Chen019,
Do you at least accept that a huge number of people died from starvation, disease and overwork in the camps?
He will probably tell you it was an accident, it was not intended, they tried to help them but ran out of food and medical supplies.
Yet had plenty for Aryan camp staff of course
Could you clarify that so we know in what context to take it? 
It is sarcasm.
edit: nm
Chen019 already failed miserably after his attempt at misdirection in reality did show that one of the women that “did not see” did however notice how the group that was sent to Vienna survived while the one sent to Auschwitz was obliterated. The Nazis did sent her to a different camp after being separated from her family that was killed.
Even then it was clear that regardless if it was typhus or bullets or gas, there were camps that the Nazis had set to be killing grounds, those camps were set to be deadly** in more ways than one**. The fact is that close to the end of the war some Jews were sent to camps that originally expected other types of prisoner. (out of necessity, because at that moment the rail way to Auschwitz was bombed) Now the important thing: disease was indeed effectively kept in check in those camps. It demonstrates that even using typhus as a way to avoid a charge of genocide is asinine.
Thanks to this thread I know quite a bit more about holocaust denial. It’s utter bullshit and people who espouse it have some very weird ideas. Thanks, guys!
It’s not a surprise from this end, but I don’t think any of the other regular scientific racism proponents are Holocaust deniers - at least, that I’ve seen. They’re often very pro-Jewish intellect, for instance.
It should be noted that “scientific racism” has often been used as a cover for anti-Semitism.
Even those who seem to praise Jews on this basis have done so in a backhanded way - i.e. suggesting that Jews have evolved higher intelligence to dominate in a capitalist society.
I haven’t dug deep enough in the muck to determine how much overlap there is with Holocaust denial, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find a considerable amount (the Nazis after all were big on “race science”).
I don’t think even the Nazis thought Jews were stupid. Morally and physically inferior, yes, but not stupid.
Well I dont know if we should call it holocaust “denial”, for me its more like pointing the fingers somewhere else. Basically everyone wants to point their fingers at the Nazis and Hitler but in reality many countries were involved and had no problem rounding up their Jews and sending them away. Nor did they have a problem with moving into their property.
Granted they didnt realize what was going to happen to the Jews and when they found out later they were being killed they began to feel guilty.
Go back and read Chen’s posts. Denial is entirely appropriate.
Holocaust denialis a thing and it’s as much antisemitism as the Nazi’s policies were.
from wikipediea:
which is exactly what you can see in this thread.
The term *revisionist *is sometimes used. They don’t deny that the holocaust happened, they just change a lot of details.
It pisses me off that Holocaust deniers have managed to hijack and taint the term historical revision. Revisionist history didn’t used to mean lying about the past or have a negative connotation. The Institute for Historical Review doesn’t review anything; it knowingly ignores mountains of evidence. Revisionist history isn’t what Holocaust deniers actually do. Revisionist history is taking a fresh look at the past using previously unknown evidence, it isn’t pretending the pre-existing mountain of evidence isn’t there.
Hey Peter,
Thanks for the question. Yes, I discuss this in detail this in my posts above. When Allied physicians like Dr John Gordon & Dr Russell Barton entered camps at the end of WWII that is exactly what they found.
The Allies used the same war propaganda claims about gassing and other atrocities that they employed in WWI. They were initially accepted in relation to camps in Germany such as Buchenwald and Dachau, but ultimately that had to be revised as the evidence clearly contradicted this and eye-witness accounts proved to be unreliable.
British Intelligence also found that disease was the major cause of death at Auschwitz. British Intelligence Service was able to eavesdrop on almost all German military radio communications from a very early date, shortly after the outbreak of World War II. They monitored communications January 1942 to January 1943,From monitoring communications there from
As an example of some of the atrocity propaganda that they received:
The president of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, on 27 August 1943, wrote that the reports were devoid of all basis in fact:
And given what’s known today he was clearly correct in relation to the gas chamber claims.
Aside from disease in the camps, another major factor was the actions of the Einsatzgruppen and their local allies. These forces operated behind German lines after Operation Barbarossa to suppress local resistance. Large numbers were killed.
So, about how many people died in the camps?
I’ll make it multiple choice. Was it:
a) less than a million
b) between 1 and 2 million
c) between 2 and 4 million
d) between 4 and 8 million
e) between 8 and 12 million
f) over 12 million
So, Chen019’s “evidence” amounts to
[ul]
[li]an absence in a one year period to references in radio transmissions about a particular form of murder that the Nazis would not have been particularly eager to announce while it occurred[/li][li]an anonymous mid-war speculation about atrocities[/li][li]and a mid-war rejection of reports of atrocities as propaganda, produced at a time when it is already known that many members of the Allied leadership discounted all such reports, simply because they could not imagine that even the Nazis could behave in that fashion.[/li][/ul]
None of the claims are provided in actual context.
For example, why would the Nazis have been transmitting information about gassing by radio when they had perfectly functional telephone and telegraph lines? Since we have no context for the reports of disease and shootings in radio transmissions, we have no way to evaluate the significance of the absence of reference to gassings.
It has long been known that during the war, many Allied commanders simply could not imagine the reality of the extermination program and denied its existence even when presented with evidence.
This is the sort of cherry-picked (when it is not invented) data that is held up as the refutation to mountains of evidence.
The other method of denial that we have already seen in this thread involves making a claim, then repeating it when it is refuted as though the refutation never occurred. An example is to the claim of “wooden doors” on gas chambers when the doors so identified are not the doors from the actual execution chambers.
Once again, every single one of Chen019’s arguments are either trivial irrelevancies that, at best, show that some tiny number of witness reports might be mistaken and not every single Nazi was personally engaged in Jew extermination at all times (which no one ever claimed anyway) or outright false assertions, like his incredibly ignorant crap about the German language.
Nothing new here, and the same old crap that’s been bouncing around the slums of the Internet for decades.
Much like hacking and eugenics.