Holocaust deniers, explain this.
- Thread starter Gawdzilla Sama
- Start date
-
- Tags
- holocaust denial
- Status
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Casually dismissing the murders. Classy.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Do you have a point?
In case it matters, is there a source for these eyewitness accounts?
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
Saggy has no point at all. Music is a form of entertainment and it would be bizzare if camp inmates didn't play music, play cards, write poems and entertain themselves. Here is a mainstream article on music in the camps.
http://www.music.ucsb.edu/projects/musicandpolitics/archive/2007-1/fackler.html
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/arts/musVicti.htm
A friend of my wife's has relatives who fled Germany in the 40's, and after a long search my wife's friend's relative was able to establish a connection with someone who reportedly knew them. According to documents she found in the attic of a house once occupied by the niece of my wife's friend's great grandmother's aunt, the orchestra did not survive the day of the photo, though she was vague as to the actual means of their mass demise.
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
So, third- or fourth-hand information with no corroboration? Your standards are as high as ever.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
If this is an orchestra, it is proof that the authorities at Buchenwald were doing away with them one section at a time.
Where are the string players? The woodwinds?
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It's a good start.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I can't be certain, but I think he is giving a flip answer that he thinks is comparable to my question in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6255993#post6255993
which he and all the other historical revisionists have chosen not to address.
At any rate, I was just trying to figure out what the heck was the point of the post with the picture of the band at Buchenwald. Can't quite grasp what he was getting at. I think, but this is just a guess, his post was meant to serve two purposes. One purpose was to show that Buchenwald was a nice, happy, vacation spot with a band. The other was, by saying that some eyewitnesses said one story and others said another so we can't trust either and so there weren't any mass murders.
Like I said before, this is my first foray into holocaust denial. It's fascinating in its own bizarre way. When I dealt with Kennedy assassination CTists, they were just full of facts and figures and proofs and all sorts of very strong evidence that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. These holocaust deniers can't seem to make anywhere near as strong of a case. They seem a good deal more kooky than the JFKers. Merely answering a straightforward question seems beyond their grasp.
So, saggy, if your posting of the band photo and its caption had a point, please share it with us. I hate putting words into anyone's mouth.
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Gawdzilla,
First off, I like your username.
Secondly, what are these documents suppose to prove? That the Holocaust happened?
Setting aside the lack of objectivity of the victorious nations when writing a report about their vanquished foe whom they intend to prosecute for war crimes, these documents support the notion that what the Nazis did to the Jews was simply a part of overall Nazi brutality; i.e., that "The Holocaust" was nothing special.
The Trial of War Criminals is an overview of the indictment and a background/justification for war crimes trials. The indictment charges Nazi Germany with conducting a deliberate and systematic extermination of racial and national groups including Jews, Poles, Gypsies, and others. There is some detail provided regarding specific brutalities inflicted upon the Jews, as well as upon the French, the Russians, the Danish, etc. In short, what we call "The Holocaust" today was nothing more than the Jewish subdivision of Nazi brutality overall.
The Concentration Camps in Germany document gives even less credence to the notion of the Jewish experience being unique. We read that the Nazis systematically tortured and killed intellectuals, political leaders and all others who resisted Nazi rule. It says that Poles, Russians, and Jews were singled out for even greater brutality but, again, Jews did not suffer more than non-Jews.
More importantly, there is no mention of gas chambers in any of the eastern camps. This is significant because the Russians had liberated Madjanek in July 1944 and Auschwitz in January 1945 as well as the territory where the Action Reinhard camps had been located. Surely the Russians would have known about the gas chambers at those camps if there had been gas chambers at those camps. They would've known about them at least four months prior to this report being written. Why is there no mention of them here?
The report does, however, discuss the gas chamber at Dachau where a hundred men could be executed at one time. Today, the official story is that the gas chamber at Dachau was constructed but never used.
So we have no discussion of gas chambers where there are suppose to have been gas chambers and discussion of a gas chambers where there is not.
These two documents have serious problems with objectivity and they reinforce the misguided belief that the conditions in the concentration camps at the end of the war were a result of deliberate Nazi policy. Their value lies in the insight they provide into the prevailing attitude of the Allied nations toward Nazi Germany in 1945; the Nazis were very bad men who inflicted great brutality and torture upon innocent civilians, some of whom might've been Jewish. But they actually negate the prevailing attitude today that Nazi Germany carried out the unique crime of deliberately targeting the Jews for extermination and that this feature sets the Jews apart as a group that suffered more than any other group during World War II.
First off, I like your username.
Secondly, what are these documents suppose to prove? That the Holocaust happened?
Setting aside the lack of objectivity of the victorious nations when writing a report about their vanquished foe whom they intend to prosecute for war crimes, these documents support the notion that what the Nazis did to the Jews was simply a part of overall Nazi brutality; i.e., that "The Holocaust" was nothing special.
The Trial of War Criminals is an overview of the indictment and a background/justification for war crimes trials. The indictment charges Nazi Germany with conducting a deliberate and systematic extermination of racial and national groups including Jews, Poles, Gypsies, and others. There is some detail provided regarding specific brutalities inflicted upon the Jews, as well as upon the French, the Russians, the Danish, etc. In short, what we call "The Holocaust" today was nothing more than the Jewish subdivision of Nazi brutality overall.
The Concentration Camps in Germany document gives even less credence to the notion of the Jewish experience being unique. We read that the Nazis systematically tortured and killed intellectuals, political leaders and all others who resisted Nazi rule. It says that Poles, Russians, and Jews were singled out for even greater brutality but, again, Jews did not suffer more than non-Jews.
More importantly, there is no mention of gas chambers in any of the eastern camps. This is significant because the Russians had liberated Madjanek in July 1944 and Auschwitz in January 1945 as well as the territory where the Action Reinhard camps had been located. Surely the Russians would have known about the gas chambers at those camps if there had been gas chambers at those camps. They would've known about them at least four months prior to this report being written. Why is there no mention of them here?
The report does, however, discuss the gas chamber at Dachau where a hundred men could be executed at one time. Today, the official story is that the gas chamber at Dachau was constructed but never used.
So we have no discussion of gas chambers where there are suppose to have been gas chambers and discussion of a gas chambers where there is not.
These two documents have serious problems with objectivity and they reinforce the misguided belief that the conditions in the concentration camps at the end of the war were a result of deliberate Nazi policy. Their value lies in the insight they provide into the prevailing attitude of the Allied nations toward Nazi Germany in 1945; the Nazis were very bad men who inflicted great brutality and torture upon innocent civilians, some of whom might've been Jewish. But they actually negate the prevailing attitude today that Nazi Germany carried out the unique crime of deliberately targeting the Jews for extermination and that this feature sets the Jews apart as a group that suffered more than any other group during World War II.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Okay Dogzilla, the core of your argument seems to be because other groups were targeted by the Nazi's so that invalidates the holocaust?
Does the fact that Jews made up about 50% of the total victims of the Nazis seem an odd statistical spike that should both be acknowledged and examined?
And in that examination should not the deteriorating conditions that Jews lived in from 1933 onwards be considered as a motivator.
Or the flood of anti semantic films such as Jud Sub or Der ewige Jude or Das güldene Bäumchen. Why were these films made if there was no particular interest in the Jews
Does the fact that Jews made up about 50% of the total victims of the Nazis seem an odd statistical spike that should both be acknowledged and examined?
And in that examination should not the deteriorating conditions that Jews lived in from 1933 onwards be considered as a motivator.
Or the flood of anti semantic films such as Jud Sub or Der ewige Jude or Das güldene Bäumchen. Why were these films made if there was no particular interest in the Jews
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Dogzilla, the documents show that we have eyewitnesses to atrocities and in the larger framework of the Holocaust they provide ample evidence that the Nasties were capable of doing the mass murder they are accused of, despite the quibbling of the neo-Nasties that infest the Internet today.
More pend.
More pend.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Jews are probably the only ethnic group that is smaller today than before WWII. That in itself is odd and deserves a second look.
Actually about 90% of the Roma in Europe didn't survive the war so they exceed Jewish population losses per capita.
It doesn't "invalidate" the holocaust. It puts it in perspective.
Your statistic about Jewish deaths as a percentage of Nazi victims needs clarification. How do you define "victim of the Nazis"?
As far as deteriorating conditions for Jews or anti-Semitic films, nobody claims that Nazi Germany wasn't a racist state that persecuted the Jews.
Nobody claims there was no holocaust. But these documents don't support the notion that the holocaust of the Jews was unique.
What?
ETA - Are you denying the "bunnycaust" denier, or the "Holohoax" denier. We've got both here on this obscure internet forum..
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
There is some truth to this. I do find it somewhat bizarre when Jewish people seem to get thoroughly upset about including other targeted groups in with the Jews. Nevertheless, Jews and Gypsies I think have a certain claim of "specialness" in this regard, simply because unlike some other victims of Nazi brutality, they didn't have to do anything in order to be targeted for murder. They simply had to exist.
While others suffered, and while others may have eventually been targeted for extermination, those two groups were targeted for extermination for no other reason than their identity, and the plan to exterminate them was actually put into action.
Because they weren't in Germany? That's the subject of the report.
- Status