Zionist encouragement of the Holocaust.

stuar

I was about to add to my 5am drunken thread but found it locked, but I'll try this again with a clearer head.

There is evidence of Zionist's willing to let Jews die at the hands of the Nazi's in order to create a Jewish state, this time I'll add links and mods can merge or let the first thread vanish down the line.

THE ROLE OF ZIONISM IN THE HOLOCAUST

Article by Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann


But it doesn't end there. It wasn't enough for the Zionist leaders to have aroused the wrath of G-d. They made a point of displaying abysmal contempt for their Jewish brothers and sisters by actively participating in their extermination.

The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.
These treacherous Zionist leaders betrayed their own flesh and blood. Zionism was never an option for Jewish salvation. Quite the opposite, it was a formula for human beings to be used as pawns for the power trip of several desperadoes. A perfidy! A betrayal beyond description!
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaliebermann.cfm

The Brutal Zionist Role in the Holocaust

The price of Zionism:

"If I am asked, "Could you give from the UJA moneys to rescue Jews, 'I say, NO! and I say again NO!"
Izaak Greenbaum -- head of Jewish Agency Rescue Committee
February 18, 1943.

"One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland"
....Izaak Greenbaum.

Ben Gurion informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938: "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative." Ibid., p.149.



As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to "study" the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.

This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge. He stated:

"It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference ... It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws."
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm

Pleas to rescue Jews in the Holocaust ignored by Zionist leaders.

When they asked me, couldn't you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said, 'NO!' and I say again 'NO!' . . . one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance."

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/pleasignored.html

Ten questions to the Zionists
by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl ZT"L
Dean of Nitra Yeshiva


IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war.
c) No ransom will be paid.
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/tenquestions.htm

The excerpt is a literal translation of the letter the Jewish Rescue Committee in Czechoslovakia received from the Zionist "Jewish" Agency Executive Offices in Switzerland.

Let us not spoil this plan by giving the Axis powers to save Jewish lives. But for you, comrades, I have enclosed carfare for your escape. What a nightmare! The Zionist agent "diplomat" comes to Czechoslovakia and says 'Now is a very critical time. But comparatively speaking it is not at all critical for you trapped Jews. For there is an emergency of far greater proportions; namely, BINYAN HA-ARETZ (the prize of Medinat Yisrael). Shed your blood cheerfully, for your blood is cheap. But for your blood, the Land (of Israel) will be ours!
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/minhametzarexcerpt1.htm

Zionism and the Holocaust
Many new visitors are surprised and shocked to learn the connection between Zionism and the Holocaust of World War II.
Listed below are links to documents and other resources exposing how the philosophy and goals of the Zionist movement resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent Jews.
http://www.israelversusjudaism.org/holocaust/index.cfm

I did not take these links from Stormfront!

In order for a Jewish state to be established in Palestine a sacrifice was needed, deaths of Jews was needed and encouraged by zionists to bring sympathy to the cause.

I hope this thread is accepable, and it's not a Jew bashing thread, nor should it turn out to be, I hope others can contribute to it in a positive way.

Brown Bomber

It's a strange situation. I suppose it is a taboo topic for reasons I don't quite understand but I firmly believe that history should be recorded accurately regardless of who it upsets. Zionists and Nazis are/were cut from the same cloth. Ultra-Nationalistic, supremacist, seperatist and ethnocentric. Obviously National Socialism and Zionism diverge but they run paralell for quite a time. Even after the divergence time and place has encouraged a bizarre if albeit brief alliance between those who want to get rid of Jews out of Europe (Nazis) and those who want to get rid of Jews out of Europe (Zionists)

Stuar, if you're interested here is some further viewing/watching on the topic.

Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler by Anthony C. Sutton, a noted academic.

On the "Transfer Agreement"

uring the first months of the Hitler regime, leaders of the Zionist movement concluded a controversial pact with the Third Reich which, in its various forms, transferred some 60,000 Jews and $100 million--almost $1.7 billion in 2009 dollars--to Jewish Palestine. In return, Zionists would halt the worldwide Jewish-led anti-nazi boycott that threatened to topple the Hitler regime in its first year. Ultimately, the Transfer Agreement saved lives, rescued assets, and seeded the infrastructure of the Jewish State to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjqQZNH7n_g

Depending on your level of interest in the subject you may be interested in this book by Jewish writer Lenni Brenner - Zionism In The Age Of The Dictators.

And these are some of the points raised by a later book by Brenner 51 documents: Zionist Collaboration With The Nazis:

For openers, Brenner showed how the Zionists had a long history of shameless cooperation with the Nazis, especially after the dictator Adolph Hitler had came to power in 1933. The Zionists were also in bed, to some extent, with the other members of what later became known as WWII’s “Axis of Evil,” that included Benito Mussolini’s Italy, and Tojo Hideki’s Japan. For example, on March 29,1936, Zionists praised Il Duce, and his regime, at the opening of a maritime school, funded by the Fascist government, at Civitavecchia. This is where a Zionist youth group, the “Betar,” trained its sailors for the future Revisionist state. The speakers ignored the fact that on Oct. 3, 1935, Italian troops had invaded Abyssinia.

On another front, the “Third Congress of the Jewish Community of the Far East,” was held in Jan., 1940, in Harbin, Manchuria, then reeling under a brutal military occupation by the Japanese imperial forces. At that time, too, Tokyo was already aligned with Hitler and Italy’s Mussolini, in the notorious Anti-Comintern Pact. Also, keep in mind, that the Japanese’s murderous “Rape of Nanking,” had occurred in Dec., 1937, and the “Crystal Night” incident on Nov. 9, 1938. Nevertheless, the Zionist confab went out of its way to legitimize the Japanese occupation by certifying it as a guarantor of the “equality of all citizens,” in that beleaguered land.

The Zionist also had a trade plan with the Berlin government by which German Jews could redeem their property in Nazi goods exported to then British-occupied Palestine. And to top it all off, the infamous SS-Hptscharf. Adolf Eichmann, had visited Palestine, in October, 1937, as the guest of the Zionists. He also met, in Egypt, with Feivel Polkes, a Zionist operative, whom Eichmann described as a “leading Haganah functionary.” The chain-smoking Polkes was also on the Nazis’ payroll “as an informer.”

Brenner isn’t the first writer to address the mostly taboo subject of how the Zionist leadership cooperated with the Nazis. Rolf Hilberg’s seminal “The Destruction of European Jews”; Hannah Arendt’s “Eichmann in Jerusalem”; Ben Hecht’s “Perfidy”; Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement”; Francis R. Nicosia’s “The Third Reich and the Palestine Question”; Rudolf Vrba and Alan Bestic’s “I Cannot Forgive”; and Rafael Medoff’s “The Deadening Silence: American Jews and the Holocaust,” also dared, with varying public success.

After the Holocaust began in 1942, Eichmann dealt regularly with Dr. Rudolf Kastner, a Hungarian Jew, whom he considered a “fanatical Zionist.” Kastner was later assassinated in Israel as a Nazi collaborator. At issue then, however, was the bargaining over the eventual fate of Hungary’s Jews, who were slated for liquidation in the Nazi-run death camps. Eichmann said this about Kastner, the Zionist representative, “I believe that [he] would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. He was not interested in old Jews or those who had become assimilated into Hungarian society. ‘You can have the others,’ he would say, ‘but let me have this group here.’ And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the deportation camps peaceful. I would let his groups escape.”

Readers, too, will be surprised to learn, that after the Nuremberg Anti-Jewish Race Laws were enacted in Sept., 1935, that there were only two flags that were permitted to be displayed in all of Nazi Germany. One was Hitler’s favorite, the Swastika. The other was the blue and white banner of Zionism. The Zionists were also allowed to publish their own newspaper. The reasons for this Reich-sponsored favoritism was, according to the author: The Zionists and the Nazis had a common interest, making German Jews emigrate to Palestine.

As early as June 21, 1933, the German Zionist Federation was sending a secret memorandum to the Nazis, which said, in part:

“It is our opinion that an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state [German Reich] can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims as a social, cultural and moral renewal of Jewry- -indeed, that such a national renewal must first create the decisive social and spiritual premises for all solutions...”

Incredibly, Avraham Stern, the leader of the notorious “Stern Gang,” late in 1940, made a written proposal to Hitler, by which the Jewish militias in Palestine, would fight on “Germany’s side,” in the war against England, in exchange for the Nazis help in resolving the “Jewish Question” in Europe, and their assistance in creating an “historic Jewish state.” By this date, German troops had already marched into Prague, invaded Poland, and had built the first concentration camp at Auschwitz. The deranged Stern had further bragged about how the Zionist organizations were “closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in [their] ideology and structure.” Stern’s obscene proposal was found in the German embassy, in Turkey, after WWII.

If you don't have the time and/or will here is a reasonably short interview with the author.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-5T-mpVYa8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiG5BBLN6KI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoNOJgrx5Ds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPcqqds1gyk

fasttalkerchat

Zionists have always engaged in false flag operations (Mossad and others). I would say that some saw a silver lining but I find it hard to believe that even the most extreme Zionist could think that way.

stuar

Sorry, I do not share your thinking, Joesoap Jews were used to further the cause of the elite zionists, the men at the top care not for the men at the bottom, actually men, women and shildren at the bottom.

This is something that needs to be put across correctly and recieved correctly.
For power mankind has always stepped on his brother, in some circles power overtakes your fellow man, people will grow again, but power has its time and place to be seized, the upper class zionists saw an oppertunity and got it, sacrificing "fellow" Jews to achieve their aim's and so far so good, any talk about certain things will bring cries of anti-semitism where none exists, its simply a cry for equality, which all humans have a right to, if somebody, no matter colour nor creed does bad, it's bad, every body has a reason, no matter what they have a reason, it's perception of right from wrong that is muddled.

The zionists saw a way to their promised land, the holy land and decided to get there by any means possible, they took the easy route by becoming the victim's, and put in power the man who would make them the victims, the khzars wanted the Holy Land, they conspired to have their fellow khazars exterminated and become the victims. Roll on the holocaust, now the khzars (zionists/jews) had reason to expect more, they got it, Palestine, the british still had control of Palestine and as victims of the enemy they got what was sought in 1948.

They had plan A and plan B sorted, no-matter who the victor, they wanted Jerusalem and would have and did get it, Hitler would have gave it, if only to get them out of pure europe and land them on the brown camel man.

In 1940, Lehi proposed intervening in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany. It offered assistance in transferring the Jews of Europe to Palestine, in return for Germany's help in expelling Britain from Mandatory Palestine. Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik went to Beirut to meet German official Werner Otto von Hentig (who also was involved with the Haavara or Transfer Agreement, which had been transferring German Jews and their funds to Palestine since 1933). Lubenchik told von Hentig that Lehi had not yet revealed its full power and that they were capable of organizing a whole range of anti-British operations.
On the assumption that the destruction of Britain was the Germans' top objective, the organization offered cooperation in the following terms. Lehi would support sabotage and espionage operations in the Middle East and in eastern Europe anywhere where they had cells. Germany would recognize an independent Jewish state in Palestine/Eretz Israel, and all Jews leaving their homes in Europe, by their own will or because of government injunctions, could enter Palestine with no restriction of numbers. Stern also proposed to recruit some 40,000 Jews from occupied Europe to invade Palestine with German support to oust the British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)#Contact_with_Nazi_Germany

I had a long post, but cutting it short, back tomorrow with hopfully a better expanation and no alcohol, but look into it, don't believe me, most don't anyway, but eyes just opened....from sleep, now going bac, nite

Brown Bomber

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Zionists have always engaged in false flag operations (Mossad and others). I would say that some saw a silver lining but I find it hard to believe that even the most extreme Zionist could think that way.

I do understand. It is hard to accept, stomach even. Even I have Norwegian family members who were sent to Nazi camps never to return. But your not alone, even regular Israelis are in the dark.

Watch as they are shocked to find that the quote read to them is not from Hitler as they all suspect but from Theodor Herzl the founder of Zionism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K60otDTDgfI

Border-Rat

What 'Holocaust'?

outtagetme

I'll save my sympathy for those who are being persecuted today and not those who were persecuted yesterday.

charlemont

Scary stuff.

hooradiation

Border-Rat wrote: »

What 'Holocaust'?

The one that was carried out by the Nazis during the second world war, I'd wager.

And shouldn't that be "which Holocaust"?

belinda502

On the subject to the Nazi holocaust, we in this lovely little county were prepared to give refuge to Nazis after the war - I grew up reading school text books published by a Nazi - Folen who was sentenced to 10 year for war crimes and then escaped to Ireland on a false passport after the war. He died peacefuly in his 80's. I really wish there was a hell so he could be in it. DeValera wasn't prepared to grant any entry to any dispossessed people after the war either because he was a Nazi (identified with Hitler's nationalist aims at heart) What a sh**hole this country is and continues to be.

Logical_Bear

belinda502 wrote: »

DeValera wasn't prepared to grant any entry to any dispossessed people after the war either because he was a Nazi

got links for this?

also the thread has been dead for months

Tzar Chasm

I too would like some evience that dev was a Nazi.

Weasely Sh!tbag : Yep
Cute Hoor :Yep
Instigator of bloody civil war :check
Toadie to the Catholic Church : Yep

But Out and out Nazi, well a claim like that needs some form of evidence

Tzar Chasm

Albert Folens was allegedley a member of the Flemish legion, an organisation afiliated with the SS, so its also technicaly incorrect to call him a Nazi.

Border-Rat

hooradiation wrote: »

The one that was carried out by the Nazis during the second world war, I'd wager.

And shouldn't that be "which Holocaust"?

Nope, I shouldn't bet if I was you. If operated as alleged, the Treblinka 'gas chambers' would've exploded.

Sixtus

Border-Rat wrote: »

Nope, I shouldn't bet if I was you. If operated as alleged, the Treblinka 'gas chambers' would've exploded.

Source please

hooradiation

Border-Rat wrote: »

Nope, I shouldn't bet if I was you. If operated as alleged, the Treblinka 'gas chambers' would've exploded.

Feel free to show your work on this, whenever suits.

fasttalkerchat

Border-Rat wrote: »

Nope, I shouldn't bet if I was you. If operated as alleged, the Treblinka 'gas chambers' would've exploded.

According to Wikipedia (reliable as ever :rolleyes:):
The gas chamber had portholes through which it was possible to view the death of the victims.[15] The victims were gassed with carbon monoxide generated by diesel engines.[33] There is some historical debate over whether these engines were diesel or petrol. The engines were those of Soviet Red Army tanks that had been captured during the war, and subsequently transported to Treblinka by the Nazis

Jonny7

hooradiation wrote: »

Feel free to show your work on this, whenever suits.

You don't know what you are getting yourself into. He is deadly serious. Remember, Jewish death figures challenged only, not the millions of gypsies, homosexuals, minorities and Russian POWs.

Tzar Chasm

did they gas the Russian pow's?
I thought they just left them in a field without food or shelter for a few months and then worked the survivors to death

Jonny7

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

did they gas the Russian pow's?
I thought they just left them in a field without food or shelter for a few months and then worked the survivors to death

Well some were sent to camps, some were shot on capture, most just died due to horrendous conditions or deliberate starvation.

Part of the Holocaust deniers argument was that it simply wasn't possible to kill 6 million Jews in that period of time.

The fact that 3.3 million Russian POWs died in a shorter period under the Nazi's is conveniently overlooked.

Tzar Chasm

people do tend to focus on the gas chambers in those debates, I hadn't heard of the concept of the holocaust by bullets until a few years ago, but those mass graves are fairly readily identifiable.

even if they deny the gas chambers, do they deny that the camps were intended to be one way tickets, whatever the means the motive was death, be it malnutrition and disease or a more deliberate scheme

--Kaiser--

hooradiation wrote: »

Feel free to show your work on this, whenever suits.

I wouldn't hold your breath

Brown Bomber

I don't know very much about the Holocaust at all but I would be interested to know from the people who absolutely concur with the official story what alternative theories/ Holocaust revisionist historians they have looked into and on what basis they discredit their findings.

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know very much about the Holocaust at all but I would be interested to know from the people who absolutely concur with the official story what alternative theories/ Holocaust revisionist historians they have looked into and on what basis they discredit their findings.

I can't say I know much about dinosaurs but I'm pretty sure they existed. There's plenty of empirical proof of the holocaust, much, much more so than any proof of dinosaurs. It also happened within living memory so it's not some distant event poorly remembered and recorded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know very much about the Holocaust at all but I would be interested to know from the people who absolutely concur with the official story what alternative theories/ Holocaust revisionist historians they have looked into and on what basis they discredit their findings.

Sure here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I can't say I know much about dinosaurs but I'm pretty sure they existed. There's plenty of empirical proof of the holocaust, much, much more so than any proof of dinosaurs. It also happened within living memory so it's not some distant event poorly remembered and recorded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sure here you go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

So is that none then...???

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So is that none then...???

You anti-semites sure are tedious

Sacksian

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So is that none then...???

Considering you've said that you don't know very much about the Holocaust at all, surely this is more research than you've done??

When I read a wikipedia article, I also read the source articles - all of which are listed in the references. Because of its collaborative dimension, Wikipedia is generally more reliable than single-author blogs/internet articles and is as reliable as a traditional encyclopedia article (but obviously can be updated and corrected much more quickly).

It certainly provides a lot more context and background information than a random youtube video.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So is that none then...???

It's a thorough summary of noted Holocaust deniers, their history, arguments, etc from about 200 sources and references

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know very much about the Holocaust at all but I would be interested to know from the people who absolutely concur with the official story what alternative theories/ Holocaust revisionist historians they have looked into and on what basis they discredit their findings.

For me it's the red flags these cranks throw up, such as whining about their "legitamate research" being suppressed in lieu of actual arguments.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know very much about the Holocaust at all but I would be interested to know from the people who absolutely concur with the official story what alternative theories/ Holocaust revisionist historians they have looked into and on what basis they discredit their findings.

Burden of proof doesn't work that way.

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Burden of proof doesn't work that way.

No. but the method of doubt does.

Brown Bomber

Sacksian wrote: »

Considering you've said that you don't know very much about the Holocaust at all, surely this is more research than you've done??

When I read a wikipedia article, I also read the source articles - all of which are listed in the references. Because of its collaborative dimension, Wikipedia is generally more reliable than single-author blogs/internet articles and is as reliable as a traditional encyclopedia article (but obviously can be updated and corrected much more quickly).

It certainly provides a lot more context and background information than a random youtube video.

Thanks for that explanation but there is no relevance between what you have said here and the original question I posed

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's a thorough summary of noted Holocaust deniers, their history, arguments, etc from about 200 sources and references

Okay. Fine but it doesn't answer the question I asked.

Originally Posted by Brown Bomber
I don't know very much about the Holocaust at all but I would be interested to know from the people who absolutely concur with the official story what alternative theories/ Holocaust revisionist historians they have looked into and on what basis they discredit their findings.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. but the method of doubt does.

Given that Cartesian doubt is a practical impossibility, you're still wasting everyone's time with this line of inquiry.


How about the people who think that "If operated as alleged, the Treblinka 'gas chambers' would've exploded." put forward their proof for this claim and we can see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

Unless you'd prefer to derail into metaphysical naval gazing for the rest of time.

Sacksian

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks for that explanation but there is no relevance between what you have said here and the original question I posed

You asked what theories they had looked into and were provided with links detailing summaries of alternatives theories (and criticisms thereof i.e. the basis they are discredited).

You then said "so, is that none then?".

To which I replied that, given the nature of wikipedia as a distillation of many different sources, reading their contributions (and original sources) constitutes quite a bit of research.

Do you, honestly, not see any relevance of that exchange to your original question?

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay. Fine but it doesn't answer the question I asked.

I don't know very much about the Holocaust at all but I would be interested to know from the people who absolutely concur with the official story what alternative theories/ Holocaust revisionist historians they have looked into and on what basis they discredit their findings.

Just read the links, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial

One Holocaust denial argument is the comparison of the population of Jews before and after the Holocaust. They state that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359, while the 1948 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the deaths of millions of Jews, cannot have happened to any extent similar to the claimed 6 million. Ken McVay writes:
Only in 1949 are postwar estimates employed, the figures given are for estimates made in 1948. A year or two lag seems to be common for various other population estimates given by the World Almanac. The difference between the 1938 and 1948 figures is thus 4,481,491. In 1949, however, the World Almanac gives a revised 1939 population of 16,643,120 giving a difference of between 1938 and 1947 of 5,376,520. Where the extra population between 1938 and 1939 came from is not cited, though one might speculate that it was based upon the Nazi estimates made in 1942 for the Wannsee Conference. Despite the apparent exactness of the numbers listed, the World Almanac warns that all numbers listed are estimates.[53]

A person who concurs with the official story, Ken McVay looks into one of the alternative theories and discredits it based on the above evidence>

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

For me it's the red flags these cranks throw up, such as whining about their "legitamate research" being suppressed in lieu of actual arguments.

To be fair their research is suppressed - criminalised even - in large parts of the "free world".

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Given that Cartesian doubt is a practical impossibility, you're still wasting everyone's time with this line of inquiry.


How about the people who think that "If operated as alleged, the Treblinka 'gas chambers' would've exploded." put forward their proof for this claim and we can see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

Unless you'd prefer to derail into metaphysical naval gazing for the rest of time.

Analysing all sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion isn't a "practical impossibility" though is it?

I was curious if anyone actually did it objectively regarding the Holocaust. Personally I am quite sure that I would try to objectively look at all arguments if I ever I was to try and educate myself on the subject.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To be fair their research is suppressed - criminalised even - in large parts of the "free world".

Except it's not.
It's entirely possible to research and revise the figures of those killed in the holocaust using legitimate historical research. One example being how the figure of those killed in Auschwitz dropped from and early, inaccurate 4 million to the more supported and accurate figure of about 1 million. (This fact is of course twisted by deniers to suit their agenda.)

If proper research is being suppressed, how did this happen?

What is being suppressed is not "research", its factually incorrect pseudo-historical racist twaddle.
I don't believe it should be outlawed as it is in some places, but it certainly does not deserve to be called anything other than bigoted, uneducated ****.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Analysing all sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion isn't a "practical impossibility" though is it?

You mean sides like say, the Holocaust being a cover for the abduction of 11 million people by aliens? Would you consider that or similar theories along with proper historical research and the conspiracy theories?
If not, why not?

Could it be that some theories are patently unreasonable and don't actually warrant serious consideration?

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Analysing all sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion isn't a "practical impossibility" though is it?

oh
Right
See, when you use words that have an actual meaning, but, in fact are using your own interpretation of them then this shit will happen.

Cartesian doubt means seeking knowing things beyond all possible doubt. Not reasonable, possible.

Now, if you'd like to try that for something like the holocaust then be my guest, but unless your secretly a survivor of all the camps and have been through all the various chambers and survived (and also helped to run the camps... because, it's all possible doubt, remember) and god knows what other criteria then I think you're going to find it to be an exercise in futility.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I was curious if anyone actually did it objectively regarding the Holocaust.

Well, we're trying it now.
if only we could find out more about these exploding gas chambers.....

Brown Bomber

Sacksian wrote: »

You asked what theories they had looked into and were provided with links detailing summaries of alternatives theories (and criticisms thereof i.e. the basis they are discredited).

You then said "so, is that none then?".

To which I replied that, given the nature of wikipedia as a distillation of many different sources, reading their contributions (and original sources) constitutes quite a bit of research.

Do you, honestly, not see any relevance of that exchange to your original question?

No, as it's not relevant.

If I asked you did you see the match at the weekend and what you made of it, posting an external match report doesn't answer either question.

Nobody has answered my questions yet for reasons i don't understand.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Except it's not.
It's entirely possible to research and revise the figures of those killed in the holocaust using legitimate historical research. One example being how the figure of those killed in Auschwitz dropped from and early, inaccurate 4 million to the more supported and accurate figure of about 1 million. (This fact is of course twisted by deniers to suit their agenda.)

If proper research is being suppressed, how did this happen?

You are wrong. It is illegal to question the Holocaust in many countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-bazyler-0

King Mob wrote: »

You mean sides like say, the Holocaust being a cover for the abduction of 11 million people by aliens? Would you consider that or similar theories along with proper historical research and the conspiracy theories?
If not, why not?

I mean everything which will either stand or fall on it's own merits. The only way we can know is through evaluating the evidence.

I was simply asking if anyone has actually looked into the evidence for the other arguments. Apparently not.

King Mob wrote: »

Could it be that some theories are patently unreasonable and don't actually warrant serious consideration?

Yes, but dismissing an argument out of hand without giving the argument fair hearing is foolish. It's quite straightforward to cut the wheat from the chaff.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are wrong. It is illegal to question the Holocaust in many countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-bazyler-0

And "questioning" is code for denying it for racist, uneducated reasons.

Actually questioning it with genuine research is not.
If this was not the case, how was the figure revised for 4 to 1 million dead in Auschwitz?

In 1983, French scholar George Wellers was one of the first to use German data on deportations to estimate the number killed at Auschwitz, arriving at 1.613 million dead, including 1.44 million Jews and 146,000 Poles.[87] A larger study started later by Franciszek Piper used timetables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate 960,000 Jewish deaths and 140,000–150,000 ethnic Polish victims, along with 23,000 Roma and Sinti,[88] a figure that has met with significant agreement from other scholars.[89]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Death_toll

Why are George Wellers and Franxiszek Piper not in jail for "denying" the deaths of 3 million people?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I mean everything which will either stand or fall on it's own merits. The only way we can know is through evaluating the evidence.

I was simply asking if anyone has actually looked into the evidence for the other arguments. Apparently not.

I have. There's plenty of examples of this here on the forum.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, but dismissing an argument out of hand without giving the argument fair hearing is foolish. It's quite straightforward to cut the wheat from the chaff.

So then the alien abduction theory really deserves a fair hearing?

And I've already described how I cut the wheat from the chaff: whinging about being suppressed as a excuse for lack of evidence is a red flag.
It's a common one used by other pseudo-researchers like creationists and climate change deniers.

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You anti-semites sure are tedious

... and you still haven't answered the question.

Yes or no will do fine - Have you ever objectively looked into the arguments/evidence of Holocaust revisionists?

If so, which ones? Why did you reject their arguments?

BTW your foolish and baseless outburst achieves nothing but delegitimising the term "anti-semitism"

I have Norwegian family members who never returned from Nazi labour camps. I have family members who fled from their homes in the uppermost part of Norway under gunfire and actually skied to Sweden. The Holocaust was barbaric, horrific and very real. That doesn't mean that every event that has been accepted as fact in relation to it is some kind of untouchable truth and attempts to question any aspect of it should see you removed of your personal liberty.

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and you still haven't answered the question.

Yes or no will do fine - Have you ever objectively looked into the arguments/evidence of Holocaust revisionists?

If so, which ones? Why did you reject their arguments?

BTW your foolish and baseless outburst achieves nothing but delegitimising the term "anti-semitism"

I have Norwegian family members who never returned from Nazi labour camps. I have family members who fled from their homes in the uppermost part of Norway under gunfire and actually skied to Sweden. The Holocaust was barbaric, horrific and very real. That doesn't mean that every event that has been accepted as fact in relation to it is some kind of untouchable truth and attempts to question any aspect of it should see you removed of your personal liberty.

Then no. I haven't looked into the arguments for Holocaust revision. If you are in agreement that it happened then assumably the type of revision you are talking about is argument over exact figures and the like? Such minutiae wouldn't interest me any more than an argument over the length of the Great Wall of China would

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Why are George Wellers and Franxiszek Piper not in jail for "denying" the deaths of 3 million people?

I have no idea. I don't know who they are. It doesn't matter though. The fact is that it is illegal to question the Holocaust in many nations of the world. I have demonstrated this. Nothing you say can change this fact.

King Mob wrote: »

I have. There's plenty of examples of this here on the forum.

Which historians have you studied? and to what extent? What was their arguments? What evidence did they present? And why have you since discredited it?

King Mob wrote: »

So then the alien abduction theory really deserves a fair hearing?

You tell me. You've proposed it, let's put it to the test... Supply the relevant evidence and we'll take it from there.

King Mob wrote: »

And I've already described how I cut the wheat from the chaff: whinging about being suppressed as a excuse for lack of evidence is a red flag.
It's a common one used by other pseudo-researchers like creationists and climate change deniers.

As I've already explained Holocaust revisionism is suppressed in many parts of the world therefore their complaint is legitimate and yours isn't.

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Then no. I haven't looked into the arguments for Holocaust revision. If you are in agreement that it happened then assumably the type of revision you are talking about is argument over exact figures and the like? Such minutiae wouldn't interest me any more than an argument over the length of the Great Wall of China would

Thank-you. As it's now been established that what led to your accusation against me was based on your own false assumptions perhaps an apology would be in order? Or at least withdrawing the slur?

BTW... are you familiar with the story of Elephant and the blind men?

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no idea. I don't know who they are. It doesn't matter though. The fact is that it is illegal to question the Holocaust in many nations of the world. I have demonstrated this. Nothing you say can change this fact.


Which historians have you studied? and to what extent? What was their arguments? What evidence did they present? And why have you since discredited it?


You tell me. You've proposed it, let's put it to the test... Supply the relevant evidence and we'll take it from there.


As I've already explained Holocaust revisionism is suppressed in many parts of the world therefore their complaint is legitimate and yours isn't.

Revising aspects of the holocaust is not illegal, denying it happened is illegal, I don't exactly agree with this but I don't think the world should be allowed to forget what happened, how monsters were made of men on such a large scale for such a long time

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank-you. As it's now been established that what led to your accusation against me was based on your own false assumptions perhaps an apology would be in order? Or at least withdrawing the slur?

BTW... are you familiar with the story of Elephant and the blind men?

I fully apologise for my slur against you, I misinterpreted your post as speaking of Holocaust denial rather than revisionism

meathstevie

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Albert Folens was allegedley a member of the Flemish legion, an organisation afiliated with the SS, so its also technicaly incorrect to call him a Nazi.

I'm afraid I have to correct you a little bit, the Langemarck Division and Flemish Legion before it were part of the Waffen SS, a sort of Nazi foreign legion if you like.

A lot of people from Flanders who joined that outfit wouldn't have necessarily been thorough bred Nazi's, a lot of the members would have acted out of anti-Belgian and anti-communist convictions more so than Nazi convictions.