Understanding 911 - Does The Holocaust Matter?

[Anthony Lawson]

Changing the heading of a thread corrupts it

Alulim,

Thank you for your support. From your posts, you also appear to be someone who tries to keep a clear head and not allow false emotions or preconceptions to cloud important issues.

... there have been similar instances on other boards where such changes have significantly modified the apparent meaning of my words. My objection to the new subject header is that it implicitly presupposes the truth of The Holocaust(TM).

Your last sentence is precisely my point. Like you, I have not been writing on this subject from the position that the ‘holocaust’ happened in the way it is generally perceived to have happened, and particularly in the manner that has been used by Zionists to elicit and use sympathy to stifle criticism about the way they are treating the Palestinians and influencing world opinion about Iran, having already been instrumental in influencing U.S. and U.K. foreign policy regarding the attack on Iraq.

I hope that others will join in and censure Tony Gosling for this blatant attempt to change the meanings of their previous posts, by changing the heading under which they originally appeared.

As to what happens if the heading is not changed back: I cannot, in good conscience, continue to post on what I believe will have been proven to be a corrupted forum. I would also add:

Tony Gosling: Who do you think you are?

[Alulim]

I post as Hetware on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germar_Rudolf

I finally gave up trying to mitigate the character assassination being carried out against Rudolf. Fortunately others have pitched in. Nonetheless, your citing the wiki article merely shows your willingness to put ad hominem above substance. It is impossible for the wider Truth movement not to take HR seriously. If they don't, they are not a Truth movement.

[Dogsmilk]

interesting photos....

first of all - as I think has already been pointed out - the 4 million figure was made up by the soviets in their efforts to hype up the evils of fascism. it was only after the overthrow of soviet rule in poland that it was possible to replace this figure with one that was more realistic. I've actually visited Auschwitz before and after the fall of communism in Poland so I've seen both versions.

secondly - the 4 million referred to the total number of victims - jews plus non-jews. they never claimed that 4 million jews died at auschwitz.

I'm not an expert on the holocaust so I'm unaware if such a figure was ever accepted by holocaust scholars. after all, it wouldn't be fair to blame them for false numbers produced by soviet propaganda.

as far as I'm aware, raul hilberg was the first person to publish a detailed study of the holocaust back in 1961. does anyone know what his initial figure was for the number of jewish victims of auschwitz and if he changed it in subsequent editions?

are there any other examples of holocaust scholars initially claiming that 4 million jews died at auschwitz and then subsequently changing the figure to 1 million?

if there are, then it should be quite easy to find them....

You raise a good point about people and of course the original plaque doesn't even mention Jews whereas the second plaque specifies that mostly Jews died.

I can't remember specifically Jewish victim, but he always put Auschwitz at about a million or so. His entire death camp death toll was 3 million - I think this is on p.767 of the 1961 ed. - I'm at work, but I'm so used to quoting it in relation to this matter it's kinda stuck in my head . IIRC He stuck to basically the same figures until he died last year.
There appears to be no evidence whatsoever that a bunch of historians frantically started revising their figures when the plaque changed. Poland caught up with them, not the other way round.

Gerald Reitlinger was earlier - it's in Alexander's list
Alexander appears to have discovered (and not referenced) some kind of list which, interestingly, fails to show major historical works endorsing 4 million. It also contains some instantly noticeable misleading statements - The four million was not actually ratified by Nuremburg, Hoss later gave a lower figure and we know he was tortured because he wrote about it in his memoir. Oh and there's one other single 'participant' statement (Bernard Clarke) which AFAIK basically corroborates what Hoss himself says. It's in legions of death by Rupert Butler. These quoted statements of Clarke's of course magically become irrefutable gospel truth in the same way Paul Rassinier spoke The Word Of Truth At All Times: In stark contrast to the fact you apparently can't trust any 'pro-Holocaust' witness, bystander or participant statement. Go figure. Irving is exactly the same when he takes Hitler's former entourage at their word (yet who have obvious reasons to be economical with the truth) but ignores the 'wrong' testimony.
The last paragraph appears to be confusing the (incomplete) death books showing deaths of registered inmates with total death toll - it's rather a waste of time to register people at a camp if they're going to be exterminated on arrival. The death books are interesting because they show something of an epidemic of "heart attacks" and the like plaguing rather young people who presumably weren't eating too many chips. The emergence of the books corroborated earlier testimony that such ailments were routinely recorded in the books for people who'd been executed for whatever flimsy reason. Auschwitz was of course primarily a rather unpleasant labour camp not just an extermination centre which was a partial function for part of its existence. Interestingly, the books fail to show the apocalyptic death toll from typhus the deniers like to go on about.

Why anyone is surprised sixty years of research (with new material periodically becoming available) by various independent historians throws up variable tallies is beyond me. Given the wide range of estimates for the Cambodian genocide I've seen, it seems to be people should be hot on the heels of that one too.

Alulim - I don't see wikipedia being contradicted by more...sympathetic types -
http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/mccalden.html
The guy was a well known bonehead and there's no pretending he wasn't.

[gruts]

The heading:

Understanding 9/11 - Why The Holocaust Matters

bears no relationship to the original:

"Compulsive": Zionist Propaganda.!

forgive me for being pedantic, but surely it should have been "compulsory" not "compulsive"....

I'm not sure if the new title is an improvement - as the thread has changed into a "did the holocaust happen or not" discussion, something along those lines would be more appropriate.

[Alulim]

Until people such as Rudolf, Zündel, Stolz, Faurisson, Graf, Verbenke, Irving, Luftl, etc., are free to state their opinions without legal censure, I can naught but assume they are in the right.

[Dogsmilk]

Oh for Alexander -

One thirdoftheHolocaust is covered under the 'ugly voice' postings. Very apt IMO. LOL, he doesn't even appear to know when the Aktion Rheinhard trials took place and that bit about the readers digest is just excruciating so God knows why you think he's 'on to something'

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... links.html

[gruts]

There appears to be no evidence whatsoever that a bunch of historians frantically started revising their figures when the plaque changed.

I didn't see any either....

Poland caught up with them, not the other way round.

exactly - it was not possible to change this memorial until after 1989 for political reasons, but as soon it was possible it was done.

similarly, prior to 1989 Poland was festooned with memorials commemorating the Katyn massacre that falsely blamed it on the Germans and alleged that it took place in 1942. these were soon replaced by memorials which showed the correct date (1940) and the actual perpetrators (the Soviet NKVD).

changes of this kind took place all over the former soviet bloc - old statues and memorials were taken down, new ones were put up, streets were renamed etc etc - when it became politically possible to do so....

Alexander appears to have discovered (and not referenced) some kind of list which, interestingly, fails to show major historical works endorsing 4 million. It also contains some instantly noticeable misleading statements

quelle surprise....

I must admit that I've been following this thread mainly for the entertainment value - but it has also struck me that the "evidence" being presented in favour of holocaust denial has the same kind of paper-thin veracity as all those "conclusive" proofs of 9/11 tv fakery which have turned out to be nothing of the kind.

what's also a little strange is that just as the no-planers seem to have given up spamming the forum with their tv fakery drivel, we seem to be inundated with holocaust denial stuff like never before....

[brian]

Anthony, I agree with Alium regards your posting here. As he says, apprently from experience, this board may be a better platform than most.

I also find the change of title strange but think it rather petty and, at least to those that are open to reason on the subject, shows only the the need to conform of the author of the change. Counterproductive to my mind.

[brian]

Dogsmilk, had I been attributing to yourself I would have put -

The logic of Dogsmilk.

I put - The logic of the Dogsmilk's

I was classifying you.

You state I can believe the Lachout documen if I want.

What I know at this time is that Lachout was accused of not being what he said he was and of forging the document. This almost twenty years ago.

If he was not what he claimed and the document forged it should have been an easy matter to stablish and convict him. That never happened so in all fairness I have to assume he was telling the truth.

Apart from that, the document only stated what is known to be fact - IE there were a great many claims of not only gas chambers in Germany but all sorts of killing methods which turned out to be false.

The document, which should have been easily shown to be false, was only stating known facts so you will understand if I give it more credence than what apparently were trumped up charges.

[brian]

ian neal, I cannot think what relevance any guess of mine at the number of dead would have to the matter being discussed.

[ian neal]

Number of Alleged Dead in Auschwitz

9,000,000 Cited by the French documentary, Night and Fog, which has been shown to millions of school students worldwide.

8,000,000 The French War Crime Research Office, Doc. 31, 1945.

7,000,000 Also cited by the French War Crime Research Office.

6,000,000 Cited in the book “Auschwitz Doctor” by Miklos Nyiszli. It has since been proven that this book is a fraud and the "doctor" was never even at Auschwitz, even though the book is often cited by historians.

5,000,000 to 5,500,000 Cited in 1945 at the trial of Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hoess, based on his “confession” which was written in English, a language he never spoke.

5,000,000 Cited on April 20, 1978 by the French daily, Le Monde. Also cited on January 23, 1995 by the German daily Die Welt. By September 1, 1989, Le Monde reduced the figure to 1,433,000.

4,500,000 In 1945 this figure was cited by another witness at the aforementioned Hoess trial.

4,000,000 Cited by a Soviet document of May 6, 1945 and officially acknowledged by the Nuremberg War Crimes trial. This figure was also reported in The New York Times on April 18, 1945, although 50 years later on January 26, 1995 (see below), The New York Times and The Washington Post slashed the figure to 1,500,000 citing new findings by the Auschwitz Museum officials. In fact, the figure of 4,000,000 was later repudiated by the Auschwitz museum officials in 1990 (see below) but the figure of 1,500,000 victims was not formally announced by Polish President Lech Walesa until five years after the Auschwitz historians had first announced their discovery.

3,500,000 Cited in the 1991 edition of the Dictionary of the French Language and by Claude Lanzmann in 1980 in his introduction to Filip Muller's book, “Three Years in an Auschwitz Gas Chamber.”

3,000,000 Cited in a forced confession by Rudolf Hoess, the Auschwitz commander who said this was the number of those who had died at Auschwitz prior to Dec. 1, 1943. Later cited in the June 7, 1993 issue of Heritage, the most widely read Jewish newspaper in California, even though three years previously the authorities at the Auschwitz museum had scaled down the figure to a minimum of 1,100,000 and a maximum of 1,500,000. (see below).

2,500,000 Cited by a famous "witness to the Holocaust," Rudolf Vrba, when he testified on July 16, 1981 for the Israeli government's war crimes trial of former SS official Adolf Eichmann.

2,000,000 Cited by no less than three famous Holocaust historians, including Leon Poliakov (1951) writing in “Harvest of Hate”; Georges Wellers, writing in 1973 in “The Yellow Star at the Time of Vichy”; and Lucy Dawidowicz, writing in 1975 in “The War Against the Jews.”

2,000,000 to 4,000,000 Cited by Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer in 1982 in his book, “A History of the Holocaust.” However, by 1989 Bauer revised his figures and determined that the actual number was lower: 1,600,000.

1,600,000 This is a 1989 revision by Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer of his earlier figure in 1982 of 2,000,000 to 4,000,000, Bauer cited this new figure on September 22, 1989 in The Jerusalem Post, at which time he wrote' 'The larger figures have been dismissed for years, except that it hasn't reached the public yet."

1,500,000 In 1995 this was the “official" number of Auschwitz deaths announced by Polish President Lech Walesa as determined by the historians at the Auschwitz museum. This number was inscribed on the monument at the Auschwitz camp at that time, thereby "replacing" the earlier 4,000,000 figure that had been formally repudiated (and withdrawn from the monument) five years earlier in 1990. At that time, on July 17, 1990 The Washington Times reprinted a brief article from The London Daily Telegraph citing the "new" figure of 1,500,000 that had been determined by the authorities at the Auschwitz museum. This new figure was reported two years later in a UPI report published in the New York Post on March 26, 1992. On January 26, 1995 both The Washington Post and The New York Times cited this 1,500,000 figure as the new "official" figure (citing the Auschwitz Museum authorities).

1,471,595 This is a 1983 figure cited by historian Georges Wellers who (as noted previously) had determined, writing in 1973, that some 2,000,000 had died. In his later calculation, Wellers decided that of the 1,471,595 who had died at Auschwitz, 1,352,980 were Jews.

1,433,000 This figure was cited on September 1, 1989 by the French daily, Le Monde, which earlier, on April 20, 1978, had cited the figure at 4,000,000.

1,250,000 In 1985, historian Raul Hilberg arrived at this figure in his book, “The Destruction of the European Jews.” According to Hilberg, of those dead, some 1,000,000 were Jews.

1,100,000 to 1,500,000 Sources for this estimate are historians Yisrael Gutman and Michael Berenbaum (later of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum) in their 1984 book, “Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp”; also Dr. Franciszek Piper, the curator of the Auschwitz Museum, writing a chapter in that book. This estimate was later also cited by Walter Reich, former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, writing in The Washington Post on September 8, 1998. The upper figure of 1,500,000 thus remains the "official" figure as now inscribed at Auschwitz, with the earlier figure of 4,000,000 having been removed from the memorial at the site of the former concentration camp.

1,000,000 Jean-Claude Pressac, writing in his 1989 book “Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.” This is interesting since he wrote his book to repudiate so-called "Holocaust deniers" who were called that precisely because they had questioned the numbers of those who had died at Auschwitz.

900,000 Reported on August 3, 1990 11, by Aufbau, a Jewish newspaper in New York.

800,000 to 900,000 Reported by Gerald Reitlinger in his 1953 book, “The Final Solution.” This figure is notable, considering the fact that it reduces the Auschwitz death total from the 4,000,000 figure that was widely in vogue in 1953.

775,000 to 800,000 Jean-Claude Pressac's revised figure, put forth in his 1993 book, “The Crematoria of Auschwitz: The Mass Murder's Machinery”, scaling down the figure from Pressac's 1989 claim of 1,000,000 dead. At this juncture, Pressac said that of the new number, 630,000 were Jews.

630,000 to 710,000 In 1994 Pressac scaled his figure down somewhat further; this is the figure cited in the German language translation of Pressac's 1993 book originally published in French. Again, this is substantially less than Pressac's 1989 figure of 1,000,000.

73,137 This figure was reported in The New York Times on March 3, 1991 and was based entirely on the wartime German concentration camp records that had been captured by the Soviets and just recently released. According to this figure, of those dead, 38,031 were Jews. These records state that the total of all persons who died in the ENTIRE German prison camp system from 1935 to 1945 were 403,713. To repeat: a total of 403,713 persons of all races and religions was officially recorded to have died (of all causes. typhus, old age, measles, etc.-and execution) in the entire prison camp system over a 10 year period. Of those 403,713 a total of 73,137 died at Auschwitz. Of those 73,137 who died at Auschwitz, 38,031 were Jews.

And of course Frijhof Meyers alleged 500,000.

This doesn't really answer my question, since what I'm asking is the number of civilian and military deaths at the hands of the nazi murderers between 1940-1945 in Europe. I include under nazi murderers any forces who allied themselves to Hitler. This is obviously different from the number who died at auschwitz

I ask because I would like an estimate or range that readers would consider to be accurate instead of the 4 000 000 figure used.

And then supposing that this figure whilst being less than the 4 000 000 is still very significant, I would ask why does it matter?

Does it really matter whether the nazis murdered 1 million or 4 million? Does it significantly change our beliefs about and abhorrence of Hitler and the nazis? Does it make nazism any less wicked?

[Dogsmilk]

Dogsmilk, had I been attributing to yourself I would have put -

The logic of Dogsmilk.

I put - The logic of the Dogsmilk's

I was classifying you.

You state I can believe the Lachout documen if I want.

What I know at this time is that Lachout was accused of not being what he said he was and of forging the document. This almost twenty years ago.

If he was not what he claimed and the document forged it should have been an easy matter to stablish and convict him. That never happened so in all fairness I have to assume he was telling the truth.

Apart from that, the document only stated what is known to be fact - IE there were a great many claims of not only gas chambers in Germany but all sorts of killing methods which turned out to be false.

The document, which should have been easily shown to be false, was only stating known facts so you will understand if I give it more credence than what apparently were trumped up charges.

Well I would take it by "classifying" me you were implying it's how I thought, but I suppose it's pointless to argue over such a point. As it happens, if my memory is correct I think I know what they were getting at (it's after Leuchter isn't it?) but I think it's very badly put and I don't agree with the wording at face value (though in context I think it may make slightly more sense, but I don't see it as enormously significant anyway).
I put it as "Are you still into believing" which was a question not a statement.
Can you demonstrate he was not convicted specifically regarding the document and that the document was absolved? I haven't bothered looking any more myself. Like I said, RODOH would be the best place for an easy, balanced answer. (why do none of you guys take your 'irrefutable' denier wares to RODOH? I freely admit I think my knowledge is simply not good enough to be worth it and I never raise the Holocaust as an issue for debate but post on it when other people do, but you guys seem so damn sure the Holocaust is an easily provable hoax and determined to raise it at every given opportunity - you should be owning the guys over there easily, surely? Why do you all bang on about it here yet avoid a forum specifically set up for open debate on the subject?)

Yes, many claims were false. It is totally unsurprising that rumours abounded and it is well understood that some eyewitnesses saw some things and just heard about others. In fact, it is the exact same "official historians" that have sifted this stuff out. For example, look at Hilberg in 1961, you can clearly see he classifies the soap story as a "rumour" and looks at how he thinks it got going. It was originally thought (from army reports IIRC) people were gassed at Dachau but it's generally thought that's not the case any more. This is normal historical revisionism which has happened all on its own without any 'assistance' from deniers, so I don't see why it's any kind of issue at all. It basically just shows historians don't just take the word of Nuremburg or whatever and do their own research, chucking out the claims that don't wash; what's the problem?
I realise the denial community likes to pretend it has set some trailblazing standard by forcing historians to backtrack (particularly with regard to the soap thing which is why I brought it up), but this is simply false.

Look, if you want to take Lachout as genuine, it's up to you and good luck to you.

Now about these women...

[brian]

ian, surely it is clear that the matter being discussed here is was there a planned systematic genocide of Jews. IE "THE Holocaust"

The contention is that the evidence says there was not therefore the holocaust story and its effects on subsequent events is of great signifcance in this "The Bigger Picture".

Being familiar with many of your posts I am at a loss as to why you go to such lengths to miss the point

[ian neal]

ian, surely it is clear that the matter being discussed here is was there a planned systematic genocide of Jews. IE "THE Holocaust"

The contention is that the evidence says there was not therefore the holocaust story and its effects on subsequent events is of great signifcance in this "The Bigger Picture".

Being familiar with many of your posts I am at a loss as to why you go to such lengths to miss the point

And my point is that the 'planned systematic genocide of Jews' (and non-Jews for that matter) includes all those who died at the hands of the nazi war machine and not just those who died in prison camps.

This would then put the claims made by HRers regarding the prison camps in the wider context of the war and hopefully we can atleast establish some common ground with regards to whether Hitler was a genocidal dictator or not.

I believe it is beyond doubt that Hitler was indeed a genocidal dictator who specifically targetted jewish communities.

Once this is established, the discussion could then focus in the specific claims of HRers with regards the exact nature and extent of this genocide

[brian]

ian, I would like to think you can see the problem with your statement.

You propose those that disagree there was a planned genocide of Jews adopt the the position that genocide is a given and then dicuss the extent of it.

Alium's position seems appropriate -

".. this is really a pointless conversation as long as the historical orthodoxy is enforced at gunpoint."

[ian neal]

Allow me to clarify

For example I consider British deaths during the blitz at the hands of the nazis to be a form of genocide. Sure this is open to argument depending on how you interpret genocide, but the targetting of British civilians during the blitz constitutes genocide in my book and fits the legal defintions

Assuming it is accepted that the nazis were indeed responsible for these acts of genocide, I would then move onto the extent of these crimes. But if we don't even have this common understanding then I do indeed question the point of this discussion.

No one here is enforcing historical orthodoxy at gunpoint. My understanding of WWII is far from the historical orthodox view. If you want to argue that the war elites amongst the allied nations including elite zionists were equally as guilty for the genocides of WWII, then you would find little argument from me.

[Alulim]

And my point is that the 'planned systematic genocide of Jews' (and non-Jews for that matter) includes all those who died at the hands of the nazi war machine and not just those who died in prison camps.

This would then put the claims made by HRers regarding the prison camps in the wider context of the war and hopefully we can atleast establish some common ground with regards to whether Hitler was a genocidal dictator or not.

I believe it is beyond doubt that Hitler was indeed a genocidal dictator who specifically targetted jewish communities.

Once this is established, the discussion could then focus in the specific claims of HRers with regards the exact nature and extent of this genocide

I believe that, per capita, Jews probably fared better than non-Jews from the involved nations of WWII, and, in particular better than Germans. It is very difficult to establish what happened during the war regarding the killing of civilians within the combat theater.

What I do know is that most of the cases of alleged mass murder that I once believed were established fact, turned out to be black propaganda fabrications. Baba Yar, Dachau gassings, etc., come to mind. Another revealing incident is what happened at Jedwabne. For over half a century it had been attributed to the Germans, but it turns out that witnesses saw the local Poles murder their Jewish neighbors.

With so much clearly false information permeating the history books, as well as all the clearly inconsistent information (e.g., 4,000,000 vs. 223,000 deaths at Auschwitz,) I have to take a very skeptical view of any claims which vilify Hitler or the Nazis more than the Allies.

The victors write the history. Vae victis.

[chek]

I believe that, per capita, Jews probably fared better than non-Jews from the involved nations of WWII, and, in particular better than Germans. It is very difficult to establish what happened during the war regarding the killing of civilians within the combat theater.

So not only was there no 'final solution' but actually, the Jews fared far better than most others.

This thread gets better and better by the minute.

[ian neal]

I have to take a very skeptical view of any claims which vilify Hitler or the Nazis more than the Allies.

The victors write the history. Vae victis.

You seem to have a problem vilifying Hitler at all. Now I put the allied war leaders (Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt) and leading zionists and US industrialists/bankers who backed or collaborated with Hitler in the same category of war criminal as Hitler. NWO puppets the lot of them. I vilify them all.

Of far more importance IMO is who funded Hitler

http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Genocide/F ... ocide.html

and how those same forces are playing the same games today. Just as in today's so-called 'war on terror', the so -called forces of freedom and democracy are nothing of the sort and join up with the 'bad guys' in the shadows.

[gruts]

This thread gets better and better by the minute.

I keep expecting alulim to burst into a chorus of "springtime for hitler"....

I believe that, per capita, Jews probably fared better than non-Jews from the involved nations of WWII, and, in particular better than Germans.

ok - well Poland was as involved as any nation in WW2. it also had by far the largest pre-war jewish population of any country in Europe. approximately 10% of its citizens were jewish - that's somewhere between 3 and 3.5 million jews.

Poland overall lost about 20% of it's population in ww2 - but only 3 hundred thousand Polish jews survived the war which means that 90% of them died. so although Polish gentiles suffered appalling losses at the hands of the germans and soviets, to say that Polish Jews fared better is utterly ludicrous.

also - how do you explain the disappearance of 3 million Polish jews while Poland was under German occupation between 1939 and 1945, if there was no holocaust?

[simplesimon]

Ian - I am beginning to get the feeling that you are trying to cajole people into saying things that would in your view justify suspension or banning. This is nothing more than a feeling, and I apologise if I am wrong.

In my view free speech is absolute, or meaningless. The following is not an attempt to test your commitment to this principle, but is written with the knowledge that you appear to apply it selectively.


ian neal wrote:

Does it really matter whether the nazis murdered 1 million or 4 million? Does it significantly change our beliefs about and abhorrence of Hitler and the nazis?

The numbers issue is one thing, and in the context of the constant propaganda, and prophetic and mystic aspect of the "six million" figure, it matters greatly.

But surely the central tenet of the holocaust narrative, the "official truth", is the supposed policy of extermination?

Of course other atrocities supposed to have been committed by the regime justify abhorrence (which I share) on there own, but most people's loathing is centrally based on the belief that it wanted to exterminate the Jews.

IF someone stops believing that there was a policy of extermination, (I haven't - quite) I would say that is a paradigm shift of such magnitude that logically requires "significant(ly) change (of) (their) beliefs about and abhorrence of Hitler and the nazis".

cf. IF you believe the OCT about 911 and other false flags, THEN the "GWOT" (or at least the "WOT") has some justification, and Bush43 isn't as much of an evil SOB. I don't, so for me it doesn't, and he is.

Holocaust affirmers are quite right to say that the implication of ceasing to believe the official truth of "the" holocaust is to "rehabilitate" the Hitler regime in some sense or degree.

I do not seek to do so directly or resultantly, but it simply follows logically. I am fully aware that Dogsmilk et al will likely try to twist this, and say I am a "Hitler fan" or the like, but such tactics will not dissuade me from saying what seems to me to be the obvious truth: IF - there was no policy of extermination THEN - Hitler was not "as" bad, as if there was. Bad as he (IMO) certainly was.

I fully expect that saying this will attract vicious attacks from some quarters, and can only hope that my honest answer to the question you could, perhaps should have asked will be acknowledged, or challenged respectfully on a rational basis.

Affirmers often misrepresent revisionists as denying any jewish suffering or any evils perpetrated by the Third Reich. I can't think of any honest response to this dishonest tactic other than to refuse to be intimidated by such slurs. Anything else would be cowardly.

Does it make nazism any less wicked?

Please clarify what you mean by nazism.

Do you refer to the policies of the National Socialist German Workers' Party of the Third Reich?
Do you refer to "National Socialism" per se as a political philosophy?

I'd also like to ask you:
Are you opposed to one world government?
Are you "on the left"?


Dogsmilk - You seem not only to be ignoring me in the Bobby Fischer thread, but to be ignoring me here as well.
Do you agree to participate in the research?
Are you ready to tell us what official truths other than 911 "don't stack up" for you, to spend those 2-3 minutes?
Above, I said "...you yourself could fairly be described as a "Nazi"...". Have you nothing to say about that ?

[Alulim]

I have to take a very skeptical view of any claims which vilify Hitler or the Nazis more than the Allies.

The victors write the history. Vae victis.

You seem to have a problem vilifying Hitler at all. Now I put the allied war leaders (Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt) and leading zionists and US industrialists/bankers who backed or collaborated with Hitler in the same category of war criminal as Hitler. NWO puppets the lot of them. I vilify them all.

Of far more importance IMO is who funded Hitler

http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/Genocide/F ... ocide.html

and how those same forces are playing the same games today. Just as in today's so-called 'war on terror', the so -called forces of freedom and democracy are nothing of the sort and join up with the 'bad guys' in the shadows.

With so much clearly false information permeating the history books, as well as all the clearly inconsistent information (e.g., 4,000,000 vs. 223,000 deaths at Auschwitz,) I have to take a very skeptical view of any claims which vilify Hitler or the Nazis more than the Allies.

The victors write the history. Vae victis.

[Dogsmilk]

Climate of fear Dogsmilk?

Climate of exasperation.
Also sometimes annoyance - the same kind of annoyance I feel when NPTers reduce footage of people dying on 911 to pop videos and soft porn.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewt ... t=30&sid=a 90e56a178f1ede067bedae06857cd4f

BTW you do seem to be ignoring me in that thread, having said that you were not.

Haven't got round to it. Been posting here. Sorry if my free time is sometimes better spent.

TBH, I find a lot of what you said to be frankly bizarre. E.g.

Worth noting here that it was a libel case. You may believe in free speech, but if someone went around telling your neighbours you were a paedophile, you might feel that trying to silence them with legal action was justified, and wouldn't compromise your principles.

You seem to think what Lipstadt said about Irving was libel - but calling God knows how many survivors liars or deluded isn't?!
Imagine how you'd feel if you'd survived the Nazis, spoken of your experiences and then someone came along years later and said you were a liar and part of some big Jewish hoax - might you feel that was libel?

Agreed. But how many people in this country have heard of Zundel or Rudolf? Or heard of the thousands of other Germans fined or imprisoned for not believing what they are told?

Well Irving is famous here because he's British and was in court here. Zundel got famous in Canada because he lived there. Simple when you think about it.
Your evidence "thousands" of Germans have been imprisoned for denial is...?

Tell that to Sylvia Stolz.

Yeah some obviously deranged Nazi fruitloop (follow link earlier in thread for her extraordinary outburst) got kicked out of court. The relevance of this is...?

Maybe. If (1) the trials were not secret. If (2) public access was permitted. If (3) I was prepared to put my head above the parapet by showing up.

1/No denial trials have been secret 2/Public access has not been debarred. 3/Supporters of deniers have historically been quite vocal.

Then they'd be fined until they did or locked up or both.

How many 'name' deniers have backed down due to being taken to court? Is it more than zero?

My assertion was "officially sanctioned historians are granted privileged access, while dissidents are not". You think that absurd? Even if you think that "the establishment" is the true apex of power, that there is no "them", that's a pretty touching faith in the system. It's rather like supposing that a "journalist" from Class War could expect the same access to government ministers and documents as the “Chief Political Correspondent” of the BBC or The Times.

For crying out loud Carlo Mattogno does archival work and I think even Graf (who you claim to have been reading) has done some with him. You even post Irving making wild claims about things he found in the archives in the same post. Basically, you are just making things up.

This is the best of all -

Historians can't "testify" if they weren't there. At least I thought not, until today, this very afternoon. Hang on, I may be wrong. Perhaps historians who were not there can testify. If we apply the logic of the “Holocaust Educational Trust”, who are sending our kids off to Auschwitz to be “educated”, even our children may be able to “testify” in years to come.

Do the words "expert witness" mean anything to you? Or has this standard feature of the English legal tradition totally passed you by? Let's remember the original point was about the Holocaust being debated openly in court, including historians cross-examined by deniers. Both sides have called expert witnesses to testify as is not unusual in court cases.

No this is better (it's the patronising comments that tip it)

This is getting to be hard work. The central issue of whether it happened at all. You know, standard diversion. Like "We are engaged in a generational war against global terrorism. They want to kill us, we are in terrible danger. Tough choices have to be made. SHOULD we torture the rag head bast*rds to get intelligence? SHOULD we? Look here, HERE's the issue. SHOULD WE TORTURE? It could save lives! SHOULD WE TORTURE? You could be next. It's a profound moral dilemma. Think about it. We're agonising over it. Just think about that. SHOULD we torture? Think just about that. TORTURE, or not. LIVES at stake! What would YOU do? Osama is coming for you and your family. SHOULD WE TORTURE? TORTURE? OR NOT? YES OR NO?
"Well, I dunno, I'm against torture, but after all, the terrorists want to kill us 'cos they hate our freedoms. Everyone knows that Osama wants to kill us all, but I really don't... I'm confused about the torture thing, can you explain that bit again? Would it help fight the terrorists? Give me the pros and cons of whether we should torture, please...

Similarly: "The Holocaust was uniquely evil. They wanted to exterminate an entire race. Genocide it was. We must never forget, and want to build a museum. Gas chambers. Holocaust. SHOULD WE DISTURB THE GRAVES? It wasn't just war, it was war crimes. Crime against God and humanity. WE MUST NOT DISINTER. Nazis. Evil. Genocide. WE NEED A MUSEUM. Never forget. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GRAVES? Never forget. Worst monsters ever. Hitler. THIS CRIME MUST BE REMEMBERED WITH A MUSEUM. Gas chambers. Holocaust. Genocide. Worst crime ever. BUT THE GRAVES! Soap made from the fat of the dead. DOES THAT JUSTIFY DEFILING THE GRAVES? No.. BUT WE MUST REMEMBER! Really, this was different. Gas chambers. Lampshades of human skin. MUSEUM – GRAVES! WHO WILL DECIDE?
IT'S OK!! - WE CAN LEAVE THE GRAVES and STILL HAVE THE MUSEUM!!
“What relief , I'm so glad that dilemma has been resolved. It was an almost impossible decision, disturbing the dead or foregoing the museum, which is so obviously needed because the holocaust was the most evil...

I know you don't accept that this is what's happening, but I just don't believe that you are so unknowing of the techniques of propaganda to ask “What “central issue” is being distracted from?” You knew what I meant. Now it really feels like you're making work for me.

You totally lose me here

Firstly, you seem to implying that people getting cross about Kola was some sort of 'diversionary tactic'. All I can say is – ?.
There is no 'debate' about whether graves should disturbed or not. I originally brought it up as deniers have a 'thing' about it and pointed out digging people up tends to upset people and I see no reason why people should be exhumed to placate a handful of cranks.

What you'll probably dismiss as more 'diversions' are several assertions in your 'parody' that are certainly not givens. For example, you think I'm Mr Official History, but I certainly wouldn't say the holocaust was “uniquely evil” or the Nazis were the “worst monsters ever” (though they were pretty bad) or that we particularly need more museums. In fact, I personally take issue with the notion of the Holocaust as some unique event of ultimate importance. It's one genocide among many and I'd have to agree with Ward Churchill that the genocide of the Americas was 'worse' (I don't like the notion of 'a 'genocide top 10', hence the inverted commas) in terms of duration and scale.
I'd say reducing everything to a did it happen/didn't it happen dichotomy is a diversion from all the considerations about how it's presented, how it's used politically, how it's given meaning, how it's made 'exclusive' etc.

Here, you haven't constructed a straw man, you've built a great big wickerman and shut Edward Woodward inside it with some farm animals.


Etc.

Anyway, since you were going on about me being "hard work" and "sapping your energy" I'm curious you want a reply at all.

To me "uproot" with "evacuate" is more coherent than "exterminate" with "evacuate", but maybe that's just me.

I'd say it is. But maybe that's just me.

I wasn't deceived, I noticed the attempt to deceive. I was pointing out that they say one thing in the title: "The Complete Text of the Poznan Speech" and backtrack in the first sentence. I didn't have any trouble spotting that, nor that they say "What you are hearing" when you're reading.

It's a bit like getting a junk mail through the post embazoned with "You have won £100,000!" and then opening it to see that you haven't. It's a lie.

Quote:
Do you really, really think you (and HHP) want three hours of Himmler speaking with the interesting five minutes stuck somewhere in the middle????

I don't like being lied to so blatantly. It makes me suspicious. And given your stated views on the importance of rigorous academic scholarship, I find it surprising that you brush this aside so lightly. They call themselves the "Holocaust History Project" after all. If a revisionist did the same thing I expect you'd be all over it and questioning their credibility. And if one accepts the speech as genuine (which I don't, because I have no way of knowing), it would surely be useful to be able to read the whole speech. That the supposed "interesting five minutes" are only 3.1% of the supposed speech raises obvious questions to the curious reader. Further, why don't they give us an mp3 of the whole speech? Or the complete text if they're short of money for hosting? (lol).

I'm sorry, but your whole, ahem, 'argument' here is to me beyond all logic and reason and leads me to suspect you are simply having a laugh.

I assume if someone had a 3 hour recording of Tony Blair speaking about EU banana import quotas and at 2.12 he says "And by the way I'd just like to spend five minutes talking about how Dick Cheney told me planes were going to hit the twin towers tomorrow on September 10th..." you'd want the whole speech posted here before you'd be happy.
At the end of the day, HHP are not going to waste bandwidth putting up three hours of waffle interesting only to a tiny minority of specialists to placate one disgruntled soul in cyberspace. Live with it.

BTW I haven't watched the movie yet as I don't have Quicktime installed at present, but it will be interesting to see what visuals they lay it over.

It's a picture of Himmler with scrolling text in German and English. transformers it ain't.

I imagine I could get a copy of the complete document supposedly implicating George Galloway that the Telegraph conveniently found in Baghdad if I tried hard enough. I do have a complete copy of the "Dodgy Dossier". I imagine I could see with my own eyes the actual copy of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion deposited in the British Museum in 1906. Would that impress you? I think not. Proves exactly nothing. Same for audio recordings.

No it wouldn't impress me. The Protocols are boll0cks and their 'uncanny predictions' are only impressive to people who don't realise control and manipulation of the media etc are simply not modern concepts. After all, the same stuff is clearly present in the earlier satire the Protocols so blatantly ripped off.
http://www.geocities.com/net3431/Dialogues_In_Hell.html
However, the document would impress me as an artifact and whether it was indeed from 1906 would be testable.

The title of the page is a blatant lie, as the first sentence confirms. Saying "What you are hearing", when you are reading, is a blatant lie. Saying it has not been edited is an assertion, just as Irving asserts that the text is doctored.

They are saying that what you are hearing has not been edited. I.e. the segment is as recorded. It's really that simple. Come on - you are having a laugh aren't you?

That looks a little defensive, as though you have realised the implications of the questions I have asked you. But if you prefer, please tell us what official truths "don't stack up" for you, (other than 911) starting with the one that least "stacks up", and please provide links to your relevant posts. I know you're "lazy", but it wouldn't take more than 2-3 minutes.

No.
I am not doing some belief list of my (frequently rather complex and not easily reduced to soundbites) opinions for no apparent reason. I find it rather creepy.
Besides which, I find it rather rich coming from someone who's catch- all explanation for anything is some vague, elusive "them" who still remain mysteriously undefined and sound like something from a bad 80s horror film.

What "implications"???? Are you on crack or something????

One person's "key text" is another's "bullsh*t propaganda" as you well know. I've been studying it for a while now, and the more I do, the less it "stacks up". To paraphrase one of your own posts, perhaps you just need official truth to be sacrosanct to make your belief system work.

Well if you've "been studying it for a while", why do you need to say things like -

And never that camp guards were court martialled for murdering Jews

Anything like this?

The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself. Real hatred of the Jews was the driving motivation for the accused.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... chive.html
(Sept 29th entry)

Besides that, it's well known if people went off on their own private rampage they got into trouble. Military discipline is important in any circumstance.
To be fair you specify "camp guards" so I'm not exactly sure what exciting factoid you've plucked from a denier site.

And never the Zionist declaration (on behalf of Jewry en masse) of war on Germany.

Uh-huh. And what about the German Zionist delegation that tried to talk Stephen Wise out of backing any boycott? German Jews, of course, tended to be averse to any boycott - they were, after all, stuck in Hitler's Germany. Though of course, in the real world, "Jewry" was not actually some borg-like hive mind and some of the many Jewish groups abroad opposed it too, tabloid newspaper headlines notwithstanding. It was also in the interests of those into the boycott to portray themselves as representing Jews generally. The Jewish boycott is generally reduced to a footnote in history. When some rabid anti-semite and his gang of thugs swept into power, their violent rhetoric and violent acts (as, incidentally, noted in the text of the famous daily express article) unsurprisingly provoked protest from Jews. In the end, many (inc. non Jews) decided not to 'buy German' - the fiends! Of course the Nazis didn't just boycott the German Jews themselves, they took their jobs, right to move freely, restricted their rations, made them wear silly badges, restricted their relationships, forced them into over-crowded housing - eventually even forbade them from using telephones for f*cks sake - and of course ultimately killed an awful lot of them. For some reason history tends to focus on this a whole lot more. The biased b&astards!

And never the German offer to deport all European Jews in their sphere, and the Zionists' refusal of that offer.

Really? Exactly which Zionist group was this that had so much power? What year? - so exactly which Jews? Where to? - you're most certainly not referring to the aborted 'Madagascar plan'.

Incidentally, I have heard of the Morgenthau plan. And?

I don't need "official truth" to be "sacrosanct" at all - my belief system would not be affected one way or the other. In fact, if it turned out the Holocaust never happened I think I'd just feel annoyed I'd bought so many now worthless books about it and feel a bit of a tit here. I can't see how else I'd be affected. Unless that means it was also part of some epic world spanning conspiracy by da jooos, but that's just bonkers talk.

Or, why Jurgen Graf is so keen to point out that the critical passages were inserted later.

Quote:
On one hand you're saying the speech is perfectly innocent, on the other it's a fake. Typical denier logic.

As you have done so many times, you misrepresent what I said. I never said I accepted it as genuine, let alone innocent. I simply showed that Graf says that Irving says the critical passages were inserted later. Typical holocaustian tactics.

Now I realise your whole penetrating argument regarding "uprooting" revolves entirely around the assertion it "makes sense to me", but as you happily ignored the actual content on HHP and the resulting fact that e.g. Himmler now appears to be saying deportations are some kind of secret in stark contradiction to the fact actual deportations of Jews simply were not, you appeared to be happy with "uprooting". Now if that's the case, any 'suspicions' about authenticity become moot. No-one in their right mind forges an incriminating speech that isn't incriminating, right?
Hence, you need to decide where you stand rather than just fire out any old stuff you found on teh interwebs.
At any rate, despite whatever Irving's going on about (finding some anomaly no-one else has noted as usual. Probably because it's not there as usual), there is simply zero suggestion the recording is tampered with.
Yes, yes I realise you're all suspicious because HHP won't play you the whole thing, but I'm talking about the rest of the world here.

On the one hand there's precious little evidence (other than frequently manifestly false witness statements, confessions extracted under torture and duress, victor's official history, and "re-constructed" "gas chambers"), on the other complete credulousness when it comes to "official truth". Typical holocaustian dogmatism.

Yes - the extent of your "studies" is really shining through. Keep browsin' them denier sites, tiger!
Btw - regarding your other post - I agree Elie Wiesal is a drama queen and he's one survivor I don't personally take at their word. that said, you are aware blood can actually well up from mass graves even though you won't get a "geyser"?
Interestingly, some c*nt on Zundel's defence team back in the day stated that survivors saw different smoke in different conditions and 'invented wild stories' (you can find it on Zundelsh!te.org). Did it actually occur to you Friedman - doubtless traumatised - could have invented this notion to himself and that this does not automatically discredit everything else he said? It's perfectly easy for you tapping at your computer, but try going without proper food and doing hard physical labour and see how sharp you get.
If all these witness statements are manifestly false, let's start by having a look at David Olere. What's your problem with his testimony?
And exactly whse confessions were extracted under torture? Give me names.
"Victor's official history" - from German historians too?
"Precious little evidence" my arse. You betray your ignorance and reliance on denier websites for your "study".

I did no such thing.

You appeared to endorse two contradictory positions on the Poznan speech.

It most certainly is

Maybe you're just credulous then.

You've had lifelong exposure to this holocaustian malarky, I'll give you that. Same as me. Same as all of us.

Not really. Never much thought about it. Never did it at school at all. Saw a few things on TV.
It wasn't until I encountered certain individuals determined to raise it here that I paid any attention to the subject. I've had a damn sight more experience of denial being rammed down my throat on the net than any 'pro' Holocaust stuff.

It would be churlish not to take that at face value, so er, thanks. But it'd be much easier if you show how nice you are by being less rude, patronising, sarcastic, misrepresenting, ad-hom'ing etc.

Have you actually noticed how patronising youare?

Mind you, you appear to think people in general are all morons -

“Ere Sharmayne, seen this? there lockin up them streamists goin rahnd sayin lizards did 911 or wot eva...

“Yeah, thats fensiv that innit Dwain?... ... ... as Cruz bin kicked out the big bruvver ouse yet?

“dunno... ... ... TWO ANDRED MILLION? KENT-CALAIS PAID TWO ANDRED BLADDY MILLION FOR THAT CLOWN?

Oh Dwain! never mind the spawt! Where we gunna get the grand for us chips money? We're due next munf... They're upgradin' this year... you no wot appened to that loony old bloke down the road...

Weel be fine part... I'll do some more shifts. I've still got me Sundee nites avent I? Fackin urts tho. Bladdy Yoo-an Blair, says it dont urt but it dus. Makes yer shamed to be Yurapeeyan...

So I'm not that surprised.

Messed up views. lmfao. Not "politically correct" maybe, but the better for that in my view. It's ridiculous to criticise people for posting others work, particularly when you do so frequently yourself. They may agree with it, not agree, or be saying "look, here's something I found convincing or interesting or relevant".

Yes, Rodin is certainly "politically incorrect". On many issues he's also "factually incorrect", too.
I think you misunderstood exactly what I was saying, but it's hardly important.

'll hold on that for now, at least until I've read more of your posts, and learned what "doesn't stack up" for you.

And that regarding my "strategy". I can only repeat - are you on crack or something?

[

I think it's a shame that any such organisation is needed, and that the wars which justified it's formation were fomented by "internationalists", "globalists", "international bankers" et al and etcetera.

To frame opposition to internationalism as isolationism is pure tosh.

Well, there'll always be natural disasters so even a world with no war would need something like them.
To frame something as 'suspicious' simply on the basis it's 'international' is pure tosh and it's that I was taking the piss out of.

I have at least as much compassion for my fellow human beings as you, and your attempt to suggest otherwise is feeble. However, "international aid" is merely aid for internationalism, and "international development" is merely development of internationalism. Problems abroad are frequently caused to justify our intervention. "International" aid is never to help the victims, and frequently is to their direct detriment. It is always given in the interests of the elites who decide to give it. It serves mainly to enslave the recipient in debt, create dependency, destroy traditional non monetary cultures, make bankers even richer, prop up the dictators who are their local enforcers, guarantee contracts for donor country or international corporations, provide globalist "consultancy", propagandise for globalism, et

You are conflating a wide variety of NGOs and state organisations. Whereas I agree with your comments about international aid insofar as it's generally a tool for economic and political ends, not all NGOs are totally negative and even if they're ultimately not changing anything (or challenging the status quo), some of them do make life a little bit easier for people that desperately need it.

I said that I had read that: the report does not mention gas chambers.
I said that I searched <red cross no mention gas chambers> and first hit was the 100% affirmer: http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/l/ ... py?people/ l/lipstadt.deborah//citations/red-cross.report
I said that the page there shifts the issue to whether the report denied the existence of gas chambers.
I said that I was left with the impression that the Red Cross report makes no mention of gas chambers.
I said that this (if correct) is suspicious.

You said -

The “primary issue” is actually “did the ICRC deny the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz?” Amazingly, they did not. Just as they didn't deny that the Teletubbies were subcontracted to pull the levers. I could say “scholastic duplicity” but it's not very scholarly, just bait and switch, and maybe “Chutzpah” is more appropriate.

As in to shift the question of whether the ICRC report mentions gas chambers to whether it denies gas chambers.

to which I quoted -

Harwood could make this claim only by ignoring key sections of the
ICRC report. The Red Cross was absolutely specific about the Jews'
fate. It made reference to the Nazi attempt to annihilate them,
observing that under Nazi rule Jews had been transformed into
'outcasts condemned by rigid racial legislation to suffer tyranny,
persecution and _systematic extermination_.'<49> ...Most important,
the ICRC specifically delineated how systematic annihilation was
carried out: 'They were penned into concentration camps and
ghettos, recruited for forced labour, subjected to grave
brutalities and sent to _death camps_ without anyone being allowed
to intervene in those matters.'<50> These were not the ICRC's only
references to death camps or systematic annihilation." (Lipstadt,
114-115)

In which Lipstadt clearly sates the ICRC referred to death camps and annihilation. This is not just saying they didn't mention gas chambers, it's saying they did mention death camps. What sort of thing might you imagine could possibly go on at a "death camp" - go on - have a guess!
Amazingly, you totally ignore any reference to death camps and just say "well it doesn't say gas chambers"...have you ever considered writing for the IHR?

...and I offered evidence to the contrary. You could have challenged the evidence, offered evidence to support your position, or justified your claim to know more about it than Churchill, contemporary writers cited, or indeed Henry Ford. But instead, you chose to have a hissy fit.

Basically I have neither the time nor inclination to get into whatever anti-semitic propaganda came out of Ernest Liebold's machinations.

Never heard of any of them, but will try to read up.

Fantastic. You'll have lots of exciting new things to believe. I don't know if it's possible to get old copies of der sturmer too, but you could keep a look out.

It's interesting that you try to smear me with that

It was a general cry of anguish not specifically directed at you, but I can see that it came across that way.

when you yourself could fairly be described as a "Nazi" of sorts, if one takes what you have said elsewhere as true. You are opposed to one world governmnet, and are politically on the left. To that extent, you are a nationalist, and a socialist, and therefore a "national socialist".

Well strictly speaking I think "National Socialism" comes more from "National Socialist German Workers Party" and is kind of its own thing.

However, I am most certainly not a nationalist. Give me a Union Jack and all I am interested in is its strength, length and absorbance. I have no truck with this primate territorialism.
I tend to identify mostly with the left anarchist tradition which is not nationalist and more communist (not in the USSR sense) than socialist.
Though I would settle for old style socialism as preferable to what we have now.

[Dogsmilk]

also - how do you explain the disappearance of 3 million Polish jews while Poland was under German occupation between 1939 and 1945, if there was no holocaust?

Duh! They went "to the East" of course!

[Alulim]

Agreed. But how many people in this country have heard of Zundel or Rudolf? Or heard of the thousands of other Germans fined or imprisoned for not believing what they are told?

Well Irving is famous here because he's British and was in court here. Zundel got famous in Canada because he lived there. Simple when you think about it.
Your evidence "thousands" of Germans have been imprisoned for denial is...?

Speak that thou might be seen.

Tell that to Sylvia Stolz.

Yeah some obviously deranged Nazi fruitloop (follow link earlier in thread for her extraordinary outburst) got kicked out of court. The relevance of this is...?

What she was charged with. Strange how you don't take a stand for freedom of speech.

[Dogsmilk]

What she was charged with. Strange how you don't take a stand for freedom of speech.

Explain to me how her case constitutes a freedom of speech issue.

[Dogsmilk]

Last couple of points for ss -

Really? Why?

It's his ship he's worked hard for and is tremendously diplomatic while it periodically looks like Stormfront.
This 'thread title change controversy' makes me feel for him more. Call it "I was Hitler's love child" for all I care - does it really matter that much what the thread is called?
Alulim is right - this forum is very tolerant compared to most yet, like NPTers, deniers frequently whine about how suppressed they are while constantly wiping their rancid jizz theories in all our faces.

Re your sig comparing "deniers" to flat earthers: It's a laughably inappropriate comparison, I'd be embarrassed. The writer certainly has plenty of "Chutzpah" to conflate the hard sciences with history and consensus reality. Nevertheless, at one time the following questions were seriously debated: Will we ever be able to build a ship with sufficient range, stock and and crew it such that we could sail to the edge of the world? Would it fall off? Would the benefits justify the risk?

He's simply making a comparison with other people who demand to be heard but who don't have anything worth hearing to say.

[Anthony Lawson]

Respect for Other People’s Views

The following highlighted words (or their translated equivalents) can be heard in bars and clubs all over the world, and are a measure of the value of the arguments and opinions of the people who use them.

This is from bullsh!tter extraordinaire David Irving. I don't know about this personally (and I'm not arsed to go researching it), but if we take another other Irving 'bombshell' SimpleSimon posted on that Bobby Fischer thread (sorry not got round to replying to you ss):

The fact Himmler links this with extermination so explicitly (and it actually makes more sense this way than to say "evacuation" then clarify it as "uprooting") is one of the reasons deniers need to make this speech mean something other than it so f*cking obviously does.

You must then get creative and rationalise it all. Moving further and further away from the f*cking obvious that any rational person would grasp on their first reading.

If your argument collapses, f*ck it - move on to something else. You can think of a new argument for that thing later or use the same one with someone else who might buy it.

What the f*ck is a "holocaustian" website?

Look sparky, you go rewriting German all you like and totally ignore the resulting incoherence if it makes you happy. I mean, for f*cks sake,

So you have trouble following what they're saying and it's some kind of "deception"? I wasn't deceived and neither was Bushwacker because it's pretty f*cking obvious what they mean.

Splash out, buy some key texts, and study the f*cking subject.

But "part of your strategy" What the f*ck is that supposed to mean? Can you actually have a conversation without trying to read something into everything anyone says???

Look Simon, if you seriously think I am going to get into some debate about whether the Internationalf*ckingJew was some sort of accurate reflection of da jooos you are seriously dreaming.

Basically if no one posts bs like this,

Thanks for drawing my attention to your bs. I'd missed it.

Of course the Nazis didn't just boycott the German Jews themselves, they took their jobs, right to move freely, restricted their rations, made them wear silly badges, restricted their relationships, forced them into over-crowded housing - eventually even forbade them from using telephones for f*cks sake - and of course ultimately killed an awful lot of them.

Interestingly, some c*nt on Zundel's defence team back in the day stated that survivors saw different smoke in different conditions and 'invented wild stories' (you can find it on Zundelsh!te.org).

"Precious little evidence" my arse. You betray your ignorance and reliance on denier websites for your "study".

"Genuine historical research" - my arse. The nearest you've got is Irving and he's a proven liar.

Apart from a truly pitiful attempt to 'debunk' T4 I saw on CODOH and Ernst 'Nazi f*ckstain' Zundel's belief it was a good idea, these things are curiously avoided by denierdom, which seems more obsessed with the "Jewish exclusivity" of the Holocaust than the Jews themselves.

Yeah, that's pretty f*cked up all right. Comparing Jews with alcoholics, saying they 'have a problem', asserting Jews 'feel superior'. This Winkler guy is a prick.

Drawing on his example, no-one expects a Geography professor to stress that there's a tiny minority of people who think the world is flat and should thus be taken seriously, so I don't see any reason why he should feel he has to legitimise an aging and basically moribund gaggle of habitual bullsh!tters.

Look sparky... for f*cks sake...pretty f*cking obvious...For God's sake...study the f*cking subject...What the f*ck...

Who needs it?

[Alulim]

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/w ... /RWP06-011
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
Working Paper Number:RWP06-011
Submitted: 03/13/2006
...

A DWINDLING MORAL CASE

Apart from its alleged strategic value, Israel's backers also argue that it deserves unqualified U.S. support because 1) it is weak and surrounded by enemies, 2) it is a democracy, which is a morally preferable form of government; 3) the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment, and 4) Israel's conduct has been morally superior to its adversaries' behavior.

On close inspection, however, each of these arguments is unpersuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel's existence[:?:], but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed objectively, Israel?s past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians.

...

The fact that the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people was well understood by Israel?s leaders. As Ben Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago[:?:], and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?" 37

[...Israel's abysmal treatment of Palestinians...]

Europe's crimes against the Jews provide a clear moral justification for Israel's right to exist[:?:]. But Israel?s survival is not in doubt-even if some Islamic extremists make outrageous and unrealistic references to "wiping it off the map"-and the tragic history of the Jewish people does not obligate the United States to help Israel no matter what it does today.

[Dogsmilk]

Respect for Other People’s Views

The following highlighted words (or their translated equivalents) can be heard in bars and clubs all over the world, and are a measure of the value of the arguments and opinions of the people who use them.

This is from bullsh!tter extraordinaire David Irving. I don't know about this personally (and I'm not arsed to go researching it), but if we take another other Irving 'bombshell' SimpleSimon posted on that Bobby Fischer thread (sorry not got round to replying to you ss):

The fact Himmler links this with extermination so explicitly (and it actually makes more sense this way than to say "evacuation" then clarify it as "uprooting") is one of the reasons deniers need to make this speech mean something other than it so f*cking obviously does.

You must then get creative and rationalise it all. Moving further and further away from the f*cking obvious that any rational person would grasp on their first reading.

If your argument collapses, f*ck it - move on to something else. You can think of a new argument for that thing later or use the same one with someone else who might buy it.

What the f*ck is a "holocaustian" website?

Look sparky, you go rewriting German all you like and totally ignore the resulting incoherence if it makes you happy. I mean, for f*cks sake,

So you have trouble following what they're saying and it's some kind of "deception"? I wasn't deceived and neither was Bushwacker because it's pretty f*cking obvious what they mean.

Splash out, buy some key texts, and study the f*cking subject.

But "part of your strategy" What the f*ck is that supposed to mean? Can you actually have a conversation without trying to read something into everything anyone says???

Look Simon, if you seriously think I am going to get into some debate about whether the Internationalf*ckingJew was some sort of accurate reflection of da jooos you are seriously dreaming.

Basically if no one posts bs like this,

Thanks for drawing my attention to your bs. I'd missed it.

Of course the Nazis didn't just boycott the German Jews themselves, they took their jobs, right to move freely, restricted their rations, made them wear silly badges, restricted their relationships, forced them into over-crowded housing - eventually even forbade them from using telephones for f*cks sake - and of course ultimately killed an awful lot of them.

Interestingly, some c*nt on Zundel's defence team back in the day stated that survivors saw different smoke in different conditions and 'invented wild stories' (you can find it on Zundelsh!te.org).

"Precious little evidence" my arse. You betray your ignorance and reliance on denier websites for your "study".

"Genuine historical research" - my arse. The nearest you've got is Irving and he's a proven liar.

Apart from a truly pitiful attempt to 'debunk' T4 I saw on CODOH and Ernst 'Nazi f*ckstain' Zundel's belief it was a good idea, these things are curiously avoided by denierdom, which seems more obsessed with the "Jewish exclusivity" of the Holocaust than the Jews themselves.

Yeah, that's pretty f*cked up all right. Comparing Jews with alcoholics, saying they 'have a problem', asserting Jews 'feel superior'. This Winkler guy is a prick.

Drawing on his example, no-one expects a Geography professor to stress that there's a tiny minority of people who think the world is flat and should thus be taken seriously, so I don't see any reason why he should feel he has to legitimise an aging and basically moribund gaggle of habitual bullsh!tters.

Look sparky... for f*cks sake...pretty f*cking obvious...For God's sake...study the f*cking subject...What the f*ck...

Who needs it?

Yeah that's great - now about all these historians rewriting their Auschwitz death toll and Irving's blatant lie...?
Or are we simply going to go and write indignant letters to the daily mail about how genocide denial was discussed in a much more civilised fashion in the old days?