If history is 'written by the winners'...

If the official story is false about Hitler's ambitions, then the SS officer that my grandfather spoke with shortly after liberating a concentration camp must have either been lying or very misled by the regime.

What the officer essentially said to him was, "If you hadn't stopped us, you'd be next."

My grandfather could never fully tell if the guy was being boastful or serious, but he said the conversation was rather disturbing.

 

Maybe it was, but that does not mean that there isn't masses of propaganda about Hitler that have not been passed into the mainstream as fact.

When they have then proven not to be fact.

 

Probably so, but I would wager that it would have to be a rather massive conspiracy to lie about something like the Holocaust.

Some details about the Nazies are likely to be debatable, but I very much doubt that most of the story is untrue.

Generally speaking, it's what is left out that is more significant than what is left in.

For example, I don't think much about the Holocaust has been embellished, but I would assume that some of the less ethical things done by the Allies have been buried.

 

Ah now you see, the two go hand in hand.

It involves burying/denying/downplaying the less ethical(sic) things done by allies AND overstating and even inventing one's attributed to the enemy.

This is not a new thing.

Indeed, it goes way back in time.

I am Scottish, so will tell you a historical story that the English, centuries ago, perpetuated as fact, about a man and his family called 'Sawney Bean'.

Now, it was told as fact that Sawny Bean and his family lived in Scotland, and were cannibals.

The story was nothing more than an invention, however, it served to portray the Scots as 'savages', so this early example of propaganda served it's purpose, to the English of the day.

'Alexander "Sawney" Bean(e) was the legendary head of a 48-member clan in 15th- or 16th-century Scotland, reportedly executed for the mass murder and cannibalisation of over 1,000 people.

The story appears in The Newgate Calendar, a crime catalogue of the notorious Newgate Prison in London. While historians tend to believe that Sawney Bean never existed, his story has passed into legend and is part of the Edinburgh tourism industry.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawney_Bean

 

Sure there is, there's plenty.. "he was an aethist" "He wanted to take over the world" etc etc etc.

But that doesn't mean you can question everything, especially when there is a plethora of evidence to the contrary like you have with Gas Chamber useage.

This is the statement.

Furthermore (This is adressed to Jack, not Serfin'), just because you don't like how there is a paticular emphasis on a certain portion of the Holocaust or any part of Nazi Germany's war atrocities doesn't mean you can just flat out deny them.

I agree that the focus on up to 6 million deaths out of what was likely over 20 million non-combattant murders by Nazi Germany during WWII is disporportionate. But that doesn't mean you can throw out 60 years of academic discourse and literature that provides ample evidence that these things happened. If you have a problem with the focus on Jewish deaths by Zionist supporters after WWII and the hijacking of those deaths as a banner for the creation of Israel then speak out against this. But you should do that without stepping outside of the boundries of historical fact, it degrades your position and opinion from those who know better.

I'm in agreement with you on your principle, it's your distortion of facts to attempt to prove your arguement that I disagree with wholeheartedly. If you have evidence that these things didn't happen, or that numbers were exaggerated I suggest that you find evidence that contradicts the general consensus of the academic community after 60 years of discourse, you have provided none in this thread.

 

No they do not, facts are facts. How often these statements are made in public or in mainstream media sources do not change the fact that they are facts.

As I said previous, I have no problem with your taking issue to the emphasis placed upon certain facts that are outlined historically (such as the Holocaust being solely directed against Jews, which might be 'common knowledge' among less educated people) but when you attempt to distort academic historical fact in order to make your arguement by suggesting that 60 years of historical discourse on the subject is wrong you lose any credibility in your arguement.

Nobody is inventing the gas chambers being used, or how many Jews were killed in concentration camps, by death squads or other means under Nazi Germany. You just have a problem with the emphasis put on that.

 

Yes.

So let us accept this fact, Roy.

In times of war, and post war indeed, propaganda works on two levels, at least.

First you use it to persude your people that your guys are righteous, in an absolute sense. Gloss over anything that contradicts that. At the same time, demonise the opposition, even if it means inventing a total crock of BS against said opposition.

Come on Roy, you know that's how it works.

Or are you saying that in propaganda, they have overlooked the fantastic opportunity to overstate the atoricties and actions of the enemy, for shock value, or politcal gain?

You don't think that this happened in WW2?

You don't think the US have routinely been culpable of this, since WW2?

WMD Roy.

An entirely CIA/Mossad invention, and on the back of that state given fact, some 150,000 Iraq civilans are dead.

It may not be quite six million, and they may have had their brains blown out, rather than be gassed, but hey, it's still something, huh..

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...iving-history-do-you-support-psychopaths.html


Jack

 

Who is denying what, Roy?

How can I deny that a significant, too large numbers (let me put it that way), of German and E European Jews were sacrificed, literally, if all through this entire thread, I have conceded that in fact large numbers of E European and German Jews were sacrificied?

Doesn't make sense.

I've stated that these reports were appearing in the press in the US, and probably Britian, as well.

What was going down was no secret.

Hitler did not 'concentrate' the Jews, with the initial purpose of extermination.

He wanted to remove them from Europe, Roy.

But the US would not offer them refugee status, the mood in the US toward Jews, is not what it seems to be these days. And at the heart of that resistance to letting them migrate out of Europe were influential Zionists. So, unable to deport the ever growing number of interned Jews, conditions gradually grew worse for them, as we know, and that due to said conditions, large numbers perished.

 

I agree with almost everything you wrote. You seem to have a problem discerning propaganda from fact however when reaching your personal conclusions and are just as guilty as those you claim to be "misinformed" when espousing your own views (IE: Gas Chambers). You claim to have disbelief in certain aspects of the Holocaust because you claim to not have seen any evidence to prove them and therefore believe they are mere exaggerations and then ignore me completely when I provide ample evidence to disprove your point.

Not sure what any of your previous post has to do with my contention that you are engaging in revisionist history that has been clearly contradicted by irrefutable proof in this thread.

Once again, just so we're clear, I'm not objecting to your thesis in this debate, I'm objecting to your methods - which includes the exlusion or distortion of facts that have been proven to be correct numerous times by numerous sources and this does nothing but weaken your arguement.

 

I provided evidence of use, you have hid behind vague language this whole thread.

The "story" is clearly outlined in the numerous academic resources I've given in this thread. For references on how bodies were disposed of in reference to mass burials you can see "Wehrmacht" by Wette, it even outlines how machinery was used to do this on a large scale by normal German (non-SS) soldiers. For references on how the furnances were used see sources on Einsatzgruppen and some of the sources I referenced earlier (including the Wannsee Conference).

This statement is historical fact, not a "story" that we were "told" through propaganda.

This is from your OP, which I've answered numerous times. We know what we can take as 'fact' through academic sources that are properly researched, cited, and peer reviewed that use certified primary resources as evidence. I've provided you with many primary sources on one paticular subject in this thread and could provide you with many others to back up other parts of the "story".

Your problem is the fact that not everyone has the time to thoroughly research these subjects and accepts the general understanding of the event which is often simplified in order for those people to have some understanding rather than remain entirely ignorant of the subject.

"6 million Jews were killed in mass killings that included gas chambers in death camps" is the general story, some may misunderstand that to think that 6 million Jews died in gas chambers, or that they were the only people who died there but I think that those misunderstandings are far better than remaining ignorant on the topic entirely.

The Hijacking of the Holocaust for Zionist ideals does not mean that you can blindly question every aspect of the story as "propaganda" though, you have to be able to back up your position. You're just as guilty as those you are opposing in that regard in this thread.

 

I get it - Hitler didn't like the Jewish/Bolsheviks.

 

The Germans started the war against the Soviets and they were the ones who made it a no quarter given war. To say that they were then justified in doing what they did first because of what the Soviets did second is the dumbest justification I have ever read.

 

Which facts, Roy?

I have conceded that large numbers of lower class, and lower middle class Jews were interned in camps, which were initially not designed with large scale extermination in mind, but deportation.

The Jews were denied refugee status, in the US, Britain, and other lands, as well. No one wanted this influx of Jews. That is one of the downsides of when you let people run loose that want to implement bans on asylum seekers today, you could be condemning them to death. Anyway, those are the facts, it was known what was going on, and no one knew it more than The World Zionist movement. They were against Jewish asylum to the US etc, and thus, a great number of Jews were left to the mercy of a regime that considered Jews an enemy. Moreover, Zionists capitalised on this, by using it as currency, to form the Zion State, which has used Nazism as a blueprint.

 

Hey Roy, don't you just find modern day 'Aryan' and Neo Nazi groups, actually rather sad and pathetic, rather than any sort of threat.

Check this;

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0k3_yFO76s&feature=related"]Louis Theroux, and the Nazi's (2) - YouTube[/ame]

 

What I found a threat in this thread was your attributation of "facts" as "Stories and Myths", like I highlighted in an earlier post, which you ignored even after I was asked by you to provide examples of. You're only interested in espousing your Anti-Zionist agenda because the only examples you continue to come up with in this thread refer to Nazi-Germany and the current war on terror (which presumably you believe to be created by Zionists in order to further their agenda re:Israel). If you were truely interested in talking about propaganda you would be providing outside examples (perhaps Germany's propaganda that led to the persecution of the Jews in the first place) instead of focusing on the Holocaust and bringing up the fact that Soveriegn countries refused to accept GERMAN CITIZENS as refugees in a time of extreme isolationism and German distrust following WWI. There are plenty of better examples you could use instead of focusing on how western countries refused to accept those citizens, there was no requirement or benefit (other than saving the lives of a people that the German government was supposed to protect) to accepting them as refugees, and in fact the prevailing attitude of the time in Western countries was not much different than that of Nazi Germany.

Just in case you missed it, here are the examples you asked for earlier of you attempting to distort historical facts through rhetoric and claims of "storys" and "myths".

 

Roy, despite admitting you agree with me on almost everything, it appears you want some sort of fight, and think this is like a court of law.

I just thought we were having a chat, swapping some thoughts, kicking stuff around, but okay, if it makes you feel better then, you are 100% right about everything, you are able to distinguish between truth and propoganda, at all times.

Furthermore, that many once accepted truths then turned out to be false should at all times be ignored, and no matter how many examples there are, at no time should you let this question other accepted truths, which may one day be admitted false. Or do we have them all nailed down now, Roy?

It's too late to weep for the children of the holocaust, Roy, and it is even fake for people to rent films like the Pianist, or Schindlers List, and shed tears for the actors in them, because Roy, there are very real people today who are being persecuted in the here and the now, and as much as I may think the Nazi regime to be responsible for some reprehensible things, the bottom line is that they are now gone, and so are there victims. It is too late to do anything about that, but you should weep, for example, for the children of Palestine, who are being dehumanised and killed by the IDF, every single day.

Now go on Roy, accuse me of something else that I haven't actually said, or feel free to put whatever spin on that.

My apologies for wishing to reserve my most sincere concern for people today.

 

It's clear your idea of a "truth" and mine are different. Which is where our disagreement lies. You're not interested in a chat, you're interested in posting rants that ignore others points entirely.

I am done with this conversation, I should have quit long ago - You hate Israel - You're willing to do whatever it takes or use whatever historical fact in order to get your point across, until someone else highlights you're incorrect in your assumptions of what is myth and what was reality. I understand that now. You were never interested in discussing what is propaganda and what is fact, you just wanted to post some Anti-Israel propaganda of your own.

 

Roy - thank god you are done, because you would cause an arguement in an empty room.

All throughout this you have failed to read me properly, noted it, then gone on to do it again and again.

You seem to get very angry when someone doesn't say something you have accused them of, Roy.

Your anger grows to a fury, when you do not appear to be in control.

Perhaps your username is well chosen.

As to my hating 'Israel', well, okay, if you wish to reduce it to that, then you hate Germany.

Go on Roy, have the last word, you know yer itchin'...