Repeating this question.
Asked and answered, repeatedly.
Look, the answers you seek are there for you to find in this thread, presented by multiple participants, using multiple reliable and factually supported sources. I can’t force you to read, understand or agree with them.
Nor, it seems, can I get you to address my question:
Chen019, **What do you hope to achieve with your continued counterfactual holocaust denial efforts? **
"In the seventies the late historian Martin Broszat…called (the Holocaust denial) movement “running amok against reality“ (Broszat 1976). These pseudo-historical writers, many of them just right wing extremist publishers or people who quite rapidly turned to right wing extremists, really try to prove that history has not taken place, just as if they were able to make events undone by denying them.”
You’re not rebutting anything I’ve said. Again, I invite you to point to something I’ve written that you specifically disagree with.
Also, what exactly are you claiming?
Do you accept that the claims made at Nuremberg about mass extermination at Buchenwald, & Bergen-Belsen are incorrect?
Do you accept that British Intelligence intercepted German communications at Auschwitz from 1942-1943 & found:
Do you accept that the cyanide traces in the claimed gas chambers at Auschwitz are similar to the levels in washrooms & barracks? That the only levels with elevated levels are in the delousing areas?
Do you find it a little odd that the Germans would use the latest technology for delousing chambers with gas tight doors, but at the same time gas huge numbers of people in rooms that:
which did not have escape-proof doors and windows;
which did not have panic-proof equipment;
which did not have technically gas tight doors and shutters;
which had no provision to quickly release and distribute the poison gas;
which had no effective device to ventilate or otherwise render ineffective the poison gas after the end of the execution.
Do you accept that carbon monoxide or cyanide poisoning tends to result in a cherry-red corpse? Do you accept that is NOT how they were described?
I mean, if you accept the above then it seems logical to have doubts about the official narrative, no?
Why would anyone accept this complete fabrication from Holocaust deniers?
As pointed out earlier in the thread, those claims are simply lies written by people who initially had not even visited the camps and who simply doubled down on their lies when they had finally visited the camps.
Anyone who continues to promote those claims, after the evidence already presented in this thread, demonstrates an agenda that has nothing to do with discovering facts.
I have. As have others: Link.
That you are a holocaust denier and revisionist motivated by racism.
I reject it thus and thus.
I reject all of the above as counterfactual denial of the well documented war crimes against humanity by Nazi Germany and its collaborators.
I think you believe what you want to believe and you delight in counter-factual claims by debunked sources in order to support a revisionist racist narrative for reasons you have yet to explain.
Now, I’ve answered your questions and I’m not interested in whether or not they were answered to your satisfaction. I’m equally disinterested in engaging with you in further debate about something you so obviously wish to deny and dissemble.
Now answer the one question I’ve been asking you, over and over:
**What do you hope to achieve with your continued counterfactual holocaust denial efforts?
**
Chen019, what do you think about the Jews? Do you think Jews, on average, have goals at odds with the interests of non Jewish white people?
I’ll say at the outset that your thread title and your opening segue are misleading – that alone invites suspicion, whether you intended to deceive or not. Seems to me you’re trying to say “What’s the problem with holocaust denial?”
It is almost universally agreed-upon that the Nazi regime was one of the most despicable that humankind has ever seen. The Allies who conquered Germany, and even the German people after WWII, wanted to destroy the Nazis and ensure that nothing like that would EVER reemerge again. At the core of this effort to destroy evil is having a full accounting of everything that happened. When dealing with a horrific regime like the Nazis, there can be nothing less than full accountability. Failing to represent that truth, even if just be a fraction, represents a continued unwillingness to accept responsibility for their crimes, and in doing so, it represents a threat.
I’ll give you an example that illustrates how this comes into play. The first of which is the American Confederacy, which was completely defeated by the Union Army in 1865. The Confederacy was defeated militarily but not culturally. Unlike Germany, which was forced to accept unconditional surrender, foreign occupation, and a complete cultural makeover imposed on them by the Allies, the former Confederate States continue to embrace White Supremacy. White terrorism was used to create a society that, for blacks, was just only slightly better than that of the slave society which they left. Unlike conquered Germany, which removed symbols of Nazism, the Confederacy still embraced the Old South, with statues memorializing pro-slavery leaders to this day. It also gave rise to the “Lost Cause” myth, which characterizes the South as a loser of a noble cause and simply trying to defend their ‘traditions’ and ‘value’ system (White Supremacy). When you allow a perverse culture to persist and when you fail to hold the worst regimes to minimize their atrocities, you are asking for history to repeat itself.
Modern Nazis know that they don’t have legitimacy – at least not yet – and they know that because of their perceived criminality, historically speaking, they are perceived as a threat. They are on the outside looking in. This is why they seek to minimize their responsibility, because they want people to accept their language as more mainstream. If their language was part of everyday discourse, they would not need to lie or minimize their atrocities. They’d probably devote more time to spreading their ideology, selling whatever they consider to be the more attractive aspects of that worldview to others.
Among themselves they often are (and were at the time) It’s only to the outside world that they argue holocaust denial (just as at the time they invented cover stories to provide some degree of deniability to what they were doing) and their own martyrdom (just as they try to get their martyrdom in first to justify the violence that is in essence their raison d’être).
Please note that the original Poster, TGWATY, has not posted to this thread in a very long time and the silly attempts to actually deny the Holocaust are being carried on by Chen019 who was not the Original Poster.
Also, I think you’ll find that Buchenwald inmate Paul Rassinier, US pathologist Dr Charles Larson, Allied Medic Dr Russell Barton & Auschwitz inmates like Esther Grossman & Maria Van Herwaarden weren’t Nazis?
Also, why invent stories about mass exterminations at Buchenwald & other German camps? How are you separating that kind of war propaganda, which was claimed at Nuremberg, and what actually happened?
Thanks, I suppose linking to what Wikipedia says about extermination camps is better than nothing 
It’s a nice concession that you don’t have answers. That’s fine - I don’t have answers to those questions either.That’s why I’m skeptical of the official narrative.
This would be more plausible if they didn’t imprison a Max Planck scientist who undertook chemical testing of cyanide levels in the gas chambers at Auschwitz?
Not to mention burning books by witnesses or anyone who questioned what exactly happened?
As Brandeis said, ‘Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’
Of course it is.
Reported for ignoring the many times me and others have already answered your debunked points.
Your claim would be more plausible if you did not continue
[ul]
[li]to repeat false claims, debunked in this thread, that the gas chambers at Auschwitz had flimsy doors that could not have contained panicked people being gassed[/li][li]to repeat false claims, debunked in this thread, that there was no evidence of gassing found in the walls of those gas chambers[/li][li]to repeat claims that there was (false) “eyewitness” testimony at Nuremberg that gassing occurred at Buchenwald or Dachau without providing any such quoted testimony. (So far, you have only provided examples of generalized statements from courtroom summaries with no evidence that such claims were entered into actual prosecutions for explicit crimes. You have provided no examples of such “eyewitness” testimony.)[/li][li]to sidestep and minimize the efforts of the Einsatzgruppen[/li][/ul]
You appear to have taken the claims (typically lies) of Holocaust deniers at face value in order to act as though you are simply seeking the truth. While we should certainly try to limit the ongoing story of the Holocaust to facts*, there is no evidence that you are actually interested in facts. Your straw man arguments are without merit and it is difficult to believe that you are actually interested in seeking the facts, given your reliance on proven liars for your arguments.
- For example, the accusation that Ilse Koch had lampshades made from human skin was never proved at trial and the claim later became a false rumor that it was a common action by the Nazis. Correcting that error is appropriate. Pretending that there was “eyewitness” testimony of an action for which there is no such testimony in order to challenge actual eyewitness testimony is malicious nonsense.
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
- Wikipedia articles I linked to are cited. But you refuse to accept long standing evidence that flies in the face of your counterfactual arguments.
- Declaring victory by pretending you don’t know the facts, therefore everyone else must have it wrong too, is disingenuous at best. You’ve fooled no-one.
- You are not “skeptical”. You are actively and deliberately participating in revision of historical facts on the subject of one of the largest and most well documented crimes against humanity. The question of motive remains unanswered, Chen019: - What do you hope to achieve with your continued counterfactual holocaust denial efforts?
Citing the first Jewish justice of the Supreme Court to support one’s Holocaust denial views is…peculiar, seeing that Brandeis died in 1941, before the dimensions of the Holocaust were known. However, he was vehement in denouncing Germany’s persecution of Jews:
"…Brandeis met with Secretary of State Hull in May 1933, at Brandeis’s home in Washington. The justice did not mince words. He argued that FDR should issue a statement openly and forcefully denouncing Hitler’s persecution of German Jewry, “the kind [of statement] W.W. [Woodrow Wilson] would have made.” While emphasizing the moral power of a presidential statement, Brandeis wanted FDR to go beyond rhetoric and open the country’s doors to the downtrodden Jews. He noted with dissatisfaction the sharp contrast between Roosevelt’s restrictionist immigration policy and what he called America’s “nobler past” of welcoming the persecuted. Justice Brandeis went so far as to say that he was “ashamed” of the administration’s refugee immigration policy, indeed that he “felt more ashamed of [his] country than pained by Jewish suffering.”
Counting up the number of instances where Chen019’s citing of alleged supporting sources has backfired on him, I begin to see a pattern.
Megadittoes.
This thread really should be in The BBQ Pit by now, IMHO.
By the way, Brandeis’ quote dates from 1913, and has to do with publicity being essential for remedying social injustice.
*"Brandeis made his famous statement that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants” in a 1913 Harper’s Weekly article, entitled “What Publicity Can Do.” But it was an image that had been in his mind for decades. Twenty years earlier, in a letter to his fiance, Brandeis had expressed an interest in writing a “a sort of companion piece” to his influential article on “The Right to Privacy,” but this time he would focus on “The Duty of Publicity.” He had been thinking, he wrote, “about the wickedness of people shielding wrongdoers & passing them off (or at least allowing them to pass themselves off) as honest men.” He then proposed a remedy:
If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects."*
More sunlight on the deniers, their motivations and why whittling down the number of Holocaust victims is something they see as beneficial to their cause.