• 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.

Are Tattoos Proof of a Nazi Genocide?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DDT wrote:
According to your logic, someone who was locked up in a concentration camp and suffered all corresponding abuse, was not a victim?

They are victims, yes, but not proof of Nazi genocide. That they are alive and have a tattoo from Auschwitz, points to there not being an extermination plan. In a way, they're living proof of that.

We hear that the ones unfit for work were immediately gassed. So how then would one explain the footage of all the little kids pulling up their sleeves to display a tattoo? And if Anne Frank made the cut-off at 15 years old, to not be gassed at Auschwitz, then who did they kill? People over 65? And the rest were largely worked to death? What kind of quality work are you going to get from people being worked to death and starving to death? You want people in that state working on munitions?

The holocaust story just doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
DDT wrote:

They are victims, yes, but not proof of Nazi genocide. That they are alive and have a tattoo from Auschwitz, points to there not being an extermination plan. In a way, they're living proof of that.

Well know, it just shows an extermination plan that was not completed.
And no, tatoos aren't proof of a Nazi genocide, there is plenty of other evidence for that. The tattoos are one piece of evidence of the internment of massive groups of people.

I guess you and the OP must disagree, since he seems to think that addressing tattoo's somehow "debunks" the extermination program. You guys should get together and solidify your talking points.
 
Just read Denying The Holocaust by Deborah Lipstadt. It shows the genesis and development of the denial movement, and gives some good perspective on the whole issue. Great book.

After reading that, you've got

A) it happened and people had reasons to try to say it didn't.
B) it didn't happen and people had reasons to try to say it did.

In the light of this book, A) makes way more sense.
 
They are victims, yes, but not proof of Nazi genocide. That they are alive and have a tattoo from Auschwitz, points to there not being an extermination plan. In a way, they're living proof of that.
And in your logic, then poof, the holocaust didn't happen. Forgetting the wealth of evidence there is.

We hear that the ones unfit for work were immediately gassed. So how then would one explain the footage of all the little kids pulling up their sleeves to display a tattoo? And if Anne Frank made the cut-off at 15 years old, to not be gassed at Auschwitz, then who did they kill? People over 65? And the rest were largely worked to death? What kind of quality work are you going to get from people being worked to death and starving to death? You want people in that state working on munitions?
Ah, the old arguments from ignorance. It's exactly like your arguments about 1940s dressing fashion. Age wasn't the only criterion. And 15-year olds are perfectly fine laborers. 19th C. child labor laws typically first outlawed children under 12 to work in factories.

The holocaust story just doesn't make sense.
Only when you keep yourself deliberately ignorant.

Well, the point is that most people think tattoos are proof of Nazi genocide. The general public largely believes that. And "survivors" seem to believe that. Take this video:
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_a.html
http://www.holocaustdenialvideos.com/donahue_b.html

At one point a woman holds up her arm to show a tattoo. As proof of Nazi genocide.
I'm definitely not going to watch your videos. But I guess the clincher, in your opinion, is that she wasn't properly dressed?
 
Of course the fact that Jews were not suposed have body markings like tattoos would suggest that few of them got tattoos for a "sob story'

come on NOW you know you can't put ANYTHING past them jooos. They'll do anything including violating major rules of their religion JUST to bad mouth those poor oppressed Aryans.
 
The link so thoughtfully provided by mondial shows some pictures of young Israelis with tattoos, so that's that argument...erm...ignored. I generally assume that holocaust revisionists are rabid anti-semites, so you're asking him to imagine that people 'capable' of such a 'hoax' wouldn't be above getting a forbidden tattoo to bolster it. The fact that many of those labelled 'jew' for extermination would have been non-orthodox or to some degree 'not-jewish' in their jewishness, would alas only give him another out - they'd have no qualms about concocting an elaborate tattoo hoax. They'd have considerably less motivation, of course...

Missed this - Wonder where they got the number sequence though to match up with all those ss records and such.

they must have had a really big tattoo convention. Wonder how ther rest of the world missed it.
 
Budly, we know what the program consisted of. We know it consisted of concentration camps. We know it consisted of mass murder. We know it consisted of forced labor. We know it consisted of tattoos for at least some victims of the program. We have ample evidence for all of this.

The tattoo doesn't prove the program existed. It doesn't need to. It simply proves the person wearing the tattoo was a victim of the program.
 
Are Tattoos Proof of a Nazi Genocide?

No. The Nazi program of mass murder is supported by other evidence, and lots of it. What the tattoos prove is that someone was a victim of that program.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

Actually the tattoos argue against extermination. Why tattoo if you are immediately going to kill them?
 
This brings us into that "valuable blue collar labor" that the Nazis couldn't have got from any other group. :rolleyes:
 
Actually the tattoos argue against extermination. Why tattoo if you are immediately going to kill them?

so you can keep track of your slave labor......as u starve them to death...or eventually decide to shoot or gas them.
 
Actually the tattoos argue against extermination. Why tattoo if you are immediately going to kill them?

They didn't tattoo the people being executed. The NSDAP's policy was to tattoo workers including Soviet POW, Hiwis and other prisoners for administration purposes.
 
This brings us into that "valuable blue collar labor" that the Nazis couldn't have got from any other group. :rolleyes:

Wow! Someone once told me about Holocaust Deniers but I though it was just a joke. Really! I wondered how people could be that ignorant with all the evidence available to them. You know..all that physical evidence, testimony, war criminal trials, etc, etc, etc. Everywhere you turn, you see the evidence of all the stories about the Holocaust staring you in the face.

Nah, I'm not going to fall for it. I don't believe there are such ignorant people in the world. How do I know you're as ignorant as you pretend to be? I think it's all a hoax.
 
Prestige wrote:
Wouldn't a victim of an extermination program be dead? And not someone alive with a tattoo?
-------------------------------
TSR wrote
Wouldn't a victim be someone killed in a camp as part of the holocaust?
-------------------------------
Slimething wrote
No but given the fact she's alive, wouldn't that mean that her tattoo is in fact not proof of a plan to murder Jews?

Are you for real, and, if so, why?
 
I'm for real, but for real nefarious purposes, just like what they said about atheists in the 1400's.
 
When dealing with the alleged "holocaust"

There's nothing "alleged" about something that has been proven beyond a doubt. Even the most prominent deniers don't deny that something happened that is commonly called the Holocaust.

And...
yodafail.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom