But this is what I’m asking. Who set up Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, etc.? Why were they set up? If the Nazis didn’t have any problems with Jews, homosexuals, etc., why were they sent to camps? Even if they all did die of typhus (which they didn’t, but for the sake of this conversation…), you don’t think it was a monstrous thing to do, to remove these people from their homes against their will and send them to a place where living conditions were so bad that repeated epidemics were able to wipe out thousands upon thousands of people?
You keep saying that deaths in camps were due to typhus, which avoids the real issue: why were they in the camps to begin with?
I’m astonished that people are still bothering with this guy. I have my settings to where I’m automatically Subscribed to any thread I post in, but I’m Unsubscribing to this pile of shit thread.
There are 2 witnesses in this fucking thread that detailed their family history - you choose to ignore it and even go so far as to imply that the posters great grandmother might be lying about it.
This forum doesn’t allow the type of response you truly deserve - you are not listening - you are not debating - you are not discussing - your claim to only want to discover the ‘truth’ is nothing and you have yet to bring up one single bit of evidence that has not been soundly debunked.
The only good thing about this thread is the reasoned responses to your bullshit -
Rigth - but thats what he wants (as stated earlier in the thread - it makes him the ‘winner’ because thats the best his opponents can do) and its not worth the time it would take to write it up -
“find better jewish wittnesses”, " you should have no trouble finding one credible jewish witness" - fuckity fuck indeed - that colors him for what his true motivations and mindset are right there.
how much time have you physically spent in Germany, Poland or any other country where these actions took place?
Have you personally reviewed or visited any of the physical archives, museums or sites ?
Have you made any reqests to the official sources of information for anything at all?
What is your background in anthropology and research? what is your school of study?
If you have done none of these things - then you really have nothing ‘new’ to offer and never will. What makes you so sure that the crap you’ve been reading (soundly debunked in this thread alone) has any basis in reality? Have you reconsidered any of your ‘facts’ since every single thing you have posted has been shown to be false or misleading?
Gack- You’ve almost got your whole story on the table. Please continue from where you were about the two anonymous jews, the three men who planted this evidence in the press, and how it leads back to 1900.
This thread is getting weirder and weirder. First you implied a lot of people got their information about the Holocaust from Oprah, then you suggested people took a WAG by Simon Wiesenthal at face value without doing supporting research, and now you’re saying it never occurred to you that people who spent years in ghettos and wound up in death camps weren’t well fed. In context of the war and the way the Nazis viewed their prisoners it would have been bizarre if they were properly fed.
Still no answer to that, eh? I see a few other people have posted the question… I wonder why Gack hasn’t given a decent answer to that. Truly, it’s a mystery for the ages.
And as long as I’m at it, another bit that Gack will ignore and an, ahem, ‘reliable Jewish witness’:
But I’m sure that bitch, who devoted her life to the profession of nursing until the events of her childhood finally shattered her mind years later… that bitch was probably lying. Fucking cunt that she was. Fucking Jewish cunt, I should say.
No! I wanna hear about the 3-person conspiracy who somehow controlled all the photos, documents, and post-war court trials to lead the whole world into believing 6 million of anything was gassed!
Hey Gack. You still haven’t answered my main question: Why?
Let’s suppose your < cough > ‘theories’ are correct and there’s a massive hoax about the Holocaust–that the fun-loving Nazis really just wanted to send Jews and others to holiday camps where they’d be counted by those wacky records-loving Nazis and given showers many times a day.
Let’s say, for just a second, that you’re right (however stupid the theory is)
Who benefits from making those groovy Nazis into villains? What is/was the motive? What’s the payoff for the biggest cover-up in human history? What’s the point of this “Holohoax” (to use the term you’re tip-toeing around)?
And for that matter, who’s behind it? “International bankers”? The Gnomes of Zurich?
Now you are just being silly. There is no “implication” that history is made false by the actions of one museum. As noted, based on that claim, no Separatists landed near what is now the city of Plymouth, MA in 1620 and the Battle of Gettysburg, (heck,maybe the whole Civil War), never happened. The museums at historical sites are generally not run by historians. It has been fairly recently that they even began to pay serious attention to historians. Such places frequently get things wrong.
As for emaciation, the Nazis could not dispose of the bodies fast enough to process all the people who arrived on every train, so they were divided up between slave labor and those to be murdered. The ones who were murdered, immediately, went to the gas chambers while the laborers were starved while they worked. The bodies that were filmed tended to be those who had died of starvation, but whose bodies had not yet been cremated.
As to “they weren’t all Jews,” that was simply the result of you not paying attention. Jews get the majority of the attention regarding the Nazi atrocities because they were the largest single group publicly identified by Hitler and his cronies to be exterminated. When Germany invaded France and the Netherlands, they did not go door to door looking for Slavs or the mentally retarded. They did go door to door looking for Jews. If you never heard that millions of people other than Jews were murdered, you were simply not paying attention. Now you are pretending that your ignorance is a reason for us to believe that an event never occurred.
Another case of incredibly poor failure of logic.
For any major event, there are a limited number of films and photos sitting around that movie producers can get their hands on easily. Look at any WWII documentary and you will see the same shots of aircraft attacking targets, tanks and artillery firing, infantrymen going house to house, ships blowing up and sinking under torpedo attack. Watch enough such documentaries and you will notice how many of the same film clips re-appear from one to another.
Based on your logic, WWII never happened because the movie producers are “lying” about what they are showing on the screen.
The reality is not that anyone is lying about the events, but that people putting together films and videos spend more money on the narration and the editing than they do on sending people out to look at archives for new films.
The next time I see an SB2C attacking the Japanese fleet at Midway or a Hawker Typhoon fighting in the Battle of Britain, I will remember that those battles never really happened (in Gack world).
The reality is that the Nazis arranged for the murder of between 12 and 17 million people, (perhaps more), and that they created the conditions for another 20 million, or so, to die. Any effort to deny or minimize such atrocities will be seen as self-serving bullshit. David Irving tried to prove that the Holocaust never happened in a British court where the motivations of those sued are not taken into account and he was soundly disproven.
We have the testimony of Adolf Eichmann, at his trial and in the biography that was written before his capture, explaining that he did, indeed, arrange for millions of Jews and others to be sent to death camps for “extermination.”
Denying that it occurred because one did not pay attention in history class to know that more people than just Jews were murdered, or because a museum guide got his spiel wrong (as so many do), or because one never paid attention to the number of times that old film clips are re-used in documentaries demonstrates a serious lack of awareness of the reality of the world–or deliberate effort to deny reality for some other motive.
I’m sorry but that is a rather silly question.
The biggest most brutal of wars had just come to an end. A war not only against Germany as a nation but also against a vying world philosophy, fascism.
Fascism and its Nazi branch needed to be rooted out for the democratic system to prevail.
Bare in mind that the Nazis had had wide support amongst their conquered populations. Of course they needed to be villified.
Having them tried in a court was one way. Over-emphasising the resistance movements another. Showing the horror of the concentration camps was and still is most effective in shying people away from Nazi ideas.
Who benifits from pointing and saying “this is what happens if you follow that road”?
I would say, all of us.
You are correct that I have most of my argument on the table, save the history, and also the Nuremberg trial.
The history - in 1906 there was an article in the NYT about a ‘systematic and murderous extermination’ of six million Jews that was currently in progress …
By the time of WW I the propaganda machine was well oiled and it has been documented in the book 'The First Holocaust, Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims in WW I" by Don Heddesheimer, the book is documented with numerous reprints of articles from the NYT and the Jewish press, here is an example, an article by the former governor of NY claiming that the Jews were facing a holocaust of six million persons in 1919 …
The primary organizations involved in creating the stories were American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress.
Fast forward to WW II when there were already many members of the Jewish fund raising efforts from WW I with access to high government officials. The WJC started creating typical war time propaganda from the start of the war and it was frequently published in the NYT. Hollywood was involved with screenwriter Ben Hecht writing articles for the Readers’ Digest and creating some sort of holocaust play that traveled from city to city and was seen by E. Roosevelt, among others. The US military also participate in the propaganda efforts with a special psych warfare group. That takes us up to the War Refugee Board.
There is an impression that the Nazis confessed to the holocaust at Nuremberg. That is misleading. Only one Nazi, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, second to Himmler in the SS (?), was charged with direct participation in the killing of Jews - when he testified in his own defense he stated that he first heard of the killing of Jews in the camps on allied radio, and when confronted with accusations of his participation he testified as follows …
COL. BROOKHART: Witness after witness, by testimony and affidavit, has said that the gas chamber killings were done on general or specific orders of Kaltenbrunner.
KALTENBRUNNER: Show me one of those men or any of those orders. It is utterly impossible.
COL. BROOKHART: Practically all of the orders came through Kaltenbrunner.
KALTENBRUNNER: Entirely impossible.
On the other hand, we have discussed the affidavit of Rudolf Hoess, one time commandant of Auschwitz. Hoess was tortured, signed a document in English that he couldn’t read, and testified at Auschwitz as a defense witness. You can see Hoess’s account of his torture and capture in a previous post. Nuremberg is a subject in itself and covered in detail in Butz’s book, and here
Suffice to say that none of the defendants confessed to anything regarding the holocaust. However, because unchallenged testimony from ‘eyewitnesses’ and Hoess and others, after the Nuremberg trial the basic blueprint of the holocaust was declared to be a judicial fact that could not be challenged in subsequent trials. Even now challenging the basic blueprint in public, much less a trial, is a ticket to jail in 17 countries. How about this, Ernst Zundel was tried for challenging the holocaust narrative, and not only was he convicted, his lawyer was also convicted and put in jail for defending him.
The writer of the 1919 article was an Irish Catholic.
And he talked about the starvation of the Jews, with almost one million more when the children are included. Not what the Holocaust denier source spins there.
Holocaust deniers lose trials for the simple reason that they falsify history.
Misleading statement.
It was not for defending him but because the lawyer had been convicted already on his own faults and had no license, also for clear conflicts of interest.
I have seen enough already, you do rely on sources that lie to you and you are an ignorant that is reaching for the willful level. No one can take you seriously.
