War http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Churchill's+War&sm=12 Mark Weber speaks on Hitler's Place in History http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mark+Weber+speaks+on+Hitler's+Place+in+History&sm=12 Adolf Hitler: Explains His Reasons For Invading The Soviet Union http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...s+Reasons+For+Invading+The+Soviet+Union&sm=12 Watch the above video here without having to log in. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0a0_1301486247 Adolf Hitler: Explains Reasons For Invading Poland http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Adolf+Hitler:+Explains+Reasons+For+Invading+Poland&sm=12 David Irving - The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+The+Faking+of+Adolf+Hitler+for+History&sm=12 All I can do I suppose is urge those viewers who don't have time to look at the info not to be swayed by rhetoric and withhold judgement until you've looked at it. Check out the Red Cross report. The person who did this took actual pictures of the report so that people couldn't misrepresent what it says. http://www.polskawalczaca.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=18054 (excerpt) ----------------------------------------------------- No Evidence Of Genocide One of the most important aspects of the Red Cross Report is that it clarifies the true cause of those deaths that undoubtedly occurred in the camps toward the end of the war. Says the Report: "In the chaotic condition of Germany after the invasion during the final months of the war, the camps received no food supplies at all and starvation claimed an increasing number of victims. Itself alarmed by this situation, the German Government at last informed the ICRC on February 1st, 1945 ... In March 1945, discussions between the President of the ICRC and General of the S.S. Kaltenbrunner gave even more decisive results. Relief could henceforth be distributed by the ICRC, and one delegate was authorised to stay in each camp ..." (Vol. III, p. 83). Clearly, the German authorities were at pains to relieve the dire situation as far as they were able. The Red Cross are quite explicit in stating that food supplies ceased at this time due to the Allied bombing of German transportation, and in the interests of interned Jews they had protested on March 15th, 1944 against "the barbarous aerial warfare of the Allies" (Inter Arma Caritas, p. 7. By October 2nd, 1944, the ICRC warned the German Foreign Office of the impending collapse of the German transportation system, declaring that starvation conditions for people throughout Germany were becoming inevitable. In dealing with this comprehensive, three-volume Report, it is important to stress that the delegates of the International Red Cross found no evidence whatever at the camps in Axis occupied Europe of a deliberate policy to exterminate the Jews. In all its 1,600 pages the Report does not even mention such a thing as a gas chamber. It admits that Jews, like many other wartime nationalities, suffered rigours and privations, but its complete silence on the subject of planned extermination is ample refutation of the Six Million legend. Like the Vatican representatives with whom they worked, the Red Cross found itself unable to indulge in the irresponsible charges of genocide which had become the order of the day. So far as the genuine mortality rate is concerned, the Report points out that most of the Jewish doctors from the camps were being used to combat typhus on the eastern front, so that they were unavailable when the typhus epidemics of 1945 broke out in the camps (Vol. I, p. 204 ff) - Incidentally, it is frequently claimed that mass executions were carried out in gas chambers cunningly disguised as shower facilities. Again the Report makes nonsense of this allegation. "Not only the washing places, but installations for baths, showers and laundry were inspected by the delegates. They had often to take action to have fixtures made less primitive, and to get them repaired or enlarged" (Vol. III, p. 594).
@ Scott: You were the one who diverted to the Dachau gassing matter. Kindly answer the questions I posed, designed to determine your familiarity with the accusation, or admit you're a willing dupe of internet anti-Semites.
Germans "relieved" their dire situation by killing prisoners within 24 hours upon arrival in the main killing centers designed specifically for that at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka.
This 'report' by the ICRC leaves a lot to be desired. It was part of a Nazi sham that's since been repudiated by the ICRC. It doesn't mention, for example, that Committee inspectors were not permitted to see anything the Nazis didn't want them to see. And of course the German arm of the Red Cross was completely under the thumb of Berlin. Also, there's no mention in the report of the dedicated killing centers of the Aktion Reinhard camps or Birkenau, where the bulk of the killings in Poland occurred. The ICRC's mandate was to inspect the conditions under which POWs and civilians were held; that much is true. Accordingly, the Nazis showed them the conditions experienced by prisoners vital the the war effort or favoured prisoners who were being held for their notoriety or their value as hostages. They received occasional privileges, such as parcels, post cards, entertainment, brothel services and use of a water reservoir as a swimming pool. However, these amenities were unknown to all but a very few Auschwitz inmates-- least of all by those hundreds of thousands murdered on arrival. Much is made of Theresienstadt, Goebbels' one and only show camp since it was shown to Red Cross 'inspectors' frequently, as representative of conditions in all concentration camps(most of whose inmates were liquidated in Birkenau when their use as camouflage expired). The Red Cross was as duped in the period immediately following the war as those regurgitating this out-dated and partial 'report' are today. Its presence here only serves to demonstrate the level of desperation experienced by today's Holocaust deniers.
Nazi policy towards Jews evolved as time went by. In 1933 they were 'merely' harrassed, in 1935 they were made disenfranchised non-entities with the passing of the Nuremberg Laws Up until 1939 German Jews, the most culturally assimilated in Europe, were encouraged to emigrate, something which almost half of them did, forced to leave the bulk of their property and wealth behind. Starting in 1939 there was a major policy change: emigration was forbidden and Germany embarked upon a war of aggression and conquest which resulted in the number of Jews living in territory under German control increasing by more than an order of magnitude. Emigration was no longer an option for all manner of reasons. In the occupied territories Nazi policy changed first from one of plunder and indiscriminate mass murder by the Einsatzgruppen into a two-track policy involving the exploitation of those Jews who could contribute something to the German war effort and the industrialised mass murder of those who could not. As I say, their policies and options evolved as situations and opportunities changed. The oft-mentioned 'Madagascar Plan' was never realistic because Madagascar was under French control, already had a population, and, after the war began, was only accessible using sea lanes that were regularly patrolled by the Allies. The task of shipping more than 11,000,000 people from Europe to Africa-- most, if not all of whom would not have wanted to go there-- providing them with some kind of start-up package in an SS-controlled state would have required an extraordinary amount of resources the Nazis simply didn't have once they'd committed themselves to a two-front war. There is no doubting, however, the fact that evolving Nazi policy included killing as many Jews as possible. The same holds true for Gypsies, deformed or terminally ill people, and political rivals. Nazi policy was based on the idea that the best way to solve a problem was to kill the people who caused them to bear it. We also know, from even the most superficial study of Nazi-era policies and their implementation, that Nazi ideology was strongly steeped in a doctrine of social Darwinism. The survival of the fittest justified the physical elimination of the also-rans. The implementation of this general doctrine also evolved, from sterilization of the "unfit", to prohibitions of "inter-racial" [= gentile and Jew] marriage, to mass murder by "euthanasia", ethnic cleansing, and economic exploitation. Later, when Jews were working in the camps, they were assets rather than liabilities for the Reich as long as their work input was worth more than it cost to feed and accommodate them. When it wasn't, they were murdered or allowed to die of their own accord through deprivation or disease. Another evolution in Nazi policies came towards the end of the war. Himmler temporarily ordered the camp authorities to stop gassing Jews and to treat them more humanely because he was trying to negotiate an implausable deal by which the UK and the US would switch sides and continue the war as a co-belligerent with Germany fighting against the USSR. This far-fetched deal could only be pulled off if Germany's, by that time, well known and well-documented abuse of European Jews was stopped. But it's unreasonable to assume that Nazi policies towards 'undesirables', including the murder of Jews, was immutably written in stone over the 12 years the '1000 Year Reich' existed. When it's pointed out that existing Nazi transport records enable us to determine that in excess of one million people were sent to a single camp and were subsequently never heard from, the more simplistic quickly revert to one or another of their pet irrelevancies because having to come up with a plausible alternative explanation for what happened to those people, one that's internally consistent and in accord with the evidence is impossible. So they nibble away at 'doubting' the various elements of it, unconvincingly, using empty speculation and subjunctive terms like 'should', 'would' and 'could'. Academic historians use words like 'is' and 'was' when presenting their evidence and the totality of the existing evidence points to only one thing-- that those individuals were mass murdered and their bodies incinerated in a failed effort to hide the crime.
Sadly you have presented no evidence that anybody was murdered or incinerated despite your hypocritical appeal to 'were' rather than 'could have been'.
Of course I have, via Browning. When you're through demolishing his Treblinka evidence with a plausible alternative theory of events-- one that's consistent with all the other evidence that's known, I'll be delighted to post more general evidence of homicidal gassing. It's not my problem if you prefer to ignore evidence put before you, or try to wish it away. That's why the correct term for your approach isn't 'revisionism' but denial[/i].
To repeat some of the Browning evidence, for the benefit of those incapable of finding a single post in a 20-page thread: Now, my opponent claims this evidence has been 'dealt with' and 'addressed', which in his context would appear to mean, "I've already denied those particular items." as if that ought to be sufficient for the purposes of debate. Browning brings up documentary evidence and pinpoints the archival locations where those documents might be found. Thus far, all we've heard from the denial crowd is, well, nothing at all, really.
Nothing at all. which is why they can only ignore, dismiss, obfuscate, misrepresent, deny in an amazingly predictable pattern.
It's very difficult to poke holes in deniers' claims when they run to ground or become reduced to posting page after page of irrelevancies any non-historian with a computer and a Youtube membership can create out of whole cloth. Still, I'll continue to monitor this thread for a time, on the off-chance one or two these cardboard cut-out anti-Semites experience their testes descending and begin to deal with documented facts like men of honour.
So you have some claims of Jews being sent on trains to camps. Without even questioning the accuracy of those claims, how does this translate into killing, let alone gassing? Did it ever occur to you that records of the camps which fell into Soviet hands may have been among the piles of Nazi documents burned by the Allies? Would the Soviets be above such a thing? (Hint: Katyn).
Here's another video that's relevant to the topic. An alternate look at WW1 & WW2 (four parts) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry37mKMh04U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrLtoC5Eg0w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_cXTm6X8Fw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duR03rlL9fs You're being a little unclear here. Do you maintain that gas chambers were used to kill Jews at Dachau on a large scale as Americans were taught? I remember seeing documentaries on the Holocaust back in the seventies and they said there were mass gassings at Dachau. Exactly what is your position on this? You seem to be playing it down and trying to make it go away. A confirmed lie told about the Holocaust is something to take seriously. Here's the info in question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4nY6T46aGA#t=1474 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bTzvOmIcDc&list=PL2281319AA67405E6 Here's some stuff about Auschwitz. The Holocaust Testimonies You DIDN'T Hear http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlPlZGvgY0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-Kl6RHKIQk Auschwitz - Why The Gas Chambers Are A Myth - HD (full)
Not 'some'-- millions. And in the case of Treblinka, for the purposes of the evidence presented in this instance, hundreds of thousands. Ditto for each of Majdanek, Sobibor and Belzec and slightly less than that for Chelmno. If they were 'transit camps', you've yet to come up with a plausible explanation where all those people were transited TO, why all records of their existence, formerly recorded so meticulously by their Nazi wards, all end there and why not a single one of those two-plus millions of people made an effort to communicate with friends and loved ones from that point on. Graf and company can't help you because their theories are as half-baked as your own. What remains is the unavoidable conclusion that they were murdered in those places, something that other evidence, forensic and documentary as well as eye witness testimony from escapees, local Poles and perpetrators alike confirm that the Nazis main method of murdering those individuals was by means of carbon monoxide gas. See above. Explain where those people went, if not to their deaths. Your explanation would need to take into account all other evidence concerning those camps. And don't strut around claiming this has been 'addressed' or 'dealt with' because it clearly hasn't been, neither by you nor by those 'revisionists' on whose half-truths and outright lies you rely. First of all you'd have to demonstrate that documents were in fact 'burned' by the Allies. In fact, the Allies went to some great lengths to seek out and preserve Nazi documentation for obvious reasons. Secondly, except for Majdanek, those camps were decommissioned and disguised as innocent farms well before the Soviets got to them, as previously shown. Given the damning content of so much of it, you'd have thought the Nazis themselves would have done a better job of 'burning' incriminating documentation. Whether they'd be 'above' such a thing or not is immaterial. The Soviets saved so much Nazi documentation it was necessary to build new archives in Moscow and elsewhere in the Soviet Union to house it all. Why would they do that when burning it would have been so much cheaper/easier? They built one archive building, a rather large one, just to hold the documents from the Auschwitz Construction Office alone, which the fleeing Nazis neglected to blow up along with the krema facilities. Katyn is not a case you want to raise here, since the revisionist position on its occurrence is all over the map and is easily put to rest. Besides, it has nothing whatever to do with the Holocaust narrative assuming that's the subject under discussion here. In short, take your red herring and stuff it.
First of all (and hopefully for the last time) I'm not going to waste any time watching denial Youtube videos, so do try to use specific information contained in books by actual historians. I'm well aware that the popular press of the day made much of gassing claims for Dachau, but if you'll just answer the questions I posed, in your own words, we can get down to the nuts and bolts of how this might have happened. Martin Brozat, an historian whose record is above reproach, once famously said that no gas chambers existed on the soil of Greater Germany, in an effort to explain that the vast majority of homicidal gassing in death camps took place in Poland. This was, of course, a somewhat premature, badly worded, statement. Actually, there were several that survived the war in Germany proper, though they weren't technically found in camps whose primary purposes included the mass murder of Jews. Sachsenhausen and Ravensbrück concentration camps, for example, had working gas chambers when they were liberated. There were also gas chambers at Mauthausen, as well as the euthanasia centers of Hartheim Castle, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, and Sonnenstein which functioned as part of the T-4 program. That isn't even a complete list of surviving gas chambers.
Are there any actual extermination gas chambers among the museums in eastern Europe now that have been certified scientifically as such? If so, can you please provide a link with photos and documentation? Thanks