• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hokulele said:
If you can get China and Japan to form an alliance on anything more substantial than a game of tiddlywinks, I will eat my hat.
Click to expand...

Well, he included Iran in there as well, so he must be living in a fantasy land. Iranian people in general are embarrassed by their current tinpot's denial/revisionism claims. Some excuse his words and some others may buy into it, but the majority of Iranians don't deny the Holocaust (or suggest things like 9/11-I has been stating). That doesn't mean they're on good terms with Israel, but those problems seem to be more complicated than our friend here seems to understand. The same applies to China (natch), but for different reasons.
 
Someone better tell the Germans to remove all the holocaust memorials I have seen over there and to stop admitting something they did not actually do.

Bigots are pond life.
 
9/11-investigator said:
Fine. Prove it.

You like watching television, don't you?
Click to expand...

No, actually, you need to prove it didn't happen. The documents, testimony, eye-witnesses, scholars are all against you.

You tried to prove your case using Fred Leuchter.

They way it works is that if you are going to allege the sun rises in the west, the burden of proof is on you...and proof is more than poking holes in what (I assume one of your heros) Le Pen would call a detail of history. It is a big burden. It has to have enough weight to cause all of the documents, trials, witness statements, statistics, etc. into clear doubt.

Nothing you've shared or written even comes close.

The sun is still rising in the East.
 
KDLarsen said:
Actually, don't.

That book is a waste of time, since Buchanan seems hell-bent on blaming everything on the British and French while excusing both the German empire and Nazi Germany as much as possible.

He even argues that France and Great Britain should have ignored the German military expansions of the 1930's, and allowed Hitler to have his war with the Soviet Union without the worry of two fronts, believing that it would have saved millions of lives. The fact is that approx half of all military deaths (16 million out of ~30 million) of World War II, along with 1/4 of all civilian deaths (11 million out of 44 million, Holocaust not included) happened on the Eastern Front.

That's a total of 27 million people who were killed. And then one can start speculating what would have happened, especially if the Germans had advanced to the Urals and created the Lebensraum they so desperately wanted. How many more million deaths would THAT have taken? And how many more jews would have "mysteriously vanished" :boggled:

ETA: What my grinds my gear the most, though, is that Buchanan claims that the Holocaust would not have happened if Great Britain and France had not declared war on Germany.
Click to expand...

Agreed, "Churchill,Hitler And The UnNecessary War" is the biggest bunch of crapola on World War 2 between 2 covers since the last David Irving book.
I have a theory that since Buchanan shows a definent paths of going further and further in his whitewash of Nazi Germany that sooner or later he will embrace Holcaust Denial.
 
Churchill ended it all with his declaration of war on Germany.
Click to expand...

From William Shirer's "Berlin Diary":

-- "H'm" -- she [the wife of a German friend - Sk.] said to me -- "why did England declare war on us?"
-- "H'm" -- I replied -- "Why did you invade Poland?"
-- "H'm. But the English, they're human beings..."
-- "And perhaps the Poles are human beings too?"
-- "H'm", she said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Agreed, "Churchill,Hitler And The UnNecessary War" is the biggest bunch of crapola on World War 2 between 2 covers since the last David Irving book.
I have a theory that since Buchanan shows a definent paths of going further and further in his whitewash of Nazi Germany that sooner or later he will embrace Holcaust Denial.
Click to expand...


As a practicing Catholic, I don't think he can go quite that far, however he has shown a marked propensity to not let facts get in the way of his narative.
 
Besides, I'll raise you Buchanan's specious book and challenge you to read Evan's three volumes on Nazism -- which leaves little doubt that not only was the war Hitler's, not only were the murder's Hitlers, but that Hitler lost the war very early on...and never recovered. That makes Hitler one dumb, murderous. genocidal ego-maniac (not to mention his appalling taste in art and building, music and facial hair).
 
headscratcher4 said:
Besides, I'll raise you Buchanan's specious book and challenge you to read Evan's three volumes on Nazism -- which leaves little doubt that not only was the war Hitler's, not only were the murder's Hitlers, but that Hitler lost the war very early on...and never recovered. That makes Hitler one dumb, murderous. genocidal ego-maniac (not to mention his appalling taste in art and building, music and facial hair).
Click to expand...

I think that's "Evans". Agree on everything else. Try also Kershaw's two-volume biography.
 
Oh, and least we forget to add, biology and genetic science (the real stuff -- not the crypto crap the Nazi's favored) is pretty difinitive on the utter boobishness of Hitler's racial theories....
 
Skeptic said:
I think that's "Evans". Agree on everything else. Try also Kershaw's two-volume biography.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Right you are. Richard J. Evans. One of the better histories I've read recently.

Kershaw's books were also extremely good and interesting.
 
Kershaw brought out a one volume abridgement of his Hitler Biography last year, which is probably a better choice for the average reader.
Evans 3 Volumne History of the Third Reich will be the standard works for scholars, but is daunting to the average reader. I will not be surprised if he brings out a one volumn version also.
 
dudalb said:
Kershaw brought out a one volume abridgement of his Hitler Biography last year, which is probably a better choice for the average reader.
Evans 3 Volumne History of the Third Reich will be the standard works for scholars, but is daunting to the average reader. I will not be surprised if he brings out a one volumn version also.
Click to expand...

I got something by Martin Kitchen at home. It was a good quick read to help oen understand the third reich.
 
dudalb said:
Kershaw brought out a one volume abridgement of his Hitler Biography last year, which is probably a better choice for the average reader.
Evans 3 Volumne History of the Third Reich will be the standard works for scholars, but is daunting to the average reader. I will not be surprised if he brings out a one volumn version also.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "daunting" unless you are only refering to length. Evans is a very clear and accessible writer -- not to mention his impecable sourcing. I never thought any of his three volumes were slogs to get through...just time consuming.
 
headscratcher4 said:
I wouldn't say "daunting" unless you are only refering to length. Evans is a very clear and accessible writer -- not to mention his impecable sourcing. I never thought any of his three volumes were slogs to get through...just time consuming.
Click to expand...



I was referring to length. Evans is a brilliant writer,(which, let's face it, alot of very knowledgable historians are not) but a three volume history is pretty daunting to the average reader,no matter how clear and well written.
Which is why Although I consider Shelby Foote's 3 Vol.opus to be the best work on the American Civil War, I recommend McPherson's 1 Vol."Battle Cry Of Freedom" as the best single work on the Civil War for the casual reader.
 
One had to be very careful about biographies of Hitler in general. For obvious reasons, many people wrote "biographies" of his where the relationship to reality is between tenuous and nonexistent.

For example, there is Speer's popular "Inside the Third Reich", which always reminds me of "verbal" in The Usual Suspects -- he puts TONS of tiny little details in every chapter EXCEPT the ones that actually matter, e.g., his knowledge of the atrocities or his control of slave labor, which are given -- in the entire book -- at most a few paragraphs, much less than is given to, say, Hitler's table manners or Goering's love of luxury.

Another famous but worthless work is "The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler" by Payne, which has Hitler doing numerous things which he never did: faking art, being dirty with lice, engaging in sadomasochistic sex, going by the name of "Schikelgruber", visiting his half-brother in England, believing in astrology, sending a delegation to have a secret meeting behind the lines with the Soviets in 1943, etc.

An excellent review of such spurious biographies can be found in Waite's The Psychopathic God, in the chapter "A Note on Spurious Sources". For example, he notes that the stories of Hitler being a down-and-out bum in Vienna has some basis in fact, but in reality he was not nearly as "down and out" as he was often portrayed. This description of him, notes Waite, comes mainly from two lifelong bums and petty criminals who tried, during the 1930s, to cash in on the fact that they were living in Vienna boarding-houses at roughly the same time when Hitler was. Naturally, they invented numerous "spicy" details to sell their books -- fables that were later repeated in history books.

Some historians fell for these liars' descriptions of Hitler in Vienna since each of these "biographers" vouches for the accuracy of the other -- which, Waite notes, is "not unlike accepting mutual character testimonies from Uriah Heep and Seth Pecksniff".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom