• 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.

Holocaust deniers, explain this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saggy said:
The usual lies from the Zionists. The camp commandant at Belsen was Josef Kramer and his correspondence was captured including a letter to the chief camps administrator, requesting medicine, supplies, etc, to deal with the impending catastrophe at Belsen .... you can read his letter, translated, here...

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Belsen/Kramer010345.html

For the usual chorus of Zionist idiots, the letter is not in dispute.
Click to expand...

Awesome, so then why did they keep sending the prisoners? I mean we're talking about rounding people up who basically had places to live where they were. Cost of transportation and jamming them in where they were basically going to contract typhus and die. Why would the government continue to do that if the commanders at the camp were letting them know that the mortality rate was about 200-300 DAILY?

I'd like a fair answer to that btw. If prisoners are dying at 200-300 a day and the commander of the camp is letting the big guys know about it and then they continue to send more prisoners to the camp, after he stated he was overwhelmed and it was a crisis, then lets see..........what is the logical conclusion about that?
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
Awesome, so then why did they keep sending the prisoners? I mean we're talking about rounding people up who basically had places to live where they were. Cost of transportation and jamming them in where they were basically going to contract typhus and die. Why would the government continue to do that if the commanders at the camp were letting them know that the mortality rate was about 200-300 DAILY?

I'd like a fair answer to that btw. If prisoners are dying at 200-300 a day and the commander of the camp is letting the big guys know about it and then they continue to send more prisoners to the camp, after he stated he was overwhelmed and it was a crisis, then lets see..........what is the logical conclusion about that?
Click to expand...

To use them for labor? Why do all that if extermination was the only goal?

Arguably it's reasonable to suggest it was for both, but it doesn't make sense to me to spend that cost on transportation and logistics if killing was the only reason.
 
Last edited:
Well actually it does make all that sense to spend the cost if killing them was the actual goal. You don't want them contaminating the cities? Send them out to the camps to be disposed of? But again WHY would they continue sending people there if the camp warden by his own words stated it was certain death to continue sending people?

Next.

I read through the David Irving site (briefly) and I'll show you an example of a pattern I see in the "debunkers" side of the story.

Classic example

Auschwitz Survivor Claims Elie Wiesel is an Impostor

http://www.henrymakow.com/translated_from_the_hungarian.html

So we have this guy who the Deniers snatched right up as an example to show that there's a scam going on. Pretty compelling story. There's even pictures.

Yet you guys seem to totally ignore what he says in reference to things other than Elie Wiesel

In May 1944 , when Miklos Gruner was 15, he was deported from Hungary to Auschwitz-Birkenau with his mother and father as well as both a younger and an elder brother. He says that his mother and his younger brother were immediately gased after their arrival in the camp. Then he, his elder brother and their father had an inmate number tattooed on their arms and were sent to perform hard work in a synthetic fuel factory linked to IG Farben where the father died six months later. After that, the elder brother was sent to Mauthausen and, as the young Miklos was then alone, two elder Jewish inmates who were also Hungarians and friends with his late father took him under their protection. These two protectors of the young Miklos were the Lazar and Abraham Wiesel brothers.
Click to expand...

So on the one hand Deniers are using him to tear down the credibility of Elie Weisel. Yet on the other hand you are totally ignoring that his testimony backs up the use of gas chambers.

So which is it? If he's lying about the Gas Chambers why should we believe he's telling the truth about Weisel?

If he's telling the truth about Weisel, then he's telling the truth about the Gas Chambers no?

You guys seem to be doing this a lot in this thread without realizing it.
 
Last edited:
truethat said:
Well actually it does make all that sense to spend the cost if killing them was the actual goal. You don't want them contaminating the cities? Send them out to the camps to be disposed of? But again WHY would they continue sending people there if the camp warden by his own words stated it was certain death to continue sending people?

Next.

I read through the David Irving site (briefly) and I'll show you an example of a pattern I see in the "debunkers" side of the story.

Classic example

Auschwitz Survivor Claims Elie Wiesel is an Impostor

http://www.henrymakow.com/translated_from_the_hungarian.html

So we have this guy who the Deniers snatched right up as an example to show that there's a scam going on. Pretty compelling story. There's even pictures.

Yet you guys seem to totally ignore what he says in reference to things other than Elie Wiesel



So on the one hand Deniers are using him to tear down the credibility of Elie Weisel. Yet on the other hand you are totally ignoring that his testimony backs up the use of gas chambers.

So which is it? If he's lying about the Gas Chambers why should we believe he's telling the truth about Weisel?

If he's telling the truth about Weisel, then he's telling the truth about the Gas Chambers no?

You guys seem to be doing this a lot in this thread without realizing it.
Click to expand...

What risk of contamination did they pose? They could've made a mass grave somewhere in the vicinity. Look at various massacres that occurred like Katyn. They dragged people out to the woods and killed them right there.

Isn't it possible the conditions could have improved? It's understandable and reasonable to suggest that they didn't have the best interests of these prisoners, but that's also different from implying it was strictly meant for death. I haven't heard anyone describe gulags as death camps necessarily. Concentration camps and prisons aren't unique to Nazis.

Not everything works in such a simple, binary manner. It is surely possible to tell a truth and a lie.
 
Saggy said:
The camp commandant at Belsen was Josef Kramer and his correspondence was captured including a letter to the chief camps administrator, requesting medicine, supplies, etc, to deal with the impending catastrophe at Belsen ....
Click to expand...

So what? The fact of the Holocaust doesn't rely on Kramer being anything other than a poor, sucker bureaucrat stuck with a flood of typhus victims who were guaranteed to die at Belsen. Sure, Kramer complained that the camp couldn't support them. But no one cared because the inmates were supposed to die anyway. They just kept shipping them in, and fifty thousand died.

Belsen isn't even considered an extermination camp, and yet look at how disgusting it was.
 
kageki said:
What risk of contamination did they pose? They could've made a mass grave somewhere in the vicinity. Look at various massacres that occurred like Katyn. They dragged people out to the woods and killed them right there.

Isn't it possible the conditions could have improved? It's understandable and reasonable to suggest that they didn't have the best interests of these prisoners, but that's also different from implying it was strictly meant for death. I haven't heard anyone describe gulags as death camps necessarily. Concentration camps and prisons aren't unique to Nazis.

Not everything works in such a simple, binary manner. It is surely possible to tell a truth and a lie.
Click to expand...

I never said that Concentration camps and prisons are unique to Nazis. Nor are death camps for that matter.

I also would think some of the camps were simply that, internment camps. They had pools and other such things. So I can see it starting off on a foot that was an internment camp. However simple decency would suggest that once it had gotten as bad as it did in Belsen that the government if it cared about the lives of the prisoners as human beings would have given them more that soup twice a day. Surely they could see, as anyone can see that the people were dying in the camp. Why didn't they do anything? What reason do they have for treating the prisoners this way? According to your comparisons of the Japanese Internment, the Japanese had attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. What had the Jews done to warrant such suspicion?


But you said not everything works in such a simple binary manner. It is surely possible to tell a truth and a lie. But logically isn't it odd that the thing he's "lying" about according to you, has been corroborated by many other people. And the thing that he's "telling the truth about" is considered a lie?

I mean, why would you attempt to use this guy to prove something when he's a known liar, according to the Deniers.

Surely, certainly you can see how ridiculous that looks on the part of deniers.

Also contamination from corpses is certainly a large problem. In fact that is usually the reason for getting involved in foreign catastrophes. The world was at war and according to your own statement resources were low. So why ship people to a "war camp"

What is the reason for relocating people during the middle of the war when they couldn't afford to take care of the people there? You bring up the Japanese Internment but the Japanese Internment feared the Japanese and felt they would be spies, they also took care of them much better than the Germans took care of the concentration camp prisoners.

What sense does it make to send people to a camp and spend money and expense rounding them up, rousing them out of hiding spaces if they couldn't afford to take care of them in the work camp? The Frank family was found out? Why did they go to such extremes if they couldn't afford it?

In your opinion? Do you feel they thought they were spies? I'm not sure why all these people were sent to work camps. Can you fill in that gap please?
 
Last edited:
eerok said:
So what? The fact of the Holocaust doesn't rely on Kramer being anything other than a poor, sucker bureaucrat stuck with a flood of typhus victims who were guaranteed to die at Belsen. Sure, Kramer complained that the camp couldn't support them. But no one cared because the inmates were supposed to die anyway. They just kept shipping them in, and fifty thousand died.

Belsen isn't even considered an extermination camp, and yet look at how disgusting it was.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this post.
 
truethat said:
What sense does it make to send people to a camp and spend money and expense rounding them up, rousing them out of hiding spaces if they couldn't afford to take care of them in the work camp? The Frank family was found out? Why did they go to such extremes if they couldn't afford it?
Click to expand...

And why did the Nasties use railway rolling stock that was need for the war effort to move prisoners to the camps?
 
truethat said:
I never said that Concentration camps and prisons are unique to Nazis. Nor are death camps for that matter.

I also would think some of the camps were simply that, internment camps. They had pools and other such things. So I can see it starting off on a foot that was an internment camp. However simple decency would suggest that once it had gotten as bad as it did in Belsen that the government if it cared about the lives of the prisoners as human beings would have given them more that soup twice a day. Surely they could see, as anyone can see that the people were dying in the camp. Why didn't they do anything? What reason do they have for treating the prisoners this way? According to your comparisons of the Japanese Internment, the Japanese had attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. What had the Jews done to warrant such suspicion?


But you said not everything works in such a simple binary manner. It is surely possible to tell a truth and a lie. But logically isn't it odd that the thing he's "lying" about according to you, has been corroborated by many other people. And the thing that he's "telling the truth about" is considered a lie?

I mean, why would you attempt to use this guy to prove something when he's a known liar, according to the Deniers.

Surely, certainly you can see how ridiculous that looks on the part of deniers.

Also contamination from corpses is certainly a large problem. In fact that is usually the reason for getting involved in foreign catastrophes. The world was at war and according to your own statement resources were low. So why ship people to a "war camp"

What is the reason for relocating people during the middle of the war when they couldn't afford to take care of the people there? You bring up the Japanese Internment but the Japanese Internment feared the Japanese and felt they would be spies, they also took care of them much better than the Germans took care of the concentration camp prisoners.

What sense does it make to send people to a camp and spend money and expense rounding them up, rousing them out of hiding spaces if they couldn't afford to take care of them in the work camp? The Frank family was found out? Why did they go to such extremes if they couldn't afford it?

In your opinion? Do you feel they thought they were spies? I'm not sure why all these people were sent to work camps. Can you fill in that gap please?
Click to expand...

This isn't a history class you know and you are perfectly capable of reading about it yourself. You can start with Hitler's own book which he describes in his own words.

So why did the Japanese attack the US?

In regards to Jews here is an interesting quote from the Jehovah's Witness, Declaration of Facts:

"The greatest and most oppressive empire on earth is the Anglo-American empire. By that is meant the British Empire, of which the United States of America forms a part. It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations. This fact particularly applies to the cities of London and New York, the stronghold of Big Business. This fact is so manifest in America that there is a proverb concerning the city of New York which says: 'The Jews own it, the Irish Catholics rule it, and the Americans pay the bills.' We have no fight with any of these persons mentioned, but, as the witnesses for Jehovah and in obedience to his commandment set forth in the Scriptures, we are compelled to call attention to the truth concerning the same in order that the people may be enlightened concerning God and his purpose.
Click to expand...

Similar sentiments are expressed everywhere and by the very words of Hitler. Here is more:

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

Who were sent to the camps? Read the articles in the OP. Political prisoners and POWs amongst others.

You can also start here about one the camps mentioned, Buchenwald:

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

Were all of them, that is Jews, sent to the camps? They weren't.
 
kageki said:
That's really cute. "Jews and others". Apparently everyone else isn't worth to be mentioned by name.
Click to expand...

Who has the time? The Nazis killed so many people that it would be really difficult to read if you made the whole list every time. What do you want to hear? Jews and Gypsies and Communists and homosexuals and Poles and Sorbians (no that is not a type, look them up) and........give me a break. Jews get top billing in the victim parade because they were a special obsession of Hitler's and there were so many of them killed, but there really were lots and lots and lots of victims of many different races and creeds. What is your point?

Were those innocent German civilians ever later told those skin lampshades weren't true?
Click to expand...

There's a problem with that. They were true. Really. They were.

Now, here's what happens. Someone hears about a Jewskin lampshade, and says something like, "The Nazis killed millions of Jews and made lampshades from their skin." That would be extremely misleading. In fact, we know of only one person who ever made a lampshade from the skin of a Jew. I can't recall her name, but she was a guard at Auschwitz and she was especially known for her sadism, which was the old fashioned sexual kind. She got off on killing and hurting people.

But then people like you read the "Nazis made lampshades" reference, look for evidence of widescale lampshade production, can't find it, and conclude that the Holocaust is a hoax. That's daft.
 
Meadmaker said:
Who has the time? The Nazis killed so many people that it would be really difficult to read if you made the whole list every time. What do you want to hear? Jews and Gypsies and Communists and homosexuals and Poles and Sorbians (no that is not a type, look them up) and........give me a break. Jews get top billing in the victim parade because they were a special obsession of Hitler's and there were so many of them killed, but there really were lots and lots and lots of victims of many different races and creeds. What is your point?



There's a problem with that. They were true. Really. They were.

Now, here's what happens. Someone hears about a Jewskin lampshade, and says something like, "The Nazis killed millions of Jews and made lampshades from their skin." That would be extremely misleading. In fact, we know of only one person who ever made a lampshade from the skin of a Jew. I can't recall her name, but she was a guard at Auschwitz and she was especially known for her sadism, which was the old fashioned sexual kind. She got off on killing and hurting people.

But then people like you read the "Nazis made lampshades" reference, look for evidence of widescale lampshade production, can't find it, and conclude that the Holocaust is a hoax. That's daft.
Click to expand...

Even Jewish historians have discounted any existence of skin lampshades. As in none at all.
 
kageki said:
Even Jewish historians have discounted any existence of skin lampshades. As in none at all.
Click to expand...
Read Lord Russell of Liverpool "The Scourge of the Swastika".
There were photographs of said skin lampshades and other items made with tattoed skin.
 
Last edited:
Skwinty said:
Read Bertrand Russells "The Scourge of the Swastika".
There were photographs of said skin lampshades and other items made with tattoed skin.
Click to expand...

There were lampshades in the documentary in the OP.

Were they tested to see if it really was made of skin? It should be pretty easy to determine that.

Shermer and Lipstadt has agreed it didn't exist.
 
kageki said:
There were lampshades in the documentary in the OP.

Were they tested to see if it really was made of skin? It should be pretty easy to determine that.

Shermer and Lipstadt has agreed it didn't exist.
Click to expand...

I suppose the huge pile of spectacles, dead bodies, emaciated prisoners etc etc didn't exist either..:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom