• 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.
Predictably my fine anti-Anglo rant was AH-ed. From this rant this holocaust related quote:

Yes, it was the British army who put civilian boers of Dutch descent in concentration camps, a fine British invention. Here Lillie van Zuyl. Where have we seen these pictures before?
Tell me something new. Its commonly known in the UK that British invented the concentration camp. They did a lot of other bad stuff in WWII also, like the bombing of Dresden. The British did some pretty nasty stuff in the name of empire around the world.

But thats not the OP. Feel free to start a new topic on this subject.

Point is your arguments will never win because its obvious from your posts that you are completely biased on the subject due to sad and misplaced philosophies. You are not driven by an interest in the subject or by the need to understand the historical truth. You are driven purely on your sad ideology.

And so you position is completely untenable and irrelevant to the history of the Holocaust.

I've often wondered about what drives this far right point of view in an individual. Its mean and nasty and stinks. One day the human race will grow up and become civilised and this stuff will be a strange blot in our often disastrous history.
 
Last edited:
Respectfully, I don't think it's helpful to characterize an unrepentant Neo-Nazi as "far right." Just my 2 cents.
 
TSR is asking rethorical questions he is perfectly able to answer for himself. Exactly the same pictures like in the German concentration camps.
.
Yes, were read that lie when you first told it. Show were this specific picture was attributed to the Holocaust, or be caught in yet another lie.
.
And again: I am not here to defend the actions of the Germans, just battling the Anglo exaggerations and lies culminating in the 'holocaust' story.
.
Exaggerations like your lie that simply disputing the number of dead is outlawed anywhere?

Or that 9 is "most of" 27?

Seems it is the deniers that are exaggerating and lying.
.
 
I have just read a Danish journalists account of his stay in Neuengamme, he were arrested in 1944.
There is no mass extermination in that camp, just people being brutalised and worked to death. But it does give the impression of a system where genocide would be perfectly possible.
 
Inevitable? Really? It is true, they do not explicitly support Hitler, since they believe the 'evil Germans holocaust' story. But we surely both agree that multiculturalism would never have happened under Hitler (so much for your 'inevitable changes'). And when you carefully read between the lines in the Daily Mail article you have to admit that these veterans hate multiculturalism. Meaning that their position is much closer to Hitler than the current British establishment.

Have you any idea how popular Hitler was until the very end? And how deeply hated/despised modern western politicians are by their own voters?

I have a distinct feeling they 'do not explicitly support Hitler' not only because of the Holocaust, but also because he was trying to conquer the British Isles for most of WWII! I'm quite sure having a German flag flying over the UK would be a change they wouldn't like very much either, if things had turned out differently. I really think whatever changes would have happened over the last 60+ years, people in that age group would find something to complain about. Of course it's not 'the Britain they fought for' anymore, it's the Britain of their children and grandchildren, just as the Britain of the 1940s wasn't the same Britain as past generations had fought for during WWI.

No matter how much I opposed George W Bush during his two terms, he was greatly preferable to Hitler.
 
.
Yes, were read that lie when you first told it. Show were this specific picture was attributed to the Holocaust, or be caught in yet another lie.
.

Much as I am loathe to provide support for him, I think his point is that the photo shows an emaciated person from the Boer camps...therefore photos of emaciated people from the Nazi camps is not proof of anything. Or something along those lines.

Thought, frankly, I'm not surprised he's managed to drag this thread out if that's the general level of incoherence of his arguments. I mean this would be something approaching a reasonable point if you were only arguing the pictures...and ignored all the other evidence. It's merely another one of those arguments of "this looks like that therefore this and that are the same".

For the Boer deaths this was down to sheer incompetence on the part of the British administration...it was never intended to actually kill them. For the Nazi camps, of course, we see little such concern.
 
I have a distinct feeling they 'do not explicitly support Hitler' not only because of the Holocaust, but also because he was trying to conquer the British Isles for most of WWII! I'm quite sure having a German flag flying over the UK would be a change they wouldn't like very much either, if things had turned out differently.

OMG. You really take all your clues from television and cinema, don't you.

Hitler admired Britain. He sincerely thought that the English were on the same level as the Germans (a catastrophic blunder). In his phantasy he had plans to extend and prolongue European rule. Hitler wanted colonies or Lebensraum as he called it in the East and he was perfectly willing to let Britain keep the 25% of the planet it already had acquired in their version of Livingspace. He was even prepared to deliver troops in the support of the Empire. Hitler never wanted to attack Britain. It was sheer stupidity of Chamberlain to hand out a blanque cheque to the Poles that whatever they would do the Brits would come to their aid in case of an attack by Germany. What Chamberlain should have done was put pressure on the Poles to make concessions in the Danzig case. Danzig was a 97% German city and wanted to return to the Reich. But the Poles refused to cooperate with the British garantee in their pocket. Then there was increased border tension and next the Germans decided to take back what they considered theirs after they had made an agreement with the Soviets. Because of the garantee Britain (and France) declared war on Germany. But still not everything was lost because neither Britain nor France did anything with the war declaration ('Phoney War'/'Drole the Guerre') much to the delight of the Germans who had very bad memories from a 2-front war during WW1. However it was Winston Churchill, this prototypical drunken half-Jewish/American hooligan mystery meat (bribed by Jewish financial circles from London since the mid-thirties) who really expanded a local conflict into WW2. It was him who planned the invasion of Norway in 1940 in order to cut vital iron ore supply lines from Sweden to Germany who forced the Germans to invade Norway and Benelux and France. And even during the invasion of France he let the Brits escape (the English lied this event into the 'miracle of Duinkerken') because he was interested in peace with Britain so he had his hands free to 'stamp out Jewish communism' in the East. And on the eve of the invasion of Russia it was Rudolf Hess who made this desperate flight to Britain, obviously NOT to Churchill (who was doing the bidding of the Jews anyway) but to this Duke who could expected to be more sympathetic to peace with Germany, like many others in the British establishment who feared for the survival of the Empire. It is very likely that Germany would have offered pulling back from Western Europe in exchange for peace and free hand in the East. It was Gorbatchov with his unexpected offer to release Hess from Spandau that caused alarm within Anglo circles because if Hess would leave prison alive one of the biggest WW2 lies would have been made public. That is why the Brits were forced to 'suicide' Hess. But WW2 was never over Poland. Britain never declared war on the USSR, who had done exactly the same thing as Germany, namely swallowing half of Poland. Instead they allied themselves with the biggest bunch of mass-murderers of history to defeat Germany. Germany had expelled the Jews from Germany because they did not want to be controlled, read bolshevized by them like they had done to Russia. But the Jews who already controlled London and Washington did not like that and organized resistence. The allies won and in the end they had no choice but to invent the 'holocaust' to whitewash their own crimes.

There is no end to Anglo perfidy.

In the near future the revisionist story above is going to replace to old lies that Germany wanted to conquer the world but that luckily there were a bunch of notoriously good guys around to prevent that. And in the hour of victory, as a sort of bonus, they had accidently 'discovered' that the Germans had a little extermination program going on during the war years, conveniently distracting from the Anglo destruction of German cities (the only holocaust that really happened not counting in the holomodor and other Soviet crimes). Fortunately in the end the good guys prevailed. In reality however, the not so good guys, the Jews, prevailed and in their slipstream the Americans, our 'liberators' as you will remember. The biggest losers were the Europeans. Obviously the Germans, but certainly also the Eastern Europeans who got enslaved by Bolshevism, courtesy Churchill. And of course Britain as well, which lost its empire. Only because they let an half-american traitor control their government.

I really think whatever changes would have happened over the last 60+ years, people in that age group would find something to complain about. Of course it's not 'the Britain they fought for' anymore, it's the Britain of their children and grandchildren, just as the Britain of the 1940s wasn't the same Britain as past generations had fought for during WWI.

No matter how much I opposed George W Bush during his two terms, he was greatly preferable to Hitler.

Giving your country away to a hostile civilisation like Islam is never popular and not just to 'aging people'.
 
Last edited:
In the near future the revisionist story above is going to replace to old lies that Germany wanted to conquer the world but that luckily there were a bunch of notoriously good guys around to prevent that. And in the hour of victory, as a sort of bonus, they had accidently 'discovered' that the Germans had a little extermination program going on during the war years, conveniently distracting from the Anglo destruction of German cities (the only holocaust that really happened not counting in the holomodor and other Soviet crimes). Fortunately in the end the good guys prevailed. In reality however, the not so good guys, the Jews, prevailed and in their slipstream the Americans, our 'liberators' as you will remember. The biggest losers were the Europeans. Obviously the Germans, but certainly also the Eastern Europeans who got enslaved by Bolshevism, courtesy Churchill. And of course Britain as well, which lost its empire. Only because they let an half-american traitor control their government.

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
 
While your off-topic drivel is amusing in a car crash sort of way, perhaps we can get back on-topic, and start by you answering my very simple question. Will you now accept that your explanation for why some prisoners at Auschwitz received medical treatment was wrong?
 
Hitler admired Britain. He sincerely thought that the English were on the same level as the Germans (a catastrophic blunder). In his phantasy he had plans to extend and prolongue European rule. Hitler wanted colonies or Lebensraum as he called it in the East and he was perfectly willing to let Britain keep the 25% of the planet it already had acquired in their version of Livingspace.

Hitler was simply anti-colonies and did not see the benefit as it reduced racial purity.
The former German colonial policy, like everything we did, was carried out by halves. It neither increased the settlement area of the German Reich, nor did it undertake any attempt- criminal though it would have been-to strengthen the Reich by the use of black blood.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch14.html

What Chamberlain should have done was put pressure on the Poles to make concessions in the Danzig case.

France and Britain put pressure on the Poles to allow the Russian army to enter Poland as a buffer to stop Hitler attacking. Poland refused as it had only concluded its war with Russia in 1924. You can read this in AJP Taylor's
The Origins of the Second World War.


Danzig was a 97% German city and wanted to return to the Reich.

This is a common lie from holocaust deniers. In May 1933, the Nazi Party won the local elections in the city. However, they received only 37% percent of the vote, less than the two-thirds required by the League of Nations to change the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig. Go read some history!

Next the Germans decided to take back what they considered theirs after they had made an agreement with the Soviets.

Correct and the Soviets moved into Poland as a buffer against Germany exactly as was offered to them by the British and French, who were sitting in the next room, because Poland refused.

Because of the garantee Britain (and France) declared war on Germany. But still not everything was lost because neither Britain nor France did anything with the war declaration

France and Britain ( and South Africa, Canada, Australia & New Zealand mobilised) and France attacked Germany and advanced 8 kilometres into Germany in the Saar Offensive waiting for mobilisation to supply reserves.

Yawn.....can someone please bring a holocaust denier to this forum with some experience and decent arguments? At least David Irving cracks good jokes.
 
While your off-topic drivel is amusing in a car crash sort of way, perhaps we can get back on-topic, and start by you answering my very simple question. Will you now accept that your explanation for why some prisoners at Auschwitz received medical treatment was wrong?
:boxedin:
 
Hitler was simply anti-colonies and did not see the benefit as it reduced racial purity.
The former German colonial policy, like everything we did, was carried out by halves. It neither increased the settlement area of the German Reich, nor did it undertake any attempt- criminal though it would have been-to strengthen the Reich by the use of black blood.
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch14.html



France and Britain put pressure on the Poles to allow the Russian army to enter Poland as a buffer to stop Hitler attacking. Poland refused as it had only concluded its war with Russia in 1924. You can read this in AJP Taylor's
The Origins of the Second World War.




This is a common lie from holocaust deniers. In May 1933, the Nazi Party won the local elections in the city. However, they received only 37% percent of the vote, less than the two-thirds required by the League of Nations to change the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig. Go read some history!



Correct and the Soviets moved into Poland as a buffer against Germany exactly as was offered to them by the British and French, who were sitting in the next room, because Poland refused.



France and Britain ( and South Africa, Canada, Australia & New Zealand mobilised) and France attacked Germany and advanced 8 kilometres into Germany in the Saar Offensive waiting for mobilisation to supply reserves.

Yawn.....can someone please bring a holocaust denier to this forum with some experience and decent arguments? At least David Irving cracks good jokes.



There is no such animal because no decent arguments for denying the Holocaust exist. Irving can be entertaining, but when you examine the evidence for his arguments he does little better then the people who post their crap here. Irving is just more literate, that's all.
 
This is a common lie from holocaust deniers. In May 1933, the Nazi Party won the local elections in the city. However, they received only 37% percent of the vote, less than the two-thirds required by the League of Nations to change the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig. Go read some history!

It is always amusing reading Mr Ellard accusing holocaust deniers of lying while his "facts" are usually nothing more than a bizarre melange of misunderstood drivel.

For the record a Plebiscite on Danzig was held shortly after the Saar plebiscite that had it returning to the Reich. The Nazis won 60% of the vote, but that was less than the 70% needed to rewrite the constitution.

The Nazis won 44 sets, the Socialists 12, Catholic Centrists 9, German Nationalists 3, Communists 2, Poles 2.
Total votes were 140 000 for the Nazis and 96 000 for their opponents (of which it was estimated 8 000 if that 96 000 were Polish).

The vast majority of the German nationalists, Catholic Centrists and probably Socialist voters would want reunion with Germany, just not Nazi Germany. As it was, a comfortable majority of the population wanted reunion even with Nazi Germany.
 
I wonder if the nazi thinks that he has convinced anyone of anything besides that he is a disgusting piece of crap.
 
In the thread mentioned in the previous post Matthew Ellard says:

Like all Holocaust Deniers, you are unable to explain where these missing Jews went.

Just like the True Believers are unable to prove that extermination program in the first place, I might add.
I feel like I have to prove that I do not have WMDs.

Nevertheless, in a brand new article a beginning of an attempt is made.

He doesn´t have to prove anything.

These Jews were alive when the Nazis apprehended them. They were not seen alive afterwards ever again. Therefore, if you or your Nazi buddies wish to claim the Nazis did not kill them, you and your Nazi buddies need to prove what else happened to them.
 
He doesn´t have to prove anything.

Reasoning of people who live, judicially speaking, in a failed state. "We accuse, you have to prove it." That is the way the inhabitants of former British colony (it should have stayed a British colony) reason, hence: plea-bargains, Guantanamo, Abu-ghraib.

These Jews were alive when the Nazis apprehended them. They were not seen alive afterwards ever again. Therefore, if you or your Nazi buddies wish to claim the Nazis did not kill them, you and your Nazi buddies need to prove what else happened to them.

Chaos tries to sell the idea that since many people disappeared, they ALL disappeared. Contradicted by observations like this one:

http://www.annefrankdiaryreference.org/people.htm
What's this about? There are some 100 people related to the life of Anne Frank. What happened to them? The result is surprising, nay revealing:

1- On those 100 people, 65 were jews. This is impressive considering there was 75,000 jews in Amsterdam at that time and thus only making less than 10% of the population.

2- On those 65 jews, no less than 33 NEVER set foot in a camp.

3- 14 have been sent to camps but were released or liberated in 1945.

4- 12 have died in camps from old age, other natural causes or typhus (Anne is one of those).

5- Only 6, out of these 100 jews are "said" to have been executed in camps. And only ONE of those 6 is said to have been "gased".


Now how is that for a starter? Anyone who followed a basic statistic course knows that these figures are at odds with the official story. The majority should have been gassed rather then only 1 'said to be gassed'.

Source
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom