Holocaust Revisionism

Yeah, and in all of my long experience, I've found that everyone who comes into a thread to characterize the challenge or the challenger or both instead of meeting the challenge are either lame or far too emotional to involve themselves in an honest discussion.

 

Can't blame some depending on how the topic is handled/started.

 

To be honest... I think another big issue is a lot of people with no interest in Holocaust revisionism are posting in this thread.

Is it possible to make invite-only threads?

No offence to anyone posting here, it's just... so many people are just SO closed-minded, and also can be quite rude and confrontational. It's not that I have any problem with people not agreeing with revisionists, but being bombarded by page after page of... somewhat closed-minded non-revisionist posts is a little tedious... you know?

Ultimately, if you don't like it... why are you posting here? I just don't get it.


EDIT -- It would be nice for the revisionists to just "get to work" and share info, but it's made hard by the above. I'll look into invite-only threads or anything similar, just in case it proves unworkable discussing it here.

 

So your right to free speech is being infringed on because people are saying things that you don't agree with?

 

Anyone who minimizes the Holocaust and claims all they are doing is exercising their free speech rights is full of shit and evil, too.

 

On a related note, I am quite proud of this quote I just wrote:

"Conspiracy theorizing is not about causing drama, it's about digging a little deeper and seeing what comes up. It could be junk, it could be gold, but you'll never know until you reach for that shovel."

 

Sunfire,

There! Again! You just can't stop yourself, can you?

It's not the people who are minimalizing anything here. It's the unrefuted facts you're having an emotional problem with.

 

Odon,

So, you're OK with people discussing and analyzing the details of the holocaust, but you have a problem with the people who research and supply the details from which people can draw conclusions? I know what you're saying, but I don't think you do.

Also, I am unaware of any cases in which revisionist writings have been shown to be a contributing factor to anti-Semitic violence. I'm not saying that there aren't any such cases. I just wish you would supply some examples rather than force us to take your word for it. And if there are such cases, do you believe that the freedom of speech should be taken away from someone rather than jail those who become violent upon hearing what they have to say?

So far in this thread, you've been shown eyewitness testimonies, expert testimonies, constant revision of numbers, and you offer nothing in rebuttal except to say that you aren't buying it. When asked why the people running the camp would take the time and resources to make the effort to bring Otto Frank back to health instead of gassing him, which the camp was reportedly notorious for, you simply say, "I believe because they wanted labour, too." Thanks for sharing your beliefs . . .

 

. . . Anyway, former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of extermination at Auschwitz.

An Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden, testified about her camp experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. She was interned in Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1942 for having sexual relations with a Polish forced laborer. On the train journey to the camp, a Gypsy woman told her and the others that they would all be gassed at Auschwitz. Upon arrival, Maria and the other women were ordered to undress and go into a large concrete room without windows to take a shower. The terrified women were sure that they were about to die. But then, instead of gas, water came out of the shower heads.

Auschwitz was no vacation resort, Maria confirmed. She witnessed the deaths of many fellow inmates by disease, particularly typhus. She saw some take their own lives. But she saw no evidence at all of mass killings, gassings, or of any extermination program.

A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of gas chambers during the time she was interned there. She heard the gassing stories only later. There's no need to become angry over this stuff. It's just outside observations, that's all.
Cremation specialists have confirmed that thousands of corpses could not possibly have been cremated every day throughout the spring and summer of 1944 at Auschwitz, as has often been alleged. Ivan Lagacé, manager of a large crematory in Canada, testified in court in April 1988 that the Auschwitz cremation story is technically impossible. The allegation that 10,000 or even 20,000 corpses were burned every day at Auschwitz in the summer of 1944 in crematories and open pits is simply "preposterous" and "beyond the realm of reality," he declared under oath.

A leading American gas chamber expert, Fred A. Leuchter, carefully examined the supposed "gas chambers" in Poland and concluded that the Auschwitz gassing story is absurd and technically impossible. At the time he conducted his examination, Leuchter was acknowledged as the foremost specialist on the design and installation of gas chambers used in the United States to execute convicted criminals. For example, he designed a gas chamber facility for the Missouri state penitentiary.

In February 1988 he carried out a detailed onsite examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek in Poland, which are either still standing or only partially in ruins. In sworn testimony to a Toronto court and in a technical report, Leuchter described every aspect of his investigation. He concluded that the alleged gassing facilities could not possibly have been used to kill people. Among other things, he pointed out that the so-called "gas chambers" were not properly sealed or vented to kill human beings without also killing German camp personnel. Again, why would this make anyone angry or to become incensed? It's just someone's testimony. If anyone has testimony to refute this, they're welcome to present it.

Dr. William B. Lindsey, a research chemist employed for 33 years by the Dupont Corporation, likewise testified in a 1985 court case that the Auschwitz gassing story is technically impossible. Based on a careful on-site examination of the "gas chambers" at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, and on his years of experience, he declared: "I have come to the conclusion that no one was willfully or purposefully killed with Zyklon B (hydrocyanic acid gas) in this manner. I consider it absolutely impossible."

In March 1992, a prominent Austrian engineer made headlines when a report he had written about alleged German wartime gas chambers was made public. Walter Lüftl, a court-recognized expert engineer who headed a large engineering firm in Vienna, concluded that the familiar stories of mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers at the wartime camps of Auschwitz and Mauthausen are impossible for technical reasons. Lüftl also specifically affirmed Leuchter's findings about Auschwitz.

This shouldn't draw anger. It's just independent analysis. If it really makes anyone angry, they need to ask themselves why, and then work on that.

 

It is you who doesn't get it.

When you try to minimize the Holocaust, you are suspected of being an anti-Semite, right or wrong. You know it's true. So, if you do it anyway without going overboard to explain that you only have the best motives and that you are not an anti-Semite, then that is more evidence that you are an anti-Semite.

 

Really, you're way too emotional to be discussing this. All you're doing is superimposing my face onto the facts I've presented, presumably for the purpose of not having to call the facts anti-semite, as that would be ridiculous.

 

Pardon me if I get emotional about opposing people who don't get how important it is to prevent genocide in the future. If you've read about the Holocaust and don't get emotional, well, there's something wrong with you.

 

Semitic is just a stero-type, the only reason that anti-semitic feeling exists is 'cause people allow it to. Also I agree with sunfighter in this

 

Frankly Hoppipolla, if you are going to base your opinions mainly on youtube videos, conspiracy theories and similar while admitting you haven't actually researched the topic leaves me wondering why I or anyone else should even bother discussing it with you?


I have known survivors from the camps, remember there were more than one, have heard first hand accounts and yes, many died of natural causes, if you consider starvation and related diseases "natural".

My brother in law's sister in law, who is dutch, was in one of the camps when she was about 11. She said she ate about every 2-3 days, and often that was because the adults would give the children some of their rations.
She saw many people starve before her eyes. She also told about the happiest time there. A couple of barracks would get together and save their rations of sugar and the meager chocolate they would get and wheel and deal to get extra chocolate. After about 2 months there was enough stashed away that they would secretly make hot chocolate for the children in the barracks. She said those were the best days there.
Tears streamed down hers eye as she related this "joyful" memory, so I guess it wasn't all bad for the inmates.

The Nazis were very concerned and paranoid about epidemics that could effect them, but really didn't give a rats ass about the inmates health beyond how it impacted them personally.

To say that it is all to gain sympathy for Israel is just plain asinine and is simply racism.

 

Thanks again for the great info, Storch!

Where are you getting all this?

I love that www.codoh.com site - it seems very active with lots of users and tons of great articles and so on.

I will definitely use that as one of my primary sources of information on this

 

The numbers have changed but the message of torture and deaths have not. I do not dispute that the numbers may have been inflated but that people died is the lesson, not the numbers. The disputes about how they died are something that we may never be able to prove without a doubt. That some were exterminated is probable and that others died due to cruelty (starvation, conditions, disease) is also likely. They did not deserve to die in any manner.

Medical experiments were carried out that were horrific. I would imagine some of those people wished that they had of died rather than be no more than a lab rat to those who carried them out.

There were atrocities that should never have happened. People survived the camps but those that did have lived with it since. Their families have also had to live with it.

I do not think that someone should be jailed for simply disputing "facts" such as they are but those who incite violence, hate or discrimination based upon their own beliefs should be. In other words you are free to state what you believe but when you incite groups (people) to react to your beliefs, other than in a peaceful manner, then you are not invoking freedom of speech you are instead approaching unlawful behaviours.

Sadly genocides are still happening so with that we have not learnt a thing. That should have been the real lesson, that it never happened again.

 

Inmates never knew what was going to happen to them, until it was too late. Guards didn't want to bother with carrying each and every victim into the gas chambers, kicking and screaming. It was much simpler to just say, "Go into this room", and lock the doors. Other inmates were never told the truth about why they didn't return.

For anyone interested in this subject, the best place in America to get up to speed quickly is the Smithsonian Holocaust Memorial in Washington DC. It's an immense amount of information to absorb in one day, but you can take notes and follow up later on various parts of the story.

One surprising thing I learned was that due to the parliamentary system in place at that time, Hitler and his Nazi party never earned as much as 50% of the popular vote in any free election! That means that the majority of German voters were always in agreement that they wanted somebody else running the country. That fact was not taken into consideration after the war, when everyone was in the mood to punish all Germans.

 

That is pretty common. In Canada right now, our governing party only received something like 38% of the popular vote.

 

Humanity loves to judge and judging is what gets us into the most trouble as a species

 

Heat,

Nowhere have I Stated that a tragedy did not occur. This is just a discussion based on what research has uncovered. People have shown themselves to have a problem with that, but seem to have no answer to anything that's been shown.

And I've already stated that I am unaware of any cases in which revisionist writings have been shown to be a contributing factor to anti-Semitic violence. That was a cue for anyone to provide examples, and not to just repeat what someone else in this thread has already said. Perhaps you would do well to look this thread over to see what actual research has uncovered.

_____________________________________

Hoppipolla

Here's where I found a lot of information.

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/auschwitz.shtml