Merged General Holocaust denial discussion thread

[CleverClogs82]

You have been propagandized with the standard version of the holohoax since birth, so, just for fun, why not supplement your reading of 'scholarly' accounts to reinforce the standard version with some revisionists accounts, just to put a feathers weight on the other side of the balance to partially offset the 30 or so years of incessant propaganda.... I'd suggest

'The First Holocaust, Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During WW One', by Don Heddesheimer

Comment: the title tells the whole story, valuable because of the NYT articles circa WWI documenting the first holohoax. Only takes a few hours to read.

'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century' by Arthur Butz

Comment: This requires some effort, not a particularly easy read, but really the only book that documents the hoax itself, i.e. the machinations of the Jews to create the hoax, rather than the history of the camps.

Also watch the David Cole tour of Auschwitz and interview with Frantisek Piper.

Comment: One hour to watch, the hoax in a nutshell.

Watch selected videos from One Third of the Holoohax http://www.onethirdoftheholocaust.com/

Comment: The Bomba clip is especially absurd.

Review the Fundamentals of the Holohoax at
http://www.holohoax101.com

Comment: A long list of easy facts demonstrating the hoax, takes less than an hour to scan.

So, if you peruse Heddesheimer, scan Butz, watch a few vids on One Third of the Holohoax, study Cole and www.holohoax101.com for an hour each, you'll have invested 4 or 5 hours and will have gained some perspective on the hoax, and will hopefully be able to contribute something to this forum.

I think you mean that I'm educating myself and not being propagandized. The same way I have educated myself about evolutionary theory or military history. I have, however, been "propagandized' since birth by the Roman Catholic Church. When I reached the age where I could think rationally I separated myself from the propaganda and formed my thoughts and opinions based on facts.

I appreciate the links that you've noted. In the interest of fairness and gaining perspective I'll read the books and watch/read the links you provided.

 

[Nick Terry]

How, precisely, do you intend to win this argument, since it appears that you have been making zero headway convincing the members here?

Winning the argument is easy, and when I don't win I own up. I don't expect to convince AIPAC or JREF anytime soon.

Not convincing AIPAC is one thing, but JREF is simply an internet forum of nearly 29,000 members, with about 10% active at the moment. Members come from all over the world. There are a lot of educated people here from all walks of life.

Yet, when Holocaust revisionists such as yourself try to promote your arguments on here, you are greeted with disdain and your arguments are rejected. That's a simple statement of fact.

Now, you can try and explain that away by claiming that all members have been 'brainwashed' or whatever, but this doesn't explain how you are going to convince people. Telling them that they have been brainwashed is actually quite insulting, and may not be the best way to go.

I know, it could be that we are a lost cause, but if so, why aren't you off somewhere else trying to spread the message to people who might actually be interested, instead of hanging around here wasting your time and ours repeating yourself, when it's quite clear you are not making any progress in convincing the membership of JREF?

Or if we're not a lost cause, wouldn't it be a good idea to rethink your strategy here?

Can you spell out the realistic steps by which your proselytising and internet posting are going to lead to a revision of the history books to conform to your beliefs?

Clearly it's a political thing, and eventually the truth will out. I'm just doing my small and insignificant part. Other do more, denierbud for example. 9/11 investigator as well. Bunny too.

This doesn't spell out any realistic steps at all. Your views, revisionism, have been "out there" for decades now. On the internet, for well over 15 years. Yet still no visible progress.

Saying "it's a political thing" isn't actually an answer to the question. I asked, how can you get from A to B, how can you get from your current position to achieving a revision of the history books. Because a revision of the history books is your ultimate goal, right? At least that's what it appears to be on the surface.

Who will get to decide who was right and who was wrong in this dispute? Who is going to arbitrate? Public opinion? The courts? Universities?

Truth is not 'decided'.

You believe you have the truth. Others believe you are lying. In numerical terms you are vastly outnumbered. Even you would surely agree that you are outnumbered on this issue. Consensus says you are wrong. You say you are right.

Either you persuade consensus to change, and convince a numerical majority to change their minds, or you have to appeal to some outside body to arbitrate and intervene.

I asked you how you were going to bring about a revision of the history books to conform to your beliefs. History books are written by professors and other historians, mostly employed by universities. Now, either you're going to abolish history departments after a revolution, or you have to persuade historians that they were wrong and you are right. What's it going to be?

Finally - and this one I admit is more for laughs than anything else - how long do you expect it'll be before you achieve victory?

Wish I knew the answer. As long as Israel remains a dominant force in US/European finance/politics/culture it'll be an uphill battle.

So which way round is it? Is attacking the Holocaust REALLY going to bring about a reduction in the alleged "Israeli power" or does the alleged "Israeli power" need to be attacked first in order to reduce the significance of the Holocaust? Which is chicken and which is egg?

Seriously, Saggy, if alleged "Israeli power" is your main bugbear, aren't there, you know, more effective ways of attacking it than droning on about historical events 70 years ago which everyone other than a handful of people on the planet is perfectly convinced happened?

But if you are really, genuinely interested in revising history - wouldn't it be more effective to shut up about Israel, since raising issues of contemporary politics simply makes you look, well, politically motivated?

 

[Wroclaw]

II have, however, been "propagandized' since birth by the Roman Catholic Church.

Yeah, I hear you. It's an ongoing process.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Not convincing AIPAC is one thing . . . But if you are really, genuinely interested in revising history - wouldn't it be more effective to shut up about Israel . . . ?

Especially since the extermination actions of the National Socialists were not restricted to Jewish victims as Saggy would try to have it. Other extermination programs included

- T4 (with 70,000 official victims and another 125,000 wild victims in the program targeting the supposedly incurably ill murdered)

- 14f13 (10-20,000 "excess ballast" murdered in camps)

- liquidations of Polish leadership elements (10s of 1000s of victims)

- Soviet POW liquidation program (3.5 million)

- deliberate starvation of populations in the occupied East (in the few millions)

- deliberate "attrition" of forced laborers (a couple million dying)

- reprisal and terror attacks on civilians in the East (several millions)

What any of this broad program of extermination and cleansing - involving crimes against Jews and crimes against non-Jews - has to do with AIPAC and Israel is grasped, I'm afraid, only in the fevered imaginations of so-called revisionists.

 

[Saggy]

Not convincing AIPAC is one thing, but JREF is simply an internet forum of nearly 29,000 members, with about 10% active at the moment. Members come from all over the world. There are a lot of educated people here from all walks of life.

Yet, when Holocaust revisionists such as yourself try to promote your arguments on here, you are greeted with disdain and your arguments are rejected. That's a simple statement of fact.

Now, you can try and explain that away by claiming that all members have been 'brainwashed' or whatever, but this doesn't explain how you are going to convince people. Telling them that they have been brainwashed is actually quite insulting, and may not be the best way to go.

I know, it could be that we are a lost cause, but if so, why aren't you off somewhere else trying to spread the message to people who might actually be interested, instead of hanging around here wasting your time and ours repeating yourself, when it's quite clear you are not making any progress in convincing the membership of JREF?

Or if we're not a lost cause, wouldn't it be a good idea to rethink your strategy here?



This doesn't spell out any realistic steps at all. Your views, revisionism, have been "out there" for decades now. On the internet, for well over 15 years. Yet still no visible progress.

Saying "it's a political thing" isn't actually an answer to the question. I asked, how can you get from A to B, how can you get from your current position to achieving a revision of the history books. Because a revision of the history books is your ultimate goal, right? At least that's what it appears to be on the surface.


You believe you have the truth. Others believe you are lying. In numerical terms you are vastly outnumbered. Even you would surely agree that you are outnumbered on this issue. Consensus says you are wrong. You say you are right.

Either you persuade consensus to change, and convince a numerical majority to change their minds, or you have to appeal to some outside body to arbitrate and intervene.

I asked you how you were going to bring about a revision of the history books to conform to your beliefs. History books are written by professors and other historians, mostly employed by universities. Now, either you're going to abolish history departments after a revolution, or you have to persuade historians that they were wrong and you are right. What's it going to be?


So which way round is it? Is attacking the Holocaust REALLY going to bring about a reduction in the alleged "Israeli power" or does the alleged "Israeli power" need to be attacked first in order to reduce the significance of the Holocaust? Which is chicken and which is egg?

Seriously, Saggy, if alleged "Israeli power" is your main bugbear, aren't there, you know, more effective ways of attacking it than droning on about historical events 70 years ago which everyone other than a handful of people on the planet is perfectly convinced happened?

But if you are really, genuinely interested in revising history - wouldn't it be more effective to shut up about Israel, since raising issues of contemporary politics simply makes you look, well, politically motivated?

but JREF is simply an internet forum of nearly 29,000 members, with about 10% active at the moment.


As someone put it, JREF is a community of people who think they're skeptics because they realize Uri Gellar is a fake. This is a community of rabid conformists, or at best a cross section of the hoi polloi. Certainly most posts are of the know-nothing variety. But, as you say, they're also plenty of sharp people.

I know, it could be that we are a lost cause,

You're not a cause at all, lost or otherwise. I wouldn't presume to even try to convince a Catholic priest that Jesus was a fraud, or not even a historical character, or didn't walk on water, whatever, convincing them, or you, is not a consideration.

This doesn't spell out any realistic steps at all.

I do have some in mind, which I'm not detailing, and I think the hoax is vulnerable to a very small group of committed individuals. It's so freaking absurd it's got to fall !

You believe you have the truth. Others believe you are lying. In numerical terms you are vastly outnumbered.

Yep, you got it right there.

Now, either you're going to abolish history departments after a revolution, or you have to persuade historians that they were wrong and you are right. What's it going to be?

It's entirely political. There is no 'convincing' to be done, it's a matter of waking them up. I don't understand academia, and I was an academic, but in hard, i.e. real, science.

Seriously, Saggy, if alleged "Israeli power" is your main bugbear, aren't there, you know, more effective ways of attacking it than droning on about historical events 70 years ago which everyone other than a handful of people on the planet is perfectly convinced happened?

Isreali power is my real bugbear, but the hoax is absolutely fascinating in itself. Could be more effective ways, ask Weber, I don't really know. It is amazing that even Walt and Mearsheimer, who recognize the duplicity of the Jews, still genuflect before the hoax.

But if you are really, genuinely interested in revising history - wouldn't it be more effective to shut up about Israel, since raising issues of contemporary politics simply makes you look, well, politically motivated?

It's all one package to me. I think the hoax is the Achilles heel of the Jews, but the real concern is not history, but the future of US/European society and the world itself.

 

[Saggy]

I appreciate the links that you've noted. In the interest of fairness and gaining perspective I'll read the books and watch/read the links you provided.

That's all I ask. Start with the Cole video, it requires the least effort as he spells it out for you in about an hour, it's documented with actual video of Auschwitz and an interview with the museum director, and he get's right to the crux of the hoax.

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/DC/gcgvcole.html

 

[Dogzilla]

Hello everyone. I've been lurking in these forums, and mainly in this thread now for the better part of the week. I'm still on page 134 so far so I've got quite a bit of catching up to do.

Anyway, I have two questions for the people who deny the holocaust. And I do apologize if they've been asked already.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct. *The holocaust was a hoax perpetuated by a secret society of Jews hell bent on taking over the world, how would that benefit you? *Besides bragging rights, how does it benefit you in any way that the holocaust was fake?

Welcome to the thread. I don't envy your effort to try and catch up by reading all the posts. Please keep in mind as you plod through it all that once upon a time there were a fair number of separate holocaust denial threads on JREF. At some point (I don't remember exactly when) the moderators wisely called BS on all of them and consolidated them into this one thread. With the merging of the threads and the weeding out of some of the nastier posts, there are no doubt going to be parts of the discussion that don't make much sense. It give the thread a schizophrenic feel that is both frustrating and part of its charm.

Your first question is a good one and one that I'm not sure we've covered. At least it's not one that we go over and over again. My first comment, however, is that your premise that we believe that the holocaust was a hoax perpetuated by a secret society of Jews hell bent on world domination isn't exactly accurate. That is how our position is often cast by those who don't agree with us. But it's not that simplistic. My opinion is that it's less of a hoax than it is the world's most successful urban myth. There wasn't a secret society of anybody who planned out in advance what the holocaust was going to be and then planted all the evidence to trick the rest of the world. The holocaust of today is rooted in the sensationalistic anti-German wartime propaganda that was created by the Allies during the war. That propaganda certainly included Nazi persecution of the Jews but the Jews were just one of the nations persecuted by the Nazis during the war or in the immediate aftermath. There's no doubt that *some* Jews--e.g., the World Jewish Congress--lobbied behind the scenes during the war and after the war to exaggerate the suffering of the Jews and for recognition of the Jews as the most victimized of the victims. (see this or this or just do a search for "World Jewish Congress" on the Truman Library website for examples). The Jewish community certainly influences our discourse of the holocaust but it controls it only to the extent that the non-Jewish community lets it.

If you think about it, the notion that da Joos fabricated the holocaust so they could take over the world is prima facie ridiculous. First of all, if the Jews were going for world domination, how would being slaughtered by the millions help them achieve that goal? Second, if the Jews faked their own genocide by manufacturing the millions of pieces of evidence that they were slaughtered by the millions and they were able to put all those pieces of evidence in precisely the right locations all over the world to be discovered so that all the non-Jews in the world would be convinced that something as big as the holocaust happened when it didn't, wouldn't the Jews already control the world?

But anyway, the crux of your question, how would I personally benefit from changing the public's perception of the fate of the Jews during World War II? For me, I don't think there would be any direct benefit or disbenefit. My interest in the topic is purely academic. The fall of the holocaust would have some repercussions for some people. But I can't predict what they would be with any precision. I don't really think about it much because I don't really care who or what might be harmed or helped. If the truth is that the Nazis didn't murder six million Jews, many of them in gas chambers, as part of a plan to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, it would be good if our society accepted that truth. If the truth is that the holocaust happened pretty much the way the history books say it did, it would be good if our society accepted that.

What would be conclusive proof, in your mind, that proves the historicity of the Holocaust? And if presented with said evidence, would you accept it or continue to deny it like every other piece of evidence other posters here have presented?

I would like an honest answer.

There isn't going to be conclusive proof of "the holocaust." That's because the holocaust isn't a single event that can be proven or not. It's tens of thousands of events that occurred over an entire continent over a period of several years that effected millions of people. Acknowledging that there isn't evidence of one tiny facet of the holocaust doesn't mean the whole thing is made up. Our perception of what the holocaust was has changed alot since of the end of the war and it continues to change.

One thing that's important to understand is that I don't deny any of the evidence that supports the holocaust narrative. I don't think anybody else denies the evidence either. My problem is that the evidence for certain facets of the holocaust is very weak or nonexistant. If the holocaust happened the way we're told it did, millions of people were transported from all over Europe to a few very tiny well defined areas and murdered. Their bodies were buried and later dug up and incinerated or they were incinerated without first being buried. There's no way that murder on that scale would not leave physical traces. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for the holocaust at Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz but it isn't sufficient. Findings of fact in war crimes trials, confessions of perpetrators, and the testimony of eyewitnesses is meaningless when physical evidence that must exist does not. If Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz had been investigated in the same way that Katyn was investigated and had found that evidence existed that supported the claims, I would believe it. Without such evidence, I won't believe.

So the answer to your question is if you had new evidence that supported the story, I would believe. If you merely offered more of the same type of evidence that has already been offered, I'll continue to say that it isn't adequete.

 

[Dogzilla]

I hope you are joking by listing Churchill, Ike and De Gaul for accounts on the holocaust when you yourself have claimed have never written or mentioned the Holocaust in their writings of WW2. Same for Elie, Zisblatt and Misha.

I'll assume you just simply forgot about that so I'll make my self clear. I would like a short list of books written by reputable historians, not memoirs, that outlines the details of the holocaust. What events led to it, why it happened, the methods used by the Nazis to murder Jews, when the last camp was liberated, etc.

Personal accounts and memoirs I can read at a later time.

Try The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg. The full text is a three volume set but there is a student edition.

The Holocaust in History by Michael Marris has been recommended on some of the Amazon discussion boards. It's a short overview and an easy read. Hilberg can be insufferably dry sometimes but he is one of the more respected holocaust scholars and he's certainly the grand daddy of them all.

Hopefully Nick Terry will come up with some suggestions for you. I've asked him in the past for one or two good overviews but he's prone to criticize my ignorance and laziness for not wanting to read a couple of hundred obscure manuscripts. But he has come through with some suggestions for me in the end. He might be more willing to work with you. He and I don't agree with each other very often. Maybe never.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Try The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg. The full text is a three volume set but there is a student edition.

I would not go for the Student Edition of Hilberg. I agree that the 3 volumes are very important to read - and very pricey - but the Student Edition is both dated and much less well explained and developed, due to the condensing.

 

[Saggy]

Welcome to the thread. I don't envy your effort to try and catch up by reading all the posts. Please keep in mind as you plod through it all that once upon a time there were a fair number of separate holocaust denial threads on JREF. At some point (I don't remember exactly when) the moderators wisely called BS on all of them and consolidated them into this one thread. With the merging of the threads and the weeding out of some of the nastier posts, there are no doubt going to be parts of the discussion that don't make much sense. It give the thread a schizophrenic feel that is both frustrating and part of its charm.

Your first question is a good one and one that I'm not sure we've covered. At least it's not one that we go over and over again. My first comment, however, is that your premise that we believe that the holocaust was a hoax perpetuated by a secret society of Jews hell bent on world domination isn't exactly accurate. That is how our position is often cast by those who don't agree with us. But it's not that simplistic. My opinion is that it's less of a hoax than it is the world's most successful urban myth. There wasn't a secret society of anybody who planned out in advance what the holocaust was going to be and then planted all the evidence to trick the rest of the world. The holocaust of today is rooted in the sensationalistic anti-German wartime propaganda that was created by the Allies during the war. That propaganda certainly included Nazi persecution of the Jews but the Jews were just one of the nations persecuted by the Nazis during the war or in the immediate aftermath. There's no doubt that *some* Jews--e.g., the World Jewish Congress--lobbied behind the scenes during the war and after the war to exaggerate the suffering of the Jews and for recognition of the Jews as the most victimized of the victims. (see this or this or just do a search for "World Jewish Congress" on the Truman Library website for examples). The Jewish community certainly influences our discourse of the holocaust but it controls it only to the extent that the non-Jewish community lets it.

If you think about it, the notion that da Joos fabricated the holocaust so they could take over the world is prima facie ridiculous. First of all, if the Jews were going for world domination, how would being slaughtered by the millions help them achieve that goal? Second, if the Jews faked their own genocide by manufacturing the millions of pieces of evidence that they were slaughtered by the millions and they were able to put all those pieces of evidence in precisely the right locations all over the world to be discovered so that all the non-Jews in the world would be convinced that something as big as the holocaust happened when it didn't, wouldn't the Jews already control the world?

But anyway, the crux of your question, how would I personally benefit from changing the public's perception of the fate of the Jews during World War II? For me, I don't think there would be any direct benefit or disbenefit. My interest in the topic is purely academic. The fall of the holocaust would have some repercussions for some people. But I can't predict what they would be with any precision. I don't really think about it much because I don't really care who or what might be harmed or helped. If the truth is that the Nazis didn't murder six million Jews, many of them in gas chambers, as part of a plan to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, it would be good if our society accepted that truth. If the truth is that the holocaust happened pretty much the way the history books say it did, it would be good if our society accepted that.



There isn't going to be conclusive proof of "the holocaust." That's because the holocaust isn't a single event that can be proven or not. It's tens of thousands of events that occurred over an entire continent over a period of several years that effected millions of people. Acknowledging that there isn't evidence of one tiny facet of the holocaust doesn't mean the whole thing is made up. Our perception of what the holocaust was has changed alot since of the end of the war and it continues to change.

One thing that's important to understand is that I don't deny any of the evidence that supports the holocaust narrative. I don't think anybody else denies the evidence either. My problem is that the evidence for certain facets of the holocaust is very weak or nonexistant. If the holocaust happened the way we're told it did, millions of people were transported from all over Europe to a few very tiny well defined areas and murdered. Their bodies were buried and later dug up and incinerated or they were incinerated without first being buried. There's no way that murder on that scale would not leave physical traces. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for the holocaust at Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz but it isn't sufficient. Findings of fact in war crimes trials, confessions of perpetrators, and the testimony of eyewitnesses is meaningless when physical evidence that must exist does not. If Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz had been investigated in the same way that Katyn was investigated and had found that evidence existed that supported the claims, I would believe it. Without such evidence, I won't believe.

So the answer to your question is if you had new evidence that supported the story, I would believe. If you merely offered more of the same type of evidence that has already been offered, I'll continue to say that it isn't adequete.

your premise that we believe that the holocaust was a hoax perpetuated by a secret society of Jews hell bent on world domination isn't exactly accurate.

That is exactly what some of us believe. Speak for yourself ! I'll tell your their name, the World Jewish Congress. Their leader, Rabbi Schlomo (?) Wise. Read Butz for crying out loud.

My opinion is that it's less of a hoax than it is the world's most successful urban myth.

Absolute nonsense and it's easy to demonstrate - there is a hoax gas chamber at Auschwitz, also one at Majdanek, that the holohoax authorities show to the public everyday and make the completely idiotic claims that Jews were gassed in rooms with large glass windows. We know what these rooms really were, they know what they were. They are lying. That is a hoax, not an 'urban myth'. The urban myth idea is complete idiocy. Read Heddesheimer for crying out loud. Urban myths don't introduce themselves in the NYT.

First of all, if the Jews were going for world domination, how would being slaughtered by the millions help them achieve that goal? Second, if the Jews faked their own genocide by manufacturing the millions of pieces of evidence that they were slaughtered by the millions and they were able to put all those pieces of evidence in precisely the right locations all over the world to be discovered so that all the non-Jews in the world would be convinced that something as big as the holocaust happened when it didn't, wouldn't the Jews already control the world?

Someone has stolen Dogzilla's brain. Please return it.

 

[LemmyCaution]

One thing that's important to understand is that I don't deny any of the evidence that supports the holocaust narrative. . . . My problem is that the evidence for certain facets of the holocaust is very weak or nonexistant. . . . There's no way that murder on that scale would not leave physical traces. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for the holocaust at Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz but it isn't sufficient. Findings of fact in war crimes trials, confessions of perpetrators, and the testimony of eyewitnesses is meaningless when physical evidence that must exist does not.

But of course Roberto Muehlenkamp has been studying and summarizing just these physical traces, which were in fact left behind at the killing sites, for a number of years: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html

 

[TSR]

it's documented with actual video of Auschwitz and an interview with the museum director, and he get's right to the crux of the hoax.

.
Yes, Cole does -- by pretending that it's somehow news that Krema I is a reconstruction.

Cole has recented all of the rest of zir lies, including that one...
.

 

[MG1962]

But of course Roberto Muehlenkamp has been studying and summarizing just these physical traces, which were in fact left behind at the killing sites, for a number of years: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/05/mass-graves-at-nazi-extermination-camps.html

Thanks for a very interesting read. It never entered my head grave robbing could be so rampant after the war at places like Treblinka, though given the economic conditions after the war, its probably understandable up to a point

 

[TSR]

your premise that we believe that the holocaust was a hoax perpetuated by a secret society of Jews hell bent on world domination isn't exactly accurate.

That is exactly what some of us believe. Speak for yourself ! I'll tell your their name, the World Jewish Congress. Their leader, Rabbi Schlomo (?) Wise. Read Butz for crying out loud.

.
That would be Stephen S. Wise, who was the President of the WJC from '36 until '49.


Now, what *evidence* do you or Butz offer that he made any such plans? I mean, other than bald assertion based on the premise that he *must* have done?
.

My opinion is that it's less of a hoax than it is the world's most successful urban myth.

Absolute nonsense and it's easy to demonstrate - there is a hoax gas chamber at Auschwitz, also one at Majdanek, that the holohoax authorities show to the public everyday and make the completely idiotic claims that Jews were gassed in rooms with large glass windows. We know what these rooms really were, they know what they were. They are lying. That is a hoax, not an 'urban myth'. The urban myth idea is complete idiocy. Read Heddesheimer for crying out loud. Urban myths don't introduce themselves in the NYT.

.
No, the idiotic claim is that the *norm* was windows. Only one of three room at Majdanek have one, and none of the original chambers at Auschwitz survived their destruction by the Nazis.

Care to *document* why the Majdanek room has heavy Prussian Blue staining and holes in the ceiling for the introduction of HCN? Care to actually *document* anyone -- anyone at all contemporary with its use that said "no, that wasn't where people were killed..."?
.

First of all, if the Jews were going for world domination, how would being slaughtered by the millions help them achieve that goal? Second, if the Jews faked their own genocide by manufacturing the millions of pieces of evidence that they were slaughtered by the millions and they were able to put all those pieces of evidence in precisely the right locations all over the world to be discovered so that all the non-Jews in the world would be convinced that something as big as the holocaust happened when it didn't, wouldn't the Jews already control the world?

Someone has stolen Dogzilla's brain. Please return it.

.
You know very well da Joos took it.

And TAOILHTN.
.

 

[CleverClogs82]

Thank you for your reply Dogzilla. I've got loads of time to read during work hours since I have plenty of downtime. And honestly, reading is something I've enjoyed since the age of 3 and I don't shy away from laborious material.

I do apologize in the format of this post as because I can't properly quote you. It's too frustrating to do so on my iphone. But i'll respond to your post as such:

"Your first question is a good one and one that I'm not sure we've covered. At least it's not one that we go over and over again. My first comment, however, is that your premise that we believe that the holocaust was a hoax perpetuated by a secret society of Jews hell bent on world domination isn't exactly accurate. That is how our position is often cast by those who don't agree with us. But it's not that simplistic. My opinion is that it's less of a hoax than it is the world's most successful urban myth. There wasn't a secret society of anybody who planned out in advance what the holocaust was going to be and then planted all the evidence to trick the rest of the world. The holocaust of today is rooted in the sensationalistic anti-German wartime propaganda that was created by the Allies during the war. That propaganda certainly included Nazi persecution of the Jews but the Jews were just one of the nations persecuted by the Nazis during the war or in the immediate aftermath. There's no doubt that *some* Jews--e.g., the World Jewish Congress--lobbied behind the scenes during the war and after the war to exaggerate the suffering of the Jews and for recognition of the Jews as the most victimized of the victims. (see this or this or just do a search for "World Jewish Congress" on the Truman Library website for examples). The Jewish community certainly influences our discourse of the holocaust but it controls it only to the extent that the non-Jewish community lets it

The reason for my choice of words is because, and Saggy does confirm it, is that people like Clayton Moore and Saggy argue that point exactly. That was just the general feeling that I've gotten so far in reading this thread.

"If you think about it, the notion that da Joos fabricated the holocaust so they could take over the world is prima facie ridiculous. First of all, if the Jews were going for world domination, how would being slaughtered by the millions help them achieve that goal? Second, if the Jews faked their own genocide by manufacturing the millions of pieces of evidence that they were slaughtered by the millions and they were able to put all those pieces of evidence in precisely the right locations all over the world to be discovered so that all the non-Jews in the world would be convinced that something as big as the holocaust happened when it didn't, wouldn't the Jews already control the world?"

According to Clayton Moore and others, the Zionists already control the media, our educational system and 1/3 of the SCOTUS. Also, according to Clayton Moore, the powers that be in the United States swear their loyalty to Israel. If one nation that is barely bigger than the state of New Jersey can control the United States, then they are already closer to their objective than you realize.

"But anyway, the crux of your question, how would I personally benefit from changing the public's perception of the fate of the Jews during World War II? For me, I don't think there would be any direct benefit or disbenefit. My interest in the topic is purely academic. The fall of the holocaust would have some repercussions for some people. But I can't predict what they would be with any precision. I don't really think about it much because I don't really care who or what might be harmed or helped. If the truth is that the Nazis didn't murder six million Jews, many of them in gas chambers, as part of a plan to exterminate all the Jews in Europe, it would be good if our society accepted that truth. If the truth is that the holocaust happened pretty much the way the history books say it did, it would be good if our society accepted that."

Thank you for your honest anwer. I'm pretty much the same way. I don't mean to diminish the pain and suffering the Jewish people suffered under the Nazi regime, but I have no emotions tied to it. My grandfather was one of the 75,000 plus American and Filipino POWS to have died during the Bataan Death March, so I tend to get emotional when discussing that topic. It doesn't mean I think it was more of a tragedy than the Holocaust. I'm simply just not Jewish. On a humanistic level, I abhor any form of genocide or mass murder on any scale, big or small. Rwanda, the Holocaust, the USSR under Stalin, Pol Pot are all big stains in our history.

"One thing that's important to understand is that I don't deny any of the evidence that supports the holocaust narrative. I don't think anybody else denies the evidence either. My problem is that the evidence for certain facets of the holocaust is very weak or nonexistant. If the holocaust happened the way we're told it did, millions of people were transported from all over Europe to a few very tiny well defined areas and murdered. Their bodies were buried and later dug up and incinerated or they were incinerated without first being buried. There's no way that murder on that scale would not leave physical traces. There is a tremendous amount of evidence for the holocaust at Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz but it isn't sufficient. Findings of fact in war crimes trials, confessions of perpetrators, and the testimony of eyewitnesses is meaningless when physical evidence that must exist does not. If Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz had been investigated in the same way that Katyn was investigated and had found that evidence existed that supported the claims, I would believe it. Without such evidence, I won't believe.

So the answer to your question is if you had new evidence that supported the story, I would believe. If you merely offered more of the same type of evidence that has already been offered, I'll continue to say that it isn't adequete."

Just to be clear, you don't deny the existence of the evidence supporting the Holocaust, you just believe that the evidence for some facets of the Holocaust are weak or don't exist. Am I correct? When you say there is a tremendous amount for the camps you listed, but they are insufficient, what makes them insufficient? Would a video recording of a real life incident in which Jews were gassed in Birkenau be sufficient? A video that isn't doctored, and can be verified as legitimate, would that be enough?

Anyway, thank you for your reply.

 

[CleverClogs82]

I would not go for the Student Edition of Hilberg. I agree that the 3 volumes are very important to read - and very pricey - but the Student Edition is both dated and much less well explained and developed, due to the condensing.

It is quite pricey. I can't find one for sale under $130 on Amazon. But I put it on my wishlist anyway.

 

[SpitfireIX]

It is quite pricey. I can't find one for sale under $130 on Amazon. But I put it on my wishlist anyway.

Is there a library close to you that might have a copy?

 

[Saggy]

Also, according to Clayton Moore, the powers that be in the United States swear their loyalty to Israel.

If you think CM is the sole source of this information, let me add one more paper to read ..... Walt and Mearsheimer ....

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

and for a little historical context ..... Findley ....

http://www.amazon.com/They-Dare-Speak-Out-Institutions/dp/155652482X

 

[CleverClogs82]

Is there a library close to you that might have a copy?

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area so I can check out Stanford's or Berkeley's libraries. But i'm somewhat of a slob when it comes to books; scribbling away and writing notes and what not on the pages. So I prefer to have my own copies.

 

[Dogzilla]

TSR: "You were specifically asked for works by historians, and supply a list of memoirs, none of which offers a comprehensive timeline."

I thought it was strange that he would list De Gaul, Ike, and Churchill seeing as he denied they even mentioned the holocaust in their writings after the war. Secret agenda perhaps? I can't speak on Churchill or De Gaul, but Ike wrote this to General George Marshall:

"The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they [there] were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said that he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit [to Gotha] deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda'"

I cant link yet but you can find that in "Dear General: Eisenhower's Wartime Letters to Marshall" by Joseph Patrick Hobbs.

Ike was talking about the conditions he encountered in the concentration camps in western Germany--starvation, typhus, shrunken heads, human skin lampshades, etc. Nothing he saw was specific to Nazi Jewish policy and none of the barbarity he witnessed was identified as perpetrated against Jewish victims. As such, he wasn't describing the holocaust.