Are Tattoos Proof of a Nazi Genocide?

[Budly]

Timhau wrote:

Just a friendly hint: conversing with yourself is something you can do even off-line.

It's true. Everybody here wants to give a lecture on Hitler and WWII. They think they know it all. Hans Mustermann's lecture figures in the "Wannsee conference" and he's probably not aware that most holocaust scholars no longer think that that is where the alleged "Final Solution" was devised.

Then Mathew Ellard states

Demjanjuk had a SS tattoo. He is charged with killing 27,000 people...with camp tattoos. How is this working for IG Farben?

We're talking about Auschwitz inmate tattoos. Not SS tattoos. Not Harley Davidson tattoos. Sheesh.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Timhau wrote:

It's true. Everybody here wants to give a lecture on Hitler and WWII. They think they know it all. Hans Mustermann's lecture figures in the "Wannsee conference" and he's probably not aware that most holocaust scholars no longer think that that is where the alleged "Final Solution" was devised.

Then Mathew Ellard states
We're talking about Auschwitz inmate tattoos. Not SS tattoos. Not Harley Davidson tattoos. Sheesh.

The people he killed were inmates with prisoner tattoos. They were not working for IG Farben if they were being executed. I thought you would have picked up on this. I was wrong.

 

[dudalb]

Timhau wrote:

It's true. Everybody here wants to give a lecture on Hitler and WWII. They think they know it all. Hans Mustermann's lecture figures in the "Wannsee conference" and he's probably not aware that most holocaust scholars no longer think that that is where the alleged "Final Solution" was devised.

Then Mathew Ellard states
We're talking about Auschwitz inmate tattoos. Not SS tattoos. Not Harley Davidson tattoos. Sheesh.

I note you are using devised as a weasel word.

Uh, no Historian says that the Wannsee conference was where the Final Solution was decided upon. That had already been decided upon by Hitler and the other top level leadership in the Third Reich as a matter of policy. The Wannsee conference was strictly a Mid Level management meeting on ways and means, with Heydrich as the Vice President in Charge Of Extermination.

 

[Budly]

Mathew Ellard wrote:

The people (Demjanjuk) killed were inmates with prisoner tattoos.

Demjanjuk didn't kill anyone because the holocaust is a myth. But besides that, Demjanjuk was allegedly at Treblinka and Sobibor, and they didn't tattoo anyone at those camps.

Dudalb wrote

with Heydrich as the Vice President in Charge Of Extermination

Dudalb, that's just totally made-up. There was no "Vice President of Extermination."

 

[dudalb]

Mathew Ellard wrote:

Demjanjuk didn't kill anyone because the holocaust is a myth. But besides that, Demjanjuk was allegedly at Treblinka and Sobibor, and they didn't tattoo anyone at those camps.

Dudalb wrote
Dudalb, that's just totally made-up. There was no "Vice President of Extermination."

I guess the idea of "figure of speech" is beyond you.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Mathew Ellard wrote:

Demjanjuk didn't kill anyone because the holocaust is a myth. But besides that, Demjanjuk was allegedly at Treblinka and Sobibor, and they didn't tattoo anyone at those camps.

You are simply wrong He was at Sobibor after training at Trawniki. He and other Sobibor guards received their tattoos on route to Flossenberg. He wasn't at Treblinka.
people/d/demjanjuk.john//circuit-court/appeal-order.apdx-07

 

[HansMustermann]

Timhau wrote:

It's true. Everybody here wants to give a lecture on Hitler and WWII. They think they know it all. Hans Mustermann's lecture figures in the "Wannsee conference" and he's probably not aware that most holocaust scholars no longer think that that is where the alleged "Final Solution" was devised.

Maybe we wouldn't have to give lectures if not for the constant stream of holocaust-denial BS. You'd think anyone with even a modicum interest in real history, would find plenty of info on their own to debunk their own BS, but apparently that's not the case. So I guess someone has to say it all over again

 

[Mondial]

90% of the Holocaust Deniers are Neo Nazi/White Supremists. The other 10% are some extreme Libertarians( it's fits in with there extreme Isolationism and belief that US entry into WW2 was wrong) and the usual gang of idiots who will support any crazy idea that makes them look "Daring" "Anti Establishment" and "Edgy".

The usual attempt at smear and character assassination. What about Nation of Islam and other black people (not all muslims) who think the holocaust is a hoax? Are they "Neo Nazi/White Supremists" as well? This is a skeptics forum and I am skeptical of the holocaust. www.nazigassings.com If you can't handle open debate and someone having an opinion other than your own go and live in a communist country.

 

[Cavemonster]

The usual attempt at smear and character assassination. What about Nation of Islam and other black people (not all muslims) who think the holocaust is a hoax? Are they "Neo Nazi/White Supremists" as well? This is a skeptics forum and I am skeptical of the holocaust. www.nazigassings.com If you can't handle open debate and someone having an opinion other than your own go and live in a communist country.

You have a point.

There are a wide variety of types of mindless hate that can lead to holocaust denial.

What's yours?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The usual attempt at smear and character assassination.

You opened by calling the Holocaust a "sob story". You don't seem to understand that respect has to be earned, and that it is a two-way street. If you want people to take your ideas seriously, you'll want to present them in a serious manner. Barging into a forum full of people who feel very strongly about the Holocaust and calling it a "sob story" shows you sorely lack the respect you seem to crave. The fact that you're dumping links on us instead of posting actual arguments worsens the impression.

What about Nation of Islam and other black people (not all muslims) who think the holocaust is a hoax?

I actually smiled by your "(not all muslims)" disclaimer. OK, so you're not worried about offending us, but you are afraid of coming across as anti-Islamic? Or am I misinterpreting what you wrote?

This is a skeptics forum and I am skeptical of the holocaust.

...and we've replied to you and answered your question.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

This is a skeptics forum and I am skeptical of the holocaust. www.nazigassings.com If you can't handle open debate and someone having an opinion other than your own go and live in a communist country.

Funny, I thought it was all the western countries who tried to stop communists "being different" by supporting the Whites in the Russian Civil war. I assume you are American.

Anyway www.nazigassing.com is a lowbrow website for holocaust deniers. It has a hilarious video of a concentration camp being liberated where the authors of this website says "See that women in frame 48903098 she looks healthy! The holocaust must be fake".


Try Himmler for your evidence next time.....

(Himmler's October 4th, 1943 Posen Speech) still on tape.
I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people[1]. It is one of those things that is easily said. [quickly] "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, a small matter". [less quickly] And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. [mockingly] They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew. [a few people laugh] And ... [audience cough] [carefully] ... none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 are there or when there are 1000. And ... to have seen this through and -- with the exception of human weakness --
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/himmler-heinrich/posen/oct-04-43/ausrottung-transl-nizkor.html

 

[Slimething]

This is a skeptics forum and I am skeptical of the holocaust.

This is why you can't be taken seriously. Skeptics go with the evidence, not against it. You feel that the mere act of disbelieving a fact makes you a skeptic. No. If you had compelling evidence against what was perceived as an established fact, you would qualify but you don't. All you have is a small pile of inconclusive and easily debunked speculation.

You need to do some deep soul-searching. You have a need to deny a very well-established historical event. Why? Why exactly must you believe this thing never happened? Why would it negatively impact your world view if it had? Pogroms like the Holocaust are happening even now so why do you doubt it happened back in WWII? History is what it is. The only factor that can change in the relationship between you and reality is you.

Otherwise, get used to being ignored and disbelieved. The world houses many cranks and you're going to be just one more.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am skeptical of the holocaust, in the sense that I've examined the evidence, and concluded from it that the overwhelming balance of probability is that it all happened as conventional history records. As a skeptic, I've therefore formed a provisional conclusion, to be revised should significant new data emerge, that the Holocaust really happened. Being skeptical of an event is not the same as disbelieving it. In many cases, the Holocaust being a classic example, the only rational skeptical position is a conclusion that it actually happened.

Mondial, you are not skeptical of the Holocaust. You disbelieve in the Holocaust, despite the evidence. You are a denier, and denialism is not skepticism.

Dave

 

[dudalb]

The usual attempt at smear and character assassination. What about Nation of Islam and other black people (not all muslims) who think the holocaust is a hoax? Are they "Neo Nazi/White Supremists" as well? This is a skeptics forum and I am skeptical of the holocaust. www.nazigassings.com If you can't handle open debate and someone having an opinion other than your own go and live in a communist country.

You are right: I forgot about the NOI and it glorious leader "Louis The Louse" Farrakkhan. They are indeed Holocaust Deniers, as are a few other extreme African "Nationalist"groups. And they are just as disgusting in their bigotry as the White Supremists.
And as for being a skeptic, I don't think that word means what you think it means......

 

[timhau]

This is a skeptics forum and I am skeptical of the holocaust.

... which means you'll fit in almost as well as a flat-earther.

 

[theprestige]

Returning to the OP's question:

These tattoos are proof that someone was tattooed. They are also evidence of a program to tattoo people. We know from mountains of other evidence that the tattoo program was part of the overall Nazi holocaust program.

The tattoo doesn't prove that the program existed. It just proves that a person was part of that program.

The only people that seem confused about any of this are Mondial and Budly.

 

[Pinkymcfatfat]

I think the tattoos give quite a LOT of proof that the holocaust did happen....Ever read IBM and the Holocaust?

"One example used was IBM code sheets for concentration camps taken from the files of the National Archives. IBM's Prisoner Code listed 8 for a Jew and Code 11 for a Gypsy. Camp Code 001 was Auschwitz, Code 002 was Buchenwald. Status Code 5 was executed by order, code 6 was gas chamber."

"An IBM customer site, the Hollerith Abteilung, operated in almost every concentration camp. It either ran machines, sorted cards or prepared documents for IBM processing. IBM serviced the machines on site. In addition, the infamous Auschwitz arm tattoo began as an IBM number."

Tattoo as coding number...pretty clever. Hitler wanted his body count to be correct. Good 'ol Aryan efficency.

 

[MaGZ]

Well, yes, but my point is kinda this: if they want to think Hitler was good, and Hitler was just trying to relocate the Jews somewhere far away... it doesn't make much sense to also be against Israel, does it? I mean, ok, now they're relocated. Right?

Israel is expansionist, they want Lebensraum.

 

[Simon39759]

Israel is expansionist, they want Lebensraum.

It's a bit more complicated than that as Israel does not have an actual policy of conquest, rather the surrounding territories were added as buffer zone to insure the security of Israel.

Even if it was true, what does it ****ing change? Have you heard about the tu quoque fallacy?
Even if Israel was bad and evil and just as terrible at Nazi Germany (it's not), what would it change about the crimes of the Nazis?

On the other hand, it is interesting that you start by denying the holocaust and then start justifying it: "It never happen and the Jews had it coming anyway" does sound as a tacit acknowledgement that the holocaust did indeed happen...

 

[Jonathan Harrison]

This brings us into that "valuable blue collar labor" that the Nazis couldn't have got from any other group.

But then a few posts later Budly says that all the Jews sent to Auschwitz were working for IG Farben.

Budly can't make up his mind what he's supposed to be denying.