The Holocaust!

[Inquisitor]

And those in the know have always refered to Soviet Union as Soviet Judea. And Soviet government as Judaic Yoke.

Besides even if Soviet government was anti semit, it had very good reason to create/maintain holohoax. They needed "The Greatest Evil of all times" just to camouflage their role in starting WW2.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Paavo+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paavo)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Did anyone even watch the video? [/b]

Not all (it's extremely long) but enough to get the drift.

Well then show doubters the evidence?

Sure, hop in my time machine and we'll go back to the spring of '45. Nothing else would satisfy you, I imagine. All the films and books we've seen and read, and all the survivors' accounts, are you seriously suggesting that they're a hoax?

Originally posted by Nono@ Figures can be quibbled about. And the Great Mystery of the Missing Wannsee-Conference Smoking Gun can be puzzled over. And the fact that the holocaust is misused by some to justify Israeli abuses is well known. But to deny that a colossal and industrially systematic massacre took place of Jews, Gypsies and other Lebensraum-crampers is to wilfully ignore massive evidence while getting down on one's hands and knees to search for this or that speck of dust. To bring things down to an individual level, many years ago I talked to a man who had been a photographer in the Canadian army during WWII. He was one of the first Allied troops to enter Bergen-Belsen. Bergen-Belsen wasn't even an actual "death camp". But what he described seeing there is plenty horrifying, to put it mildly. He was just this guy, you know, and telling me what he'd seen. He had no ulterior motive that I can imagine. To me, that kind of thing is perfectly valid evidence. It wouldn't convince David Irving, but it does me.

<!--QuoteBegin-Inquisitor
Would you care to provide evidence for Stalin's anti semitism?[/quote]

Here, just an example. What would you accept as "evidence"? Probably nothing that I could advance.

Those in the know have always refered to Soviet Union as Soviet Judea.

Meaning your little tribe, eh Inqui? Nobody I know calls it that. But then I guess I don't know anyone in the know.
So easy your brand of conspiracist revisionism: Inconvenient facts? Hey, no problem! Swipe 'em away as "baseless". People disagree? Easy: they aren't "in the know".

[Paavo]

Sure, hop in my time machine and we'll go back to the spring of '45. Nothing else would satisfy you, I imagine.

German documents, not "reconstructed" gas chambers, anything of this sort would satisfy me.

Movies and books aren't evidence, especially if they're made by the ones who would be orchestrating the hoax, are they? (This, if indeed it would be a hoax)

What worries me is the way people are hiding simple logical facts, like the human hair, the shoes, and the fact that the gas chamber in Auschwitz is "reconstructed", and passes them as solid proof. They're not, are they?

EDIT: Oh, and please do watch the whole video, one needs to view it fully to understand the message.

[Nono]

What about the accounts of survivors and locals, eh Paavo? And the countless photos? All inventions and forgeries?

Have a look at this. All wrapped up in cleansed, euphemistic Nazispeak, but the meaning is clear enough. Don't you think this means what it looks like it means?

I've seen death-camp records with my own eyes. But so what? I was born after the war, so anything I might have seen must be a forgery. Is that what you mean?

You say German documents. What exactly would you accept as legitimate?

Tell me something else, Paavo. How do you know that the Winter War ever took place? How can you be sure? You weren't there. Maybe it's all just jingoistic Finnish propaganda. Can you show me documented proof that they weren't just roasting weenies and drinking vodka out there in the forest? I demand proof that isn't some sort of hoaxed up forgery. Well?

[Inquisitor]

QUOTE (Inquisitor) Would you care to provide evidence for Stalin's anti semitism? Here, just an example. What would you accept as "evidence"? Probably nothing that I could advance.

This is indeed correct. Yet, it doesn't prove that Stalin was anti semite. If it was the case he would have prosecuted jews as eraly as 1927 when he gained absolute power. What made him wait 21 years? Stalin was never shy to prosecute people.

What we in fact see here is one of the many fights for power.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Inquisitor It doesn't prove that Stalin was anti semite. If it was the case he would have prosecuted jews as eraly as 1927 when he gained absolute power. What made him wait 21 years?

He didn't wait 27 years. It is (as stated) merely an example.
His power wasn't as absolute as all that before he began consolidating it through the terror/purges of the 1930s.

[Inquisitor]

He didn't wait 27 years. It is (as stated) merely an example. His power wasn't as absolute as all that before he began consolidating it through the terror/purges of the 1930s.

Yes Stalin executed many jews, but not because they were jews, but because jews were overepresented among Soviet bureaucracy. Soviet laws protected jews as no other country in the world. Anti semitism was punishable by death.

This is what Stalin had to say about it:
"Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. . . Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. . . .Under USSR law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty",
(Josef V, Stalin: 'Anti-semitism', in: 'Works', Volume 13; Moscow; 1955; p. 30).

[Paavo]

What about the accounts of survivors and locals, eh Paavo?

Has one of them actually witnessed people being gassed?

And the countless photos?

What countless photos?

Have a look at this. All wrapped up in cleansed, euphemistic Nazispeak, but the meaning is clear enough. Don't you think this means what it looks like it means?

I don't speak or read german, so all I can do is paste this to reply;

Wannsee Conference? Is someone a "Holocaust denier" if he does not accept that the January 1942 "Wannsee conference" of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe's Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong -- and a "Holocaust denier" -- because he recently declared: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." In Bauer's opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but "hardly a conference" and "little of what was said there was executed in detail."

- IHR

I've seen death-camp records with my own eyes. But so what? I was born after the war, so anything I might have seen must be a forgery. Is that what you mean?

What did those records say, and who wrote them down? Care to show us?

You say German documents. What exactly would you accept as legitimate?

I can't believe a people as "efficient" as the germans were/are wouldn't write something down on paper about their systematic killings.

Tell me something else, Paavo. How do you know that the Winter War ever took place? How can you be sure? You weren't there. Maybe it's all just jingoistic Finnish propaganda. Can you show me documented proof that they weren't just roasting weenies and drinking vodka out there in the forest? I demand proof that isn't some sort of hoaxed up forgery. Well?

I can look at photographs taken by soldiers, I can watch filmfootage of the battles, I could -- if needed -- search for the peace-treaty papers after the war, I can go see the forests where battles took place and see the damage to the trees and whatnot.

You know Nono, I started replying to this thread to be the devil's advocate, nothing more, but after everything I've googled up and read -- I'm seriously starting to think. Something isn't totally correct when this much doesn't add up. Changes to figures are silently being changed, and the historybooks are still talking about "6 000 000" killed, when that just can't be the case anymore. It now reeks of propaganda and to say the least, exaggeration.

[Nono]

Has one of them actually witnessed people being gassed?

Of course. One way to survive was to stay fit enough to do work like disposing of the corpses. Who do you think dragged them out of the "showers" after the gas, the camp commandant?

What countless photos?

Oh I dunno. In all those books, all those TV documentaries, etc. You're telling me you haven't seen the piles of bodies? The skeletal surivors in 45? The pictures taken for medical experiments? Where you been?

Here are a few.

I don't speak or read german.

Here's a guy demanding to see "German documents" as proof, but he doesn't read German. Very authoritative, Paavo.

Maybe Yehuda Bauer is a holocaust denier. I don't know the dude.
But if you know what happens when you leave the slightest opening for needless cruelty in any war -- let alone one being run by the Nazis -- then you can see that the Wannsee meeting (who the f*ck cares whether you call it meeting or conference? -- explain the difference) left very clear instructions. Wake up, Paavo, we're talking about the Nazis here.

What did those records say, and who wrote them down? Care to show us?

(rummaging around his bookshelf) Damn, sorry Paavo. Looks like I left them at Auschwitz. Anyway, I'll tell you. They were German-precise execution records. Pop around to the place sometime. Then you can see them too.

I can't believe a people as "efficient" as the germans were/are wouldn't write something down on paper about their systematic killings.

Neither can I. See above.

I can look at photographs taken by soldiers, I can watch filmfootage of the battles, I could -- if needed -- search for the peace-treaty papers after the war, I can go see the forests where battles took place and see the damage to the trees and whatnot.

And I could sit here and call them all fakes and figments of your imagination. It’s so easy.

I started replying to this thread to be the devil's advocate, nothing more, but after everything I've googled up and read -- I'm seriously starting to think. Something isn't totally correct when this much doesn't add up. Changes to figures are silently being changed, and the historybooks are still talking about "6 000 000" killed, when that just can't be the case anymore. It now reeks of propaganda and to say the least, exaggeration.

For the third time in this thread:

Originally posted by Nono Figures can be quibbled about. And the Great Mystery of the Missing Wannsee-Conference Smoking Gun can be puzzled over. And the fact that the holocaust is misused by some to justify Israeli abuses is well known. But to deny that a colossal and industrially systematic massacre took place of Jews, Gypsies and other Lebensraum-crampers is to wilfully ignore massive evidence while getting down on one's hands and knees to search for this or that speck of dust.

You know, Paavo, nobody’s asking you to believe that the moon is made of cheese or that General Motors’ real headquarters is in Pyongyang. All you have to do is consider how ruthless the Nazi war machine was. The most productive way to deal with the undesirable elements was to work them to death, if they were fit, or kill them and dispose of the corpses in the most efficient way possible. Why is this so hard for you to believe?

[Paavo]

Here are a few.

- Hair. They had a lice-problem, they shaved people's heads. They do that in Russian prisons. They do that in some armies.

- I'm not saying that the nazis didn't do unorthodox medical experiments.

- Nobody's saying that they didn't have crematories.

And I could sit here and call them all fakes and figments of your imagination. It’s so easy.

Sure you could, but if you can show me one photograph of a war-time gas-chamber, I'll shut up about it.

But to deny that a colossal and industrially systematic massacre took place of Jews, Gypsies and other Lebensraum-crampers is to wilfully ignore massive evidence while getting down on one's hands and knees to search for this or that speck of dust.

"Wilfully ignore"? Hell, it's the "massive evidence" I'm looking for here, not a speck of dust.

What happened when the Institute for Historical Review offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz? No proof was submitted as a claim on the reward, but the Institute was sued for $17 million by former Auschwitz inmate Mel Mermelstein, who claimed that the reward offer caused him to lose sleep and his business to suffer, and represented "injurious denial of established fact."

All you have to do is consider how ruthless the Nazi war machine was.

But what I'm looking for is the reasons to actually believe they were so "ruthless" as claimed in the first place!

The most productive way to deal with the undesirable elements was to work them to death, if they were fit, or kill them and dispose of the corpses in the most efficient way possible.

"Work them to death"? What would be the point? What I'm trying to figure out, is "did they really want to kill them all?". I'm trying to find out was their "way of dealing" with them really to kill them all.

You, and pretty much everyone else, start with that you "know" that they wanted everybody dead, that they were a "ruthless" killing machine. I'm trying to start from scratch and see if the pieces fit, that's all. Do you know of any war where the victors haven't done their best in order to demonize the defeated enemy after the war is over?

Why is this so hard for you to believe?

Because it's what I've been forced to believe since I could read and listen, because so much is still indeed unanswered and hidden with blatant purpose;
http://www.holohoax.info/text/66questions.html

How many germans died in Allied concentration camps? Had Germany won the war, don't you think it'd be fairly easy for them to fabricate small, very random bits of evidence in order to "sex up" the evilness of the Allied nations?

I swear, I have no hidden agenda, I feel no hatred for jews or any other group of people, all I want is not to be played a fool. And frankly, I feel like I might be.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Paavo ... anyone who could prove that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz ...

No proof supplied would ever satisfy them. That's why it's too easy.

But what I'm looking for is the reasons to actually believe they were so "ruthless" as claimed in the first place!

This sounds very naive. Of course, the Finns had a cosy relationship with Hitler, and they'd proved useful by giving Stalin a bloody nose.
Why don't you ask somebody in Guernica, or Coventry or ... ah, c'mon Paavo, this is what I mean by wilfully blind. The evidence is incontrovertible. But ya can't see it if your blind.

"Work them to death"? What would be the point?

Well think about it a tiny bit. You get rid of them, but they produce a little something for you first. You have heard of IG Farben, haven't you?

I'm trying to start from scratch and see if the pieces fit, that's all. Do you know of any war where the victors haven't done their best in order to demonize the defeated enemy after the war is over?

I don't believe for a second that you're starting from scratch. I have the feeling that your ideas are quite preconceived. Course, I can't "prove" that.

"Victor's justice" and all that? Big deal. You telling me this somehow lets the Germans off the hook? In that case you can commit any war crime you want and then -- à la Milosevic -- say it's all lies.
Too easy, Paavo.

Show me one photograph of a war-time gas-chamber, I'll shut up about it.

No you wouldn't. You'd just call it a fabrication.

[Paavo]

No proof supplied would ever satisfy them. That's why it's too easy.

Well, forget them, try me instead.

Why don't you ask somebody in Guernica, or Coventry or ... ah, c'mon Paavo, this is what I mean by wilfully blind. The evidence is incontrovertible. But ya can't see it if your blind.

Bombing civilian cities was started by the British in 1940, not the Germans.

This sounds very naive. Of course, the Finns had a cosy relationship with Hitler, and they'd proved useful by giving Stalin a bloody nose.

Finland did have a "cosy" relationship fighting Russia, all until we actually had the "Lappland war", in order to get the remaining German troops out of Finland. How is this relevant?
If you're trying to say that us Finns are tought that nazi Germany was "OK", you couldn't be more wrong.

You have heard of IG Farben, haven't you?

The company that made Zyklon B?
Be more specific, please?

I don't believe for a second that you're starting from scratch. I have the feeling that your ideas are quite preconceived. Course, I can't "prove" that.

All of our ideas are "preconceived" by default! I'm trying to backtrack to bypass the possible brainwashing, I don't care what you think.

"Victor's justice" and all that? Big deal. You telling me this somehow lets the Germans off the hook?

Big deal?! It's a HUGE deal, and you know it.

Too easy, Paavo.

You keep saying that, as if I'm not trying to be sincere about this issue. You're the one having it "Too easy", with just debunking any legit questions without any real answers, as it's "Common knowlege, c'mon".

No you wouldn't. You'd just call it a fabrication.

You do realize now, that the alleged gas-chamber in Auschwitz is, indeed, fake. Nobody denies that anymore, except the tour-guides at the site itself perhaps, to keep any questions from being asked.
Have you heard about the "Gayssot" law and others like it worldwide? Now why in hell would these laws be needed, if the piece of history is so well known and proven with facts and documentations? Why are people sitting in jail for asking perfectly valid questions when it comes to the holocaust? These people aren't "nazis" or "anti-semitic", they're history-researchers. Why is the holocaust the only event in history that it is indeed illegal to review in many countries?

[Paavo]

On German documents;

Do captured German documents prove the Nazi regime was exterminating people? No. Quite the opposite is true. Documents such as Wannsee Protocol state quite clearly that the final solution to the Jewish question was a program of evacuation and resettlement in the East. The conditions under which this population transfer took place were not ideal and were in some cases inhumane or even cruel. Executions took place. Many families and communities were shattered in the process. It is shameful, but something very different from an intentional mass murder of the Jews. Other documents which are erroneously presented to support the thesis extermination was the intent of the resettlement program generally depend on postwar interpretation of supposed "code words" the SS used. The interpretation of these code words as indicating there was a policy to murder the Jews depend on postwar testimony. This means the proof is not in the documents but in the testimony. In addition to the resettlement program documents, Einsatzgruppen records are also offered as proof of an extermination program which targeted Jews. The aim of the Einsatzgruppen was to fight communist guerrillas inside captured Soviet territory. Some partisan groups were largely ethnically Jewish. The Einsatzgruppen targeted Jewish civilians for reprisals when partisans committed acts of sabotage or murder. The Einsatzgruppen documents indicate hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed. Some historians, however, question the accuracy and even the authenticity of many of these records since the source of these is Stalin's Soviet Union. There is definitely a subset of documents offered as proof of an extermination program that are forgeries produced for the war crimes trials. These exist in the form of "certified copies" of documents the originals of which are nowhere to be found. One of the most notable examples of this type of document is the Franke-Gricksch "Resettlement-Action Report". A final category of suspicious documents are those which appear damning but for some odd reason the signer of the documents was not prosecuted even though he was in Allied custody. Dr. Butz discusses a case concerning documents relating to the deportation of Hungary's Jews where the signer was simply let go. The implication here is the Allies agreed to let the Nazi official go in exchange for him signing some bogus documents. The documents could then be used as evidence against a "bigger" Nazi. Source: Renk; Butz; Staeglich; Porter; Lenski

On photos;

Don't the photographs taken at the Nazi concentration camps at the end of the war prove the Nazis were exterminating people? How often have we heard the phrase "bodies stacked like cordwood"? Certainly the photos of the sickening conditions in some of the Nazi concentration camps in the spring of 1945 were not faked, but they were taken out of context. Many concentration camp prisoners survived the war in very good physical condition. Others died for a variety of reasons. As World War Two approached its conclusion in Europe, Germany was a chaotic mess. The Allies controlled the sky all over Germany. One of the missions of the Allied pilots was to disrupt German communications as much as possible. This meant they shot at just about anything that moved. Trains with supplies bound to concentration camps were attacked just like any other train. Rail lines, roads, bridges, and airstrips were bombed and destroyed to prevent the supply and movement of the German army. As Germany collapsed upon itself, it suffered from many shortages. This included medicine, food and fuel. Not being the highest priority, concentration camps were affected as well. Some camps had not received supplies for days before the British or American troops arrived. Add to this the Germans retreat. Prisoners were evacuated from labor camps near the fronts and moved to other camps. As a result, the remaining camps became extremely overcrowded. Combine the overcrowding with the lack of food and medicine. Conditions became perfect for the outbreak of epidemics. This is what happened. Bergen Belsen which had been designed by the SS as a sick camp in the waning days of the war became the destination of many prisoners who were already sick from other camps. A typhus epidemic was raging there when the British captured the camp where an uncounted number -- usually estimated to be between 10,000 and 30,000- of prisoners died primarily from disease. Similar circumstances contributed to the awful conditions discovered at Dachau, Buchenwald, and several other concentration camps. Germany's enemies used the scenes of dead and dying prisoners as documentary evidence of German malevolence. While the pictures are authentic, the films of bodies being bulldozed into trench graves do not tell the whole story. There was a war going on. It is in this context that these pictures need to be viewed. There are several reasons the Germans didn't simply release those in the camps. Many of the inmates were common criminals. Many were politically anti-German or anti-Nazi. Those infected with disease posed the threat of spreading the epidemics into the countryside if allowed to roam Germany. The healthy prisoners had nowhere to go. There was a war raging all around. Their homes were on the other side of the battle lines. Additionally, the likelihood that freed prisoners would form criminal gangs was too high for them to be released. Many were imprisoned because they were considered risks to security to begin with. Releasing them to roam the countryside was out of the question. Source: A. R. Butz; Staeglich; Porter; John Cobden 1991

On the final solution;

What was 'the final solution to the Jewish question' if it was not extermination? The Wannsee Protocol states the following: II[...] The primary responsibility for the administrative handling of the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem will rest with the Reich Leader SS and the Chief of the German Police [...] -regardless of geographic boundaries.[...] The most important aspects are- a. Forcing the Jews out of the various fields of the community life of the German people. b. Forcing the Jews out of the living space of the German people. In execution of these efforts there was undertaken - as the only possible provisional solution - the acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory on an intensified and methodical scale.[...] III The emigration program has now been replaced by the evacuation of the Jews to the East as a further solution possibility, in accordance with previous authorization by the Fuehrer. [...] ====== Because the retreating Soviets had depopulated areas later captured by the advancing Nazis in 1941 by as much as a third, or twenty-two million people, the Nazis leadership decided to expel the Jews under their control to ghettos and labor camps in the east as a step toward a final expulsion to a Jewish homeland/reservation/ghetto-nation which was to be set up outside Europe after the war. The final solution was the expulsion of all Jews from Europe, not their murder. Even so, it did not matter to the Nazis if people died in the process. The Nazis believed such a move was needed because Jews were viewed as a threat to national morale and security during the war. Source: Butz; Staeglich

All quotes from here.
I know these quotes don't prove anything on their own, but they're good food for thought, and give keywords to search with further. :)

[castille]

Why is Holocauste denial illegal in Europe? Isn't that like, against freedom of speech, that those Europeans keep talking about?

Is it also illegal to be conservative in Europe?

[Nono]

Wrong, as so often, castille. It's illegal in Germany (foolish of them, but I think they'll get over this eventually). However, not in the rest of Europe.

Why do they eat raw monkey brain "in China"?

[Paavo]

Originally posted by Nono, Wrong, as so often, castille. It's illegal in Germany (foolish of them, but I think they'll get over this eventually). However, not in the rest of Europe.

Not only Germany...

At the present time, laws against Holocaust denial exist in six European countries—Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and Switzerland—and in Israel.

Source

[Nono]

At the present time, laws against Holocaust denial exist in six European countries—Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain and Switzerland—and in Israel.

Well, I live in Switzerland, and if it's on the books here, that law is one dead letter.
How many US states have statutes banning sodomy? And in the Canadian province of Ontario an automobile may not travel at night unless it is preceded, by 20 paces, by a man carrying a lantern.

The only European country where I've ever heard of anyone being prosecuted for denying the holocaust is Germany. (Just like the Germans to actually implement their legislation...). There have, I believe, been lawsuits in France, which isn't the same thing.

But as the Germans grow more self-confident as a democracy, I think they'll just let the law slide (they wouldn't dare take it off the books).

If such laws exist, no one is more delighted than the holocaust deniers, for it allows them to portray themselves as oppressed, which is exactly what that fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen is always doing: See?! I'm trying to tell the truth and they're muzzling me!!!

[Inquisitor]

Well, I live in Switzerland, and if it's on the books here, that law is one dead letter.

No as far as I know.

"Jürgen Graf, one of the foremost revisionist historians/authors, has been granted political asylum by the Iranian government. He was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment in his home country, known as "democratic" Switzerland, for publishing irrefutable facts on the Holocaust Industry's lies."

http://christianparty.net/graf.htm

[Paavo]

If such laws exist, no one is more delighted than the holocaust deniers, for it allows them to portray themselves as oppressed

Are you serious?
What these laws mean, is that people can't say a word about the holocaust without the fear of being thrown in jail. Free speech my ass.

[Nono]

Originally posted by Paavo Are you serious?

Of course I am. You think I can't go out on the street this minute, or sit down and write a letter to the editor, claiming that the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was actually made in 1954 by a Taiwanese construction firm in the pay of Golda Meir? You think they'd clap me into irons for that? If so, Paavo, you and I should enter into a heavy bet here. Then we'll see, eh?

I'd have to check, but I'm sure that Jürgen Graf was convicted of far greater things than historical revisionism, something like stirring up hate through collective libel. Surely defamation isn't legal in Finland either. (Or is it?) I think Inquisitor is cherry-picking here, but I'll try to find out.